Finland's low pressure, high performance schools

I like this recent article in Time on Finnish schools.
  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2062419,00.html 
The gist of it is that the Finnish schools are very non competitive, very relaxed about testing, homework, etc., and yet turn out superior results.  They do very little testing and measuring results.

In the latest PISA survey, in 2009, Finland placed second in science literacy, third in mathematics and second in reading. The U.S. came in 15th in reading, close to the OECD average, which is where most of the U.S.'s results fell.

There's less homework too.

"An hour a day is good enough to be a successful student," says Katja Tuori, who is in charge of student counseling at Kallahti Comprehensive, which educates kids up to age 16. "These kids have a life.

The key ingredient appears to be treating the teachers as true professionals.  Every teacher must complete five years of training - our Master's degree.  They are highly selective on who can get into the profession - only 10% of applicants are accepted.  The quality of the teachers seem to be the key to their success.  A teacher stays with students from first grade through sixth grade.  And once they are there, they leave them alone.

"You don't buy a dog and bark for it," says Dan MacIsaac, a specialist in physics-teacher education at the State University of New York at Buffalo who visited Finland for two months. "In the U.S., they treat teachers like pizza delivery boys and then do efficiency studies on how well they deliver the pizza."  

 But this approach may not work everywhere.  The Finnish non competitive culture is behind it - and it won't port well to some place where that doesn't fit.  Just another example of the tremendous influence of the local culture on the way we work.

Music - the wonder of it - how did it evolve?

This is way outside of my field, but fascinating to me.  There was a piece in the Washington Post the other day on music - why we like it so much. It was by Carolyn Butler, and you can find it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022806231.html.

It turns out, music turns on our brain - really.  We get a shot of dopamine when we listen to music we like.  It can be any kind of music that we enjoy.  We anticipate the next part, the beat, the cadence - it turns us on, literally.

The author notes that there is no accepted theory for the cause of this evolutionary miracle.  Most evolutionary traits that were developed by evolution have to do with survival and sexual selection.  It seems obvious to me how this feature  evolved - but on looking it up, there are apparently no good theories on why we acquired this amazing feature.

There is a wonderful, scholarly review of all of this available on the web here:  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.106.6746&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

This is cited by 98 sources, and it is a good survey of the field of knowledge on this.  If you skip to page 199, the author summarizes the discussions on the evolutionary imperative to endow us with this amazing gift of music.  To summarize briefly:

1. No adaptive function at all - seems highly unlikely to me.
2. Cheesecake - we created this just to enjoy it - it doesn't have any adaptive function.  Similarly unlikely, but hey, whatever works.  I like cheesecake too.
3. Byproduct of language development.  Well, it's certainly connected to language, and we are one of the few species with both skills!  But I think this needs a little push yet.
4. Sexual selection.  I dunno - it seems to work for birds and frogs - and it may be part of the origin of this, but I don't think this highly developed skill works all that well in attracting mates.  Didn't work for me, anyway.
5. Group function - kin selection. Dancing and music certainly generate group interaction and cooperation - amazingly well.  I think there is an element of the adaptive function here.
6. Mother / Infant song.  That works really well too, but I think it is still missing the key point.
7. Music as play.  Yep - no denying it - but how adaptive is that?  It's important to learn basic things as youngsters, like wrestling, hunting, etc.  And music is a key skill - but what is the adult return for this development?

The answer - well, this is mine anyway.  It's a combination of the above in this way:  humans learn things orally, through song and rhyme and rhythm.  Before we invented writing, we passed on wisdom and practical knowledge and myth and values orally.  We sat around fires and hearths for hundreds of thousands of years, and told stories and sang songs.  Homer and the Bible are clear examples of what was passed on from generation to generation in poems and songs.  We love stories, we love songs.  If you didn't learn them, then you could not remember how to hunt the beast, or how to build a house, find the edible plants, or how to negotiate a bride - your genetics did not survive.

Why do you think those songs get stuck in our ears and brains?  That is how we were taught to do everything before we invented writing.  It is still an amazingly effective learning method.  But I think we have forgotten how to use it to teach and pass on wisdom.  We have popular songs that are not helpful, to say the least.  The religious stuff we are normally exposed to is of no help either.  It rarely focuses on our current behavior and the wisdom of our time.  It is all wrapped up in  myths and stories.

I love baroque and classical music -- and it does lift me up.  But it doesn't teach much.  I've learned more from Bob Dylan and Peter Paul and Mary than Beethoven and Bach.  I'd like to see a revolution in song that emphasizes learning and cultural values that are more uplifting, ennobling and supportive of human development and freedom.  Does anyone have a catalogue of those handy?

Culture and Development - bits and pieces

Introduction

I've gotten some comments from friends and "others" about the paper on development. See:  On Culture and Development.  Thanks to them, I am reading new materials and learning more! Thank you for that. I have been treating this blog as a "publishing" forum.  I spend a fair amount of time working up a topic, and then publish it like an article  But this culture business is pretty complicated.  My next version of this is going to be months in the future.  I marvel at others that I read - like Jason Lehrer - who can generate something really useful once a week.  There are even some that do it daily!

In the interests of carrying on the discussion, I am going to post shorter pieces as I learn things.  My hope is to collect them into a more extensive entry at some point, and delete the shorter "notes".  So . . . these are notes in progress.

Development and Trust - Egalitarianism as a Means

I found an interesting abstract of a paper on the topic of trust as an essential ingredient of economic development.  As part of this study, the author concludes that a government can create a better trust environment by working to reduce inequalities in a society.  You can read it here:
Article Abstract: All for One: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust

I like the idea of trust is a key element of economics - it seems to be a key element of "business ethics", and essential to economic development.  It seems pretty clear that a fundamental element of economic development is the level of trust in a society.  Some think that English / US capitalism is based on the trading practices that the early Quakers developed, because people trusted them absolutely.    But I think that the way it works is that a society with a high level of trust moves toward a more egalitarian distribution of assets.  I see little evidence that the other approach, government forcing people to a more equal share of wealth, has the ability to create trust.  If anything, the few examples we have seen of that attempt in the Communist world destroyed trust.  The few in charge profited, and everyone else lost out.

This perspective reflects the a basic world view that wealth is something in short supply, and the way to increase wealth for the poor is to take it somehow from the rich.  That is typical of a culture which does not favor development.  But it isn't really a competition for wealth - as much as our male dominated societies want to cast it that way.  We are all in this together.  Wealth is something we create.  I am not poorer because Bill Gates is richer.  In fact, Bill's genius enabled productivity enhancements that increased the wealth of the planet.  I think his rewards are somewhat outlandish, and I would even that playing field a bit with taxes - but it does not hurt the rest of us if he is wealthy.  The US is not poorer because China is now richer.  In fact, the growth of an attractive Chinese market will increase everyone's wealth.  The wealth disparity is a motivator, but not a means.

I think the genius is to change how people think about something - not forcing them to do something.  If they opt to do it, it will happen.  If it is forced upon them, it has little impact, and may have a major negative response.

More later.

Culture and Developing Nations

Introduction
( This was updated a bit in this post: http://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2014/03/culture-is-key-to-development.html)

I have been puzzling about economics and developing nations since I first visited Africa in 2000. I visited Tanzania twice, and Nicaragua 7 times - and I was still puzzled. Why are these places so poor, and what can we possibly do to help? I have since discovered that many researchers and authors tie culture to economic development, and this has been general knowledge for over 15 years. The culture of a people, the way they think about the world, is a critical factor in determining the success or failure of many human endeavors, including economic development and democracy. My question now is, why didn’t I learn this more quickly? And why is it that this information is not well known among our elected leaders and entities like the World Bank who are trying to foster development?

I am no expert, and this is not an original research paper.  My intent is to pull together the key ideas I have gleaned in the past decade of reading about the topic of culture and development.  I hope that I can expedite the discovery process for others.

It is abundantly clear to me that democracy as we practice it has little chance of ever thriving in the cultures currently prevailing in most of Latin America, Africa, and Arab countries.  Why then, does our nation persist in trying to install it in Iraq and Afghanistan – at great cost to ourselves and those countries?  Similarly, economic development as we know it is so hindered by the cultural thinking present in most of Latin America and Africa that it is highly unlikely they will succeed at the traditional model without a major change in their culture.  We should focus our resources on that change, or we are wasting our time and money.  To quote that great Canadian Sage, Red Green, I believe that “we are all in this together”.  I do not want the world to give up on these places, but we need to seriously reconsider what we are doing there.

For one very modest example, my parish has been working with a community in Nicaragua for over 25 years.  We have been doing things the “right way” – justice, not charity.  We are trying to help them to determine their own future, to help them decide what they need for economic development, and help them to accomplish that. We have attempted many things over the years – projects, donations, etc.   Now I realize that the key thing we should be about is helping them change the way they and their children see the world.  We have made some progress on that, but not much.  I think we could move ahead a bit more quickly if both we and they recognized that their “world view” or culture is one of the major inhibiting factors.

These are the key insights of this paper:

• Culture here means the way we think about the world, not a collection of norms or habits.
• Culture in this sense has a profound influence on every human activity.
• Culture develops over long time frames, and does not change easily.
• Some aspects of a cultural are NOT friendly to development; some are not friendly to democracy.
• It is very difficult to change a culture.

Culture As a World View

By the word “culture”, I do not mean a collection of norms and habits, customs, dances and food.  Culture as used here is the “world view” of a people.  We all grow up with a world view that is taught to us by those around us.  They tell us that the world works this way.  We are not generally even aware of the way we see the world, until we encounter someone who views it very differently.  At that point, we wonder, “What is wrong with that person?”  

A few stories can illustrate this idea.  In 2000, I was visiting a small town in Tanzania, on the edge of the Serengeti.  In the 70s, the Austrians had built a hospital about a mile away.  They installed a generator, and a well.  There is no electricity in this area, and generally, no wells.  They ran a single pipe from the hospital to this settlement – about a mile.  That pipe was the only source of water for the town.  One morning, the water stopped.  No water.  I was talking to the local leader, and he confirmed that the water had stopped.  I asked him, what do you do for water if the water from the pipe stops?  He replied that they walk down to the river to fetch water.  They would carry it back about half a mile, because no one had a vehicle.  By the way, the British, at some point in the past, had built a small concrete barrier in this small stream, and had instructed people to take water from above the small dam, and to let the animals drink below the dam.  The idea was to avoid contaminating the water with animal waste.

Then I asked, “Well, in the past when the water stopped, what was the problem?”  Our friend replied, “Oh, someone broke the pipe near them so they could have water, or something like that.”  It was pretty clear to me that no one was going to set about fixing the problem.  I wanted to fix it, but that thought did not occur to them.  The water pipe was not theirs.  It arrived one day, and now it is gone.  That is how life is.

In a similar vein, a Canadian volunteer had constructed a rope swing on a tree.  The children loved it – they would swing on it all the time.  One day, one of them pushed the swing hard and it got stuck in the branches.  The Canadian told me he decided to wait and see what would happen.  Each day the children would come by, look up at the tree, and say, “Ah, no swing.”  They had watched the Canadian put it up, they knew where the ladder was, and, in fact, they could easily climb the tree without the ladder.  But they did nothing.  It was not their swing.  It arrived one day, and now it is gone.  That is how life is.

They see all of life this way.  They are not in charge of life – life happens to them.  Things come, things go – they are not actors in the story, just passive recipients.  They see AIDS the same way.  They know what causes AIDS, they see the consequences of it, but they do almost nothing to avoid contracting the disease.  It happens to them.  They are not responsible for it.

By contrast, the United States has a world view that says we are in charge of the planet.  We can fix and repair anything, be it a toilet or a nation.  We think that there is something wrong with people who are passive about problems.  I personally have a great need to fix any running toilet that I encounter on my travels, whether it is mine or not.  I know how to fix it, and I generally will, without being asked.  Needless to say, people whose culture is different wonder what is wrong with us, that we cannot stop meddling in other people’s affairs.

Culture Has A Profound Effect
People are generally not conscious of their world view.  They see the world this way because that is how things are.  They learn it before they are 8 years old, and it doesn’t ever really change.  The best work I have found to help understand this is by Geert Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations.  Hofstede is a Dutch sociologist.  He was hired by IBM to help them resolve conflicts across national boundaries, across cultures.  He conducted a study of 65,000 IBM employees on how they viewed reality – their cultural awareness.  Human cultures have many dimensions, but he simplified the results of his work to four cultural dimensions, and then added a fifth for the Asian perspective.  All of them are very insightful.

One cultural dimension he calls “distance” or “hierarchy”.  It seems that humans have a basic, biological need for hierarchy in our society.  We survived by following strong leaders in our numerous conflicts, and our need for a leader is very deep.  But it is flexible.  Hofstede ranked nations on a scale according to the distance they perceived from the top to the bottom of their society.  In general, the Scandinavians have the lowest sense of hierarchy.  He illustrates this with a story taken from the daily newspaper.  This article appeared in the Dutch newspaper NRCC/Handelsblad, December 23, 1988.  (Hoffstede, p. 47)

Stockholm, December 23.  The Swedish King Carl Gustav this week experienced considerable delay while shopping for Christmas presents for his children, when he wanted to pay by cheque but could not show his cheque card.  The salesperson refused to accept the cheque without legitimation.  Only when helpful bystanders dug in their pockets for one-crown pieces showing the face of the King, the salesperson decided to accept this for legitimation, not ,however, without testing the cheque thoroughly for authenticity and noting the name and address of the holder.

I can just see this clerk in the store.  “I don’t care if he’s the king, if he doesn’t have a check card he can’t write a check.”  When they show her his picture on the coin, I can just hear her say, “Fine. But he has to write down his address!”  I doubt that the US President will ever find him or herself in this predicament.  The Scandinavians, as a whole, have a very low Power Distance.  They rank 47th or 48th on a list of 53 countries studied.  The US ranks 38th on that list.  At the top of the list, we find Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, Philippines and Mexico.  The point is, no one taught the citizens of Sweden that the king is not that big a deal.  It is how they see the world, and how they all react.  The king is a servant of the people.  He is one of us, and he does our bidding.  I have some theories as to why they see the king so differently, but the difference is profound.  They will not change that view if they emigrate to another country.  Their children may, but they will not.  It is simply how they see the world.

Culture matters, and almost nothing else does!  That is the major conclusion of the book cited above. 

Culture Endures Over Long Time-frames

Culture is formed over centuries. The Scandinavians endured bitter winters, survived by forming close knit tribes, and all understand that they depend on each other. When they thought they needed a king, they created one. Those of us whose culture formed somewhat closer to the Mediterranean and within the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, have the impression that God or some higher power installed our fearless leader. Our power distance is much greater. Hofstede theorizes that the difference noted between the Scandinavian Countries and most of the rest of Europe comes from the influence of the Roman Empire. They were never part of that empire, so they never adopted this top down, hierarchical view of society to the extent it was adopted by the Romans and their successors. Other authors point to the dominant influence of Catholicism for the hierarchical views of much of the former Spanish colonies.

In another example, Hofstede notes that Costa Rica is unique among Latin American nations with respect to many cultural values.  He thinks the difference relates back to colonial times, when many people of Jewish extraction fled Spain to Costa Rica.  That influence has endured for 500 years!

Some Cultural Aspects are not Friendly to Development

When I get to this point, my wife always objects:  “You are saying that some cultures are inferior or lacking.”  That is clearly counter to the multi-cultural value system which prevails in the U.S.  We have been trained, acculturated even, to see different cultures as basically equal.  One type of music or another, one type of painting or another, one language or another – they are all equally valuable and should be protected and supported.

I have two responses to that.  In the first place, this is not judging an entire culture.  It is just pointing out that certain aspects of a culture appear to be not supportive of economic development.  In the second place, there are clearly better or worse ways to sing songs, paint pictures, form ideas into words, and run societies.  It would be truly simplistic to think that our predominantly western culture is the best possible blend of all of these. We are a work in progress, as are all cultures.  We have come a long way, but we have many miles to go, in my mind.  Sometimes I fear that we are slipping toward the abyss, when I compare our culture to the Scandinavians.  We are divided and at war within ourselves, compared to their sense of community and common purpose.  This wonderful experiment called Democracy has improved immensely since 1776, but it has a long way to go.  Some of us seem to think that it was created perfectly at the beginning and should never change. 

That said, what are the key aspects of a culture which support or inhibit development?  Lawrence E. Harrison has produced a series of works that provide a clear insight to the influence of cultural traits on development.  To simplify things, I would start with just one book, Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, edited by Lawrence E. Harrison & Samuel P. Huntington – 2000.  This is a collection of conference papers, and some of the opinions are from the other side of the argument – but they are all illuminative.  There is one particularly insightful chapter on Africa by an African, Daniel Etounga-Manguelle, “Does Africa Need a Cultural Adjustment Program?” p. 65.  In this chapter, the author begins by recognizing that it appears to be almost impossible to produce a single description of the culture of Africa.  The continent has many nations, hundreds of languages, many races, immigrants, etc.  Based on his experience, he believes that the continent share some key cultural traits.  And that these are mostly negative to economic development.  I can only give a very brief summary of his insights here.

·         Hierarchical distance is large – this is a trait shared by most tropical climates where survival does not depend so heavily on human intervention to survive the cold winters.  In this view, the culture tends to be static and centralized, with most wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.  Generations pass with little new learning or change.

·         Uncertainty is accepted as normal, and community structures support people.  There is little initiative to conquer the future, or remove problems that threaten.  Africans accept what is, with little concern about tomorrow.  Only God can modify the world.

·         Time is not precious.  The glories of ancestors are celebrated but nothing is done to prepare for the future.

·         Religious and state power are unified.  “It is common for African leaders to claim magical powers” (p. 70).  Power is quickly corrupting, and changes in social standing are not accepted.

·         The community dominates the individual.  The concept of individual responsibility is very weak.

Cultural Factors that Influence Development

With that basis,  we can examine some of the factors which other authors put forth as being unfriendly to human development.  There are many lists of these, and I can only going give you a sampling.  You can find more detail in the publications cited.  Harrison’s list on p 299 of Culture Matters is an excellent start.  There are potentially hundreds of important attributes that affect development.  But it appears that a small number of human traits are essential to development: innovation, initiative and hard work.  Where the culture supports those, development has prevailed.  In addition, a stable infrastructure is also important, so that profits can be made and retained, trade is possible, and individual rights of ownership are not at risk.

Here is my short list.

1.       Who is in charge?  OR Control over uncertainty.  OR Control over Fatalism.
Where people think that they themselves are in charge of their world, they make things happen.  When they believe that someone else is in charge, development is slow.  This someone else can be fate, a deity, government, the rich, powerful foreigners, or some hidden conspiracy.  This view tends to inhibit individual initiative.  Many cultures think that life is something that happens to them, and they have little control over it.

2.       Hierarchy. 
A society which sees the world as top down, with most of the power at the top, is less supportive of development.  The ones in charge are at the top.  This is a world view from the social and religious world that prevailed before the Enlightenment.  Much of the Spanish speaking world inherited this top down view from the Catholic Church.  The flatter the society view, the more likely are individuals able to flourish and produce wealth.

3.       Sense of Time – Long Range vs. Day to day.
Where a culture can look down the road and plan for the future, they tend to make future investments that produce wealth. Where life is hand to mouth, and day to day, little creative development occurs.  Witness the difference between the Scandinavian peoples and most of Africa.  If your food can be found with modest daily effort, why plan ahead, why worry about the future.  If life depends on having enough food to last through 6 months of winter, then you have to work hard and with creativity just to endure.  Where the past is exalted, development does not prosper.  Where the future is held to be something we create and can improve on, development is supported.  Hofstede found that the prevailing African culture has a very short time frame perspective.

4.       Hard work. 
If the prevailing world view, or the view of those in charge, sees work as demeaning, development is slowed.  If hard work is regarded as a means to get ahead and rewarded, this is supportive of development.  Protestant Christianity in Europe seems to have been very supportive of hard work, in spite of its emphasis on the role of the deity.

5.       Source of Wealth.
Where wealth is seen as “found goods”, something in limited supply, there is little incentive to develop.  In this world view, the way to gain wealth is to get it from someone else.  Either they share it with us, or we take it from them in some fashion.  Where wealth is regarded as something created, and as virtually unlimited, then motivation is stronger to create it.

6.       Moral Guidelines / Circle of Trust.
When morality is regarded as an unattainable goal, people will ignore it for selfish reasons, and the stable value system required for economic development is not present.  When moral guidelines are regarded as basic requirements for human interchange, then development can prosper in the stable relationships it provides.  A fairly large circle of trust is essential to economic activity.  Economic development requires the ability to work together, to develop a common bond of trust, and a legal and judicial system that supports rights and initiative.  Any kind of trade is difficult to instill in a “primitive” culture where no one can be trusted.  An economics based on only the tribal circle of trust is not very robust.  Even nationalism ultimately interferes with economic growth.  Those cultures with the view that “we are all in this together”, tend to flourish the most.

7.       Dissent.
Where differences of opinion are celebrated as a search for truth and innovation, development proceeds.  When new ideas are suppressed as heretical, it is difficult to foster innovation.

8.       Education.
Real education supports development.  Development is inhibited if there is a lack of education, or education is merely the rote repetition of rules and old ideas.  As people understand more of their world and how it operates, they are more creative.  It is particularly destructive when virtually half of a society is denied any opportunity for learning, as many women are throughout the world.

9.       Justice.
When the prevailing view of social justice includes future generations, it tends to support more development.  If it is limited to those currently alive, development is more limited.  It has to do with the time frame and justice or honesty issues.

How to Change a Culture

At this point, if we are persuaded that culture has a great influence on development, then, we need to figure out how to help developing nations modify their cultural values. But let’s be really clear here – this is not a simple task. Culture forms over a very long time frame – hundreds of years – from many sources, and it is very resistant to change. But change it does. So how can we help? This quote is relevant:

"There can be no cultural transformation without the widely-accepted belief that there is indeed something 'wrong' with the (culture) and without a systematic effort to discuss ways to fix it. For culture to matter, there must (first be) a realization that it needs fixing."  (Latouche, Daniel Culture and the Pursuit of Success, p. 12, as quoted by Lawrence Harrison, The Central Liberal Truth, p. 158.)

Well, how does one set about that? I have only a few suggestions, gleaned from the above authors and my own limited experience.

Cultural Development NOT Charity
We should evaluate the impact of every project on the culture, not just on the physical well being or the products it generates. Does it empower, educate, enable? If it does, the result is less important.

Education NOT Assistance
Educate, liberate, empower, not feed and donate. Educate and liberate the women. Eliminate superstition and religious control through education. Formal education should start at about age 2, before the prevailing culture has a chance to form the way a child thinks. At a minimum, for some portion of their day, get those who are raised in poverty out of their world into a supportive one that reflects the broader culture that supports development. A child care subsidy on a sliding scale would enable many women to work, and at the same time also expose their children to a different view of how things work.

Fund Research on World Views
Our understanding of the influence of culture and development is just scratching the surface. There is abundant data available that could be mined to further persuade our leaders and the general public about this. We also need to research how world views change, perhaps with a more experimental approach. We have very little education that is focused on supporting or modifying the world view of people. If the leadership understands what is required, and how to go about it, a formal program of national culture building might work wonders. I understand that this might appear to be “mind control”, but just consider how much of elementary education goes into something called "civics". We are teaching our children one thing or another – let’s focus on the things that can best support our economic and political health. We don’t hesitate to provide information in schools about health and environment - let’s focus a bit more on how things work – like basic rules of economics, etc. A formal discipline of cultural awareness could provide the credibility that this has value.

Capitalism NOT Utopian Socialism.
Capitalism that energizes the basic selfishness of the individual works really well. Socialism is a Utopia reserved for those societies that no longer need the motivation of individual profit. That is a long step up the social evolution ladder. Our developing nations that are trying to reach this socialist nirvana in one grand step are doomed to corruption and dictatorship and failure. It takes a whole culture to raise up a people – not one or two enlightened leaders. I like what the Scandinavians have accomplished, but even the rest of Europe cannot get there in one giant leap. You might point to China as an exception to this. Their most recent leaders have been very supportive of development - but they have also dropped most of the claims of the ideal socialist society. They are more focused on centralized authority for government than for economics.

Conclusion

This feels particularly unsatisfying as an ending.  I may have alerted you to the problem, but we are a long way from any solutions.  It seems clear at this point that culture has a tremendous effect on economic development.  Things don't work well in those cultures, without the mental framework, and without the stable support system of courts, contracts and ethics. There has been a lot of progress in the past few decades, but it appears that it may take many more before the bulk of human kind can escape the brutality of poverty.

If you are aware of other research or publications in this area, please point me to them.  We ARE making this up, and we need all the help we can get.  We are all in this together.

Bibliography

Harrison, Lawrence E., The Central Liberal Truth, 2006, Oxford Univ. Press.

Harrison, Lawrence E., Who Prospers, 1992, Basic Books.

Harrison, Lawrence E., Huntington, Samuel P., Culture Matters, 2000, Basic Books.

Hofstede, Geert, Cultures and Organizations, 1991, McGraw Hill.  The more recent editions of this book have expanded its scope considerably, but I like the simplicity of this edition.

On Civility

I had the good fortune the other night to attend a “dialogue” on civil discourse, hosted by Krista Tippet of Minnesota Public Radio.  It was a very interesting exchange, and it helped me to pull together some ideas that have been floating around in my head.  The exchange provided many insights, but there was no discussion of a systematic or organized way to actually set about improving our civic discourse.  This note pulls together some recently published ideas into a proposal for our elected leaders.  See what you think of it.

Neural Research

Ms. Tippet expressed the hope that the science of neural research would help us understand how human beings work so we can improve on how we interact.  She is right that there have been significant advances in this field, but the evidence so far is pointing in the other direction – our normal tendencies are driven by emotions and instincts that are somewhat above the primate, but not much.  We respond with our gut, with snap judgments, we love black and white issues, and we adore a strong leader, with clear directions and hierarchy.  The modest contributions of civility and rationality always come later, and at a higher level of what we call civilization.  An attack on our ideas is responded to much as an attack on our physical well being – we defend ourselves.  That is true even when the attacker provides new information that runs counter to our prevailing beliefs.  We will ignore that information, and argue even more strenuously for our perspective, precisely because we are attacked. See this piece by Ed Yong, from Discover Magazine of Oct. 10, 2010.  (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/)

It is helpful to understand these instinctual tendencies, if only to be able to counter them with tactics based on some higher level of rational thinking.  But where are we going to learn how to counter these mindless engines that drive us?

Research on Negotiating Practices

Today, there is a fertile source of ideas for civil discourse in the “science” of Negotiation.  This field has become a formal science, with research studies that explore exactly what works and what does not in negotiating agreements.  I took a formal class in negotiation from the Harvard Negotiating Project over 30 years ago when I was negotiating labor agreements.  The focus then was more philosophical, based on the book by Fisher, Ury, Patton, On Getting to Yes.  At that time this approach was taught as a model way to achieve agreements which would be positive to both sides.  In this approach, a compromise is not considered a successful outcome.  And the “hard ball” approach, resulting in “win / lose”, is a negative outcome for both parties, because of the long term effects on the relationship, and the general failure to implement something which is seen as a loss.

In the past few decades, the field has moved from philosophical debate about methods to one based on extensive research.  Doctoral students and practitioners now conduct controlled exercises which explore various techniques and methods of negotiating agreements and settling differences.  I have taught a university level course on the topic several times.  As the rule goes, the teacher learns more than the students.  I had been negotiating agreements and business deals for 30 years, but this course alerted me to the extensive body of knowledge that is developing in this area.  The text used is by Leigh L. Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, and it has hundreds of concrete examples of the results of these experiments.

Seek First To Understand

The formal field of negotiating has documented an abundance of effective ideas and methods.  I have managed, tongue in cheek of course, to distill all of this knowledge into a single priceless nugget of information – “seek first to understand”.  This is, of course, from Dr. Steven Covey, the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.  I taught  this workshop for 10 years, and I learned a great deal from it as well.

The genius about this technique is what happens to the relationship between the parties in a discussion.  Just by actively listening to understand, and not to argue, one party gives the other the tremendous gift of care and respect.  That expression of caring, even if just a mechanical exercise, builds up trust in the other person, and changes the tenor of the discussion profoundly.  I have seen it happen in a five minute exchange, where one party simply listened, and reflected back their understanding of the other’s perspective.

This works even better if the parties actually spend time working on the relationship itself, prior to any discussion.  The most critical results happen away from the formal bargaining table.  The greatest insights occur when people work together on a common problem, without attacking each other.  M. Scott Peck has written a small volume which explains this method in considerable detail:  A Different Drum.  He is persuaded that if he can get group of people in a room where they talk with each other for 3 days, then they can negotiate on any topic with civility and superior outcomes.  As the parties become acquainted with each other, with their beliefs and backgrounds, with the hopes and aspirations, they gain a mutual respect.  They continue to disagree, but they see each other as human beings with values.  They build up a trusting relationship, which could not have existed before.

I was recently in a League of Women Voters forum where two former Minnesota Governors talked about civility in public discussions – Al Quie and Wendel Anderson.  These two men, from different political persuasions, are very good friends.  Mr. Quie described his relationship with the then DFL Majority Leader, Roger Moe.  Quie was recently elected, when he happened to attend some form of religious observance with Moe.  Roger Moe spoke to the assembly at some length about his faith and his aspirations, and it dawned on Quie that this was a man of principles and values.  When he returned to the Capital, he invited him to his office for a more in depth discussion. From that point on, the two of them had a warm personal relationship, despite their political differences.  They negotiated issues with mutual respect.  You can find more on that here:    http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=898016. 
The story is also recounted in the book about Governor Quie by Mitch Pearlstein, Riding into the Sunrise.  Roger Moe wrote one of the forwards to the book.

I understand that our elected representatives NEVER visit across the aisle.  They do not even sit with the “opponents” from the other party.  They will discuss issues openly only in their own party caucus.  Is this the background for healthy dialogue?

Civic Caucus Citizen’s Assembly or Jury

How can we help our elected representatives, and ourselves, get to a level of civic discourse?  The Civic Caucus (http://www.civiccaucus.org/) recently crafted a proposal which was sent to the Governor and the Legislature as a means to resolve our enormous budget deficit.  They propose a citizen’s assembly or jury, composed of carefully selected individuals from different groups that would work together for a week or more to achieve a consensus from the citizen’s perspective.  This would then be presented to the legislature.  There is some research that indicates that this kind of “people’s jury” actually works.  You can find the proposal here: 

 http://www.civiccaucus.org/Interviews/2010/Crosby-Ned_Hottinger-John_12-10-10.htm.

I like the idea, but there are some major problems with it.  It would be expensive just to convene the group.  And when the result is presented, odds are that our fearless elected representatives would have no great respect for the result.  They were not involved in its development, and they would not have changed any of their perspective of the other side.  There is also a serious question whether the group could actually come to any creative solutions without doing an enormous amount of homework, and without building the trusting relationships described above.

Elected Representatives Retreat

Here is an approach that might formalize this for our elected representatives: At the start of every new session of the legislature, or the start of any extensive dialogue on issues, the participants MUST attend a three day workshop, where they all talk about their personal lives, their loves, their children, their beliefs, their hopes and fears for the future.  The hope is that after three days of this kind of interchange, they will build up a level of mutual trust that will result in a respectful, civil level of discourse.  If it is done well, this kind of negotiation will generally produce creative results beyond compromise.

This is almost a principle of human discourse – we need a formal method to overcome the attack / defensive gut reactions wired in our brains.  Think of the almost universal protocol of the white flag.  I am NOT the enemy - give me a minute, here.  If a conversation is not based on some level of mutual respect, the results are generally negative.  The genius of this approach to negotiating is that it always expands the pie, it does not just cut it up, and it always invites people to creative discourse that can generate a truly novel, mutually beneficial approach to problems. 

Now, how do we get this into Robert’s Rules and the rules of Congress?  How about introducing it in grade school civics classes?  It would be like learning about double entry bookkeeping, or that we need an agenda before a meeting, or how to index books in alibrary, or how elections work. If you want to take part in civic discourse, you must first spend the time with the other side that is required to gain this level of mutual respect.  We all understand at this point that we need to have an agenda to have a productive meeting.  Perhaps we can learn that we need to invest the time to share our values and beliefs in order to have a productive discussion about anything.

Tucson Commentary

My favorite, from Time Magazine.

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show had the best commentary on this Tucson event.

See that here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-13-2011/veiled-criticism

Culture and Communications - barriers and understanding

Dealing with people from different cultures is a major challenge. As our world shrinks, we are all involved in more cross cultural exchanges. This paper presents some research on culture and its power in our affairs, to make it more available.  It is focused on all of us who are working in other cultures to bring about fundamental change.  My own involvement is with a Sister Parish relationship in Nicaragua.  I also have friends living in Tanzania, Cambodia, and Latin America who face this issue every day. It also arises in cross cultural exchanges within our country.

The Power of Culture
Culture is more than a collection of norms and rules of behavior.  It is deeper than that.  It is how we think, it is our “world view”, how we approach everything that we think and do.  It is enduring, and difficult to change.  A culture is formed through centuries of experience, and it is conveyed from generation to generation in every word, every act.  Our children have a firm grasp of it before the age of 7 or 8, and it is their guide for life.  One cannot simply choose to ignore one’s culture – it is virtually automatic, not really under conscious control.

Culture Examples from Africa

In 2000 my son Tom and I traveled to Tanzania.  He was in his last year of residency, and the hospital wanted him to experience a different environment prior to his graduation  I have an old friend in Tanzania who runs a flying medical service, and who does things with a hospital in Arusha, Tanzania.  My son thought this would be a very different experience of medicine.  It was very different.  We spent a month visiting hospitals, and sitting and talking with missionaries, and meeting Africans.

The key thing I came away with is: these people are different!  Yes, their skin is different, but the way they think about the world is also different.  Americans, people who grew up in the US tend to think that humans are in charge of the world.  If there’s a problem, we fix it.  The Africans we met do not work that way.  They are definitely not in charge of their world.  In their world, things just happen.  A couple of simple examples will help illustrate this.

AIDS – they all have education on AIDS – how it is transmitted, and its terrible consequences.  In Arusha, we would drive by a small group of people under a tree, with a teacher demonstrating how condoms work, and why they are important.  But, armed with this knowledge, they do virtually NOTHING to avoid getting AIDS.  If it happens, it happens, is how they seem to treat it.  At that time, in 2000, about 40% of the people who presented themselves to the Lutheran hospital in Arusha had AIDS.  Their culture seems to say that things just happen – there is nothing you can do or should do about it. 

Water Works.  On a more pedestrian scale, we were out in the bush near Endulen, on the edge of the Serengeti, in a town of about 300 people.  The sole water supply came via pipe from a hospital about a mile away.  The Austrians built the hospital in the 70s.  They put in a generator and a well.  They graciously provide water during the day to the village.  One day, the water stopped.  It just stopped.  There appeared to be no response to this crisis.  We asked the head of the village, if the water has stopped, what do you do for water?  He says, we walk down to the river – about half a mile – and carry water back up the hill.  They have no vehicle, and they carry the containers on their head for that distance.  We asked several other questions, but it was very clear to us that no one was going to get about fixing the water problem.  The water was here, and now it is not – things happen.  All over this part of Africa, you can see abandoned water works that were put in by the Germans or the British that no longer work.  They appeared, they stopped working – that is how life is.

A Rope Swing.  In another anecdote, a Canadian volunteer installed a rope swing for the students of this small school in Endulen.  They loved it – used it all the time.  One day, someone pushed it up in the tree, and it got stuck.  Each day, they would come and look at the spot where the swing used to be, and lament, “No swing”.  It was up there 4 months.  They all knew where the ladder was, they had seen the Canadian put it up.  They were perfectly capable of climbing the tree.  But it was not theirs, it just happened, and now it is gone.

They are not in charge of life – life happens to them.  As a western person, it is hard for me to even believe that this is true.  I cannot stop myself from fixing a toilet anywhere on the planet that is leaking!  My head says this is what humans do – we fix things.

Culture Research. When I returned from my second trip to Tanzania, I found a book which helped me understand this a bit:  Culture and Organizations by Geert Hofstede.  It is a sociological study of IBM employees around the world.  It describes five major cultural values, and ranks them by country.  As noted above, cultures are very complex, but the book explores these five in some detail. 

Each chapter includes an anecdote to help illustrate the fundamental power of this one world view component.  One attribute is called “Power Distance”.  The author ranked the nations of his study by the degree of separation that they experience from the top to the bottom of their society.   When I talk about this with people, I ask the audience where they think the US falls on this hierarchy.  Do we have a large gap from top to bottom, or a small one?  Invariably, they will say that we have a relatively small one, as compared to places like Africa or India or most of Asia.  We have some sense that we are all equal.

Then I tell them the story in the book which illustrates this cultural value.  This article appeared in the Dutch newspaper NRCC/Handelsblad, December 23, 1988.  (Hoffstede, p. 47)

Stockholm, December 23.  The Swedish King Carl Gustav this week experienced considerable delay while shopping for Christmas presents for his children, when he wanted to pay by cheque but could not show his cheque card.  The salesperson refused to accept the cheque without legitimation.  Only when helpful bystanders dug in their pockets for one-crown pieces showing the face of the King, the salesperson decided to accept this for legitimation, not ,however, without testing the cheque thoroughly for authenticity and noting the name and address of the holder.

I can just see this clerk in the store.  “I don’t care if he’s the king, if he doesn’t have a cheque card he can’t write a check.”  When they show her his picture on the coin, I can just hear her say, “Fine. But he has to write down his address!”  I doubt that the US President will ever find him or herself in this predicament.  The Scandinavians, as a whole, have a very low Power Distance.  They rank 47^th or 48^th on a list of 53 countries studied.  The US ranks 38^th on that list.  At the top of the list, we find Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, Philippines and Mexico.  The point is, no one taught the citizens of Sweden that the king is not that big a deal.  It is how they all see the world, and how they all react.  The king is a servant of the people.  He is one of us, and he does our bidding.  I have some theories as to why they see the king so differently, but the difference is profound.  That view does not change if they emigrate to another country.  Their children may change, but they will not.  It is simply part of how they see the world.

Culture matters, and almost nothing else does!  That is the major conclusion of the book cited above.  Culture is formed over centuries.  The Scandinavians endured bitter winters, survived by forming close knit tribes, and all understand that they depend on each other.  When they thought they needed a king, they created one.  Those of us whose culture formed within the Roman Empire, and then the Holy Roman Empire, somehow got the impression that God or some higher power installed our fearless leader.  Our power distance is much greater.

Differences in our Culture

Sometimes it is helpful to see our own world from outside, as someone else might view it.  It helps keep our sense of balance when we look at other cultures.  These are a few examples of how some other cultures might view parts of our own – the North American culture.

We are in charge of the planet.  I do not know if it is from Genesis or the stress of a northern climate, but those of us in the West, and in the US in particular, seem to feel that we are in charge of the planet.  We never hesitate to try to fix something – even something remote and difficult – like the political or economic structure of other nations.  Or the toilet we find in a rest room!  Other peoples do not feel this same compulsion, and are given to utter amazement as to where we will poke our noses and spend our money.

Home Visits.  When we host families from Nicaragua, we tend to show them the entire length and breadth of our home.  We want them to feel at home, and we show them around.  We regularly do this for visitors, especially if the home is new to them.  In homes in Nicaragua, you are shown where you will sleep and the outhouse, and any washing facilities.  That is it.  Imagine their wonderment when we take them through room after room of our spacious houses.  They tell us, much later, that they wonder why we need to show off our huge homes.

Minnesota Nice.  People from Minnesota generally treat difficult situations with some circumspection.  We may hesitate to raise an issue that is sensitive, for fear of offending.  One of my sons, who lives and works on the East Coast, tells me that I am avoiding problems when I should be confronting them head on.  He thinks we are naïve and ineffective!

Gifts.  North Americans exchange gifts without a great deal of concern or ceremony.  If someone called you up today, and told you that they could not use their tickets to the next Twins game, would you like to go – what would you say?  Why not!  Sure.  Thanks.  Would you give it another thought?

In some cultures, accepting a gift would obligate you to respond in kind, or even in a grander way.  For example, what if you had received several of these ticket gifts?  And then the season ticket holder calls and asks you to please help him negotiate a business deal with your employer, or with another friend of yours?  Would you feel you have a moral obligation to assist?  In some cultures the answer would be clear.  For these cultures, all business is built on relationships, and relationships are established by doing favors, exchanging gifts.  When you accepted the gift, you accepted the obligation.

If you do not want to enter into that kind of relationship, you do not accept the gift.  The challenge is to find a way to turn it down graciously – without offending.

Cultural Differences – Sources

It is one thing to catalog some of the differences between cultures.  It is quite another to determine their origins.  Various authors have pointed to climate differences, religion, the absence of small grains, and the influence of a major philosophy – such as Confucianism.  My personal theory is that climate had a lot to do with it.  People in northern climates tend to plan further ahead, and tend to depend more on each other.

Practical Implications

Dealing with another culture, it is important to have some idea of the parts of that culture that are radically different than our own.  The following are some examples of behavior that may result from cultural traits.  Some are positive from our perspective – others negative.  If you have others to share, I would greatly appreciate learning about them.  Please note, this is not trying to describe an entire culture – just some elements that I have encountered.

1)      Elderly are treated with respect, and respond with wisdom.
I noted this myself in Italy and Nicaragua.  The elderly persons in a group are given great respect, and their words carry significant weight.  They are expected to be wise and they tend to respond in kind and live up to those expectations.
      A good friend noted that in Ecuador, as an older person, he was often singled out for preferred entrance in boarding airplanes, ferries and the like. On two airplane trips he was pulled from the back of the crowd and practically dragged onto the plane along with the first class passengers.
Implications: 

a)      If you are an elder, you should consider your comments carefully, as they will have added weight. 

b)      You should graciously accept any preferential treatment based on your age.  It would be impolite to refuse.

2)      Hospitality is warmly extended.
It may take a bit more to overcome the initial distance of strangers, but once accepted, you are welcomed like family, with warmth and graciousness.  You may find yourself sleeping in the master bedroom while your hosts are out in the shack.
Implications:  Be a gracious recipient of such blessings.  Your hosts may not have a great deal to share, and you should simply accept it graciously.  Of course, after 3 days, fish and guests acquire some odor.  You should pick up some portion of the burden at that point.

3)      Open communication is restrained.
Many cultures tend to be very hierarchical. This is particularly true in countries that were under Spanish influence, but it is true in many parts of the world, including Asia.  Religion has also had an enormous influence toward hierarchical thinking.  Spain has only grown out of this in the last 30 years.  In a hierarchical culture, the leaders of a society are privileged.  Only the powerful have any ability to initiate change.  This also gives rise to a “patron-client” system.  In order to accomplish anything, you need a powerful patron or sponsor.
Implications: 

a)      It is very difficult to get a direct response to a suggestion or question.  It may be difficult to directly address a problem or disagreement.  Do not be quick to assume that silence or simple signs of agreement are anything more than a polite response.

b)      Failure is not ascribed to a responsible cause or person, but is described as a simple event.  You never accuse someone, or blame someone.  Some things just happen.

c)       Leadership is not something to be sought, because it raises suspicions as to the motive.

d)      Corruption is common, because no one can bring the leadership to task directly.  Leaders are not confronted, they are attacked obliquely.

e)      Common people cannot criticize or confront leaders directly.  They resort to criticism behind the scenes and various undercutting strategies.  This often strikes us as an immature response, but it is their norm.

f)       Representatives of wealthy nations are seen as authoritarian figures.   Watch what you suggest, wait until everyone else has spoken.

4)      Initiative may be limited.
In a hierarchical culture, one looks to the leadership for direction.  What am I supposed to do now?  Conversely, if there is a problem, it is blamed on the leadership, or someone else.
Implications:

a)      Individual initiative is limited, because people look for help from outside, from those in authority.

b)      A suggestion from an authority figure may be interpreted as a command or ultimatum. 

c)       A sense of fatalism prevails, with hope and expectations placed on the deity, the government, or outside forces, and not on personal initiative.  If we can only persuade them, or destroy them, we can succeed.

5)      Resources are seen as limited.
Members of developing nations generally see all good things as in limited supply.  If one person gets some, they came from someone else.  Obtaining wealth is a matter of competition, not cooperation.  The North has abundant riches, so the goal is to take them away in order to share them.  Conversely, cultures that foster development believe that wealth is something that we create, and it is virtually unlimited.
Implications: 

a)      Cooperation is very difficult and limited. 

b)      The initiatives of others may be attacked because they are seen as reducing the available goods.

c)       The solution to poverty is seen as moving wealth around, from the rich to the poor, not as generating wealth.

6)      Trust is limited.
Hierarchical societies tend to give the leadership class free reign.  Corruption is the norm.  This privilege, coupled with the scarcity mentality, makes cooperation and sharing very difficult.  Many developing cultures have a trust circle that is limited to the family, and sometimes extends to the tribe.  It rarely goes beyond that scope. 
Implications: 

a)      It is very difficult to establish a cooperative venture.

b)      Compromise is seen as failure, not something that benefits both sides. 

c)       The world view is win / lose.  Win / win is not a realistic possibility. 

d)      Initiative is regarded as useless because someone else will benefit from it. 

e)      Favor is curried, because it may produce goods from someone in power.

f)       Any amount of money is always regarded with suspicion and concern.

7)      Hard work is regarded poorly.
A hierarchical society normally has a large income gap, with a few wealthy individuals at the top.  This class tends to view common labor with disdain.  This value judgment influences the entire culture.  In addition, even without a hierarchical perspective, if there is no real opportunity to benefit from hard work because of social stratification, or lack of a supportive economic or legal structure, labor is not seen as beneficial.  This also works with the idea that goods are limited.  Hard work will not produce any benefit.
Implications :

a)      Labor is seen as a necessary evil and a burden to be minimized as much as possible.

b)      Frugality or saving is not common, as it produces very few benefits.

8)      Philanthropy is uncommon.
If most people are relatively poor, there is little point in giving up some of what I have to benefit others.  In individual cases, people will help a neighbor or someone else out of pity, but an organized effort is unlikely.
Implication:

a)      Suspicion about your own philanthropy should be expected.  It is not part of their experience, and it may take them a while to trust that you are not working with some ulterior motivation.

b)      If you are in contact with the upper class in another culture, do not expect them to fully participate in what you are trying to accomplish.  For example, a delegation from the North may be enlisted to paint the physician’s office, rather than help with a clinic for the poor.

9)      Change is threatening.
In a hierarchical culture, any change is seen as a threat to the power of the leadership.  This makes the culture very conservative and opposed to change.  Tradition and solidarity with others are highly valued.  Any change threatens the stability of the society.
Implication:

a)      Dissent or differences of opinion are regarded as threats, not as productive parts of a discussion.

b)      Time focus is on the past, not the future potential.

Caveats

That’s a Latin word that means “watch out”, here are the possible issues.

•            Broad Brush.  Every nation, every culture has individuals within it that are exceptional, that do not conform to the culture.  We call those people criminals, or reactionaries, or revolutionaries, or visionaries, depending on their departure from the norm.  But some of them are the source of change and progress.  That is normal.  This paper takes a broad brush stroke to an entire region, or people, or nation.  That is going to appear to be simplistic, but it is unavoidable.  It is obvious that there is not one culture even within a single country.  And there are not 20 or even 50 cultural traits.  There are thousands.  But some simplification is required just to convey the idea that culture has a powerful impact.  Every culture has multiple strains, multiple factors.  Every nation has multiple cultures within it.  That does not deny the truth of the impact of culture – it just makes it more complicated, which is part of the human condition.  There is no black and white here, despite our biological desire to simplify things that threaten us.

• ·         Things Change.  I personally think that culture changes very slowly, but many times, I hear exceptional cases, where these cultural constraints are overcome.  There is one women’s group in the mountains of Nicaragua that has a thriving cooperative that seems to function well.  There are similar examples from Cambodia and other places.  There is hope, there is progress.  Don’t despair.

• ·         Not Complete.  None of the ideas in this paper were created by the author.  They are all the results of the work of other people.  And nothing about this paper is complete.  You can contribute to it and help improve it.  Please take the initiative to do so.