Also thinking about Washington a bit more, there is definitely a “cultural divide” between urban and rural. It shines through clothing and hobbies. The example of the IPA guzzlers I used was distinctly urban.
Thinking about the Greater Idaho movement in eastern Washington and Oregon reflects a political divide. I’m not sure if its only basis is that people in those regions want lower taxes and less environmental regulations. I’m curious if there is a cultural angle here. Are there insurmountable differences between the cascades that would lead to a breakdown of the state as we know it? Or is it politically based? Can we even separate the two?
if skiing is prominent in one part of Austria but not another, then what makes it “very Austrian” instead of “very Gratz”?
The people in Cle Elum and I have very different hobbies, but i wouldn’t call my hobbies or their hobbies any “more Washington”. Maybe i’d call their hobbies “more rural” and mine “more urban”, or maybe “more” or “less affluent”.
Maybe the “more Washington” hobbies are the ones that people outside of Washington think of as unique/special to Washington. Hiking? Boating? Fishing?
Or is it internally decided - maybe it’s the hobbies that the people in WA argue have a big role in the state’s history?
When does a hobby escalate from being a part of a person’s identity? To a community’s identity? To a region’s identity? To a nation’s identity?
I think it becomes a community identity when there’s a significant amount of resources devoted to it across institutions.
Skiing is a big part of many of the “states” in Austria not only because students have a right to skiing bestowed on them through school, but also because it is viewed as a prominent past time for many families. If I asked my students in Graz what they did during the weekend or during a break, I would probably get the answer of skiing the most.
To add another institution, there’s a famous ski competition in Austria held in Kitzbühel every year. Many of my Austrian friends watched it, as they do almost every year.
The geography of Austria also lends itself to a skiing culture. Taking a train across Austria takes much longer in proportion to distance as it would in Germany. The mountains surround almost every large city. Some capital cities don’t even have direct trains because of the mountains.
The affluence part is pretty key here. Some of my teachers have expressed their worries about global warming and rising prices making it almost impossible for less affluent people to ski.
It’s interesting that you bring up what outside people see as the culture defining the culture. I think that with most things, there are stereotypes about people that have their basis in truth. Washingtonians like IPAs and skiing and whatnot because it’s something that stands out in the fold. I’m not saying that everyone is like that in Washington (and I don’t think you are either) but there is a large subset of the population that stands out.
I’m not really sure how a nation’s identity is formed.
I think identity can be exclusionary at times. What I detest about Austrian law and by extension culture is their citizenship policy. In order to gain citizenship, it takes about 5 years if you’re married and 10 years if you’re not. That’s not even counting the fees which can sometimes get into the thousands of Euros. The far right party in Austria wanted to raise the fees under the guise of “balancing the budget” but it seemed pretty obvious what they were doing.
TLDR: I think it’s about geography and institutions. I have no clue how the identity is formed or if the defining features come from the outside or inside. I assume it’s kind of both?
Also thinking about Washington a bit more, there is definitely a “cultural divide” between urban and rural. It shines through clothing and hobbies. The example of the IPA guzzlers I used was distinctly urban.
Thinking about the Greater Idaho movement in eastern Washington and Oregon reflects a political divide. I’m not sure if its only basis is that people in those regions want lower taxes and less environmental regulations. I’m curious if there is a cultural angle here. Are there insurmountable differences between the cascades that would lead to a breakdown of the state as we know it? Or is it politically based? Can we even separate the two?
if skiing is prominent in one part of Austria but not another, then what makes it “very Austrian” instead of “very Gratz”?
The people in Cle Elum and I have very different hobbies, but i wouldn’t call my hobbies or their hobbies any “more Washington”. Maybe i’d call their hobbies “more rural” and mine “more urban”, or maybe “more” or “less affluent”.
Maybe the “more Washington” hobbies are the ones that people outside of Washington think of as unique/special to Washington. Hiking? Boating? Fishing?
Or is it internally decided - maybe it’s the hobbies that the people in WA argue have a big role in the state’s history?
When does a hobby escalate from being a part of a person’s identity? To a community’s identity? To a region’s identity? To a nation’s identity?
Thanks for the comment
I think it becomes a community identity when there’s a significant amount of resources devoted to it across institutions.
Skiing is a big part of many of the “states” in Austria not only because students have a right to skiing bestowed on them through school, but also because it is viewed as a prominent past time for many families. If I asked my students in Graz what they did during the weekend or during a break, I would probably get the answer of skiing the most.
To add another institution, there’s a famous ski competition in Austria held in Kitzbühel every year. Many of my Austrian friends watched it, as they do almost every year.
The geography of Austria also lends itself to a skiing culture. Taking a train across Austria takes much longer in proportion to distance as it would in Germany. The mountains surround almost every large city. Some capital cities don’t even have direct trains because of the mountains.
The affluence part is pretty key here. Some of my teachers have expressed their worries about global warming and rising prices making it almost impossible for less affluent people to ski.
It’s interesting that you bring up what outside people see as the culture defining the culture. I think that with most things, there are stereotypes about people that have their basis in truth. Washingtonians like IPAs and skiing and whatnot because it’s something that stands out in the fold. I’m not saying that everyone is like that in Washington (and I don’t think you are either) but there is a large subset of the population that stands out.
I’m not really sure how a nation’s identity is formed.
I think identity can be exclusionary at times. What I detest about Austrian law and by extension culture is their citizenship policy. In order to gain citizenship, it takes about 5 years if you’re married and 10 years if you’re not. That’s not even counting the fees which can sometimes get into the thousands of Euros. The far right party in Austria wanted to raise the fees under the guise of “balancing the budget” but it seemed pretty obvious what they were doing.
TLDR: I think it’s about geography and institutions. I have no clue how the identity is formed or if the defining features come from the outside or inside. I assume it’s kind of both?