Through Meetings 1, 2, and 3, I began to recognize that “community” is more than a space in which cultural difference manifests—it is a space in which identity, belonging, and risk are constructed through systems of practice that function at a grassroots, everyday level. Through the lenses of the GEM learning objectives, these dialogues forced me to engage with global self-awareness (how my assumptions shape my observations), global systems (how systems of institution and culture condition belonging and risk), and perspective-taking and communication (how to encode and decode meaning from difference), while also stretching me toward accountability and openness in how I engage with them.
In Meeting 1, our dialogue about bilingualism among Clarissa’s sons instantly showed me the complexity of language as something that is not merely an ability but also a form of social identity concerning belonging. When Clarissa talked about how fluently her sons switch between Brazilian Portuguese and English, I also thought about my personal experience observing my five-year-old brother fluently switch between Korean and English. It was, however, the recognition that bilingualism is not necessarily a basis for acceptance that altered my perceptions. When Clarissa said her sons usually have easier acceptance within Brazilian society compared to within U.S. society, I could immediately connect this to my personal experience about my brother being treated differently depending on whether the stranger or new situation finds bilingualism as ‘normal’ or ‘weird.’ Through the goal of GEM’s global self-awareness, I had to recognize my personal assumption, where I considered bilingualism as a universally appreciated strength, contrary to the ‘system’ accepted by the particular social environment.
This awareness was reinforced strongly in Meeting 2, when eating Brazilian food with the Clarissa family shifted the whole experience for me. Sharing food and sitting around it did allow the conversation to seem easier and more natural, and it was a good reminder that culture is communicated through non-verbal cues—factors of hospitality, welcome, and trust—as much as or more than through ideas. Listening to the stories about food connected to holidays and times when the family was able to gather made me realize the potential role that food can play in creating a sense of home, even when home is far away through geography or experience. Not surprisingly, it was strongly connected to my own experience, the sense that Korean food or music can sometimes get across the sense of belonging in a way that mere communication doesn’t—it was both comforting and useful to relate to the experience being communicated through the exercise about the GEM communication objective to describe what I was learning: that understanding between cultures sometimes occurs through shared practice, the range to negotiate meaning in those small ways rather than simply talk about it.
Meeting 2 also urged me toward GEM’s “understanding global systems” objective by thinking of adaptation not just as language and job, but as something bigger than that. I began to see that I had been thinking of adaptation to American society as just structural (getting a job, learning English), but Clarissa’s experience opened my eyes to the fact that adaptation is not just an emotional and sensory process—reconstructing those ‘small’symbols of culture and reconstituting the world as if it were real all over again.
In Meeting 3, our dialogue turned to violence and politics when Clarissa mentioned the shootings in Brazilian cities and related them to the political situation. At this point, the global systems objective of GEM was illustrated in a new way, regarding the impact of politics, inequality, and security upon the everyday experience of emotions: people’s notions of safety and trust not as abstract topics, but as experienced reality. Leslie tied back to Mexico City when she spoke about the effects of violence and corruption to diminish hope in government protection and, subsequently, the political participation of citizens. Listening for the fear, the lack of trust, and the resignation of political instability via the objective of GEM’s perspective-taking and empathy was required of me.
Despite not explicitly discussing the UN and the SDGs during Meeting 3, the talk reminded me of SDG 16 and how global projects can be perceived and considered relevant and legitimate by the grassroots. This is where the challenge of GEM’s responsibility and openness not only relates to my involvement but presents itself as an immediate challenge, since, if global projects and programs are meant to make a difference, I have no choice but to withhold my immediate judgment and begin from the grassroots level and depending on how the intervention is received.
Together, these meetings have taught me that learning is not merely a matter of accumulating cultural knowledge. Rather, it is a process of increasing a certain type of discipline in how I understand difference—noticing my beliefs (global self-awareness), identifying the systems that drive typical experience (global systems), communicating and co-constructing meanings through both language and practice, and remaining receptive enough to allow other people’s experience to transform my contexts.
