So, a truly wonderful thing about my undergrad degree (academic study of religion/religious anthropology) is the way I learned to see cultural traditions within the context of the people who created them, instead of the other way around. AKA people are shaped by their culture, yes, absolutely, but, most often, cultures were shaped by people first, and are constantly re-shaped by them. It genuinely helps with world-building more than anything else.
Example One: Say I decide I like the idea of a culture that primarily uses a form of sign language and largely do not use audible speech when communicating to each other. Why would they, en mass, do this, despite having the (theoretical) capability of speech and hearing? Well, maybe this culture/ethnicity/species has an unusually high rate of selective mutism, total mutism, and people who are both deaf and mute. With a small enough population, with a high enough portion of members being (at least somewhat) less capable of speech and hearing? It could theoretically produce a culture that values silence in public/shared spaces, sees defaulting to verbal communication as rude and unnecessary: a culture that treats a signed form of communication as the "mother tongue" even to hearing and speaking members.
This can further guide my world-building by directing my IRL research: why simply make things up when every culture on Earth (or very nearly) has a signed version? I can delve into psychological, sociological, and historical research on deaf communities across the world and gain inspiration for how I create their beauty standards, their idea of manners, how they resolve conflict, what holidays they'd likely create for themselves.
Example Two: Say I want to create a society where the default/most common romantic orientation is aromantic, and the default/most common relationship structure is some variety of non-monogamy. How does that effect their music, their legal structure, what they daydream about as children, what sort of things influence their decisions on reproduction if not romantic love? If I decide that a small number of their members (equivalent to the believable rate of IRL aromantics) DO experience romantic attraction, how is that viewed? What terms do they use for it?
If I decide that this story MUST include an arranged marriage anyway, what structures or incentives can I build into their society to create the demand for marriage of any kind, let alone arranged ones that have reproductive potential? Maybe I give them a hierarchy that hinges on guaranteed hereditary heirs for certain positions of power, or land contracts, or effing space stations, IDK! Maybe I give them a country that's only technically independent, and make it clear in the text that a larger, more dominant culture had coerced them into using this structure.
I can give more examples if prompted, but, honestly, this advice boils down to asking yourself Why? I genuinely find it easiest to give a culture its "unique" traits first and build outward from there, while keeping in mind that most culture norms started as a response to their ancestors' reality. Sometimes through subconscious change, sometimes through external interference, sometimes through deliberate effort on the part of those involved. Always recall that every aspect of a culture will effect every other aspect: economy influences government influences art influences general sense of humor influences general sense of right and wrong.
gummygunk
izzy806
dededos
jbbartram-illu
theartofmadeline
prguitarman
snowghoul
