The problem has already been described at another place; however the differences in various forms of organization are again mentioned specially in context to the anthropological and ethnological aspect.
The constructed Organizations have rationalized their inter-human problems. Hostilities, Mobbing etc. do exist but are principally possible to be reduced by way of changes in work place, even if it does sometime entail social injustices. Losses of income, slipping into poverty etc. are only the tip of the iceberg. Members of the city culture today do not live under the pressures, which under the slogan “city life makes you free” led to immense growth of the cities and a freedom of the person in the sense of independence from social responsibilities.
The NGO, if it really represents an alternative to the constructed organizational entities, is flexible and it can react faster to the changes. This is the theory.
If the NGO works in the rural environment integrated into the traditional culture, the city persons come across additional intangible problems, which cannot be solved by anthropologists and ethnologists, unless they work together with the village NGO and do their research covertly.
Even in relatively small village units of about 1000 residents exist in the course of the day chaos, the violence, archaic circumstances, which can disturb the sensitive work of the NGO.
The behavioral structures here are not at all so different from the construed organizations but the effects are more difficult and complex. Who marries whom, which field belongs to whom, who has more fields, who enjoys what type of respect, who behaves as a member of village society, who is physically stronger, who is psychologically smarter, which doesn’t mean that it leads to longer life because violence can easily be applied from many directions.
Who shall work in the NGO, will it change their position in the village community, should this be possible?
Who takes over the leadership function, should he be allowed to exercise influence over the family? Can he exercise influence and to what extent?
Although there may be lot of general knowledge about the traditional culture but the reality can only be experienced by being there in person.
The efforts of the NGOs should not be directed towards financing the whole life but only income to the extent of earning the daily bread. But this also means that the production methods which maintain the cultural identity are made difficult by the above mentioned factors. Pressure cannot be exerted due to the missing dependence of the subjects and the village customs must also be taken into consideration.
The task is like walking on a cable rope even for special experts, whose performance can hardly be judged in tangible terms.
The constructed Organizations have rationalized their inter-human problems. Hostilities, Mobbing etc. do exist but are principally possible to be reduced by way of changes in work place, even if it does sometime entail social injustices. Losses of income, slipping into poverty etc. are only the tip of the iceberg. Members of the city culture today do not live under the pressures, which under the slogan “city life makes you free” led to immense growth of the cities and a freedom of the person in the sense of independence from social responsibilities.
The NGO, if it really represents an alternative to the constructed organizational entities, is flexible and it can react faster to the changes. This is the theory.
If the NGO works in the rural environment integrated into the traditional culture, the city persons come across additional intangible problems, which cannot be solved by anthropologists and ethnologists, unless they work together with the village NGO and do their research covertly.
Even in relatively small village units of about 1000 residents exist in the course of the day chaos, the violence, archaic circumstances, which can disturb the sensitive work of the NGO.
The behavioral structures here are not at all so different from the construed organizations but the effects are more difficult and complex. Who marries whom, which field belongs to whom, who has more fields, who enjoys what type of respect, who behaves as a member of village society, who is physically stronger, who is psychologically smarter, which doesn’t mean that it leads to longer life because violence can easily be applied from many directions.
Who shall work in the NGO, will it change their position in the village community, should this be possible?
Who takes over the leadership function, should he be allowed to exercise influence over the family? Can he exercise influence and to what extent?
Although there may be lot of general knowledge about the traditional culture but the reality can only be experienced by being there in person.
The efforts of the NGOs should not be directed towards financing the whole life but only income to the extent of earning the daily bread. But this also means that the production methods which maintain the cultural identity are made difficult by the above mentioned factors. Pressure cannot be exerted due to the missing dependence of the subjects and the village customs must also be taken into consideration.
The task is like walking on a cable rope even for special experts, whose performance can hardly be judged in tangible terms.
Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!
ReplyDelete