10 ms·

As a non-American, this was one of the biggest culture shocks I faced. On the surface, relationships in the US seem very transactional (not making the judgment

As a non-American, this was one of the biggest culture shocks I faced. On the surface, relationships in the US seem very transactional (not making the judgment that they are really transactional). For example, in the US a son would thank his parents for paying his college tuition. In my culture, this would be insulting because it would suggest being distant from family, in the sense that the son ought to believe his parents wealth is his also, and later willingly contribute his earnings when his parents need anything. It is a difference in the degree to which individualism is the norm. Reminds of the book "Debt" by David Graeber. He talks about how many cultures have systems where everyone is indebted to their family and community, and this debt is never to be settled. To want to settle a debt (or to even calculate it) would indicate that a relationship has ended. So it is a huge culture shock to see the degree to which calculation plays a part in US relationships (like Sheryl Sandberg precisely splitting domestic chores with her husband 50:50). I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties, but that might just be because that's the system I'm familiar with.

seraph787 11y ago
Better for what? If you mean family sure. If you mean for shared burden probably not.
bane 11y ago
I think this is an interesting idea. Cultures are often categorized as "individualistic" or "shame-based"...but I wonder if "debt-based" might be a good descriptor for many cultures. There's definitely a range of individualism in the U.S. as well, some people take it to a kind of local maximum, some people just try to find workable balances. When my wife first immigrated here from South Korea, she struggled to characterize "America" in simple, digestible differences so that she could work within the society. No a couple decades later, she's developed a more nuanced view, and understands that it's very hard to say "Americans do x" without going into a higher level of abstraction like "some Americans do x" when explaining something to her friends.
klodolph 11y ago
You may be reading a lot of value into this distinction. To me, as an American, equality in a peer relationship is important but bookkeeping and debt is destructive. The 50:50 split is just an ongoing division of labor, it is explicitly NOT debt because it never accumulates. Any "thank you" is an acknowledgment of gratitude or merely a polite exit to a conversation one doesn't want to continue. The debt that children have to their parents is to be paid to the next generation. It's another one of those cultural quirks that seems more telling than it actually is. For example, because Russians don't smile to strangers, they're cold and unfriendly. Or because Americans do smile to strangers, we're untrustworthy and insincere. The reason we think it's so big is because we're translating the literal contents (smile, "thank you") but ending up with a completely different meaning or set of pragmatics. and then we miss the ability to use set phrases in our native language. Just like you can say "pleased to meet you" in Enhlish, but you can't say "よろしくお願いします". Edit: to clarify, cultures are different and language reflects that, but I think a lot of set phrases reflect history more than they reflect living culture.
- billjings 11y ago
  Upthread someone mentions Graeber's _Debt_ book. You might find it interesting. It has a whole discussion on exactly these set of phrases. They were not always with us, and it's interesting to see when and why they came into common usage. In a large part it was out of the need to have economic transactions with strangers, and the need to not be tied up so tightly with our families.
Dowwie 11y ago
Better? That depends on what socioeconomic sphere you're in. This kind of familial dependency protects entrenched interests. If you don't care about upward mobility and social progress, it may suit you. It has produced some interesting outcomes over history: Historically, the fate of family members in Russia was deeply intertwined. With this government-sponsored arrangement, family members of "revolutionaries" would be punished. This was an effective device of the tsars for a long time. Eventually, though, they enforced familial punishment with the wrong family and created a formidable adversary -- V.I. Lenin. Creating Lenin The Revolutionary in a deeply disgruntled society was the tipping point.
geon 11y ago
> I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties There is just no coorelation. The american "thank you" is simply not translatable to idiomatic hindi. An american is not diluting the importance of gratitude by saying thanks to the bus driver. Just as an indian is not an ungrateful bastard for not saying thanks to his parents.
marktangotango 11y ago
>> In my culture, this would be insulting because it would suggest being distant from family, in the sense that the son ought to believe his parents wealth is his also, and later willingly contribute his earnings when his parents need anything. It is a difference in the degree to which individualism is the norm. This is very interesting, and brings to mind something I've been struggling with recently (I'm USA-ian by the way). As a father I want to instill in my children a sense of self reliance, a sense that they can go into the world and make their own way, and be successful, without my help. In my world view, that is the best gift I can give them. I personally come from a background of rural poverty, my parents weren't able to help me at all financially, but growing up working shoulder to shoulder with my father on the (meager) family farm taught me the value of hard work and thrift. Which I think have served me well (I am clearly biased). So, from that angle, I don't want my children to see my wealth as their wealth, or my success as their success. I would like them to view my success as the result of hard work and perseverance, and an example of what they can achieve, indeed, they can achieve more. I post this merely as an example of my thought process, which is evolving. I can see how there is value in what you relate here. So thanks to you in a non-distancing sense :)
- littletimmy 11y ago
  Hah, you're welcome. This is really interesting because it raises the question: what role does affluence have to play in all of this? In the case of my country, people usually aren't rich enough to save for retirement, nor are starting salaries high enough for young adults to stake out on their own. So parents help their kids right up to the point they can no longer work, and then kids take over to provide for the family. In case of you being affluent (as in with a completely well-funded retirement), I can totally see why you'd want your kids to not see your wealth as theirs. It might ruin their incentives to be productive citizens. So, does affluence naturally lead to a weakening of strong family ties? Dunno.
  - bpyne 11y ago
    I think we need to have a better idea what's meant by "family ties". I'm from the US. My teammate on a project is a woman from India. (We're both working in the US.) She doesn't have children, but I have a 9yo daughter. We talk about differences in how my wife and I raise our daughter versus how she was raised. My wife and I follow the trend in the US of being very involved in our daughter's life. We walk her to school, volunteer for her softball and basketball leagues, and play key roles in the PTA. I stepped back my software engineering career so that I can pick her up a few days a week from school and either hang out, setup a play date, or bring her to an activity. (As an aside, because I'm part-time employed now, I assumed more of the household tasks. There seems to be a trend in this direction in the US for men.) In my teammate's experience, parents in India tend to be more hands off and let their kids develop independence earlier. Parents focus more on career. Grandparents are more involved with caring for the children while parents work. Despite the more hands off approach, my teammate misses her parents greatly and was very sad and worried when her father was ill recently. The parenting approaches are different, but the ephemeral "family tie" seems to be present in both situations.
gutnor 11y ago
You missed the bit: > That day, I made the mistake of telling him, in English, “Thank you for inviting me” before leaving his house, realizing the import of my words only after they had left my mouth. He didn’t respond, but I saw his expression turn sour. He was filled with disgust. I couldn’t even apologize for thanking him. The damage was done. So of course, implicit debt and duty is great because of the closer ties. On the other hand, you run into the risk of hurting people and breaking those ties quite easily by simply talking about it. That's not a scenario that would happen by mistake in ordinary condition, only when foreign influence is put into the mix. In a multi-cultural context, the American way seems a bit more robust to mistake.
rayiner 11y ago
My wife is American and I'm Bangladeshi, and we definitely see the differences you're talking about in our relationships with our families. Especially because we have crazy work/commute schedules and also a toddler, so we end up leaning heavily on our mothers for childcare. I don't think I agree with your conclusion about "closer family ties." My mother in law is definitely very transactional, while my mother isn't, but my mother will also build up resentment when we exceed her unstated boundaries that will manifest into a fight months later. Obviously a lot of that is just the particular personalities involved, but I would not be surprised if there was a general tendency for Americans to negotiate more up-front to avoid conflict later. I think the cultural difference comes particularly to a head in the Sheryl Sandberg example. Let's face it--the typical Indian/Bangladeshi solution to negotiating chores 50:50 with your spouse is for the woman to do much more of the domestic work and sacrifice her career for her husband's. That's common everywhere, of course, but I think it's a particularly difficult problem to solve if you look down on calculating inter-spousal debt.
dharmach 11y ago
Some languages are more explicit and formal compared to others for historical reasons. That's why so many things get lost in translation.
tootie 11y ago
My in-laws are from a culture that is one of the heaviest in terms of familial obligation. Parental or elder sibling authority is strictly observed. Once they relocated to the US, it only took a few years for them to realize they could tell their ornery older relatives to fuck off and not become social pariahs. They love America and want their kids to totally free of dependence on them.
ManFromUranus 11y ago
What if that system also fosters corruption and nepotism? Need to hire somebody for a job? family first (you owe them remember?), tender a contract (family first) the list goes on. You are a public servant, someone comes to your office to get you to do the job that you were hired to do, but they're not your family, you don't owe them anything... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India Yeah that system is better because it fosters closer family ties.
- sumedh 11y ago
  What if that system also fosters corruption and nepotism? It actually does. Just look at the well known public companies in India (Reliance, Infosys, Wipro and many others). You will always see the son or some other relative of the chairman/CEO directly gets hired as a VP or a director.
- novaleaf 11y ago
  a bit too snarky of a comment, but interesting tie in to corruption! I didn't think about that, but it does seem plausible.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  And the opposite does not? It makes calling in the debt owed much more discrete, which means the corruption is more conscious, but the transactional nature would foster corruption among those who are of higher power instead of those who are family. In the culture grandparent comment describe, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their being close to my family. In a culture without that, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their ability to offer me favoritism. If anything, our system is worse because favoritism among the powerful is a worse problem that favoritism among families and friends.
  - ManFromUranus 11y ago
    >In a culture without that, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their ability to offer me favoritism So your first point is: one hand washes the other. I will show favoritism to people who can be of some benefit to me. Sounds like merit based favoritism. So for example could I show favoritism to a guy that works really hard? Is that corruption? Or I show favoritism to a guy who can invest in my company because his family has money? Is that corruption? (probably more so than the first example but I'm not sure). The second point favoritism among the powerful is worse than the familial sort, because of your first point. If anything it seems that the opposite is true because according to your logic the favoritism here is more merit based.
ta119a08 11y ago
> I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties, but that might just be because that's the system I'm familiar with. Fostering closer family ties has good sides and bad sides. Individuals from a toxic family background benefit from being able to keep their family at arm's length or farther, which isn't as acceptable in cultures that so strongly and universally emphasize family loyalty. Not all parents are good parents!
SilasX 11y ago
That was implicit model I used growing up, until learned people use "thank you" differently. I was reluctant to thank anyone for doing what I thought was already their obligation -- it didn't make sense. And likewise, I would be confused at receiving thanks for what I thought was my job. (Naturally, in either case, it would make sense if the thanked did something that went above-and-beyond.)
panglott 11y ago
On some level there's a tradeoff between individual autonomy and social interdependence, and different cultures fall at different places on the continuum between them. Clearly the U.S. is at one extreme. But I don't know that one is "better": there are different benefits and costs. In the U.S. people have huge amounts of personal freedom and autonomy, but are more likely to live thousands of miles away from their friends and family, and struggle with loneliness. But there are different costs when you erode individual autonomy.

seraph787 11y ago

Better for what? If you mean family sure. If you mean for shared burden probably not.

bane 11y ago

I think this is an interesting idea. Cultures are often categorized as "individualistic" or "shame-based"...but I wonder if "debt-based" might be a good descriptor for many cultures. There's definitely a range of individualism in the U.S. as well, some people take it to a kind of local maximum, some people just try to find workable balances. When my wife first immigrated here from South Korea, she struggled to characterize "America" in simple, digestible differences so that she could work within the society. No a couple decades later, she's developed a more nuanced view, and understands that it's very hard to say "Americans do x" without going into a higher level of abstraction like "some Americans do x" when explaining something to her friends.

klodolph 11y ago

You may be reading a lot of value into this distinction. To me, as an American, equality in a peer relationship is important but bookkeeping and debt is destructive. The 50:50 split is just an ongoing division of labor, it is explicitly NOT debt because it never accumulates. Any "thank you" is an acknowledgment of gratitude or merely a polite exit to a conversation one doesn't want to continue. The debt that children have to their parents is to be paid to the next generation. It's another one of those cultural quirks that seems more telling than it actually is. For example, because Russians don't smile to strangers, they're cold and unfriendly. Or because Americans do smile to strangers, we're untrustworthy and insincere. The reason we think it's so big is because we're translating the literal contents (smile, "thank you") but ending up with a completely different meaning or set of pragmatics. and then we miss the ability to use set phrases in our native language. Just like you can say "pleased to meet you" in Enhlish, but you can't say "よろしくお願いします". Edit: to clarify, cultures are different and language reflects that, but I think a lot of set phrases reflect history more than they reflect living culture.

billjings 11y ago
Upthread someone mentions Graeber's _Debt_ book. You might find it interesting. It has a whole discussion on exactly these set of phrases. They were not always with us, and it's interesting to see when and why they came into common usage. In a large part it was out of the need to have economic transactions with strangers, and the need to not be tied up so tightly with our families.

Dowwie 11y ago

Better? That depends on what socioeconomic sphere you're in. This kind of familial dependency protects entrenched interests. If you don't care about upward mobility and social progress, it may suit you. It has produced some interesting outcomes over history: Historically, the fate of family members in Russia was deeply intertwined. With this government-sponsored arrangement, family members of "revolutionaries" would be punished. This was an effective device of the tsars for a long time. Eventually, though, they enforced familial punishment with the wrong family and created a formidable adversary -- V.I. Lenin. Creating Lenin The Revolutionary in a deeply disgruntled society was the tipping point.

geon 11y ago

> I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties There is just no coorelation. The american "thank you" is simply not translatable to idiomatic hindi. An american is not diluting the importance of gratitude by saying thanks to the bus driver. Just as an indian is not an ungrateful bastard for not saying thanks to his parents.

marktangotango 11y ago

>> In my culture, this would be insulting because it would suggest being distant from family, in the sense that the son ought to believe his parents wealth is his also, and later willingly contribute his earnings when his parents need anything. It is a difference in the degree to which individualism is the norm. This is very interesting, and brings to mind something I've been struggling with recently (I'm USA-ian by the way). As a father I want to instill in my children a sense of self reliance, a sense that they can go into the world and make their own way, and be successful, without my help. In my world view, that is the best gift I can give them. I personally come from a background of rural poverty, my parents weren't able to help me at all financially, but growing up working shoulder to shoulder with my father on the (meager) family farm taught me the value of hard work and thrift. Which I think have served me well (I am clearly biased). So, from that angle, I don't want my children to see my wealth as their wealth, or my success as their success. I would like them to view my success as the result of hard work and perseverance, and an example of what they can achieve, indeed, they can achieve more. I post this merely as an example of my thought process, which is evolving. I can see how there is value in what you relate here. So thanks to you in a non-distancing sense :)

littletimmy 11y ago
Hah, you're welcome. This is really interesting because it raises the question: what role does affluence have to play in all of this? In the case of my country, people usually aren't rich enough to save for retirement, nor are starting salaries high enough for young adults to stake out on their own. So parents help their kids right up to the point they can no longer work, and then kids take over to provide for the family. In case of you being affluent (as in with a completely well-funded retirement), I can totally see why you'd want your kids to not see your wealth as theirs. It might ruin their incentives to be productive citizens. So, does affluence naturally lead to a weakening of strong family ties? Dunno.
- bpyne 11y ago
  I think we need to have a better idea what's meant by "family ties". I'm from the US. My teammate on a project is a woman from India. (We're both working in the US.) She doesn't have children, but I have a 9yo daughter. We talk about differences in how my wife and I raise our daughter versus how she was raised. My wife and I follow the trend in the US of being very involved in our daughter's life. We walk her to school, volunteer for her softball and basketball leagues, and play key roles in the PTA. I stepped back my software engineering career so that I can pick her up a few days a week from school and either hang out, setup a play date, or bring her to an activity. (As an aside, because I'm part-time employed now, I assumed more of the household tasks. There seems to be a trend in this direction in the US for men.) In my teammate's experience, parents in India tend to be more hands off and let their kids develop independence earlier. Parents focus more on career. Grandparents are more involved with caring for the children while parents work. Despite the more hands off approach, my teammate misses her parents greatly and was very sad and worried when her father was ill recently. The parenting approaches are different, but the ephemeral "family tie" seems to be present in both situations.

gutnor 11y ago

You missed the bit: > That day, I made the mistake of telling him, in English, “Thank you for inviting me” before leaving his house, realizing the import of my words only after they had left my mouth. He didn’t respond, but I saw his expression turn sour. He was filled with disgust. I couldn’t even apologize for thanking him. The damage was done. So of course, implicit debt and duty is great because of the closer ties. On the other hand, you run into the risk of hurting people and breaking those ties quite easily by simply talking about it. That's not a scenario that would happen by mistake in ordinary condition, only when foreign influence is put into the mix. In a multi-cultural context, the American way seems a bit more robust to mistake.

rayiner 11y ago

My wife is American and I'm Bangladeshi, and we definitely see the differences you're talking about in our relationships with our families. Especially because we have crazy work/commute schedules and also a toddler, so we end up leaning heavily on our mothers for childcare. I don't think I agree with your conclusion about "closer family ties." My mother in law is definitely very transactional, while my mother isn't, but my mother will also build up resentment when we exceed her unstated boundaries that will manifest into a fight months later. Obviously a lot of that is just the particular personalities involved, but I would not be surprised if there was a general tendency for Americans to negotiate more up-front to avoid conflict later. I think the cultural difference comes particularly to a head in the Sheryl Sandberg example. Let's face it--the typical Indian/Bangladeshi solution to negotiating chores 50:50 with your spouse is for the woman to do much more of the domestic work and sacrifice her career for her husband's. That's common everywhere, of course, but I think it's a particularly difficult problem to solve if you look down on calculating inter-spousal debt.

dharmach 11y ago

Some languages are more explicit and formal compared to others for historical reasons. That's why so many things get lost in translation.

tootie 11y ago

My in-laws are from a culture that is one of the heaviest in terms of familial obligation. Parental or elder sibling authority is strictly observed. Once they relocated to the US, it only took a few years for them to realize they could tell their ornery older relatives to fuck off and not become social pariahs. They love America and want their kids to totally free of dependence on them.

ManFromUranus 11y ago

What if that system also fosters corruption and nepotism? Need to hire somebody for a job? family first (you owe them remember?), tender a contract (family first) the list goes on. You are a public servant, someone comes to your office to get you to do the job that you were hired to do, but they're not your family, you don't owe them anything... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India Yeah that system is better because it fosters closer family ties.

sumedh 11y ago
What if that system also fosters corruption and nepotism? It actually does. Just look at the well known public companies in India (Reliance, Infosys, Wipro and many others). You will always see the son or some other relative of the chairman/CEO directly gets hired as a VP or a director.
novaleaf 11y ago
a bit too snarky of a comment, but interesting tie in to corruption! I didn't think about that, but it does seem plausible.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
And the opposite does not? It makes calling in the debt owed much more discrete, which means the corruption is more conscious, but the transactional nature would foster corruption among those who are of higher power instead of those who are family. In the culture grandparent comment describe, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their being close to my family. In a culture without that, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their ability to offer me favoritism. If anything, our system is worse because favoritism among the powerful is a worse problem that favoritism among families and friends.
- ManFromUranus 11y ago
  >In a culture without that, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their ability to offer me favoritism So your first point is: one hand washes the other. I will show favoritism to people who can be of some benefit to me. Sounds like merit based favoritism. So for example could I show favoritism to a guy that works really hard? Is that corruption? Or I show favoritism to a guy who can invest in my company because his family has money? Is that corruption? (probably more so than the first example but I'm not sure). The second point favoritism among the powerful is worse than the familial sort, because of your first point. If anything it seems that the opposite is true because according to your logic the favoritism here is more merit based.

ta119a08 11y ago

> I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties, but that might just be because that's the system I'm familiar with. Fostering closer family ties has good sides and bad sides. Individuals from a toxic family background benefit from being able to keep their family at arm's length or farther, which isn't as acceptable in cultures that so strongly and universally emphasize family loyalty. Not all parents are good parents!

SilasX 11y ago

That was implicit model I used growing up, until learned people use "thank you" differently. I was reluctant to thank anyone for doing what I thought was already their obligation -- it didn't make sense. And likewise, I would be confused at receiving thanks for what I thought was my job. (Naturally, in either case, it would make sense if the thanked did something that went above-and-beyond.)

panglott 11y ago

On some level there's a tradeoff between individual autonomy and social interdependence, and different cultures fall at different places on the continuum between them. Clearly the U.S. is at one extreme. But I don't know that one is "better": there are different benefits and costs. In the U.S. people have huge amounts of personal freedom and autonomy, but are more likely to live thousands of miles away from their friends and family, and struggle with loneliness. But there are different costs when you erode individual autonomy.