I'm feeling particularly at a loss as to what to write here for my final reflection. Do I examine the injustices of institutions visited upon people and countries a la IMB/WB, Monsanto, etc? Or the resourcefulness exhibited by the people of Cuba when facing economic collapse? My readings this quarter, "Economic Apartheid in America" and "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid" were depressing and aggravating, respectively. The former painted a bleak picture of wealth disparity in our nation, and the former was a overhyped puffed up piece that essentially promoted the exploitation of the poor as a new source of profits for multi-national corporations. Both of these left me with little to reflect on.
A true gem however did appear on the Channel - Alex's publicized self-debate and outreach in his forced dealings with a homeless man. This conversation triggered significant discussion between my wife and I as we talked about best practices and strategies for outreach.
So for my last reflection this quarter, I decided to ponder how I can apply my learning from this past quarter to an improved stance on social justice issues as I move forward. Coming into this class I believed wholeheartedly in a 'color blind' scenario. The major shift for me has been seeing that this is not always the best solution - although I still believe strongly in valuing people for their passion, ability, and attitude. Still, I see more clearly now that disenfranchinsement will not be quickly remedied by a generation of color blind individuals - the fact of the matter is that when we are born we are not blank slates. I like to imagine that we are placed on a game board, something like chutes and ladders, and that where we are born and to whom we are born dictate our starting position. I still believe that being "color blind" is the key to enabling fair movement on the game board of life, but I know temper that with the knowledge and understanding that we don't all start out at square one, and that it will be quite some time before that is true.
What are the practical lessons I can take from this? How do I reconcile a beliefe in equality of opportunity while attempting to also make concessions for those who have farther up the ladder to climb? This seems to me to be an underaddressed point of our social justice learning - practical application. But perhaps that's because there is no one correct methodology that can be applied to a number of situations - perhaps each requires its own approach. So if I imagine myself as a business owner in the future, how can I provide social justice to my employees and community, beyond simply being color blind? I believe I could start by identifying the points on which someone may be disadvantaged based on background - experience, connections, wealth, education. These are, however, the prime factors by which most HR departments make hiring decisions! Yet there must be a way to tease apart these issues, or reduce them.
One strategy could be to institute an aggressive interning program, and directing outreach to underserved areas and groups. Another solution could be a more thorough interview process that relies more on the face to face conversations than ink on a paper - it would take more time and be more costly, but the rewards could be substanial - not only could one capture potentially better employees, but would be more equitable to those with a disadvantaged background. Maintaining a salary ratio within the company is something I've always maintained would be a priority, as would assisting with employee wellbeing. Without tackling social justice issues as a primary goal, I would mostly be coming at the issue sideways, but that's certainly better than not hitting it at all. And the ripple effect from a single company's practices can be a powerful influence.
These are just a few ideas of how I might employ social justice in my future business. I look forward to discovering more as I continue to grow and develop better eyesight when it comes to social justice issues.
18 March 2010
14 February 2010
A Speck of Dust - The relationships
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the relationships of things in our culture and society. How does governance fit in and how did it evolve? How will it evolve in the future? What relationships do we have as a culture and country to others in the world? What are their interior relationships?
Watching the film Life or Debt, which talked about the economic shifts in Jamaica, particularly as an example of the impact of IMF and WB policies and influence. Later, as my wife was watching Jane Austen's Emma, I realized that individuals born where we are at are the global aristocracy - the nobles, lords, princes, and princesses of the world. Meanwhile we subjugate other nations like Jamaica through instruments of coercion. In so many ways our government and corporations have conspired to twist the arm of other groups around the world to make their lives easier. It's easier to take than to create, and that's what much of our cultural tools have evolved into. I asked myself what it would be like to walk through downtown Bellingham with burning vehicles in the street and military personnel out walking around with automatic weapons. Absolutely surreal and I could not possibly imagine it. Part of me believes this is truly a good thing. The bad part is still that it's NOT a surreal experience to some individuals - it's a part of their daily lives.
Part of the conversation on the channel this week has gone to discussing what a social enterprise is - are people like Dave and his bread business social entrepreneurs? Or are they merely moral capitalists? Does a social entrepreneur need to focus their business around social justice, or can it arise as a side benefit of their primary operations? My thoughts coming to BGI were that I wanted to run a business that treated it's employees and community with respect. To pay them well - everyone. Ensure they are protected in times of hardship. Make a community rather than a workforce. To me, that was social justice - because, if everyone simply did that, I don't believe we'd have the issues that we do.
But maybe that is naive. Maybe we do need businesses and organizations that have a primary focus on the community. Certainly, I would find it hard to argue against the need for such entities at the present - maybe my idea of social justice would work in an already egalitarian world, but not it our present one of disparity and injustice.
Earlier today I was reading the Dr Seuss book, Horton Hears a Who, and I began thinking about our local community, which is looking to start a community garden. I was then showing Jesse where we lived on a globe, and I was trying to describe to him the scale of the earth. Having walked from Canada to Mexico along the PCT, I feel like I have a pretty good sense of scale - yet I still struggled to find the words to describe even the scale of our state - our county. Still, the immensity of our planet is small in the scale of the universe. We find ourselves feeling so self important on this planet, yet we're just a pale blue dot in space. We're the speck. And what's beyond the world of the speck? Finding a sense of scale geographically is important for an environmental consciousness. Finding a sense of scale humanistically is important for a social consciousness. What's the range of human experience? How bad can it be? How bad is it? How GOOD can it get? I've seen the poor in America, but my world travels haven't exposed me to those scales enough. Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, England, Canada (hah) - all wealthy countries. The minority population, certainly in terms of numbers. And the global aristocracy. Even the poor in America are rich on a global scale.
Trying to bring this around back to earth, what does this all mean for me? It's well and good to talk on a grand scale but what are the practical takeaways of social entrepreneurship? Sometimes I want to move away to another country where the politics and culture are already more in line with my personal beliefs. But sometimes I feel like that place doesn't truly exist - sure I can make some small gains for my spirit, but my overall position and impact would remain the same. So how do we enact change from within?
Bringing this down to the local community, I only get my trash pickup once a month. This fact sometimes arises in conversations with my neighbors, and gives me the opportunity to tell them how we've done it, just by watching what we buy and thinking ahead. This has had an impact in their behaviour and at the very least their knowledge and perspective to the realm of what's possible. Change does not come easily and it grinds slowly. We must start with our own consciousness first, and our own community, if we are to bring lasting change. The attitudes must change, and it starts with each of us. Don't find a new country, and new school, a new friend - make what you have into what you want it to be, which certainly starts with modeling that ourselves.
Watching the film Life or Debt, which talked about the economic shifts in Jamaica, particularly as an example of the impact of IMF and WB policies and influence. Later, as my wife was watching Jane Austen's Emma, I realized that individuals born where we are at are the global aristocracy - the nobles, lords, princes, and princesses of the world. Meanwhile we subjugate other nations like Jamaica through instruments of coercion. In so many ways our government and corporations have conspired to twist the arm of other groups around the world to make their lives easier. It's easier to take than to create, and that's what much of our cultural tools have evolved into. I asked myself what it would be like to walk through downtown Bellingham with burning vehicles in the street and military personnel out walking around with automatic weapons. Absolutely surreal and I could not possibly imagine it. Part of me believes this is truly a good thing. The bad part is still that it's NOT a surreal experience to some individuals - it's a part of their daily lives.
Part of the conversation on the channel this week has gone to discussing what a social enterprise is - are people like Dave and his bread business social entrepreneurs? Or are they merely moral capitalists? Does a social entrepreneur need to focus their business around social justice, or can it arise as a side benefit of their primary operations? My thoughts coming to BGI were that I wanted to run a business that treated it's employees and community with respect. To pay them well - everyone. Ensure they are protected in times of hardship. Make a community rather than a workforce. To me, that was social justice - because, if everyone simply did that, I don't believe we'd have the issues that we do.
But maybe that is naive. Maybe we do need businesses and organizations that have a primary focus on the community. Certainly, I would find it hard to argue against the need for such entities at the present - maybe my idea of social justice would work in an already egalitarian world, but not it our present one of disparity and injustice.
Earlier today I was reading the Dr Seuss book, Horton Hears a Who, and I began thinking about our local community, which is looking to start a community garden. I was then showing Jesse where we lived on a globe, and I was trying to describe to him the scale of the earth. Having walked from Canada to Mexico along the PCT, I feel like I have a pretty good sense of scale - yet I still struggled to find the words to describe even the scale of our state - our county. Still, the immensity of our planet is small in the scale of the universe. We find ourselves feeling so self important on this planet, yet we're just a pale blue dot in space. We're the speck. And what's beyond the world of the speck? Finding a sense of scale geographically is important for an environmental consciousness. Finding a sense of scale humanistically is important for a social consciousness. What's the range of human experience? How bad can it be? How bad is it? How GOOD can it get? I've seen the poor in America, but my world travels haven't exposed me to those scales enough. Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, England, Canada (hah) - all wealthy countries. The minority population, certainly in terms of numbers. And the global aristocracy. Even the poor in America are rich on a global scale.
Trying to bring this around back to earth, what does this all mean for me? It's well and good to talk on a grand scale but what are the practical takeaways of social entrepreneurship? Sometimes I want to move away to another country where the politics and culture are already more in line with my personal beliefs. But sometimes I feel like that place doesn't truly exist - sure I can make some small gains for my spirit, but my overall position and impact would remain the same. So how do we enact change from within?
Bringing this down to the local community, I only get my trash pickup once a month. This fact sometimes arises in conversations with my neighbors, and gives me the opportunity to tell them how we've done it, just by watching what we buy and thinking ahead. This has had an impact in their behaviour and at the very least their knowledge and perspective to the realm of what's possible. Change does not come easily and it grinds slowly. We must start with our own consciousness first, and our own community, if we are to bring lasting change. The attitudes must change, and it starts with each of us. Don't find a new country, and new school, a new friend - make what you have into what you want it to be, which certainly starts with modeling that ourselves.
27 January 2010
Multicultural "Generalizations" - the new stereotype
I’ve been thinking lately about the impacts of cultural stereotypes on our world vision. Personally, I dislike using them. Last fall in one of my classes at BGI we had a segment on multiculturalism and there was a lot of discussion at how “useful” such cultural stereotypes and/or generalizations could be. This really grated against my instinct to categorically reject such tools. But I have to ask myself: why? Why is it, precisely, that I think such tools are not tools at all, but excuses for laziness?
I come from an admittedly thin racial and cultural background – a true American mutt mix of Irish, Polish, and German immigrants, along with some colonial settlers and Cherokee thrown into the mix. So I’m a white guy. Yet I absolutely loathe that sort of labeling. Those little checkboxes on multiculturalism I always check the “other” box. I do this because I am not my race, or even my cultural background. Certainly I am impacted by my immediate cultural surroundings, but in today’s global environment, as connected as we all are over the internet, and exposed to various cultures as we have become, it’s hardly fair to say, or assume, that the nation of one’s origin is even the leading factor in shaping each individual.
It has been argued that cultural stereotypes and generalizations give us useful information about the perspective an individual comes from. I see the idea here, but it’s flawed in its application. We can learn about another’s culture and customs, and let that knowledge inform us as we interact with an individual from another culture – especially when it comes to areas of offense and ritual – but it should not be the first mental model we put on when talking to a new acquaintance from another region of the world. Each person that we meet must, absolutely 100% of the time, be treated as a unique individual. The part of me that refuses to be labeled is the same part that also refuses to label others. I have a very strong sense of individuality and self identity. I am not a “product” of my environment, but a self shaping entity – guided and nudged by my environment, by not dictated by. I have reached out across cultural boundaries to absorb and integrate the aspects of other individuals and cultures as I have come across them.
I don’t want to learn about multiculturalism and some generic practices I can apply to my interactions with another individual. That’s just common respect, decency, and understanding. I’ve been surprised at times certainly by how others from a different cultural background have acted, yet I did not need a priori knowledge of their culture to handle it, just an open and learning mind. I have also seen just how similar two individuals from different cultural backgrounds can be – and the corollary – just how disparate two individuals from the same cultural background can be. Trying to stamp a label on your interaction, or put some shade of glasses on, is a mistake, no matter how well intentioned, or how good you think those glasses are.
Teaching cultural generalizations I feel is a dangerous practice. It’s little more than stereotypes, renamed. Yes we can try and dress it up as something kinder and gentler, but the facts of its origins and influence remain. If we want to prepare someone for interaction with an individual from a different culture, we need to first teach them an open mind. The best way to learn about the cultural differences is first hand – and anyone with the right mindset can have a positive interaction with someone from a different culture if they have their head in the right place. I feel the first hand method is truly best, because you can not know what aspects of an individual’s background cultural potpourri they have adapted and taken on themselves – nor which aspects of other cultures, in today’s world, they have adsorbed as well. Each human interaction is a separate event – not some amalgamation of a nation or race. The diversity of individuals is staggering, and without the right mindset – not “information” in terms of cultural generalizations – we can approach and deal with each person on equal footing.
If we feel we must inform others of cultural differences, the proper way to do so is through cultural education. That means learning about religious practices, social practices, governmental practices, and economic practices. It means learning the history of a place; what happened yesterday, what’s going on today, and what’s going to happen tomorrow. Yes, it is a lot of work and it’s specific to one culture. In teaching on generalities, however, we are jumping to conclusions, and not imparting understanding. This is the major failing of the methodology I feel. You can say “Person A is from country B, therefore they likely have view X of the world”. That might be true. It also might not be true. What’s missing is the middle part – the why. Why does individual A have view X? It’s not because they grew up at latitude 47.3 N and longitude 122.5 W, it’s because of the institutions they have been exposed to. Without an understanding of those institutions, we only see part of the picture. We are unable to make intelligent choices in our interactions when all we have is a generic end product to utilize. There’s this cultural black box where we have knowledge of some inputs and their expected outputs. What we don’t know, however, is what happens when we put in some other input – without understanding someone’s cultural “black box”, we are unable to make new decisions, or infer possible outcomes in novel situations. Having an open mind enables one to adapt to the outputs of a cultural black box, however.
Absolutely the most important aspect of positive cross cultural interactions is an open and learning mind. With that as a foundation, we are well adapted to handle any cultural variation thrown our way. We can handle the new global cross-cultural blends that we will encounter. And it prepares us for any differing culture – not just those for which we have memorized their cultural generalizations. An even deeper understanding can be obtained by an open minded individual undertaking study of other cultures and their histories – of course this only provides information to inform them of interactions with individuals impacted by those institutions, but is still useful in its own right.
My rationale for this view stems from my self-held belief of the individual. It’s possible my view is skewed because I fall into numerous outlier populations, several standard deviations from the norm. Perhaps because I am relatively unique, I project that image onto everyone else, but perhaps that is not the case? Thus far, however, my interactions with other individuals, over the past 30 years, have informed me that even people who don’t fall into outlier populations are still quite capable of being unique. Perspectives from people who grew up right next door are sometimes just as surprising as those of someone from halfway across the globe. Multiculturalism in the workplace is then really just another way of saying – you need to be able to handle different individuals from yourself, not just those from different locations and of racial background.
As somewhat of a postscript, I’d like to briefly discuss the point that multiculturalism is often not tied with the country or culture of origin, but with race. This, to me, is absolutely deplorable and functionally useless. I grew up with numerous friends whose parents were first generation immigrants from China, Vietnam, Japan, Ukraine, and India. While they were influenced by their parents’ perspectives, the stronger influence certainly was the cultural they grew up surrounded by in the greater Puget Sound region, and everything that entails. To counterpoint this, there certainly are individuals who, despite relocation, bring their cultural practices with them. I find this intriguing because these individuals seem to find their self-identity not as an individual, but as a culture. Perhaps, however, this is a view that they enjoy and see no detractor to, and it’s my western cultural upbringing with a focus on individual uniqueness that finds this strange. Perhaps if we embraced our culture AS our identity, the world would be a better place? Thinking about this a little more, there are certainly examples within all cultures of this – people who cling to their religion, their culture, or their nation as representative of who they are. Americans and western Europeans are certainly no exception to this phenomenon. So rather than strictly a cultural issue, once again, I believe this comes down do differences at an individual level – further reinforcing my point that it is wholly dangerous to try and apply a generic label to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.
Everyone is unique and in all our interactions we must come prepared to learn.
I come from an admittedly thin racial and cultural background – a true American mutt mix of Irish, Polish, and German immigrants, along with some colonial settlers and Cherokee thrown into the mix. So I’m a white guy. Yet I absolutely loathe that sort of labeling. Those little checkboxes on multiculturalism I always check the “other” box. I do this because I am not my race, or even my cultural background. Certainly I am impacted by my immediate cultural surroundings, but in today’s global environment, as connected as we all are over the internet, and exposed to various cultures as we have become, it’s hardly fair to say, or assume, that the nation of one’s origin is even the leading factor in shaping each individual.
It has been argued that cultural stereotypes and generalizations give us useful information about the perspective an individual comes from. I see the idea here, but it’s flawed in its application. We can learn about another’s culture and customs, and let that knowledge inform us as we interact with an individual from another culture – especially when it comes to areas of offense and ritual – but it should not be the first mental model we put on when talking to a new acquaintance from another region of the world. Each person that we meet must, absolutely 100% of the time, be treated as a unique individual. The part of me that refuses to be labeled is the same part that also refuses to label others. I have a very strong sense of individuality and self identity. I am not a “product” of my environment, but a self shaping entity – guided and nudged by my environment, by not dictated by. I have reached out across cultural boundaries to absorb and integrate the aspects of other individuals and cultures as I have come across them.
I don’t want to learn about multiculturalism and some generic practices I can apply to my interactions with another individual. That’s just common respect, decency, and understanding. I’ve been surprised at times certainly by how others from a different cultural background have acted, yet I did not need a priori knowledge of their culture to handle it, just an open and learning mind. I have also seen just how similar two individuals from different cultural backgrounds can be – and the corollary – just how disparate two individuals from the same cultural background can be. Trying to stamp a label on your interaction, or put some shade of glasses on, is a mistake, no matter how well intentioned, or how good you think those glasses are.
Teaching cultural generalizations I feel is a dangerous practice. It’s little more than stereotypes, renamed. Yes we can try and dress it up as something kinder and gentler, but the facts of its origins and influence remain. If we want to prepare someone for interaction with an individual from a different culture, we need to first teach them an open mind. The best way to learn about the cultural differences is first hand – and anyone with the right mindset can have a positive interaction with someone from a different culture if they have their head in the right place. I feel the first hand method is truly best, because you can not know what aspects of an individual’s background cultural potpourri they have adapted and taken on themselves – nor which aspects of other cultures, in today’s world, they have adsorbed as well. Each human interaction is a separate event – not some amalgamation of a nation or race. The diversity of individuals is staggering, and without the right mindset – not “information” in terms of cultural generalizations – we can approach and deal with each person on equal footing.
If we feel we must inform others of cultural differences, the proper way to do so is through cultural education. That means learning about religious practices, social practices, governmental practices, and economic practices. It means learning the history of a place; what happened yesterday, what’s going on today, and what’s going to happen tomorrow. Yes, it is a lot of work and it’s specific to one culture. In teaching on generalities, however, we are jumping to conclusions, and not imparting understanding. This is the major failing of the methodology I feel. You can say “Person A is from country B, therefore they likely have view X of the world”. That might be true. It also might not be true. What’s missing is the middle part – the why. Why does individual A have view X? It’s not because they grew up at latitude 47.3 N and longitude 122.5 W, it’s because of the institutions they have been exposed to. Without an understanding of those institutions, we only see part of the picture. We are unable to make intelligent choices in our interactions when all we have is a generic end product to utilize. There’s this cultural black box where we have knowledge of some inputs and their expected outputs. What we don’t know, however, is what happens when we put in some other input – without understanding someone’s cultural “black box”, we are unable to make new decisions, or infer possible outcomes in novel situations. Having an open mind enables one to adapt to the outputs of a cultural black box, however.
Absolutely the most important aspect of positive cross cultural interactions is an open and learning mind. With that as a foundation, we are well adapted to handle any cultural variation thrown our way. We can handle the new global cross-cultural blends that we will encounter. And it prepares us for any differing culture – not just those for which we have memorized their cultural generalizations. An even deeper understanding can be obtained by an open minded individual undertaking study of other cultures and their histories – of course this only provides information to inform them of interactions with individuals impacted by those institutions, but is still useful in its own right.
My rationale for this view stems from my self-held belief of the individual. It’s possible my view is skewed because I fall into numerous outlier populations, several standard deviations from the norm. Perhaps because I am relatively unique, I project that image onto everyone else, but perhaps that is not the case? Thus far, however, my interactions with other individuals, over the past 30 years, have informed me that even people who don’t fall into outlier populations are still quite capable of being unique. Perspectives from people who grew up right next door are sometimes just as surprising as those of someone from halfway across the globe. Multiculturalism in the workplace is then really just another way of saying – you need to be able to handle different individuals from yourself, not just those from different locations and of racial background.
As somewhat of a postscript, I’d like to briefly discuss the point that multiculturalism is often not tied with the country or culture of origin, but with race. This, to me, is absolutely deplorable and functionally useless. I grew up with numerous friends whose parents were first generation immigrants from China, Vietnam, Japan, Ukraine, and India. While they were influenced by their parents’ perspectives, the stronger influence certainly was the cultural they grew up surrounded by in the greater Puget Sound region, and everything that entails. To counterpoint this, there certainly are individuals who, despite relocation, bring their cultural practices with them. I find this intriguing because these individuals seem to find their self-identity not as an individual, but as a culture. Perhaps, however, this is a view that they enjoy and see no detractor to, and it’s my western cultural upbringing with a focus on individual uniqueness that finds this strange. Perhaps if we embraced our culture AS our identity, the world would be a better place? Thinking about this a little more, there are certainly examples within all cultures of this – people who cling to their religion, their culture, or their nation as representative of who they are. Americans and western Europeans are certainly no exception to this phenomenon. So rather than strictly a cultural issue, once again, I believe this comes down do differences at an individual level – further reinforcing my point that it is wholly dangerous to try and apply a generic label to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.
Everyone is unique and in all our interactions we must come prepared to learn.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)