i called him nosey, teasing him a few times. finally, he asked what it meant. it was one of those moments when you have to sit there and think, yeah, that's a weird one -- hard to explain. i finally did and then asked, do you have a concept like that, in your village? are there such a thing as people who are nosey? who get into other people's business and annoy people because they do?
Of course not, dumb american! It's not exceptional to be interested in what everyone else is doing, sticking your nose in their business. At least that's his perspective, from S. India, more religious and traditional than my former boss from New Delhi.
At 06:43 AM 8/27/2008, shag wrote:
>At 11:11 PM 8/26/2008, JC Helary wrote:
>
>>On 27 août 08, at 12:01, shag wrote:
>>
>>>I suspect the only reason anyone would think it would be simple is
>>>probably because of a tacit assumption: that we are more *naturally*
>>>a certain kind of human -- homo commonus or something
>>
>>No, it is because "homo commonus" is the only way to raise children
>>until they can be relatively independant (speak, and open the fridge
>>themselves, about 2-3 years or age). All the rest is about fighting
>>the contradiction between "commons" life in the family and what the
>>rest of society tells us the "best way" is.
>>
>>Jean-Christophe Helary
>
>no, we currently raise our children homo oeconimus. teaching people to
>become homo oeconomus starts from the beginning.
>
>if it were homo commonus, we'd have families like those that lived when
>the commons were where you grazed your cattle, etc. e.g., in the u.s., in
>the colonial era, if you were judged unfit parents, the town fathers
>decided who would raise your children instead. your children, once they
>reached a certain age, might go work on a relative's farm if they needed
>farm hands or apprentice for a cousin who was a smith. you would tie your
>child to a post in the middle of the room, using a wooden device -- ring
>around the post, long beam, strap to tie around child so it could walk
>round and round and not get in trouble while you fed the pigs. who you
>married would involve not you and the person you're so inclined to marry,
>but your family and their's, and maybe even neighbors and interested town
>fathers.
>
>in other societies, men and women lived largely separately, with women
>raising girl children, men the boys.
>
>a few weeks ago, the guy from India who works for me, and we're also good
>friends, listened in a conversation with my son. he needed money and i
>called to let him know i'd made the bank transfer. i went to lunch with k
>later and he danced along beside me as we walked. he was joyful because
>"shag, you have indian values. son needs money, you give." and then he
>engaged in a little sing song ditty thrilled to death about this.
>
>then he wanted to know if it would work the other way 'round -- if I
>needed money would my son send it, no questions and no complaints, to me.
>
>not hardly. maybe, i said, when i'm older and decrepit, in need of a
>little assistance for getting around, sure. some families in the u.s. are
>like that. it depends. others, well, i'd hazard a guess that the bulk of
>the parents wouldn't ever ask their children for money.
>
>of course, k is preparing to leave for an extended trip to india, to get
>married. he hasn't met his wife, but we've been preparing. taking his
>photo, getting his hair cut stylishly, getting the right duds, writing up
>a bio of all he has to offer a young lady.
>
>meanwhile, his family has been busy finding the right girl. when he gets
>there, he will meet each one, spend some time, and then decide. soon
>after, they'll be married, and he'll bring her back to the states to live
>here. and there's no big deal about this. it is not weird. it is perfectly
>normal: their families know them, k says, and they know who is the right
>marriage partner for them. and so the potential picks, they'll be the
>right ones. homo commonus family practice -- norms -- there.
>
>it doesn't have to be this way, but homo commonus would certainly not
>involve the kinds of traditions of raising children we have here, where we
>teach them from the minute they are pulled from the womb that they are
>unique little snowflakes, just like everyone else.
>
>or consider a conversation the other day, about old heads in the urban
>areas of the u.s. and old head, if she caught you stealing candy from the
>corner store? she's spank your ass and send you home crying.
>
>that doesn't happen in families fully ensconced in the traditions, norms,
>and familial institutions of homo oeconimus. homo oeconimus would sue the
>fucker who spanked their kid. (see Eli Anderson's work)
>
>another good read on the topic, Carol Stack's _All Our Kin_.
>
>If you win the lottery in the community she studied, you'd best be
>prepared to help out anyone in family and community who needs some help.
>you get a good job? family will come knocking looking for help. and if you
>don't give? shunned. she notes that the couples who end up making the most
>of promotions at work are the ones who move out of the community and to
>the suburbs, where they can avoid paying out relatives and constantly
>putting up one in the spare bedroom. move to the 'burbs and you can live
>homo oeconimus good 'n' proper.
>
>
>http://cleandraws.com
>Wear Clean Draws
>('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)