Well, I’ve had my first bout of not feeling well. 35 trips to the toilet later and I was pretty drained! However, despite starting to feel a bit dodgy on Sun night I slept well, and didn’t actually feel ill at all, just physically weak and with no energy. I did try taking a blackcurrant flavoured Oral Rehydration Solution, but it was so disgusting I only managed to drink half! I was much better by Mon afternoon, though it’s taken a few days to get my appetite back. It was my first experience of diarrhoea, but not too bad. Though I could see how awful it might be if you weren’t within 30 second reach of the toilet….
As most of you know, I tend to enjoy my meals with gusto, so it was a new experience for me to look at food and to be physically revulsed by it. I think Mama Mkubwa (the cook) has been slightly concerned at how little I’ve been eating! Kindu food is fine and liveable with when you’re feeling ok, but if you’re feeling a bit dodgy it becomes very unappetising. The lowlight was one evening when dinner was some cold, flabby, oily potato chips and two bits of meat in some sort of fatty sauce. I heated a tin of green beans which made the rest slightly better. I’m looking forward to being in Bukavu next week when I’ll be able to eat a pizza, and maybe even a curry….
It’s been alright without Benoit here. I’ve been learning so much about how the project actually works. Previously, I hadn’t had so much to do with the day to day decisions – difficulties in accessing a particular village, meetings etc. There’s been various situations when I haven’t been sure of what decision to make, so have just had to take a deep breath and make a decision. Nothing seems to have gone horribly wrong so far! Michelle (deputy programme director) is here at the moment, so it’s good to have her company and to do some preparation for the bigger projects. The impact evaluation is going fairly well – we have a pile of 324 questionnaires in our office at the moment. It’s quite exciting to see the evidence of the work taking place! They haven’t yet been entered on the computer – my plan for the entry didn’t work out so I’ll get a couple of people in next week to do it. I spent a couple of hours with Josephine (our cleaner) giving her her first lesson in using the computer. It was quite odd for me to work with someone who’d never used a computer before; not many of those people left in the UK any more!
The first morning after Benoit had left I left the house at 8am for our morning devotions, to find Mama Mkubwa and Josephine sitting patiently by the guard’s hut. It turned out that Benoit always opened the house for them at 7am. I wasn’t so fond of this plan, seeing as I only wake up at 7.45. We managed to work out a compromise that they arrive at 7.30 and I stagger out of bed, let them in and go and snooze for another 10 minutes. I need all the sleep that I can get – whilst I’m sleeping fairly well the heat, the work and not feeling so good has made me quite tired. I had another 3 hour nap this morning (it’s now Sunday). The Inspector Lynley Mysteries is on TV…and we’re just getting to the last 5 minutes and the most climatic point and what happens?! The power goes!!!!!
Monday 17 May 2010
HR issues
Before I came, one of the questions that I had was how useful I was going to be able to be. Was flying over international staff unnecessary and patronising? The answer is no! I’ve been surprised at how our national staff often do not even think about doing (what is to me) the simplest things. Logic and initiative-taking are things that we take for granted, but actually, if you’re not taught or trained in them then you won’t use them! It means that a much higher degree of micro-management becomes necessary. You can’t just delegate a job and expect it to be done. If you don’t follow up, then you’ll receive a visitor a few days later going ‘why haven’t I got this or that?’ You go back to the staff member and find out that they didn’t complete the job because there was some sort of problem. ‘So why didn’t you do it this way? Or why didn’t you let us know?’ ‘Umm…’. It’s made more difficult to me because I can’t have in-depth conversations in French (and because it’s hard to adapt the trust level) so understanding their reasons is beyond me at present! However, I really like our staff – they’re hard workers and have got a good sense of humour.
HR is a big issue at the moment. Our project year finished at the end of April, and until we get a new budget signed then we’re not able to continue with the work. To make it fairer, the aim was to make all the staff redundant, although many people’s contracts finished at the end of April anyway.
Some positions we’ve needed to fulfil immediately, and had to renew straight away – the cook and cleaner being two of them! For others, like the guards, we need immediately but because we’ve reduced the number of guards (having closed our sub-base) it was necessary to have a competitive recruitment process to make it fairer. And in the meantime we used temporary workers alongside the two guards who had permanent contracts and who we therefore kept on. Then there’s other roles that we’ve needed immediately and we’ve known that we’ve wanted to keep the same people on. So do you just renew their contracts immediately and not go through the farce of having interviews when you know perfectly well who you’re going to hire? Or is it more equitable for everyone to have all positions competitive? But then, by law we’re obliged to prefer the same person on if the role is the same, unless we’ve got issues with their performance. Some people have fixed term contracts, but if a person has two continuous fixed term contracts they’re then on a permanent contract. That just complicates matters!
For the project staff – the agronomists etc – the structure has changed. That means it’s not clear who will take on what roles, so it’s necessary to use external recruitment – though if possible we prefer the people we already know. This whole budget gap feels quite horrible – we have no choice but to wait, but in the meantime people don’t know whether they’re going to have a job or not. They have a few weeks of not earning, with no guarantee of any job. Yet we’re hoping that many of them will reapply and work with us. That would never happen in the UK – people wouldn’t hang around waiting to see if they’ve got a job, they’d be off working for another organisation, planned a couple of months in advance. We as an employer have so much power, because of the lack of good jobs in Kindu and in Congo as a whole. In the UK, having a job is almost a right, with job security being an acceptable part of life. Here, having a good job is a bonus for a lucky few – even if you’re having to wait a month to see if you’ve still got one.
HR is a big issue at the moment. Our project year finished at the end of April, and until we get a new budget signed then we’re not able to continue with the work. To make it fairer, the aim was to make all the staff redundant, although many people’s contracts finished at the end of April anyway.
Some positions we’ve needed to fulfil immediately, and had to renew straight away – the cook and cleaner being two of them! For others, like the guards, we need immediately but because we’ve reduced the number of guards (having closed our sub-base) it was necessary to have a competitive recruitment process to make it fairer. And in the meantime we used temporary workers alongside the two guards who had permanent contracts and who we therefore kept on. Then there’s other roles that we’ve needed immediately and we’ve known that we’ve wanted to keep the same people on. So do you just renew their contracts immediately and not go through the farce of having interviews when you know perfectly well who you’re going to hire? Or is it more equitable for everyone to have all positions competitive? But then, by law we’re obliged to prefer the same person on if the role is the same, unless we’ve got issues with their performance. Some people have fixed term contracts, but if a person has two continuous fixed term contracts they’re then on a permanent contract. That just complicates matters!
For the project staff – the agronomists etc – the structure has changed. That means it’s not clear who will take on what roles, so it’s necessary to use external recruitment – though if possible we prefer the people we already know. This whole budget gap feels quite horrible – we have no choice but to wait, but in the meantime people don’t know whether they’re going to have a job or not. They have a few weeks of not earning, with no guarantee of any job. Yet we’re hoping that many of them will reapply and work with us. That would never happen in the UK – people wouldn’t hang around waiting to see if they’ve got a job, they’d be off working for another organisation, planned a couple of months in advance. We as an employer have so much power, because of the lack of good jobs in Kindu and in Congo as a whole. In the UK, having a job is almost a right, with job security being an acceptable part of life. Here, having a good job is a bonus for a lucky few – even if you’re having to wait a month to see if you’ve still got one.
Marriage
It’s ok, I’m still most definitely single. I haven’t even had that many marriage proposals, though a few declarations of undying love. But I’ve had a few conversations about what the marriage relationship is recently, and there are so many differences in perception. I’ve grown up in a culture where marriage takes place between two people who love each other, and want to share their lives together at a deep, intimate level. Increasingly in the UK, I think marriage has become a lot more ‘feeling’ based – I feel ‘love’ towards this person, and if that feeling disappears then I can divorce and start a relationship with someone else – it’s much more about self-fulfilment.
In Congo, marriage does not include a deep sharing of your life. It’s much more of a practical arrangement. Husband works and finds money/food for family. Wife has children, brings them up and keeps house in order. The only time necessary to have any interaction is to have sex. Your deepest relationship is not with your spouse – it would be with friends of your own gender. I think this is partly due to gender inequality, and segregation of roles. If you don’t believe that your spouse has any insight, interest or useful contribution to make to the world of work/home, then you’re not going to share what’s happening. It reminds me of Britain 60 – 70 years ago when the wife’s place was at home, and if the husband was struggling in his role of breadwinner, he wouldn’t worry his wife about it because that was his responsibility. But with recognition that women have a place at work, and men have a place at home, there’s a growing equality between the sexes and a partnership and a sharing can take place.
Women tend to end up working much harder here than men. Previous questionnaires/interviews etc. we’ve done indicates that women (certainly those in the villages) might work for about 16 hours in a day, gathering firework, working in the fields, cooking, bringing up children etc. The men on the other hand might work for a couple of hours but spend time sitting and chatting – not getting involved in women’s work. One of the things that our staff do in mobilisation sessions in the community is to ask both the men and women to share what work they do and how long it takes them – often the men are willing to do more work once they realise for the first time just how unfair it is.
I was watching an episode of Tribal Wives the other night, where a London primary school teacher spent a month or two with the women of a Masai Mara tribe. There, marriage was expected and wanted – you risked not having to live otherwise. And polygamy was definitely a good thing. You wanted your husband to have other wives otherwise you would have to do all the work yourself. Polygamy is common in Congo as well, particularly in the rural areas. Malcolm and Elizabeth were saying that when they’ve stayed at villages overnight, they’re normally given the best house to stay in, and the house of the richest person will likely belong to someone who can afford more than one wife. But with marriage being such a different creature here, polygamy looks different to what we might expect. For example, the four wives will spend all their time together, gathering water, wood, cooking, bringing up children etc. They’re a close group and have a far stronger relationship with each other than any of them do with their husband. After all, they only spend time individually with their husband when he chooses which room to sleep in that night. If I suggested polygamy to anyone in the UK they would hate the thought of having to share their husband and the jealousy and hurt that would provoke – and I believe that that deep intimate relationship should only be, and can only be, between two and no more people.
Serial polygamy is also an issue here. The idea of marriage being for life is a strange concept for people. A man will give a bride price to the woman’s parents, and they’ll marry. However, this is seen almost as a ‘lease’ – the man will write down all the things he’s spent on his wife (e.g., a blanket, some clothes) because if it’s decided that they’ve had enough of each other he’ll return the wife, receive back the bride price and also a percentage of all that he’s spent on her. He’ll start writing this list from the beginning of their relationship so it’s built into the system that they won’t be together permanently! The wife’s family often welcome this system – ok, they got 3 goats for her the first time, maybe this time there’s a chance they can get 5 goats for her… From the sounds of it, it’s not just the man who can say he’s had enough, but the woman can as well. Another odd thing is that if the wife’s father dies, she returns home for the funeral and cannot return to her husband until he pays a goat to the bride’s family. Malcolm and Elizabeth said that they thought it was a joke the first time they heard from one of the students at the Bible School saying ‘sorry, I can’t come to study at the moment – my wife’s with her family and I’m left with the children and I need to earn the money to buy a goat to get her back’. However, since then it’s happened to a number of their students! They also said that in almost 5 years here they had only attended one Church wedding – if you get married in a Church that means that you are married for life, and why would you want to restrict your options like that?!
Whilst the Church has had an impact here, it is still very much mixed with traditional practices, and marriage is one area where it’s had very little impact. It’s interesting to look at marriage throughout the Bible. We have the story of Adam and Eve, which was a partnership between two people. Then throughout the Old Testament polygamy is common, e.g. with Kings David and Solomon (though with all the friction between their wives and children that didn’t work out particularly well…). In the New Testament, we have Paul saying that ‘leaders and deacons must be the husband but of one wife’. It’s not clear why he’s saying this though – is it because the culture of the time was that it was better to only have one wife? Is it because he saw that there was favouritism, jealousy and friction between multiple wives? Or is it because Jesus taught that monogamy was better? We know that Jesus used the parable of the ten virgins – with apparently no comment that it would have been better with only one woman waiting (of course, the story wouldn’t work if that was the case!). Paul definitely uses marriage as a reflection of the relationship between God and the Church, his people. This is particularly evident in Ephesians, where the husband should give himself up for his wife as Christ gave himself up for the Church. That definitely indicates a deeper relationship than a merely practical relationship. And in Revelation (written by John), the Church is seen as the Bride, readying herself for marriage.
So does the Bible teach that marriage as viewed in the West, as a deep relationship of love between two people, is better than marriage as viewed in Africa, a practical arrangement of care between two or more people? Without more study on the subject, I can’t say definitely that it is the former. Leaving aside problems with both (how they can be used as selfish, temporary arrangements!), I do know that I prefer the deep-loving-relationship version. That might just be cultural, but I look at the marriages of my friends (most Christian) and can see something beautiful there. There’s a desire to be with each other and share with each other, and such love. And I think to be known intimately – and to still be loved – is a longing for every person. I do believe that this is a reflection of our relationship with God – or of what God would like with each one of us.
In the UK, most people who are single are people who ‘haven’t found the right person yet’. In the Congo, finding someone to marry is the least worry. For the guy, the only question is whether they have enough money – ‘I think I’ll be ready to marry about next July’. ‘Ah right, who’s the woman?’ ‘Oh, I’ll find her nearer the time’. After all, there are plenty of women who can fit the role equally well. And the women are looking for someone who’s fairly responsible, but there aren’t that many more criteria. It makes marriage and relationships much simpler…..! Not that I have many ‘criteria’ for marriage. I would only consider a guy who was passionate about God and who had a similar vision for what they wanted to do with their life. Seeing as I’m wanting to work overseas in disaster management type work there aren’t many people whose visions and passions would be compatible. If someone fits those criteria (and that’s narrowed the field considerably!) then the only question is ‘do we want to share our lives with each other?’.
For people from other African countries, such as Burundi and Kenya, marriage seems to be a cross between marriage in the UK and Congo. There’s still quite an expectation that marriage will take place, but people marry more for love. However, it would be normal for men to work elsewhere, sending money home to support their wives and children. That’s partly because there aren’t any as many good jobs available at home. So, for example, most of the African guys who work for Tearfund here in Congo are married and have children at home. They would prefer to be at home with their families, but they see it as more important to earn the money so that their families are supported. Even if not in a different country, there are many who work in other towns who see their families every few weeks or so. I compare that perspective to married couples I know in the UK, where the most important thing is to be together, even if that means less money in the family. Is that because there’s still ‘enough’ money? Because there’s still an assurance that children would have the schooling opportunities etc. even if there’s less money? Because of differences in the fabric of marriage? Because the UK is small enough and has enough opportunities for jobs nearby? I could imagine regularly spending a few days apart as a (currently non-existent husband), or a one-off period apart for a couple of months, but not as normal life.
So what is marriage? An agreement between two families? A practical arrangement between two people? Social status so people can see how rich you are? Something that’s good for a few years until you want to spend time with someone else? Outdated? The bedrock of society? A relationship that reflects our relationship with God? An institution introduced by society? Answers on a blog comment….
In Congo, marriage does not include a deep sharing of your life. It’s much more of a practical arrangement. Husband works and finds money/food for family. Wife has children, brings them up and keeps house in order. The only time necessary to have any interaction is to have sex. Your deepest relationship is not with your spouse – it would be with friends of your own gender. I think this is partly due to gender inequality, and segregation of roles. If you don’t believe that your spouse has any insight, interest or useful contribution to make to the world of work/home, then you’re not going to share what’s happening. It reminds me of Britain 60 – 70 years ago when the wife’s place was at home, and if the husband was struggling in his role of breadwinner, he wouldn’t worry his wife about it because that was his responsibility. But with recognition that women have a place at work, and men have a place at home, there’s a growing equality between the sexes and a partnership and a sharing can take place.
Women tend to end up working much harder here than men. Previous questionnaires/interviews etc. we’ve done indicates that women (certainly those in the villages) might work for about 16 hours in a day, gathering firework, working in the fields, cooking, bringing up children etc. The men on the other hand might work for a couple of hours but spend time sitting and chatting – not getting involved in women’s work. One of the things that our staff do in mobilisation sessions in the community is to ask both the men and women to share what work they do and how long it takes them – often the men are willing to do more work once they realise for the first time just how unfair it is.
I was watching an episode of Tribal Wives the other night, where a London primary school teacher spent a month or two with the women of a Masai Mara tribe. There, marriage was expected and wanted – you risked not having to live otherwise. And polygamy was definitely a good thing. You wanted your husband to have other wives otherwise you would have to do all the work yourself. Polygamy is common in Congo as well, particularly in the rural areas. Malcolm and Elizabeth were saying that when they’ve stayed at villages overnight, they’re normally given the best house to stay in, and the house of the richest person will likely belong to someone who can afford more than one wife. But with marriage being such a different creature here, polygamy looks different to what we might expect. For example, the four wives will spend all their time together, gathering water, wood, cooking, bringing up children etc. They’re a close group and have a far stronger relationship with each other than any of them do with their husband. After all, they only spend time individually with their husband when he chooses which room to sleep in that night. If I suggested polygamy to anyone in the UK they would hate the thought of having to share their husband and the jealousy and hurt that would provoke – and I believe that that deep intimate relationship should only be, and can only be, between two and no more people.
Serial polygamy is also an issue here. The idea of marriage being for life is a strange concept for people. A man will give a bride price to the woman’s parents, and they’ll marry. However, this is seen almost as a ‘lease’ – the man will write down all the things he’s spent on his wife (e.g., a blanket, some clothes) because if it’s decided that they’ve had enough of each other he’ll return the wife, receive back the bride price and also a percentage of all that he’s spent on her. He’ll start writing this list from the beginning of their relationship so it’s built into the system that they won’t be together permanently! The wife’s family often welcome this system – ok, they got 3 goats for her the first time, maybe this time there’s a chance they can get 5 goats for her… From the sounds of it, it’s not just the man who can say he’s had enough, but the woman can as well. Another odd thing is that if the wife’s father dies, she returns home for the funeral and cannot return to her husband until he pays a goat to the bride’s family. Malcolm and Elizabeth said that they thought it was a joke the first time they heard from one of the students at the Bible School saying ‘sorry, I can’t come to study at the moment – my wife’s with her family and I’m left with the children and I need to earn the money to buy a goat to get her back’. However, since then it’s happened to a number of their students! They also said that in almost 5 years here they had only attended one Church wedding – if you get married in a Church that means that you are married for life, and why would you want to restrict your options like that?!
Whilst the Church has had an impact here, it is still very much mixed with traditional practices, and marriage is one area where it’s had very little impact. It’s interesting to look at marriage throughout the Bible. We have the story of Adam and Eve, which was a partnership between two people. Then throughout the Old Testament polygamy is common, e.g. with Kings David and Solomon (though with all the friction between their wives and children that didn’t work out particularly well…). In the New Testament, we have Paul saying that ‘leaders and deacons must be the husband but of one wife’. It’s not clear why he’s saying this though – is it because the culture of the time was that it was better to only have one wife? Is it because he saw that there was favouritism, jealousy and friction between multiple wives? Or is it because Jesus taught that monogamy was better? We know that Jesus used the parable of the ten virgins – with apparently no comment that it would have been better with only one woman waiting (of course, the story wouldn’t work if that was the case!). Paul definitely uses marriage as a reflection of the relationship between God and the Church, his people. This is particularly evident in Ephesians, where the husband should give himself up for his wife as Christ gave himself up for the Church. That definitely indicates a deeper relationship than a merely practical relationship. And in Revelation (written by John), the Church is seen as the Bride, readying herself for marriage.
So does the Bible teach that marriage as viewed in the West, as a deep relationship of love between two people, is better than marriage as viewed in Africa, a practical arrangement of care between two or more people? Without more study on the subject, I can’t say definitely that it is the former. Leaving aside problems with both (how they can be used as selfish, temporary arrangements!), I do know that I prefer the deep-loving-relationship version. That might just be cultural, but I look at the marriages of my friends (most Christian) and can see something beautiful there. There’s a desire to be with each other and share with each other, and such love. And I think to be known intimately – and to still be loved – is a longing for every person. I do believe that this is a reflection of our relationship with God – or of what God would like with each one of us.
In the UK, most people who are single are people who ‘haven’t found the right person yet’. In the Congo, finding someone to marry is the least worry. For the guy, the only question is whether they have enough money – ‘I think I’ll be ready to marry about next July’. ‘Ah right, who’s the woman?’ ‘Oh, I’ll find her nearer the time’. After all, there are plenty of women who can fit the role equally well. And the women are looking for someone who’s fairly responsible, but there aren’t that many more criteria. It makes marriage and relationships much simpler…..! Not that I have many ‘criteria’ for marriage. I would only consider a guy who was passionate about God and who had a similar vision for what they wanted to do with their life. Seeing as I’m wanting to work overseas in disaster management type work there aren’t many people whose visions and passions would be compatible. If someone fits those criteria (and that’s narrowed the field considerably!) then the only question is ‘do we want to share our lives with each other?’.
For people from other African countries, such as Burundi and Kenya, marriage seems to be a cross between marriage in the UK and Congo. There’s still quite an expectation that marriage will take place, but people marry more for love. However, it would be normal for men to work elsewhere, sending money home to support their wives and children. That’s partly because there aren’t any as many good jobs available at home. So, for example, most of the African guys who work for Tearfund here in Congo are married and have children at home. They would prefer to be at home with their families, but they see it as more important to earn the money so that their families are supported. Even if not in a different country, there are many who work in other towns who see their families every few weeks or so. I compare that perspective to married couples I know in the UK, where the most important thing is to be together, even if that means less money in the family. Is that because there’s still ‘enough’ money? Because there’s still an assurance that children would have the schooling opportunities etc. even if there’s less money? Because of differences in the fabric of marriage? Because the UK is small enough and has enough opportunities for jobs nearby? I could imagine regularly spending a few days apart as a (currently non-existent husband), or a one-off period apart for a couple of months, but not as normal life.
So what is marriage? An agreement between two families? A practical arrangement between two people? Social status so people can see how rich you are? Something that’s good for a few years until you want to spend time with someone else? Outdated? The bedrock of society? A relationship that reflects our relationship with God? An institution introduced by society? Answers on a blog comment….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
