How do we define the culture of a specific country/geographical region? It is not quite incorrect to state that culture constitutes a set of beliefs, codes, and mores that are shared by a majority of people throughout the geographical location. It won’t again, be wrong to say that this also contributes to the definition of the concept of a “country,” or “nation.” Thus, “nationalism” follows from the concept of nation.

The quality of fierce loyalty to such beliefs, or culture or nation is also called patriotism as we understand it commonly. Generally, patriotism is linked to several things: chiefly, the concept of martyrdom, and has been eulogized in numerous historical and literary works partly because it also has strong heroic (and therefore romantic) connotations. The root of all this is to be found in the concept of culture; more so the value that its followers attach to it–to such an extent that it motivates people to die to defend these beliefs.

Now, when we say beliefs, there should be some element that makes it acceptable and worthy enough to lay down one’s life to defend and uphold them. There should be something that gives validity to these beliefs: it’s superfluous in this article to discuss the validity different beliefs found in different countries. It works for its adherents and hence they follow it.

Therefore, I can reassert what I stated at the beginning: a set of beliefs accepted and followed over a long period by a large number of people essentially becomes their culture because these beliefs determine their mode of life, colour their laws, and generally regulate their society. Whether they are “good” or “bad” is to a great extent, subjective: it depends on the perspective from which they are viewed: one man’s food is another man’s poison. This is not to state that a society which does not punish robbery is “good.” What I mean has more to do with say, subjects like morals: it is perfectly okay to have unwed mothers in a lot of western nations while it is punishable by death in say, an Islamic nation.

Perspective

The lexicon defines perspective as follows:

• A way of regarding situations or topics etc
• Appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer

The second definition is closest to what I intend to propose here.

It is really fascinating to trace the development of our perspectives on everything under the sun, so to speak. When we wish to proceed examining any subject logically/objectively, the primary sine qua non is for us to set aside our individual perspectives as opposed to facts: the state of things being as they are as opposed to how we want them to be. That said, it is almost near-impossible to be totally objective while dealing with cultural issues precisely because of the innumerable perspectives that exist on how to interpret these issues. Each such perspective certainly has a grain of objectivity at the least. However, we also find that not all these perspectives have the same premises.

The primary source of how we develop our perspectives is largely determined by the conditioning of our initial (and to some extent later) years, the books we read, the persons whose thoughts influence us the most, and the country where we live in. Speaking for myself, as a boy, I spent several years under the impression that “foreigners are great while Indians are useless,” or “foreign women are ‘dirty’ while Indian women are pure.” When I look back, I feel these to be largely the result of severe conditioning and an uncritical acceptance of some authority. Notice here the terms I have used; specifically, “great,” “useless,” “dirty,” and “pure.” All these are of course, purely subjective. So there. When I reflected on these notions, in my adult life, I felt silly.

To understand our perspectives especially while speaking about culture, we also need to ask ourselves this question: how much do we know about our own culture? Plus, is our understanding of our own culture correct? What are the sources of this understanding? Are they accurate or biased? If they are, what are the bases for their accuracy? For answering these questions, it is essential to go the primary sources.

Further, culture is not a static phenomenon. It changes with, and is influenced by time, circumstances, political and social upheavals, and other dynamics. Therefore, what was once acceptable as “culture” maybe discarded in its entirety; conversely, what was once discarded as culturally unacceptable maybe re-adopted with or without modification. This can perhaps be illustrated by taking Islam as a very telling example. Most Mullahs (the fundamentalist variety, mostly) dream of resurrecting the “pure” form of Islam/Islamic state. This in its essence involves turning back the clock: they dream of the medieval Islamic state with its harsh injunctions on every conceivable aspect of an individual’s life: starting from the proportions of facial hair to fornication. This as I said, is a telling example of viewing culture as a motionless, unchanging (unchangeable?) aspect. This kind of perspective entails a person to become blind to the current reality. Which brings me to the:

Origins of Cultural Misfit-ness

To reiterate, before we can really decide whether we are a misfit in our own culture, it is necessary to know our culture in sufficient depth. And I’m not advocating a scholarly knowledge of the said culture. It is enough to have a “working knowledge” of the said culture.

This knowledge is essential to anyone who feels that he/she is a misfit in his/her own culture. More so in the context of Indian culture whose interpretation is pretty complex thanks largely to a humungous array of diverse and often conflicting versions. That’s the reason I stressed on the importance of going to the primary sources of information about Indian culture.

There are several treatises which dwell at length, about how Indian culture should be defined. But I won’t touch that territory in this entry; rather, I’ll try to present Indian culture as I understand it in the next part of this article.