Some thoughts on partnership

Trevor R. Getz, Assoc. Professor of History, San Francisco State University

Space, respect, and performance

1) Anthropologists and cultural studies specialists consider intercultural relationships through a number of terms and ideas, of which several relate to the notion of "space" and "authenticity". These ideas especially come into play when a visitor enters the cultural space of a society or individual.

2) In one conceptualization, societies and individuals are considered to have "front" and "back" spaces, in which front spaces are public and open to visitors and back spaces are closed and private. Similarly, there are "performed" and "authentic" moments and spaces. Performed moments occur when the individual or society tries to deliver to the visitor what they want or expect, whereas authentic moments occur when the individual or society act within their own comfort space or milieu.

3) One way to understand these ideas is through a matrix that places in to relationship these two binaries.

FRONT (Public and Open) BACK (Private and Closed)
PERFORMED The performed front The performed back
AUTHENTIC The authentic front The authentic back

One can look at these binaries from a variety of perspectives. For example, tourists usually see a society from the point of view of the performed front: in spaces especially prepared for them like resorts, tourist sites (or traps), and amusement parks or special attractions. However, many tourists want to be "travelers". They want to see the "authentic back", to find out what really happens in the society at to feel like they have gone beyond the average tourist experience. The result is that the society being visited responds by creating performed backs - in other words, they "stage authenticity". They create "ritual dances", or "cultural villages", or "traditional art" that reinforces the visitors' preconceptions and allows them to remain safe and unchallenged.

4) This may be all very well for tourism (although it is problematic there as well). However it is extremely detrimental to the process of creating a partnership, especially in the case when a wealthier partner or group of partners visits a less wealthy partner.

• The visiting partners define the terms for their own benefit and to their own preconceptions. As a result, they never really get to learn about their partner society on its own terms. Their ability to benefit from the partnership is severely restricted, and they are not challenged to grow.
• The visited society feels devalued. They are performing a reductionist or essentialist version of their culture rather than being able to present themselves on their own terms. Often, this means that they are cast as "traditional" and backward.

The result is a very limited relationship that cannot really be considered a partnership. Instead, what comes into existence is a charity relationship in which the wealthier partners benefit by feeling good about their philanthropy and the less wealthy partners benefit by receiving cash or other financial assistance. The greater potential benefits of partnership - growth, exchange, and learning - are tossed by the wayside.

5) In order to progress beyond this kind of limited interaction, both partners have to come to certain realizations:

• Partnerships between wealthier and less wealthy groups or societies entail very real relationships of power. The wealthier partners need to be encouraged to recognize their wealth as power and to explore its repercussions. The less wealthy partners need to feel empowered to see themselves as partners despite their lack of wealth.
• The wealthier partners must understand that their desire to see the "authentic back" is not a sign or action of respect, but rather of privilege. The back is a private space, and invitation into it takes time and may not happen at all. Instead, partners should recognize the value of the "authentic front". Each partner should strive to show each other the respect they would show visitors who are friends, equals, and partners. In this way, the relationship can grow.
• Logistics

The logistics of communication between wealthier and less wealthy partners can be complicated. Some of these complications are cultural: for example, many Americans tend to expect quick and exact replies accompanies by little ritual, whereas many Africans prize longer consideration and greater ritual accompaniment. Few work conversations in Maputaland (northern KwaZulu Natal), for example, begin without at least some discussion of families, health, etc.

At the same time, communications are often restricted by logistical matters as well. In Maputaland, e-mail access is scarce and sometimes difficult to achieve.

An initial visit by a teacher or administrator from a school in the United States to a school in Maputaland can jumpstart the partnership. Face-to-face contact is a key to growing partnerships like the successful St. Marks - eSibonisweni alliance. In addition, such visits allow for the discovery of complementary resources, needs, and skills. They promote greater awareness of logistical and cultural situations. Finally, they grow key players by moving participants to the center to be the principal backers or leaders of the partnership at their own schools.