Knowing the Other
Published in La Nación
(Costa Rica) on 19 January 2014
by Carlos Alberto Montaner (link to original)
The U.S. government is seriously determined to increase its [number of] foreign exchange students. The name of the initiative does not have a simple Spanish translation — "100,000-Strong Educational Exchange" — but the concept is understood without difficulty.
Washington wants to encourage 100,000 Americans to study in China, and for more Chinese to study in the United States — the latter is easier. The project also includes Latin America. The Obama administration wants 100,000 Latin Americans to matriculate in U.S. universities and vice versa.
In my opinion, it would be much simpler to find 100,000 Latin Americans students — or a million, or 10 million — willing to travel up north, especially if there are scholarships, than it would be to get a similar number of Americans moving south.
The pedagogical hypothesis states that direct knowledge of other cultures and other languages helps to eliminate prejudices and strengthen virtues. It civilizes and universalizes. Similarly, that kind of vital experience serves to discard preconceived suspicions, which do not resist contact with reality. I remember a case of some Peruvian and Cuban friends who abandoned communism after studying in the Soviet Union. When they saw real socialism, they were terrified.
Economic theory postulates that, after living and studying in the United States, many foreigners will become so familiar with research and business ventures that they will become more innovative and productive when they return to their own countries. They learn how the most successful nation on the planet lives and works — despite its flaws and defects — without proposing that they spread the beliefs, knowledge and duties that have made that leadership more powerful.
Why would Washington do it? First of all, I suspect, because the certainty exists among the most visionary politicians that it is better to live surrounded by prosperous friends than poor and bitter enemies. For the United States, it is safer and more pleasant if the world looks like Canada than like North Korea. It reduces conflict, increases deals: We all benefit, and there is peace on earth and in heaven.
Second, there is a certain philanthropic instinct mixed with political interests that is part of American culture. It is quite convenient to stimulate Latin American economic development. In the 1960s, for example, the Alliance for Progress needlessly guzzled $30 billion. The willingness to help is not as intense as in Scandinavian countries, but it still exists and is manifested in different ways.
Third, no one doubts how useful it is to improve deficiencies in U.S. education in areas like geography, history and languages spoken by the rest of humanity. It is a formula to help your neighbor and benefit yourself. Magnificent.
Of course, this is not about the work of public relations, at least regarding Latin America. Washington does not need it. Contrary to widespread belief, the perception of Latin Americans toward the U.S. is pretty good. Every once in a while, the "Latinobarometer" measures this phenomenon and confirms that the true public opinion contradicts the prejudiced opinion that is published.
On average, 77 percent of Latin Americans confirm that they have a positive opinion of the United States. Those who claim to admire their powerful neighbors most are Dominicans, Salvadorans, Panamanians and Hondurans. Approximately 90 percent of them notably appreciate the United States. Those who like it the least are Argentines, but even in that country it is 54 percent — the majority — that also share a good opinion of Americans.
In my own opinion, it would be easier for the Chinese, Latin Americans, Europeans and Africans to absorb American culture and benefit from that contact than vice versa. There is a kind of universal rule of dispersion and influential impact. When Athens was the center of the world, it looked onto the rest with disdain. The word barbarian described, precisely, anyone who was foreign. When it came to Rome, it behaved the same way. The paradox — and curse — of the greatest nations is that, by seeing themselves as the center, they end up being culturally narrow-minded. In any case, it is not bad to try to correct this deficiency.
Washington wants to encourage 100,000 Americans to study in China, and for more Chinese to study in the United States — the latter is easier. The project also includes Latin America. The Obama administration wants 100,000 Latin Americans to matriculate in U.S. universities and vice versa.
In my opinion, it would be much simpler to find 100,000 Latin Americans students — or a million, or 10 million — willing to travel up north, especially if there are scholarships, than it would be to get a similar number of Americans moving south.
The pedagogical hypothesis states that direct knowledge of other cultures and other languages helps to eliminate prejudices and strengthen virtues. It civilizes and universalizes. Similarly, that kind of vital experience serves to discard preconceived suspicions, which do not resist contact with reality. I remember a case of some Peruvian and Cuban friends who abandoned communism after studying in the Soviet Union. When they saw real socialism, they were terrified.
Economic theory postulates that, after living and studying in the United States, many foreigners will become so familiar with research and business ventures that they will become more innovative and productive when they return to their own countries. They learn how the most successful nation on the planet lives and works — despite its flaws and defects — without proposing that they spread the beliefs, knowledge and duties that have made that leadership more powerful.
Why would Washington do it? First of all, I suspect, because the certainty exists among the most visionary politicians that it is better to live surrounded by prosperous friends than poor and bitter enemies. For the United States, it is safer and more pleasant if the world looks like Canada than like North Korea. It reduces conflict, increases deals: We all benefit, and there is peace on earth and in heaven.
Second, there is a certain philanthropic instinct mixed with political interests that is part of American culture. It is quite convenient to stimulate Latin American economic development. In the 1960s, for example, the Alliance for Progress needlessly guzzled $30 billion. The willingness to help is not as intense as in Scandinavian countries, but it still exists and is manifested in different ways.
Third, no one doubts how useful it is to improve deficiencies in U.S. education in areas like geography, history and languages spoken by the rest of humanity. It is a formula to help your neighbor and benefit yourself. Magnificent.
Of course, this is not about the work of public relations, at least regarding Latin America. Washington does not need it. Contrary to widespread belief, the perception of Latin Americans toward the U.S. is pretty good. Every once in a while, the "Latinobarometer" measures this phenomenon and confirms that the true public opinion contradicts the prejudiced opinion that is published.
On average, 77 percent of Latin Americans confirm that they have a positive opinion of the United States. Those who claim to admire their powerful neighbors most are Dominicans, Salvadorans, Panamanians and Hondurans. Approximately 90 percent of them notably appreciate the United States. Those who like it the least are Argentines, but even in that country it is 54 percent — the majority — that also share a good opinion of Americans.
In my own opinion, it would be easier for the Chinese, Latin Americans, Europeans and Africans to absorb American culture and benefit from that contact than vice versa. There is a kind of universal rule of dispersion and influential impact. When Athens was the center of the world, it looked onto the rest with disdain. The word barbarian described, precisely, anyone who was foreign. When it came to Rome, it behaved the same way. The paradox — and curse — of the greatest nations is that, by seeing themselves as the center, they end up being culturally narrow-minded. In any case, it is not bad to try to correct this deficiency.