This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Rates per language pair: English to Amharic - Standard rate: 0.07 USD per word Amharic to English - Standard rate: 0.07 USD per word Chinese to Amharic - Standard rate: 0.07 USD per character Amharic - Standard rate: 0.07 USD per word English - Standard rate: 0.07 USD per word
More
Less
Blue Board entries made by this user
0 entries
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 1
English to Amharic: SCHEMAS OF AN ETHIOPIAN MINDSET General field: Social Sciences Detailed field: Anthropology
Source text - English 1. HIERARCHY 1
2. PATRIARCHY 2
3. HIERARCHICAL RECIPROCITY 5
4. LATERAL RECIPROCITY 6
5. RELATIONAL SENSE OF SELF 6
6. SELF-CENTEREDNESS 8
7. SHAME AND GUILT 9
8. HONOR 10
9. PRIDE 12
1. Hierarchy
Hierarchy in formal organizations (rational bureaucratic administration) is divisions into smaller work units having specialized functions (represented in organograms) to arguably facilitate greater operational efficiency. Hierarchy in society is anthropologically defined as a patterned way of ordering members of or groups in a society according to levels/ranks based on various acquired and inherited criteria (such age, gender, economic status, ethnicity, race etc). In such a hierarchy those in the higher rank exercise some degree of authority and control over those in the lower. Hierarchy serves to maintain a stable social order.
Accordingly, as the case is with other, most social spaces in our society have at least one authority figure that welds power over subordinates. For example, husbands exercise authority of their respective wives; parents over children; housewives over domestic works, teachers over their students; supervisors over their subordinates; employers over their employees; public officials/servants over citizens; older children over younger children. According to our mindset, exercise of authority means that an authority figure in a given social space gives orders which the subordinate(s) are expected to unquestioningly obey and implement. This social psychological expectation from subordinates to unquestioningly obey those in positions of authority is succinctly captured by the Amharic proverb: “ሲጠሩህ አቤት፣ ሲልኩህ ወዴት.” Proposing alternative to or challenging the views or instructions of authority figures by subordinates our mindset regards rebellious and disrespectful. For example, in adult-child relationship, adults give instructions and guidance and children are expected to listen and implement. Children are not to express their views, feelings and frustrations. Challenging the views, instructions and opinions of adults by children is deprecated and may result in serious punishment. On the other hand, a child who conforms to this pattern of relationship with adults is praised as “ተቆንጥቶ ያደገ” – a phrase that indicates the corporal punishment that is culturally applied in disciplining them into this pattern of relationship. In fact, our mindset vests moral authority not only on parents but also on other adults in the neighbourhood to apply corporal punishment as part of their collective responsibly for disciplining children.
On the other hand, our mindset has socialized us to regard as ignorant, indecisive or/and soft if those in positions of authority refrain from dictating and consider alternative views of their subordinates. Such persons would be aliens in our society and succeed in getting nothing or little done, often fail to ensure peace and stability or to empower their subordinates. For example, we have been socialized to believe that a good teacher is one who explains well - “በደንብ የሚያስረዳ” as we say in Amharic. Consequently, we are made to doubt the competency of and to feel we can learn very little from those teachers who often encourage students to express their views and perspectives and validates them with minimal indoctrination of their own views. In sum, if less authoritarian individual ever make it to power, they may eventually loss their legitimacy and are forced to give up their position of authority. Otherwise, they may have to revert to the default behaviors of authoritarianism that our mindset expects of them if they insist on staying in power.
Let it be underlined that our role as authority figures or subordinates is generally context specific. In other words, whether I am in a position of authority or subordination often depends on the social context I may be in at the moment. To our relief, the dominant mindset equips all of us with the attitudes and behaviors of both the authority figure and subordinate. All we do is reflexively pick and apply the attitudes and behaviors appropriate to the role we may be called upon to play in a given social context. For example, women generally exhibit the behaviors of subordination in their relationship with their husband, but in their relationship with their children and domestic workers, they exhibit authoritarianism. To be able to select and play both roles in appropriate contexts, our mindset equips them with the attitudes and behaviors appropriate to both roles. The same is true to a husband who may be an authority figure at home, but may be a subordinate at the workplace. Similarly, at the gate of a public office, the ጥበቃ (a security guard) is entitled to a position of authority in relation to me - a client - although I may rank much higher by any other criteria such as education, income etc. Hence, in that particular social space, our mindset would require me to be humble and submissive towards and even offer incentive to the ጥበቃ if I wanted him to allow me into the public office. The ጥበቃ himself would naturally want to assert his authority and accrue any social (prestige), psychological (higher self-esteem) and economic (bribery) benefit out of it. The same can be said of waiters/ waitresses in a restaurant, clerks in a public office, taxi assistants (ወያላ), etc. Below is a description of a real experience that can illustrate the often context dependence of the hierarchical ordering of our mindset.
“This morning, I was impatiently waiting in a minivan taxi until the taxi assistant (ወያላ) fills up all seats with passengers. Soon all seats were occupied but, as is customary, the assistant kept on calling out for more in the hope of squashing in a few extra passengers. Soon, a young man approached to get on the taxi. I was on the front raw and the assistant gestured that I make space for the extra passenger. I did not respond. He then said, in a little commanding voice, “Can you make space.” “I can’t”, I responded, in a rather plain voice. He quickly spoke back with an angry voice, “Why can’t you.” I tried to calmly explain that the seat was made for just one person and that it was illegal to squash in extra persons. He now got a little upset and responded in a rather angry tone, “Don’t you tell me what is legal or not. You either get off my taxi or make space.” I stayed fixed and firm in my seat as the assistant went on mumbling and growling. I was particularly agitated by the insistence of the new passenger who was looking at me disparagingly as he waited for me to give in to the assistant’s pressures and make space for him. I would understand him if it were a rush hour or late in the evening. But now, if he waited for a couple minutes, another taxi would come and pull him in. Anyway, the deadlock was resolved when the passengers in the raw behind me favorably responded to the same request the assistant put to them when he saw that I was determined not to give in. The assistant’s face remained frowned with anger until we reached our destination. Although I was a little agitated earlier, I grew calmer as I tried not to take his bad customer service personally. After all, he was the authority in that social space and I was supposed to obey without questioning, just like the guys behind me did and the new comer wished I did – all appropriately playing the role of subordination expected of them in that context.”
2. Patriarchy
Anthropologist define patriarchy as a social system in which descent is reckoned through the male line and “males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privileges and control of property.” Patriarchal societies are often patrilineal meaning that property, title and (in many societies, women themselves) are inherited by the male lineage.
Technically, patriarchy is only a subset of hierarchy because it is about ranking members of a society based on sex which is only one of the many criteria our schema of hierarchy uses to create relationships of subordination. However, patriarchy’s political implication of subordinating over half of humanity (women) by the other half (men) warrants its special treatment in its own right.
Our schema of patriarchy is made up of several sub-schemas about masculinity (“ወንድነት”) and femininity (“ሴትነት”), which are best embodied in our proverbs and expressions related to gender relations, some examples of which are provided in the table below:
Ref no. Proverb Provisional translation
1 ሴትና ዶሮ ዱር ከሄዱ ቤታችውን ይከዱ
2 ሴትን ያመነ ጉም የዘገነ
3 ሴትና ዶሮ ሳያብድ አይውልም
4 ወንድ ባለ በዕለቱ ፣ ሴት ባለች በአመቱ
5 ሴት ካልወለደች ቋንጣ አትጠብስም
6 ሴት አግብተው ሴት ከወለዱ የታለ መንገዱ
7 ሴት ያመጣችው ጠብ ቶሎ አይበርድም
8 ሴት ጀብ ትፈራለች፣ አጥር ትመዛለች
9 የሴት መላሷ ጉልበቷ
10 ምን ሴት በታውቅ በወንድ ይለቅ
11 ብልህ ሴት አና ቀንድ ያላት አህያ አይገኝግም
12 ወንድ የወለደ ከበደ፣ ሴት የወለደ አበደ: ሴት ከመውለድ ይሻላል ማስወረድ
13 ቤት ያለሴት፣ ከብት ያለበረት፣ “አንጀራ ያለወጥ ቤት ያለሴት
14 ባረገዘች ከታቡን ያዘች
15 ሴት በማጀት ፣ ወንድ በችሎት
16 ወንድ ልጅ በተሾመበት ፣ ሴት ልጅ ባገባችበት
17 ነፍስ በፈጣሪዋ፣ ሴት ባሳዳሪዋ
18 ሴት ከወንድ ፣አህል ከሆድ
19 የሴት ሀብት አያኮራም
20 ወንድ ልጅ ለግርገታ፣ ጋሻ ለመከታ
21 ወንድ ልጅ ተወልዶ ካልሆነ አንዳባቱ፣ አመልማሎ ስጡት ይስፋ አንደናቱ
22 የሴት ሀገር ባሏ፣ ማደርያዋ አመሏ
23 ሴትና አሀያ በዱላ
24 ሴት የወደደ ገሃነም እሳት ወረደ, ሴት የላከው ሞት አይፈራም
From the above proverbs and observation of mainstream gender relations can be concluded that our schema of ወንድነት is associated with strength, boldness, hard work, wisdom and decisiveness among others. In contrast, our schema of ሴትነት derogates women as inherently bad and of low status: For example, women are believed to be unfaithful (1), untrustworthy(2), short tempered (3), indecisive(4), wasteful (5), unproductive (6), conflictual (7), heedless(8), talkative (9), of inferior in intelligence to men (10) and of low intellectual aptitude (11). Consequently, our mindset lays much greater value on having boys and regard girls as curses to their parents (12). If our schema of ሴትነት confers any values on women, it is their domestic labour (13) and their fertility (sexuality) (14).
Moreover, our schema of patriarchy segregates domestic and public spheres to women and men respectively (15) and limits each to seek their respective aspirations from their respective designed spaces alone (16). In this connection, a man is his wife's designated administrator (17). He is expected to provide livelihood for his wife and children (18). Wealth a woman may generate through her own exertion is not appreciated (19). A man’s ወንድነት also finds expression in being a source of security (20) to his subordinates in the household. Otherwise, he may be denigrated as ሴት which connotes weakness (21). Hence, having the ideal husband (wealthy, strong, hardworking, serious) is a measure of success for a woman. Such a women is commended as having brought “የብረት መዝጊያ” into the family. Whereas staying unmarried long after a woman reaches marriageable age is a source of ውረደት, becoming "የቤት አመቤት" as early as possible as symbolized by changing title from ወይዘሪት to ወይዘሮ (titles for single and married women respectively) is a major source of ክብር for women. In contrast, patriarchy has made the acquisition of wealth and public positions the predominant source of ክብር for men.
Furthermore, patriarchy requires women to be submissive and obedient to their husbands (22). It allows men to discipline their wives to prevent or minimize the consequences of their “womanly badness” (23). Patriarchy also warns men of being emotionally attached to women least love interferes in their judgement of women’s behavior (24). Instead, emotional distance is believed to ensure respect to and obedience by his wife. Women perceive beating to be a demonstration of men’s love for women.
However, the above-summarized schema of patriarchy and its sub-schemas of ወንድነት and ሴትነት are being slowly eroded in particularly urban areas due to the influence of the contrasting schema of gender equality and the pressure of mounting poverty. Institutionalization of the schema of women’s rights and the slow but concomitant opportunity particularly urban women are obtaining to generate off-household income are slowly reducing women’s historical dependence on the patriarch. On the other hand, widespread poverty has increasingly compromised the patriarch’s ability to fulfill his traditional role of ensuring the economic security of his subordinates.
This however, is to state a very early trend. In reality, the schema of patriarchy and its sub-schemas of ወንድነት and ሴትነት have successfully adapted themselves to continue shaping gender relations in urban areas. For example, if women ever engage in off-household income generating activities, they may not have control over the income they generate and are still responsible for all or much of household management. Men have continued to be dependent on women for their domestic needs. If women are employed in formal organizations, they are mostly given clerical roles and both men and women do not trust women can be effective in public and organizational management and leadership. Most urban women presumably aspire to be with or use their body to attract a wealthy man. Among the attribute of the ideal man they want to be with, many women including those that are educated and apparently independent, include ኮራ ያለ፣ ኩሩ (reserved, aloof, unemotional), an attribute presumably associated with ወንድነት. Similarly, the percentage of Ethiopian urban women who disapprove of ለከፋ in any of its forms (ranging from a simple appreciation of a lady’s look to more physical intrusion such as holding, pushing and patting) pales in significance compared to those who feel validated by at least one of its forms.
The following incident demonstrates how patriarchy is defended by many an Ethiopian woman, without which it would not have sustained itself as a core principle organizing the Ethiopian society today:
“That very cold and cloudy afternoon, I was walking on a busy street in Addis. At some point a lady walked past me. She had put on very short skirts that revealed the lines of her underwear on her medium sized butt. Her white tops contrasted with the red straps of her apparently balconette bra which run across her back. Most part of her back was uncovered. Now I was trying not to judge her motive for exposing herself that much in such a cold and rainy day and season. She was now passing by a guy (presumably in his mid-twenties) who was sitting apparently idly. The guy then pinched her butt right before my eyes. To my surprise, the girl went on without even looking back as if she had hoped for it or had resigned to the fact that it was just part of her daily ordeal as a woman that she had learned to accept and could do nothing about. I, for one, lost my temper (as I rarely do) and could not help hurling reprimands at the guy. The guy seemed confused and perturbed that his action could elicit such a reaction especially in a man. Suddenly, a well-dressed lady in her mid-thirties came between us and, with an apologetic smile on her face, told me “በቃ ተወው.” (“please leaves him”). Her intervention almost paralyzed me. The victim apparently ignored the act and this one not only apologized for the guy’s violence but was also protective of him...”
3. Hierarchical Reciprocity
Anthropologically, reciprocity is a tacit agreement in a society under which the parties (individuals and groups) involved are bound by mutual obligations to provide social, psychological and material support to each other. The agreements are tacit meaning they are unwritten and the parties and members of the society may not even be conscious of them. Given the interdependence between/among individuals and groups in a society, reciprocity is a social imperative.
The schema of reciprocity in our dominant mindset finds expression in multiple ways. For the purpose of analysis, I would distinguish between two broad and sometimes overlapping categories of reciprocity: hierarchical (vertical) and lateral (horizontal) reciprocity. The former is described and the later is reserved for the next section.
In the political discourse, hierarchical reciprocity is recognized as clientelism. Anthropologists would define it as a patterned (socially recognized, widely practiced) mutual agreement entered into between a powerful person (one who has authority, social status, wealth, or some other personal resource) known as patron (ጌታ or አለቃ) and a socially, politically or/and economically weaker person known as client (ሎሌ or ምንዝር) who seeks to benefit from the support or influence of the powerful person. Hierarchy and patriarchy determine who should occupy the positions of a patron or a client in a specific social context and hierarchical reciprocity determines what should flow through a patron-client relationship. For example, at home, hierarchical reciprocity requires the husband (patron) to provide the material and social security and protection to his wife (client) in return for which the wife is expected to show respect and unquestioned obedience. Similarly, our mindset expects children (clients) to show absolute obedience and respect and provide labor (ልጅቷ ለቤተሰቧ አነደንብ ናት), social and material security during old age (ጧሪ), bride wealth (ጥሎሽ), security (መከታ) etc. to their parents (patrons) in return for being provided food and security until they become independent (ጎጆ አስኪ ወጡ). Students (clients) are expected to regurgitate, conform to the expectations of, show respect and obedience to their teacher (patron) in exchange for grades. In addition, female students may be expected to be sexually available to their teacher or they may use their sexuality to obtain good grades. Likewise, supervisors (patrons) at workplace collect respect and obedience in exchange for ensuring their job security and obtaining other benefits from their supervisees (clients). Like teachers, a male supervisor may, in addition, expect sexual availability from his female supervisees or the later may use her sexuality to win her boss’s favor. Many a religious leader (patron) confers blessings, supposedly remits sins, heals sicknesses and dispenses eternal salvation in exchange for which the laity (clients) shows reverence, bestows prestige and vests authority to capture alms and tithes for their patrons’ comfortable life.
The schema of hierarchical reciprocity also guides behavior of public officers (patrons) in their relationship with members of the public (clients). Accordingly, it regards public offices opportunities for patrons’ self-enrichment (ሲሾም ያልበላ ሲሻር ይቆጨዋል). It requires public officers to favor their supporters in the distribution of public goods and services. In return, it entitles the public officer to make public decisions as they want (ሹም ሳይለፈልፍ፣ይደፈድፍ), enjoy unquestioned obedience (ሎሌና አሞሌ ካዘዙት ይውላል), collect gifts (ሹም ሲቆጣ ማር ይዞ አደጁ፣ ደስ ሲለው ማር ይዞ ከደጁ) and garner support and protection from their supporters. For example, it used to be customary for both the plaintiff and the defendant in a court case to approach the judge with gifts (such money, sheep, drinks etc.) prior to the court appointed day, all to win his favor.
4. Lateral Reciprocity
Lateral reciprocity the content of relationship that exists in lateral relations (relations that do not involve explicit subordination) such as between friends, neighbors, colleagues etc. Undoubtedly, adriver of lateral reciprocity in our mindset is ‘መተሳሰብ” (mutuality). መተሳሰብ is reciprocity in the context of intimacy. The primary channel for መተሳሰብ is, to borrow the language of psychotherapy, ‘emphatic attunement’ between/ among the parties involved. In መተሳሰብ, feelings of love and empathy alter, to an extent and varying degree, the separatedness/ individually of the parties involved. In other words, the parties involved are so into each other that the joys and pains of one is felt by the other(s). This makes መተሳሰብ a driver of an ultraistic and spontaneous expression of lateral reciprocity in our mindset that makes ‘obligation’ inappropriate a term to describe it.
The other less spontaneous driver of reciprocity in our mindset is ውለታ (approximately means indebtedness). Anthropologists would recognize ውለታ as a type of “generalized reciprocity” in which, for example, my neighbor may give me goods or services I may be in need of at a particular time without expectation of immediate or no return but, in my mind, the neighbor remains my ባለውለታ (someone I am indebted to). Hence, I always feel the obligation to pay back anytime the neighbor is in need of goods or services that I can provide. The initial gift by my neighbor itself may be motivated by commitment to doing በጎ ነገር (the right thing) or ይሉኝታ (fear of social criticism and other possible consequences that may result from not being responsive to my needs). In any case, in ውለታ and paying it back, there is no need for immediate return and no systematic calculation of the value and evenness of goods and services exchanged. ውለታ as a drive of reciprocity in our mindset permeates much of our social relationships. All that vying we do in cafes and restaurants to settle bills, much of our commitment to attending funerals and weddings, visiting the sick, workplace contributions to support a colleague in need (the list can go on and on) are all examples of generalized reciprocity in action among us Ethiopians.
In our mindset, መተሳሰብ and ውለታ are drivers of reciprocity only in contexts of personal relationships i.e. in the presence of some degree of social and emotional tie between/among the parties involved. Impersonal interactions (interactions with those outside our social network), which characterize much urban life, are, however, dominated by what anthropologists call “negative reciprocity”, which they define as an attempt to get "something for nothing with impunity”. The phrase in our mindset that captures negative reciprocity is ጥቅምን ማሳደድ (quest for self-interest), which is discussed in the next in relation to a discussion on self-centeredness.
It should be stressed here that all three drivers of lateral reciprocity have always been inherent to our mindset but their relative importance as guides to behavior has shifted over time as our mindset attempts to adapt to changes in the external environment, particular to massive urbanization/ globalization. Historically, ውለታ and መተሳሰብ used to be more powerful drivers of lateral reciprocity than ጥቅምን ማሳደድ. In my view, this was not because we were morally better then than we are now but just because ውለታ and መተሳሰብ were more suited drivers of interpersonal behavior for that time when much of our social interaction used to be within our social network. Greater urbanization has, however, required us to interact more regularly and intensely with diverse types of people with whom we have no personal relationships. Consequently, መተሳሰብ and ውለታ have increasingly been giving way to ጥቅምን ማሳደድ which, accordingly to our mindset, is more suited driver of lateral reciprocity in contexts of impersonal relations. In other words, contrary to what many have been heard saying, our mindset has not undergoing qualitative change but has simply been shifting emphasis on what driver(s) to deploy more predominantly by way of adapting to changes in our external environment (increasing urbanization).
5. Relational Sense of Self
It is a truism in psychology that our sense of self or self-concept not only influences the nature our relations with others but also affects our own well-being. Dambrun & Richard define (sense of) self as “the perception that we have of our identity, which takes the form of a specific mental construct and results in a particular conception of self.” Simply put, our sense of self is our conception of, the image we have about our own self, about who we are. It is made up of several schemas including attributes, behaviors, roles and associations that we consider most important about ourselves. As the case is with other types of schemas in our mindset, a complex biological, psychological and sociological processes go into the formation, consolidation and transformation of our schemas that define our sense of self.
Of particular interest to the present discussion are what I conveniently term relational schemas of our sense of self – those schemas that define our sense of self based on the nature of our socially constructed perceptions of our relationship with others. Relational schemas may be said to extend the ego to include specific individuals or groups fulfilling preferred criteria in a specific context as part of self. Take for example, the criteria of religion. If I were a Christian, then I may, in a context of interreligious engagement, subconsciously feel other Christians as part of me i.e. I automatically share in their opinions and psychologically feel their pain, joy, disappointment, anger etc. as if they were my own. In other words, I extend my ego to incorporate them and subconsciously feel as if they are part of me.
There are variety of relational schema around which we form specific types of relations. Among them are sex (man, women etc.), race (black, white etc.), age (child, young, old etc.), occupation (carpenter, accountant, physician etc.), kinship (mother, brother, sister-in-law etc. Oromia, Amhara, Tigre), class (rich, poor etc.), residence (Addis Ababebian, Hawassian etc.), nationality (Ethiopian, Kenyan etc.), religion (Muslim, Christian etc.), abilities/ disabilities (athletic, blind etc.) etc. Depending on the social and cultural context, any or a combination of these criteria may have critical or peripheral imporance in the formation of a sense of self.
Of all criteria of social grouping, kinship, nationality and religion appear to be critical criteria for the formation of relational sense of self in the mindset of Ethiopians. This means that our sense of self extends our ego to include our coreligionists, compatriots or those belonging to our kinship group as part of self. Our mindset contextually determines which of the critical criteria takes precedence. In the context of interreligious interaction, for example, religion may be the criteria for the formation of our relational sense of self. Similarly, in the context of ethnic interactions, ethnicity becomes the criteria. Once our ego subsumes others on the basis of a particular criteria as part of self, it deploys various defense-mechanisms to empathize, support or identify with his/ her behavior, however, irrational, inappropriate, unjust etc. the behavior may seem to independent or impartial observers.
Consider kinship which is perhaps the most powerful criteria that define relational sense of self in the mindset of Ethiopians especially in the current political context. It signifies social ties based on blood or marriage, known to anthropologists as consanguineal or affinal kinship respectively. Of the two, consanguineal kinship is a significant influencer of our kinship-based sense of self. Consanguineal kinship results in social grouping at various levels (such as the family, sub-clans, clans, ethnic group etc.) based on actual or claimed decent from the same person/ ancestor. At any level of the consanguineal social grouping, our mindset first distinguishes between those in or out of the group and then extends our ego to incorporate those in the group as part of self.
For example, in a dispute between two individuals/ groups belonging to two different clans of the same ethnic group, our mindset first subconsciously determines who of the two disputants belongs to the clan of self and then empathizes or takes side with the fellow clansman/women. As noted earlier, our ego deploys various defense mechanisms in empathizing, supporting or identifying with the behaviors of our clansman/ women, however unfair the fellow clansman’s/women’s claim or position may seem to impartial or independent observers. On the other hand, in multiethnic contexts, our ego overlooks clan differences and extends to include all members of the ethnic group as part of self and, once again, empathizes, supports or identifies with their behaviors. Similar psychological process occurs in our perception of and reaction to our compatriots’ interaction with a foreigner.
That the relational schemas of our sense of self contextually extends our ego to incorporate our kins, coreligionists and compatriots as part of self means that the subjective self dissolves in specific social contexts. This has made the construction of ideas and interests in our society predominantly social. The relational schema in the mindset of Ethiopians allow little latitude for the agency of the individual or the subjective self (i.e. the individual) to form its own judgement irrespective of opinions or interests mainstream among our kins, coreligionists and compatriots. An individual within a group who may deviate from mainstream views or defend the interest of others outside the group could risk social repercussion such as verbal or physical punishment, ostracization etc.
Given the earlier described schema of hierarchy, each group at any level of organization has socially designated get keepers or custodian. Part of the role of get keepers is the construction and dissemination of opinions to which the lay members of the group are socially and psychologically expected not only to conform but also defend by all means including by physical and verbal violence. Dissenting perspectives by group members are perceived as treacherous even by lay members. Reactions against alternative perspectives from within or outside the group are generally emotive than rational. This means that lay members of the group may be easily manipulated by their own get keepers to engage in group behaviors that may not be adaptive.
6. Self-centeredness
Dambrun & Richard distinguish between two extreme types psychological functioning in relation to our sense of self: self-centeredness and selflessness. The former is when ‘the self takes on a central point of reference with regard to many psychological activities (i.e., conation, motivation, attention, cognition, affect/emotion, and behavior)” and “the increased degree with which the individual considers that his own condition is more important than that of others”. The dictionary defines a self-centered person as one who is “excessively concerned with himself and his own needs.’ In contrast, selfless psychological functioning, according to Dambrun & Richard, “is based on a weak distinction between self and others, and self and the environment as a whole” and manifests in “characteristics such as altruism, kindness, respect, empathy, compassion and the search for harmony.” The authors also propose that the two types of psychological functioning represent extremes in a single continuum. Variations among individual and group is due to where they are along the continuum. In other words, personality traits may be predominantly shaped by self-centeredness but individuals and groups may at times exhibit selfless characteristics and vice versa.
Applying the model proposed by the above-mentioned authors, we can diagnose the Ethiopian mindset as based predominantly on the schema of self-centredness.
Our self-centeredness appears to have at least two attributes. One is our egocentric goal orientation. By goal orientation is meant our overarching motivation of behavior. Our goal orientation is egocentric means that our personal interest is the central motivation driving our behavior. ‘Personal’ hear includes family members such as spouse and children who often feel like extensions of self. The central concept in our egocentric goal orientation is ‘ጥቅም’ meaning ‘interest’. An attentive listener easily agrees that such phrases as ‘ምን ይጠቅመኛል’ (literally means ‘what is in it for me?) and ‘ምን ይጠቅመኛል/ ትጠቀማለህ’ ‘ምን አገባኝ’/ ‘አያገባኝም’ (it doesn’t concern me) feature very frequently in our daily conversations reinforced by several related idioms such as ‘ከራስ በላይ ንፋስ’. ‘ምን ይጠቅመኛል’ justifies action only in so far as it accrues benefit to self or to self’s significant others . ‘ምን አገባኝ’/ ‘አያገባኝ’ discourages action that does not accrue obvious or immediate benefit to self.
Moreover, our egocentric goal orientation commends us as ብልጥ፣ አራዳ (smart) when we are able to maximize our self-interest at the expense of others or the social good. This egocentric goal orientation related to ጥቅምን ማሳደድ (pursuing self-interest) manifests themselves in a range of behaviors including haggling, the pervasive absence of volunteerism, abuse of public property by lay citizens, corruption by officials, theft, professional begging, chronic impatience at waiting for one’s turn in queues. On the other hand, it patronizes as ሞኝ፣ የዋህ (fool, meek) those who have goals involving the concerns of others, such as when we show benevolence to those with whom we are not socially or emotionally connected or from whom we cannot anticipate some kind of immediate or eventual return. It has made us question the rationality of ultraistic services (ምን ይጠቅመኛል/ ምን እጠቀማልሁ/ምን እጠቀም ብዬ? (Of what benefit would it be for me?).
Another attribute of our self-centeredness is our rigid egocentric cognitive bias. Egocentric cognitive bias is a tendency to equate the schemas in our mind (our perceptions of oneself and each and everything in our environment) as the exact replica of the actual reality out there it represents. As discussed in the introduction in more detail, while egocentric cognitive biases are natural and have the benefit of enabling us make sense of the world, the more rigid they are, the more likely we are to fail to consider alternative perspectives. Instead, we tend to rely too heavily on or take for granted our own perceptions and interpretations.
Our egocentric cognitive biases often manifest in the assumptions that appears to inform and attitudes that we evince in our dialogue and collective decision-making processes. Whatever the issue we may be dialoguing about, we seem to assume that there is a single reality out there and only one out of the many perspective of that reality is authentic, which is our own. In other words, we do not often consider the possibility of another perspective being more authentic than ours or multiple equally valid perspectives. Hence, we are often invested on making others see the reality the way we do. When we are in a position of power, we use our authority to assert our perspective. Our subordinates may still hold on to but may not voice their differing perspectives. They may also resent the imposition. However, in a lateral relationship where we do not have the tool to impose our perspective, consensus building and compromise has always been very difficult, if not impossible. Dialogue may become heated and often escalates into open violence.
A particular type of egocentric cognitive bias that appears to be common among us Ethiopians is known to psychologists as self-serving bias. Self-serving bias is “any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner”. It makes us ascribe success to our own abilities and efforts, and failure to external agents. Consider, for example, the social and political discourse we are currently having on various mediums at all levels. Almost all participants in the discourse attribute any problem under discussion to some individual or group: It may be the Italians, the West, globalization, a specific past leader, another ethnic group, a previous generation, another political party, another activist, another person etc. While we do not miss to point out the positive contribution we presume to have made, we tend to minimize or rarely acknowledge contributions by others. We kept perpetuating self-serving illusions and errors by rejecting the validity of negative feedback on our perspective and performance and focusing on our strengths and achievements and disregarding the perspectives and contributions of others.
Finally, our self-centered goal orientation and cognitive bias collaborate to generate aggression as a means of resolving competition or conflict over political and economic resources. Whereas our goal orientation seeks after the interest of self, our cognitive bias tends to see benefit to one always causing loss to another. This has disallowed the ability to compromise (give and take from among limited resources) or to explore win-win options. Consequently, making pursuit of one’s best interest by force appears to be predominant method of resolving differences or conflict over resources.
7. Shame and guilt
If our self-center goal orientation and cognitive bias were allowed to give full expression to self-centeredness, they would result in chaos. Our mindset provides at least two schemas that have historically kept our self-centered trendies in check and are currently under attack by globalization. One of the schemas is encapsulated in the term ‘ይሉኝታ’ which literally means ‘what would they say about me’. Semantically, a more precisely rendering of ‘ይሉኝታ may be ‘they would judge me’. It connotes fear of negative judgment by others and the consequent loss of ክብር (social standing) (another core schema to be discussed in the next section) which induces feeling of shame. This fear of losing ክብር deters us from pursuing socially unacceptable personal goals and employing socially unacceptable methods in pursing even acceptable goals.
There are two ways in which we attempt to buffer ourselves from negative judgement by others: one is by not pursing socially unacceptable goals and methods. However, our egoistic goal orientation often induces us to pursue goals and methods that may be socially unacceptable. In such case, we employ the other method of buffering ourselves from negative social judgement, which is withholding information about our goals and actions that we believe to be socially unacceptable. Information or secret that, if reveal, could potentially have the risk of losing ክብር and, consequently, induce shame is denoted in by the word ‘ገመና’. ይሉኝታ is, therefore, an extrinsic motivation for keeping our egocentric goal orientation in check because it is driven by anticipated retributions that we fear (knowledge of) our inappropriate behavior may invite from others/ society.
Another schema in our mindset that keeps in check the full expression of our self-centeredness is our sense of ‘ነውር’/ ‘ጸያፍ’ - abhorrence of, distaste for unacceptable behaviors. This sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ deters us from exhibiting inappropriate/ unacceptable behaviors like ይሉኝታ does. Unlike ይሉኝታ, however, the motivation stems not from fear of retribution and shame but from our belief system or convictions that the behavior is wrong. Hence, our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ is an intrinsic source of motivation. By deterring us from exhibiting unacceptable behaviors, our sense of ‘ነውር’/ ‘ጸያፍ’ does protect our ክብር and prevent the feeling of shame like ይሉኝታ does.
Traditionally, ይሉኝታ and our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ have together kept the propensities of our egocentric goal orientation in check. However, greater urbanization and globalization are, on the one hand, weakening of both ይሉኝታ and our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ and, on the other, reinforcing our egotistical goal orientation. ይሉኝታ can be a powerful regulator of the individual’s behavior in closely neat neighborhoods and communities with strong interpersonal ties where the opinions that others have of self maters to the self. However, as we seek to adapt to busy urban life, we have tended to invest less on nurturing our personal ties and, instead, engage more in impersonal and instrumental ties and exchanges. The consequent weakening of social ties and the consequent reinforcement of our self-centeredness has meant the erosion of the ground on which ይሉኝታ has thrived. Similarly, much of the values and norm against which we used to assess certain behaviors as ነውር/ ጸያፍ have their roots in our religious traditions. However, with greater exposure to and habituation of global schemas related to norms of behavior, our traditional schemas that dictate our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ are undergoing transformation. For example, we no longer regard as ነውር/ ጸያፍ several gender-based norms of behavior such as norms of dressing and physical contact in public between a man and women. Moreover, as materialism and the consequent culture of consumerism are systematically propagated among and hold sway over the minds of us urbanite Ethiopian, the religious aspects of our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ have increasingly relaxed to give in to the promptings of our egotistical goal orientation.
The long-standing balance that has existed between ይሉኝታ and our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ, on the one hand, and our egotistic goal orientation, on the other, had historically maintained the social order. However, the gradual weakening of ይሉኝታ and our sense of ነውር/ ጸያፍ over the past decades has disturbed this balance in favor of our egotistic goal orientation. This may explain the apparent ascendance more than ever before of the pursuit of self-interest without fear of losing ክብር.
8. Honor
Our egocentric goal orientation and cognitive biases appear to have the goal of acquiring ክብር. ክብር is a potent word having multiple shades of meaning. English has specific words that can denote its particular connotations such as dignity, prestige, honor, reverence, deference, esteem, glory, regard, renown, respect, sanctity, sumptuousness, worthiness etc. However, all shades of meaning have two underlying meanings in common: a favorable regard one has in the eyes of others and the corresponding social standing (in comparison/relation to others) one occupies, as explicitly explained in the Amharic to Amharic dictionary: “ቁሙ ልዕልና፣ ላቂያ፣ ብልጫ፣ሹመት፣ሽልማት፣ታላቅነት ፣ኅይል፣ ብዕል፣ ብዙ ገንዘብ፣ ከኹሉ በላይ ኹኖ መታየት መክበር መግነን”.
The Amharic antonym of ክብር is ውርደት, which too have multiple shades of meaning that can be denoted by several English words such as embarrassment, humiliation, degradation, indignity, shame, opprobrium, dishonor, abasement etc. As the case is with ክብር, underlying all shade of its meaning are two meanings: an unfavorable regard one has in the eyes of others and the corresponding fall from the social position one occupies, as explicitly explained in the Amharic to Amharic dictionary: ከላይ ወደ ታች መውረድ ፣ ከክብር መዋረድ፣ ማነስ”.
Our mindset provides several means for acquiring ክብር, the lack of which could result in ውርደት. Among these means are wealth, power, heroism and demonstration of socially valued personal qualities. It is to be noted that it is not just the possession of wealth, power, heroic deeds or valued personal qualities but the public recognition of their possession that is the source of ክብር. Hence, to acquire or maintain ክብር, exhibition of one’s possession is as important as its possession. For example, wealth becomes a source of ክብር and hence, pride, upon public recognition of it as aptly indicated by the proverb ‘ሃብታም ነው መባል ያኮራል፣ ደሃ ነው መባል ያሳፍራል’. There are many legitimate ways of displaying one’s wealth: throwing lavish feasts, publicly donating to charity or a socially valued cause, buying luxury property, frequenting expensive places etc. If a rich person, chooses not to publicly display his wealth and live an ordinary life, he/ she would at best puzzle the public. Otherwise, we would use derogatory terms such as ቁዋጣሪ፣ ስግብግብ (meaning stingy) to describe him even if that person may be a secret philanthropist. On the other hand, we go to a great length to pretend to the public that we are richer than we actually appear to be. For example, we may take significant amount of loan to throw a lavish weeding feast when we know full well that paying back the loan will lay significant tool on us for months and years ahead. We may buy very fancy clothes when we do not have a decent cloth cupboard. Our living rooms may be relatively clean, well decorated and furnished but our bedrooms and kitchens may be shabby and ill-furnished. We may buy luxury cars but may live in a relatively small apartment. To be fair, our mindset has the schema of አዩኝታ whose function is to derogate conspicuously pompous attention and visibility seeking behaviors.
A related means to ክብር in our mindset is the luxury of idleness. The schema of ጌትነት (nobility) has the attribute of aloofness from productive engagement. Historically, the number of servants one may have at his/ her service (variously refers to as አሽክር ገረድ አገልጋይ) is a mark of ጌትነት. Our ክብር grows the more people we are able to have at our service. Hence, display of the number of domestic or others workers one has employed is a source of ክብር. On the other hand, the more we have to work to earn our living, and the more that work is manual, the lowlier we become in the eye of the public. Our traditional detest for work in general and hands-on work in particular appears to be rooted the contempt we traditionally have for artisans. In our mindset are negative myths about artisans to despise, discriminate against and marginalize them.
Similarly, power is another instrument but needs displaying if it is to become a source of ክብር. The Amharic word for power ሰልጣን is derived from the root word ሰለጠነ one of whose meanings is having unquestioned power or control over others as suggested by several proverbs such as ሹም ያዛል ቀስ ያናዝዛል፣ ሹም ለመነ አዘዘ፣ ሹም ስይለፈለፍ ይደፈድፍ indicate. As noted in an earlier section, the display of authority over others is contextual and does not always require occupying office in a formal or traditional institution. In other words, all social spaces have authority figures and their subordinates. For example, to display their authority husbands occasionally scold and beat their wife and children; supervisors at work command and be rough towards their subordinates; security guards go beyond the rules to make entrances difficult to visitors. An authority figure who may not behave according to the dictates of our mindset risks not only disrespect ውርደት but his authority is also challenged. On the other hand, display of expected behaviors is rewarded by not only ክብር but absolute subservience as indicated the proverb: ሹም ሲቆጣ ማር ይዞ ከደጁ፣ ደስ ከደጁ.
In another example, the MAs and PhD we have collected may have added to the list of our status markers but do not often represent our intellectual rigor or the level of our investment in acquiring them. Hence, after graduation many of us may live with insecurity due to an often-severe gap between our intellectual attainment and expectations of our newly acquired social status. If instead we focus less on our credentials studied hard during invested on acquiring knowledge,
Another source of ክብር is ጀግንነት (heroism), which, according to our mindset, is demonstrated in any of several behaviors. Perhaps the most frequent demonstration of ጀግንነት, in our mindset, is showing one’s physical might over another in self-defense or conquest. Conversely, losing a fight and being subjugated by another can be one of the greatest causes of ውርደት. ጀግንነት is also demonstrated in longsuffering in times of difficulties (such as physical pain, loss of property etc). Determination, resoluteness and being unwavering in striving to achieve a socially legitimate goal such as success in education or career is another behavior that demonstrates ጀግንነት. If the goal of striving is perceived to benefit others and society, the striving accrues even greater ክብር. This is perhaps because striving in general and striving for social good in particular requires resisting the influences of two dominant schemas in our mindset that govern much of our individual and social behaviors; namely, seeking short term gain and shortcut to achievement (which will be discussed in a future section) and single-minded focus on pursuit of personal goals, which is an attribute of our core schema of self-centeredness, as discussed in the previous section. It should be noted that in our mindset the schemas of ጀግንነት and ወንድነት (manliness, machismo) (to be discussed in a later section) tend to overlap in meaning. This implies that ጀግንነት in any of its attributes and more so in its demonstration in physical might is, according to our mindset, an attribute of men. When women are perceived to exhibit any of the attributes of ጀግንነት, we remark: “ወንድ ናት” (“she is manly”).
In addition to some expression of ጀግንነት such as longsuffering in times of trouble and perseverance towards a socially valued goal, there are a number of personality traits that, if perceived by others, can be sources of ክብር. Some of the most important ones include respectfulness, wisdom, kindness, hospitality, sympathy and empathy. Again, these qualities do not in themselves bring ክብር if they are not expressed in a culturally appropriate way. For example, if a young man openly expresses an alternative view to that held by the adult, he may be regarded disrespectful of the adult even though deep in mind the young man may have the utmost respect for the adult. Conversely, if a young man quietly listens to and acknowledges the adult, he may be perceived as respectful even though the young may, in his mind, be resentful of the adult.
In any case, traditionally, when our sense of community was strong and personal (face-to-face) relationships dominated social life, the idealization of the integrative personality traits such longsuffering, respectfulness, wisdom, kindness, sympathy had contributed to keeping in check several disintegrative behaviors pivoting our core schema of self-centeredness, which would otherwise break the social order apart. Greater urbanization has, however, tearing down the social fabric and our sense of community, resulting in the erosion of personal relationships on which these integrative personality traits thrived. In other words, with the increasing predominance of impersonal transactions and exchanges as foundations of society, the integrative personality traits are losing their significance as sources of ክብር.
9. Pride
In the previous section, we noted that the quest for acquisition of ክብር is a central goal of life in our mindset. This is because the perceived acquisition of ክብር generates in us ኩራት (pride). We also noted that both the acquisition and exhibition of wealth, status, power or/and valued personality traits were the sources of ክብር. Logically, then, the acquisition and exhibition wealth, status, power or/and valued personality traits is the source of ኩራት.
ኩራት may be broadly defined as a particular feeling of happiness that comes out of achieving something. In our mindset, that something is the acquisition and exhibition wealth, status, power or/and valued personality traits. They are extrinsic sources of ኩራት because happiness is dependent on reward in the form of prize, recognition, praise, admiration etc. that may be elicited from others.
In contrast, intrinsic sources of ኩራት – personal satisfaction, joy or fulfilment derived out of excellence and refinement in excretion of our talents, capacities and skills, solving a problem etc. - irrespective of recognition or lack thereof by others – are not predominant in our mindset. There are numerous indicators of chronic dearth of intrinsic sources of ኩራት. For example, most high scoring students at an level of our system of education rarely read outside school text and reference books; few professionals in all fields make effort to update themselves with the latest developments in their field; in the absence of our supervisors, most of us revert to our default of mode of sloth; our products lack in rigor and attention to details as reflected in our shabby and chaotic public spaces, ugly and reckless buildings, fragile roads, shallow research products, poor quality crafts and customer services etc.
Faring better than others (in terms of acquiring and exhibiting valued material things and personality) may be an initial source of ኩራት in the Ethiopian mindset. That ኩራት is further enhanced if one’s faring better decidedly eclipses or shadows competitors. The source of this enhanced ኩራት is captured by the Amharic word ማስናቅ. The English idiom ‘put someone to shame’, when used in similar context, may have an equivalent meaning. However, ማስናቅ arguably implies not only eclipsing or shadowing but also undermining the competitors. This interpretation of ማስናቅ may make sense when we consider the value that our mindset places on holding those of lower social standing in contempt. Being able to look down upon inferiors is so valued in our mindset that many words that denote superiority and haughtiness over others are given as proper names of individuals, such as ናቃቸው (hold them in contempt) and ኩራባቸው (be puffed with pride at them).
There are at least two attitudes in which ኩራት (being puffed with pride) manifests itself: One is drawing social and emotional distance that did not exist before to establish difference in social standing due to one’s new achievement. The other is patronizing the other who is perceived to now occupy a lower social standing. These attitudes are generally expressed using subtle language and gesture partly denoted by the term ‘መጀነን’ least overt expression of superiority oversteps the bounds set by ይሉኝታ. Hence, ኩራት presupposes presence of some personal relationship of equal status between the subject (one who is puffed with pride) and the object (one at whom it is directed), which is now being renegotiated as a result of perceived superiority of the subject over the object due to a new achievement by the former.
Final note is in order on the reaction of the subject(s) of ኩራት - one at whom ኩራት is directed. The Amharic word generally used by the subject(s) to express that perception is ኮራብኝ(ን) [He is puffed with pride at me(us)], with variations at the pronouns of the subject and object. The object(s) generally perceives the subject’s newly exhibition of attitudes and behavior of ኩራት as an attack at one’s dignity (ክብረነክ) and feels offended by the new behavior of the subject at least initially. This may lead to complete estrangement or a new term of engagement may be implicitly negotiated between the two parties that recognizes the superior position of the subject.
Get help on technical issues / improve my technical skills
Learn more about additional services I can provide my clients
Learn more about the business side of freelancing
Stay up to date on what is happening in the language industry
Help or teach others with what I have learned over the years
Transition from freelancer to agency owner
Buy or learn new work-related software
Improve my productivity
Bio
A lover of words and languages, I am a versatile freelance translator and a published writer with 10 published works to my name and 15 years of translation experience. Agronomist, landscape architect and writer by profession and now studying for my MBA, I am interested in diverse fields such as culture, poetry, arts, business, leadership, religion/spirituality, environment and education. I write both in Amharic and English.
Keywords: Amharic, English, Business, Agriculture, Literature
Expertise