From: c150-bt@po.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij)
Subject: Re: Linear times in Amrika
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.201319.23257@cbfsb.cb.att.com> gillu@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mandeev.sandhu) writes:
>
>	Very interesting stuff written by Manish. I usually do not post
>but this time the urge was strong. Perhaps the article goaded me, or
>maybe I am in my elements after achieving instant gratification on 
>solving a software bug.

It was strong for me, too.  What the two fellow desis were relating to me
strikes at some very basic questions.

>	Anyway, I too have given thought to the cultural context
>of explaining differences in attitude between Americans and desis ( and
>the not so desis). So many times I have felt that it is more a function
>of the conditions or environment external to us. For example, when
>I visited India my friend told me that I could call at the neighbours
>appartment below his and that either they would call my friend or pass
>on the message. This resource crunch that we all go thru in India
>somehow teaches us to co-operate and more importantly, teaches us to
>share so as to be mutually beneficial. Sitting in the train I can ask
>for the newspaper from my neighbor, or I can even offer my
>homemade "parathas" to him or her.

I didn't want to get analytical in my story, but since you started it...
:-)  In anthropology they call it organization into kinship groups to
effectively compete for resources.  Although your examples relate more
to sympathy for fellow sufferers than to kinship cooperation (using
familial connections, etc.)

>	The other thing is the fuedal factor. The society in India, as we
>all know, is emerging from fuedalism. Being part of a heirarchy and 
>subordination to the collective was not just an appendage of fuedalism 
>but a requirement for the system to function.  Fuedalism does not
>but a condition for its existence. Fuedalism does not
>recognize individualism as a right. This mentality takes roots, and
>very deep ones too, when living in a society such as in India. But
>we see things changing in the urban areas where "impersonal"
>relationships are not uncommon.

The distinction between individual and social is very unusual in America.
A French sociologist wrote a book caller AMERICANS TOGETHER which was
very perceptive, observing that whereas society is an overpowering
force in most nations, one which causes poeple to build walls to keep
it out, in the U.S. we don't like to acknowledge that others influence
and shape our individualism.  We have deep hero myths which include
solitude and rugged individualism and are exemplified by Westerns.
In the U.S., our denial is so much that we can even feel lonely an
try to "construct" society and community.

>	So the point is that whatever we call "American" culture may be
>a result of bourgeosie individualism which comes as a result of
>modern capitalism. And whatever we term as "Indian" culture may
>be largely due to the fuedal values that were enshrined in our system.

Certainly, as a result of the industrialization, the U.S. has had smaller,
split families rather than large, extended families.  In an agricultural
society, more kids means more hands to help out.  All work and live together.
Furthermore, in the U.S., the excellent transportation and communications
systems, as well as the rapid pace of industrial changes, have conspired to
make people follow jobs across the country wherever work exists.  Thus,
extended families living for generations in one place have become fragmented
into nuclear families which are highly mobile.

Manish

(Preeti... sorry.  8-) )

Do not know love when the spring flowers bloom
An inch of love is an inch of ashes.
                                          - T'ang dynasty poem
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian