Recent orders
Cultural Identity and Multicultural
Cultural Identity and Multicultural Counselling
Student’s name
Institution
Course
Tutor
Date
Cultural identity refers to a part of an individual’s identity, or a person’s self-perception and self-conception which is related to religion, nationality, social class, locality, generation, ethnicity, or any other form of social group that tends to have its distinct culture (Arthur, 2019). The term originated in sociology and anthropology and is used in a related way in much of the social sciences. The term has been extended to mean the symbolic markers or behavioral characteristics that members of a society or group use to distinguish themselves from others. In this sense it is used as the opposite of social anonymity and as an alternative to association with a larger group. In modern Western culture, cultural identity is usually seen as something which has been shaped by a combination of factors at different levels: personal, local and national (often reflecting the country where one lives). This approach stresses social and economic factors including education, family background, ethnicity, religion, nationality and language – but not gender nor political affiliation.
Multicultural counselling seeks to comprehend how an individual’s identity and cultural issues tend to affect a person’s mental health. The importance of Cultural identity is one of the main terms discussed in multicultural counselling. Cultural identity refers to a person’s sense of connection to place and community, which may vary significantly from culture to culture (Arthur, (2019). These differences must be understood prior to successfully providing counselling for a culturally diverse client. Additionally, cultural identity can also be affected by political or economic factors in environments where there are large populations that have been displaced from their homeland or nation. Various fields such as social work and mental health care have developed various approaches with respect to understanding and providing services for these people who are out of place or displaced from their homeland due to personal reasons such as civil war, persecution, natural disaster, etc.
Another key importance of Cultural identity to multicultural counselling is that it defines one’s origin. Identifying in one’s cultural identity is somewhat linked to the meaning of the person’s life. It is important to understand that individuals may identify with a particular culture and yet maintain a link to their ethnic community or nation through kinship, marriage, or other cultural connections. Often people who have been displaced from their homeland have been influenced by ethnic culture in the new country where they are living and are gradually losing touch with their own heritage.
Additionally, cultural identity is often linked to language, values and beliefs, religion, and markers of belonging such as family stories. It is important for counsellors to understand that when a person’s cultural identity is threatened then his or her mental health may also be affected in a negative way (France., et al 2021). A client may identify with the same culture as other members of his or her ethnic community, yet still feel a sense of ‘not belonging’. In this way he or she may feel they are neither ‘here nor there’ and that they belong nowhere. This can lead to low self-esteem and depression. It should be noted that when defining cultural identity, there is often no single mold into which people fit.
The main elements that make up cultural identities include gender, sexuality, religion, geographical region, social class, or ethnicity. Gender as an element of cultural identity refers to the different meanings of male and female. Gender can be socially constructed, meaning that you can choose not to conform to gender norms and still be considered a member of your culture (Stanley et al., 2021). This is different from Gender roles, which are the behaviors expected of people based on their gender. Gender norms are generally accepted and respected but not always enforced. In many areas of the world, including most parts of Africa and Latin America, people are just beginning to question gender norms and the inequality that they produce. Unprocessed hair or body hair appears to be a strong indicator of womanhood in many cultures throughout the world. In parts of Asia and Africa, women often shave or pluck their hair to show respect for men. In some regions, like South Asia, shaving one’s head is a significant ritual after marriage (See box titled ‘Women in ancient Sanskrit poetry’ for some examples).
Geographical region as an element of cultural identity refers to the different ways in which people view themselves according to their geography, such as “Valley girl,” “metro,” or “suburban.” Some people may not see cultural differences in the area of their geographical region. For example, the city of Los Angeles is in the state of California, and many people do not see Los Angeles as different from San Bernardino or Ventura. However, there are differences. People from the same area may differ on how they view themselves and their differences with other cities. For example, people see themselves differently in terms of class when compared to those in other areas because of the economy, climate, and culture (Stanley et al., 2021).
Religion as an element of cultural identity refers to the practices, beliefs, customs and history of various faith groups based on their connection with a particular god or gods (Stanley et al., 2021). This can also refer to the integration of religious beliefs into cultural traditions and practices. In an increasingly secularized world, religion is no longer an absolute in many cultures and it has become a personal choice. After all, people are free to believe in whichever they please, or not believe at all. However, this doesn’t mean that religion as an identity marker has been erased from society entirely. The following religions have had the most profound impact on cultural identity: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. We will explore their social impact on our lives.
Ethnicity is when one’s self-identification is tied up with their racial or ethnic heritage. This can include the language and cultural heritage of a nation or race, as well as their physical features. A person may identify themselves as an Hispanic or an Indian, or as an Aranese, Basque, or Catalan. In a study it was determined that ethnicity can be defined as “the self-identification of belonging to a particular ethnic group, regardless of actual linguistic or geographic ties”. While ethnicity is tied in with race, they are not necessarily the same thing. Race is a term used to classify individuals whom share physical similarities among all members of the same species (e.g. human beings). Ethnicity is more difficult to define, because there are such things as race and culture (which are tied together) but also religion and language which have sway on how people identify themselves (Stanley et al., 2021).
Social class is a way to categorize groups of people based on their economic status. Different social classes are able to afford different level of goods and services, and those goods and services vary across countries. Many cultures have social class divisions based on more than just economics; some countries separate people into upper class, middle class, and lower class (Stanley et al., 2021). Although the idea of social classes is not a new concept, it has become a popular one in recent years due to the growth of globalization. The internet also makes information about social classes easier to access than ever before — from news articles about economic inequality in the United States to interviews with famous individuals who are part of these different groups.
I agree with the author that culture is the way that a group of people understands their existence and its ties to past generations. Style includes clothing behaviors and values that are visible to others. It includes fashion styles as well as dance moves while dancing with your friends at a club after work on Friday night or hugging someone who just got engaged; all indicative of your type of style. Language refers to the different words used in various dialects within the same geographic region such as slang, dialectal accents and formal language use; it also includes understanding how languages change over time (Zajda, & Majhanovich, 2021). Elements of cultural identity are beliefs and practices that have been deemed traditional and important since before European colonial rule began in the New World, but that are still being passed on from one generation to the next. For example, beliefs and practices such as the ability to use one’s hands may have changed since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
In conclusion, cultural identity is a vital aspect of multicultural counselling practice. It is essential to recognize the different cultural identities of clients and their backgrounds in order to provide culturally competent care. Competencies such as identifying, assessing and counselling around cultural identity can be used in many different contexts and should not be overlooked when providing services within a multicultural community.” One of the most important qualities that every counselor needs is culture competence- the ability to identify, understand, assess, and appropriately help with cross-cultural issues. The ‘cultural identity’ of our clients can often present challenging challenges for counselors who are unfamiliar with or uneducated concerning diverse cultures. An element of Cultural identity is how we are perceived by others. This depends on how we behave in our daily lives for instance and also what we choose to do with our time.
References
Arthur, N. (Ed.). (2019). Counselling in cultural contexts: Identities and social justice. Springer.
France, M. H., del Carmen Rodríguez, M., & Hett, G. G. (Eds.). (2021). Diversity, culture and counselling: A Canadian perspective. Brush Education.
Zajda, J. I., & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.). (2021). Globalisation, cultural identity and nation-building: The changing paradigms (Vol. 5). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stanley, M. L., Taylor, M. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2021). Cultural identity changes the accessibility of knowledge. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 44-54.
Euthanasia, a Moral Issue
Euthanasia, a Moral Issue
Name
Institutional Affiliation
A critical analysis of Gay-Williams article: EUTHANASIA, A MORAL ISSUE
Moral Theory
Williams articulates his assertions citing his arguments from the laws of nature. This argument is centered on the idea that killing ourselves is immoral, therefore, in the same vein; a physician killing is also immoral (Munson, 1979). This is because, according to William, in violation of the natural impulse for self-preservation is, thus, against human nature. Coupled with this theory, are very crucial ethical principles of bioethics, which as autonomy, no maleficence, beneficence, and justice (Munson, 1979).
The principle of autonomy clearly advances the notion that any rational person is and should be self-determining and able to make own decisions (Munson, 1979). This is in contrast with paternalism, where medical practitioners make decisions that are independent of the patient and his family. On the other hand, Williams agrees to the need for autonomy, which in many instances may not be absolute (Munson, 1979). Essentially, patients need to respect the integrity of medical professions and their ability to refute irrational wishes for unsuitable or vain care and treatment. Nonetheless, it is understood that patients who are not contended with the availed treatment should seek treatment options elsewhere as second options (Munson, 1979).
Clearly, active euthanasia according to Williams, which could be viewed as assisted death by utilitarians, violates these principles. As such, it is false to allude that ill people must expect agonies and humiliation from which death in itself is the only merciful release.
Williams Arguments: Summary
Humans, as Gay-Williams asserts have a natural predisposition to continue living. This is self-fostered in the practice of care and caution necessary to look after ourselves in our daily lives (Munson, 1979). Moreover, Williams relays that our reflexes and responses aid us in fighting attackers, hide from wild animals, and respond fast to alarms. In addition, Williams alludes to the fact that our bodies are structured for survival right down to the molecular level (Munson, 1979). When we are cut, our capillaries seal shut, our blood clots, and fibrinogen is produced to start the process of healing the wound. When bacteria invade us, antibodies are produced to fight against the alien organisms, and their remains are swept out of the body by special cells designed for clean-up working. Hence, the act of killing violates this natural goal of survival. Therefore, this is exactly acting against nature because all the processes of nature are inclined towards our survival (Munson, 1979).
Gay-Williams further notes that the organization of human body and patterns of behavioral responses make the continuation of life a natural goal. Thus, the reason against euthanasia is that is sets humans against their nature, therefore, makes it wrong for people to kill themselves or be killed by a physician (Munson, 1979). Consequently, it is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three main motives. First, it is because we all love our inner selves and our mutual existence. Further, it is the result of the common understanding, revealing our wish and an inner liking for natural wellbeing. Wherefore, perversity is dissimilar to the predisposition of nature, and to the basic knowledge that every man should love himself, an implication that charity begins at home (Munson, 1979).
Critique
I entirely agree with Williams that active euthanasia and its practice by medical physicists is outrightly wrong and against natural laws, simply because man has a natural drive and urge to survive, to continue living (Munson, 1979). Thus, it is absurd and a contradiction, for an individual to kill himself or be assisted to kill himself/herself since all living things naturally preserve themselves (Munson, 1979). Nevertheless, seeing the issue at hand from an alternative viewpoint, there are many situations in which life has to be sacrificed, especially a life that utilitarians argue, has deteriorated in quality. That is; it is arguably necessary to note that although to live may not be an obligation, but to live morally even when it lasts, to advocates of euthanasia is in itself an uncalled for proclamation. I am afraid that it is critical for a moral requirement to euthanasia. This either by oneself or through the help of a medical professional raise the ominous and despotic prospect that individuals may be required to indulge in perversity against their wishes. Hence, a medical profession who engages a patient in euthanasia performs a duty contrary to the self-interest of the patient (Munson, 1979).
Conclusion
Perhaps, being withdrawn from the notion and concepts of euthanasia and unacceptance reflects a clear and open acceptance of a variation of the purity of life views or may echo concerns about violations of an individual’s autonomy and self-determination. Thus, unlike animals, we are conscious through reason of our nature and our ends. Euthanasia especially by a physicist involves acting as if this dual nature – preference towards existence and sentence of this as an end – did not exist. In addition, euthanasia refutes our basic social character and requires that we honor ourselves or that medical doctors regard patients as nothing less than full human. As clear as crystal is the fact that human being have an inclination toward life and continual of existence. We all deserve better and as a result, individuals need space to exercise their right of self-determination.
Reference
Robert Munson (1979). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in medical ethics. Thomson/Wadsworth.
.
Euthanasia The question of whether physician-assisted suicide,
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Euthanasia
The question of whether physician-assisted suicide, commonly referred to as euthanasia should be allowed is one that has elicited heated reactions, with both sides giving compelling reasons for their position. Many people argue that a person should have the right to decide how they live and die. Those who choose assisted suicide do so for several reasons, and the fact that a person can be denied the choice of how they die has caused pain and suffering to many. The primary reason why people, especially sick patients choose assisted suicide is that they decide they have suffered enough with no chance of recovery, hence the best thing is for them to die in dignity and end their suffering. However, those opposed to the practice of assisted suicide take the position that human life is sacred, and it is wrong for a person to take a life. The most common support for this position is deontology ethics. A person should have the right to choose the manner in which they die, especially if they are of sound mind; thus, euthanasia should be legalized.
One of the main categories of people in need of euthanasia is terminally ill patients suffering from illnesses such as cancer (Fontalis et al. 409). Cancer is one of the leading causes of death today, and patients usually have to go through grueling treatment plans in an effort to beat the disease. Other illnesses also bring intense pain to the patients, and they have to take many drugs, which may prove ineffective after some time. When a person feels that they can no longer bear the pain and suffering, they should be allowed to die if they choose to. Family and friends also go through a lot of suffering watching their loved ones in pain, and a person can decide to spare their family of the agony by choosing physician-assisted suicide. In such cases, medical professionals usually inform patients that there is nothing more that can be done to alleviate their suffering or make them feel better. Rather than live through excruciating pain every minute of their lives, some people decide that death would be a better option to end their pain and give them rest. Based on such reasoning, it is difficult to deny a suffering person the option of ending their life.
Another common reason for euthanasia is when a person’s quality of life is rapidly deteriorating (Strinic 5). Some illnesses and diseases cause patients to lose some of their bodily functions such as walking, talking, and body movement. In extreme cases, a person can even stop recognizing close friends and family. When a patient finds out that their prognosis is not good and that their quality of life is certain to decrease as their illness progresses, they can choose to die a dignified death. For example, a person could say that they want to say goodbye to their loved ones while they can still recognize them and talk to them, tell them any last messages they have. Dignity is an important part of life, and many people also choose dignity in death. Some people cannot imagine a life in which they have to be cared for around the clock, and they are unable to perform any of their daily routines such as eating, walking, and talking. If a person wishes to avoid such as experience and receive a dignified send-off, it would be wrong to deny them and subject to a situation that would humiliate them.
The freedom of choice is another reason why euthanasia should be legalized all over the world. Currently, only a few countries, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany have legalized euthanasia. Some states in the US also allow assisted suicide, and these include California, Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont, and New Jersey (Strinic 10). These regions uphold the freedom of an individual to choose what they do with their lives. If a person wants to die, they should be allowed to because it is their life. A person can also choose assisted suicide if they feel that continuing treatment is too expensive, especially with no cure in sight. For many terminal and incurable illnesses, families may spend a lot of money seeking treatment for their sick loved ones. The patient can choose assisted suicide when they do not want to burden their families and friends or leave them in debt.
The main argument presented against euthanasia is deontology ethics that assert that an action is judged based on whether it is right or wrong, regardless of its consequences. In the case of euthanasia, it should not be allowed because it is essentially the taking of a human life or murder, which is wrong (Fontalis et al 412). However, the topic of euthanasia is a complex one; therefore, it cannot be judged simply as right or wrong. There are many factors at play, such as the reasons for assisted suicide, and those affected by it.
In conclusion, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is a controversial topic. Those who support the practice insist that a person should be allowed the freedom to choose what happens to them. Situations such as terminal illness, decreasing quality of life, intense pain, and unaffordable treatment are the main arsons that drive people to choose assisted suicide. The main opposition is that it is wrong to take human life. Euthanasia should be legalized because it gives people, especially those who are sick and suffering a chance at a dignified death, relieving them and their loved ones of pain and anguish.
Works Cited
Fontalis, Andreas, Efthymia Prousali, and Kunal Kulkarni. “Euthanasia and assisted dying: what is the current position and what are the key arguments informing the debate?” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 111.11 (2018): 407-413.
Strinic, Visnja. “Arguments in Support and Against Euthanasia.” Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research (2015): 1-12.