擬似的マイノリティ体験（Being A Minority）と「KY（空気が読めない）」

少し前、現在履修しているダイバーシティ関連のクラス（Managing Diversity）で、"Being A Minority（マイノリティを経験しよう）"というプロジェクトを行った。これは２－３時間自分がマイノリティになる状況を意図的に作り出して、クラスで学んだステレオタイプ、集団間バイアス（intergroup bias）などの理論を体験を通して学ぶというものだった。

私はAl-Anonというボランティアグループが主催する「Alcoholics Anonymous Open Meeting（アルコール中毒者更生会、禁酒会）」に参加して「マイノリティ」を経験することにした。　

実際に真剣に取り組んでみると、それなりに多くの気付きが得られて、あらためて体験学習の重要性を実感する。また、このような地道な作業を繰り返すことによってのみ、エンパシー（相手の立場に立って物事を見つめ直す力）は磨かれていくのだろうとも考えたりする。

ダイバーシティを成功に導く（換言すると、多様な人材を協働へと導く）ためには、個々人のエンパシーに磨きをかけることが重要な要素として上げられている。

そういった観点から、最近、日本で流行っていると耳にした「KY（空気が読めない）」という言葉が、いささか気になる。私の気になるポイントは、「KYな人」もさることながら、どちらかというと、「KY」という言葉を発する側、つまり、「あいつはKYだ。」と切り捨てたり、仲間外れにしたりするといった、ある意味、堪え性がなく、包容力を失っている人々および社会的風潮へと向けられる。　

今度、「辛抱」、「堪え性」、「包容力」といったものをどうしたら、社会として、涵養していけるかについて、HRD（Human Resource Development)の観点から考えてみたい。

前置きが長くなりましたが、以下は、このプロジェクトで書いた私のレポートになります。（参考までに、プロジェクトのインストラクションも合せて載せておきます。）

Last Sunday, February 10th from 1:30-3:30 pm, I attended an Alcoholics Anonymous Open Meeting as an observer. I heard several stories of recovering alcoholics and had a conversation with one of the organizing members. The meeting was organized by Al-Anon which is a religion-free volunteer group helping relatives and friends of alcoholics as well as recovering alcoholics. Al-Anon sees alcoholism as a family illness and says that changed attitudes can aid recovery.

Before entering the meeting room – more precisely, before reading the Twelve-Steps of Al-Anon Program of Recovery put up on the wall, I was just thinking I would get into the situation where I was the minority of non-alcoholics. However, I started to realize that this was wrong. My head started producing a value conflict with the twelve-steps that say, “First, we admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable. Second, we came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Third, we made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him…” The word “God” frequently appeared in the following steps. Therefore, I was starting to redefine today’s experience as the minority experience where God has a strong power over people and God is pervasive among them. I was also beginning to suspect their religious-free concept from the start.

In this sense, I put up a minimum psychological barrier, but I didn’t feel particularly-uncomfortable experience. One of the possible reasons is I was technically included thanks to the “anonymous” policy and an inclusive atmosphere inherent in “care center.” Because of that, if I were asked, “Were you noticeable or invisible?” I would say, “I was invisible in a sense.” However, I would add, “It was not bad.” They had a set of written and unwritten rules to make people just focus on building purpose-oriented relationships – to share their difficulties and what　has helped them only about alcoholism.

When I think of what made me feel included in line with Allport’s Theory of Intergroup Contact, I’ve noticed that all of the four factors that can reduce intergroup bias – equal status, common goals, institutional support, and cooperation, were well internalized even in the two-hour meeting. During the meeting, we all could know one another only by name, plus, that we were all in the same situation – suffering alcoholism. On that day, more than twenty people got together; they were very diverse in terms of race and age. However, I think such institutional interventions (support) contributed a lot to the perceived equal status of diverse members and a focus on common goal of recovery. Also, the meeting organizer seemed to consider how to create positive social interdependence (cooperation) among members. First of all, this meeting was a pot-luck meeting. So, we all brought and shared lunch together before the meeting. Also, when someone introduced him/herself, we had to respond altogether like “Hi Yongmin!” in a welcoming voice. Moreover, during the meeting, the group leader repeatedly emphasized the word “family (to solve common goals)” towards us. Finally, after the meeting was over, we all stood in a circle holding hands and took time to strengthen a sense of unity.

In a real world, status, power, and privilege, which possibly exaggerate intergroup bias and conflicts, might be unequally distributed among the members, but within this group setting, at least, they became “equally powerless” under the name of God. I thought these artificially-created conditions might lead to the increased perception of “similar others” among members as well as prevention of intergroup bias.

When I heard the word God, unfortunately, my brain automatically associated it with the negative image of religion and absolute value hardened and strengthened by self-fulfilling prophecy. In line with that, I tended to keep people depending on God away from me. Therefore, I could not say I was a 100% bias-free listener during the meeting. As an evidence of that, I still feel reluctant to accept the concept of powerlessness over alcohol they presented. However, the speech of a recovering alcoholic teenage girl helped me look for the “inconsistency of my stereotype.” She lives in a situation where parents are both addicted to alcohol (her father is in jail because of drug-abuse). I noticed that my luck of belief could be fragile in someone else’s situation; more importantly, I realized my own belief could not save her – ironically I was “powerless” for her. Since this precious person-to-person dialogue, I’ve begun to have a more tolerant, flexible, and broader perspective on God and people believing in God.

If I were asked, “What else could I have done in the situation to facilitate greater intergroup understanding and cooperation?” I could have answered, “More dialogues would have helped.” However, I believe in the power of time in some situations, and I think this situation is what exactly it is. That is, I think I need to learn more about them before the next dialogues. I believe that these continuous processes based on willingness to compromise could lead to building a strong sense of empathy (thinking in the other’s shoes). This, in turn, would result in contributing to a greater intergroup understanding and cooperation.

----------------------------　
Project 1: Being A Minority

Instructions

This project has two parts. First, you will be asked to spend two to three hours in a situation where you are the minority (i.e., different from everyone else in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion, sexuality, or some other characteristic). You will then have the opportunity to apply class concepts to your experience in a short reflection paper In your write-up, be sure to address each of the questions listed below and draw from class lectures, discussions, and readings.

Example Experiences

When selecting your minority experience, you should try to find a situation where the way in which you differ from everyone else is obvious. Here are some example experiences that students have written about in the past:
· A participant who could walk spent an afternoon at a mall in a wheelchair
· A young participant visited a nursing home
· A male participant went to a party held to sell cookware products
· A woman attended a basketball game between her own school and an archrival, wore her 　own school colors, and sat in the archrival’s section
· A participant of one sexual orientation attended a party primarily attended by people with a different sexual preference
· A hearing participant visited a school for the deaf

Questions

1) Briefly describe the situation. Where did you go? Who else was there? What did you do? How did you differ from everyone else in the situation? (10 points)

2) How did you feel? For example, did you feel comfortable or uncomfortable? Included or excluded? Noticeable or invisible? Did your feelings change during the course of the experience? (10 points)

3) We have spent a lot of time discussing interactions between ingroups and outgroups. Did you notice any intergroup bias in the situation? If so, describe the nature of the bias. If not, what factors may have prevented intergroup bias? (25 points)

4) We have also spent a lot of time discussing stereotypes. What stereotypes exist about both you and the others present in the situation? Did these stereotypes influence your experiences? If so, how? If not, why not? (25 points)

5) What could you have done in the situation to facilitate greater intergroup understanding and cooperation? (25 points)

6) Please be sure your paper is well-written, thoughtful, and free of typos and other grammatical errors! (5 points)

All rights are reserved by Professor Lisa Leslie, University of Minnesota