In today’s tutorial with David, we looked deep into the complexities of our initial project discussions, which centered around our own personal experiences and observations of the working environment. In my previous two journal entries, I realize, may have presented a somewhat unilateral perspective, shaped predominantly by personal observations and inherent biases that they carry. These reflections stemmed from my own experiences or working across different time zones from Taiwan, and always having to adhere and adapt to my US or EU coworkers time schedule, instead of having a balanced schedule. And another experience is my observation of a trend in Taiwan, where senior positions often went to white, English-speaking individuals, who more often then not doesn’t have any relevant industry experience, this is a sentiment Nina, coming from Shanghai, could relate to.
These observations and personal biases that I had, led to a narrative that seemed to create an adversarial divide between Asian and Western work cultures. However, I understand that these problems are multifaceted and complex, deeply rooted in cultural, educational, and system biases rather than simple geographical distinctions. A remind from David today really struck a chord with me: “Privilege has no color.” This statement underscores the reality that the benefits and disadvantages within societal structures often transcend racial lines, pointing instead to a broader class divide. This is a scenario that our group initially presumed to be a future event, where the cultural lines of the West and the East are blurred, and all that remained is the class divide, but this is in fact a present-day reality.
Reflecting on this, I was reminded of Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” which we read in our workshops last Wednesday. The utopian city of Omelas – a city whose prosperity relies on the suffering of a single child – is a really powerful metaphor for our current society. It highlights an uncomfortable truth: the comfort and prosperity enjoyed by some are often predicated on the suffering of others, like how the comfort of tech workers in their fancy offices is predicated by the laborious work of the hospitality workers operating within their company.
Given these insights, our group is considering a pivot from the initial East vs West discourse. We are exploring themes like burnout and the challenges faced by hospitality workers in tech companies, among others. This shift reflects a broader understanding of workplace issues that transcend cultural boundaries, focusing instead on the systemic inequalities.
As we move forward, a collective decision on our project’s direction will be made after further discussion and reflection after classes tomorrow as we digest that we have learned today. This process, while time consuming, is important as it helps us make more informed decisions through putting our minds together.
Just another thing to add, as the tutorial with David ended, an interesting observation highlighted the subtle cultural influence within our group, being predominantly Asians (Chinese & Indian). As David and Nina were engaged in a post-class discussion, I noticed that most of our group members remained seated, fiddling with their phones, except for Khyathi, who was the exception to this pattern. This moment was a reflective moment of the broader cultural practice prevalent in the Asian workplace culture, of not leaving before the leader/authority figure. Although David is technically not our leader in this setting, but a peer, a tutor, the deeply ingrained cultural and educational norms still influenced our behavior. This really goes to show how cultural nuances influence even the most routine of our actions.