| |
The other participants said that
it was a really good session because this group had set up the
room differently (i.e. with rugs instead of chairs) and other
compliments about set-up, but nothing about the content of the
training. The organizers asked if anyone had anything else to
add, and I said that I had a good deal to add still (my chest
still tightens up a bit with emotion as I recall this to type
it out). I started out by saying that, from a professional point
of view, I thought that it was a terrible mistake to combat discrimination
and prejudice against minorities or whoever else by using cartoons
that stereotypes the majority, whether they be whites, soldiers,
or whoever. Then I said that, from the standpoint of a participant,
I was deeply offended personally, since it was obvious what country
or what nation the cartoons were talking about—mine. I explained
in detail why I thought it was so and what my experience had been
as a participant in this particular training session. I did not
yell or raise my voice or anything like that, but it was apparent
that I was having some difficulty keeping my emotions under control.
I said my piece, and the first reaction, which came from someone
who had become a relatively good acquaintance of mine during the
previous week or so, was something like, “Wow! I didn’t
see that at all, but you’re so right, I’m sorry! I
could have done the exact same thing without realizing it!”
A few more comments ran along those lines, but most people did
not really know what to say.
So, the group broke up and my team went to go work on our training
session, but it was very easy to see that my reaction had changed
the way that some of the people interacted with me, that some
of them started to see me as a kind of crouched animal ready to
strike, but there were several people in the group who more or
less understood my point of view and redoubled their efforts to
be supportive of me. I had a couple of long talks with people
who I had gotten to know rather well but who did not know how
to react to what I said, and the consensus we reached was that
we had understood “the rules of the game” differently.
During the first four days, we said that we would give (and receive)
direct, open, and honest feedback from each other, both as fellow
trainers and as participants. I had taken this at seemingly face
value and had given my direct, open, and honest feedback as a
participant in that group’s training—that I was deeply
offended and hurt. The Europeans did not agree that “direct,
open, and honest” feedback included emotional feedback of
the kind I gave; perhaps it would have been OK to talk with the
group in private (but still not as emotionally as I did), but
it was certainly not something to be discussed in public. The
main sentiment that came out as a result of these conversations
was something akin to “I can imagine how bad I would feel
if I had been that group!” and so they were unhappy and
also hurt because of how it played out.
I had learned that the rules of the game were not clear (or even
if they were, that people had understood them differently), and
I rather resigned myself to being content with continuing to talk
with the people that I now had to talk to for the last two days
of the training. For better or for worse, it was not to be.
During the last training session on the last day, I took part
in a skit, in which someone said (asking about me), “What
does he look like?” The reply was, “Like an American.”
During the comment session afterwards, I merely remarked that
the group needed to be careful in how they implement skits in
the future because setting up situations that allow for that kind
of sentiment to come out of the participants can be dangerous
(i.e. saying that about an American is not that terrible a crime
in the public’s mind, but something like "Like a Jew"
or "Like a homosexual" would be different). Well, apparently
that was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.
A fellow from Serbia let loose on me, saying “I do not understand
why people tie their personal identities into the politics of
their country.” This seemed to me to be a not-so-logical
conclusion about what I said that week (especially considering
that I had made it quite apparent all week that I do not agree
with the politics of my country’s government), but he continued.
He talked about how utterly ridiculous it was that I felt persecuted,
that nationalism had no place in modern, civil society, that nationalism
had misled his people into a bloody, satanic, and criminal crusade
against other people (there was a girl from Bosnia who started
getting visibly upset at this), and compared me to the Serbs back
then and Bush now and a whole bunch of other things that I do
not recall.
After he finished, the organizers offered me a chance to respond,
to which I said simply, “This is not the time nor the place
for this discussion, but I hope you can understand this when I
say that what you just said about me is terribly unfair.”
Then I said that I was saddened by the obvious breakdown in intercultural
communication that had happened in the group over the last couple
of days, and that I was even more saddened at how the way I was
able to interact with several of the participants had changed.
I offered to hold a special “training” session later
that night to discuss my experience during this week of training
and to see if we could have a discussion about what all happened.
We then left the large hall and went to the dining room, where
we were all quite confused to see a party set up and waiting for
us, complete with great food, booze, steamers, balloons, confetti,
silly hats—the works. After coming from that terribly tense
situation, people did not really know what they should do. I left
them to their somewhat awkward party and went to prepare my session.
I began with a short talk about Bennett’s Developmental
Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. One group had done a session
on this model, but they had left people somewhat confused, and
since understanding this model was sort of the basis of my talk
with them, I held a short lecture on it. Essentially, the model
describes the change in people’s perception of the value
of another culture’s values, going from completely denying
that the other culture’s values have value or worth or legitimacy,
to acknowledging that your and their values are different but
saying yours are better, to saying that people are really the
same deep down inside (which really means “everyone is just
like me”), to acknowledging that the other culture’s
values are indeed fundamentally different but are a valid way
of approaching the world, to adapting your own behavior to the
values of that culture, and finally to integrating the values
of that culture into your being and being able to switch comfortably
between the values of that culture and the values of your original
culture (the terms for this progression are denial, defense, minimization,
acceptance, adaptation, integration). There is a huge qualitative
jump between minimization and acceptance, because it means that
you’re going from a state of ethnocentricity (my culture
is the measure of all things) to ethnorelativism (my culture is
not the measure of all things), which is a jump that very few
people make. Ninety-eight percent of people and of all intercultural
exchanges exist on the level of defense and minimization (i.e.
my culture is better than yours or everybody is really just like
me).
After that, I went into how the week had started well, but how
I’d then felt attacked for being American, and not just
because of the careless mistake of that one group, but also because
I felt that people were taking out their difficulty in understanding
the material that we were studying on me personally. The concepts
we were learning, though quite different from “traditional”
educational processes, were still rather American ideas that were
all thought up by Americans. I processed, internalized, and then
used these ideas with relative ease, while other people were having
very difficult struggles with the fundamental concepts. Several
times during the week, both during the learning part and during
the practical part, I felt that instead of trying to internalize
these ideas, decide what would be useful for them, and then discard
the rest, people were using my presence to externalize what should
have been an internal conflict. After all, I was there, I was
American, and I could understand, use, and defend the concepts
we were trying to learn. This certainly helped me learn the concepts
better than I would have otherwise, but I did feel a bit attacked.
I also talked about my experience during that training in detail
and about the pain that I’d felt afterwards when people
treated me differently or didn’t know how to act around
me, and they talked about how the whole group had been hurt by
what I had said because all of them had imagined themselves in
the shoes of the members of that group. The discussion also got
very tense at times, especially with that one particular Serbian
guy who did not want to hear what I and others were saying. He
declared that he would never agree to anyone tying up his or her
personal identity with some sort of national identification as
well. My reply was something along the lines of, “No one
can force you acknowledge the meaningfulness of people’s
national identities, but if you continue to disregard the meaning
of people’s national identities and attack them for it,
you’re going to accomplish nothing but continuing to hurt
a lot of people.” I definitely understand his perspective;
for him, it is crucial to divorce himself from the crimes that
his people committed (even during his own lifetime) in the name
of “the people” and “the nation.” Although
my nation has committed and is committing terrible crimes against
innocent people, I don’t tie my identity to the crimes,
and I fight to turn my nation away from its bloody path.
I talked and sparred and answered questions and discussed for
about three hours straight, after which I declared that I had
had enough and was going to rest. Even then, the conversation
didn’t stop. Others continued to talk about these issues
even after I had finished. What really surprised me was that practically
all the participants dropped by the discussion at some point or
another, and several were there for all three hours and then stayed
on afterwards.
It was a fascinating experience and growth opportunity for me—a
look into how Europeans understand themselves and others, and
how most of them still have a good way to travel on their own
paths of intercultural learning and sensitivity, particularly
as concerns Americans—but then again, most Americans also
have a way to travel, and they face a much more uphill battle,
since the American government and American media establishment
seem intent on destroying any opportunity for intercultural understanding.
We all, even those of us who are international youth trainers
(let alone the rest of the world), still have a long way to go
in our journey of intercultural understanding. I’d say that
should be obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper or watches the
TV news. Ever since mankind split up into different groups, developed
different languages, and developed different cultures to adapt
to their environments, we have been misunderstanding each other—sometimes
to humorous effect, and sometimes to tragic effect.
During Pentecost, as described in Acts 2, the disciples spoke
in the languages of all the people, “Jews from every nation
under heaven.” This is the kind of dialogue that God calls
us to be in and the kind of witness he calls us to give, not only
with the people we live next to, but with all of his people under
heaven. This would not solve all of the world’s problems
overnight, but listening to the Other from his or her perspective
is a serious step in the right direction.
I leave you with a thought from Shakespeare, who I’ve not
brought into our conversation for a while. Take care of yourselves,
until we meet again.
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice...
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy...”
-William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act
IV, Scene 1 (slightly edited)
Peace,
Grant
|
|
