Does context make us change, or do we change context?
The relationship between us and our environment is deeply complex. To ask whether it is context that shapes us or whether we change it is to examine the true nature of human potential and, in turn, cultural evolution. Context- including historical, political, social and economic circumstances- certainly moulds us into who we are. Yet, we also possess the capacity- through action, denial and invention- to alter our environment. Therefore, the answer to this question must be a reciprocal response, not a “yes” or “no”.
Firstly, context - as we have seen through both past and present- influences our actions, thoughts and identity. A child born and raised during the war in Ukraine develops different habits and instincts than one raised in peace. They’re accustomed to instability, emotional distrust and fear, developing (as labelled by trauma specialists) a response called hyper vigilance: constantly being in a state of alertness to cope with threats. They will view the world as brutal, unfair and unstable, whilst the child growing up in upper-class Paris will see it as fair and full of opportunities. In addition, many sociologists argue that since society existed before the individual (think you or me) it must have more influence on us than we do on it. Therefore, whether it happens consciously or subconsciously, context can define everything from morals to our primary perceptions of reality.
However, this isn’t the end of the story. Our history is full of people who, each in their own way, changed their contexts. Whether by resisting it or amplifying its values, they managed to make an impact that spread to millions and embedded itself in forthcoming generations too. Think of Galileo, who courageously went against the rigid religious boundaries of the 16th century, yet redefined the trajectory of both astrophysics and human observation. Or philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, who laid the foundation of modern feminism and women’s rights. The list goes on. These people did not allow the conditions of their time define them and their limits; they took action, and -in so doing, transformed the realities of their era. So, within the constraints of our society, we have the capacity of “the power to begin” and to cause lasting change.
Additionally, the way each of us perceives context is never uniform. Even within the same setting, each individual perceives and reacts to it differently. While some submit to authority, others rebel. While some stay silent, others shout. This resistance -big or small- can challenge even the most dominant of social norms. As an example, the civil rights movement and the Renaissance were both periods brought about through individuals joining together. Therefore, change to a context can rise both from the power of the individual but also through the force of unity.
Although, even the capacity to change context is composed of inequalities. One’s power and position play an important role in defining whether one can cause such changes. Marginalised groups coming together may find the strength to resist, but thousands of voices have no other choice but to stay silent; access to education and resources are needed to catalyse change and we live in a world where these are unavailable to most. In sum, even our agency is restrained.
To conclude, individuals interact with their context not through dominance- but through dialogue. We are products of the conditions of our past, present and future, but that doesn’t mean our destinies are carved in stone. While some resist, invent and catalyse global transformation, others have no other choice but to obey and remain silent under the oppression of unbreakable societal barriers.
So, we can say that: yes, it does define us, but only through our response to it.