Reading Between the Lines: Kibbutz Ketura

       As mentioned by in my earlier posts, the Arava Institute for Environmental Science draws students from all across the world, which means nearly every interaction is loaded with different cultural norms, values, and ideas. The Institute's mandatory Peace and Environmental Leadership Seminar (PELS) is the ultimate boiling plate of cultural communicative differences, both verbal and nonverbal. In PELS we discuss the "hard" topics; things you would shy away from in most American conversations such as politics, genocide, war, and sex crimes. 

Before these seminars started, we were equipped with tools on how to communicate effectively with each other across cultures, most notably Nonviolent Communication (NVC), which focuses on listening fully before responding, and examining why others are saying what they are,  However, due to the trigger nature of these topics, often individuals' guards are dropped and emotions take over. Many times this reverts people to discussing/talking about issues in the way they do in their own culture, which can cause hurt feelings and hostilities to arise between different cultures. This ends up snowballing into a more heated argument with more cultural differences... and you can see how it spirals downwards from there. Further complicating the matter is that English, the language spoken at the Institute, is most student's second, third, even fourth language. This has led to many times a word, or phrase, being used in a context that did not correlate with the speaker's intentions, and upsetting or offending many in the process.

    Barna's wording of "...the tenacity with which someone will cling to just one meaning of a word or phrase in the new language regardless of connotation or context" immediately brought one specific PELS session to mind: the session on rape and sexual misconduct. With 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men having experienced sexual misconduct by the time they are 25 years of age, nearly everyone comes into this conversation with some anecdotal information, whether it be first hand or with regards to a person they know. Additionally, since this topic is one that hits close to home for so many, it quickly becomes emotion-filled and heated, no matter the company one is in. But in this instance, it became really, really intense. 

We had just broke into two groups-one entirely of men, and one made up of women. In the women's group, the facilitator (whose first language was not English) kept referring to women as 'making herself vulnerable' by walking alone at night, or drinking at a party. Quite a few native English speakers jumped on this, feeling that the facilitator was shaming the woman for her actions rather than condemning the actions of the perpetrator.  I don't believe this was the facilitator's intentions, but that was the connotation that came across with the word 'vulnerable'.  Later in the same discussion an ESL (English as a Second Language) student said that "women should get stronger to deal with it". This also set many English speakers off as 1) it made it sound as if women aren't strong to start with 2) it seemed to be excusing the perpetrator. Later in the discussion, it was found that the student meant it more as "a woman should have the ability to report the issue and have it handled", but in the heat of the moment, that was not what people were open to hearing. 

   I have also faced stumbling blocks in communication while here. Israeli culture is what many call "aggressive". Students are not afraid to tell a teacher he is wrong in the middle of class in front of everyone. In return, professors are not afraid to tell students to sit down and be quiet, or else be kicked out of class. In lines, people cut in front of you as if you are invisible. Asking for help with XYZ? You'll be told how ridiculous it is that you don't know how to do XYZ while they help you. I, not being an aggressive person, feel super out of place many times and revert to not saying anything. One of my professors actually TOLD me to be more pushy about getting things done. Additionally, people often comment on my generally happy and joyful disposition in a way that makes me feel like it's not common here; echoing what Barna wrote about 'smiling'. 

Though I'm learning to fit in a little better and not take these things so personally, I am completely suffering the fatigue component of culture shock. However, I am sure by the time these next 44 days are through, I will be over the fatigue and sad to leave this country for the States. Maybe I'll return even a little 'pushier' about things that need done like my professor suggested!

  

Reading Between the Lines

Many different factors go into communication - not just language. Everything from facial expressions to the preconceived understandings and stereotypes of others are relevant and effect your communication. 

One of the miscommunications I've had in Australia when it comes to cultural assumptions has to do with sports. Early when I got here, I assumed that people from Australia didn't follow American sports such as football, basketball, and baseball. This is because I personally have never had the interest to follow any Australian sports such as rugby and cricket. However, after being in Australia for more than 2 months, I have found that lots of people know a lot about American sports and basketball icons such as Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, and James Harden don't just have national fame, but they are also famous in Australia. I was talking to a man on one of the busses about the NBA and in the beginning I was giving him information about different teams and players because I assumed his knowledge would be lacking because he was from Australia. He stopped me at one point and politely told me that he knew what I was saying and he was very capable of following the lingo of the gam. Needless to say, I was embarrassed by my naïvety. 

http://www.msfbasketball.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/nba-australia.jpg

Another cultural assumption I've made that caused a misunderstanding has to do with the outlook some Australians in the northern territories of Australia have toward the aboriginal population. For example, I was eating dinner with a group of people and someone said something about aboriginal people that could have been taken offensively, but based on his facial expression I could not tell if he was being serious or if he was making a lighthearted joke. I was put into an awkward situation because I didn't know how to react to it. In the case of this example, Laura Barna would say that I was experiencing the "Tendency to Evaluate" stumbling block expressed in her paper "Stumbling blocks in Intercultural Communication." I was evaluating what he was saying and judging without knowing it. 

On a more basic level, there are times where just cannot understand what people are saying even though we are both speaking english. Between the unfamiliar slang and lingo as well as the different dialect, it is sometimes hard for me to understand. Most of the time I will politely ask them to repeat what they said if I missed it, but sometimes I am embarrassed to ask and that leads to the tendancy to pretend to follow the conversation (Barna, 1994).

Overall, reading the paper ""Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication," I have been able to reflect on different encounters I've had since being in Australia and attribute them to the fact that not only is the way of life, styles, music, etc. have cultural differences, but the mindset and way of thinking can cause cultural misunderstandings. 

Barna, L.M. (1994). "Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication." In L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter, Intercultural Communication: A Reader. 7th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (pp. 337-346).

Between the Lines: Israel

The Kibbutz from above

For a previous assignment we were asked to interview people in our community to become more in tune with their perceptions of Americans. This began the process of me finding better and greater understanding in the way people outside of America view Americans. The reading for this post also reinforced this understanding. It was mentioned that many people view Americans as superficial or unfaithful to both their friends and their thoughts/opinions/actions. What can be seen on the surface is not always what the American means or feels, but it is generally accepted in America that people smile at strangers when they make eye contact and say things are fine when underneath the veil of cultural norms the individual is experiencing great stress, sadness, turmoil, etc. Overall, we are very introverted and do not share deep personal connection with many. That being said, we have many friendships (most are flimsy) and put the facade of contentedness around our public persona. I believe these things to be generally true about Americans. They are, in fact, generalizations. 

Many of the students that I interviewed for the previous blog mentioned that they think Americans apologize too much. This meaning on an individual basis, like in a crowd, and rarely are sincere. For instance, if someone bumps into a passing individual at a mall it is likely that both parties apologize even if the fault lies in one of the two. This is just one of many examples my interviewees gave, but I think it gets the idea across. And it got me thinking about the other things we tend to do as Americans and questioning how I fit into those assumptions. Then one day I was sitting at lunch and I started to talk about my family in semi-specific and intimate detail. While this didn't seem strange for me, my stories were received with awkward silences and many people glanced toward the ground. Now, I wasn't talking about anything inappropriate, but I thought maybe I offended someone. Later on I asked my Israeli friend what I had done wrong and they simply replied that people were shocked to hear me speak about my personal life so openly. It was not that they were offended by it, but they were shocked and didn't know how to react. It is not rare for people to be quite about their personal lives in Israel too, so I had broken two cultural standards in that regard. 

This is by no means the most severe challenge of assumptions that students studying abroad have felt, I'm sure, but it was interesting to reflect on. Most of the time when I think about cultural misconceptions I think about others living in my environment, not myself. It was interesting to experience this mild event and get to reflect on it productively. I am grateful that more intense occasions have not yet caused greater problems with me or my peers in Israel. 

Resetting Our Goals?

With regards to the question of development posed by Gilbert Rist, I agree that "development" can or rather should be composed of many different meanings and levels according to whose definition is being used. From what I've learned the Western definition of "development" for the longest time has included a free market economy, social services for the less fortunate, and responsive political institutions from of strife or corruption and leads me to think the definition of development here is more attributed with success and wealth which when we examine the rest of the world, can  lead to an unfortunate of some countries as being less-developed and thus almost patronize them for their efforts to develop. Holding to a standard set by another culture and way of life can be a good first step for a country's goals but it can lead that country to become more in tune with the standard bearer's culture which leads to a stage of assimilation where new attitudes and ways of life including values become potent forces in nations whereas before they had only been minor forces. This cultural clash can result in both positive and negative consequences including on one hand, the gaining of the status of "developed" but losing some its cultural distinctness or traditions which had made it different from other countries. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that countries who do follow the standards set by more successful nations still have to deal with major social and economic problems both due to the lingering state of poverty and other misfortunes but also problems caused by development itself. It is this point where development becomes different things for different people where some see it as a necessary step in the path towards  a successful nation but this can diverge into many different paths leading towards either an emphasis on either advancement or stability. These two goals are what interest me the most in development because they are a set of opposing goals made somewhat more confusing when the definitions of development become mixed in with the priorities of a society.

Spain seems to be a country currently dealing with conflicting definitions of development within its society and there is still profound disagreement as to what should be the proper course of action. Protests have arisen criticizing the government's conservative response to the economic crisis which some feel is leading to a lack of attention from the government on the economic plight of it citizens. In response, one sees groups like Podemos (We can) advocating for a more responsive government which will be more in touch with the needs of the people. It can be seen from Podemos that their definition of development does include a government that provides aid to the people and can lead to a more equal and stable system and this attitude seems in line with other populist movements which have sprung into action in the wake of perceived government incompetence in providing for the well-being of its citizens. I have walked by many other protests including strikes by employees arguing that the local government is providing adequate wages which I feel will not stop. Not to sound pessimistic but one really cannot say something in the real world such as a person or a nation is "developed" because everything is constantly changing and the only reason things appear stable in "developed countries" is, I feel, because the amount of social and economic change has already advanced to such a point that further change happens without much notice. In the so-called developing countries, one can see rapid development and change for better or for worse which will result in externalizes which can end up changing an entire society within a decade or so. Spain is an example of a nation which has to deal with the protests that the country is not developed enough (Podemos) and face the pressure to change other aspects of society to better fit the popular definition of a "developed society". The answers to these calls for change can either be one of compromise or conflict. But what is important to keep in mind is that development by itself is not an end point for a nation but merely the completion of a change in that nation following the examples of others or not but altogether precipitating a following change, encouraging a dynamic society with certain groups believing that the state should pursue various new developments and protest when the state seems unwilling or even reneging on its commitment to the current development. In short, no one nation can ever definitively be called "developed", they are all "developing" in one way or another.  

Reading Between the Lines

From my study abroad experience at Arava Institute and in Israel, which have two very different cultures,  I have experienced a few challenges when communicating with my peers and Israelis.  

A language difference: One of my classmates translating from Arabic to English when the Arava Institute visited a Dead Sea salt factory.  

Even though Israel is a country that is not drastically different from the United States, I experienced what Lary Barna described as culture shock in his essay Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication.  The high anxiety block that I stumbled upon did have mental and physiological repercussions similar to how Barna described.  I missed my family and friends from back home, and I was struggling to figure out how to fix a broken computer in a foreign country.  At first, it did cause me to be antisocial and just stick to my room, but I was able to change my mindset, embrace the differences, and make new friends.  

As part of my Peace-Building and Environmental Leadership Seminar, the institute teaches the students how to engage in respectful, meaningful dialog with each other.  One of these tools for talking and solving conflict is non-violent communication or NVC.  I really enjoyed learning about NVC and have since tried to use pieces of it in both my interactions with people here and back home.  I can also see parts of NVC apply as a good way to avoid two of Barna’s stumbling blocks.  NVC says that all humans have the same needs such as connection, autonomy, meaning, or physical-well being.  Everyone just has different strategies to satisfy his or her needs, and it is in strategies that people clash.  This thought process could be applied to  how Barna described the stumbling block assumption of similarities.  He stated that humans have common biological needs but the adaptations to them differ from culture to culture.  NVC recognizes these common needs and would say that biological needs also include love, acceptance, and joy.  The cultural adaptations to satisfying these needs would be what NVC describes as strategies.  Since everyone from different cultures or from the same culture has different strategies conflict can arise.  People from different cultures might assume that they have similar strategies and that is where assumption of similarities comes in, but their various cultures and backgrounds have led them to adopting different strategies.  Barna says that when misinterpretations happen in intercultural communication they are seldom corrected.  NVC looks to eliminate this mistake.  When someone states how they are feeling, NVC dialog calls for the other person to repeat back to the first speaker what they just heard to make sure they are interpreting what is being said correctly.  

I was also able to apply NVC to Barna’s stumbling block of tendency to evaluate.  Barna says that in order to avoid evaluating and judging others from a different culture, one must look and listen empathically.  NVC also calls for active listening and empathy when interacting with others.  If someone can really listen and understand where the other person is coming from, they are then able to empathize with them even if they do not agree with the person.  When Israelis disagree with each other they outright say what they disagree with and not always in the nicest manner.  In some places in American culture this would be considered rude because it is sometimes better to hold one's tongue or suggest disagreements in a roundabout way in order to be polite.  Israelis perceive this as passive aggressive.  At first I did evaluate this Israeli behavior as rude, but I now realize that neither the American or Israeli way is right or wrong.  It is just a matter of different cultures.  

Reading Between the Lines

The most significant communication challenge I face in Ecuador is the language barrier. Although my Spanish has improved remarkably from the start of the semester, miscommunication is still a daily occurence. There are so many sayings and expressions that I don´t understand. And there are so many times where I can´t quite find the right words to truly express myself. My family also speaks Kichwa, the local indigenous language. This adds to the language challenge because I know very little Kichwa. Often when my family is conversing at dinner, for example, they are only speaking in Kichwa and I am silent, unable to contribute to any conversation. Sometimes I feels like the language difference definitely holds me back from fully expressing myself and my personality to the people I meet.

The changes in culture and language I´ve faced have definitely challenged me to step outside of my comfort zone and have improved my Spanish immensly. Overall, I am hapy with how everything has developed and how I have handled the changes. However, at this point, with less than three weeks left in the country, I do feel like I´m starting to experience what Barna calls, Culture shock. I think "culture fatigue" is a good descriptor of my current state. I go days without speaking a word of English and its exhausting. I am truly enjoying my experience here, but I think in a few weeks I will be ready to return to the comfort of a culture and a language that is familiar to me.

Resetting Our Goals

As explained in Gilbert Rist's article "development as a buzzword", the word 'development' has many different meanings in different contexts. For example, overall Australia is considered a "developed country" in a socioeconomic sense. In terms of the distribution, there are more people in urban settings than rural settings. Rist suggests that although 'development' has been a goal for countries in the past hundred years because it is looked at as a positive thing, or what countries and governments strive for.
However, Rist also makes a good point when he mentions that "A country is the more developed the more limited the number of free things are available" (Rist, 2007). Land isn't free, resources aren't free. For example, I had the opportunity to do some work at a research station at JCU with one of the classes I'm taking. On the island there is no fresh water pumped from the mainland to supply the research station with; the station runs completely off of rain water. In recent months the occurrence of rain has been particularly sparse, and with only 15% of the total water storage capacity, the station will likely have to have freshwater flown in by helicopter. The estimated cost for the water (including the transportation) is about 15,000 AU dollars. Water is just one example of a natural resource that has been developed so much it has become a product even though it's naturally occurring. In this context, the development of water as a product can be viewed as a positive or negative thing. Positive if you are the owner of the resource able to make a profit from the fact that it is a a developed resource, and negative if you are the consumer having to pay for a resource that occurs naturally in the world around us. However, Rist also points out that historically we link a positive emotion to the notion of development even though development can be counterproductive at times and even a hinderance.
Sticking with the research station example, another common use for the word 'development' is in the term 'research and development' or R&D. The purpose of the research station is to study natural systems and use that to help with our overall knowledge of these systems. In this context, it is assumed that the 'development' part of the research and development phrase refers to improvement - a positive connotation.
I agree with Rist on the grounds that the word 'development' has many different meanings depending on the context in which you use it and that in almost all cases, it is linked to an subjective feeling - typically positive.

Resource:
Rist, Gilbert. (2007). Development as a buzzword. Development in Practice. 17:4 (485-491).