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.
Friday, June 27, 2003
conversations that overflowed from talking about relationships - cf. original email exchange captured as the Relationship Theory dialogue
about team
Christine
female, 30yo; single and currently dating; Chinese-American. Enjoys journaling
and good relationship movies. Finds relationships interesting because of the
behaviors/motivations/thought processes which guide our interactions with each other.
djchuang
male, 36yo; married 7 yrs w/ 1 child; Chinese-American.
Enjoys dialogue and hangin' out with people. Interested in talking about relationships
because relationships are the most valuable thing in life, and we can't have too many of them.
More about me at www.djchuang.com
Previous Posts
- You are quite the funny one, DJ. Yes, let's do co...
- some of the most raw and deep-seated emotions + af...
- You have brought up some very good insights into t...
- I'd be curious to hear your list of characteristic...
- Argh! I wrote this whole thing and now it's gone....
- If women are dreaming of having a man be like Jesu...
- Jesus. :) Everyone needs to be more like Jesus- ...
- The stereotypical male does engage the world and g...
- Good point, DJ. What battle is there in today's w...
- Eldridge (author of Wild At Heart) is writing to m...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home