Dear Jon,
Yes, it's okay for you to put my posting in your homepage. Please leave out my e-mail address, however.
Roger
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to (other) statements about the cultural insensitivity of some Westerners to their Asian employers code of values, while not disagreeing specifically with the necessity of seeing the issues with Eastern eyes as well as Western ones, I categorically reject the claim that to oppose one's oppression at the hands of unscrupulous bosses is culturally insensitive. I have personally had both good and bad experiences with Asian employers and, presumably, the more honest employers were just as "Asian" (whatever that means) as the dishonest ones. Yes, sometimes it's just a question of interpretation of certain contractual forms. More often, however, an employer will use the Asian values argument just to take advantage of a vulnerable employee. How sincere that oppressor is is immaterial to the exploited teacher. The worst employers (and there are many, I'm afraid) couldn't care less about values. They're just pure, cynical, white-collar criminals.
Quite aside from discussions about "democracy", which are always problematic, it's important to consider what one means by the term "culture" and who is using that term for what reason. A nation's culture changes over time. There is rarely really one culture any one nation has. There was serfdom at one point in Western history. Does that mean that a Western employer could argue their right to practice human bondage on their employees because it was a part of our cultural heritage? (No doubt some Western employers would like to do this, and indeed do practice it on peoples in poorer nations whenever they are able.) I'm exaggerating this point, perhaps, but I still think it highlights two very different problems in East-West, employer-employee relations. It is easy to confuse these and, in truth, they are not entirely separate. The first could be called a cultural one and it has to do with things like relations between people of different stations, shall we say, as well as norms involving directness, indirectness, saving face, negotiating styles, etc... The second is largely economic and political and involves an employer's willingness or ability to press certain advantages due to their position vis a vis their employees. Important in discussing this last point is, of course, the surrounding society's acceptance of employer conduct when it violates rights Westerners view as basic. Added to this discussion is the foreign teacher's position as a foreigner in a (most probably) more racially monolithic society than what one would be used to at home.
One can never change all the perceived injustices one sees, particularly if they are occuring in an alien culture. However, one does have a right to a minimum level of human decency, legality and professionalism from one's employers no matter where they are from. Quite often, the worst employers violate even their own laws. It is not acceptable to argue that because it's a differnt culture, one has an obligation to be tolerant of important violations of one's human rights. The foreign ESL teacher will have to make countless adjustments to the new culture and adapt accordingly. However, it has to work both ways. Without us, the EFL employers, both honest and corrupt, would have no schools and, hence, no money (at least not from that enterprise.) The least they could do to partially adapt to some of our standards would be to pay us what they promised on time, to provide the minimum of what they promised in other areas and to treat us with a modicum of respect. Is this really too much to ask? I know from experience that the reputable employers, no matter how unversed in Western norms, will do this. Yes, sometimes a foreign teacher can be unreasonable as to expectations and the correctness of their own conduct. The problem that most often exists out there for us, however, is not cultural disagreements between two basically honest parties who are just having a misunderstanding, but between a corrupt and unscrupulous cowboy/corporate criminal, and a little university graduate with very little ability to oppose the most fundamental oppression and exploitation once they have travelled half-way around the world to teach in a foreign culture. The sides are not equal. I'm sure (another) is not referring to this type of case when he speaks of Western inability to see things from another perspective. That is partly true. However, it's also largely irrelevant to the issue, because the really "dangerous" teaching situations an EFL teacher will encounter has more to do with the situation I've outlined above.
As so many have said before, let the buyer beware. However, this does not exonerate or excuse the criminal actions of dishonest salespeople an unlucky buyer encounters. To label open dishonesty and oppression a cultural norm does a disservice to the complex and beautiful cultures of Asia.
Good luck!
Roger
In my comments about cultural sensitivity and exploitation I certainly didn't meant to personally impugn anyone's point of view on awareness of cultural distinctness or the obligations an employee may have towards their Asian employer. Nor did I necessarily intend to suggest that (another) was excusing dishonest employers. However, his comments can and indeed are often used to openly dismiss the valid claims of some EFL teachers who have been appallingly treated while working for such an employer and dependent on them for their living requirements in an Asian country. The letter (another) was originally responding to raised these points in a personal case of an employee who thought she had been mistreated at her school. It did seem to me that her very real problems had little to do with culture and a lot to do with a dishonest employer. Have you never come across this type of employer? Korea, just to name one country, is rife with them. I don't know the percentage of schools that could be labelled disreputable, but there are many and often they are the ones teachers looking for a job from abroad will see advertised.
To a certain extent it is true that many Asian "cultures" do have a different interpretation of employer/employee conduct. Quite often, that simply boils down to an almost total disregard for the teachers needs or rights in any form (no matter how culturally determined.) Does this make that any more right? And does it really matter after a certain point? Perhaps the problem in the discussion is the emphasis on objective criteria. One shouldn't get too caught up with nomenclature. I'm writing from the practical point of view of what the unsuspecting foreign teacher may find on the ground if they have accepted a position at a disreputable school. I don't think the definition is that hard to make. This is a school (often know around as a cowboy school), where the "administrator" has little to do with teaching in their own academic (or other) formation, and is just some honcho with enough money to open up a school (and the connections to get the necessary permits, etc...) and start charging people money whether or not a real service is being provided. Consequently, they don't have any specific interest in long-term teaching or reputability, as they will just continue with the school as long as it turns a profit and then abscond and start a new shady business somewhere else in some other capacity. If a teacher finds themself at such a school, they will be regarded as nothing more than a tool for the employer to milk their paying clients. Their human needs (not to say rights) will often be totally disregarded and seen as a nuisance and hindrance to the employer's ability to get that extra few won or yen, or whatever. There are many such schools out there.
And anyway, after a certain level of mistreatment, does the "Asian values" argument matter any more? One has to protect oneself. I'm not referring, as I stated in my earlier letter, to simple misunderstandings between two well-meaning people from different cultures. Quite often, these can be overcome. If you are not prepared to be flexible, you shouldn't be teaching abroad. I don't think that is what the earlier writer had in mind when she wrote about her employer and it's not what I mean. Have you not read the ESL Cafe discussion letters or spoken to people who have worked at the cowboy schools? The worst cases make any discussion about cultural values largely irrelevant. Yes, these school-owners can often get new teachers they will then exploit and lose. Does that make their conduct acceptable? In these cases, the words "cultures" and "values" just cloud the issue. One could get deeply into metaphysical and philosophical debates about the terms and their applications, but this is completely unnecessary when talking about these cowboy schools and their unfortunate employees.
After a certain point one can't help ultimately using one's own judgement based on one's own cultural conditioning. This is not necessarily "wrong". All cultures have good and bad points depending on who is doing the interpreting. Some points a Westerner will find in Asian cultures while in a teaching position will be difficult to accept. Some points an Eastern employer will find in their Western employee will be difficult to accept. A dishonest employer (not hard to define in practical terms based on the above cases) is not interested in coming to any understanding. They are not interested in a shared accommodation between the two interested parties. They just want to make a fast buck and don't care who they stomp on while doing it.
On the other hand, people in different cultures can come to a consensus about certain objectively good or bad points in any given situation. Some apologists for the "Asian values" argument overlook this point. It is not that hard to define acceptable treatment from an employer versus unacceptable treatment. Many Asian civilians I talked to found conditions at a certain language school in Japan unacceptable. However, if they found themselves in such a situation, they had a whole network of connections through which they could register their resistance and complaints. These channels are largely closed to the foreign teacher. The employer, of course, knows this.
Perhaps a moratorium should be placed on the term cultural values when dealing with these situations. Unethical treatment (real and consistent unethical treatment, not just the occasional cultural misunderstanding) transcends national values and is an objective evil in itself. It also transcends any one culture's norms and value systems. Over-analyses of cultural perceptions and differences reduces the discussion to absurdity and helps neither the EFL teacher nor the reputable Asian employers in reaching an understanding.
By all means, teach in Asia, but don't let anyone convince you that your right to your basic human rights is a culturally conditioned response that you will have to abandon.
Good luck.
Roger