In addition to the ethical behavior discussed in Chapter XXI the individual acquires from the group an extensive repertoire of manners and customs. What a man eats and drinks and how he does so, what sorts of sexual behavior he engages in, how he builds a house or draws a picture or rows a boat, what subjects he talks about or remains silent about, what music he makes, what kinds of personal relationships he enters into and what kinds he avoids—all depend in part upon the practices of the group of which he is a member. The actual manners and customs of many groups have, of course, been extensively described by sociologists and anthropologists. Here we are concerned only with the kinds of processes which they exemplify.
Behavior comes to conform to the standards of a given community when certain responses are reinforced and others are allowed to go unreinforced or are punished. These consequences are often closely interwoven with those of the nonsocial environment. The way in which a man rows a boat, for example, depends in part upon certain mechanical contingencies; some movements are effective and others ineffective in propelling the boat. These contingencies depend upon the construction of the boat and oars—which are in turn the result of other practices observed by the boatmakers in the group. They also depend upon the type of water, which may be peculiar to a group for geographical reasons, so that the manner in which a boat is rowed in an inland lake district is different from that along the seacoast even when boat and oars are of the same type. The educational contingencies established by the group are still another source of difference. The individual is reinforced with approval when he adopts certain grips, postures, kinds of strokes, and so on, and punished with criticism when he adopts others. These variables are especially important in determining the “style” which eventually becomes characteristic of a group.
The contingencies to be observed in the social environment easily explain the behavior of the conforming individual. The problem is to explain the contingencies. Some of these are arranged for reasons which have no connection with the effect of customs or manners upon the group. The community functions as a reinforcing environment in which certain kinds of behavior are reinforced and others punished, but it is maintained as such through other return benefits. Verbal behavior is a good example. In a given community certain vocal responses are characteristically reinforced with food, water, and other services or objects. These responses become part of a child’s repertoire as naturally as nonverbal responses reinforced by the same consequences. It does not greatly matter whether a child gets a drink by bending over a pool or by saying, “I want a drink of water.” To explain why the water is forthcoming in the latter case, however, requires a rather elaborate analysis of the verbal environment. It is enough to note here that a verbal environment may maintain itself through its effects upon all participants, quite apart from its function in teaching the language to new members of the community. An adult in a new verbal environment may receive no explicit educational reinforcement but may nevertheless acquire an adequate vocabulary. Some nonverbal customs and manners can be explained in the same way. Moreover, when a custom is perpetuated by a governmental, religious, or educational agency, we may point to the usual return benefits.
But there remains the fact that the community as a whole often establishes conforming behavior through what are essentially educational techniques. Over and above the reciprocal reinforcements which sustain verbal behavior, for example, the community extends the classification of “right” and “wrong” to certain forms of that behavior and administers the generalized reinforcements of approval and disapproval accordingly. In many groups a mistake in grammar or pronunciation is followed by more aversive consequences than, say, minor instances of lying or stealing. The group also supports educational agencies which supply additional consequences working in the same direction. But why is such deviant behavior aversive? Why should the group call an ungrammatical response “wrong” if the response is not actually ambiguous? Why should it protest unconventional modes of dress or rebuke a member for unconventional table manners?
One classical answer is to show that a given form of deviant behavior must have been aversive for good reason under an earlier condition of the group. Foodstuffs are in general selected by contingencies which follow from their physical and chemical properties. Foods which are unpalatable, inedible, or poisonous come to be left alone. A child who starts to eat such a food receives powerful aversive stimulation from the group. “Good” and “bad” foods are eventually specified in ethical, religious, or governmental codes. When, now, through a change in climate or living conditions, or as the result of changing practices in the preparation and preservation of food, a “bad” food becomes safe, the classification may nevertheless survive. There is no longer any current return advantage to the group to explain why eating a particular food is classified as bad. The classification may be especially puzzling if the group has meanwhile invented an explanation for it.
We may also show indirect, but presumably none the less effective, current consequences. In his Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen demonstrated that customs or manners which seemed to have no commensurate consequences, and which were explained in terms of doubtful principles of beauty or taste, had an important effect upon other members of the group. According to Veblen we do not necessarily wear “dress” clothes or speak useless languages because the clothes are beautiful or the languages “cultured,” but because we are then accepted by a group in which these achievements are a mark of membership and because we gain prestige in controlling those who are unable to behave in the same way. According to this theory, a modem American university builds Gothic buildings not because the available materials resemble those which were originally responsible for this style of architecture, or because the style is beautiful in itself, but because the university then commands a more extensive control by resembling medieval educational institutions. The practices of the group which perpetuate a “good” style of architecture are thus as easy to explain as those which perpetuate modes of construction which are “good” for mechanical reasons.
Perhaps the simplest explanation of the differential reinforcement of conforming behavior is the process of induction. The forces which shape ethical behavior to group standards are powerful. The group steps in to suppress lying, stealing, physical assault, and so on, because of immediate consequences to its members. Its behavior in so doing is eventually a function of certain characteristic features of the “good” and “bad” behavior of the controlled individual. Among these is lack of conformity to the general behavior of the group. There is thus a frequent association of aversive properties of behavior with the property of nonconformance to a standard. Nonconforming behavior is not always aversive, but aversive behavior is always nonconforming. If these properties are paired often enough, the property of nonconformance becomes aversive. “Right” and “wrong” eventually have the force of “conforming” and “nonconforming.” Instances of behavior which are nonconforming but not otherwise aversive to the group are henceforth treated as if they were aversive.
No matter how we ultimately explain the action of the group in extending the ethical classification of “right” and “wrong” to manners and customs, we are on solid ground in observing the contingencies by virtue of which the behavior characteristic of a particular group is maintained. As each individual comes to conform to a standard pattern of conduct, he also comes to support that pattern by applying a similar classification to the behavior of others. Moreover, his own conforming behavior contributes to the standard with which the behavior of others is compared. Once a custom, manner, or style has arisen, therefore, the social system which observes it appears to be reasonably self-sustaining.
A social environment is usually spoken of as the “culture” of a group. The term is often supposed to refer to a spirit or atmosphere or something with equally nonphysical dimensions. Our analysis of the social enviroment, however, provides an account of the essential features of culture within the framework of a natural science. It permits us not only to understand the effect of culture but, as we shall see later, to alter cultural design.
In the broadest possible sense the culture into which an individual is born is composed of all the variables affecting him which are arranged by other people. The social environment is in part the result of those practices of the group which generate ethical behavior and of the extension of these practices to manners and customs. It is in part the accomplishment of all the agencies considered in Section V and of various subagencies with which the individual may be in especially close contact. The individual’s family, for example, may control him through an extension of religious or governmental techniques, by way of psychotherapy, through economic control, or as an educational institution. The special groups to which he belongs—from the play group or street gang to adult social organizations—have similar effects. Particular individuals may also exert special forms of control. A culture, in this broad sense, is thus enormously complex and extraordinarily powerful.
It is not, however, unitary. In any large group there are no universally observed contingencies of control. Divergent customs and manners often come into conflict—for example, in the behavior of the child of immigrants, where social reinforcements supplied by the family may not coincide with those supplied by acquaintances and friends. Different institutions or agencies of control may operate in conflicting ways; secular education often conflicts with religious education, and government with psychotherapy, while economic control is characteristically divided among many groups which wield their power in different ways.
A given social environment may change extensively in the lifetime of a single individual, who is then subjected to conflicting cultures. In America, important changes have recently taken place in the techniques used to control sexual behavior. The unmarried female was formerly subjected to strict control by the ethical group and by governmental, religious, and educational agencies. Access to the world at large was forbidden or permitted only in the company of a chaperon who might use physical restraint if necessary. Stimuli leading to sexual behavior were, so far as possible, eliminated from the immediate environment. The anatomy and physiology of reproductive organs, particularly of the male, remained obscure, and any behavior which might alter this condition was severely punished. Such punishment, supplemented by other procedures, generated behavior which reflected “purity” or “modesty” as a form of self-control. Facts related to sexual behavior which could not be concealed were explained in fictitious ways. Incipient sexual behavior was, of course, severely punished, not only with aversive stimulation, but with such powerful conditioned punishments as disapproval, shaming, and threats of ostracism. As a result any incipient sexual behavior gave rise to aversive self-stimulation. This provided for the reinforcement of further acts of self-control and elicited emotional responses with which sexual behavior was incompatible.
Such severe measures could be justified only by arguing that sexual behavior was wrong, that it was nevertheless very powerful, and that aggressive sexual behavior on the part of the male must be met with exceptional defenses on the part of the female. There were often objectionable by-products, however. Although the control was intended to apply mainly to premarital sexual behavior, the effect commonly extended into the marital state, and the individual was prevented from enjoying sexual relations in a normal fashion. The resulting repression of sexual impulses had many of the neurotic effects outlined in Chapter XXIV—from perverted sexual activity to the behavior of the common scold. These consequences, doubtless in company with many other factors, led to a substantial change in practice. The modern version of sexual control is very different. Although there is no one clearly formulated program, it is recognized that anxiety with respect to sexual behavior is unnecessary. Instead of removing from the environment all stimuli which could possibly lead to sexual behavior, a knowledge of the anatomy and function of sex is supplied. Friendly relations with the opposite sex are more freely permitted, and severe punishment of sexual behavior is avoided in favor of instruction in the consequences of such behavior. It is possible that these techniques are not so effective as earlier measures. Sexual behavior is probably not so deeply repressed, and it is also probably commoner at the overt level. The net result may or may not be to the advantage of the individual and the group.
In any case, the adolescent of today is affected by conflicting techniques which show a transition from one cultural practice to the other. In general, religious and governmental controls still follow the earlier pattern. Within the family, members of different ages frequently differ in their controlling techniques. The family as a whole may differ substantially from other groups of which the individual is a member. We cannot say that a single set of practices with respect to the control of sexual behavior is characteristic of the culture of such a person.
It is often said that “human nature is the same the world over.” This may mean that behavioral processes are the same wherever they are encountered—that all behavior varies in the same way with changes in deprivation or reinforcement, that discriminations are formed in the same way, that extinction takes place at the same rate, and so on. Such a contention may be as correct as the statement that human respiration, digestion, and reproduction are the same the world over. Undoubtedly there are personal differences in the rates at which various changes take place in all these areas, but the basic processes may have relatively constant properties. The statement may also mean that the independent variables which determine behavior are the same the world over, and this is another matter. Genetic endowments differ widely, and environments are likely to show more differences than similarities, a large number of which may be traced to cultural variables. The result is, of course, a high degree of individuality.
The effect of a social environment upon the behavior of the individual may be inferred point for point from an analysis of that environment. Let us consider an individual at the age of thirty. To what extent may his behavior reasonably be traced to the cultural variables with which he has come into contact?
Work level. In the sense that particular parts of our subject’s repertoire show given probabilities as the result of reinforcement, we say that he shows a given level of interest, enthusiasm, or freedom from “mental fatigue.” We are likely to find a high level of relevant behavior if the physical environment includes a favorable climate, an adequate food supply, and other resources. It is also important that abundant positive reinforcement is supplied by the family, the group as a whole, and various subgroups, as well as by governmental, religious, psychotherapeutic, economic, and educational agencies.
Motivation. Whether an individual is frequently hungry will depend, not only upon the availability of food in the nonsocial environment, but upon cultural practices which control what he eats, when he eats it, whether he observes periods of fasting, and so on. His sexual behavior will depend, not only upon the availability of members of the opposite sex, but upon the ethical control of sexual relations, upon governmental and religious restrictions, upon sex education, and so on. Other kinds of deprivation and satiation are also controlled by both social and nonsocial conditions.
Emotional dispositions. The social environment is mainly responsible for the fact that our subject may have grown up in an atmosphere of love, hate, anger, or resentment, and that various emotional patterns may therefore characterize his behavior.
Repertoire. The inanimate world builds an elaborate repertoire of practical responses. It may also set up behavior which is effective in extending such a repertoire: our subject will show a strong “curiosity about nature” if exploratory responses have frequently been reinforced, and special skills in research and invention if self-manipulative behavior of the sort discussed in Chapter XVI has been conditioned. But the comparable repertoire generated by the culture is usually much more extensive. Verbal problem-solving and the social skills employed in personal control are important examples. All controlling agencies are concerned in part with the creation of behavior of this sort, although it is the special concern, of course, of education. The competence of the individual in dealing with things, as well as men, will depend largely upon the extent to which such agencies have characterized the social environment.
Self-control. The inanimate environment may establish some degree of self-control—for example, the individual may learn not to eat a delicious but indigestible food—but by far the greater part of self-control is culturally determined, particularly by ethical, religious, and governmental agencies. The amoral individual who escapes this influence shows the effect of too little control, while the completely “inhibited” or restrained individual stands at the other extreme. Whether our subject conspicuously displays the other effects of his culture which we have just considered will often depend upon this one effect. For example, he may behave readily in an emotional fashion or show a stoical restraint depending upon the extent to which his emotional behavior has been reinforced or punished as right or wrong, legal or illegal, or pious or sinful.
Self-knowledge. Discriminative responses to one’s own behavior and to the variables of which it is a function appear to be the exclusive product of the social environment. Whether or not our subject will be self-conscious and introspective depends upon the extent to which the group has insisted upon answers to questions such as “What are you doing?” or “Why did you do that?”
Neurotic behavior. A purely physical enviroment could no doubt generate behavior which was so ineffective, disadvantageous, or dangerous that it would be called neurotic. By far the greater source of trouble, however, is social. Whether or not our subject is well balanced, in good contact with the environment, or free of crippling emotional reactions will depend mainly upon the controlling practices of the group into which he was born.
When certain features of the social environment are peculiar to a given group, we expect to find certain common characteristics in the behavior of its members. A common culture should lead to a common “character.” Russian and American children learn to throw stones and to keep from stubbing their toes in essentially the same way because the relevant variables are principally in the physical environment. They do not speak in the same way because their verbal environments are different. Other kinds of behavior which are socially reinforced are also different. The two groups follow different classifications in shaping the behavior of the individual as right or wrong. Religious, governmental, psychotherapeutic, economic, and educational agencies differ widely in the power and extent of their control. The effects of the family and of business and social organizations are also different. As a result Russians and Americans show very different behavioral repertoires or “characters.”
The concept of a group or cultural character, however, has all the dangers inherent in any system of typology. There is always a tendency to argue that, because individuals are similar in one respect, they are similar in others also. Although certain features of behavior may differ consistently between cultures, there are also great differences among the individuals in a given group. We have seen that a social environment is never wholly consistent. It is also probably never the same for two individuals. Only those characteristics of the social environment which are common to the inhabitants of Russia and which differ from the characteristics of any other social environment may be spoken of as “Russian culture.” The Russian language fulfills these conditions fairly well, and it should be possible to detect certain corresponding features of “Russian thought” as part of the Russian “character.” It is not easy to find other instances, especially of manners and customs, which satisfy these conditions so well.
It is difficult to demonstrate a relation between a given cultural practice and a characteristic of behavior on the empirical evidence obtained by studying a particular group. Recently certain aspects of national character have been attributed to practices in the care of infants. In some national or cultural groups a baby is held essentially immobile throughout the greater part of the first year through the use of swaddling clothes or a cradle board. It has been argued that, especially in the last three months of the year, this physical restraint is highly frustrating and leads to powerful emotional predispositions. If the baby submits to restraint, the effect may be evident in the behavior of the adult, who becomes a “follower.” If the restraint strengthens a typical pattern of rage or revolt, the effect may be observed when he becomes a “leader.” A particular practice in caring for infants is thus said to produce two types of adult character. The types fit nicely into an interpretation of a particular political pattern, but the evidence is not satisfactory. The extent to which such a cultural practice as swaddling characterizes a group, and is absent from other groups with which a comparison is being made, can presumably be determined by field observation or other forms of inquiry. Whether the adult members of any group fall into two classes showing, respectively, submissive and aggressive behavior can also presumably be established, although this has not been done. Even if we were to accept these facts as proved, a relation between them would not therefore be established. By the very nature of the cultural group as a sample, many other practices will be associated with any one practice chosen for study. Some other practice may therefore be responsible for any demonstrated aspect of group character.
The anthropologist is interested in groups of people as such, and he pays particular attention to the customs, manners, and other features of behavior peculiar to a given group. So long as we are not interested in any particular set of cultural practices, the issue of a national or cultural character will not have the same urgency. We may agree that if a group is characterized by a unique set of practices, it may also be characterized by unique modes of behavior, but the causal connection between the practice and the mode of behavior may be left to a functional analysis of relevant variables under the conditions characteristic of an experimental science.