User:Rlyelly

=Going Native = Going native is most often used to describe a missionary who chooses to become a member of his host culture. This condition is related to cultural adjustment also known as culture shock.

Terminology
Colonialism influenced the defintion of going native by labeling it as a negative experience. It introduced this perspective called coloniser/colonised binarism that represented the locals as crude and backward brutes whose only objective was to overthrow and degrade the white settlers. This disparginging attitude toward native cultures was largely due to how Europeans used Western standards to measure civilization. The colonists thought that they would lose their status and morals by sympathesizing with the indigenous peoples or going native. They would also attribute going native to the harsh humidity of the foreign climate, which would increase irritablity and hostility. Ultimately by going native, the colonists believed that they were soiling their supreme upbring and morality.

In sociology, going native is a result of a research method called participant observation. Unlike naturalistic observation, in this method the reseracher plays the role of the subject he is studying. This technique produces bias as a form of error because the researcher loses his sense of objectivity.

Mary Slessor: a missionary who went native
Born in 1848, Mary Slessor dedicated herself to missionary work in Calabar or modern day Nigeria. Dissatisfied with the coloinal lifestyle of her first station, Mary was later relocated deeper into the country where she was able to live as she pleased without stigma from the Western world. Her living quarters was a mud hut with various insects and rodents. She lived with the tribes with an enthusiasm for the people and its culture. Fluent in the native language, Efik, Mary not only understood the people but even mastered humor and sarcasm to further her arguments. Mary also adopted many Nigerian children, particularly twins who were traditionally killed. She worked fervidly to abolish this cruel practice and saved many twins along with their mothers. Her death in 1915 was a great loss for the Nigerian people and she is still remembered as a beloved figure in Nigerian history.

The Four Stages
Stage 1. Initial enthusiasm. Everything is still new and exciting. The native culture appears exotic and vibrant.

Stage 2. Disillusionment. The individual grows embittered and highlights the flaws in the native culture.

Stage 3. Acceptance. He realizes the limitations of cultural integration with respect to preserving his identity.

Stage 4. Insider status. The missionary has a recognized and integral role in the community. He changes his psychological residence without rejecting his previous culture.

Cultural adjustment is characterized by these four stages but this website includes stage five or going native.

Stage Five (Going Native)
In stage five, the missionary leaves his former culture and does not return. It is marked by its finality. Going native may involve marrying into the community, raising children like the locals, and ultimately dying in the foreign country. In an extreme case, going native may involve becoming a hermit which embarasses the locals who have higher living standards. It also produces several favorable conditions such as having an inside connection through marriage. Constant interaction with family members also speeds up cultural adjustment.

Culture Stress
People often associate culture shock with the second stage of culture adjustement but Koteskey states that culture shock was orignially defined as all four stages. Koteskey describes culture stress as part of culture shock, stage three, instead of a seperate phenomenon. He defines culture stress as the adjustment period when an individual adopts new ideals and methods to gain a sense of belonging. Koteskey argues that individuals who desire an integral role in the socety experience the most culture stress from increased culture adjustment.

Main factors of culture stressThe major factors that contribute to cultures stress are involvement, values, communication, temperament, and children. The greater the disparity between the missionary and the host culture in these areas increase culture stress. For example when the individual has different notions of cleanliness, responsibility, and use of time than the local community he feels frustrated and confused. Results of culture stress The effects of culture stress, like any other type of stress, include emotional insecurities, depression, hostility toward the host culture, and homesickness.

Managing culture stress

The first step to coping with culture stress is identifying what triggers it and measuring its effects. One must be aware that he is suffering from culture stress and realize that it is a common experience when living in a foreign culture. Some suggestions for managing stress include observing the natives, writing letters, finding a native child to visit with a group, and pursing a hobby. Kotesky also explains how those living in a missionary ghetto or compounds experience little culture stress. A missionary subculture may develop if primary relationships are formed with only other missionaries.

Basis for Going Native
The issue of going native has become quite controversial in the biblical community. Paul Keidel suggests that the growing disparity in wealth between the industrial and developing nations is largely responsible for the subject's volatile nature. Biblical scholars have found strong arguments for both sides but very little is said on the impact of the methods on the host community. Ultimately, Keidel asserts that the motivation for going native should be based on a personal conviction.

Also Keidel argues that one cannot fully become a native by using an African proverb, “It doesn’t matter how many days as log floats in the river, it won’t become a crocodile” (Keidel 2005, p. 19).

Jonathan Ingleby also reaches this conclusion of full integration being impossible in his article "The Post Modern Missionary." Ingleby asserts that missionaries must abandon the idea of being the legislator without rushing to the opposite side of the spectrum. He argues that contextualization or going native is not required and is in fact is unattainable.