CULTURE MATTERS....by Matt Allen

Matt Allen is a fellow Peace Corps volunteer serving in RakiRaki.  He writes so well that I wanted to share his writings......

The very first class I attended in college was Introduction to Comparative Politics. At the first lecture the professor started out by saying that his class would revolve around a thesis, one that we were free to agree or disagree with. And that thesis was that when it comes to why certain countries thrive while others struggle, culture doesn’t matter much. At the time the argument certainly appealed to my liberal sensibilities (and likely irked the handful of conservatives there), but after spending over a year in a developing country, I’m not so sure I believe it anymore. Because when I look around at the Fijian people in my community, I see plenty of reasons why their culture is not very conducive to development.

Culture Matters

It’s of course a bit controversial to suggest that a country is being inhibited by an anti-entrepreneurial culture, given its similarity to various racist arguments that have often been made to explain the dominance of western society. A theory famously put forward by sociologist Max Weber in the 1930's held that it was the “Protestant work ethic” which allowed northern Europe (and America by extension) to dominate the world economically. This was the theory that my professor wanted to disprove. From his perspective, developing countries continue to flounder not because the people are anti-entrepreneurial, but rather because their governments are. In this view, post-colonial states constantly thwart the ambitions of their people because they are run by, and for the benefit of, a corrupt and parasitic elite. While this theory certainly makes sense when applied to many African nations, I don’t think it holds water in the Fijian context.



Unlike the people of many other developing countries, native Fijians live in a world of ample advantages, including:

• An abundance of food, with plenty of healthy fruits, vegetables, and fish
• A constitutional right to 80% of their nation's land, most of which is fertile and currently unused (this land also cannot be bought or sold)
• No gun violence and little crime overall
• Relative freedom from diseases that ravage other countries, such as malaria, TB, and HIV
• A huge tourism industry pumping foreign money into the economy
• Decent social welfare programs (e.g. free health care and social security that kicks in at 55)
• Good institutional support for development (despite all the coups Fiji is quite stable, for native Fijians at least)

Yet this country's GDP per capita ranks 128th in the world (out of 187). In real terms, this means that the average Fijian's living standards are on par with someone from Honduras or the Republic of Congo, and well behind someone from war-torn Iraq. Put another way, about 23% of Fijians live on less than $2 a day, again far worse than many supposed "basket-case" countries like Syria and Colombia.

So why is this the case? As I’ve mentioned in the past, there’s "Fiji time" (referred to as “polychronic time” by anthropologists) and the "Fijian-yes" (i.e. saying yes when you really mean no), both of which irk PCVs here on a daily basis. However, these things exist to some degree in most developing countries and even many developed ones. In my opinion, when you compare American and Fijian cultures, the most pertinent difference you'll see is that the two exist on polar opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to individual vs. community focus. And what I mean by that is that traditional Fijian culture is basically communist.

"Communitarianist" might be a more appropriate term than communist

When you live in village, nothing truly belongs to you because you are obligated to let people take or "borrow" things if they ask for them (a phenomena referred to as "kere-kere" here). Thanks to kere-kere no one in a village goes hungry, but at the same time it completely disincentivizes any pursuit of wealth or success. For instance, back in training I once tried to ask my host-dad about what he grew on his farm, but he shushed me and told me not to talk about it. Later I found out that he didn't want people knowing he was growing bell peppers, a better income-generating crop than the Fijian staples most of his compadres were growing. Also in a nearby village, I heard about one woman who tried to start a small canteen, selling simple things like noodle packs and tinned fish. Unfortunately it failed almost immediately, because her family and friends would just continuously kere-kere all of her stock. Stories like these are common throughout the country.

As the chart above says, being communitarian indicates not only an economic focus on the community, but a cultural one as well. Here in Fiji, this means that people are expected to always go with the flow and not make any waves. There are not many things frowned upon more than being confrontational, particularly when it comes to challenging people with authority. As a result, creative thinking is restrained and anyone with an innovative idea for improving the village usually has to keep their mouth shut. In addition, rather than making communities more harmonious, all this really does is make them more passive-aggressive. Within many villages the various "mataqali's" (extended-family clans) don't get along with each other at all, making it impossible for the village to agree on anything.

Part of a series of butchered English idioms at a nearby primary school

Another big problem is aid-dependency, as it is in many developing countries. Fiji receives a ton of foreign aid, totaling about $75 million a year. For the sake of comparison, Fiji gets about $85 per person a year in development aid, while Malawi, one of the poorest countries in Africa, receives only $49 per person a year. Ever since Obama got elected, conservatives have frequently been throwing around the term “entitlement culture” to describe America. Whether or not you agree with that label, it’s a joke compared to the entitlement culture you can see in many villages in Fiji. Why raise money to improve the village when you can just wait for an NGO or a naive volunteer to do it for you? A common lament in the Peace Corps here is how often Australian aid workers and the like undermine our attempts at sustainable development by just handing things out, no strings attached.

Like many cultures, Fijians are big on the afternoon siesta

And I would be remiss if I failed to mention kava in this post. Drinking kava, which historically was only consumed during specific rituals and celebrations, is now a nightly 4+ hour affair in many Fijian communities. While it's fairly tame as far as narcotics go (mostly it just makes you tired), the hangover you get the next morning basically makes you incapable of doing anything for hours until it wears off. I don't think I need to explain the impact this can have on villages in Fiji.

If none of this has convinced you yet, consider the fact that we have something like a natural experiment in Fiji: people from two different cultures living in the same country at the same time. And despite the fact that Indo-Fijians are actually subject to worse political conditions, it's clear that they are better off economically. People often speculate why ~90% of the businesses in Fiji are owned and managed by Indo-Fijians, and the answer usually given is that Indians have a stronger cultural history of enterprise. Some might see this as a simplistic or even ignorant explanation, but given the Fijian context, I have a hard time seeing how it could be any other reason.

Of course cultures are not static. A good example of how rapidly cultures can change is littering in America. Something that really annoys new volunteers in Fiji is the prevalence of trash in almost every public space. I have to bite my tongue every time someone throws a plastic wrapper out of the bus window. But after complaining about this to a few people, I learned that America wasn’t much different up until the 1970’s, when there was a major campaign to clean up the country. I’d like to think that Fiji may be on the verge of some similar attitude shifts. Currently, urban drift and a more informed youth are breaking down old norms and hierarchies. At the same time however, the subsequent brain-drain that occurs detracts from rural Fiji making much progress.

Since this is a somewhat controversial post, I should make one thing clear. In no way do I believe that American or western culture is “better” than Fijian culture. It’s ridiculous to suggest that one culture is wholly better than another one. But we should admit that some cultures are better at certain aspects of life. For example, I’ve found that Fijians are better at sustaining family ties and maintaining work-life balance than we are. At the very least, they are outwardly far happier and friendlier than the average American. Both of these cultures have something to learn from each other, and that's arguably the whole point of the Peace Corps. But when looking at things purely from a development perspective, Fiji's culture has no choice but to evolve, lest they remain stuck in relative poverty for the foreseeable future.