Integration

Two years after my arrival in Germany, social integration remains a challenge.

Many immigrants I know from work are not planning to become part of the local society or culture, beyond what's useful to develop their careers. German science and some branches of the industry make it very easy, being filled with the English language. It lets people stay culturally isolated, without having a need to leave the comfort zone. Their jobs provides the money they need to support themselves, and sometimes a flat as well, whether directly or by fostering coworker advice. It also provides a way to satisfy the need for love or friendship. Despite there being both locals and newcomers at such workplaces, it's still very easy to gather up a group of people to play poker or go out to drink, where the people in the group, coming from abroad, are not imbued with the local culture, and who only speak English between each other. Choosing such a lifestyle means leaving few openings for local culture to affect oneself, apart from osmosis and shopping trips to the self-service supermarket.

There used to be groups which had Germans in them, however they were not that common. Perhaps that's coming from there being relatively fewer locals, or perhaps because they can find entertainment after work easier. Interestingly, in my experience, drinking with locals was not part of the strategy of those people who intended to stay here long-term. They usually focused on their language courses: intensive, intuitive, conversational, full of grammar, individual, traditional... the list goes on. I'm not sure I heard about pen-pals though. The results, which were sometimes impressive, could often be heard in the corridors. In my case, the language course, books, and studying with a coursebook helped organize the remains of skills from school.

Because my integrating coworkers stayed in different circles than mine, I never learned how they progress outside of work. I can thus only speak about living in the North Rhine-Westphalia from my own experience. As you can guess from above, the command of the German language helped me the most. Conversely, my flatmates helped me know the language. Those who insisted on using German despite speaking decent English were the most helpful. Vielen Dank! I am starting to believe that immersion learning, without the ability to escape, leads to outstanding results.

The choice of language to use when talking to someone turned into a very important kind of a decision in my life. It's difficult for me to switch from the "easier" to the "more difficult" language, so I must resolve it at the first meeting. I am not sure why the switch is so difficult. Is it the fear of getting exhausted? Perhaps I find it hard to compromise the clarity of my words? It's difficult to talk about life, philosophy, mathematics, society, or bills, when you're stuck at a twelve-years-old's level of vocabulary, when you constantly mix up genders, and keep stumbling while remembering the next word to say. You can try, but it works better for entertainment than for fulfilling the need to talk.

It's much easier for me to use German to talk about cooking, barbecue, family, and shopping: flatmate topics. Nevertheless, I don't limit myself to using German only for those topics. That would have made me stagnate, while I intend to learn. That's why I use a different rule: will this person be someone with whom I discuss things crucial for others? I wouldn't be able to live it down if someone ended up disappointed, or lost time, money, or an opportunity due to me trying to learn. And so I know it's useful to use German to chat with friends, until we get to business. That's when I switch to English, just like I do at work.

There are no perfect rules, however, not until you know the language perfectly. On one hand, it's impossible to tell which way the conversation will go, and on the other, it's impossible to learn the hard parts without practicing. The language barrier remains, and living like this is different than leaving among familiar languages. It's especially demotivating to listen to hundreds to conversations while not being able to speak, in the best case because of missing vocabulary, and in the worst case because of fast talkers with weird accents. It's also discouraging to be join a conversation after having read a couple of messages, and getting "what?" in return. It's easier to talk among fewer people, because there are more pauses long enough to find the right words and piece together a sentence out of them. It's still a race even in that case, so I often give up on more difficult topics and turn to listening.

That splits my person into two: the usual one, and the silent, "german" one. After discovering that people are generally nice and have interesting stories to tell if only asked, it's hard to get back to being a passive listener. As you can guess, this changes how I relate to friends and acquaintances. It's difficult to make friends when being cut out from the most interesting topics, so I don't have much hope for making true German-only friendships.

Luckily, the double life still results in progress. I understand more and more, and I notice still more mistakes. One time I was even able to talk about life with a homeless at a train station. When an immigrant of 4 years from Russia visited once, she talked such good German I couldn't tell it from native. I have still 2 more years to catch up then.

Głupia mądrość

Najciekawsze rzeczy w życiu to te najbardziej zaskakujące, ujawniające, że nasze mniemanie o czymś nie pasuje do rzeczywistości, więc można z nich wydobyć nową wiedzę na temat świata. „Jak on strzelił tego gola?”, „Nie da się tak szybko przejść pieszo z Maratonu”, „Nie wierzę, że ją przekonałaś”, „On w tym wieku już czyta?!?” – takie wypowiedzi zawsze dają do myślenia.

Jedną z najbardziej wartościowych lekcji w moim życiu można podsumować słowami „jakim cudem ten człowiek na co dzień jest mądry?”.

Okazuje się, że jest wiele rodzajów mądrości. Mądrość, wiedza, inteligencja, bystrość... chociaż w języku potocznym można ich używać prawie zamiennie, niosą też w sobie ziarnko prawdy: mądrość mądrości nierówna. Od niedawna wiem na pewno, że są przynajmniej dwa jej rodzaje.

Osobę, która mnie o tym nauczyła, znam od początku tylko z dobrych stron. Często gra w szachy i udziela lekcji chętnym do zgłębienia ich tajników. Szachy, jako gra trudna i uświęcona tradycją, wymaga inteligencji, logiki i wyważonego podejścia, które ów mentor uosabiał. Podobne wrażenie dawała w naszych rozmowach na temat podróży i kultur, polskich realiów i ludzi, wśród których się obracaliśmy. Uwaga, szacunek i zrozumienie. Wprawdzie rozmów tego typu nie było wiele i ich celem nie była wnikliwa analiza charakteru, to wrażenie było ponadprzeciętne: człowiek ma pojęcie i podejście do świata odkładające wszelkie świrowanie na bok. Na korzyść tej osoby działali ludzie z kręgów bardziej religijnych, którzy brali ją za autorytet. Mając w pamięci pewnego mądrego i filozoficznego znajomego przywódcę religijnego, moja opinia o tej osobie mogła się tylko poprawić.

A to właśnie rozmowa na temat wiary i religii stanowiła dla mnie przełom i lekcję, pokazując, że konserwatywne podejście do życia i z niego wynikająca mądrość tej osoby to tylko iluzja wynikająca z mojego punktu widzenia.

Sytuacja prowadząca do oświecenia miała w sobie coś z Czerwonego Kapturka, gdy ten spotkał Wilka przebranego za Babcię. Znajoma mi osoba, w roli Kapturka, próbowała z dobrego serca objaśnić bogobojnej duszyczce, którędy przebiega ścieżka do zbawienia, prezentując własne podejście, a w szczególności interpretację chrześcijańskiej Biblii, zupełnie nie zdając sobie sprawy z tego, że ta duszyczka zjada bogów na śniadanie, podobnie jak Wilk Babcie. W roli duszyczki ja, słuchając z zaciekawieniem z antropologicznej ciekawości o historiach, które pisze los, i z chęci zrobienia przyjemności komuś, kogo lubię i kto lubi dzielić się swoją wiedzą.

Wiedza była doprawdy szokująca. Pierwsza zasada to brać wszystko, co napisane w Biblii dosłownie: zaskoczenie numer jeden. Do tamtego momentu wydawało mi się, że ta dekadencja ograniczona jest do najzapadniętszych dziur Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki, a za oceanem nie ma się czego obawiać. No cóż, wybaczcie mi naiwność, to było przed aferą antyszczepionkową. Kolejny kąsek wiedzy, jaki było dane mi odebrać, to sprawa fragmentów Biblii, które sobie wzajemnie przeczą. Tu człowiek ten wyjawił mi, że stara się o tym nie myśleć. Zaskoczenie numer dwa: no ale logika? Ale szachy? Jak można opierać strategię swojego życia na czymś, do czego nie chcemy zastosować logiki, nie chcemy sprawdzić czy w ogóle ma sens?

Te pierwsze dwie niespodzianki pokazały mi, że ludzie są bardziej skomplikowani, niż mogłoby się wydawać. Oto jeden człowiek, a wokół nas dziesiątki, tysiące, miliony ludzi, na których niekoniecznie można polegać, że w ważnych sprawach zachowają się sensownie, bo być może nigdy nie próbowali sprawdzić, czy zasady, którymi się kierują, trzymają się kupy.

Wkrótce spotkaliśmy się ponownie, a przy tej okazji wyszły na jaw konsekwencje tego typu podejścia do życia. Tematem zapalnym była moja dezercja z tonącego statku Polski, roznoszonego przez polską scenę polityczną. Moja krytyka okazała się niezrozumiała dla rozmówcy, który zwrócił moją uwagę, że władza powinna działać na zasadzie współpracy, a nie niezgody, podkreślając przy tym, że dana władza jest święta i pochodzi od jego boga. Zaskoczenie numer trzy: mój rozmówca odrzucił pluralizm i trójpodział władzy za jednym zamachem. W tym momencie było już dla mnie jasne, że podstawą dla wszelkich stwierdzeń była nieomylna chrześcijańska Biblia, co podniosło poprzeczkę argumentacji, dyplomacji i cierpliwości na poziom wykluczający mój dalszy udziału w dyskusji na ten temat. Stało się wtedy jasne, że jego religijność nie wpisuje się już w ramy nieszkodliwego hobby. Posiadając prestiż autorytetu, osoba ta ma możliwość przekazywania wiedzy innym, którzy ufają jej mądrości. Gdy jednak jest przekonana o prawdzie naiwnego współdziałania i głupoty bezwarunkowej akceptacji skonsolidowanej władzy, ten autorytet może spędzać dobrych ludzi na manowce oddania się dyktaturze.

Jaki jest morał tej historii? Bycie miłym, logicznym, ani mądrym teraz nie gwarantuje, że będziemy tacy potem, w jakiejś ważnej sprawie. Należy zastanawiać się nad zasadami, które nami kierują, i być gotowym na znalezienie w nich błędów, zwłaszcza porównując nasze zasady w sytuacjach od siebie odległych. Należy również brać poprawkę na to, że inni ludzie mogą nie mieć takiego mentalnego rygoru i mogą zachowywać się dla nas niezrozumiale. Również ludzie szanowani i autorytety nie są z tego wyjęci, toteż nie należy przeceniać ich słów na tematy, o których jeszcze dużo nie mówiły i w których autorytetami nie są. No i ostatecznie, żeby dobrze ocenić ludzi, należy ich poznać, co wymaga cierpliwości i pobłażliwości. Być może w połączeniu z empatią można nawet błądzących naprowadzić na ścieżkę spójnych zasad.

Dumb sages

The most interesting things in life are those that surprise us the most. They reveal that our idea about something doesn't match reality, so they can be used to learn something about the world. "How did he manage that goal?", "It's not possible to walk so fast from Marathon", "I can't believe you convinced her", "He can read at this age already?!?" – such statements stem from being confronted with something new.

One of the most valuable lessons in my life can be summarized as "how can it be that this person is wise in day-to-day matters?".

It appears that there are several kinds of wisdom. Wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, smartness... even though they are nearly the same in common usage, they reveal a bit of truth: different wisdoms are different. Not long ago I learned for sure that at least two sorts exist.

The person who taught me that is someone who only gave me a good impression from the beginning. They often play chess, and they teach those who want to dip their toes in the game. Chess as an ancient and difficult game, requires intelligence, logic, and a premeditated approach, matching this mentor very well. They seemed similarly well adjusted when discussing travels, cultures, the Polish life, and people that we both knew. Attention, respect, and understanding. We didn't conduct many such conversations, and there was no intention to analyze the character while chatting, but my resulting opinion was above average: this person comprehends life, and their approach casts all weirdness aside. The feeling was reinforced by some religious people I knew, who took this person as an authority. As I still remembered the wise and philosophical leader I met and respected, I took that for an endorsement.

And so, it was a conversation about faith and religion which was my lesson and a breakthrough. I was made to understand that a conservative approach to life and the perceived wisdom of this person was just an illusion that I saw because of my point of view.

The situation leading to enlightenment resembled the part of Red Riding Hood, when Hood met the Wolf disguised as Grandma. The acquaintance, as the Hood, tried to show the path to salvation to a fellow seeking soul, out of their good will. They presented their own approach, especially their interpretation of the Christian Bible, while completely oblivious to the fact that the fellow soul eats gods for breakfast. Just like the Wolf eats the Granny. Me, as the soul, was listening with full attention, out of sheer anthropological curiosity for stories written by life, and because I like to make people I like feel acknowledged.

What I was told was shocking. The first rule is to take literally all that's written in the Bible. Until that moment, I was certain that it's a kind of decadence limited to the darkest backwaters of the United States of America, and that there's nothing to fear here across the ocean. Oh well. Please excuse my naivety, that was still before the anti-vaccination movement took hold around here. Another piece of knowledge that I received was on reading contradictory statements in the Bible. I was told that my acquaintance tries not to think about those. Another surprise! But what about logic? What about chess? How can you build your life strategy on something on which you don't want to use logic, which you don't want to check for having sense?

Those two surprises showed me that people are more complicated than they might appear. This is one person, while around us there are tens, thousands, millions of people who can't necessarily be relied on to behave sensibly in important matters. Perhaps they never bothered to check if the rules they follow even work.

When we met again, the consequences of this approach to life surfaced. My desertion from the sinking ship of Poland, being scuttled by the political scene, was the starting point. My criticism was confusing to my acquaintance. They noted that political powers should cooperate instead of being discordant. They also made an observation that political power is holy as coming from their god. Yet another surprise. Such a sentiment denies pluralism and the principle of separation of powers. It was clear to me by that point that the basis for those statements was the unerring Christian Bible. That set the bar for argumentation, diplomacy and patience to a level that barred me from any further productive discussion on the topic. It became obvious that the religiosity of my acquaintance was no longer a harmless hobby. Enjoying the position of authority, they had the ability to spread their knowledge to those that trust their wisdom. However, when the authority is convinced about the correctness of naive cooperation and the stupidity of unconditional submission to consolidated power, the authority can lead people into the bushes of supporting dictatorship.

What's the moral of this story? Being nice, logical, and wise today doesn't guarantee that we'll be such tomorrow, when asked about some important matter. We should make sure we evaluate the rules that guide us, and must be ready to find mistakes in them, especially when comparing what the rules say about dissimilar situations. We should also keep in mind that others haven't necessarily applied the previous rule to their lives, and that their behaviour can seem incomprehensible to us. Not even respected people and authorities are exempt, so we should not overestimate their opinions on topics outside of their expertise. And finally, you need to know a person well to judge them well. That requires patience and forgiveness. Perhaps empathy can even lead those who are astray on the path to consistent rules.