Applied Insights from Cross-Cultural Living

This blog follows on my previous blog on Reading History. To summarise my argument from “Reading History”: Living abroad and reading about other time periods in history have the shared value that each can open us up to a broader experience of the world – if we approach such living and such reading with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. Such openness requires “mindfulness”, an attentive and non-judgmental spirit that encounters new ways of understanding life and seeks to learn from them. 

What does such an approach look like? How can we be people convinced of truth on the one hand, but open to new values and visions on the other? Travelling and working abroad can help and reading history (one form of literature that travels intentionally through time and space) can help. But how do they help? What does that help look like?

A Personal Example

When I was about 40 years old, we lived in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, next door to the bishop of our church and his wife. I remember one morning when the bishop’s wife and I met in the driveway outside our houses and she greeted me, “Sabona, umtwanami.” Literally, “Hello (I see you), my child.” She then explained to me that as the bishop’s wife she was the mother of the church. Although we were about the same age, she was therefore my mother and I was her child. 

As I reflect on our conversation, two completely opposite worldviews were at work. I am a child of the 1960s, an American-Canadian, deeply committed to an egalitarian society in which every person is equal in value with every other person. Hierarchy is (in my worldview) the enemy of equality. She was a Zimbabwean, taking for granted that her status as the bishop’s wife placed her above me in a hierarchy that gave life meaning and purpose. 

I could easily have experienced her comment as a put-down. To be reminded that I was not as important as she goes against the grain of my egalitarian upbringing. But, from her perspective, she was doing me a favour by helping me learn how to live in the hierarchy of Zimbabwe. I could have embarrassed myself by acting out of my American cultural heritage while living and working in Zimbabwe; in spite of her help, I probably did! Her kindness helped me to avoid further mistakes as a guest in her society. 

Rather than reacting negatively to MaNkala (the bishop’s wife), then, I respond with appreciation for her lesson, helping me to know how to live in her home. To put it another way, I evaluate her action on the basis of her society (since that’s where we were living) rather than on the basis of mine. What could seem to me like an arrogant action was in fact a kindness meant for my good.

A Historical Example

The example above is relatively trivial. More serious is the case of missionaries encountering polygamy. Dwight Thomas has done significant research into the planting of the Brethren in Christ Church in Zambia. Recently, he posted a note from “the African Mission Minutes” (from the BIC Church in Zimbabwe) of 1907:

Whereas, the Matrimonial conditions of the Foreign fields are perplexing and peculiar to themselves; and 

Whereas, Only those who are in the field can be fully qualified to to give proper expression upon the real character of those cases, and 

Whereas, An inflexible rule may prove impractical, 

Resolved, therefore, That latitude be granted to the Foreign Missionary workers in Africa, with this precaution that they exercise the utmost care not to violate the spirit of the Gospel, nor surrender any of the established tenets of the Church upon the very important question of matrimony.[1]

 

The missionaries encountered a culture in which polygamy was normal. Further, the cultures of the Christian Old Testament also assumed that polygamy was normal. At the same time, centuries of Christian teaching and practice have held that monogamy is normal and that polygamy is prohibited. In the missionaries’ own culture, a bigamous marriage was held to be illegal. When people around the missions wanted to join the church, what should the missionaries say about their polygamous marriages? 

Based on my earlier blog (“Reading History”), I recommend an approach that suspends judgment about polygamy and says instead something like this: “People take polygamy for granted! That seems odd to me, but it is interesting. I wonder why they value polygamy so much?” 

Based on my own reading of missionary articles sent to the home church, the usual reason missionaries gave for polygamy was that older men wanted young wives – that is, polygamy was based on male desire for sexual activity. A more charitable exploration of the place of polygamy in African society sees it as part of a complex system that ensures care for everyone in society, including orphans and widows (often the most helpless of marginalized people). 

A mindful approach to differences in culture helps one to maintain one’s belief in the truth one knows (in this case, that biblical marriage is monogamous) while seeking to understand what is going on in another culture’s practice (which happens to parallel biblical polygamy). I commend the excerpt from the Mission’s Minutes above for the way that it suggests such a “mindful” approach.

Another Historical Example

Another example, which most will oppose more strongly, comes from India. Some traditional Hindu practice includes the use of sati (suttee) or widow-burning as part of the death ritual for Hindu men of the upper castes.[2] When the British colonised India, they outlawed sati, a practice that the church also strongly opposed. Does my suggestion of a mindful response still apply? 

I think it does. Some may think that Indians who practiced sati did so because they were uncivilized or barbaric or in some other way deficient in human feelings and values. Such judgments, however understandable, are misplaced and wrong. A family in which a widow immolated herself on her dead husband’s funeral pyre experienced loss just as a Canadian or American family would. There must have been reasons within the culture for the practice to have taken root. A mindful approach seeks to find out what those reasons were. 

Perhaps the widow desired “salvation” (the goal of Hinduism in release from the illusion of life) and sati presented her with the real possibility of such release. Perhaps she saw that her society could no longer support her, and sati offered the possibility of an honoured and honourable death rather than a shameful and painful life. Whatever the reasons, a mindful response teaches the guest what is important and valuable in this society. It also shows the broken places in society. Simple rejection closes the door to such learning.

Closing Thoughts

Why do some people favour abortion? Pro-life people (among whom I count myself) can learn from those who value the right of the woman to choose – only if we approach them with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. Calling them murderers and seeking to criminalize them closes the door to such learning.[3] 

Why do some people value traditional families (built around two parents, one man and one woman)? Progressives can learn from such conservatives (among whom I count myself) – only if they (we) approach them with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. Calling them homophobes and making fun of them closes the door to such learning.[4] 

Why do some people seek restrictions on gun rights? (I am one such.) Conservatives can learn from such people – only if by approaching them with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. Declaring that they are trying to destroy our country closes the door to such learning. 

We could walk through a variety of hot topics of our society today in a similar way. On some issues, I identify with conservatives and with some I identify with progressives. In all of them, I know that there are real reasons and views worth taking seriously among people on the other side. I am convinced that the views of people I disagree with are worth taking seriously. As I learn from the truth that other people hold, I may come closer to truth as God alone knows it.

Epilogue

Jonathan Haidt (to whom I referred in the earlier blog) tells us about a recent movement in anthropology recognizing that most psychological research has been done on Western people who are WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic. We are different from the vast majority of people down through history at precisely these five points, and they lead to major differences in how we see precisely the hot topics that we are so divided on. 

A simple question I have is: If we are in such a minority, how can we be so sure that the rest of the world throughout space and time is simply wrong? At the same time, if we (WEIRD people) are multiplying significantly, are our views the future for everyone on planet earth? (I will let the reader look up sources on WEIRD people. Google has its uses.)

---

[1] Posted on Dwight Thomas’s Facebook group, Zambian BIC History & Genealogy.

[2] In this practice, the body of the dead man is immolated on the funeral pyre and the dead man’s widow throws herself on the pyre so that her body is consumed with his. The sacrifice is said to move her closer to final liberation from karma and the cycle of reincarnation to be reunited with the Divine. Many Hindus, along with Muslims and other observers, have joined Christians in opposing this practice, which is not accepted in India today.

[3] The Supreme Court in the USA struck down Roe vs. Wade just before I finished this essay. I am not here commenting on their decision, nor am I commenting on whether abortion should be legal or illegal. I am saying two things. 1) I do not believe abortion is acceptable: I am pro-life. 2) I do not think that criminalizing abortion is a fruitful way to proceed as a society. The debate around these questions is complex, but I am advocating for a “mindful” (listening) approach in the necessary conversations.

[4] The tendency progressives show to make traditional viewpoints unacceptable parallels the pro-life tendency to criminalize pro-choice positions in the abortion conversation. I am advocating more listening “mindfully”.