Reverse Culture Shock (RCS) & Societal Shock - New
|
culture shock – noun. a state of bewilderment and distress experienced by an individual who is suddenly exposed to a new, strange, or foreign social and cultural environment. Origin:1955–60 Unlike the excitement and awe you expect with Culture Shock, its poor cousin Reverse Culture Shock is a bummer for first time sufferers. No-one really pays sufficient attention to it, until that is we ourselves are personally effected, or our friends are showing tell-tale signs of being caught up in it. Then, oh boy, you can really hear about it.
For the record, I think the whole phenomenon is infinitely fascinating and potentially holds great value for positive societal change. We are seeing early signs that this is happening, with the phenomenonal growth of volunteer programs and ethical travel offerings. What I am not convinced of however, is whether there is sufficient evidence of policy change percolating back up the political food chain in the Western world. For this reason, I am particularly interested in the types of complex wholistic transitions involving people moving from developing countries, or culturally distinct regions, back to their 'home' modern Western societies.
These are the transitions where many "quality or problematic RCS occurences" can be found; ones that are, in my mind, ultimately existentially vital for individual growth, much needed for helping to keep overly rationalistic and materialistic societies in balance and for this reason potentially political dynamite for the status quo of any staid, self-serving, hegemonic Western society.
These are also the transitions that when writ large bump into reactionaries, political ideologies, culture-police, ethnocentrics, racists and all shades of religious dogmas. Basically the collective vanguard of the status quo. There you go, lock me up, I've said it.
Look at a recent famous case in Australia: David Hicks. What does his background story tell you? RCS most certainly played a part in his highly politicised identity formation, impacted on the decisions he made regarding his affinity with 'Australia' and deeply influenced his religous and political views.
Heavy place to start, admittedly, but when looking at David as an extreme case study, we are best to stop and ask a few RCS related questions like, what was it that prevented him from re-settling into mainstream Australian society?
Do we just nonchantly dismiss him as a looney? Does his experience have any instructive value? Can we come at it from a more enlightened objective standpoint and ask, was there 'room' in David's mainstream Australian society for him?
What does it say about the potentially oppressive nature of our own thinking, when many of us simply feel the urge to race in and ask this type of question of David: "Why didn't he just fit in, adjust his values accordingly, go to the football and get on with conforming to the dictates of a happy ritualized suburban existence?"
When we stop to think about it, aren't these just the same sort of questions people in the grip of RCS have foisted apon them?
Bearing the extremes and political sensitivities of his case in mind, let's cautiously plod on and take a closer look at RCS. Let's break it down. Let's see if I can clarify a few points and in the process have you test your on conviction on the subject.
[Sidenote: Isn't it sad that in the English language the word conviction and convict are so integrally related? This realisation is might be fundamentally irksome for those of us who choose to write candidly, those of us who also buy wholesale into the notion of 'Free Speech' and who speak our minds with conviction? Silence though, is not an attractive option. Travel can afford politically powerful realisations that inspires political movements, just it can inspire travel writing fluff. Che vs. Thorntree confessions. I continue. The "just thinking out loud" box has been ticked...]
RCS enables people to perceive themselves and their 'home' societies in new and unique ways.
It can often equate to a situation where they are not entirely 'comfortable' with the status quo they see about them, both the micro and macro worlds. Their friend and family's dreams, goals, motives, day-to-day behaviour and routines may be brought into question. Whilst overseas their own value judgements and sense of self may have either consciously or unconsciously dramatically shifted, or perhaps just become more defined for the first time.
Similarly, bigger hitherto unasked questions may come to the surface back 'home'.
The sort of deeply philosophical, or 'what is life all about' calibre questions may arise; ones that unsettle or disturb family or friends not in the least interested in such profound reflection. So here is an immediate source of discomfort. In this situation, if there are not mature, worldly, wise or competent communicators around the RCS sufferer at this time, frequently they are either ignored, or much worse, simply told to shut up and conform to a lifestyle or society which he no longer has a natural affinity with.**
Fortunately for some, the RCS experience may well have brought with it some positive psychological adjustment or coping tools too. Here I refer to a newly developed sense of compassion and acceptance. The chance to internalise these more spiritually developed traits whilst travelling, may well help the RCS suffered to counteract or dampen their negative reactions to re-encountering a society they find they are no longer comfortable with, or downright disapprove of. Not all are blessed with RSC that affords them with such maturity or self-control.
Why? Well here I am biased and tend to show my true colours. I believe that RCS can bring with it individual solutions to many of its own self-created existential and peception problems.
Commonly, if that person is fortunate to be returning from a country, or region where Buddhism was dominant, and/or pervaded their day-to-day experience, I believe they might have an advantage. They may well be able to recover from the negative effects of RCS quicker than most.
That said, they need to have taken the time to internalize, or at least concertedly educate themselves about, some of the fundamental tenents of Buddhism. No a paragraph in the Lonely Planet, doesn't count for much folks.
People need to be honest about the foolishness of adopting and professing the pop versions of Buddhist belief or understanding. The trap here is not unlike falling for some passing fashion or fad. By this I mean some 'other-directed' facade that makes them outwardly more 'cool' in order to appeal to others. That's feeding your vanity, not your deeper sense of self. I feel this is an important distinction to make, especially for those of us who can easily delude ourselves about what it is the we 'hold deeply'.
So here's the whammy. Proceed with caution. If compassion and acceptance are not informing your RCS at some level, then our political revolutionaries, subversives and enlightened activists could not ask for a better politically disenchanted constituent. Positives and negatives come with this realisation. Radical social change is needed. How it is done, and who brings this about is the question. We wordly travellers do have a role to play, make no mistake about it. So yes - travellers of the world unite!
On the otherhand though, and without wanting to incite 'self-censorship', or trigger a nervous nelly rush to adopt a political conservatism, there is a further point I would like to make.
Those travellers who have been deeply immersed in foreign cultures, and have been demonstrably changed by them, should be wary on their return home in this day and age. Our nervous and ridiculously insecure societies are now fearful and increasingly watchful.
It's a pity, as I am sure if our leaders had the courage and the political will, and we the citizens were more vocal in calling for new and more enlightened and worldly institutional and political frameworks, then to some extent those people with RCS could be fruitfully engaged on their return and play an otherwise important part in positive societal change.
Their stories and perspectives would not amount to nought, as they so often do.
For this reason, I believe in, and support the likes of the Matador online travel community. Quite sincerely, you and I may well be seeing the evolution of a shining example right here. Keep contributing, reading, sharing.
Now for the final crunch. Serious RCS and our individual attempts to come to terms with it, not only inwardly, but also outwarding with our resulting interaction with our home societies, is likely to be seen by our 'authorities' as potentially problematic. They will be watching bed partners, and sadly, many forms of political activism will suffer as a result. Be mindful.
Yes - you change. But stop and ask if your home society is ready to join you in that change? Be aware, it is often not.
Finally, read Heraclitus. He brings our awarness to states of flux - and reminds us things always change, regardless of what we attempt to do to bring it about;
"Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow"
Peace. ** The late Richard Rorty sums up my response to the individual and collective exploration of positive possibilities when we refuse merely to conform to existing society and existing ways of thinking in the last minute of this video that looks at his philosophical contribution. Futher Reading I would also recommend reading Bhikhu Parekh's book A New Politics of Identity, in particular take a close look at his concepts of Exclusivist Paradigm and Globally Orientated Citizenship. pp. 239-252. Another book to consider is Cosmopolitanism by Princton Philosophy Professor Kwame Anthony Appiah. |
+ Enlarge
Pardon my cynicism, but I can't ever see this happening in the western world...as long as the prevailing priorities are money, money, and more money, no one will care about what we travelers have to say. One of the inherent traits of travelers who have changed (I would argue, for the better) is a declining importance of material things.
Money rules our culture. The economy wouldn't handle people not spending and consuming. If, for some reason, people did catch on and suddenly demanded less (voluntary simplicity?) I am sure there would be enough powerful people and organizations to put a stop to it...be it the government, corporations, etc who would be the big losers. They are powerful and exert a lot more control over us than I think we would like to admit. (one of the things I have been thinking about lately is how much in control we really are, when companies engage in things like "neuro-marketing" - how can we say no when they are appealing to our most primitive instincts?)
Let's face it. Things will have to get a LOT worse before they get better. We are in a pickle and no amount of "programs" will change it. It will take the collapse of this culture and the rebuilding of a new and evolved culture. Hopefully those who survive this transition will learn from our mistakes.
I know there are a lot more people educated in these matters than me, and maybe I put myself out on a limb saying these things, but I would love to be proven (or at least convinced) wrong. So let's start...
(I hope I at least touched on your main point...if not, ignore that little rant)
Let me respond to another part of your comment when you reflect;
"One of the things I have been thinking about lately is how much in control we really are, when companies engage in things like "neuro-marketing" - how can we say no when they are appealing to our most primitive instincts?)"
This comes to the issue of 'inner freedom' and let me quote from 'The Freedom Paradox: Towards a post-secular ethics' by Australian Clive Hamilton.
"The distinction between political liberty and individual liberty on one hand and inner freedom, or metaphysical liberty, on the other is the key to a different - one might even say new - approach to political philosophy, one that resonates with both the material circumstances and the Zeitgeist of advanced consumer capitalism.
It accords with the real conditions in which citizens of rich countries find themselves living. For if one does not possess inner freedom but is instead continually responding to impulses [a point Carlo makes above], expectations [a point I make in the RCS blog] and outside pressures [which Tim's quote shows Dharma Bums openly mock], or if one is driven by fantasies, chemical or psychological addictions or felt inadequacies, or if one is in thrall to a consuming belief - all of which induce behaviour that in moments of clarity and reflection one knows to be contrary to one's interests - then all the abundance that surrounds us and the political and personal freedoms available to use amount to nothing."
Good stuff Carlo.
Let me respond to another specific part of your comment when you say: "I am sure there would be enough powerful people and organizations to put a stop to it...be it the government, corporations, etc who would be the big losers."
My thoughts: "It has happened already. 'They' gave us the CREDIT CARD"
Context: When people curbed their spending in the 1970s, and money had nowhere to flow, the economy was flat and products began stacking up, governments and banks de-regulated personal finance. Then magically the BANKCARD was born, and off we marched to the mall.
Is this fair to say?
I think you're right, Carlo. The problem is, who decides what is moral and good for the world and what's not? The Pope? Barack Obama? Small towns in Mississippi or Queensland?
Voluntary simplicity is my answer as an individual, but as a society, we're still pretty caught up in the mistaken idea that money = happiness and a growing economy is worth risking our lives for.
No. I will decide! :)
You're right...I guess it's a collective thing. It's not even really a matter of "moral" or "good" though is it? It's what works IN the world. WITH the world. In conjuction with nature (or is that just me saying what's moral and good?).
Everything is in a state of evolving, our society/culture would be no different. Contrary to what most people think, we are not the pinnacle! There is more yet to come. The question is, how turbulent will the transition to the next thing be?
But, in the meantime, I will subscribe to your voluntary simplicity.
"...see the whole thing is a world full of rucksack wanderers, Dharma Bums refusing to subscribe to the general demand that they consume production and therefore have to work for the privilege of consuming, all that crap they didn't want anyway such as refrigerators, TV sets, cars, at least fancy new cars, certain hair oils and deodorants and general junk you finally always see a week later in the garbage anyway, all of them imprisoned in a system of work, produce, consume, work, produce, consume, I see a vision of a great rucksack revolution thousands or even millions of young Americans wandering around with rucksacks, going up to the mountains to pray, making children laugh and old men glad, making young girls happy and old girls happier..."
-Gary Snyder
Tim's on a roll...
My response to the quote, is another quote, this one borrowed from a brilliant American Academic/Writer Eric G. Wilson from his oddly titled book 'Against Happiness'.
"...Franklin worked on the Declaration of Independence. In this document, of course, we learn that everyone enjoys an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What many of us don't know, though, is that "the pursuit of happiness" is secretly connected to the ownership of property. In his 'Second Treatise of Civil Government' (1690), John Locke, the great British philosopher, claimed that everyone had a right to "life, liberty, and property". This statement lies behind the famous sentence in our [the US's] declaration. This covert connection betwen happiness and property confirms what Franklin proposed throughout his work: the true road to earthly joy is through the accummulation of stuff..."
Wilson continues...
"Hidden, then, in the Declaration of Independence is the reason why so many folks past and present have come to America: it was and still is the place where one can find happiness through acquisition. The religious utopia has given way to the capitalistic paradise. In this paradise, curious creatures are transformed into quantifiable commodities. The outlandish, mysterious, sometimes turbulent world [which the Dharma Bums rejoiced about] is turned into a safe surface, a smooth plain on which one can project his numerous fantasies. This is the method of capitalistic seeing, of American seeing. There in the distance, let us say, is a thriving forest, filled with yearning eagles and pines that tower, an occasional daisy and booming rapids. What is this to the typical American [read: any modern western materialist], the American bent on discovering happiness through securing stuff? This wooded region is not a robust ecosystem, a living organism in which parts nourish the whole and the whole fosters the parts. On the contrary, this forest is to the American entrepreneur a reservoir of resources, a space containing materials just waiting to be bought and sold. The American does not see the forest at all, its bizzare breathings and beautiful wreaths. All he views are numbers, price tags, and savings bonds. He trades quality for quantity. He thus loses reality."
interesting quotes...America does still have some great National Parks, though...we may be rich and fat, but we do love our mountains.
Posting this type of argument on Matador is like preaching to the converted. Gosh - come'on Craig!
Most of you guys are out there making the most of it. Swimming in rivers, climbing trees, camping in National Parks... It's the wrong audience. It's those sods trapped in the aspirational rat race who have unquestionably, or worse still - deliberately, set off blindly down the materialistic, money, money path that need to be reading, hearing and discussing this material...
It shouldn't sound like American bashing either. In many instances, I think much of what is said here applies to Australia and Australians too. We are a more highly urbanised society than the US, more disconnected from nature, more connected to the mall. In the consumer Olympics I think we would come close to gold, silver or bronze in terms of dragging the latest shit back home and dumping it on the piles of last years ... well, shit.
I've thought about this too. How do you reach the audience you really want to reach and who you think needs it the most? It's all fine and good we write these articles here and in similar forums, and we feel good when others comment and agree. This is partly why this place is such a "feelgood" site (of course, I just think most readers are generally respectful). Look at the articles that really get people fired up, the ones that go against the grain of most of our ideals and thoughts...the ones like:
http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2008/12/29/seven-reasons-why-foreign-travel-is-unethical/
As fine as it is to try to look from the other perspective, to "play" devil's advocate, it's not genuine. I didn't really believe that author truly believed in what he was writing, especially in his bio he talks about wanting to do something that involves travel to faraway places.
So what then? Branch out of our comfort zones, provoke the other side (not that it's us against them...I hope you get what I mean) by writing articles and placing them in their forums (if they will print them that is...by the way, I don't even know who "they" are). The fact is, the only ones who will listen will be those who have an open mind. Unless they are already open to the idea that there can be more to life than work and money and nice cars, there's no point.
When you are convinced that you are right, it is very hard to see the other side of an argument. I think I've just lost my train of thought...I hope that expressed what I wanted to say clear enough!
I am with you on your observations here Carlo. Audience is an issue. Tone and message the possible answer.
Look forward to catching up in person.
Hmm. Lots of interesting stuff to chew on here, thanks!!
I must admit I'm finding the Hicks example a little troubling. If (as I understand it) your suggestion here is that RCS can lead to positive (albeit dramatic) societal change, then he seems an odd case study to choose. Even if, as the story you linked to says (I don't know much about Hicks, I'm afraid), he only flirted with the Taliban, and if you're correct that RCS played a role in his alienation, then that seems like a spectacular failure of the potential for RCS-driven positive change to me.
We want metaphorical, political dynamite to result from RCS, not the real stuff, right?
My second hesitation comes from the confidence you display (and it's found also in Tim's comment, and often throughout the Matador community) that "the status quo of any staid, self-serving, hegemonic Western society" is a "bad" thing that needs to change, drastically -- and that non-Western countries should be our model for this change. (Hence all the questioning and uncertainty of RCS!)
There's something to that, and there's always room for progress, and to learn from other cultures, but as a woman I have to say I always come home grateful to live where I do.
Nothing makes me more keenly aware of patriarchy and gender inequality than travel, and I always come home believing that "they" have at least as much to learn from "us" as "we" do from "them", perhaps on that issue more than any other. If Hicks is the model for change, if the fuse you boys want to light involves shaking up a "status quo" that includes a real commitment to gender equality unmatched almost anywhere outside the (much-maligned) modern Western world, then I'm sorry, but I'll take a Big Mac over a burka any day.
One further comment Deva, if I may.
With all sincerity, I feel we gotta make a concerted effort to stop buying into dangerous polarizations. (Rulers love the divide and conquer mentality)
Re: Big Mac vs. Burka like comments. They seem harmless, but they force people to make highly irrational hypothetical choices, that in of themselves don't appear to lead anywhere, but have the lingering psychological effect of gradually creating prejudicial lenses that force us to engage in negative forms of discrimination. The Us vs. Them - mentality is wrong.
It's WE!
So, let's hear more of this sort of comment:
"I want to live in a world where my friends can comfortably and unself-consciously take their burka wearing girlfriends to any damn McDonalds in the world for a Big Mac, without half the place going stiff with fear or security grabbing for their radios."
...And when we do live in this world, no, I won't recommend they have fries with that. As it's the (IN)SALT that's killing us!
Deva,
Appreciate the time you took to share your response to my post above on RCS.
Let me attempt to respond to some of your considered comments.
Firstly the post needs editing. Let's start with the obvious. Its a topic I have been wanting to write about for some time now, so I thought rather than working on a 'polished article' why not bring it to the Matador Travel Community and, well, "think out loud" about the topic.
Secondly, on the topic of Hicks. Yes - you got it. It is a troubling example, and yet I believe it does deserve serious attention, as there is a great deal to learn from his background story. (Naturally you are not going to find it all in my single link I embedded in the above post. Research is in order).
Why Hicks?
1. He travelled overseas
2. He became totally immersed in a foreign culture
3. His identity and religious affiliations changed
4. He suffered RCS on his return to Australia
5. He found he did not fit into his Australia community
6. He did not stay and engage in political struggle in Australia, he merely 'reacted' and left to join those who he had an affinity with, who unfortunately were in the midst of a fight; a distant 'religious' war.
Put all this together and he IS NOT the poster boy for how RCS should turn out. Definitely not. I am not wanting to make him out to be. On the contrary, his case represents FAILURE ON FOUR SIDES, perhaps more.
1. Australian society - too insular and conservative, lacks inclusiveness of difference
2. Australian institutions - too few exist that value and harness the abilities of those with worldly experience
3. Hick's family & friends - poor handling of his RSC and influence over his decisions. They too where arguably isolated...
4. Hicks himself - a drift
So you are correct, it is an illustration of a failure involving RCS, but I hope my associated point was not entirely lost. The illustration also points to the fact that it was, in my view, primarily a failure of our nonresponsive modern Western communities, institutions and leaders. They are NOT harnessing the potential insights & benefits individuals with RCS hold.
Towards the end the post I make the comment about our leaders, citizens and the call for new political frameworks. I would like to give an example of one new group which is doing excellent work in this area for Australians returning from overseas, for those who may be interested: Southern Cross Group. (http://www.southern-cross-group.org/)
Admittedly, to conclude my response to your point, I could have approached the example of Hicks from another angle. I could have been more explicit with my attempted 'prescriptiveness', rather than implicit. I could have argued that ideally Hicks could have been engaged by the local Australian community to speak at Rotary or Lions Clubs, teach a class or two in local schools about Islam, help DFAT with new migrants to Australia, share his knowledge and experience with the local media... the list (with hindsight) goes on and on.
His unique experiences, had they have been embraced and shared in this way, could have EXPLODED many of Australia's narrow thinking about regions such as Afghanistan and EXPLODED our nations rising paranoia concerning 'other' religions such as Islam.
This DID NOT HAPPEN. Instead what happened? He went off and found the affinity he would not, or could not, find in Australia with people he 'believed in' overseas. He found it with the not just the Taliban, but with the simple Afghanis. They embraced him, whereas Australia and "his own community" did not.
Next point...
Modern Western society is not ALL bad. Careful. Let's not misrepresent the thrust of my argument.
Modern Western Societies are showing signs of increasingly bad elements. Lack of responsiveness to new policies, outside ideas, new political frameworks etc, which is to say they themselves are becoming increasingly UNDEMOCRATIC.
Sorry, I think representative government is all choked up. It's not just your average Joe Blow with RCS who is not being heard and engaged, but many new immigrants, the youth, women, the elderly, the mentally ill, the unemployed... OK you get my point.
They are not ALL BAD because still the streets are CLEAN (mostly). The police are not TOO corrupt. Food is relatively affordable, but inflation is taking hold. They have well stocked libraries.... So no, they are not ALL BAD.
Non-Western countries are not THE MODEL for change, we need to be ECLECTIC with ALL Non-Western societies and cultures. Yet, try and open a food stall in a park. Try and ride a horse to work. Try and sleep in an inner city park. Try build your own house from any materials you choose without a permit. Try and wear any clothing you choose into a good restaurant. Try and buy cheap subscription medicine... It ain't happenin'. We got red tape, we got vested interests, ...we gotta problem Houston.
Patriarchy... it still out there the world over Deva. And how many 'skirts' do you see blowing in the wind when the G20 lines up for a photograph? Pretty sure you and I only need one hand to answer that.
All in all, I very much enjoyed your feedback Deva. Please be clear on why and how I have tried to use Hicks as an example here. He's NOT 'the Model'. We have to find the future model to make sure RCS helps add to our society and that we don't loose the magic/education/beauty other peoples and other cultures have shared with us during our travels.
Peace.
yes, metaphorical :)
if i could sum up the societal shakeup i hope for, it would be "voluntary simplicity".
great points eva, your comments are always sharp, balanced and thoughtful.
"voluntary simplicity" - I like that, Tim! I could get behind that.
YES! Great post, Craig. Especially liked this bit:
(Reverse culture shock) is much needed for helping to keep overly rationalistic and materialistic societies in balance and for this reason potentially political dynamite for the status quo of any staid, self-serving, hegemonic Western society.
You start the countdown, I'll light the fuse.
20, 19, 18, ...ah what the heck, let's move things along - 3, 2, 1!
Thanks Tim, your comments and feedback is always much appreciated.
And here's three cheers to your concept of "voluntary simplicity". I think you've picked up the vibe of the post beautifully with that phrase.