Culture, universals, and the personal.

Abstract

This chapter summarizes a part of the case that can be made that the individual construction of a personal domain of choice and privacy generalizes across cultures and is not restricted to persons who live within Western or so-called modern societies. The research findings reported here are consistent with the view that persons seek to establish such areas of control in order to maintain a differentiated personal identity and a sense of personal agency. Children, adolescents, and adults from the United States and traditional cultures have been found to identify a class of behaviors and issues as being outside the legitimate sphere of social or moral regulation. Mothers from Western and traditional cultural settings recognize and foster their children's claims to areas of personal choice and privacy. Across cultures, as children mature and move toward adulthood, they lay claim to a broader range of issues and actions as personal matters. Research on adolescent-parent conflict with U.S. and Chinese samples has indicated that these shifts associated with adolescent claims to freedom are the source of most family conflicts. Anthropological accounts of adolescent-parent conflicts in 160 cultures have provided evidence that such conflicts are widespread (Schlegel and Barry, 1991). Finally, we are beginning to obtain evidence that parental overcontrol of personal issues is associated with symptoms of psychological problems in their adolescent children. These research findings are consistent with the proposal (Nucci, 1996) that establishment of a personal domain is an intrinsic feature of normal human development, resulting from the inevitable attempt by individuals to account for and differentiate between their own motives, values, and experiences and those of others. The evidence also points to the fact that such personal issues are coexistent with concerns for interpersonal harmony and social integration. Thus, it is not surprising that the work summarized here also suggests considerable social-class and cultural variation in how the personal is expressed. Such variation is consistent with the assumption that the personal is constructed out of social interactions (Nucci, 1996) that entail reciprocal interchange between individual and societal structures (Turiel, 1996). In Spiro's analysis (1984), the results of such reciprocal structural interaction cannot be accounted for by reducing the analysis of psychological structures in terms of cultural structures and vice versa. Thus, any accurate interpretation of the impact of culture on psychological development must be constrained by features that are peculiar to psychological systems. Extending this to the cross-cultural study of the personal domain, a case can be made for the need to explore such issues at the level of the individual, rather than at the level of the cultural shared-symbol system. On the other hand, this nonreductionist approach and the available evidence rule out the reification of the personal as a culturally empty set of psychological issues. As illustrated in studies of the distribution of rights in relation to gender and social hierarchy among Druze Arabs (Wainryb and Turiel, 1994), the interplay between the personal and the cultural system of roles and obligations provides a rich and contradictory portrait that can be understood only by shifting perspective from the social to the individual and back again without favor.