The Lamont And Hill: The Connection Between Culture And Behavior

The Lamont and Hill reading provides us with a multifaceted framework for understanding the connection between culture and behavior-- behavior which may be deemed “dysfunctional” or “marginal” in the majority social context-- by providing “frames, cultural repertoires, narrative, symbolic boundaries, cultural capital, and institutions” as forms that culture can take in influencing behavior. Using the forms in no way allows us to construct a causal relationship between culture and behavior, however, they do set a stage for “dysfunctional” behavior. This allows us to better understand the truly heterogeneous nature of poverty, success, and the behavior related to the two, instead of simply chalking it up to race-derived culture. The “culture as narrative” concept, for example, allows us to associate an individual’s perception of their place in the world, and understand why certain behaviors follow from their perceptions. The “culture as frames” concept, allows us to understand that culture does not figure into behavior singularly, rather, it interacts with an individual’s internal and external environment, and impacts the probability of behaviors occurring. In terms of individual mindset, this allows us to better …show more content…
pauperism, exclusion of domestic and agricultural workers from the New Deal, redlining), and how this can influence one’s perception of the opportunity that they have, and consequently their behavior. It is insinuated later on in the chapter that with a greater understanding of behavior and its relation to culture, “policy levers” can be made more effective by avoiding adverse effects that can come from improperly addressing culture. It is unclear if the “greater” understanding would be effective (or even desirable) in policy making, for in the American context, any effort to augment behavior that is infinitesimally related to manipulating the non-majority culture(s) may have overtones of white supremacy, or may serve