Justifying the Student "Ethnic Society": Finding Diversity within Cultural Immersion
Being in any university, one has to encounter at least well-organized ethnic society on campus. From the Russian to the Australian, from the Portuguese to the Argentinian, these tight-knit clubs are seem to definitely offer one thing: a home away from home for the students of that particular ethnicity or nationality in the university, maintaining regular contacts with fellow countrymen bolstered with the language, cuisine, and occasional small chats about TV shows and celebrities from back home.
Of course, there is no doubt that people need to belong, and surely there can be institutions to facilitate such camaraderie, but should ethnic societies, registered with the universities themselves and theoretically open to the entire student body, publicly display even the slightest tendency toward bias in favor of one particular group? Shouldn't the very contemplation, not to mention practical implementation, of such idea de-legitimize the very existence of the ethnic society?
The purpose of an ethnic society is simple: to provide an environment where FOREIGNERS with little knowledge but great interest in a particular culture can learn about it firsthand, through interactions with others with more knowledge of that particular ethnicity/country in relaxed social environments. For a stranger to enter the social circle provided by the society should not only be effortless, but highly welcomed, especially by members of the ethnicity/nationality represented by the society.
Instead, the reality within most society on most university campuses cannot be further from this ultimate purpose. Upon joining the society, a foreigner is greeted by people of same ethnicity speaking in their incomprehensible native tongues among themselves while providing little but a few formal niceties to the "others." The foreigners are quickly marginalized as they cannot keep up with the increasingly culture-specific conversations, eventually leaving the society in frustration.
In such effect, not only did the ethnic society NOT help with increasing interest in a particular culture or country within the general student body of the university, it is actually contributing to negative feelings toward the same ethnicity or country through the obvious wall of exclusivity. By effectively forcing foreigners to abandon any effort to integrate themselves more into the society, it is blocking a channel for cultural exchange and learning that should theoretically be the most effective.
At the same time, it takes courage for an ethnic society's leadership to buck such a trend. Any effort to provide more events for the general public would inevitably go against the will of the "ethnic members" who deservedly feel that they should command a dominant position, numerically and linguistically, within the society itself. If they cannot stop the enlargement of the society into foreign populations, they may simply leave the society to form new ones.
The result is a rather perplexing correlation in which increased attempts to involve foreigners and allow them more contact with the ethnicity in question actually reduces the opportunities for the foreigners to actually learn the culture from dwindling number of ethnic members of the society. In essence, being extremely open to foreigners also de-legitimize the society by "diluting" it so much as to make cultural learning impossible.
So, to fulfill the very purpose of the ethnic society, the society leadership has to tread a fine line between being too exclusive and too open. While foreigner presence, along with non-cultural social events and near exclusive English use, is a must for the society to have any real meaning, at the same time, some measures must be undertaken for the ethnic members to stay in and contribute widely to the society in fulfilling its purpose. To strike such a balance will be the ultimate test of leadership skills...
Of course, there is no doubt that people need to belong, and surely there can be institutions to facilitate such camaraderie, but should ethnic societies, registered with the universities themselves and theoretically open to the entire student body, publicly display even the slightest tendency toward bias in favor of one particular group? Shouldn't the very contemplation, not to mention practical implementation, of such idea de-legitimize the very existence of the ethnic society?
The purpose of an ethnic society is simple: to provide an environment where FOREIGNERS with little knowledge but great interest in a particular culture can learn about it firsthand, through interactions with others with more knowledge of that particular ethnicity/country in relaxed social environments. For a stranger to enter the social circle provided by the society should not only be effortless, but highly welcomed, especially by members of the ethnicity/nationality represented by the society.
Instead, the reality within most society on most university campuses cannot be further from this ultimate purpose. Upon joining the society, a foreigner is greeted by people of same ethnicity speaking in their incomprehensible native tongues among themselves while providing little but a few formal niceties to the "others." The foreigners are quickly marginalized as they cannot keep up with the increasingly culture-specific conversations, eventually leaving the society in frustration.
In such effect, not only did the ethnic society NOT help with increasing interest in a particular culture or country within the general student body of the university, it is actually contributing to negative feelings toward the same ethnicity or country through the obvious wall of exclusivity. By effectively forcing foreigners to abandon any effort to integrate themselves more into the society, it is blocking a channel for cultural exchange and learning that should theoretically be the most effective.
At the same time, it takes courage for an ethnic society's leadership to buck such a trend. Any effort to provide more events for the general public would inevitably go against the will of the "ethnic members" who deservedly feel that they should command a dominant position, numerically and linguistically, within the society itself. If they cannot stop the enlargement of the society into foreign populations, they may simply leave the society to form new ones.
The result is a rather perplexing correlation in which increased attempts to involve foreigners and allow them more contact with the ethnicity in question actually reduces the opportunities for the foreigners to actually learn the culture from dwindling number of ethnic members of the society. In essence, being extremely open to foreigners also de-legitimize the society by "diluting" it so much as to make cultural learning impossible.
So, to fulfill the very purpose of the ethnic society, the society leadership has to tread a fine line between being too exclusive and too open. While foreigner presence, along with non-cultural social events and near exclusive English use, is a must for the society to have any real meaning, at the same time, some measures must be undertaken for the ethnic members to stay in and contribute widely to the society in fulfilling its purpose. To strike such a balance will be the ultimate test of leadership skills...
Comments
Post a Comment