Introduction
Virtually, everyone subscribes to a given native culture. The moment an individual traverses a locality to interact with other people from different places, such as school, workplace, or whatever social group, he/she comes across new cultures that may conflict with the beliefs and value systems of the native culture. Conversantly, the areas that receive new individuals equally find a momentous opportunity to interact with such cultural divergences (Weber, 2008).
Learning institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities have no cultural boundaries, as individuals come from different backgrounds to diffuse their experiences. Interactions of this nature make individuals to be more knowledgeable about the expansive global society.
As a result, individuals have an opportunity to appreciate their differences. Just as these learning institutions provide rich cultural base for orientation, work places form a formidable basis of cultural interaction given that individuals come from different backgrounds to share in their cultural orientation (Freire, 2008). These differences make the societies in which they interact strong in the sense that in diversity the weaknesses of humanity are redeemable.
In these situations, people come with different abilities that inform their backgrounds to share with other individuals that might be disadvantageous in some way, thereby perfecting our institutions in very special ways (The effects of racial profiling, 2014). The different settings that individuals interact are very important areas to develop cultural identity as a duty of fusion of different experiences by different individuals who come together to share in the diversity that these environments create.
Cultural Identity
Different factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, and social class are all elements that identify individuals as unique and different from one another. The notion of this difference could be emotive in some environments as individuals may tend to categorize themselves as “us” and “them,” belonging or not, and in-groups or out-groups (Jonas, 2005). From these categorizations, we get the notion of real, or imagined communities that form the bedrock of individual differences.
These differences, according to Clarke (2008), may either make or break individuals depending on the mode of their application in these settings. A key argument in this discourse, nonetheless, is how individuals attribute to social distinctiveness, to whom and, perhaps, for what purpose or intention. Therefore, individuals in these settings should always pause and ask themselves whether they have a choice for their identity, and if not, what options are available to make these difference opportunities from which to learn and grow.
To make the good use of these differences further, individuals should always seek to challenge themselves whether identities are social constructions or essential functions of psychodynamic processes. As Clarke (2008) argues, this identity is a complex amalgam that can be effective in developing individuals and institutions in very profound ways.
Individuals develop institutions when they bring in a sense of diversity that is meaningful to institutional growth and change. Individuals come from different settings with tremendous reservoir of talents and skills that could otherwise not have been so easy to achieve when institutions only admit local individuals (Loury, 2005). In these interaction processes, individuals may identify one another’s weaknesses and virtually opt to amend these institutions for the greater common good of the society.
Diversity is Strength
One of the most notable elements of diversity is its ability to develop individuals and strengthen institutions. A well-integrated setting, according to Freire (2008), can adequately make a culturally flexible environment for the orientation of different cultures, individuals, or social groups.
The course of development within these settings could be instrumental in helping various individuals and institutions to navigate the diverse social experiences effectively at the workplaces, schools, neighbourhoods, and communities. Studies of bicultural students usually show dependable results of positive academic performance. Too often, institutions that embrace diversity have their staffs showing greater inclination to greater institutional progress than other relatively mono-cultural institutions (Lusca, 2008).
These studies, according to Carter (2008), suggest that culturally flexible environments guarantee the individuals the ability to interact, participate, and navigate the diverse social and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, these environments assist individuals in embracing the multiple forms of cultural heritages, hence expanding their understanding of self while holding an inclusive perspective about those who differ with them in great social aspects or orientations.
Conclusion
In sum, different social settings equip individuals with a unique opportunity to explore their differences. This situation strengthens the societies in which they interact. In essence, the rich diversity that individuals come across develops them and the institutions, making both a success in the end. In these social settings, people come with different abilities that inform their backgrounds. As they interact, they share with other individuals various experiences and knowledge that end up perfecting these institutions in special ways.
The different settings that individuals interact are very important areas to develop cultural identity. These identities are nothing, but areas of strength for individuals and their institutions. Clearly, within these institutes, people may recognize one another’s flaws, and opt to modify these organizations as a way of developing one another for the collective good of humanity.
References
Carter, P. (2008). Race and cultural flexibility among students in different multicultural schools. Stanford: Stanford University.
Clarke, S. (2008). Culture and Identity. Web.
Freire, P. (2008). Self-awareness, critical reflectivity, and identity.
Jonas, M. (2005). The downside of diversity. Web.
Loury, G. C. (2005). Racial stigma and its consequences. Focus, 24(1), 1-6. Web.
Lusca, E. L. (2008). Race as a Social Construct. Web.
The effects of racial profiling. (2014). Web.
Weber, L. (2008). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(98), 12-32.