After Reading "Harlan, Kentucky"

             Who are we? We are what we are. We are defined by where we are from, who we grew up with, and even when we were born. In the 6^th chapter of the Outliers, Gladwell explains such factors can help determine “why” we make certain decisions. According to Gladwell, these “cultural legacies,” or the influences of the environments we originated from, become a part of our identity. For instance, American Southerners, especially borderland residents who used to be herdsmen, react much more aggressively compared to Northerners when they are insulted. Why is this so? The book suggests it may be because herdsmen had to be more petulant to protect their stocks than farmers who only had to raise crops. The ancestral roots of these people had survived for centuries to shape the personalities of the descendants. For inhabitants of Harlan, Kentucky, perhaps their roots that valued the “Culture of Honor” were what caused so many feuds between families.

             What I found interesting in this chapter was the great power “culture” had among its people. When we evaluate ourselves, we usually consider us to be intellectual beings exercising free will. We believe that what we choose to do, from picking a cheeseburger over noodles at lunch to enrolling in college instead of advancing to the job market, is primarily dependent on our own mind and its process of thinking. However, after reading this chapter, no fool could claim the Howards’ and the Turners’ “decisions” to shoot each other down was the sole product of their free will. Or, even if it is, that “free will” could have been formed and amended by the constant influence of its surrounding environment; in other words, its culture. The rationale that we humans believe to be so ultimate and flawless is actually, much more fragile: it is easily transfigured by the discipline of our parents, underlying violent heritages, and many other cultural factors.

             Our lesson from this chapter could be applied in reflecting upon another intriguing topic: “Cultural Relativism.” Basically, the concept means that the ideas and habits of each and every culture should be respected equally. Having grown up and been educated from a predominantly Western culture (at least, from my perspective, I’d say Korea’s pretty Westernized), I used to think “Honor Killing” or “Cannibalism” existing in faraway, remote cultures were barbaric. Basing my thoughts on the UN Human Rights Charter or our “common sense,” I argued the constituents of such cultures should be ashamed. But as I pondered more about the topic, I began to question, “Is there any value that is universal or absolute?” Back in the Chosun Dynasty, people valued honor or loyalty over their life. To them, it was justified to kill a person to protect their honor or loyalty to the king. As we’ve read from the book, the jury of the South also thought it just to kill one’s insulter. Then, who can we throw the stone at, based on what standards and judgments? In esoteric cultures, is the peoples’ “perception” wrong because it’s different from ours? Such notion would be bigotry, since we too used to justify slavery with our own convenient set of value systems. If we were to travel back a few hundred years, we’d be the “Alices in Wonderland” who couldn’t adapt to the way of living. Traveling to a different culture might be just the same thing.

             So then, how can we even make evaluations or judgments about what is right and wrong, good or bad? Every event could be the outcome of different values from diverse cultures. This is the question I’ve had for years, and I still haven’t found the answer yet. I guess there’s still a lot more to learn and contemplate about. What is your opinion?