In the text message, "The American Cultural Configuration" the authors express the will of anthropologists to study their own culture regardless of the difficulty that you faces seeking to subjectively evaluate their own society. Holmes and Holmes (2002), use the adage "not the drawbacks forest throughout the trees" (p. 5) to relate to how hard it is for somebody to study some thing they have mainly taken for granted. The Holmes' content focuses traditionally on paradoxes within our very own culture, a lot of which all of us don't see. In a paradoxon, two contradicting statements can appear to be true at the same time. This kind of essay examines two paradoxes commonly seen in everyday life: the person versus the as well as religion.
At the time you think about friends and family, what is the vital thing that occurs to you? If you just thought about your mother and father or close relatives then you might have been captured in an "individual vs . family" paradox. Nearly every culture looks at family crucial, but "many Americans have never even fulfilled all of their cousins" (Holmes & Holmes, 2002, p. 19). We say we are relatives oriented, but not caring to satisfy all of our prolonged family generally seems to contradict that. Individual liberties, accomplishments, and goals are generally American values that drive the idea of individuality. What's important to note is the fact family or use the concept of relatives itself will not appear in any of those ideals. Holmes and Holmes (2002), observed that "The friends and family reunions of yesterday have become rare, and once they happen they are often a source of pressure. " (p. 19) That quote confirms one reasons why family conversation today is: it's merely too nerve-racking, so all of us avoid it. Where truly does marriage match our culture of people? Marriage on its own may be much less of a relatives unifying function than a means for two visitors to obtain personal happiness; the climbing divorce rate alone seems to suggest the accounting allowance of commitment in a relationship. Likewise, the Holmes and Holmes (2002) state "marriage is in result a continuation of courtship" (p. 19) In my opinion, We would have to believe the authors on family and marriage, with the above-stated facts and tendencies. If we, like a nation, can place the specific so far above our own family members, are we not building a future of selfishness?
Religious opinions are almost unquantifiable by themselves, but the effects of those landscapes are very much measurable.