more on relationships

I'm not sure it's a statistics, but anthropologists + sociologists (probably more the latter than the former) often acknowledge that American culture is vastly more (even, the most?) individualistic than other cultures (African, Latino, Asian) that are more communal.

This concept of "depth of relationship" is partially different for different cultural contexts (and different personalities; btw, culture I think of as a corporate personality, where as personality is usually a term used of individuals), and here's what I run into in this arena of conversation, is that I think of myself as a deep relater, and for me that means transparency + vulnerability + dialogue, but what I hear from some Asians (who are more traditionally Asian) say that [Anglo] Americans are comparatively more superficial and shallow than Asians, all that they talk about is sports and weather. (yeah? and Asians only talk about food, academics, and family gossip) And I'm thinking to myself, how many Asians can I count on my one hand, who would be willing to conversationally go to places of weakness + doubt + honesty + relate deeply??!!!?! Asians are so burdened with saving face. What I've been able to piece together is that Asians value "deep relationships" as those that have longevity, formed over years of being together, not necessarily talking about deep things, but showing loyalty and commitment and non-confrontational.

So my thinking (at this moment) is that personality [both corporate and individual] can be shaped innately or by the social context and/or family of origin.

While I think the mythical average person might only have 1 or 2 deep relationships, I don't at all say that's good. I think that's descriptive of people's fear + holding back + holding out. I know for myself, I can have more of them, I don't feel drained by people, but that's me. (some call this being extrovert, but people who base their assessment of me on first impression don't think that b/c I may not be as loquacious as a stereotypical extrovert, so it takes more open-mindedness to know me, rather than to size-me-up-and-dismiss b/c I don't fit in a conventional conformist box) To have more deep relationships is not to risk watering down (watering down is a choice a person makes), nor is having more deep relationships cliquish or gangy -- cliques/gangs aren't what you and I would call deep relating.

posted by DJ Chuang @ 5:39 AM 0 comments

You are quite the funny one, DJ. Yes, let's do coffee some time. :)

I did not know that statistics show that Anglo-Americans are more individualistic and isolated than other ethnic groupings. We had an older Anglo couple attend our church for the past year. Just recently, they've decided to leave because they felt they never 'belonged' in our fellowship. They said that they were unable to form deep relationships with us and thought it was cultural (ironically enough, they shared this during our discussion on the pros/cons of having a multi-ethnic church...Ambassador was mentioned as one church that strived for multi-ethnicity). A point was brought up that the lack of depth in relationships wasn't necessarily a by-product of our culture. It was just indicative of our particular fellowship. "Just because we look the same doesn't mean we're close and hanging out and having deep relationships" was the reply from one of our own. So what is your take on depth of relationships & culture? Do you believe the stats? Could it be more about in-born traits and upbringing rather than culture?

If most people have the capacity for 1 or 2 deep & honest relationships, shouldn't we just settle for that as 'good'? Because you make mention that having any more might water down the depth or risk having the relationships become cliquish or gangy.

posted by Christine @ 11:51 PM 0 comments