On one hand we have the idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" and this related image has been very popular on Facebook lately,
On the other hand, we have the idea that it's nothing short of evil to "keep up with the Joneses" and this quote, also popular on Facebook lately, speaks volumes for the way we value individuality, as well as the way we view community:
It's been my experience over the past few years of living in a "collectivist or communal" society that there is little concern for people beyond their adherence, or lack of adherence, to the norms and mores of the community, no matter what and no matter, even, if they're family.
In other words, the typical American views about communal culture are wrong. There's no "love of the people within a community" and there's certainly no value for the individual feelings or thoughts of the members. The objective is a sense of social/communal comfort based on conformity. The goals are to follow and to copy others. Members must make other people feel comfortable by changing their own own attitudes and behaviors.
During the training that I had before coming here, we were told over and over that "doing" is not valued in communal cultures. As Americans, we often base our opinions of ourselves and others on what we "do". That can range from our jobs to our personal behavior, but the components involve action; having a lofty title is great, but what do we "do" with it? Likewise, we may be employed as a janitor, but a strong work ethic and kind heart can make all the difference in whether other people value us, or not.
In a communal culture, it's true that more value is placed on "being" as opposed to doing. There is, however, a problem with the American interpretation of "being". We think of "being" as existing. Being ourselves. Being natural. Being honest, even. Based on my experience and what I've seen, that is decidedly NOT the way "being" actually works. The focus on "being" is based, very often, on things out of one's control (race, ethnicity, nationality, inherited social status) or on the outcomes of some kind of privilege including educational attainment, job title, or marital status. One of the biggest conundrums many Americans face here is that we're still thinking about the "do" part of "being". If you have a bachelor's degree or higher, aren't you capable of "doing" more high level thinking? Aren't you supposed to continue learning? Aren't you supposed to use the knowledge that you supposedly gained? Aren't you "doing" the responsibilities associated with that job title? Leading, managing, teaching? Staying on top of the latest trends and economic indices, if applicable? If you are a spouse, aren't you "doing" the job delegated to your position in the household? Making the money, cleaning, cooking, taking care of the yard? Reading to your children?
Being implies that you are what (not WHO) you are - nothing more is required. You don't have to "do" anything once you get the position...other than keep it - by any means necessary, I might add. Once a degree is received, you're finished. You don't have to "do" anything more. And finally, once you're married, and especially for women who have already tackled the responsibility of giving birth, your responsibility is over. From the point of gaining the education, job, or marital status, the focus is on "being" that role - not "doing" that role.
And that's really hard for a lot of us to get our arms around.
Value in the community is absolutely placed on the role one carries. No action is required other than keeping the role.
What that may create is artful, or awful, pretending. Pretending to be productive. Pretending to be a kind spouse. Pretending to believe the word of God that is heard or even spoken. Perhaps that's why there is so much corruption, nepotism, back-alley negotiation, and even environmental destruction. Anything different involves "doing" and that's not necessary, so why bother? Follow. Conform. Do what you're told. Know your place...
I'll never forget a staff meeting many years ago (in the US) in which the staff actually attempted a form of appreciation and shared ideas for empowering the team only to be shut down with the admonition that "this isn't some kind of kum-ba-ya organization". The implication was clear - such concerns for the group, as a whole, are akin to the spiritual song in which people sit in a circle holding hands as they sway side to side and sing...mushy...kum-ba-ya. Togetherness. Feel-good. Mutual appreciation. Disdain that's not surprising from a culture that seemingly values individualism above all else, or is it?
My point is that just because people are sitting in a circle holding hands, singing and swaying, does not mean that their needs are being honored. Many Americans see such an image through our own cultural ideas of valuing other people as individuals (of course I do the exact same thing - my lens is VERY American - Southern, to be exact).
We are often not aware of the ones who've been sent from the circle, banished from the village, shut down and kicked out. Too often, anybody who doesn't want to sit in the circle and sing, or maybe wants to sing a different song, is banished to the netherworld. In some communal societies, that idea of kum-ba-ya couldn't be farther from the truth. The practice of some communal societies is not based on an American idea of "community" in which all members are valued, but upon the idea of conformity; ideas and actions that do not conform to the status quo cause friction - destroy the "harmony" (even though harmony requires that different notes play at the same time...)
To maintain a semblance of "harmony" or unity, the following are much more applicable: subtle pressure, ultimatums, or bullying to force compliance, accepting and submitting to the power of peer pressure, and finally, contributing to and/or excusing the marginalization of minority opinions and/or people.
Those realities fly in the face of what many Americans assume when we think of communal societies and the idea of community...but maybe that's because even though we're thinking of a supposedly different social structure, we're still using our values to define it and give it meaning. We assume that each individual has intrinsic worth - dignity, rights, and is valuable. In some communal societies, the value of the individual only goes as far as his or her ability to conform to the expectations of the group, and maybe most of all, to "be" their role in the social structure.
Now let's talk about us - Americans. People from the United States...
What is this individualism that we seem to value? Is it selfishness? Is it looking out for our own self-interest? Is it defined by "the wolf of Wall Street? Do we value that? Who is "our"? Our gender, race, or religion? Are we capable of going beyond our own interests and doing anything for "the common good"?
I believe that we are - I believe that our focus on the individual is something very beautiful. The flip side of egocentric individuality is the idea (nay, belief) that there is something of intrinsic value in each person that is not determined by her/his "group". That is individualism and that idea, I believe, is very beautiful.
Appreciating an individual involves honoring their very individuality - their struggles, their ideas, their victories, their defeats, even; "who" this person is - individually. What that means is that groups can form based on ideas, principles, values - it can be cohesive and functional - kind and supportive - free of externally imposed concepts of identity (man/woman, white/non-white, this religion/that religion). We can come together - hash it out, maybe even learn something new and grow. We can become a melting pot or even a freshly tossed salad!
It is exactly through honoring the individual that true community can be built - one based on shared values and commitment to those values - rather than one based on the very things of which we have no control, such as gender, race, or ethnicity. We can also move beyond the things that can be TOO controlled; educational attainment, job titles, and marital status. Additionally, kindness matters. Anyone can be kind. Kindness is an individual attribute and it is shared, primarily, one-on-one with other individuals.
Thank you for reading this long reflection. I just want to say and to remind us that there's nothing wrong with individualism and there's nothing wrong with the idea of community. We all just need to remember to appreciate the real goals. A community is composed of many individuals. Love one another. Be kind. Listen.
Neither individualistic culture nor communal culture provide the answer. And that's exactly why we must move into a new direction. Let's stop romanticizing, or even demonizing, what we've created in our own imaginations. Let's build a new way. Shall we?
*This definition, taken from the Geert Hofstede Centre website, explains such social dynamics as this:
...individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. Its opposite, collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty...
No comments:
Post a Comment