On one level, all people are different. All 8.2 billion people on Earth are unique individuals with unique genetic makeup—with the exception of identical twins, of course—but otherwise, we are all different. This applies to our physical characteristics, opinions, thoughts, and ideas.
And I think most people would agree with this. We are all truly unique.
Then there are also things that unite us—such as culture, tradition, religion, and more. We see that all of the Earth’s unique individuals sometimes, though not always, behave in similar ways. People drink tea one way in Japan and another way in England. People greet each other differently in Myanmar and California. Different topics are discussed in different places, and we have different manners, movements, tones, as well as distinct habits and quirks.
On a superficial level, one can note that food, clothing, languages, and houses differ around the world, but it goes deeper than that. Sometimes we even laugh at different things and find it very difficult to understand one another, not only because of language, but also because of the way questions, answers, and solutions are presented. In some countries, it is considered rude to speak directly and frankly; conversation should be wrapped in polite phrases and a specific linguistic style. Meanwhile, clear, concise explanations are appreciated in other places.
Well, we quickly see what unites us and what does not. A certain group of people behaves in a specific way due to culture and tradition. For a foreigner, this is often easy to see, and one tends to make generalizations.
For example, in some countries people eat with their hands, in others with chopsticks or with a knife and fork. This doesn’t mean that absolutely everyone in country X eats with their hands, but that enough people do so that we can see a trend, and that we take note of the phenomenon.
The brain isn’t capable of figuring out whether 90% or 80% of people do this. If you want to know exactly, you should conduct a statistical survey, where you ask a certain number of people and then present your analysis. Then you know a bit more precisely, and can say that in country X, 81% eat with their hands. As an example.
Then there are some people who think the custom of eating with one’s hands is inappropriate. They believe it is unhygienic and looks bad. They do not want to participate in the tradition, and may even avoid travelling to countries where people eat in this manner. Otherwise, they do not make a big deal out of it.
Another group believes we should encourage people in Country X to stop eating with their hands, as it can spread diseases and other problems. They want to actively influence people to change their eating habits. They raise money, give speeches, and run campaigns.
A third group believes that eating with one’s hands is so repulsive and contagious that residents of Country X should not be allowed to visit Country Y. They argue that they should be stopped at the border. Of course, they know that only 81% eat with their hands in that country—the statistical survey has shown that—but it’s easier to just stop everyone at the border, since it’s difficult to verify whether they eat with their hands or not. They lump everyone together, for the sake of simplicity.
The fourth and final group is so eager to respect those who eat with their hands that they decide to ignore any potential problems with hygiene, infection risks, etc. They believe the risk is small compared to the inconvenience of upsetting them or making them feel stupid. People’s cultures and distinctiveness should be respected as much as possible, they believe.
The different groups can sometimes come into conflict with one another. The permissive and respectful group may sometimes downplay infection risks and hygiene issues to appear in a better light. Meanwhile, the critical group may exaggerate the dangers to make their respective point.
The dispute itself does not mean that potential problems should be ignored. The risk of moderate transmission remains. And so do the issues of social acceptance, as people from certain cultures feel disgust when they see others eating in an unusual way. It is not considered socially acceptable.
What can be done to bridge such cultural differences? What can we do to move forward?
The very idea of bridging these gaps and moving forward is itself a social construct, since there are some who actually do not want to see anyone eating with their hands—and above all, do not want to eat with their hands themselves. We can’t force them to accept the practice, can we?
But as time goes on, perhaps the children of those who eat with their hands, chopsticks, or forks will be able to get along in the future, once they’ve learned to accept each other’s differences? Time can bridge cultural divides. And we learn to live with one another.
Or perhaps we eat based on our own social context, without considering how others eat. Is there an overreliance on compromise and conformity when it’s not actually necessary? Adaptation for adaptation’s sake? To be polite, pleasant, and avoid creating a bad atmosphere? To the point where you yourself start eating with your hands, even though you actually find it disgusting?
In that case, you have devalued your own eating habits, your own sense of comfort, hygiene, and social norms, in order to fit into a larger community. And it might be worth it. Humans are social animals. And the discomfort we previously felt can quickly disappear when we earn social points and climb the popularity ladder. From a broader perspective, this is probably how culture and customs are created. Many of us want, above all, to fit in. And this, too, must be understood and respected to some extent.
