This post was published on another site in the fall of 2017, but it feels more relevant to me now than when I first wrote it. It’s no longer available in its original home, so I brought it here where I can have the reminder when I need it.

 

“Let justice roll like a river, like a river let it roll.Let justice roll like a river, like a river let it roll. Let it roll. Let it roll.”

A few weeks ago I stood side by side with my church family letting that powerful song flow through me. I closed my eyes and belted out the words and felt them down to my toes. 

The world has been so ugly lately. 

No. Correction. The world has always been ugly, but lately it’s been punching us all in the face hard enough to draw blood. Right? It’s everywhere. Oppression. Destruction. Hate. Pain. Suffering. Nature is cruel and indifferent. Mankind is cruel and indifferent.  

Our only hope…my only hope…is that God is neither of those things. That he is good and that he cares to the point of painful death. That’s the truth I’m trying to cling to.

So on that particular day, so overwhelmed by the evil on all sides that I didn’t even know how to pray orwhat to ask for, I lifted up my hands to him and cried out, “Just wipe it all away! Unmake the evil systems we’ve designed. Wash away our selfishness and greed. Let justice roll like a river!”

Then a cold chill settled over me. I had to sit down for a moment. I stopped singing as the truth sank in.

Straight talk: I am an educated white woman in my forties. I have three white children with bright and promising futures. Under the existing systems and structures, they will be able to have any life they want. So here’s the truth that faces me. It’s a hard truth and a deeply personal one.  

Brothers and sisters, if justice rolls like a river, it will roll over me. 

I have everything to lose. I live in the valley of white privilege, protected by the dam of systemic injustice. It doesn’t matter that I didn’t build the dam. I was born in its shade, and it is sweet down here. The grass is green. My children are happy. Their future is secure. There’s a reason no one wants to blow up the dam, you know? A whole new world might not be as idyllic for me and mine. 

Please believe me: I hate that only a few get to live in this valley.  I hate that people are literally dying of thirst downstream, that others drown in the overflow or get shot trying to find a way in. But that doesn’t mean I don’t love my easy life.

Am I truly ready to put myself in the hands of a righteous God? Am I ready to call down his justice and let the waters wash away the structures that keep my family comfortable? Am I ready for my children to be set adrift with only His mercy to steer them?

But the bigger question is oh so much bigger.

If I am not ready for that, ready to trust in nothing but his mercy, what am I doing pretending to worship him?

Here is the God I claim to follow:

“This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’ “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. “ ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty.” 

I said I wanted him to care, right? He cares. He cares so much that his anger is burning. 

And try this on:

“So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic. I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place. Your covenant with death will be annulled; your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand. When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by, you will be beaten down by it. As often as it comes it will carry you away; morning after morning, by day and by night, it will sweep through.” The understanding of this message will bring sheer terror.”

Yes, it is terrifying. The idea of God sweeping us away along with the structure of lies we’ve built. But brothers and sisters, he already laid the foundation of our new home. The cornerstone is Himself and the foundation is as secure as it is righteous. And all those who were walled out of our little valley have a place inside. It’s everything we say we want. And it’s just on the other side of the flood. 

It’s time, don’t you think? 

It’s time to stop being afraid of the destruction of the valley. It’s time to let the flood carry us on to new heights.

“Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”

 Amen. Let it roll.

 

 

 

Lately the word “sensitive” is often used to describe someone who gets their feelings hurt easily. It’s become, in some circles, a code word for being touchy or lacking resilience. I know I probably should roll with the cultural punches and let language shift as it shifts, but I hate giving up on “sensitive.” Yes, I could use the word “responsive” instead. I could call this “cultural responsivity,” but what an awkward and clinical-sounding phrase. “Sensitive” means exactly what it sounds like: using your senses to be quick to detect even small signs of change. I love that. When it comes to cultural issues, we should have our feelers out and finely tuned. We should train ourselves to be quick to detect and respond to how someone from another culture feels.

If you’re thinking you’re a long way from being quick to detect and respond, welcome to the club. It’s okay to be at the beginning of the process. Like a butterfly, we all start out as hungry little caterpillars, focused just on ourselves and filling up our own needs every day. We take in our own culture, live off of our little leaves, and it’s all the satisfaction we need. When we realize that this isn’t enough, that’s the first step, the building of a chrysalis where we can take a long look inside. We turn inward and take stock. We open ourselves up to be changed. But we can’t stay there forever either. At some point we have to break free, our new antennae feeling out the world, our new wings carrying us lightly from place to place. In this new sensitive and active form, we not only experience so much more of the world, we also become useful pollinators.

So how do we get there? Metaphors are lovely, but they lack something in specifics. Again, I’m no expert. Too often I am slow to detect and slower to respond to cultural needs. But I’m learning.

Here’s what I’m working on:

1. I pay attention to my own biases. We all have biases. Assumptions about people who look a certain way. Attitudes or words that rub us the wrong way. Behaviors that make us cringe. Actions that we judge as selfish or wrong. And sometimes biases go the other way: personality traits we automatically approve of, demeanor that puts us at ease. We all have biases. Having a bias isn’t wrong. We have to make judgements about the world or we can’t navigate it. What we want to avoid are the twin terrors of being unaware that we have biases or allowing our biases to be based on ignorance.

I try to be honest with myself about my biases. I’ll try to be equally honest with you and name a few. Because of my life experiences, I often find myself biased against people from my own culture. If you are wearing a t-shirt with an inspirational saying on it, my automatic response is to think we’ll never be able to have a serious conversation. If someone tends to talk big about his life and accomplishments, I automatically don’t trust him. Other of my biases stem from my own culture. I hate it when people play their music too loud (sensitive ears combined with white upbringing). I have a hard time not finding it rudely invasive. I often find that I make the assumption that physically fit people have their lives together more than those who aren’t fit. (This despite the fact that I’m not particularly fit.)

Once I’ve recognized these biases, I need to stop and think why I hold them and evaluate their validity. The only reason I associate physical fitness with being in control is because that’s how it was always talked about when I was growing up. I now know it’s a false assumption (in both directions) but still I have to fight it. I’m never going to love loud music (unless it’s mine and I’m in the right mood), but I can acknowledge that it doesn’t represent a character flaw in those who do. And though I’ll not be wearing any myself, I’ve met quite a few white women in inspirational t-shirts who had a lot to speak into my life. Big caveat here: I do not suspend all my judgment. I can allow for big-talkers in the sense of larger-than-life personalities, but even after long evaluation, I have found that most boastful people of any culture are lying. It’s not necessary for me to place my trust in liars in the name of being culturally sensitive. We’re recognizing and evaluating our judgment here, not suspending it completely.

Once I can recognize my bias, I can put is aside long enough to do the next thing.

2. I listen to others. I am working to ask questions instead of making assumptions. Experts (not me) tell us that active listening involves five steps. First we really hear, by setting aside distractions and prejudices and letting someone else speak. Second, we attend to what they’re saying, paying careful attention to nonverbal signals and emotions being expressed. Third, we seek to understand by repeating back what we’ve heard and asking follow-up questions. Fourth, we respond, still not talking about ourselves but rather using our empathy to give a response to what they’ve said. Finally, we remember, following up with them later to have more conversations.

A couple of notes about asking questions:

Leading questions are not really questions. A question that only asks for a yes or no, or a question to which you already have an answer in mind is a leading question. “Do you think being late is okay?” Or even, “What are your thoughts on being on time to things?” when you really just want them to say it’s important. True listening questions give people an opening to talk about their own thoughts and feelings. “How is the pace of life different here from where you grew up?” “How does it feel to you that everyone talk about being on time constantly?”

Try to avoid asking people to speak for their whole culture. It’s fine to ask for them to describe how things are in their neighborhood or country or even to describe the behavior of people around them. But no one should have to be a spokesperson for the attitudes and motivations of people they don’t know. And they don’t know everyone from their culture. Ask instead what their experiences have been, how they feel about things, what motivates them personally. Listen to them as a person, not a representative.

3. I initiate in cross-cultural relationships. I’m not always good at this because I, like many people, don’t enjoy taking interpersonal risk. But here’s the reality: if we all just did what came naturally and easily, we’d all just hang out with people from our own culture. Go look at the cafeteria at your local school during lunchtime. Kids sit with kids who look like them. They just do. And it’s not necessarily about hate. It’s about comfort and security (or the lack thereof).

We’re not kids anymore, but our insecurities do linger, don’t they. If I want to learn how to bridge cultural gaps, I’m going to have to start by, you know, stepping into the water. I have to speak up, to introduce myself, to offer coffee or set up a play date or invite someone to dinner. I have to be willing to be awkward, uncomfortable, and wrong. I will be, but I’ll also find things I love that I never knew existed. I’ll make mistakes and possibly cause offense. Then I’ll get the chance to be humble and apologize and I’ll learn on a level I couldn’t have any other way.

I can’t wait for it to happen naturally (it won’t) or for someone else to make it happen (I’ll be waiting a long time). I have to step up.

4. I intentionally learn about other cultures. There are a lot of obvious ways to do this. I eat food from other cultures. I read books about them or (seldom) watch documentaries. I travel if I can. But this isn’t a purely academic idea. I also reach outside my usual routine and consume art from other cultures. I sometimes listen to kinds of music I don’t normally love and try to understand it. I read books I wouldn’t normally, watch TV shows with characters that don’t look like me, go to movies not aimed at my demographic. If I am allowed to give one piece of personal advice, this is it: don’t just check out things that describe people, check out the things they’re into, explore the art and entertainment they enjoy and try to see why they enjoy them. The art people produce communicates so much about their culture. Give it a try. (And if you don’t know where to start, email me. I have thoughts.)

5. I consider more than my personal behavior and evaluate the systems I participate in. Here’s where I take it to the next level and really spread my shaky butterfly wings. My field of work, my kids’ schools, my local government, my housing association, my church, the organizations I belong to. I want to be thoughtful and honest about all of them. What are their cultural leanings? In what way are they making it difficult for people of other cultures to thrive in them? Is there anything I can do to make the system more culturally inclusive?

We can’t let ourselves believe the lie that we’re only responsible for our personal relationships. Yes, I need to be warm and kind and open and understanding with those I meet. But as much as I would like to think of myself as just an individual (more on this cultural leaning in a future post), I am also a member of a community. Several different communities actually. As such, I have a larger responsibility to see how the bigger system of my community is affecting people. My personal kindness isn’t helping families who can’t get decent housing because of neighborhood rules and standard real estate practices. It’s not helping the students failing high school because it was never designed to teach people like them. It’s not helping single moms get appropriate health care in a system with rules that raises hurdles to access on every side. To help those people, I need to do my part to enact systemic change.

If that feels overwhelming, well, sure. It is. Remember, we’re taking steps here. Don’t worry, you don’t have to dismantle health care this week. For now, maybe just be willing to consider the ways the system is not as culturally sensitive as you are. Set aside your bias about it. Then ask some people not like you what their experiences have been. Listen to what they tell you.

Break out of your self-contemplation. Spread your wings and fly around a bit. Look at your comfortable place from the outside. Put out your antennae and sense what others are feeling.

Be ready to respond.

In order to talk about cultures (the values, beliefs, and behaviors of a group) we’ve made a lot of generalizations. It’s helpful to understand these patterns of value and belief, especially as we consider adapting systems to be equitable for people of all cultures. As we think about our day-to-day interactions with individuals, though, it’s useful to ask ourselves how we know what culture someone belongs to.

Consider four people with the same ethnic heritage and the same country of birth. Just as an example, let’s say all four had parent born in China and all four were born in the United States, in the state of California.

Li’s parents were well educated in China and came to California for the economic opportunity. Both speak fluent English and have successful careers in the tech industry. Li was born after they had lived in the US for several years. She grew up in an upper-middle class urban area, had no siblings, and was educated in private schools. Her family claimed no religion, though her mother encouraged her to be spiritual. Her parents taught her some Chinese, but English was spoken at home. She now attends UC Berkeley.

Min’s parents came to the United States fleeing oppression. They spoke only a few words of English and had no money. Both took labor-intensive jobs in Chinatown in Los Angeles. Min was born three months after they arrived. Min was raised in a lower-class urban neighborhood, is the oldest of two children, and spoke only Chinese until she began attending public school at age 6. Her family is Christian, and were dedicated members of a Chinese-speaking church. Her parents eventually saved enough to open a small business, and Min was expected to work shifts in the business in addition to her studies. She eventually worked her way through college at California State.

Brian’s parents were both born in China but came to the U.S. as small children. Neither speaks Chinese, having grown up embarrassed by their parents’ lack of English skill. They met in college and bonded over their similar background. Brian is one of three children, was raised in a small town in northern California, and played soccer at his public school. His family is Christian and only sometimes attended a large, mostly-white church in town. Though his grandparents only live a few hours away, his family visited them only a couple times a year. His first real introduction to China happened on a trip he took to Beijing with his college soccer team.

Jin’s parents came to California to join his aunt and uncle and work for their business in the tourism industry. Jin is the youngest of four children and the only one born in the US. His parents were determined that their children would learn English, so no Chinese was spoken at home. Jin grew up in a small beach town, attended a small public school, and is an avid surfer. When he was fifteen, his grandmother came from China to live with his family. He became fascinated with the Chinese culture he never knew growing up, adopted his grandmother’s Buddhist religion, and studied Chinese in college.

Li, Min, Brian, and Jin are all Chinese-American. Not only do they share certain physical characteristics, they all are products of the same two national cultures. But it would be a huge mistake to think that these four have the same values, beliefs, and behaviors. In spite of their commonalities, their cultural identities are quite different.

When we talk about someone’s cultural identity, we’re not referring to their genetics. The culture that someone belongs to is the one that shaped them and that they identify with.

Each person’s cultural identity is made up of many factors, and the importance of each factor depends on its significance to the person. Some of the most important of those factors are race/ethnicity (recognizing again that this isn’t so much an issue of genetics as of the way society has defined race), socio-economic status, religion, place of residence, family structure, and degree of personal conformity to cultural norms.

Think about your own cultural identity, starting with what shaped you. What race or ethnicity do you claim? How significantly did you feel your race or ethnicity impacted your life? What was the economic status of your family of origin? How did that compare with the economic status of those you spent the most time with? What religion were you raised in? How important was that religion to your family? To you? Where did you live? In what country and in what region? Did you live in the city or in a small town or in the country? What was your family status? How many parents lived with you? How many siblings did you have? What was your position among those siblings? How much did you fit in with your family’s values? How much did your family fit in with your community’s values?

All of those answers go into forming your cultural identity. And as if that weren’t complicated enough, your cultural identity can shift over time. To be clear, it takes a lifetime to alter the beliefs and values of the culture that formed you, if it ever happens at all, but your behaviors (and then later, maybe, your values and beliefs) will be influenced by the culture you choose to identify with as an adult. Most adults remain pretty closely tied to their culture of origin, but in some cases radical changes can occur.

You may find your cultural identity changing due to your education level, your career choice, your choice of religion, where you choose to live, the status of the family you found as an adult and your adult socio-economic status.

Can you think of ways that you identify with a different culture than you did as a child? How different are your own values, beliefs, and behaviors from those of your parents?

What’s the point of these questions? As I’ve already said, it’s critical that we develop cultural understanding so that we can get past the behaviors of those around us and see the values, beliefs and attitudes underneath. But as we become more culturally aware, we can’t ever use our broad cultural brush to make assumptions about the people we meet. If we do, we fall into the trap of stereotyping, just with more educated language. Generalizations are helpful in understanding groups, but dangerous in understanding individuals.

Always, always, we are truly culturally aware only when we take the time to get to know individuals, when we discover what cultural factors formed them and what cultural identity they choose to claim. We have to allow for complexity and for change.

We have to do the hard work of listening.

Last week I talked about the terms we use to define and categorize cultures, and I want to take it the next step this week and apply those concepts to a real world environment. I’m going with one I’m pretty familiar with: education. In looking at education as a sytem, for the first time we’re moving past evaluating our personal behavior and we’re evaluating a larger structure with the eyes of cultural understanding.

There is a lot of talk these days about systemic injustices (systemic racism, systemic sexism, etc.), and I don’t think the concept is very well understood. With or without understanding, though, it produces a strong emotional reaction. Emotion is good–it fuels action–but it’s always best if our emotion is coupled with (and based on) solid knowledge.

So what is systemic injustice? At the risk of oversimplification, I’ll define systemic injustice as unfair practices promoted and codified by a social or political system of power.

Does education fit that definition? It easily satisfies the requirements of being a system. Education in America is a codified structure, with laws surrounding how it’s carried out and a hierarchy of power controlling it.

The question of whether the system is unjust requires a more lengthy answer.

The answer could be found in statistics, looking at the racial and cultural breakdown of students who succeed and students who fail in our education system. I personally find those numbers very compelling. But I think we can also take a different approach to the question and use our cultural understanding to see the problem in a very personal way.

As I start to dig into educational practices, I understand that it makes a lot of people nervous. We’re comfortable with our systems. We’ve benefitted from our systems. We know they aren’t perfect, but they’re better than any other system we’ve heard of, so it feels disloyal and ungrateful to tear them down.

I get it. I do. I was educated in public schools in four different states. I got an incredible education. I memorized Shakespeare and dissected frogs and mastered a musical instrument and learned a second language, all without my parents having to pay money they didn’t have. I’m immensely thankful for it. It enabled me to get scholarships that paid for a college education, which enabled me to readily get a job teaching in another public school. Twenty years later, I have three children also being educated in public schools. They are getting a great education. I have benefitted and am benefitting from our public school systems in every way.

But here’s the thing: those systems were built for people like me. Of course I benefit from them. I am a perfect cultural fit.

We need to understand that the education system in the U.S. is the specific product of white American middle-class culture (with influences of white upper class culture because the middle-class yearns to imitate and eventually become them). Even beyond that, the education system in the U.S. is founded more generally on principles passed down from other “cold-climate” cultures in Western Europe.

People of western European descent who had money made this system and they still run this system. It is designed for them, and it absolutely automatically follows that they benefit from it the most.

That’s not an accusation, not something to feel guilty about; it’s just a fact that we need to deal with. Let’s dig into what it means using the cultural terms that we learned last week. I want to talk about school in the language of relationship vs. task orientation, group vs. individual identity, high context vs. low context communication, monochronic vs. polychronic view of time, and internal vs. external locus of control.

Relationship vs. Task Orientation

Think about the structure of a school day. In elementary school, we spend a lot of time teaching procedures and rules, training students to sit still in chairs, to walk quietly in hallways, to make quick transitions from one task to the next. There are good reasons for all of this; it truly helps things go more smoothly. But the fact remains that the emphasis is on getting down to the business of learning as quickly and as efficiently as possible. The emphasis is on not being distracted from the important task of learning by talking to others. Many elementary school teachers are very personally warm and caring and do take time with their students, but their job requires them to produce measurable results: test scores, reading levels, etc. Regardless of the personal practice of teachers, the system values tasks.

This becomes even more pronounced in secondary school, where kids are expected to drop into a class and dive into that subject, then switch to another class in an efficient five-minute transition and start immediately on the next subject. Success is again measured by test scores, and most tests are in an impersonal, standardized, written format. Often information is imparted in a unidirectional way: the teacher lectures, the students read a text book, math concepts are explained on a chalkboard. Questions are for when students don’t understand the material, not a part of the original learning process. Even when we teach the languages of intensely relationship-oriented cultures, we do so in a task-oriented way: memorize a list of vocabulary and a set of grammar rules and take written tests. Again, individual teachers are sometimes exceptions to this rule, but our curriculum is inherently focused on tasks.

Our schools are designed for a task-oriented culture. So what does that mean for students who are from relationship-oriented cultures? They long for more personal connection, they struggle with abrupt business-like transitions, and they aren’t able to show their true capabilities in impersonal and rigidly-structured testing environments. It can be very hard for them to retain information imparted in a task-like manner, where perhaps they would find it more memorable and relevant if more interpersonal interaction were involved.

Group vs. Individual Identity

Success in our school systems is measured by personal achievement. A good student performs well on tests, achieves certain letter grades, and in time begins to compete with other students for certain honors. Work is mostly done individually, and even when group projects are assigned, individual contributions are still measured and grades are often assigned individually. There is no mechanism for rewarding students who contribute to the learning of their companions, and our value on privacy keeps students from even knowing the degree of success of other students or of the class as a whole.

All of our efforts to motivate students involve this individualistic way of looking at the world. We encouraged students to dream big, to pursue their dream, and tell them school is the way to achieve their personal goals. We hold up examples of people who attained personal success: admission to certain universities, high paying jobs, awards, fame. We tell students that they need to work hard and take responsibility for their own education. This is how they’ll succeed and be happy in life. Our cultural value of individualism is the foundation for our educational decisions.

What does this mean for students from group identity cultures? The things they value aren’t even on the table, and many of their contributions get overlooked. They may have trouble setting individual goals for their future, and so they appear aimless and are treated like underachievers. No one is talking about the things that are motivating to them.

High context vs. Low Context Communication

In low-context cultures like our own, everyone is expected to explicitly state their own needs. Communication in American classrooms is very direct. The teacher gives instructions and passes on information, and students who don’t understand are expected to ask questions. If a student is struggling, the expectation is that she will speak up and request help. How else is the teacher supposed to know? He can’t read minds, after all.

But what does that mean for students from high-context cultures? In their native culture, it’s considered rude to point out that someone’s communication hasn’t been clear. In order not to shame your teacher, you’ll give nonverbal indications that you didn’t understand, and they will automatically notice these and provide further instruction. Students from high context cultures will not naturally raise their hand to ask questions or ask for help. Then when they fall behind in class, teachers often become frustrated that they student didn’t speak up, usually attributing this to laziness or lack of caring about their work.

Monochronic vs. Polychronic

Let’s think about the curriculum we use in our schools. Subjects are divided from one another and we study one at a time. We have a time during the day for reading, one for writing, one for math, one for science, one for history, etc. We tackle one task at a time, and then we move on to the next. We design the year to move through the items in each subject sequentially. A topic is taught thoroughly, then tested, then a new topic is introduced.

It may seem like this is the only logical way to handle it, but that assumption betrays our monochronic way of viewing time. Subjects could be covered together, reading and history, science and writing, all weaving in and out of the same lesson. History could be studied by topic rather than chronology, and a history lesson could be interrupted for a foray into the science or literature of the age discussed. Evaluations could be made in the middle of a lesson rather than the end.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with our monochronic way of doing school, but it is tied to our culture. What does that mean for kids from polychronic cultures? They may find it hard to stay focused just on the task at hand, and may be reprimanded for being “off-task.” They may struggle to see the relevance of history or math when it’s studied in isolation from other subjects and not set in the bigger context of their lives. In many cases their distractibility or lack of feeling engaged leads to disruptive behaviors, which get them in trouble or even removed from the learning environment. Obviously, their performance suffers accordingly.

Internal vs. External Locus of Control

Again consider how we evaluate our students. Each is given a series of tests, and his performance on the test describes his success in the system. If students are consistently failing these tests, the first assumption is that they haven’t studied hard enough. More work is given, more pressure is exerted, more time is expected to be spent. Why is that our assumption? Because our underlying belief is that the student has within himself the power to succeed or to fail. Culturally, we have an internal locus of control.

Consider that even the stated purpose of education–to better your life–seems odd to someone with an external locus of control. They have a hard time seeing how their efforts studying books in a quiet classroom is going to have any effect on their real life. Life will happen to them, and no amount of studying is going to change the outcome. They are not motivated to take control of their future by studying hard because their culture and life experience has taught them that the world doesn’t work that way. People with an external locus of control are seeking to enjoy the present rather than enrich the future because, in their minds, the present is all that is guaranteed. Though school still may be a tool for their future success, the students aren’t going to see it that way. Unless school feels like it adds something to their present life, it’s just a place someone makes them go every day. Think about how school is designed. Very little of it is designed to be rewarding now. It’s all about storing up knowledge and achievements that can help you in the future.

You see the point I’m making? Our education system is unfair, whether or not anyone working in it intends for it to be unfair. I’m confident that almost all of them want nothing more than to educate everyone equally. But because of our cultural leanings, we’re helping some people more than others, we’re offering more success to those like us and less to those who are different. Setting all intention aside, that adds up to injustice.

Our schools are full of kids from other cultures, and like ferns struggling to grow in a desert, their environment isn’t hospitable to them. Some will adapt and survive, but none will thrive the way a desert cactus will, or the way they would if they just had access to more water. And since education is the access key to other systems of power, their lack of thriving in that environment has ripple effects throughout the rest of society.

I want to be clear: my goal here is not to criticize the way we do education. Criticism doesn’t create change.

I’m just here to say, one white lady to a bunch of others, that we should admit that school in America is a white lady world. White ladies have a lot of good qualities. One of the best is that most of us desperately want to help others. But I think maybe we sometimes get so stuck in our white lady ways, that we don’t do a good job of providing the help that we intend.

I find it troubling to be a part of a system that helps me and my kids prosper while holding others back. I want to do my part to help others find success and happiness by their own cultural definitions. I believe I’m not alone in that.

I know and work with a great number of teachers, most of whom pour their hearts into caring for each student holistically. Some are already culturally aware and act accordingly. For them, none of what I’m saying is news, and to them, I say that I can see you working to meet your students’ needs and I can see that you are hampered by systems that don’t take those needs into account.

For those who are just learning about cultural awareness, I see that you want to do better and that you are overwhelmed by how much is being asked of you. I see that even what you want to do can’t always be done in a system designed to stretch you beyond human capacity. Teaching may be a calling, but at the end of the day, it’s also a job, and the system determines the job requirements. Once those are fulfilled, there often isn’t much time and energy left over for enacting change on an individual level.

I see you, and I’m committed to helping others see you, too.

May we all join you in changing what needs changed.

My fourth grade daughter told me the other day that the latest craze in her class is writing those magazine-style quizzes for each other. She had written one for me as an example. ‘Answer these five questions and I’ll tell you what kind of person you are.” I wasn’t sure if I wanted to laugh or cringe at the idea of ten-year-olds applying their vast knowledge of the world to categorizing each other, but I did find their fascination with it interesting.

Categorizing the world is a natural human instinct, a way to figure out where you fit in relationship to everything else. It’s a dangerous habit, to be sure, especially if we cling to our categories and refuse to see the nuance of real life. But categories are useful if you think of them as a tool rather than a rule. There are a lot better personality profiles than magazine quizzes, of course, and the best of them, while not coming close to defining us completely, give us language we can use to understand ourselves and others.

The same is true of cultures. Below I’m going to outline some of the categories most commonly used to describe the “personality profile” of a culture. The list is not comprehensive by any means, but it does give us some language to use moving forward. Note that each category is a continuum, not an either/or proposition. Some cultures may fall way to one end or the other, but most are somewhere in between.

(This isn’t an academic paper, so I’m not citing sources for all of this, but I do want to acknowledge where I got some of these ideas. While this is mostly a collection of knowledge I’ve picked up here and there over the years, some is specifically drawn from the book FOREIGN TO FAMILIAR by Sarah A. Lanier, where the author makes a distinction between hot-climate cultures and cold-climate cultures and shows how they fall on opposite ends of most of these spectrums. Some is also drawn from more recent reading in places like here and here.)

Orientation

Relationship vs. Task

The orientation of a culture indicates which value society tilts towards. In relationship-oriented cultures, connnection to other people is what matters most. These cultures always prioritize a person over efficiency and accomplishment. It’s important for communication to feel good to both parties, and it’s considered rude to dive right into business talk without personal chat first. Even though individuals may be different, society is oriented toward feelings.

In task-oriented cultures, accomplishing tasks takes priority over relationship. Efficiency is highly valued, and taking up as little of someone’s time as possible is considered a sign of respect. In communication, accuracy and directness are desired. Again, while individuals will differ, society as a whole is oriented toward logic.

Lanier says that cold-climate cultures, such as our own, fall on the task-oriented end of this spectrum, while hot-climate cultures fall on the relationship-oriented end. I would certainly say that my slice of American culture is pretty far down toward the task-oriented end of the spectrum (though not, perhaps, as far as the German culture of my ancestors).

You can see what problems arise when relationship-oriented cultures meet task-oriented cultures. The one finds the other cold, rigid, and offensive, while his counterpart sees him as distracted, inefficient, and lazy.

Communication

High Context vs. Low Context

High context communication relies on the surrounding context to provide most of the meaning in communication, rather than relying on the words themselves. High context cultures depend on all parties having a shared understanding of these unspoken communications. In a high context culture, great significance is found in social standing, dress, posture, nonverbal cues, greetings, etc. Who you know matters more than what you know. For clear communication, you must know where you fit in the bigger scheme of society, and where the person you are speaking with fits. The atmosphere in such cultures tends to be more formal.

Low context communication depends much more on the actual words spoken. Low context cultures expect more direct and explicit communication and do not have as many rules governing interactions. Who you know still matters, but what you know is more highly valued. The resulting atmosphere tends to be more casual.

U.S. culture is very low-context, even more so than other cold-climate cultures like England or France. Certainly most Asian cultures fall far on the high-context end of things, and most African and Latin-American cultures are also on that end, though maybe not as far. Argentine culture, for example, is a high-context culture, but in Buenos Aires’s I found it to be significantly less so than what I had experienced in other Latin American cultures.

Communication between members of high-context and low-context cultures is obviously fraught with difficulty. A low-context person who doesn’t know the unspoken rules of their high-context counterpart will miss a good deal of what’s being communicated, misinterpret the message, be confused by the outcome, and often feel intentionally misled or lied to. A high-context person will often not be aware that their low-context counterpart has misinterpreted the conversation, while they’ll find her direct and explicit communication rude at best and confusing and misleading at worst.

Identity

Group vs. Individual

In group identity cultures, who I am is tied to the group (family or tribe) I belong to, and what is expected of me is determined by my role in the group. The group will protect and provide for me, and I do not expect to have to do that alone. In return, my behavior will reflect on the whole group. Direction from the leader of the group is valued and desired by the members of the group.

In individualistic cultures, who I am is determined by me alone. I am expected to have my own opinions and to speak for myself. I am also expected to stand alone and provide for myself. Initiative is encouraged. I make my own decisions, and my behavior reflects on me and not on anyone else.

U.S. culture is very individualistic. Possibly we corner the market on that end of the scale (though we likely share it with Australians). Other cold-climate cultures also fall on that end of the scale, while most hot-climate cultures lean toward a group identity.

The clash of cultures in this category is significant. The individualistic definition of success as personal accomplishment is baffling and selfish to those who primarily see success as the flourishing of the group. In the meantime, individualists are judging group cultures for being restrictive or encouraging laziness and dependence.

Attitude toward Time

Polychronic vs. Monochronic

Polychronic cultures see time as fluid. They like to do many things at once, and therefore have no problem with interruptions because they don’t exactly see them as interruptions. They don’t see time as a commodity which can be wasted, stolen, or lost. Time is simply here to be filled with anything of value. There will always be more time later to do whatever needs done.

Monochronic cultures see time as a straight line. They like to do one thing at a time and complete a task before moving on. For that reason, interruptions are very irritating because they are breaking up the timeline. Time is seen as a very valuable commodity, and schedules are important because they make wise use of the resource of time.

Most cold-climate cultures, including U.S. culture, are monochronic. Most hot-climate cultures are polychronic. The differences in this category are more readily apparent than other categories, making them very common sources of friction but also somewhat easier to identify and treat with understanding.

Locus of Control

External vs. Internal

Locus of control is more often discussed in terms of individuals but there is some value in seeing how it applies to cultures as well. A person’s locus of control indicates the degree to which they feel they have control over their own life versus outside forces controlling it.

Cultures with a strong external locus of control believe that events are not in the control of each individual but of some outside force. Whether those forces are considered to be natural or supernatural, the underlying belief is that what happens is not within human control. This results in a degree of fatalism about life and a tendency to value the present or the past over the future, which cannot be predicted or shaped.

Cultures with a strong internal locus of control believe that humans are capable of controlling what happens to them and shaping their own lives. While outside forces are acknowledged, the underlying belief in human ability to predict and overcome them remains intact. This results in an emphasis on personal responsibility, a value on planning and regulating, and a tendency to value the future more than the present or the past.

The bigger divide here is really between socio-economic groups more than climate based groups. Dominant U.S. culture believes in internal locus of control. U.S. culture in general falls on that side of the continuum because on a world-scale, the U.S. is economically powerful, but the degree to which this is true of various sub-cultures is also generally the degree to which they share the internal locus of control.

These five categories will be the basis for discussion of how close or far we are culturally from others. For example, my white American culture is task-oriented, low-context, individualistic, monochronic, and with an internal locus of control. What does that mean about how I order my life, how I evaluate my success, how I judge others? How does my way of viewing the world compare to others? Which cultures are only a little distant from mine and which sit a world away on the other end of all the continuums?

In the next few posts, we’ll use this new language to look at what an individual’s cultural identity means and how can we take all of our understanding and apply it to the real-world situations we’re trying to navigate. That’s the end goal we’re always leaning toward: more understanding, more compassion, better communication, better choices, better relationships, better systems.

Because this is all fascinating stuff, but it’s in applying the language to real life that we show our maturity. That’s when we stop being children with questions written in crayon and start being productive citizens of the world.