Malcolm Gladwell describes in his book Outliers how the Appalachian regions in 19th Century Kentucky used to be vendetta capital of the United States. Warring families would routinely engage in gunfights that killed thousands over conflicts that sometimes lasted for decades. Gladwell highlights the sociological concept of ‘honour culture’ that some societies possess which predispose their people to more aggressive and often violent defence of personal and family reputations. He points out how the original settlers of those regions in Kentucky came from herding societies in northern England, Scotland, and northern Ireland. Herdsmen lead a very insecure life because of the ease by which livestock could be poached (compared to farmers whose products are far more difficult to steal in economically sensible quantities). Thus herding societies, as the theory goes, tended to develop cultures that emphasize an aggressive cultivation of perceptions of ‘toughness’ in individuals and clans.
By no means was this example put forth as a full explanation of differences in temperament between people in the southern American states and those of the north. Nevertheless, Gladwell cites a study on university students that actually found clear differences in the way people -- classified into these two broad groups -- responded to provocation (stuff like salivation, cortisole levels in blood, etc. were measured). It turns out, southerners tended to show elevated levels of aggressive feelings more quickly and lasting longer after the (artificially induced) experimental provocation incident transpired than their northern compatriots. What this study proves is that we can still feel subtle effects of our cultural legacy even generations after the environment within which the behaviours that caused them to evolve has changed or disappeared.
Another case study explored extensively in Outliers involves the appalling safety record of Korean Airlines (KAL) in the 1980's and 90's. Among a number of other incidents, there was one KAL flight that was accidentally shot down by Soviet fighters planes after unintentionally straying into hostile airspace and another one that crashed as it attempted to land in Guam. An extensive study to analyse safety and operational practices was mounted and the solutions implemented based on these have since yielded promising results. One of the key findings involved how KAL's aircraft crew members communicated with one another in the cockpit. The study revealed that a particular cultural trait of Koreans -- extreme deference to authority -- made it a monumental challenge for co-pilots and flight engineers to speak out assertively whenever they identified potential problems or disagreed with the captain's decisions. It did not help the Koreans too that English happens to be the lingua franca of the global aviation community and air traffic controllers in airports all over the world spoke a particularly assertive flavour of it. Recognising all this, KAL designed its new training programs around ingraining new behaviours that mitigated the effects of Korean cultural traits on cockpit crews' behaviours. English language training was also significantly stepped up to boost crew members' proficiency and make them more competent communicators in-step with the larger aviation community.
Those two case studies illustrate brilliantly how an understanding of cultural factors, yields a wealth of insight into right approaches and, ultimately, right solutions. Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers is a must-read for those who are inclined to look underneath the veneer of the broadly-accepted and explore the rich and edgy world of the less-understood and counter-intuitive. Beyond the two case studies summarised above, Outliers cites many other examples that support convincing arguments on the true nature of success and achievement.
Get Real Philippines is similarly guided by the counter-intuitive as we seek solutions that were not forged in the kinds of thinking that, to begin with, created the seemingly intractable problems that plague the Philippines. As such we do not aim at the easy targets. There are enough politicians and traditional "experts" in Philippine society who already do that. Our goals are mainly around the sort of targets that lie beyond the ability of the sort of minds that dominate the traditional National "Debate" to grasp.
These goals include:
- Provide a framework over which fundamental issues that underpin our sorry inability to prosper can be analysed and communicated in a coherent structure (i.e. the overall GetRealPhilippines.com site and network of affiliated sites).
- Develop an architecture for cultural change that serves as an overall landscape that adds perspective and provides context to individual initiatives (such as these “wars” against “corruption” that we keep hearing about from every man and his dog). Refer to our Solution Framework section.
- Bring together a group of elite world-class lateral thinkers who, together, provide a beacon of clarity across the landscape of a traditionoal but dysfuntional national “debate” that has for the most part of our history subtracted rather than added to the collective intellect of Pinoy society. Refer to our network of “Certified Getrealists” which is listed on our Certified GetRealists section.
- Push for a political “debate” over the period leading up to the 2010 elections that is issues-oriented and grounded on published campaign platforms from each candidate that articulate in categorical terms the specific positions they take on a range of issues. Refer to our brilliant electorate reform campaign Platform, plez™.
Different people have different definitions of “action” or “solutions”. The worst of them are the sorts that glorify Filipino concepts of “heroic” acts like doling out money and food to the poor, going to the countryside to teach in public schools for free, joining cause oriented groups to demonstrate/rally against our society’s demons such as injustice and poverty, running for public office, and yes maybe even that old favourite — dying for your “country”.
The really hard question that provides a reality check on such notions of “action” is quite simple:
Where are the results?
You see now that the irony that flies over the head of most people is that a lot of people take “action” but only an elite few really step back to think things through properly and communicate the outcome of said thinking coherently. That’s the reality in this here world of ours and a reality that is especially acute in backward primitivist and theocratic societies like the Philippines.
Often, pride is an insidious hindrance to progress as it prevents us from taking a realistic regard for our strengths and limitations. Sometimes the "strengths" we see are actually weaknesses. And when we go through life or (say, on a national scale) undertake a development program underpinned by a misguided sense of self, the results are more often than not disappointing.
Indeed;
The Philippines is the result of lots of action underpinned by very little thinking.
We keep stumbling from one mistake to another, one crisis to another, and one disaster to another and hardly learn anything that we can effectively apply to our regard for our future prospects as a people.
The "outliers" described in Gladwell's book succeeded because there was something about each one's fundamental nature or set of circumstances that helped them along the way, or could have hindered their achieving their aspirations. In either case, whether it is a boost or a hindrance, one's circumstances present a challenge to step up to. In the earlier (in the case of a boost) the challenge is to seize an opportunity and exploit it. In the latter (in the case of a hindrance) the challenge is to respond resourcefully. Perhaps someday Filipinos -- as a people -- will learn to do both.
 Comments |
|
|
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26
|