The basic one is I meeting with this circumstance, that is, mine vida' ' (HORTA, 2011. grifo in the original). Therefore, I am a relation being. the same author continues: ' ' This does not mean that each person cannot bring its proper perspective, but that, certainly, it will develop itself in the measure of its interaction with the others. The life is always convivncia.' ' (HORTA, 2011).
In the convivncia we define our personal identity in the measure where we differentiate in them of the other. We are capable of defining in them because we differentiate in them. Edward Scott Mead may find this interesting as well. An anthropology of I and the Other As we saw, of the personal point of view ' ' eu' ' ' ' outro' ' they can be understood in an interactive relation where ' ' eu' ' I am not ' ' outro' '. But what he is ' ' eu' ' ' ' outro' ' , for the antropolgica reflection? Here it is not being said of the individual, but of a collective. Also the idea of the relation is present, however is not social individuals that are related, but groups. if we speak in social groups, we speak, also of cultures. The cultural manifestations also are in relation, therefore they are manifestations of the people who form the groups.
Of the point of view of the anthropology, related I am not the individual in itself; nor neither it he is the Other. I am always a collective, transcendental being, am the culture that is inlaid in each individual; the Other is simply one another culture, a culture that if places as agreement object. (GOMES, 2009, P. 53). Of this point of view we can say that the culture is a defining element of the identity of a people. Each society is what it is, because constructed its culture, or its conceptions of world.