By Harsha Gunasena
A notable feature prevailing in
Sri Lanka today is that there are sharp divisions in the country. There are
divisions based on ethnicity; Sinhalese vs. Tamils and now the interests of
Muslims are also emerging prominently. Religion also divides people. Recently
there were much discussed forcible conversions of religion. It has gone to the
extent of burning of religious places.
Politically two main camps have emerged with the third force of Buddhist
monks. The most recent division is the
split of LTTE; Northern Tamils vs. Eastern Tamils. Early twentieth century we had the division
of up country Sinhalese vs. low country Sinhalese, which led to the request of
Federalism. We still experience the differences of caste, although not so
prominently as in the past. We have differences based on regions as well. We
are so petty minded that we hardly think of our Nation. It is pertinent to find
out the reasons, which led the country to this situation. The culture we
operate is responsible to a great extent of shaping our behavioral patterns.
Therefore in this article, I try to analyze the Sri Lankan culture, to the
extent of understanding the visibly illogical behavioral patterns, based on
well-recognized conceptualizations in the field of national cultures.
In Sri Lanka, there are strong
ties between individuals and very often relationships prevail over tasks. These
types of cultures are identified as collectivist cultures against the
individualist cultures where the ties between individuals are loose. Also our
society is hierarchical and there is a power gap between the top and the bottom
of the hierarchy. There are societies where this gap is very small. There are several conceptualizations in the
area of national culture, and the most prominent conceptualizations were
developed by Geert Hofstede, and Harry C. Triandis. Two major dimensions of
national cultures are individualism vs. collectivism and power distance, which
were developed and analyzed in detail by Hofstede. Triandis identified two
dimensions: individualism vs. collectivism, and the aspect of vertical vs.
horizontal. The latter is much similar to the power distance. Therefore in this
article we try to analyze the Sri Lankan culture particularly in relation to
the present day burning national issues based on the above-identified two
dimensions of individualism vs. collectivism and power distance.
Study of Hofstede
Individualism vs. collectivism
is defined as follows. “ Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties
between individuals are loose: every one is expected to look after himself or
herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains
to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong,
cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them
in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”
It should be noted that collectivism does not represent socialism or
universalism. Collectivist societies may
have in- groups, which clashes with the members of the out- groups.
Some of the key differences
between individualist and collectivist societies are given in Table A.
TABLE A
Collectivist Individualist
Identity is based in the social
net-work to Identity is based in the
individual
which one belongs
Relationship prevails over task Task prevails over
relationship
Collective interests prevail
over Individual
interests prevails over collective
individual interests interests
Opinions are pre determined by
group Everyone is expected to
have a private membership opinion
Laws and rights differ by group. Laws
and rights are supposed to be the same for all.
Political power exercised by interest groups. Political power exercised by voters.
Private life is invaded by groups Every
one has a right to privacy.
Press controlled by the State. Press
freedom.
Ideologies of equality prevails over Ideologies
of individual freedom prevails
ideologies of individual
freedom over ideologies
of equality.
Harmony and consensus in
society are Self-actualization
by every individual is an
ultimate goals. ultimate
goal.
There is a positive correlation
between national wealth and individualism. When the society is modernized the
urban family is nuclear, so that it paves way for individualism.
Power distance is defined as
the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations
within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Some of the key differences
between small and large power distant societies are given in Table B.
TABLE B
Small power distance Large power distance
Hierarchy in organizations
means an Hierarchy in
organizations reflects the
inequality of roles,
established for existential
inequality between higher-ups convenience and
lower-downs
Decentralization is popular Centralization is
popular
The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat or a good father
Privileges and status symbols are frowned Privileges and status symbols for managers
upon are
both expected and popular
All should have equal rights The
powerful have privileges
Powerful people try to look less powerful Powerful people try to look as impressive
than they are as
possible
Teachers are experts who transfer Teachers
are gurus who transfer personal
impersonal truths wisdom
The use of power should be legitimate Might
prevails over right: whoever holds
and is subject to criteria of good and evil the power is right and good
All should have equal rights The
powerful have privileges
The use of violence in domestic politics Domestic political conflicts frequently lead
Is rare to
violence
Prevailing religious and philosophical Prevailing
religious and philosophical systems
systems stress equality stress
hierarchy and stratification
Prevailing political ideologies stress and Prevailing political ideologies stress and
practice power sharing practice
power struggle
Sri Lankan Culture
According to the studies carried out in Sri Lanka,
our culture is collectivist and there is a high score of power distance, much
similar to that of India. Based on the analysis of Triandis, our culture could
be identified as vertical collectivism.
The main problem Sri Lankans face today is that the
inability to understand and evaluate an issue, where the in-groups are
involved, with out any bias. The in-group to which we belong colors our
opinions. First of all we evaluate whether the interests of our in-group are
affected by the opinion we hold. Our opinions are shaped depending on this
assessment. As far as an individualist is concerned his/her opinion may be
shaped based on his/her interests. However when the broad national issues are
concerned the approach of the collectivist is detrimental since there is more
impact in collectivist bias than the individualist bias. When an individual
tries to safeguard his interests when he expresses his opinion in a national
issue, that opinion is not colored to that extent to emerge a bias.
Collectivists are less able to be in the shoes of other group than the
individualists, in conflict resolution. Also they are hostile towards the
members of the other groups whereas the individualists respect the rights of
the others. Nepotism prevails. Members of the same ethnicity, religion, caste,
school or the region are treated favorably. In order to get things done you
need some one known to you.
As far as the other dimension, power distance is
concerned the society accepts hierarchy and the powerful persons enjoy
privileges. Coupled with collectivism, this leads to abuse of power and
corruption. This becomes accepted procedure and instead of trying to eliminate
abuse of power and corruption, people try to acquire power by any means in
order to be in the privileged class.
People do not want share the power instead they want to grab the whole
thing. Therefore there is power struggle. They talk about decentralization
since there is a dire necessity, but centralization prevails. These views can be further
examined in the background of the national problems we face today.
Ethnic Issue
Since the independence, several attempts were made
to resolve the ethnic issue and several agreements were reached. Unfortunately
those agreements were abandoned by the Sinhalese leaders due to the pressure of
the extremists of the Sinhalese collective group. In reaction to this, the
extremists of the Tamil collective group took charge of the issue in their side
by sidelining the moderate Tamil leadership. Now Sinhalease and Tamils do not
want to give any concession to other party since the hostile attitude towards
the opposite groups. Moving towards a win-win situation with out bargaining
against the other party is an alien method of conflict resolution to them.
This conflict emerged prominently when Solomon Bandaranaike
came into power with the slogan of Sinhala only. This means the State should
deal with the Tamils in Sinhala. Therefore Tamils had to learn Sinhala in order
to deal with the State. Hitherto the language of the State was English.
Therefore Sinhala only policy redressed grievances of the Sinhalese but it
aggravated that of the Tamils. Really speaking the State should deal with
Tamils in Tamil if the State wants to keep Sinhalease and Tamils together.
Vijayabahu I, a millenium back, understood this idea which was prominently
spelled out by Colvin R.De Silva, and to
abandoned by him later. Vijayabahu I, who conquered the Chola invaders, put up
an epigraph in Tamil for the benefit of his Tamil platoon. We have shed lot of
blood to understand this simple truth because we look at things in our angle
only.
There is the question of Tamil homelands. I observed
Sinhala academics cite the example of Vallipuram copper plate in order to prove
that there was no separate Tamil kingdom at all in the North. Vallipuram copper
plate was related to a construction of Buddhist Temple at present Vadamarachchi
in Jaffna peninsula at the time of Vasaba, two milleniums back. Also Tamil
academics argue that there were continuous Tamil kingdoms in the North and the
East as well, conveniently forgetting the fact that the East was under the
control of Sinhala kings even during the Dutch period when Robert Knox came to
Sri Lanka. Even though they are academics, they are not interested in the
truth, instead they argue like lawyers to safeguard the interests of their
in-groups. The real situation, in my
view, is that after the invasion of Magha who came from Kalinga( Vijaya also
came from Kalinga?) in the 13th century, there were separate Tamil
kingdoms in the Notheren Sri Lanka. Also there were separate Sinhala kingdoms
in other parts of the country before and after the invasion of Magha.
Solution to the ethnic issue is depending on
decentralization or devolution of power, whether it is based on ethnicity,
region or any other measure. Those who have power are not willing to share it.
We know the fate of Provincial Councils. Certain powers are not given to the
Provincial Councils and even today there is a power struggle. This is prominent
where the opposition is in power in particular Provincial Council.
Political Parties
The two political parties governed this country from
the independence tried to solve the ethnic issue when they were in the
Government and they opposed the solutions of the then Government when they were
in the opposition. The incumbent President at the much debated television
interview recently, where she declared that her term was extended,
categorically stated that she agrees with the view of the Prime Minister about
the final solution of the ethnic issue. Yet they cannot work together. This is
a complicated situation where two separate lines of grouping are crossing each
other. One line is Sinhalese vs. Tamils, where the division of the groups is
based on ethnicity, and the other line is U.N.P vs. P.A., where that is based
on the political parties, and both parties comprise of Sinhalease. Both lines
are highly polarized. When one political group tries to solve the issue of the
ethnicity, obviously by compromise, the other political group does not allow to
do that and by that very act they want to become popular among the Sinhalese
who do not want to compromise. Therefore a solution cannot be reached. In this
context it is interesting to study the proposals made by the Citizens Movement
For Good Governance (CIMOGG) in respect of a model for a new political order
for re establishing good governance, where the emergence of collectivist group
thinking is minimized.
As far as the policies of the present two major
political parties are concerned, it is evident that there are hardly any
differences. Yet when one party comes to power they want to change policy
hitherto followed, at least the name. We know how Janasaviya has changed to
Samurdhi.
Issue of Conversions
There is an allegation that the
fundamentalist Christian Sectors carry out unethical conversions of religion,
especially the Buddhists to those sectors. In individualist societies, religion
is a private affair. If one wants to convert his religion, it is up to him. In
collectivist societies religion is strongly identified with a group of people.
Members of one religion do not want to lose any one of its members to another
religion. Therefore there is a strong opposition by the in-group members if any
member changes the group he belongs to. However it is a fundamental human right
to change one’s religion if he wishes to do so. But the question is whether it
is ethical to influence the people to change the religion by offering monetary
benefits to them. My view is that an organized religion is not that sacred. In
the level many people deal with the religion, which is based on belief, it is
irrelevant to make the change of religion a big issue since any religion, which
advocates good social behaviors, is not harmful to any body.
Let us examine taking the
example of Buddhism, what really it is. Buddhism in today’s context differs
from what Buddha said. Buddhism is an organized religion and what Buddha
preached was Dhamma. Organized religions divide people because those are based
on belief, theories and dogmas and not actual facts. One may believe one theory
and another may believe another theory so that there is a division between the
two. Present day Buddhism is made a dogma and the Buddhists believe in that
dogma. Dhamma means law of nature rediscovered by Gothma the Buddha. It is not
a theory, a dogma or an invention by Gothma the Buddha. It is a rediscovery and
also not the sole discovery in the history of the mankind. There were various
others discovered the law of nature earlier than the Buddha and there can be
various others discovering the same after the Buddha. I guess Jiddu
Krishnamurti was another.
What Buddha says essentially is, there is no self;
no I. Entire world is based on this “I”. Superficially yes, but in deep down
there is no essence, which can be taken as I. In order to understand this,
Buddha suggests doing a research. By observation on one self, one can realize
it and feel it at the experiential level.
The research methodology is called today as Vipassana meditation.
Krishnamurthi says it is not necessary to have methodology. If so, one can
cling to that methodology. Instead he suggests doing a research by your own by
just observing the self. Buddha also advised not to cling onto the methodology.
In Alagaddupama sutta, he advised a monk who clung to Adhamma, which is
opposite of Dhamma, not to do so.
Further he advised not to cling to Dhamma even. Dhamma is like a boat
used to cross a river and after crossing one does not need it. This approach to
the life, in my view, can be easily conceived by an individualist rather than
by a collectivist. That is why Dhamma was degraded to the level of Buddhism in
the hands of eastern collectivist cultures.
When a person is engaged in such research about
himself, he does not belong to any organized religion or group since he has
shed those petty divisions, so that the conversion, which is based on belief,
does not arise. Therefore the real issue of this conversion of religion is
based on conversion of the group, which is deriving from collectivism. One
group tries to get more members to their group from another group and they
resist.
General Behavior
In anywhere in the world it is much difficult to
find out independent mass communication media. However in collectivist
cultures, such as Sri Lanka, media is used in very hostile manner in order to
safeguard the interests of one group whether it is a political party, religion,
ethnic or any other group, against another group. It is amazing to note that in academic
institutions like universities, students kill each other just because of
differences in ideologies. In-groups of our country are smaller. A country like
Japan is also collectivist but their collectivity may be extended to the entire
Nation. We hardly think of our Nation, instead we throw garbage to the road
assuming that the road is not ours but outside of our in-group. Our in-group is
small and limited and may be the largest in-group we have is the ethnic group.
Abuse of power is an accepted phenomenon so that there are no challenges against such behavior except a few. It has gone to the extent of that the people with power becoming looters and dictators. Not only the political leadership and the bureaucracy but also the police and judiciary are subject to this phenomenon.
Abuse of power is an accepted phenomenon so that there are no challenges against such behavior except a few. It has gone to the extent of that the people with power becoming looters and dictators. Not only the political leadership and the bureaucracy but also the police and judiciary are subject to this phenomenon.
Political Leadership
One way of getting rid of this dilemma is to have a
strong leadership, which is favorable to the general public. There are other
countries in this region with similar cultural backgrounds like Sri Lanka but
consciously managed the situations, which would become otherwise dangerous.
Singapore is one good example apart from India. In this context, it is
interesting to compare the timid behavior of J.R. Jayewardene, who was supposed
to be our most powerful leader, at the time of July 1983 riots, at which period
he addressed the Nation after a lapse of several days, to the behavior of
Gandhi during Hindu- Muslim clashes in 1947, where he controlled the situation
single handedly. In my view, this is one of the best examples of courageous
leadership in the history of the mankind.
It may be unfair to compare our dwarf leaders with the giants, but
unfortunately that is the reality we face.
The way we select our leaders is also absurd. We select the leaders based on their family
background. Once again the collectivity is in operation. Except R. Premadasa, (
W. Dahanayake and D.B.Wijetunga were interim leaders) all the other leaders of
our country belong to two main groups of families. There is no internal
democracy with in the political parties so that there is a restriction for the
real leaders to emerge.
Sri Lankan Business
Collectivism is positively used in Sri Lankan business.
The leading businesses in Sri Lanka, are groups of companies. Banks have
branches instead of companies. Each company or the branch may act in a hostile
manner against the other companies and business units in the same Group. This
competition thrives business. However it may be difficult to get all of them
work together for a common goal. In Sri Lankan business today there is a widely
used term that to look at the big picture. By this dictum they mean to widen
the angle you look at things and it is never meant that you should look at the
things in the angle of the other person as well, which is the total picture.
If they can
consciously do away the power distance, as some of the companies have done,
they can achieve wonderful results. The main hindrance to this is the business
leadership, which is not willing to reduce the gap of power and also the
subordinates who are comfortable with the power gap from their childhood. In
large power distance countries the teacher teaches and in low power distance
countries the student learns. Similarly in large power distance countries the
subordinates follow the instructions of the managers and in low power distance
countries the subordinates work consciously with adding value rather than just
following instructions.
Conclusion
Although it is detrimental in the ethnic issue and
related issues, Sri Lankan culture can be used positively in certain instances
such as in business. It is up to the leaders and also to the general public to
be conscious about the prevailing culture and identify the limitations of their
thinking so that irreparable damages can be avoided. It is not easy to change the culture of a
country and also it may not be necessary. In this article I have not dealt with
the positive side of our culture since I have analyzed the same in view of
coming out of the present National crisis situation. What is needed is to understand
the limitations of our culture in relation to the burning issues and try to
resolve the same by overcoming the said limitations.
(Published in the Journal -2nd issue 2004- of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka and in The Island and Daily Mirror in April 2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment