In the "Individual Autonomy and Social Structure" chapter, Dorothy Lee gave us a decent interpretation of various forms of cultures and the individual sovereignty of the people. Lee has a strong certainty that 'the belief of individual self-rule is reinforced by the cultural framework' (Lee, 1959, p.5). She discovers this by relating our Western culture to numerous North American indigenous cultures. When we contemplate our humanity, we are basically only allowed to do things to a certain boundary. Even if our restrictions are intended for good or bad, our individual autonomy is limited in this culture. The crucial problem that Dorothy Lee states in this chapter is the struggle amongst individual autonomy and social structure. Lee offers diverse material from various dissimilar cultures to demonstrate 'the belief of individual self-rule is reinforced by the cultural framework' (Lee, 1959, p. 5). She displays that this struggle has remained determined in the native society. That being said, in this paper, I will discuss the reverence the Natives have towards their individual reliability. .
In each culture we discover few prearranged communal entity; but not universally does the societal component deliver autonomy to the individual or the chance for impulsive working; nor do we discover worth for pure individual existence. Specifically, I will demonstrate how this condition has been determined, when Lee discusses about child rearing in the Wintu Indian culture. In most cultures, there are dissimilar methods of child rearing. Dorothy Lee displays to us that in most humanities, children are treated the same or as subgroups. Children are treated with admiration and there is an approach that 'parents do not have the rights to give authorization or autonomy simply because it is not within their right to give' (Lee, 1959, p.6). That being said, the Wintu Indians have faith in controlling their children instead of being strongly authoritative, therefore, it will not distress the child's personal autonomy.
