learning journal 8: m-time and p-time

I have to say, I was sad to have missed class on Monday because I was looking forward to the discussion of Edward Hall's "Monochronic and Polychronic Time." I found the article very interesting. Hall's definition of the two organizations of time was astute, and I felt like he had done his research (mostly). I remember as a missionary in South America (sorry, missionary experience time), I was confronted with this difference in time organization frequently. Hall says that in "Latin America and the Middle East, North Americans can frequently be psychologically stressed. Immersed in a polychronic environment..." (265). South America (at least Uruguay) seems to have a firm grip on polychronic time, and I don't know if I would say I was "psychologically stressed" about it, but it was definitely notable. Time as a missionary is scheduled practically down to the minute; not a moment should be lost as a missionary. The people of Uruguay, though, seemed to look at time as Hall says here: "being on time simply doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the United States. Matters in a polychronic culture seem in a constant state of flux. Nothing is solid or firm, particularly plans for the future; even important plans may be changed right up to the last minute of execution." Making appointments with investigators was frustrating, and I can see know why it was so--and put a name to it. This is one example of the ways in which missionary work within the church can conflict with different cultures; missionaries have to not only learn the language of their country, but they should also learn the culture, and be able to interact with people in a way that will suit their organization of time. I think that made more sense in my head. Anyway, fields studies are obviously the same way. England, as a North European country, probably sees time in a monochronic manner, but equally it will be interesting to see if they are more or less monochronic than I was expecting them to be.

Moving on.

There were parts of Hall's argument that I had problems with. I don't want this to turn into a big gripe, and I promise it won't, but let me poke some holes in his argument. First of all, I had trouble with his constant descriptions of the "confused" or "distressed" Americans as they confront other cultures' views of time. This article, as well as some of the others we've read for the class, didn't acknowledge that these issues with time happen generally when one culture meets another: not only when Americans are confronted with other cultures. Any and every culture could find it difficult to understand another culture's organization of time. Just as we might have trouble adapting to time in Central American countries, so might they have trouble adapting to ours. It bothers me a little bit when they take the "let's blame ignorant Americans" attitude, when really it's typically a matter of one culture meeting another.

Also, I thought it strange that he spent so much time setting up the argument that some countries have a p-time organization and other countries have an m-time organization, then he turns around and talks about the times in terms of gender. I was jarred by his statement "M-time is male time and P-time is female time, and the ramifications of this difference are considerable." Oh REALLY? What "ramifications" is he talking about? It undermined his argument quite a bit to rely on gender stereotypes in order to discuss time. Yes, the gender stereotypes is where his argument started to fall apart for me. Any time an author relies on stereotypes it tips the reader off that the author is taking the easy way out. To continue to talk about time in gender stereotypes undermined his argument because then it's natural to start categorizing countries as inherently male or inherently female, while neither is a fair comparison. Ideologies of time seem to be more of a learned trait, so by saying that one time is male and one is female is confusing.

Also, after reading his last paragraph I wanted to poke my eyes out. Okay, I exaggerate, but still. This is his last sentence: "That is, they [the Japanese] shift to the monochronic mode and, characteristically, since these are technical matters, they outshine us..." What? I am not ready to make this ridiculous jump in logic. His language, like "technical matters," is so entirely vague that it's hard to know what he's even talking about. To say the Japanese outshine us because they shift from P-time to M-time more smoothly is a weirdly unwarranted conclusion. Unless he spent as much time with the Japanese as he has with Americans, I would be a little more willing to make that jump with him. Either way, though, this is completely subjective; therefore, he is again undermining himself.

The first part of this article was interesting and insightful, save for the moments of referring to us as the "distressed Americans," but the second half of the article soured the whole thing for me.

Sorry, Ed. If I was your writing teacher I'd tell you to take this one back to the drawing board.