In choosing classes for the fall semester, we not only set our daily schedules, but also decide which questions will provide the framework through which we will confront new ideas. For example, students who enroll in classes that focus on the United States’ role in international politics will then come to view the global community in terms of American involvement; whereas students who are exposed to arguments that concentrate on the expansive role of international organizations in structuring relationships between countries will perceive the world from a more institutionally-based perspective.

Although it may seem that there are certain requirements we must fulfill or certain family members we should appease in taking particular classes, it is important to remember that the classes we take will inform the stories we see around us. There are two divergent ways of responding to an event based on a person’s inferred intentions: (1) the idea that one’s actions are consequences of his character and (2) that circumstances surrounding the event may have led to certain decisions being made. Whatever we attribute to be the “true” reason for an action is determined by our backgrounds and the norms that we have cultivated through our academic and social education.

The realities under which we operate are not entirely under our control, however. Most of our values, which we take for granted as being right, have already been incorporated into our lives as kinds of “life facts” that are uncontested and uncontestable. Those notions of what is good and bad, appropriate and inappropriate, seem to us as set in stone, for they are so basic that no one challenges their validity.

But what if someone eventually does?

Imagine, for instance, that you have been raised to believe that children are only to speak when spoken to and that they must avoid prolonged interactions with adults, because doing the contrary would be socially taboo. You were not permitted to discuss everyday events with your parents or to relate to them in an informal manner since it would be interpreted as rude. In this theoretical case, you have been socially educated to these particular norms and, by staying within that culture, those principles have not been challenged.

But then you come to America, where children and parents often relate to one another like friends (or sometimes like enemies). The norm—or rather value—is relating through shared experiences and informal discussions so that if those roles are not fulfilled, the child-parent relationship is viewed as defective. This social norm, so ingrained in the American psyche, reinforces the concept of what constitutes morally acceptable interaction. Therefore, when entering into a context of American parental relationships from a background of nearly opposite relating principles, your basic understandings of how to demonstrate respect and avoid instances of insolence is completely turned around. In this case, not only are you confronted with this different paradigm, but people also expect you to take on their values quickly so that you “fit in.” The more others push you, the firmer your lines may become, since not only have you been educated to uphold these principles throughout your childhood, but they have become part of your identity. You dig deeper to defend your values because they are in effect who you are.

This situation swiftly raises the question of “who is right?” Are my cultural values (and thus my identity) legitimate, or must I consider the possibility that the paradigm of another culture is equally as valid—or perhaps even more so. The above example is not quite so difficult, but think about the same problem in the case of cultures that demand the subversion of the individual for the success of the collective. Coming from a strongly individualist American society, it would be extremely difficult to negotiate a comfortable personal role in which one could reconcile that cultural individuality with the promotion of the group, which may involve great self-sacrifice.

I offer these concepts as differing paradigms through which to interpret the events that unfold before us. Our decision to take certain classes helps to construct and reaffirm the norms in which we feel comfortable. We have the option to push ourselves to be uncomfortable so that our ideas of what constitute our most fundamental values, and thus identities, are challenged and revisited. If we choose to confront these principles and are willing to take on the task of rationally determining the validity of differing value systems, it is helpful to suspend our basic beliefs, even if only for a moment, to fully attempt to understand the virtues of seemingly contrary positions.

Cassel is a member of the class of 2013.