Certain aspects of a collectivist culture are very appealing to me; others, however, raise questions in my mind. When these collectivist cultural ideals play out, do the results support the theory? If we, collectively, care for and show our love through food, clothing, shelter, and assistance no matter what – through anything and through any obstacles – I’m wondering … Is unconditional love a blessing? Or a curse? Or both?
Palauan families take care of their own. It’s a trait I greatly admire. In this culture, it is a matter of love, pride and virtue. Palauans will often tell you there are no homeless in Palau because people who need homes can always live with their family. You can also see this virtue when you look at adoption rates. There are very few foreign adoptions because Palauan children-in-need are cared for by relatives. How much more loving would our own society be, if we could say the same? Welcome to America, we have little to no homelessness, and you will have trouble finding a child in need of parents. That would be amazing!
The theory, as I imagine it, grew out of great intentions.
“We love our family. We will do anything necessary to care for them. If they are down-and-out it doesn’t reflect as poorly on them as it does on us for just watching while they suffer. Out of love, we do whatever we must do to take care of our family.”
But how would such a philosophy play out in reality?
Let me propose four hypothetical scenarios ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment