Questioning the relationship between religion and culture (4)

on Tuesday, October 9, 2012

It is not possible to dissociate culture from custom. The noun custom may be roughly defined as a common practice followed by members of a regional group. But this definition is insufficient as it does not include one of its most important traits: the fact that being an usual practice is what allowed custom to be an established convention. As I think that many benefits will come from our being able of analyzing five specific words that are present in the previous sentences, I’ll now invite you to join me in the dissection of the following concepts: dissociated, custom, usual, practice, and convention.

The verb to dissociate means to break or cause to break the association between two or more things. It derives from Latin dissocio, meaning to separate from fellowship, to disunite. The verb was formed with socio, to join together, to do in common, to share a thing with another; kindred with socius, partner, comrade, companion. This is from where English got associate as well as society.
The noun custom is defined as a common, usual practice followed by members of a regional group. The English word has its origin in Latin consuetudo, that besides meaning a being accustomed to a use, usage, customary manner, also denoted companionship, familiarity.
The adjective usual is applied to that which is expected or familiar as its occurrence is frequent and regular, which also pointing to what is in accordance with ordinary practice or procedure. The English word derives from Latin usus, meaning the employment of anything; experience, discipline and skill acquired by practice; and custom. Besides this, what’s really interesting in usus is that, through the idea of the advantage derived from that which is done repeatedly thus allowing for the emergence of experience and skill, the word saw its meaning being transferred to that of utility, benefit, profit, advantage.
The noun practice not only points to the act of doing something but also to an usual, customary action or way of proceeding, clearly implying repetition.
The last word of the list is convention. I’ve used this word to denote the commonly accepted procedure or practice within a group. In other words, I see a convention as something that a group has decided to accept – hence having been established not because of an inherent logic, but because of general agreement within the group. If taking a look at the original Latin word conventio, we find it meaning a meeting; and agreement or compact. This word is akin with verb convenio, to come, meet together, metaphorically used to denote the agreeing with in wishes, decisions, etc, thus becoming synonym with to harmonize. Besides this, the verb is also the origin of modern convenience, that is, usefulness, advantageous to one’s purposes, needs, etc – all meanings that point out to that which is appropriate, that is, suitable for a particular person, group, place or condition, or for achieving a particular end.
Now that dissection is concluded – in other words, now that the separation of some of the component parts of the sentences have been achieved, I’ll try to assemble it all over again.

Through custom, culture strengthens the sense of companionship between the elements of the group. Custom is the practice that through repetition by its elements comes to be usual. This sharing of an usual practice develops familiarity between individuals helping in the cohesion of the group. Besides this, the fact that the practice becomes usual as also to do with the fact that the doing it regularly ensures benefits to both individuals and the group. The possibility that individuals have of deriving advantages from an usual, common practice amidst a group, lies at the very heart of the legitimacy assigned to culture and custom as a whole.

Seen from the outside, culture is the result of a bond that has drawn individuals together. But it’s better to take a closer look at the inside, in order to understand the true nature of that bond. Our material words derives its existence from the subsistence of several kinds of forces that are able to draw distinct parts together. Nothing exists as a whole; everything is the result of a composition of parts brought together by means of forces that are immune to control. Water is probably the most incredible composition on earth: a molecule made of atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, two gases united by means of chemical bonds that give origin to a liquid whose elasticity defies all imagination. Water is seldom defined as the source of life – and I’m mentioning it because, like everything else in our known universe, water derives its existence from the existence of a means of bonding distinct, separated parts. And just as everything in the universe, in order to be able to establish themselves, human institutions are as well dependent on the existence of forces capable of uniting individuals. I use the term force as defined by physics, that is, the external influence that when acted on any object compels it to change state, velocity, direction or form. Without an external influence, individuals could be described as being inert. Once again, I’m following the language of physics that describes inertia as a property of matter defining the tendency of a body to maintain its sate of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. So, basically, custom is the external force acting upon individuals, driving them to establish a bond based on a specific practice through which all, in one way or another, expect to achieve a particular end.

[to be continued]


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About the author



View the Original article

0 comments: