I met up with a friend today for lunchtine coffee at the Raffles City Starbucks. It’s one of my favourite places for people-watching, as it’s just by the entrance to the MRT. Today, as part of an Arts in the City programme, there was a performance by Gamelan Asmaradana. They also had some guest Chinese musicians playing Erhu, Pipa, flute, and some other odd wind instrument I’ve never seen before! Since I like both Gamelan and traditional Chinese music, I thoroughly enjoyed it! It also got me thinking a bit about identity in South-East Asia.
In China, as a foreigner, there’s a tremendous sense of certainty about identity: the Han Chinese know exactly who they are. They are definite in their sense of ethnic, cultural and national identity, and we, as foreigners, can never be anything other than outsiders. (I am only talking about the Han Chinese; the situatin of the minorities is of course more complex).
Identity in South-east Asia is of course more complex: the states are more recent, while the various national and ethnic groups are also in a slow but constant state of change, in a sense. For example, the Malays are mostly Muslim – indeed, in Malaysia, being a Muslim is part of the legal definition of a Malay – and yet, relatively recently in historical terms,in they used to be Hindu, and in some places Buddhist. The legacy of this is part of the modern-day culture, for example Wayang. The immigrant ethnic groups, such as the Chinese, the Tamils, the Sikhs, and so on, have also come at different times, branching off from their ‘original’ cultures at different times and from different regions, so what it means to be a Chinese (for example) in South-east Asia can vary very widely. The role of Europeans is also, of course, very sensitive, and can be complex (unless you’re living in the ‘expat bubble’).
Even given this complex and dynamic mix of ethnicities and cultures, and sub-groups thereof, the effects of globalization, westernization, and media connectivity are stirring things up even more, in ways I mentioned in an older post. For example, traditional cultures here frequently have a high power distance, in which authority is assumed, as is deference, top-down power structures, and so on. Yet, changes in technology, are bringing big changes, and younger people have a different attitude, one in which the power distance is much small, more autonomy is assumed, and ways of thinking and working are very different.
This came out quite clearly recently in the televised debate between Lee Kwan Yew, and a group of younger generations. Just as interesting as the program itself was the follow-up; LKY essentially (IIRC) dismissed the panel as ‘unrepresentative’ of their peers, and showed little sympathy with their concerns. I wonder how true that is.
I’m also thinking about these topics because I recently read an article by Lisa Haneberg on Is the Management Tipping Point Near?. It’s US-centric, and only concerned about inter-generational differences in approach. Still, as far as it goes, I agree with it. But, as someone concerned with management in Asia, I can see that the same issues apply here but – in very multicultural societies – are going to be much more complex, and will need much more sensitive management practices.
Nanyang Business School is doing a lot of research work now on “Cultural Intelligence“, which is great; I wish some of it had been incorporated into the MBA material, but sadly not… Anyway, I’m trying to read up on it myself, because it’s going to be a really imprtant field. in the near future…
