Are values dominant behaviours of a society, or are they personal?
My lecturer told me:
But then on other sites I have read things such as,
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-are-values-terminal-instrumental-dominant-cultural.html
I don't have a social science background and am a bit confused by what seems to me conflicting information.
Are values what a society deems to be important or what an individual finds important? Could you also please explain why?
"Values are the dominant behaviours and beliefs of a society or a group" and that values have nothing to do with individuals.
But then on other sites I have read things such as,
"Values are ideals of beliefs that a person holds desirable or undesirable."
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-are-values-terminal-instrumental-dominant-cultural.html
I don't have a social science background and am a bit confused by what seems to me conflicting information.
Are values what a society deems to be important or what an individual finds important? Could you also please explain why?
Comments (5)
What if an individual holds a value that is at variance with "the dominant behaviours and beliefs of... [his]...society or... group"?
I think it is probably impossible to hold a value that no one has held before; or a value that is at least not a variant of some previously held value. So, in that sense it seems reasonable to say that values are culturally constructed. That is to say I think we are limited to a certain range of culturally embedded values from which to choose, but "the dominant behaviors and beliefs of a society or a group" cannot determine that we will chose those particular behaviors and beliefs.
If there are behaviours and beliefs that dominate a society or group, it seems likely that there are also minority behaviours and beliefs. Presumably, these form a sub-group within which they are in turn dominant. Thus 'wages for housework' might be a subgroup within the larger feminist group which is in turn a sub-group of society at large.
However, it seems to me that a sub-sub-group can onlybegin with an individual having a new, or modified behaviour or belief, and recruiting converts. Such people used to be called 'prophets', but social science has no room for such as this, and so is forced to resort to random magic to explain how dominant values change and develop.
It's as silly a position to take, as if a physicist were to claim that the properties of materials have nothing to do with the atoms that compose them.
What can be socially constructed, however, is environmental pressure which pushes more persons to comply to a belief which might increase their social fitness, evade persecution and so on.