3.2.9 Cultural Dimension

Following on from our discussion on values, in respect of our efforts to assist people on the margins, we in Ireland are sandwiched between USA and UK.  In many ways it could be said that we have a shared heritage as well as a common language, not to mention continual interaction of our peoples over many centuries.

So despite our Celtic heritage we are hugely influenced by Anglo-American methods of reductionist analysis which gave us the industrial revolution and have always been very different to the systemic method which, as stated above, is full of uncertainty and can also be validated by subjectivity.

I believe that systems theory (probably accidentally) holds certain attractiveness within our Irish culture.

This may be evident in our language, in particular how we describe emotions.  In Gaelic, we say, for example, tá fearg orm, or tá áthas orm which literally translate to there is anger upon me, or there is happiness upon me rather than the English I am angry, or I am happy.

To translate back literally, we would have to say tá mé feargach or tá mé áthasach which, even though not grammatically incorrect, would be uncommon.

To consider ourselves part of a greater whole that we are influenced by, where emotions are upon us feels a lot more systemic (and holistic) than thinking of ourselves as being an isolated individual that possesses an emotion. Therefore it should be of interest in designing the kind of helping modalities that might have a good chance of being effective in our culture.

Of course we Irish are also famous for our love of indirect communication, which, I believe, could have, in some circumstances far more properties of emergence than the direct type of communication, (e.g. assertiveness, certainty, clarity, firmness) that are the norm, and promoted as desirable human traits in many programmes, courses, group-work etc. to assist people in distress.

I believe that our much maligned but well-honed skill in indirect communication allows us to assess situations as they emerge so we can adapt our response to the other’s sensitivities.  (This will be explored further in the next Chapter on Modalities and also in the Chapter on Symmetry in Section Four).

I have often experienced very hurt people being a little fearful of directness, or indeed, sometimes finding it meaningless.

Now, I hear you all, (I almost see ye shaking ye’er heads) – and I know that there are two sides to this argument!

Indirect communication undoubtedly assists in building relationships and getting people on side but (very Irish) it also gives us an out if things are not going that well for us – and maybe that’s not a good thing either.

I’m merely mentioning it here to ensure that we acknowledge that it must have some value in our culture – otherwise it wouldn’t have emerged as a valid way of communicating.

Of course, our Gaelic culture has been diluted substantially after centuries of colonisation (and decades of neo-colonialism) but it is, I believe, still strong enough to be considered in our choices of methods of supporting each other.

There is also the possibility that our relative isolation as an island meant that we did not buy in fully to the logical-cognitive so-called classical methods of enquiry as much as industrialised countries.

So perhaps we have retained, in our dialect, some wisdom of the ancients in respect of systems theory!

I believe that systems theory has a substantial cultural dimension. 

The systems that are culturally sympathetic to, or empathic with other systems will have a greater chance of influencing them, than those that are culturally distant. Transmission of norms, mores, values, skills etc. will be faster and more effective in culturally similar environments. (I include a Chapter on Cultural Matching in Section Five)

In this respect, I believe that it is important, while absorbing skills, knowledge and expertise from all over the world, that we in Ireland hold our own culture, wisdom, innate knowledge, creativity and insight in high esteem, and develop solutions from within, modelling that which we desire in the people that we are supporting. Even if this means utilising much-maligned traits such as indirect communication.

My arguments in this respect are in the previous post.

The difficulty with adopting this course of action comes from another element in our culture, which, perhaps, stems from our colonial past.

That is, because it is ours, or home-grown, it might not be esteemed. 

In Ireland (from my observations anyway) we sometimes appear to prefer to acquire something bright and shiny and new, instead of identifying the good in something old, valuing it and adapting it to contemporary needs.

This involves taking on the challenge of changing something that is already there, identifying the best of it and retaining it, and gently letting go of whatever is not needed.

A seed that grows in its own soil almost always grows with greater vigour and vitality than something that is transplanted.  It seems to have an inner strength and hits the ground running (so to speak) whereas the transplant takes some time to adapt itself to the local soil conditions – if indeed it ever does, fully.

Perhaps our helping professions need to learn this.  We could take a leaf here from the success of hurling and football, and Irish traditional music and dance, which over the past 140 years in Ireland have flourished because they grew in their own soil!