Saturday, April 12, 2008
culture, balance, & community
"Balance" - won the 1990 Oscar for Best Animated Short
"The truth is that a large percentage of Latin Americans either nurture or tolerate relationships in which personal loyalty is rewarded and merit is substantially ignored. In Latin American culture loyalty rarely extends beyond the circle of friends and family. Thus the public sector is profoundly mistrusted and the notion of the common good is very weak." (Carlos Alberto Montaner, "Culture and the Behavior of Elites in Latin America" in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress)
A couple weeks ago I was sitting next to Julie in church, acting like a brat. Being a cultural studies major I have a hard time listening to speakers talk about things relating to culture because I spend the whole time quibbling with the things they say inside my head. Also, I'm a senior in college and I think I know everything.
We've all heard the sermons and talks about how individualistic America is and how our utter lack of community is putting us on the road to hell. Right. Well, if I've learned anything from cultural studies, it's that every culture can turn good things into bad by taking them to the extreme. Just like in most things in my life, if I forget to maintain a balance, everything is ruined.
I've been slowly working my way through this awesome book (that I've talked about before) called Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, and you could basically call it an anthology on how sin affects entire cultures and holds them back. It's sin's destruction and human depravity on a meta-scale: meta-depravity.
The quote above is how Latin America (and other cultures, too) has screwed up a good thing like community and family. When a culture gets to a place where they don't trust the public sector, where individuals cannot win elections or make business agreements without bribery, the reliance on community has gone too far. Henri Nouwen says that (I'm paraphrasing) if an individual cannot be alone, they should not be in community, and if an individual cannot be in community, they shouldn't be alone. Balance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's important to take into account that Latin Americans are often dealing with completely corrupt political systems anyway - so there's a lot of legitimate mistrust. Elections are often moot. The levels of poverty are high, and the politicians are extremely wealthy. Also, organized crime and gang-run cities make trust difficult, too. Especially when the government doesn't protect its citizens from crime because the police are in cahoots with the gangsters.
ReplyDeleteWhen I lived in Mexico and rode public buses, the police would pull over the buses and steal all the fare money from the driver - and if the driver protested, the police would write him a ticket.
Additionally, I found Mexicans extraordinarily warm and welcoming to me, though I was a stranger. I didn't sensed any closed-offness. This is also my experience with my Nicaraguan and Ecuadorean relatives.
Just an alternative way of looking at things...
right, Latin America (from what I've read) is like that - corrupt, poverty stricken, etc. but culture is why it is like that and how it keeps on going. so the book's point (and that paragraph tries to explain) is how Latin American values keep that behavior going.
ReplyDeleteAnd the paragraph isn't saying that Latin Americans aren't nice to strangers, it's saying that they won't trust strangers. If there is a job opening, you give it to your nephew (qualified or not) because you can trust him.
"personal loyalty is rewarded and merit is substantially ignored" - if you are related, great. but i think the point the book is trying to make is that societies progress by seeking the common good (based on merit), not by making sure that your family gains honor and bribes the right people.
This was a thought-provoking post, especially the paraphrased quote at the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find this very hard to swallow. I don't know if it's even logical to say that the government is corrupt because the people are distrusting, or that because of a plebeian values system gone askew, the government is forced into bribery and rigged elections.
ReplyDeleteHow are the people responsible when they don't actually have access to power?
As Rachel said, "I'd be very wary of telling victims they're being victimized because their values are wrong."
If you want to name sin as the cause of mass-victimization, that's more of a epistemological or theological issue than cultural anthropology or sociology issue I think. And again - it seems almost callous to place the guilt on those victimized.
Also - poverty and corruption exist everywhere - even in the U.S. - and cultures are vastly different (obviously). So if individualism is to blame here, and isolationism is to blame in Latin America (assuming you can clump Latin America into a single cultural generalization) - What cultural flaw of the low castes in India is to blame? Can we blame Russians' love for vodka for the extreme poverty and political corruption there? What cultural flaw can be pinned on the Khartoum refugees, or the hundreds of thousands dead? Were they too community oriented?
It's the same argument that says people of color in the U.S. are disenfranchised because they're lazy and godless. Or that women get raped because they're asking for it.
I guess I don't understand the point of the book.
It also implicitly suggests that relatively stable cultures are somehow culturally superior. Like the prosperity gospel - if things are going well for you, it must be because you've got all your ducks in a row. If things aren't going well, it must be because you're not tithing enough or praying enough or don't have enough faith.
Anyway - that's jumbled - but all this to say, I'm greatly troubled by the book as I understand it.
I won't speak for M, but I seriously doubt that this author is saying that the governmental corruption is due solely to an overabundance of community-feel.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we looked at this from the beginning? There's a man with not much family running for political office. So he already has a lack of familial support, and he lacks family ties and alliances with other families, alliances that the other candidate would have. Already it's twice as hard for him to campaign.
So someone says, in not so many words, that if you pay us enough, we'll change the votes for you. And he's desperate, so he does.
What caused this niggling corruption? Greed? Yes. Desperation? Yes.
Could an argument be made that this was started because this guy didn't have the family back-up that the other guy did? Yes.
I *think* this is the perspective the book might be taking. It's how I understand it, anyway.
I don't think anyone asks to be corrupted, to be ruled by a corrupt government, but I also don't think that being ruled by a corrupt government is anywhere near the level of monstrosity that being raped or enslaved is. Governments can always be changed - rape cannot.
I don't think anyone asked for this - I do think that some cultural traditions made it easier for someone to take advantage, and for some to feel desperate.
/ramble
I'm not sure how to respond to the hypothetical candidate story. I don't see that as reflecting a cultural phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteRe: corruption v. more violent forms of victimization. I don't think these things are necessarily separate or mutually exclusive. They often go hand in hand. Also, I also don't consider lifelong subjection to poverty, dirty water, no schooling and no health care much different than enslavement. It's just a different kind of shackle, and corrupt governments get away with it all over the world.
I was trying to give an example of how the Latin American culture could have affected (not caused, but affected) the way their current government works - or doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they are separate or mutually exclusive - I agree with you, they often go hand in hand. I don't they are the same, however; equal in their wrongs on people and society.
Boy, we are just disagreeing all over the place, today, aren't we?
I'll leave it here, though, I have to get packing.
first of all, societies are extremely complex and there is hardly ever any clear causes or effects. we can only try to identify major movements in thought or value that might influence a culture one way or another (and distinguish it from other cultures that went other directions)
ReplyDeleteUnder the assumption that each society (like all organizations) has its assorted vices and virtues, I believe that we can learn more about a culture by trying to identify these. This will not be exact, but I think it can be helpful and interesting.
Also, the point of my post was to present the case that there can be a balance of values in a society or organization. Community is a buzz word right now and I wanted to present the case that seeking community exclusively without an eye on keeping balance could be harmful. The US is constantly criticized for being too individualistic, but I think this individualism has helped American culture in a lot of ways, as well as harmed us. I want to try to figure all of this out.
And another quote from the book to address Ailsa's comment about people in power not being affected by the plebeian values: "I want to stress at the outset that it is not fair to blame only the elites, who are, in large measure, a reflection of the broader society. If their behavior strayed radically from the norms of the broader society, they would be rejected." At least, most of the time. There are always exceptions to every rule. However, one can make the case that Hitler capitalized on existing German values to accomplish his ends.
I see your point - it's not that I think culture has no impact. But as much as Hitler may have capitalized on "German values" - Germany was virtually in ruins when Hitler came to power. "Blood was still running in the gutters" from WWI, inflation was through the roof (people burned money to stay warm), and people were starving. With the exception of the decadent Weimar Berlin, the people were consumed by poverty and were faced with no hope. Hitler came along and promised a strong Germany, a successful and wealthy Germany - so as much as this may have appealed to "German values" - however you'd define them - he essentially exploited (or capitalized on) interwar vulnerability by appealing to instinctual things, like the urge not to starve to death.
ReplyDelete