Comparison Between Reality, Emotion, And Culture

1382 Words 6 Pages
Reality, emotion, and culture are interconnected in the way these factors mold a person. The argument of identity between scientific reasoning and cultural background is parallel to the debate between science and religion; each of which has opposing views, but jointly influence the overall picture. Scientists argue that all emotion and human qualities can be explained through the bodily functions occurring within people, however societies strongly rooted in its traditions and heritage can argue that cultural factors shape a person and their emotions. Ethan Watters’ The Mega Marketing of Depression in Japan and Barbra Frederickson’s Love 2.0 displays how scientific and biological reasoning versus cultural aspects is controversial. Frederickson …show more content…
Change is unavoidable, especially in culture. Culture is not purebred, but rather a hybrid. It is a collection of the traditions, histories, and beliefs influenced by other cultures. In Watters’ words, “…cultural beliefs about depression and the self are malleable and responsive to messages that can be exported from one culture to another” (519). Cultural aspects affect the perspective of a person, but that point of view is constantly shifting. Due to the influence of other countries, a person’s behavior does not directly follow its root traditions. Especially with the rise of social media, cultures have grown to be more susceptible to change. Foreign influences can affect each society differently, thus creating mixed reactions to various situations. The idea that everything is temporary in a cultural setting also applies to bodily functions. Watters highlights changes among societies while on the contrary, Fredrickson emphasizes the transformation occurring within each person. In all living things, change means maturing. Changes in physical qualities are prominent to the naked eye, but the bodily functions that take place inside a living organism go unnoticed. Fredrickson observes, “Impermanence is the rule…this is especially true for …show more content…
Watters spotlights the link between culture and kinship whereas Fredrickson denies the analogy. When a person experiences an emotion, it is entirely their own experience, however, most sensations are linked with another person. Emotions do not have to directly correlate to a relationship between two people. Fredrickson declares, “Love is not sexual desire or the blood ties of kinship. Nor is it a special bond or commitment” (107). Deep emotions, such as love, are based on personal notions and cultural aspects and that has been over romanticized by modern culture. Sex is also an over romanticized concept in Western culture. People’s first impressions of ‘sex’ range from meaningless interactions with another being to the next step in a relationship. Sex is viewed and believed to occur between two individuals who share a strong and emotional bond, but the reality of it is overlooked. The primary focus of intercourse is to reproduce and to maintain the existence of the human population. Similar to love, the drive to initiate intercourse has a scientific explanation. Bodily functions and biological processes give reasoning behind the physical qualities that people experience during certain emotions. A mutual feeling shared between two people does not have to equate to sharing a bond with them. Conversely, Watters argues that cultures establish social circles in

Related Documents