Allow me to preface this entry by saying I love my job. There is nothing I’d rather be doing, there is no place I’d rather be. I consider it an honor and a privilege to be where I am doing what I’m doing.
That said, it is not an easy thing to work and live in the developing world. There are any number of cultural differences to which one must grow accustomed. However, some adjustments are certainly more challenging than others. The transformation is painful, but indispensable. In many cases, a failure to acclimate is to ensure an early departure. I’m not speaking of a fist-pounding, curse-evoking aversion for hot weather year-round or the rage of detecting the hard way a grain of sand in your rice. These are annoyances, though persistent they are, that easily pass away with the comforting clamor of a monsoon rain. Rather, I’m referring to the social and cultural shifts – might as well call them tectonic shifts given all the explosive, earth-shattering emotions that are involved – that an ex-patriot must undertake for survival. These shifts are life-changing as they dictate how we operate, both professionally and relationally, on a day-to-day basis; they are pervasive and constant, touching virtually every facet of life. This goes to say that they are inescapable.
I work for an organization that was founded over 125 years ago. In recent years it was rated as one of the most effective organizations ever. It spans over 100 nations world-wide and positively impacts the lives of millions. Here in Sri Lanka, as well, the organization enjoys an impeccable, unimpeachable reputation based upon a long, illustrious history of sound social welfare programs. Yet, as is the case with all international organizations, the Sri Lankan branch must necessarily possess the intrinsic cultural traits, practices, traditions, modes-of-thought of the country. (Herein lays the challenge for the outsider.) This is not the first time I’ve worked with this organization. In fact, my entire professional life, short-lived though it has been, has been in its service. The efficient, focused, and driven American-model of the organization stands in contrast to the bureaucratic, cautious, and deliberate local model, of which I am now a part. After almost four months in Sri Lanka, I still struggle to reconcile these two competing models.
What I really should learn is that they’re not competing at all. My own erroneous conceptions and comparisons alone, steeped in self-righteous Western biases, are what put them at odds. What I really should learn is that I am a 25-year old nitwit that shouldn’t feel he’s at liberty to voice objections to a system that has been in place far longer than he’s been alive. I haven’t yet learned either of these lessons (sad, I know). But I’m working on it.
This personal example gives shape to the larger issue at hand. The alien’s experience is in large part defined by the line between how things are (in this new, often bewildering place) and how s/he thinks things should be. Now, while “should” does not always denote “It should be this way, but is not the case,” in this instance it means just that. Defined in this way, ‘should’ is a powerful word. (One that is best given due weight, and not thrown around lightly.) A relative to ‘could,’ ‘should’ encompasses the element of potentiality. But, unlike ‘could,’ ‘should’ also expresses an imperative; it is not only possible but also important/crucial/obligatory/correct that it be so.
“Shoulds” are great. Every ideal Humankind holds as sacred, as worth fighting for and protecting, springs from the concept of “should.” I should love my neighbor as myself. Government should be guided by the voice of the people. So on and so forth. But, as potent and meaningful as “shoulds” can be, they serve many other purposes (not all as noble as the above). They make you feel in control even when you’re utterly helpless to change a situation. They provide a sense of superiority, as if somehow someway you know better. “Shoulds” reduce (at least in the mind) the status quo to the worthless prattling of a ranting, petulant, irrational, temper-tantrum throwing child. In the heat of the moment, when nothing makes sense (i.e. the rules seemingly serve no purpose at all) and you feel as if the world is evilly conspiring against you, “shoulds” enable you to achieve some shallow emotional equilibrium by writing things off as stupid and backwards. As your fingers go white with the strain of holding onto your sanity, I’d say “shoulds” are a good route to take. After all, public meltdowns are something one ought to avoid.
The struggle of many an ex-pat (and I’m no exception) manifests in this nurturing of “shoulds”. Beaten down by a day of failures, setbacks, and delays, “shoulds”, again, provide a sanctuary (albeit fictional) of control. But, when given free reign, these “shoulds” become destructive and delusional. Like a swarm of flies, incessant and maddening, “shoulds” have an uncanny ability to monopolize your attention. You become preoccupied with your own illusions of how-what things should be. Buzzing about, landing briefly, nonchalantly wandering about, and narrowly, mockingly escaping your swatting hand, “shoulds” are not easily ignored, and can take over.
Connecting this to my previous entry, it would almost be easier were this an issue of moral disparities. In a time of ever-increasing moral relativism, there’s infinitely more latitude for differences in moral perspectives. However, as Western capitalist business and organizational practices (preaching speed and efficiency) expand, native practices (fostering sincere relationship development, communal reciprocity and empowerment, and steady deliberation) are not only on the decline, but are being stigmatized as backwards, archaic, and a hindrance to “progress”. In this ideological context, it is all but blasphemous to say that these long-established ways of working are legitimate. The fact is, these practices are not really about ideology, business models, or getting the job done; they are rooted in the collective personality that typifies a nation and culture. Please forgive the sweeping generalization, but many Sri Lankans are more or less passive and non-confrontational. These characteristics, giving rise to an inclination towards the methodical, gradual, and cautious, directly inform all of the above. Thus, when one broadly condemns prevalent organizational practices, it is, at best, an indirect attack on cultural identity. This cultural identity has allowed for the development of a complex, rich, perseverant society that has been in existence for millennia.
So, where does that leave me? Well, I’ve sworn off “shoulds”. Just when I feel the words bubbling up, I have to tell myself to shut up. (Anyone who’s been in a similar situation knows how difficult this is. It just feels so good to lambaste a seemingly unnecessary, meaningless… fill in the blank.) I’d like to say that the latter paragraph is the main reason for my self-imposed censorship. But, honestly, it’s as much a matter of realism as it is about respect. As noted earlier, “shoulds” can take over before you know it. “It should be this way, it should be that way, yada yada yada.” The fact is, I really don’t know any better. The “shoulds” that I irreverently identify are not meant to be helpful; they are criticisms, each and every one, that make me a feel a little better about a world I can’t control. I’ve realized that each “should” is an indicator of my own inability to adjust. I’m not here to change how things are done. Rather, I’m here to be of service. The sooner I come to terms with that reality, the more effectively I’ll be able to do my job. Now, I’m far from perfect. The occasional “should” escapes my lips. But I’m getting better. The flies have stopped keeping me up nights.
That said, it is not an easy thing to work and live in the developing world. There are any number of cultural differences to which one must grow accustomed. However, some adjustments are certainly more challenging than others. The transformation is painful, but indispensable. In many cases, a failure to acclimate is to ensure an early departure. I’m not speaking of a fist-pounding, curse-evoking aversion for hot weather year-round or the rage of detecting the hard way a grain of sand in your rice. These are annoyances, though persistent they are, that easily pass away with the comforting clamor of a monsoon rain. Rather, I’m referring to the social and cultural shifts – might as well call them tectonic shifts given all the explosive, earth-shattering emotions that are involved – that an ex-patriot must undertake for survival. These shifts are life-changing as they dictate how we operate, both professionally and relationally, on a day-to-day basis; they are pervasive and constant, touching virtually every facet of life. This goes to say that they are inescapable.
I work for an organization that was founded over 125 years ago. In recent years it was rated as one of the most effective organizations ever. It spans over 100 nations world-wide and positively impacts the lives of millions. Here in Sri Lanka, as well, the organization enjoys an impeccable, unimpeachable reputation based upon a long, illustrious history of sound social welfare programs. Yet, as is the case with all international organizations, the Sri Lankan branch must necessarily possess the intrinsic cultural traits, practices, traditions, modes-of-thought of the country. (Herein lays the challenge for the outsider.) This is not the first time I’ve worked with this organization. In fact, my entire professional life, short-lived though it has been, has been in its service. The efficient, focused, and driven American-model of the organization stands in contrast to the bureaucratic, cautious, and deliberate local model, of which I am now a part. After almost four months in Sri Lanka, I still struggle to reconcile these two competing models.
What I really should learn is that they’re not competing at all. My own erroneous conceptions and comparisons alone, steeped in self-righteous Western biases, are what put them at odds. What I really should learn is that I am a 25-year old nitwit that shouldn’t feel he’s at liberty to voice objections to a system that has been in place far longer than he’s been alive. I haven’t yet learned either of these lessons (sad, I know). But I’m working on it.
This personal example gives shape to the larger issue at hand. The alien’s experience is in large part defined by the line between how things are (in this new, often bewildering place) and how s/he thinks things should be. Now, while “should” does not always denote “It should be this way, but is not the case,” in this instance it means just that. Defined in this way, ‘should’ is a powerful word. (One that is best given due weight, and not thrown around lightly.) A relative to ‘could,’ ‘should’ encompasses the element of potentiality. But, unlike ‘could,’ ‘should’ also expresses an imperative; it is not only possible but also important/crucial/obligatory/correct that it be so.
“Shoulds” are great. Every ideal Humankind holds as sacred, as worth fighting for and protecting, springs from the concept of “should.” I should love my neighbor as myself. Government should be guided by the voice of the people. So on and so forth. But, as potent and meaningful as “shoulds” can be, they serve many other purposes (not all as noble as the above). They make you feel in control even when you’re utterly helpless to change a situation. They provide a sense of superiority, as if somehow someway you know better. “Shoulds” reduce (at least in the mind) the status quo to the worthless prattling of a ranting, petulant, irrational, temper-tantrum throwing child. In the heat of the moment, when nothing makes sense (i.e. the rules seemingly serve no purpose at all) and you feel as if the world is evilly conspiring against you, “shoulds” enable you to achieve some shallow emotional equilibrium by writing things off as stupid and backwards. As your fingers go white with the strain of holding onto your sanity, I’d say “shoulds” are a good route to take. After all, public meltdowns are something one ought to avoid.
The struggle of many an ex-pat (and I’m no exception) manifests in this nurturing of “shoulds”. Beaten down by a day of failures, setbacks, and delays, “shoulds”, again, provide a sanctuary (albeit fictional) of control. But, when given free reign, these “shoulds” become destructive and delusional. Like a swarm of flies, incessant and maddening, “shoulds” have an uncanny ability to monopolize your attention. You become preoccupied with your own illusions of how-what things should be. Buzzing about, landing briefly, nonchalantly wandering about, and narrowly, mockingly escaping your swatting hand, “shoulds” are not easily ignored, and can take over.
Connecting this to my previous entry, it would almost be easier were this an issue of moral disparities. In a time of ever-increasing moral relativism, there’s infinitely more latitude for differences in moral perspectives. However, as Western capitalist business and organizational practices (preaching speed and efficiency) expand, native practices (fostering sincere relationship development, communal reciprocity and empowerment, and steady deliberation) are not only on the decline, but are being stigmatized as backwards, archaic, and a hindrance to “progress”. In this ideological context, it is all but blasphemous to say that these long-established ways of working are legitimate. The fact is, these practices are not really about ideology, business models, or getting the job done; they are rooted in the collective personality that typifies a nation and culture. Please forgive the sweeping generalization, but many Sri Lankans are more or less passive and non-confrontational. These characteristics, giving rise to an inclination towards the methodical, gradual, and cautious, directly inform all of the above. Thus, when one broadly condemns prevalent organizational practices, it is, at best, an indirect attack on cultural identity. This cultural identity has allowed for the development of a complex, rich, perseverant society that has been in existence for millennia.
So, where does that leave me? Well, I’ve sworn off “shoulds”. Just when I feel the words bubbling up, I have to tell myself to shut up. (Anyone who’s been in a similar situation knows how difficult this is. It just feels so good to lambaste a seemingly unnecessary, meaningless… fill in the blank.) I’d like to say that the latter paragraph is the main reason for my self-imposed censorship. But, honestly, it’s as much a matter of realism as it is about respect. As noted earlier, “shoulds” can take over before you know it. “It should be this way, it should be that way, yada yada yada.” The fact is, I really don’t know any better. The “shoulds” that I irreverently identify are not meant to be helpful; they are criticisms, each and every one, that make me a feel a little better about a world I can’t control. I’ve realized that each “should” is an indicator of my own inability to adjust. I’m not here to change how things are done. Rather, I’m here to be of service. The sooner I come to terms with that reality, the more effectively I’ll be able to do my job. Now, I’m far from perfect. The occasional “should” escapes my lips. But I’m getting better. The flies have stopped keeping me up nights.
posted by Tucker R. at 9:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home