It may be that this business of a Spanish version national anthem was always a non-issue, some folks simply playing around with an idea with no thought of establishing it as an alternate/replaceable version. Non-issue or not, it raises an interesting question and the difference it makes whether you look at that question politically or systemically.
The Spanish version national anthem triggers knee jerk liberal and conservative positions.
Liberal: Of course people should be allowed to express their unique culture. To deny them that is just another instance of the dominant culture suppressing the "other" and forcing them to adapt to the ways of the dominant culture.
Conservative: There is an American culture and the English language is at the core of that culture. Immigrants coming to this country should strive to be American.
One can also look at this question through the robust system lens, a lens that describes all social systems (family, organization,nation, religion) organically rather than politically. The difficulty with systemic analyses is that they take time - time to absorb knowledge,think, reflect, and plan rather than simply react.
To understand this issue and to exert leadership around it and similar issues, one needs to understand the processes that underlie human systems. Homogenization and Differentiation are two organic processes that are essential to a system's capacity to survive and thrive.
Homogenization is the process by which whatever information the system has is spread throughout the system. In a purely homogenized system, any part of the system can do what any other part of the system can do. All parts are interchangeable. The common earthworm is a purely homogenized creature; cut off its head and it grows another head. Homogenization has proven to be an effective survival strategy for the earthworm; it has existed for millions of years and is likely to continue to survive long after we humans are gone; but its thriving capacity is quite limited. It doesn't do much.
Differentiation is the process by which the system develops variety in form and function. The human organism is a highly differentiated entity; we have a huge number of movable parts and are capable of a wide range of thoughts and actions. Differentiation is an effective survival strategy; variety gives us many ways to ward off dangers and take advantage of the opportunities in our environment. But differentiation also makes us vulnerable; having many parts also means that there are many parts that can break down, and some of these may be essential to survival. Compared to the earthworm, for example, when humans lose a head no head grows back.
The earthworm is highly homogenized with little differentiation.
The human organism is highly differentiated with limited homogenization.
Systems increase their vulnerability by emphasizing one process to the neglect of the other.
Homogenization without differentiation is BORING internally and limited in its capacity to cope and prospect in its environment.
Differentiation without homogenization produces fractured organizations and societies. Think of all the murderous ethnic and religious conflicts; think of dysfunctional territoriality in organizations.
Our challenge in creating robust system is to create systems that are highly differentiated and highly homogenized.
Back to immigrant language and other cultural practices.
In contrast to the conservative position, the robust system welcomes cultural differences; such differences have the potential for strengthening the system rather than weakening it. They make the culture richer internally (whatever newness that culture brings) and more powerful externally.
In contrast to the liberal position, the robust system is powerfully homogenized; it insists on developing commonalities across cultural lines. Commonalities enable system members to connect across differences. Without stressing homogenization, we lose our oneness, and when that happens the system falls apart.
(For more on robust systems, see Leading Systems: Lessons from the Power Lab, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1999. Part III: Seeing and Leading the Whole.)
Recent Comments