Dr Anita Ramgutty, PhD.
Truly Mauritius is an exceptionally diverse society, an extraordinarily mixed and remixed-again people, over generations and across cultures and traditions. So much so that more than a few social and economic observers have warned of the “fragility” inherent in such a hotpot, as it were, of beliefs, interests, and priorities. When we emerged from colonial rule, this fragility was very much apparent, with communalism and casteism rampant. “As one people” enshrined within our national anthem was meant to be a rallying motto, a call for unity as the foundation for progress, and an image-management tagline to project the nascent nation positively to the world. One might understand the skepticism over this strategy, given the tense social situation at the time, but even today, half a century later, social tension seems to remain bubbling just beneath the veneer of economic development and intercultural harmony, like a dormant volcano sleeping with one eye open. But what is the substance of this simmering stew of mistrust, this culture de méfiance, this unsettled cloak of tension which we seem unable, as a people, to shed?
Edgar Schein, a management and culture guru I have referred to often in my line of work, explains that we may attempt an understanding of a “group” by observing their visible and tangible artifacts. Thus, one may ask: is the nation of Mauritius well represented by the numerous and increasing array of religious festivals, places of worship, spicy and tasteful culinary varieties, eclectic sense of dress and attire, and unique Kreol language?
Schein guards against making too much of such window displays and recommends instead an examination of the values of that group, that is, trying to figure out what they hold as common understandings of what is right, what is important, what is worth their time and attention, what they would cherish and protect, and so on. In this sense, shall we say that, as a people, we value above all our material comforts, too often blurring the line between needs and wants? When you think of all the professed promotion and protection of “ancestral” values, you come to realise, like Schein explains, that these are really just espoused or claimed values, not practised values. The latter are those which find their manifestation in concrete decisions and actions, such as lifestyle priorities and choices. It is what we do, not what we say, which truly represents our value system.
For instance, considering that many of us, perhaps most Mauritians, have a strong sense of family duty and attachment, it is no surprise that most of us go the extra mile, make sacrifices to provide schooling and material comforts for our children. Even the most modest families will make great efforts, hustling and scrimping to feed and clothe the children, pay for private tuition, hire-purchase smart TVs, defiantly rejecting remnants of ancestral memories reminding them of their deep-seated, insatiable desire for more and more material attainments.. For you really never could forget the want and frustration that ran in your veins, no more than you could expel from your DNA the humiliation of an exploitative, unjust society that you felt in your bones, through the experience and lives of your ancestors, less than a century ago. Others have ancestors who continue to whisper in their veins and clamour for more … profit. Those who were and those who are industry tycoons or liberal economists continue to pursue productivity, growth, profit, expansion, to the extent of being utterly assimilated into the globalised MNC agenda: maximum production, maximum revenue, minimum costs, wherever and however these may be made available. First there were no jobs, then there were jobs but the young people were “mismatched”, and nowadays there are jobs that can only be properly done by foreigners. These are also attitudes and values expressed in policies and strategies, and indicate their importance.
Now, we have often wondered what causes the aggressive, selfish and irresponsible driving practices we witness every day on our roads, what brings about violence in the home towards women and children, or disrespect and lack of empathy towards fellow citizens, old and young alike? Why does it seem that basic P’s and Q’s are anathema to so many people? What explains the indifference toward the suffering of vulnerable people, and why does our lovely language seem to be increasingly desecrated with coarseness, often spoken obstreperously and spiced, supposedly, with cuss words at every turn. Why does it seem like everyone is out to “get” and very rarely to “give” ? What explains the paradox of the child-like dependency on the state for welfare and prosperity and at the same time vilifying it for its actions and policies? What lies at the bottom of this social iceberg, this bedrock of contempt, irritability, frustration, short-term gratification-seeking, quick tempers and festering ulcers of the ego? These questions merit an honest attention, a framework for analysis and application.
Schein explains that, to truly understand why people in a group behave as they do, we must look to the deep-seated assumptions those people have developed and hardened into reflexes, shaping their thinking, behaviour and decisions. These are formed over time through experiences, interactions, and observations within their context of history and life, which develop into attitudes about things like success (meaning of success and how to get it); power (who has it, who wants it, how to get it); gender (gendered roles, power relations, the “place” of women; lifestyle (western or eastern, materialistic, spiritual, etc); work (importance of work, of a job, relative place of work within overall life), and such dimensions.
Speaking of dimensions, Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede proposed that a population has a collective mind, one that is programmed just like an individual’s subconscious mind programmes her/him to think, speak and act in a particular way. From interviews with hundreds of workers in fifty-three countries, Hofstede determined patterns of similarities and differences among the replies in his survey, and he developed five dimensions of a group’s culture: Power Distance; Collectivism vs. Individualism; Femininity vs. Masculinity; Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term Orientation.
Some years ago I conducted a small survey using these dimensions to fish out some insights on how Mauritians fared on them. I will extract for the purpose of this article, my finding regarding the Femininity vs. Masculinity index and share with you that, on this dimension, Mauritius scored extremely high on masculinity. What does this mean?
Hofstede used the dimension “masculinity” to denote the degree to which a society emphasizes traditional masculine qualities such as advancement and making money. A high score on the masculine dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, winning, achievement and success, – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout life, and encompasses toughness, assertiveness, and a focus on material accomplishments. In high-Masc societies, employees tend to work long hours and take little vacation time, gender roles are very separate, and work takes priority over other aspects of a person’s life, leaving little time for family and leisure. A country like Sweden, however, which scores high on the feminine dimension, values inclusion and caring for others. Swedes value equality, solidarity, moderation and quality in their lives. I already wrote on 14th March of this year in this Forum about a lack of “feminine values” being linked to the global environmental crisis; earlier still I linked GDP-focused developmental model and the values associated with consumerism and materialism. Here I am again, this time drawing a parallel between the kinds of behaviours and actions that we ourselves find reprehensible in our society, and high-Masc value systems.
By recognizing the interplay between artifacts and behaviours, values, and underlying assumptions, by bringing them up for examination and review, we may be able to shape and craft the values and behaviours that we, as a collective people, consider desirable as we move forward toward an improved future for us all, something of a peace-and-reconciliation exercise, if you will. By shedding light on our diverse and deep-seated values and assumptions, then questioning and examining them, we would deepen our understanding of the source of a number of behaviours and actions as well as forming the basis for a new set of values, that would drive fresh initiatives and changes at individual and national levels, such as through national policies, new legislation and processes, as well as revised corporate and personal objectives and behaviours.
So, for example, when I read what Les Ward, Chairman of the International Animal Welfare and Protection Coalition (IAWPC) is asking us in his letter dated 16th May of this year in this very paper : “Why would you not want WVS [Worldwide Veterinary Service] in Mauritius as soon as possible to protect the island’s tourist brand as well as the welfare of the dogs?”, we could reply to him: “We will tell you why; We think or we say we care, but we are not a compassionate people, because it is not important to be so; we do not consider animals to be part of our community; their lives and their wellbeing are separate from ours. Only our immediate welfare matters. We look the other way and listen not to the small voice of our human conscience, and continue on our rat race, unimpeded.”
If we want, as one people who truly seek peace, justice, and liberty, to develop a culture of caring, in other words, to have behaviours and actions conducive to fellowship, co-operation and peace, (as opposed to the typical of high-Masc societies), I would suggest we begin by a simple change, individually and as a collective: learning to care for the dogs in our community as a first step toward learning to respect and care for others beyond our immediate bann. Helping to ensure that the streets are not filled with uncared-for and starving dogs would surely be a form of ahimsa* worthy of being cultivated by a people sincerely desirous of social harmony and peace in diversity.
