People first. But culture first?

After reading some articles about inter cultural communication I clearly realize that it’s very difficult if not impossible to talk about culture and intercultural communication from an objective or culture-free position, what Hofstede calls “cultural relativism”. All of us carry our own set of unwritten rules and behaviors, learnt from our environment and past experiences, which gives us the base for our thinking, feeling and acting, and provides us a unique way of going through life. It’s like each of us has a unique pair of lenses through which perceives and understands what’s going on around, and take decisions accordingly.

In this heterogeneity is where the major complexity of studying inter cultural communication or inter cultural work resides. It’s very difficult to be introduced to and try to comprehend another culture in a not-judging position. Something that is very clear for me is that each society works under certain set of rules or culture, and that these rules are not wrong, they are the best rules for that society. For example, if a society has a linear approach towards time and values punctuality it doesn’t mean that that cultural value is better than having a concept of time more flexible. Or that organizations that are individualistic can achieve more that those that value collectivism.

My major concern is that each person should achieve the most of his/her life and have all the opportunities to do so. Therefore gender, race, origin, social status, or “connections” should not determine anyone’s results in life.

But there are some cultural barriers that can affect this equality in access to opportunities or capabilities. As human beings we all have right to a minimum set of capabilities, such as not dying from preventable diseases, having access to education, a respectable job, a decent income, shelter and clothing, freedom to profess a religion or support certain political view, to participate in the decisions of the community or the country we live in, or enjoying our free time.

When culture and tradition affect any of these capabilities, is still “right” to put culture first? When a society doesn’t value girls to attend to school because there are not “female” jobs in the community, limiting girls’ opportunities in life, or when women are beaten by their husbands if they go out to work, what is right to believe? Up to what point can we respect others cultural values?

When dealing with cultural values such as attitudes towards time or individualism vs. collectivism, there’s no right or wrong position. But when cultural values compromise human integrity, are there some limits?

References

Chapter 3, "Cultural Perception and Values", from Chen, Guo-Ming and William J Starosta. Foundations of Intercultural Communication (2005). Allyn and Bacon, Toronto ON.

Chapter 1 "Introduction: The Rules of the Social Game" Hofstede, G & Hofstede, GJ (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Books.

Chapter 3 "Culture, Communication, Context and Power" Martin, J. & Nakayama, T (2006). Intercultural communication in contexts. (4th Ed). Toronto, ON: McGraw Hill.

Chapter One "An Introduction to Culture" and Chapter Three "The Meaning of Culture". Trompenaars, F and Hampden-Turner, C (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business 2nd Ed. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill.

Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wouldn't you protect the golden hen? The health care reform in the US

One of the strongest issues during the presidential campaign in the US was the reform of the health care system. This is a great country and the greatness of any country resides in its people. It doesn't reside in a strong economy or in stable macroeconomic indicators. People are the golden hen.

How can the US in all its greatness doesn't have a universal health care system? This is an inconsistency: a healthy population is the foundation for a prosperous country -apart from (and not less important than) having intrinsic value from the point of view of the human rights. What is also inconsistent is that the US does value the provision of public goods, such as education, national and personal security, good administration, accountability, strong institutions, extensive infrastructure, etc., but administrations have systematically forgotten to protect the most basic public good that is the good health and survival of individuals.

I am not against the difference in incomes or personal achievements, as they might result from better "performances", but I believe that everyone should have the same opportunities in life. For example, according to the report The Measure of America, a long and healthy life in the USA is different by gender and ethnicity: Asian females have a life expectancy at birth of almost 89 years, while African American males only reach 69. That’s a 20-year difference! The rest is as follows: Latino females 85, Asian males 84, American Indian females and White females 81, Latino males 79, African American females and White males 76, and American Indian males 75.

Regarding achievement in education (educational attainment and school enrolment) Asians rank higher than the rest, followed by Whites, African American, American Indians, and Latinos at the end, with no significant differences regarding gender.

The ranking of the median income earned by each group follows the same pattern as in education (indicating a strong correlation between opportunities in education and income), but when opened by gender and ethnicity, it is as follows: White males; Asian males; Asian females; African American males and American Indian males; White females and Latino males; African American females; American Indian females; and Latino females.

In conclusion, in the US not everybody has the same opportunities in education, health and income, with important differences across gender and ethnicity. The playing field in the labor market is especially uneven for men and women: Women opportunities are biased by both ethnicity and gender. And depending your ethnicity and sex, you can expect to live 20 years more or less.

Surely, one of the greatest challenges this Administration will have to face is the reform of the health care system. If President Obama is willing to put his hands on these waters (keeping the promise!) and making a real change by providing health care to the 50 million Americans that actually lack health insurance, he will have to face and touch the interests of the current America's health owners. What could be more urgent than protecting people from illness and premature death? Just because somebody can't afford health services or medicines should her and her family suffer? Why cannot every kid, man, woman, young, elderly have the same opportunities in life? What's more important than that? This Administration has the people's power to make that happen. Waiting to write history one more time.

References

Burd-Sharp, Sarah and others, 2008. The Measure of America. American Human Development Report 2008-2009.