The introduction of the first chapter tells us that each culture has a different view of what

“beautiful” is. This term may vary between cultures and their ways of understanding and
seeing life.

In this chapter the author will tell us about the impact the culture may have on the nature of
our bodies or how people see them in everyday activities.

Chapter one - Culture against Nature

In the first chapter the author tells us how our lives would be if we did not have some
“cultural forces” which would control our basic biological impulses. And I agree in most of the
points she mentions like “Left to our own devices, without the guiding constraints of culture,
each of us would run riot” which means that if we did not have some specific rules, our lives
would be chaotic. Because everyone would do whatever he or she likes to do.

Or another sentence he uses: “we would also immediately gratify ourselves by, for example,
defecating and urinating wherever we pleased” which comes to mean that we would do
whatever would please us, even without caring how this would affect the people around us.

The author also mentions the idea of a famous neurologist, Sigmund Freud, which is
“civilization” and he compares this idea with what people today would call culture. He
makes the comparison between these two terms because just like civilization, (“renunciation
of instinctual gratifications… and urgencies”) what we understand by culture nowadays
comes to mean the same: norms and values which make humans give up their natural
dispositions because they (we) feel ashamed and embarrassed about natural things such as
defecating wherever and whenever. Because culture, inculcated us with certain ideas of
what is right and what is wrong.

Next up the author introduces us to the concepts of “id”, “superego” and “ego” which are
originally ideas of Freud.

I do completely agree with this terms because in my daily life, I feel like there are lots of
moments when you have to decide either you do “what you want”, which would be the “id” or
either you do “what you have to” which is how society and culture expect you to behave,
which would be the “superego”.
 “While the ‘devil’ of ‘biological nature’ wants us to do whatever we like, no matter how bad
the consequences may be for ourselves or for other people, the ‘angel’ of ‘culture’ says that
we will only be worthy of respect, both from ourselves and from others, and indeed only be
truly ‘human’ rather than a mere animal, if we forego what we instinctively want to do.”

Down below, the author presents us with the subject of the “Toilet culture”.

“Children learn to be disgusted by turds, they do not just ‘naturally’ recoil from them. If a
response to something is learned, then it is being shaped by a cultural norm, not just by
‘nature”.

We can see in this sentence that culture is regulating almost all of our “natural desires”. But
in my opinion, this is something which only benefits us. I mean, I am happy and thankful that
“the cultural power” kind of made us having this toiletry culture. I even appreciate this fact
because even though I am not sure if my “feeling of repugnancy” is set by cultural aspects,
but I can say that I do not like the smell or even the look of certain natural excrements.

“In other words as modern Western society developed, people became increasingly
disgusted with the sexual and defecatory aspects of their bodies”, maybe culture is not “so
bad” as the text may leads us to understand/believe.

Next up, the author introduces another character who is Marcel Mauss, a French sociologist
who defends that “there is no completely natural way for a person to use their body”. For
example, as we can find in the text, “the ‘individual borrows the series of movements which
constitute’ his or her particular ways of using the body ‘from the action[s] executed in front of
him [or her] by other [people]’”. But, isn’t it good? I mean, I find it nice when I see children
growing up and learning how to do things by imitating adults. I think that if all the children
who are born would grow up alone in a closed room, they would not be as much evolved as
the rest of the children who are growing up with adults around them who kind of teach them
how to do certain things. Later, when you grow up, after having some basic skills fixed, you
can always decide if the way you walk or run is the way you like, or maybe you would like to
change it somehow. And every day is easier to do so, because with all the social medias
nowadays, people have the opportunity to see how people walk or run (in this case) in even
other continents or even different eras.

In the next part of this chapter, the author talks about how the human body adapts to some
activities and how is this one being “sculpted” by the particular cultural context a person is
brought up. He makes us think about how often girls and boys play the same games rather
differently (feminine and masculine ways).

“Such differences in posture and motility are perhaps not the result of ‘natural’ differences in
body shape or size between males and females, but instead are due to processes of
socialization, where boys learn different bodily skills and capacities for movement than do
girls.”

In this case, I think the opposite to what the author is writing. I do think that males and
females have different body shape as a result of “natural” process. I can not imagine myself
(a girl of 1.56m whose weight is 50kg, carrying the same amount of bags full of books, let’s
say, as a boy who is 1.87m and weighs 80kg). This is just unfair for me. Why should we say
that we are “equal” if there are natural aspects which we can not control that does not make
us equal? This is little example which is far from give a general idea between males and
females but in my opinion, there are some moments in which we have to accept that we are
different and there is nothing bad or wrong in it.

And regarding to the movements, maybe the boys tend to use their whole body in doing
some actions but this does not mean, that girls should act like boys or boys should act like
girls. In my opinion, each of us should find its own way of doing or acting without caring if it is
a “masculine” or “femenine” way or style.

If I like to “throw like a girl”, it is my decision and it is my choice to do it that way. As a

reasonable human beings, we should understand that everyone has the right to throw, walk,
do, think as he or she wants, and if a girl wants to use only one part of her body to do some
activity, like in the case of the text throwing a ball, then she has to feel free to do it that way,
without being judged if she is doing it because she wants, because she has been raised that
way or because she does not know any other way to do it. We should respect everyones’
decisions.

Next up, the author explains the differences between the social classes and how these can
affect on the behaviour of the people and even on how they use their body. How for
example, the upper middle-class feels very “at ease” with themselves and their surroundings
and they even tend to have an unshakeable confidence in themselves in most everyday
situations. “For example, upper middle-class women often dress in ways that are felt to be
‘chic’, and they move in ways that are felt to be ‘elegant’.”
Chapter two - Modern culture and everyday life

In this chapter the author starts introducing another character which in this case is a German
sociologist, Max Weber, and with him, the author introduces us to the topic of bureaucracy.
In this system, it is the bureaucratic role that commands authority, the role that that person
occupies and the set of rules and procedures that are enforced by that role, not the person
who occupies the role itself.

We can see the clear example in schools, where children have to “obey” the teacher not
because she or he has some special qualities but because he or she occupies the role of
schoolteacher.

Next up there is some aspect I would like to comment which appears with the following
quote: “Only someone who is a ‘professional’, an ‘expert’, is regarded as being able to do the
job properly (Macdonald, 1995).” I think this is true and I agree with this sentence even
though in the text it is seemed to be a criticism. “Only someone called a ‘doctor’ is defined as
being capable of medically examining patients; only someone called a ‘lawyer’ is defined as
being able to deal with legal matters; and so on.” But actually I do not see a problem in that. I
totally agree with this sentence because people who are “professionals” usually became that
because they worked hard and they have specific knowledge in that field. If I go to the
doctor, I would like to have a doctor who had studied a lot on that subject, who had worked
on it and who is a professional in his field. I would not like just a random person to be a
doctor. I think if he is considered as a professional in that way, it is because he or she
deserves it.

Later in the text, the author writes about how all these “professionals” are supposed to act, in
this case, they have to follow their image and just like they are, they have to act the same
way, they have to seem professional to others.

Another idea the writer incorporates is about how people's’ ideas, attitudes, opinions and
even lifestyles change depending on which context they live in. In big cities like London or
New York, there is plenty of information surrounding us which tries to make us think one way
or another. We are potentialy overloaded. To survive in places like this, the author tells us
about the idea that people who live in this kind of places, end up developing certain coping
strategies like ignoring. I think this is a really good way to deal with all this bunch of
information because there are so many products, so many ideas which are trying to reach
your mind that if we would have to pay attention to all of them, we would never have time to
do anything at the end.

In conclusion of this part of view of the “city life”, as Simmel says, “if we do not block out the
chaos or urban life, it will carry us away”.

In the part of “Revolt into style”, the author talks again about this “city life” but this time,
about how we would like to be seen, as individuals. Not too much out from the crowd but at
the same time, not just another member of the common herd. I think it is good to be a little
bit “unique” and show the world your taste in different aspects. Always respecting others. But
I like to see how different people dress up and get ideas to create my own style, for example.

Next up the text is about how sometimes we act like “individuals” but being part of a group. I
think this is really relieving at some point because sometimes you can find yourself lonely
about liking something in particular and then, if you find other people with whom you can
share this feeling, it is nice. But at the same time, I think that we should more and more try to
just be ourselves and do not think that much about what other people will think about us or
how other people are gonna look at us. Everyone is unique and everyone has its own taste
which we should respect.

In the part of Accentuating the modern, the author talks about tourists and how “we”search
for the “real” in other places but not your own place, which at the end ends up being too
commercian, inauthentic and not “real” at all. I think nowadays it is very hard to find “real”
places. I agree with the author in the point that usually, all the places we visit are very
commercialized and companies are trying to sell you some kind of product connected to the
specific place. How can we visit the “real” places when we travel, then? It seems that
everywhere you go, there had been someone who discovered it before and had already
made something to that place which is not making it “unique” anymore.