Compare two different cultures or ethnic groups that you are familiar with in terms of the categories to which they refer.

Assigment – answer each with 5 to 6 sentences more where appropriate – Apa references – the reflective questions are also highlighted within the chapters in the book.

 

Book citation

 

Cushner, K. H. (2021). Human Diversity in Education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US).

 

    Chapter 3

 

Culture and the Culture-Learning Process – submit completely questions 1, 2, 3 and responses

 

Reflective Questions

 

1.Look back at Webb and Sherman’s definition of culture on page 82. Compare two different cultures or ethnic groups that you are familiar with in terms of the categories to which they refer. What categories are similar and which ones are different? How would you explain the differences and similarities?

 

2. Differentiate between objective culture and subjective culture. Can you provide two examples of each from the cultures or ethnic groups you identified in the first question?

 

3. Consider the 12 sources of knowledge described in the chapter. Complete an inventory on yourself. How might your inventory differ from one of your parents?

 

Chapter 4 

 

Classrooms and Schools as Cultural Crossroads – submit responses completely to ONLY question 1

 

Reflective Questions

 

1. Reflect on the 18-theme culture-general themes introduced in this chapter. These themes are meant to identify issues that people are likely to encounter when interacting with people different from them. Using the following

 

sentence as a starting point, fill in the blank with each of the 18 themes and answer the questions accordingly.          “Can you think of a time when _________ was evident in your life or in    interactions with others? How might this have interfered with your ability to function effectively? When might it be an asset to you?”

 

Chapter 5

 

Reflective Questions

 

1. Return to the case study introduced at the beginning of the chapter. Where on the continuum of the DMIS would you place each of the individuals: Sue Murray, John Jameson, Rebecca Reynolds, and Joyce Maples? Justify your decisions.

 

2. Where on the DMIS would you place yourself? What criteria are you using to make your judgment?

 

Chapter 3

 

Culture and the Culture-Learning Process

 

Page 73

 

Hill Street Studios/Blend Images LLC

 

Focus Questions

 

How is it that you became the cultural being that you are today?

 

How have different individuals and institutions you have come into contact with influenced you?

 

How has the media influenced your cultural identity? Your religion? Your community? What other forces operate to influence your cultural identity?

 

What do you know about your own culture that you can use to better understand another culture, or that will enable you to talk intelligently about cultural differences with someone who is different from you?

 

“ No culture has ever developed all human potentialities; it has always selected certain capacities, mental and emotional and moral, and shifted others. Each culture is a system of values which may well complement the values in another. ”

 

RUTH BENEDICT

 

Page 74

 

Case Study

 

A Semester at Sea?

 

“4 months – 4 continents – 14 ports in 11 countries – multiple seasons – studying – traveling – touring. Biggest challenge? Pack into two suitcases! And we’re off!”

 

“So began my friend Carla’s Facebook post on September 4,” Susan shared with the class about halfway into the semester.

 

“Remember, a few weeks ago, I’d mentioned that I had a friend who was studying abroad? She, too, is studying to be a teacher at another university and decided to take the semester to learn about the world. She’s on this really unique study abroad program called Semester at Sea (www.semesteratsea.org) that allows her to take a semester’s worth of classes while living on a ship and traveling around the world. She’s in India right now. I asked her if she’d be willing to Skype with a few of us one night to tell us about her experience and what she’s learned so far. Anyone want to join this Skype call tomorrow night? It’s about a 12-hour time difference between us so she’d connect during her morning hours. I’ll order pizza if you’d like to come over.”

 

Sam, Joanne, and David all expressed interest and planned to join the conversation.

 

The next night, the four gathered at Susan’s apartment, and after quickly devouring pizza and salad, sat down by her computer to begin their Skype session. Carla logged on as planned—Skyping in at 7:00 a.m. her time from the port terminal close to where their ship was docked. Joining her for the conversation were Esther, Alice, and Alan, three other students on the program.

 

Susan began the conversation. “So, tell us what you’re doing, and why.”

 

Carla began, although there was a bit of a delay in their conversation, “Semester at Sea is a comparative international study abroad program that takes place on board the MV World Odyssey, a ship that sails for a semester, offering a variety of itineraries. The most popular voyage, and one that I am now on, is one that goes around the world. Our trip began at the end of August in Hamburg, Germany. We then set sail for Spain, Ghana, South Africa, Mauritius, and India where we are now for a week. From here we go on to Myanmar, Vietnam, China, and Japan before returning via Hawai’i to San Diego at the end of December. Each day the ship is at sea we attend classes. I’m taking a class called Global Studies that all students must take. This course is designed to teach us a bit about the countries we’ll visit, to prepare us to be better intercultural communicators, and also something about the oceans since we’re spending so much time on the seas. In addition to this course, I’m taking intercultural communication, a course in comparative education, and a course in comparative religions that should all transfer back to my home campus. Why, you ask? Because it’s pretty clear that we’re living in a complex global society that faces lots of problems. If we’re ever going to solve some of these concerns we’d better have good skills communicating across cultures and learn how to solve problems with those different from ourselves. And teachers, I think, are a critical part of this solution, so we’d better inform ourselves first!”

 

“How many are on the ship?” asked Sam.

 

“There are about 550 students this semester who come from more than 200 U. S. universities and 35 different countries. There are about 50 faculty and staff as well as a crew of more than 170 who come from more than 20 countries. Students come from all majors; we’re a few of those studying to be teachers.”

 

“What have you been experiencing so far that you think would help people become better teachers?” Susan asked.

 

Carla continued, “At the very beginning I was a bit anxious especially because I didn’t know anyone else who was going on the program. I had all kinds of questions. What would it be like to live aboard in a ship for 4 months? Would I get seasick, and if so, how would I manage it? Are there ‘seasickness’ days like snow days when classes are cancelled? What about homesickness? How would I react in all these different countries? What was I getting myself into?”

 

Page 75

 

“The first few days at sea were quite a challenge. We arrived in Barcelona, Spain, our first destination, half a day late due to rough weather that led quite a few—as many as 15% of the shipboard community—to encounter their first days of seasickness. I was lucky and not bothered too much by that. We stayed in Spain, our first international port, for 4 days—2 days in Barcelona and 2 days in Valencia. It was really exciting—the food was great, the weather perfect, and the people really friendly. I have one class that spent the first day visiting two schools. One was a local secondary school which was in some ways similar and other ways different from ones you’d see at home. The other school was an interesting international school that provided education to children from all over the world whose parents were living and working in Spain. I never knew these kinds of schools existed, but apparently schools like this are springing up all over the world. That’s something I think I might like to look into 1 day!” Monty Rakusen/Image Source

 

“From Spain, the ship went on to Ghana and then to South Africa – each of these trips took about 8 days to travel by sea. We were delayed once again departing from Capetown due to local storms. But these delays, as we are learning, are all a part of the experience—learning to accept the reality that we are all subject to the natural world, that there are some things that we are unable to control, and that we would simply have to accept and adapt to the uncertainties that lie ahead. I guess this is all good preparation for the uncertainty of living in a globally connected and rapidly changing world!”

 

David chimed in, asking, “What are some of your most impactful experiences you’ve so far on the voyage?”

 

Alice, a student from New York city, was the first to respond. “I had some really engaging experiences in Ghana. Back home in New York, people seem much less welcoming and interested in others, more often than not offering little more than a glance, silence, or at best, mumbling little more than a ‘hi.’ However, in Ghana, I was greeted with the complete opposite. Hands reached for mine, arms wrapped around my side, and words were spoken so fast I could not keep up even though they were speaking English. As I stepped out of the bus once we left the port, I was really surprised to encounter a group of people who seemed so happy to see me before they ever even spoke with me! Some of this may be because I represented a potential source of income if I bought something from them. But I also found that many people truly welcomed me to their country; they wanted to call me by my name and help me out by getting a taxi when needed—all the while holding onto my hand, something I’m really not accustomed to. As I walked around the Art Market and the surrounding streets, I was approached by all kinds of people. People would grab my hand, and occasionally kiss it, while welcoming me into their shop. Children would run up to our group and seek high-fives. Men would hold onto my shoulders and tell me I was beautiful and ask to visit me in the States. With each interaction, I became more and more uncomfortable and anxious.”

 

“And then I went to a family’s home where I was going to spend a night on a homestay. When I first met my host mother, she greeted me with a hug and kiss. We had only met 3 seconds earlier and she was already saying, ‘Oh-oh! You are here, and you are welcomed! We’ve been looking forward to you being with us for many weeks now.’”

 

“From the first we met she did not let go of my hand. She kept shaking my arm and telling me how excited she was and asking if I could spend more than one night so that she could show me her village and introduce me to her extended family and friends. I sat tense; I wanted my arm back; and wanted a protective bubble around my body. The night went on, and with each introduction a hug would follow. Although my body was still tense and uncomfortable, I became more understanding.”

 

“I stayed the night with this family. As I sat in bed journaling about my experience I focused on the friendliness of the country, as well as my discomfort with this friendliness. As I wrote, I realized how selfish I was being. How can I say I felt anxious in a situation that was meant to express pure happiness and authenticity? I was upset that I let my anxiety and discomfort with one situation shut me down. The family, and, in fact, the entire country welcomed me, yet I was uncomfortable with the way they interacted. But this is what they know. I realized that I needed to begin looking at things from a different perspective. I slowly realized that by no means were these people trying to make me uncomfortable like I may have thought at first. Instead, they were simply welcoming me and excited to show off their country.”

 

Page 76

 

“I’ve also learned that anxiety goes away the more you expose yourself to the things that make you anxious. The longer I was with the family and the more that was explained to me, the less threatening everything seemed. Anxiety, although not a welcomed feeling at first, is something I’ve found that is inherent not only in travel but in most intercultural encounters. And while I didn’t want to feel it, I also didn’t intend for it to get the best of me or rule my experience. It’s just something I have to learn to overcome, and I think this whole experience is helping me to do so. The longer I expose myself to the things that initially may make me uncomfortable, the more familiar they will become, the more accepting I will be, and the less anxiety I will feel. I think this is really important as we interact with more and more people who are different from us.”

 

“One thing I’ve learned as a result of experiences like this that I think would be helpful for all teachers,” Carla interjected, “is the fact that most people encounter a certain amount of ambiguity when they are engaged in intercultural experiences. When faced with ambiguous situations—meaning when things are not very clear, most people try to resolve them by applying their own culturally familiar criteria in the situation—which oftentimes is incorrect. A person who has a high tolerance for ambiguity is one who does not get too flustered when they don’t quite understand everything; they feel confident that with time things will become clearer and that they will better understand the situation.”

 

“Let me share a really confusing experience that I had just a couple of days ago soon after we arrived in India,” Esther chimed in. We were on a tour bus from Delhi to Jaipur watching the passing landscape when something caught my eye—a swastika symbol boldly painted on the top of a tall, pink building. My initial reaction was one of shock and I was really disturbed as I immediately put the symbol into the context that I was most familiar with, the use of the symbol as an emblem for the Nazi Party. We continued to see the symbol a few other times after that; engraved on a brick wall, displayed on a poster, and painted on the back of a truck. I was initially really confused, as well as a bit scared.”

 

“You see,” she went on, “I grew up Jewish in New Jersey, and this certainly was something I learned to associate with hate and genocide. Our tour guide explained that while much of the Western world has not condoned the use of this symbol since World War II, it remains a key traditional religious symbol in India as well as in a few other countries in Asia. The swastika has been in common use in Indian culture for some 3,000 years and is still used as a symbol today, representing health and good luck, the exact opposite of what most of the rest of the world associates with it.”

 

“Once I learned this interpretation of the symbol, I relaxed a bit and was better able to understand its purpose and meaning to the Indian people. Rather than feeling offended by the symbol, I found myself eventually accepting the symbol as a part of the Indian culture. It really surprised me how a simple symbol can generate such a reaction in me and yet have such a different meaning in another culture. By clearing up the ambiguity and overcoming my initial reactions, I gained a deeper understanding into the culture of the Hindu people in India. While reflecting on this, I’ve learned the importance of not making snap judgments about something until you have more information available as initial impressions can sometimes be wrong!”

 

Alan entered the conversation to offer his thoughts. “So far in this voyage, I think Ghana has been the most impactful country for me in terms of personal growth. The 4 days we spent in Ghana impacted me in ways that I had hoped Semester at Sea would change me. I was forced to confront personal prejudices that I honestly didn’t even realize I had, and that I now realize skewed the way I viewed much of the world.”

 

Page 77

 

He went on. “I’ve grown up in the United States in a culture and society that tends to teach us that our American lifestyle is the ideal lifestyle and that other people should aspire to live like us, and if they are not living like us, they are somehow ‘less developed’ and we must fix them and teach them how to live the same way that we do. Before arriving in Ghana, I never thought much about how harmful that perspective of other cultures could possibly be. After all, who wouldn’t want the comfort of reliable transportation, free WiFi almost everywhere, air conditioning, and well-maintained plumbing systems? What I didn’t consider was that these are luxury items to most people around the world, and they only seem ordinary or necessary to me because I was lucky enough to be born in a place where they are common, and now, expected. I went into Ghana expecting to see people living lives drastically different from my own. And, I thought I’d leave Ghana inspired to ‘fix the problems’ I saw there. I was correct in thinking that the difference in lifestyles would vary. But what I realized through reflecting on my entire experience so far is that just because a person lives a life different from my own does not mean that there is something wrong with it or that it needs to be altered or ‘fixed’ in some way.”

 

He continued, “On my second day in Ghana, I participated in a naming ceremony at a village called Torgome. It was hot; more than 90 degrees with about 90% humidity. We were there for a few hours in long sleeves and long pants, all sweating profusely. I was so ready to cool off. When we finally departed and headed off to lunch, we took our air-conditioned bus to an air-conditioned restaurant. I remember thinking, ‘Thank God! Air conditioning!’ And then it hit me! All the people I had just met at the village were still there in the blazing heat and sunlight. They were not here feeling the relief of the air conditioning like I was. I suddenly felt so guilty. Why did I get the privilege of sitting in an air-conditioned room and they did not?”

 

“It wasn’t until I was back at the ship participating in our first reflection group that I realized how privileged I sounded—feeling bad that these people wouldn’t get to cool down like I would in the refreshing AC. I had to step back and realize that when I visited that village I was not visiting a town in the United States; I was visiting a village in Ghana. I couldn’t possibly have the same expectations for two completely different places. The pity I was feeling at the moment for these people was not the same thing they felt for themselves. They don’t look at themselves and see poor villagers with little electricity, no running water, and no access to AC to escape the heat. They look at themselves and see wealth in each other, water that quenches their thirst regardless of whether it came from a tap or not, and that the heat is simply a part of the Ghanaian experience!”

 

“Home for me is in the midwestern United States. I don’t live year-round in the blazing heat; I have four seasons. It’s important to remember that when you visit new places, even something as simple as climate can change the way you view peoples’ experiences. I made the assumption that just because I felt that I was dying in the heat that these villagers must be as well. I felt so awful that they had to stay in the heat while I left for a more comfortable temperature. But just because I was comfortable in cooler air does not mean they would be. And I was wrong to think that this was a problem that needed to be fixed.”

 

“Humans have lived thousands and thousands of years without the luxury of air conditioning, so clearly, we can get by just fine. At home, we treat luxuries like air-conditioning as though they are completely necessary for our survival. We have forgotten that technologies like these are really new in the entire span of human history and that people did, and can, survive without them. We must remember that there are people in this world who don’t have access to luxuries like that, and that’s perfectly okay. They know how to live without them because they’ve done so their entire lives. And, in fact, their way of life may be much healthier for the planet-at-large. Sure, there are problems in this world, and some of them may need to be fixed. But there are also a lot of ‘problems’ that aren’t real problems at all—some have called them ‘First World Problems,’ and we don’t need to swoop in and ‘save the day.’ Maybe instead of trying to make others live like us that we should learn from what they do and try to live like them and remind ourselves that our way of life is not the only way, nor necessarily the best way of life. I’m grateful to have this realization, but as yet am not sure how I will translate it into new behavior. But I am thinking a lot about this.” Page 78

 

Carla interrupted the conversation, “Sorry to have to do this, but we’ve got to get back onto the ship to get our breakfast. The dining rooms close in 15 minutes, and then a couple of us have a field class today. We’re on our way to a village site to learn about Hinduism and traditional Ayurvedic medicine. But I’ll ask each to offer any other thoughts they might have as to why they think having an international experience like we are having is important for today’s teachers.”

 

Alan was the first to respond, “You know, I’m sure you’ve all seen television infomercials asking people to donate money to help starving children in Africa. We’ve all seen posts all across Facebook with pictures of people sitting on dirt roads who are so malnourished that you can see their bones. And we’ve all heard of the tales of people in other countries putting their children to work instead of receiving an education because that was the only way for the family to survive. Those images and sayings were all I’d heard before I arrived in Ghana, so that is what I expected to see. I couldn’t have been further from the truth.”

 

“My first day in Ghana proved to be so much different from what I had expected and forced me to dismantle all the preconceived notions that I had about the country. Once I set foot in the country, I saw an unusual beauty that the media seems to deem as ugly, I assume because it was different from their usual Western standards. I saw people laughing and enjoying life, as if they didn’t have a worry in the world. Ultimately this helped me understand their country better, challenged many of my preconceptions, and took away a lot of the prejudices I had. It also helped me to look at all the places we’re visiting through different eyes. So, I guess I’d say, having a personal, firsthand experience is really critical to developing good intercultural or international understanding. Step out of your comfort zone and experience the world so you can be an effective teacher.”

 

Alice followed, “I started this voyage thinking I needed to learn about other cultures. What I am finding out is that I also need to learn about myself within those other cultures.”

 

Esther went next, “Sometimes I felt like I wasn’t really in India. Then I realized, I just wasn’t in what I thought India was going to be. Once I let my preconceived expectations go, I was able to see India through different eyes that saw beyond what I thought I would see. Like Alan, I’d say it’s really a disservice if you think you’re going to teach children about a culture and people if you have never really experienced them yourself. It’s really much more than what a book can teach you!”

 

And with that, they all disconnected from Skype.

 

The word education is derived from the Latin word edu-care, meaning “to lead forth.” If we are to seriously engage in the education of students who will be contributing, collaborative, and proactive citizens in a multicultural, multilingual, and multifaith society, we must lead our students in such a manner that they understand the cultural basis of their own as well as others’ behavior; are cognizant of the conditions, both present and past, that affect people around the world; and are able to take the necessary steps to adjust to change, both in themselves and in the world around them.

 

Clearly, education is a broader term than schooling. Indeed, one of the difficulties we all encounter in talking about education is that it is pervasive in human life. Not often emphasized, however, are the actual settings, apart from schools, in which education occurs and the precise nature of teaching and learning in those settings. Yet it is in these settings—particularly in the home, the neighborhood, our houses of worship, and increasingly through various forms of media—that we acquire the language, knowledge, attitudes, and values that enable us to engage in the dramatic conversation called “culture.” It is in these settings that people develop the cultural identities they bring to their interactions with others, both within and outside of school. And it is through these settings that we must work to lead our students forward into the future.

 

Page 79

 

Giroux and Simon (1989) wrote about the importance of teachers understanding their own cultural identities and those of their students:

 

By ignoring the cultural and social forms that are authorized by youth and simultaneously empower and disempower them, educators risk complicity in silencing and negating their students. This is unwittingly accomplished by refusing to recognize the importance of those sites and social practices outside of the schools that actively shape student experiences and through which students often define and construct their sense of identity, politics, and culture (p. 3).

 

Exploring the Concept of Culture

 

One of the greatest difficulties people have when they begin to explore concepts related to culture and culture learning is that of agreement on what it is they are talking about. This chapter looks closely at the concept of culture and the culture-learning process; that is, how we acquire a cultural identity. The chapter begins with some definitions of culture and with some of the analytical concepts devised by social scientists in their attempts to understand cultural similarities and differences among groups of people as well as individuals. This discussion sets the stage for subsequent analysis of intercultural interaction and intercultural development that occurs in the context of schools.

 

Defining Culture

 

Culture is studied by many different disciplines, from anthropology, sociology, education, psychology, health, business, and the military. If you were to peruse the literature of these various disciplines, you would find literally hundreds of definitions for the term culture. Some of these definitions are more useful than others in an examination of how culture influences the teaching-learning process. What all these definitions seem to have in common is the idea that culture refers to a human-made part of the environment as opposed to aspects that occur in nature. Culture determines, to a large extent, people’s thoughts, ideas, patterns of interaction, and material adaptations to the world around them.

 

Coon (2000) referred to culture as “the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought characteristic of a community or a population” (p. 53). He likens culture to the act of cooking. When cooking, you begin with some basic ingredients, but then you add a few condiments, include a little bit more or less of certain items, adjust the cooking time, and so forth which when taken together, makes for a dish that is unique, depending upon the creator.

 

The criteria by which cultures define themselves, and differentiate themselves from one another, vary a great deal. The basic ingredients that determine a culture are geography, ethnicity, language, religion, and history. The factors that divide cultures can consist of any combination of these elements plus the “condiments” of the local scene. In Iraq, for instance, the population is divided religiously between Muslims and Christians; among Muslims between Shia and Sunni Muslims; and ethnically between Arabs and Kurds, as well as a number of other, smaller ethnic and religious groups. The situation is similar in India, where religion divides Muslims and Hindus; however, the Hindu majority is further split, at least traditionally, according to the caste to which one is born. In the United States and other modern nation-states, group loyalties based on cultural differences exist, but more or less as subsets of an overarching group loyalty called nationalism or patriotism. Ethnicity further divides these groups.

 

Page 80

 

A culturally defined group can be as small as a group of Aborigines in the outback of Australia or as large as a nation-state. It can exist in a small, defined territory, or its members can share a territory with other culturally defined groups. It can be a closed system, or it can be open to new ideas introduced from other cultures. The only real requirement is that people who share the culture sense that they are different from those who do not belong to their group.

 

Culture in Everyday Use

 

Sociologists, who study culture in terms of various competing social groups within a society, have developed a number of concepts that are useful in discussions of cultural pluralism. Some of these terms are used interchangeably and often cause confusion. Five terms commonly used to describe social groups that share important cultural elements but that are smaller than a whole society are subculture, microculture, ethnic group, minority group, and people of color.

 

Subculture

 

The term subculture refers to a social group with shared characteristics that distinguish it in some way from the larger group in which it is embedded. Generally, a subculture is distinguished either by a unifying set of ideas and practices, such as the corporate culture or the drug culture, or by some demographic characteristic, such as the adolescent culture (Bullivant, 1993). Subcultures can be defined by age-cohorts, such as Millennials or Generation Y (those born roughly between 1980 and 1994) or Generation Z (those born roughly between 1995 and 2012). Such subcultures share certain characteristics, beliefs, and common experiences that set them apart from other cohorts.

 

Microculture

 

The term microculture also refers to a social group that shares distinctive traits, values, and behaviors that set it apart from the parent macroculture of which it is a part. Although the terms microculture and subculture are often used interchangeably, microculture seems to imply a greater linkage with the parent culture. Microcultures often mediate—that is, interpret and transmit—the ideas, values, and institutions of the larger political community (Banks, 1989). Thus, for example, the family, the workplace, or the classroom can each be thought of as a microculture embedded in the larger culture of the neighborhood, the business, or the school. These larger macrocultures are themselves embedded in larger professional, regional, or national cultures. Thus a particular entity, such as the school, may be simultaneously both a macroculture (the culture of the school as a model of society) and a microculture (the culture of the particular school). Page 81

 

Minority Group

 

The term minority group refers to a social group that occupies a subordinate position in a society. In 1978, Wagley and Harris defined a minority group as one that experiences discrimination and subordination within a society, is separated by physical or cultural traits disapproved of by the dominant group, shares a sense of collective identity and common burdens, and is characterized by marriage within the group (as cited in Bennett, 1990, p. 42). However, characterizing minority groups based on these criteria sometimes leads to confusion and inaccuracy. For example, women are often referred to as a minority group because they are thought to be oppressed, even though they constitute more than half the general population and do not, as a rule, marry within their group. Similarly, when students who are African American, Native American, or Latino constitute a majority of the population in a particular school, the school is often referred to as a “majority-minority school.” The term minority can also be used in different ways in different countries. In the Netherlands, for instance, minority refers to immigrant groups that occupy a low socioeconomic status. Chinese, for instance, are considered minorities in the United States and Canada, but not in the Netherlands because they do not have low socioeconomic status (Cushner, 1998).

 

Ethnic Group

 

The term ethnic group refers to people who share a common heritage. When asked to complete the statement, “I am _____” using as many descriptors as possible to define yourself, those statements that reflect identification with a collective or reference group are often indicative of one’s ethnic identity. When people respond that they are African American, Jewish, or Polish, they are identifying with a group of people who share a common heritage, history, celebrations, and traditions, who enjoy similar foods, and who might speak a common language other than English. A sense of peoplehood, or the feeling that a person’s own destiny is somehow linked with others who share this same knowledge, reflects identification with an ethnic group. Thus people can live in one nation and claim one nationality, yet maintain ancestral ties to another.

 

People of Color

 

The phrase people of color, a phrase often used within the United States, refers to nonwhite minority group members, such as African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans, but reflects recent demographic realities of the United States. This phrase is preferred over ethnic minority by many people because these groups are, in many schools and communities, the majority rather than the minority and often have a shared history of discrimination.

 

As the United States and its schools grow increasingly complex with respect to plural cultural differences, many voices are beginning to criticize the use of collective terminology like people of color. These voices call for awareness and understanding of specific ethnic, racial, religious, and other groups. In this effort, it is recognized that the terms Hispanic or Latino, for example, are only umbrella terms for a number of Spanish-speaking ethnic groups, including Puerto Rican, Spanish, Salvadoran, and Mexican. Similarly, the term Native American is an umbrella term for an enormous variety of tribal or ethnic identities (over 400 officially recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs), including the indigenous people of Alaska and Hawaii. Clearly, these groups can be as different from one another as they can be from the mainstream society.

 

Commonalities in Definitions of Culture

 

Many definitions of culture ask the question, “What do all cultures have in common?” Some try to answer this question by examining the functions or purposes of culture. Webb and Sherman (1989), for example, described culture in a functional way:

 

Page 82

 

Cultures solve the common problems of human beings, but they solve them in different ways… . Each provides its people with a means of communication (language). Each determines who wields power and under what circumstances power can be used (status). Each provides for the regulation of reproduction (family) and supplies a system of rules (government). These rules may be written (laws) or unwritten (custom), but they are always present. Cultures supply human beings with an explanation of their relationship to nature (magic, myth, religion, and science). They provide their people with some conception of time (temporality). They supply a system by which significant lessons of the culture (history) can be given a physical representation and stored and passed on to future generations. The representation usually comes in the form of dance, song, poetry, architecture, handicrafts, story, design, or painting (art). What makes cultures similar is the problems they solve, not the methods they devise to solve them (pp. 49–50).

 

Culture can also be understood in terms of the assumptions or ideas inherent in the concept itself. Four of these assumptions seem particularly important.

 

Humans Construct Culture

 

Human beings are born with certain genetically determined predispositions, some of which underlie behavior and others that direct physical features. Although these predispositions are not precise, they do help determine the parameters under which humans develop. Humans have fewer biological instincts (e.g., breathing, swallowing) than any other species do, which means that we are born relatively helpless and remain so for a considerable amount of time, longer than any other organism in the animal kingdom.

 

Unlike most members of the animal world, people are not biologically programmed so that they automatically know how to utilize the environment to find food and shelter. In short, we do not know how to survive without other people to care for us and to teach us. Therefore, humans must discover ways of effectively interacting both with their environment and with each other. They must learn how to construct the knowledge, including rules of living, that will enable them to survive. This knowledge, the manner in which it is presented (in the family, in the neighborhood, in literature, art, school lessons, etc.), and the meaning it has for us is called culture. Culture, then, is the one factor that determines the kinds of guidelines to which the individual is exposed.

 

The concept of culture usually refers to things (both physical and mental) that are made or constructed by human beings rather than to things that naturally occur in the environment. When you look out over a body of water, for instance, neither the water itself, the undeveloped beachfront, nor the horizon is considered culture. These items are naturally occurring components of the environment. How we think about and what we do with the natural environment, however, is usually dependent on our culture. Thus, a beachfront along Miami Beach in the United States has been viewed as a good place to build condominiums, hotels, piers, a boardwalk, and a marina. Similarly, in Sharm el Sheikh, located along the Red Sea on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, one of the world’s greatest beach resorts can be found in this otherwise parched desert region. In another culture, this same beachfront might be regarded as a sacred space with little human intervention allowed.

 

The physical artifacts of any culture are expressions of people’s underlying knowledge, attitudes, and values toward a part of the natural environment. Other expressions of culture include behavioral patterns—for example, people’s tendency to litter the oceans and beaches with various kinds of waste. Traditional societies in many parts of the world, on the other hand, have an entirely different view of the natural environment. Rather than seeing themselves as controllers of nature, many Native Americans, for instance, believe strongly that human beings are an integral part of the natural world. Since in their view we live within rather than outside nature, they believe we should not interfere with it too much.

 

Page 83

 

This example is interesting because it not only shows that different sociocultural groups perceive the world in very different terms but also that cultural beliefs and attitudes can and do change. Many people are now beginning to see the damage they have caused to the environment and to consider not only ways to clean it up but also ways of rethinking the very basis of the relation of human beings to nature.

 

Culture Is Shared

 

Culture is not only constructed, it is socially constructed by human beings in interaction with one another. Cultural ideas and understandings are shared by a group of people who recognize the knowledge, attitudes, and values of one another. Moreover, they agree on which cultural elements are better than others, arranging these in a hierarchy of value that may change over time. Mainstream American attitudes about children’s place in the economy provides a good example. Before the middle of the 19th century, children in the United States were regarded as economic assets to their families and to the community. That is, they worked not only on the farm or in the shop but also often outside the family for money that went to help support the family. Zelizer (1985) makes a distinction between the “useful” and the “useless” child in talking about the change that occurred during the last half of the 19th century:

 

By 1900 middle-class reformers began indicting children’s economic cooperation as unjustified parental exploitation, and child labor emerged for the first time as a major social problem in the United States… . By 1930, most children under fourteen were out of the labor market and into schools (p. 61).

 

This example illustrates the changing nature of cultural ideas. The notion that children do not belong in the labor market and that parents whose children bring income into the family may be exploiting them has become a highly valued idea in our society, but it is one that is relatively new. In contrast to early-19th-century families, we believe that children should be in school when they are young. Moreover, when we encounter families that do send their children out to work, whether it be in the United States or elsewhere, we have a sense that they are doing something wrong. Thus, in contemporary mainstream U.S. culture, until our children are in midadolescence, we place a greater value on the “useless” (nonworking) child than we do on the “useful” one who works. Indeed, although many people find ways around it, in this country there are legal restrictions on the age at which children can be employed. In some parts of the world, however, many families are still highly dependent upon their children to generate income—even in the face of strong criticism from outsiders.

 

In nearly all instances, shared cultural identification is transmitted from one generation to the next. One exception to this cultural transmission process, however, can be seen in the case of deaf persons whose primary language is a manual system, ASL (American Sign Language) in North America. Although most deaf persons have hearing parents, the Deaf normally form strong ties to their own community and tend to marry a deaf partner. Thus, cultural transmission in this instance is deferred until entry into the Deaf community occurs through instruction in schools for the Deaf and through a network of social clubs, theater, political organizations, and publications. For some young people, their first enculturation into the Deaf community may come through enrollment at the world-famous Gallaudet University and its related centers and school, which provides schooling from preschool levels through college. Page 84

 

Culture Is Both Objective and Subjective

 

A third common feature of culture is that it is comprised of two components: objective elements and subjective elements (Triandis, 1972). The objective components of culture, sometimes referred to as “big C,” consist of the visible, tangible elements of a group; that is, the endless array of physical artifacts the people produce, the institutions they create, the language they speak, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, and the unending stream of decorative and ritual objects they create. These elements are relatively easy to pick up or observe, and all people would describe them in a similar manner. It is the objective elements of culture that are most commonly thought of when cultural differences are considered. Subjective components of culture, sometimes referred to as “little c,” are the invisible, less tangible aspects of culture, such as the attitudes people hold, the values they defend, their norms of behavior, the manner in which they learn, and the hierarchy of social roles—in short, the meaning that the more objective components of culture have for individuals and groups.

 

In this respect, culture can be likened to an iceberg: only 10% of the whole is seen above the surface of the water (see Figure 3.1). It is the 90% of the iceberg that is hidden beneath the surface of the water that most concerns the ship’s captain who must navigate the water. Like an iceberg, the most meaningful (and potentially dangerous) part of culture is the invisible or subjective part that is continually operating at the unconscious level and shapes people’s perceptions and their responses to those perceptions. It is this aspect of culture that leads to most intercultural misunderstandings, and that requires the most emphasis in good multicultural or intercultural education. When teachers focus on such things as food, festivals, and fashion, or when tourists mainly visit museums, monuments, and mansions, they are emphasizing the objective or surface aspects of culture. Good intercultural education focuses on the subjective, or hidden dimensions of a culture, thus helping people gain an understanding of the more meaningful and important aspects of culture.

 

Figure 3.1 Iceberg Model of Culture

 

Page 85

 

Culture Is Nurtured

 

A final assumption about culture is the idea that it involves nurturing and growth, similar to the nurturing of plants. In the case of humans, however, the growing process involves teaching the young, both formally and informally. Thus, to enculturate a child is to help that child become a member of her or his social groups. In the United States, as elsewhere, enculturation may mean helping a child negotiate the different cultural perspectives found among the various social groups in which he or she participates.

 

Culture is also related to growth through the fine arts (music, dance, literature, and the visual arts) as well as through social behavior. A “cultured” person is one who has been nurtured (helped to grow) by participation in such activities. However, observation tells us that it is people of comfortable circumstances who most frequently have the time, energy, and inclination to devote to such pursuits. Thus is born the notion of an elite (high-status) group.

 

The idea that culture “belongs” to an elite group also carries with it the notion that this kind of “high culture” has more value than what we might call “folk” culture. In part, this idea has its roots in the late 19th century, when Western anthropologists first developed their ideas from the study of indigenous or so-called “primitive” peoples. Comparing other and usually less technologically advanced civilizations to their own, they saw differences that were perceived not simply as differences but as deficits. Warren’s (1873) textbook on physical geography, for instance, introduced its readers to the “races of man” in the following manner:

 

The Caucasian race is the truly cosmopolitan and historical race. The leading nations of the world, those who have reached the highest state of civilization and possess a history in the true sense of the word, belong to it. It has, therefore, not improperly been called the active race; while the others, embracing the uncivilized or half-civilized peoples, have been termed the passive races (p. 86).

 

Such quasi evolutionary theories of culture have even been invoked to explain disabilities. Down syndrome, for example, is named for John Haydon Langdon Down’s ethnic classification, according to which individuals with “mongolian” features, whatever the “race” of their parents might be, represented regression to a more primitive state of evolutionary development. Tragically, before the discovery of its chromosomal basis in the 1950s, a newborn with Down syndrome was often described as a “throwback,” as were infants with a variety of congenital anomalies.

 

Western anthropologists’ notion of cultural evolution was directed mainly at other (non-Western) societies. At the top of the cultural hierarchy were the highly “civilized” peoples, mostly the Europeans and Americans who popularized the concept. At the bottom were the more primitive “savages” or “natives.” Everyone else was placed somewhere in between and thought of as having the potential to climb up the cultural ladder. Inherent in this and other cultural models was the anthropologists’ assumption that the natural progression of culture is upward. Indeed, the idea of a hierarchy of cultures existed well before anthropology was even accepted as a scientific discipline. In 1824, half a century before Warren wrote his textbook, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

 

Let a philosophic observer commence a journey from the savages of the Rocky Mountains, eastwardly towards the seacoast. These he would observe in the earliest stages of association, living under no law but that of nature, subsisting and covering themselves with the flesh and skins of wild beasts. He would next find those on the frontiers in the pastoral stage, raising domestic animals to supply the defects of hunting. Then succeed our own semi-barbarous citizens, the pioneers of the advance of civilization, and so in his progress he would meet the gradual shades of improving man until he would reach his, as yet, most improved state in our seaport towns. This, in fact, is equivalent to a survey, in time, of the progress of man from the infancy of creation to the present day (as cited in Pearce, 1965, p. 155).

 

Page 86

 

Jefferson’s categories foreshadow those of the early anthropologists. In many ways our thinking has not moved very far beyond this framework. Books with such titles as Affable Savages (Huxley, 1957) and commonly used terms such as underdeveloped and developed nations, or Third World versus First World perpetuate the idea of cultural movement toward something perceived as more ideal or better or more civilized. Moreover, the direction of this movement is generally toward a culture that looks a great deal like our own. While these ideas are largely discredited among modern anthropologists, they continue to exist in the minds of many Americans when contrasting U.S. society with other societies, particularly those that are less technological. And this is increasingly becoming a dangerous idea to sustain because, in the past 30 years or so, other nations have made great strides in the world marketplace—economically, socially, and educationally. As Fareed Zakaria (2008) noted, this is:

 

not so much about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else. It is about the great transformation taking place around the world, a transformation that, though often discussed, remains poorly understood.

 

Traditionally, Americans have expected their schools to socialize all students into traditional European American, upper- and middle-class culture, generally referred to as “the best of Western civilization.” Although it is true that great art, beautiful music, and meaningful literature have been given to the world by Western peoples, it is equally clear that Western contributions do not represent all that is great and beautiful in the world.

 

Applying the Concept of Culture

 

When school programs are instituted to increase awareness and understanding of specific groups, they are called group-specific or culture-specific approaches and stress information about a particular group of people, usually identified by a single characteristic such as race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. Although these approaches have much to offer, several problems are associated with them. First, while they attend to differences between one group and another, these approaches do not attend to important differences within groups. Consequently, they tend to give the impression that all people identified as belonging to a group (all Latinos or all Jews, for instance) are alike, which is clearly not the case. Second, because these programs usually rely on students of certain samples of the larger group (e.g., urban African Americans, white middle-class girls, Navajo who live on reservations), they may promote stereotypes. Third, group-specific programs, because of their intentionally narrow focus, cannot attend to the wide array of differences that collectively control the teaching–learning process.

 

In contrast to the group-specific approach to understanding diversity is another, more inclusive approach that attempts to deal directly with the complex nature of cultural phenomena. Called a culture-general approach, it derives mainly from principles developed in the fields of cross-cultural psychology and training, intercultural communication, and social psychology. Professionals working in these fields are mostly interested in the effect of culture on the individual and on the interface or interaction between individuals of different groups. In addition to describing how culture affects an individual, a number of educational and training strategies designed to help individuals anticipate and deal effectively with problems that may arise in intercultural interaction have been developed and will be considered below. Page 87

 

Hill Street Studios/Blend Images/Getty Images

 

Culture-Specific Versus Culture-General Frameworks

 

It is important to understand the distinction between culture-specific and culture-general knowledge. A culture-general concept is one that is universal and applies to all cultural groups, as seen in the following example.

 

The way an individual “learns how to learn” depends on the socialization processes used by his or her culture. That is, learning style is related to socialization processes. This very general statement can be regarded as a cultural universal, or culture-general concept. It doesn’t tell us anything about an individual’s preferred learning style, but it does tell us that everyone has one and that it is formed by socialization experiences. Thus, knowing that socialization experiences vary from culture to culture, it follows that learning styles will also vary among cultures. Such a culture-general concept is valuable to teachers as it alerts them of the possibility that there will be many variations in learning style among their students. So informed, a teacher presiding over a multicultural classroom would be on the lookout for signs of learning style differences and would attempt to develop alternative lesson plans or instructional approaches that address those differences.

 

A culture- or group-specific concept, on the other hand, is one that applies to a specific cultural group. For example, both Hawaiian and Native American children have historically acquired most of their knowledge, values, and attitudes about the world through direct participation in real-world events. Traditionally, their teachers were usually other members of their family or ethnic group who were also participating in those events. Thus direct participation, or in-context learning, became their familiar and preferred learning style.

 

Page 88

 

Contrast in-context learning with the more formal schooling given to most children in the majority of schools. Most children are sent to a captive learning environment (schools) where specially trained teachers who are usually total strangers use books and other abstract learning tools to provide indirect participation, or out-of-context learning, about real-world events. In a classroom where both cultural groups are present, the teacher should anticipate learning style differences (culture-general knowledge), try to assess the culture-specific learning styles that are present, and then adapt instruction accordingly.

 

In short, teachers in multicultural classrooms need to have both culture-general and culture-specific knowledge. That is, they need to know that certain cultural universals (e.g., learning style differences, patterns of communication, value orientation) are at work in every multicultural classroom, and then they need to gather—through observation, inquiry, and study—the particulars of those variations so that they can plan and deliver instruction that is appropriate for all their students. To focus solely on culture-specific knowledge, which is always based on samples taken from some target culture, is to ignore not only individual differences within that group but also the cultural universals that cut across groups. Likewise, to focus solely on culture-general knowledge is to ignore the very real differences that separate groups and that provide a map for assessing and adapting instruction.

 

The Culture-Learning Process

 

Individuals tend to identify themselves in a broad manner and in terms of many physical and social attributes. For example, a young man might identify himself as an attractive, athletic, Asian American who intends to be a doctor and live in upper-class society. Other people also identify individuals according to these attributes, and interactions among individuals are often shaped by such identifications. Figure 3.2 shows 12 sources of cultural identity that influence teaching and learning. Who learns what, and how and when it is learned, is briefly described here and is further illustrated and discussed in later chapters.

 

Figure 3.2 Sources of Cultural Identity

 

What Is Learned: The Sources of Cultural Knowledge

 

1. Race is a very amorphous term. Biologically speaking, it refers to the clustering of inherited physical characteristics that favor adaptation to a particular ecological area. However, race is culturally defined in the sense that different societies emphasize different sets of physical characteristics when referring to the same race. In fact, the term is so imprecise that it has even been used to refer to a wide variety of categories that are not physical, for instance, linguistic categories (the English-speaking race), religious categories (the Jewish race), national categories (the Italian race), and even to somewhat mythological categories (the Teutonic race) (Yetman, 1991). Although race has often been defined as a biological category, it has been argued that race as a biological concept is of little use because there are no “pure” races. Evidence from the analysis of the human genetic code reveals that more than 99% of human genetic characteristics are common to all people, meaning that there is much more similarity among people than there are differences (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2016).

 

Page 89

 

The use of the term race is not based on biology; rather, it is socially defined on the basis of physical criteria such as skin color. Historically, the term has its roots in classifying groups of people by class inequalities, not skin color, with the British referring to the Irish as a “lower race.” Then, during European colonial expansion, race began to be defined in terms of skin color in reference to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and people from Africa brought in as part of the slave trade. Thus, race is an important social characteristic not because of its biology but because of its cultural meaning in any given social group or society. In the United States, race is judged largely on the basis of skin color, which some people consider very meaningful and use as a criterion for extending or withholding privileges of various kinds. Through subtle yet effective socializing influences, group members can be taught to accept as “social fact” myriad myths and stereotypes regarding skin color, stature, facial features, and so forth. This is not limited to the colonial situation in the United States, however. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of “race” and “racial” differences and took them to an extreme end: the extermination of 11 million people they considered as “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust (American Anthropological Association, 1998). Page 90

 

The use of the term race tends to change, even from one census to another. The question asking about race in the 2000 census, for instance, was different from the one used in the 1990 census in several ways. Most significantly, for the first time, respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial identities. The definitions of race and ethnicity in the 2020 Census remained consistent with that of the 2010 census except that individuals who identified as white, Black/African American, and/or American Indian or Alaska Native were asked to specifically identify their racial origins. Black/African American individuals, for example, were asked to print their specific origin (e.g., African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, etc.). Write in options were available for “Other Asian” and “Some other race” categories, including Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, which remained an ethnicity, not a race.

 

Racism results from the transformation of race prejudice and/or ethnocentrism through the exercise of power against a racial group defined as inferior by individuals or by institutions, with the intentional or unintentional support of an entire culture. Simply stated, racism is preference for, or belief in, the superiority of one’s own racial group over any other.

 

Institutional racism can also exist when either an individual in authority or an organization that harbors negative race prejudice (or any other prejudice for that matter) puts practices or procedures in place that actively discriminate toward a particular group. Examples of institutional racism that can be found in American society include a criminal justice system that penalizes minorities more harshly than white people for committing the same crimes; schools that prosecute misbehavior by students of color as aggressive and criminal while the same misbehavior by white students is considered part of normal youth development; society that treats minority drug use as a crime but treats drug use by white people as a health issue needing rehabilitation; and colleges and universities’ use of legacy admissions that primarily benefit white people.

 

Affirmative action initiatives were established by the federal government in the 1960s as an attempt to counteract historic discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups to compensate for the ways such groups have historically been excluded in the employment, education, and government sectors of society. Affirmative action initially included the use of racial quotas to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, were more representative of the populations they served. This was adhered to until the Supreme Court questioned its constitutionality, mandating instead “targeted goals” through “good-faith efforts” to identify, select, and train potentially qualified minorities and women.

 

Affirmative action remains controversial in American politics, with supporters arguing that it is still needed to counteract continuing bias and prejudice. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that these policies amount to discrimination against non minorities, favoring one group over another based upon racial preference rather than achievement, with many believing that the diversity that exists currently in American society suggests that affirmative action policies have, in fact, succeeded and are no longer required. (Race and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.)

 

Page 91

 

2. Sex/gender is also culturally defined on the basis of a particular set of physical characteristics. In this case, however, the characteristics are related to male and female reproduction. Cultural meanings associated with gender are expressed in terms of socially valued behaviors (e.g., nurturing the young and providing food) that are assigned according to sex. Such culturally assigned behaviors eventually become so accepted that they are thought of as natural to that sex. Thus, gender is what it means to be male or female in a society, and gender roles are those sets of behaviors thought by a particular people to be “normal” and “good” when carried out by the assigned sex. In brief, sex refers to male and female while gender refers to masculine and feminine.

 

In all sociocultural groups, gender includes knowledge of a large set of rules and expectations governing what boys and girls should wear, how they should act and express themselves, and their “place” in the overall social structure. Beardsley (1977) noted that any social or psychological trait can be “genderized” in favor of one sex or the other. Thus, in the dominant society of the United States, active traits such as aggressiveness tend to be genderized in favor of males and against females, whereas more passive traits such as submissiveness tend to be genderized in favor of females and against males. Culture is dynamic, however. In early 2013, Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, published Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, that challenged these very assumptions when she urged women not to shy away from ambition and leadership, and to take a more active role in determining the direction that their lives and careers might take.

 

Like cultural definitions of race, the specific set of traits assigned to males and females may vary by society. And within a society, these traits may vary by ethnicity, class, or religion. For instance, on a continuum of submissiveness to males (a norm in U.S. society), many African American females might be located closer to the less submissive end of the scale, many Hispanic females might be located closer to the more submissive end, and many European American females would probably be located somewhere in between.

 

Geert Hofstede (2001), who conducted the world’s largest investigation into cross-cultural differences on a global scale, named one of the five dimensions he identified as masculinity versus femininity, referring to the distribution of societal roles between the genders. His studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values, and that (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called “masculine” and the modest, relationship or caring pole “feminine” although more recent preferences may refer to these dimensions as achievement versus relationship oriented. Nations high on masculinity include Austria, Hungary, and Switzerland. Those high on femininity include the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The United States falls close to the middle. (Sex, gender, and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.)

 

3. Health is culturally defined according to a particular group’s view of what physical, mental, and emotional states constitute a healthy person. The expert opinion of the medical profession usually guides a society’s view of health. Although a medical model has dominated cultural definitions of health, most disabilities (mental retardation, deafness, blindness, etc.) are not judged in terms of this model’s norms. Thus, just as a person with cerebral palsy would not be considered sick, it is possible to be a healthy blind person or person with mental retardation.

 

Page 92

 

In the United States and most of the industrialized world, the prevailing health system is almost totally biomedical. However, alternative systems such as acupuncture, holistic medicine, homeopathy, chiropractic, and faith healing are available, and the acceptance of alternative systems varies widely both within and between social groups. In other societies (e.g., China or India), what we deem alternative medicine may in fact be the dominant model, and our ideas of biomedicine may be operating at the fringes. The cultural meanings associated with health depend on which model, or which combination of models, an individual or family group accepts. For example, a 4-year-old Russian child, who had recently immigrated with her family to the United States, suddenly suffered a high fever and flu-like symptoms. The child’s middle-class European American preschool teacher wanted the family to take the child to the doctor immediately for an antibiotic. The child’s grandmother, on the other hand, who was the family expert on medical matters, prescribed a traditional treatment: the child should be put to bed, surrounded by lit candles and family members engaged in prayer. In this case, the grandmother was the final authority, and the child got better. (Health and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 12.)

 

4. Ability/disability, like the term health, is culturally defined according to society’s view about what it means to be physically, emotionally, and mentally “able.” The categories of ability and disability refer to a wide variety of mental and physical characteristics: intelligence, emotional stability, impairment of sensory and neural systems, and impairment of movement. The social significance of these characteristics may vary by setting as well. For example, the terms learning disability or learning disabled are primarily used with reference to schooling and are rarely used outside of school. Indeed, it may be that the current emphasis on learning disability in American schools is primarily a reflection of a technologically complex society’s concern about literacy. In other nations, specific learning disabilities among people who are otherwise unimpaired are of little concern. In fact, this “condition,” as a category of exceptional individuals, is nonexistent in most of the world.

 

The cultural meaning of ability and disability is related to both the needs and the public perception of the ability or disability itself. For example, the culture of the Deaf “needs” a shared, rule-bound system of communication (sign language) as well as shared traditions and values among its members. However, the public acceptance of deaf individuals is far less positive than for those who are gifted. This lack of acceptance can be seen in the privileges accorded to each group in schools. School experience might enhance the self-esteem of a gifted student while it threatens that of a student who is deaf. In the United States, the reaction to ability/disability hovers closely around a socially defined norm: We favor bright individuals but often exclude those who show evidence of extreme intelligence; we favor individuals who “overcome” their disabilities but often exclude those who, for one reason or another, cannot. (Ability, disability, and exceptionality are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 12.)

 

5. Social class is culturally defined on the basis of those criteria on which a person or social group may be ranked in relation to others in a stratified, or layered, society. There is considerable debate about the criteria that determine social class. Some criteria identify class membership primarily in terms of wealth and its origin (inherited or newly earned). Other commonly used criteria include education, power, and influence over others. Class structures vary widely among societies and social groups in terms of their rigidity and their importance to an individual’s life chances. In some societies, such as Britain and India, for example, the class structure is fairly rigid and determines to a large extent the opportunities that are available to each person. In these societies, a person is truly born into a particular social class and tends to remain there. In other societies, the structure is not so rigid, and although individuals may be born into a particular social class, it is expected that they may move up by virtue of their achievements. Societies also vary according to the value placed on leaving one’s social class. In the United States, upward mobility is a value; in Britain it is not so highly valued. The consequences of these attitudes are not always salutary. In the United States, for example, if individuals do not succeed in moving up, the perception may be that something is wrong with them. Page 93

 

Social class differences are also tied to a person’s social expectations and cultural tastes. For example, individuals who exhibit the child-rearing practices, speech, and general tastes of the upper classes in matters such as dress, food, and housing can affect their social image and thereby their chances for upward mobility. (Social class and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 13.)

 

Suzana Profeta/E+/Getty Images

 

6. Ethnicity/nationality are culturally defined according to the knowledge, beliefs, and behavior patterns shared by a group of people with the same history and perhaps the same language. Ethnicity carries a strong sense of “peoplehood”—that is, of loyalty to a “community of memory” (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985). It is also related to the ecological niche in which an ethnic group has found itself and to adaptations people make to those environmental conditions.

 

The category of nationality is culturally defined on the basis of shared citizenship, which may or may not include a shared ethnicity. In the contemporary world, the population of most nations includes citizens (and resident noncitizens) who vary in ethnicity. Although we are accustomed to this idea in the United States, we are sometimes unaware that it is also true in other nations. Thus we tend to identify all people from Japan as Japanese, all people from France as French, and so forth. Similarly, when American citizens of varying ethnic identities go abroad, they tend to be identified as “American.” A tragic example of this misconception is the recent history of ethnic warfare in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq. The post election violence in Kenya in 2007–2008 was ethnically based, as is the ongoing violence in such nations as South Sudan, Myanmar, Nigeria, and India. Americans in general are unaware of the role that ethnicity may play in dividing people. Most of the conflicts that occur across the planet are the result of long-held ethnic strife and do not cross national boundaries. (Ethnicity, nationality, and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapters 6 and 7.)

 

Page 94

 

7. Religion/spirituality are culturally defined on the basis of a shared set of ideas about the relationship of the earth and the people on it to a deity or deities and a shared set of rules for living moral values that will enhance that relationship. A set of behaviors identified with worship is also commonly shared. Religious identity may include membership in a worldwide organized religion (e.g., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism) or in smaller (but also worldwide) sects belonging to each of the larger religions (e.g., Catholic or Protestant Christianity, or Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, or Hasidic Judaism). Religious identity may also include a large variety of spiritualistic religions that are often but not always associated with indigenous peoples in the Americas and other parts of the world. Like ethnicity, religious affiliation can engender intense loyalty, as witnessed through the actions of members of the Al Qaeda or ISIS (Islamic State) networks found throughout the Middle East and North Africa, or among the Taliban in Afghanistan in their attempts to live out their perceived religious missions (even though most would agree that these so-called Islamic fundamentalist groups do not adhere to any of their true religious principles). Religion also engenders a sense of belonging or community and pride in a people’s shared history. Because religious identity involves individuals’ relationship with the earth and with forces perceived to be greater than themselves, the cultural meaning of religion is often expressed in terms of a rigid sense of righteousness and virtue that is linked to a belief in salvation or the possibility of an eternal life after death. It is thus often an extremely powerful determiner of behavior. (Religion and spirituality are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9.)

 

8. Geographic location/region are culturally defined by the characteristics (topographical features, natural resources) of the ecological environment in which a person lives. Geographic location may include the characteristics of a neighborhood or community (rural, suburban, and urban) and/or the natural and climatic features of a region (mountainous, desert, plains, coastal, hot, cold, wet, and dry). It has been argued that, in the United States, people’s regional identity functions in the same way as their national heritage. Thus, southerners, westerners, and midwesterners are identified and often identify themselves as members of ethnic-like groups, with the same kinds of loyalties, sense of community, and language traits.

 

The cultural meanings of geographic location are expressed in terms of the knowledge a person has of how to survive in and use the resources of a particular area. This knowledge may include what foods are “good” (and how to grow and harvest them), how to protect oneself from the natural elements and common dangers of the locality, even how to spend leisure time. This kind of knowledge also applies to the type of community a person lives in. It is commonly acknowledged, for example, that “city people,” “country people,” and “suburban people” can be quite different from one another. The nature of that difference stems in part from their familiarity with, and knowledge about, how to live in a particular kind of community with its particular resources and dangers. (Geography, region, and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7.)

 

9. Age is culturally defined according to the length of time an individual has lived and the state of physical and mental development that individual has attained. Chronological age is measured in different ways by different social groups or societies. Some calculate it in calendar years, others by natural cycles such as phases of the moon, and still others by the marking of major natural or social events.

 

Page 95

 

Mental and physical development is also measured differentially, in much the same way and under many of the same circumstances that health is determined. Most humans view such development as a matter of stages, but the nature and particular characteristics of each stage may differ widely. In most Western societies, for example, age cohort groups are usually identified as infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. “Normal” development markers include the acquisition of motor and language skills (infancy and childhood), the ability to understand and use abstract concepts (childhood and adolescence), and the ability to assume responsibility for oneself and others (adolescence and adulthood). In other societies, these cohort groups may differ. For example, in many non-Western societies, the cohort group we define as adolescents may not exist at all, and the classifications of childhood and old age may be longer or shorter.

 

The cultural meaning of age is usually expressed in terms of the abilities and responsibilities attributed to it. Thus, in the United States, childhood is prolonged (hence the category of adolescence), and adult responsibilities are not expected until at least age 18, if not age 21 or beyond. In other societies (and indeed in the United States prior to the 20th century), childhood is shorter, and adult responsibilities are assumed at younger ages. (Age, development, and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 11.)

 

10. Sexuality is culturally defined on the basis of particular patterns of sexual self-identification, behavior, and interpersonal relationships (Herek, 1986). Different from sex (male and female) and gender (masculine and feminine), sexuality refers to who one is attracted to. The degree to which sexual orientation is genetically determined, while under investigation, remains controversial. Some have reported that a person’s sexual orientation may be, in part, a function of that person’s innate biological characteristics (LeVay & Hamer, 1994). A more recent study, however, claims to dispel the notion that a single gene or handful of genes make a person prone to same-sex behavior (Reardon, 2019). The analysis, which examined the genomes of nearly half a million men and women, found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there do not seem to be any specific genetic predictors. Culturally speaking, sexuality is tied to a number of factors, including sexual behavior, gender identity (both internal and external), affiliation, and role behavior. Like health, sexuality has a variety of orientations, including lesbian, gay, straight, and bisexual. Traditionally, those who deviate from socially approved norms are often socially ostracized, bullied, and sometimes physically abused or even killed, as was the case of the Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. In traditional mainstream U.S. culture, the prevailing view of sexuality is bimodal: only male and female are identified as possibilities. In other societies, additional possibilities are available. The Lakota Sioux, for example, approve four sexual orientations: biological males who possess largely masculine traits, biological males who possess largely feminine traits, biological females who possess largely feminine traits, and biological females who possess largely masculine traits. The female-identified male in Lakota society is called berdache and is accorded high honor because he possesses multiple traits and characteristics. Berdache tend to be teachers and artists, and if a berdache takes an interest in one’s child or children, it is considered to be an advantage. In contemporary U.S. society, as well as in many other nations around the world, acceptance of same-sex marriage and transgendered individuals is becoming more frequent and increasingly accepted. (Sexuality and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.) Page 96

 

11. Language is often defined as a system of shared vocal sounds and nonverbal behaviors that enables members of a particular group to communicate with one another. Language may be the most significant source of cultural learning because it is through language that most other cultural knowledge is acquired. Indeed, some researchers consider language and the category systems available in language to be the determiner of culture (Sapir, 1949; Vygotsky, 1962; Whorf, 1968).

 

Considerable research on the relation of brain function to language gives evidence that human beings are hardwired for language development at a particular stage in brain development (Chomsky, 1966). That is, children who are in the company of other people appear to be programmed to learn whatever spoken language or sign system is used around them. Children even appear to invent their own language systems, complete with syntactical structures, if no other language is available (Chomsky, 1966) with up to 50% of twins, both identical and fraternal, inventing languages of their own, referred to as autonomous languages or cryphtophasia, that they use between themselves but are unintelligible to others. Language is meaningful in terms of both its verbal properties (what we name things, people, and ideas) and its nonverbal properties (its norms regarding interpersonal distance, meaningful gestures, and so forth). Because language literally represents reality, the types and meanings of verbal and nonverbal behavior in any society or social group will reflect people’s experience with their surroundings and the ways in which they interact with it. More than any other characteristic, language is a window into another person’s life. (Language use, development, and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8.)

 

12. Social status is culturally defined on the basis of the prestige, social esteem, and honor accorded to an individual or group by other social groups or by society (Berger & Berger, 1972). Social status cuts across the other categories. Every social group or society appears to construct hierarchies of honor, prestige, and value with which to “sort out” its members, often on the basis of such attributes as race, age, gender, ability, and so forth. In some cases, social status varies with social class; in many other cases, however, social class does not explain a person’s status in a social group or society. Thus persons may occupy a high place in the class system in terms of income and power but not be accorded prestige or honor. The children of a newly wealthy family who can well afford to send them to Harvard, for example, may have little prestige among the sons and daughters of inherited wealth. Similarly, there may be people accorded high status in the society who occupy relatively low-class positions. In U.S. society, many entertainers and sports figures fit this description. Social status is normally expressed through social roles. Thus, status assigned to a person’s gender may determine the role that person plays in any situation; an individual’s health status may determine the role he or she plays as a “sick” person; an individual’s social class status may determine the role that person plays as a member of the upper, middle, or working class; and so forth. (Social status and related issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 13.)

 

While there is some overlap among these 12 attributes of culture, the important point to remember is that a particular society or social group culturally defines each of them. The cultural identity of all individuals (i.e., their knowledge, attitudes, values, and skills) is formed through their experience with these 12 attributes. Such experience is gained through contact with socializing agents such as family, house of worship, workplace, peer group, and the various forms of mass media. These socializing agents can be thought of as transmitters of cultural attributes. It is through these socializing agents (depicted in Figure 3.3) that individuals acquire the cultural knowledge that is influenced by race, ethnicity, gender, language, and social class.

 

Page 97

 

Figure 3.3 Socializing Agents That Transmit Culture

 

How Culture Is Learned: The Socializing Agents

 

We acquire the specific knowledge, attitudes, skills, and values that form our cultural identity through a variety of socializing agents that mediate the sources of cultural identity and give them a particular “cultural spin.” Thus a person’s understanding of race, gender, social class, disability, age, sexuality, and so forth depends in part on how that socializing agent is interpreted by those particular families, schools, neighborhoods, peer groups, workplaces, houses of worship, and communities that the person affiliates with at a particular time. Each of these socializing agents has its own slightly different interpretation of a particular cultural attribute, which it passes on to its members.

 

In contemporary social life, some socializing agents, such as families and peer groups, operate face-to-face, while others, such as the mass media, use technology to operate from a distance. Television, films, the Internet, various social media, and the music industry, for example, exert significant influence on the self-perceived identity of many young people. Referred to by some researchers as the “third educator” (following family and school), television, and increasingly a wide array of social media platforms, influences young people’s acquisition of basic language and visual and aural skills. It also influences their ideas of “appropriate” dress, language, attitudes, and values.

 

Cortes (2000) suggested that the media functions much like the school curriculum, as a powerful teaching medium. Especially with regard to intercultural understanding and the school curriculum, he writes “the media curriculum is chaotic, inconsistent, and multivocal, in many respects unplanned and uncoordinated, laden with conflicting messages, and offering myriad perspectives” (p. 19). In addition, the media often blurs information with entertainment, creating confusion in the minds of the many people. Cultivation studies have found evidence that heavy television viewers adopt a world view that is congruent with how the world is portrayed in fictional television programs, perceiving fictional TV stories as realistic stories or news, a phenomenon commonly referred to as fiction-to-news confusion (Koolstra, 2007). Where do we draw the line on many of the more popular reality shows broadcast almost daily? How much of them are, in fact, reality, and how much is scripted entertainment? These media lessons not only may affect young people’s picture of themselves and others, but also may affect the picture that adults have of them.

 

Page 98

 

The media also teaches about older people, and again with conflicting messages. The visual image of the woman who has “fallen and can’t get up” describes older people as weak, helpless, and slightly hysterical—and in need of a product that will alert some caregiving agency that she needs help. Conversely, commercials for vitamins for older adults often depict them as active people—hiking, swimming, and traveling—no doubt as a result of taking the promoted vitamins. Because we live in a nation that is growing older, we can expect more commercials defining older people as active rather than passive.

 

Other technological tools, such as computers, microwave ovens, and smartphones appear to exert significant influence on our notions of time. Teachers and other human service providers have noticed, for example, that over the last 30 years or so both children and adults have exhibited shorter attention spans. People seem to have become accustomed to receiving information and accomplishing tasks in shorter periods of time and are thus less likely or unable to persevere in tasks that take a long time.

 

Other socializing agents of note include the performing and visual arts and, in the United States at least, sports. These widely available carriers of cultural messages help shape people’s attitudes, values, and behavior. The aesthetic value of design, language, music, dance, and theatre, as well as ideals of moral and ethical behavior, are presented through the arts. Likewise, behavioral ideals such as fair play, personal achievement, and competition are taught through sports. It is also true that other qualities may be taught through these media; violence, for example, is an increasing part of movies, television, and sports. The contemporary nature of national sports teams as bottom-line businesses comes increasingly into competition with our cultural interest in providing a level playing field for all competitors.

 

Figure 3.3 provides a visual overview of how cultural knowledge is filtered by a variety of socializing agents to individuals through experience. Although sources of cultural knowledge (race, language, sexuality, etc.) are universal and appear in all cultures, the socializing agents (family, schools, media, etc.) that transmit them vary considerably from one culture to another. In most industrialized societies, for example, a wide variety of socializing agents bombard people daily, often with contradictory messages. In agriculturally oriented societies, on the other hand, a few primary socializing agents (e.g., family and gender group) may share the bulk of the culture-filtering process. As a result, individuals in different cultures develop very different worldviews. Page 99

 

There is some consensus that the processes of socialization can occur at three stages of life: (1) primary socialization, which involves the socialization of infants and young children by families and other early caregivers; (2) secondary socialization, which in most contemporary societies involves the neighborhood, the religious affiliation, the peer group, and the school as well as various media and other influences that surround and come into the home; and (3) adult socialization, which involves the socialization of adults into roles, settings, and situations for which they may have been unprepared by primary and secondary socialization. Some examples of adult socialization include taking a new job, marrying, moving to a new area, or becoming a parent (Sheehy, 1994).

 

These stages of the socialization process are not entirely discrete but rather interact with one another throughout our lives. What we learn as children can be reinforced or modified, for good or ill, by what we learn as we grow up and have more experiences. In each of its three stages, the purpose of socialization is to teach the learner those habits of mind and action that will make him or her a loyal and functional member of a particular group. The use of the word habits in this context is important, for it points to another aspect of socialization, which is that the learner should internalize socially approved patterns of behavior so that he or she will voluntarily—and with little thought or effort—think and behave in an appropriate manner.

 

One important aspect of the internalization of particular knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors is that the process by which they are acquired is, in a sense, a secret. Most people remember very little about their own socialization, the assumptions they make about the world, what has conditioned them, and the various cultural patterns that have become so ingrained in their makeup as to become nearly invisible.

 

Primary Socialization and Cultural Similarities

 

Most people share some aspects of primary socialization that are common to all or most of the people of their primary group. Consider, for example, the rules you probably have learned about eating. When food is put before most Americans (or United Statsians, to be more precise), they expect that it will be placed on a plate or in a bowl on a table at which they expect to sit on chairs. Once seated, the American automatically reaches for utensils called forks, knives, and spoons; cuts meat with the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right hand (except for left-handed folks); and then switches the fork to the right hand to carry the food to the mouth. In the same situation, a British person expects the plates, bowls, table, and chairs; cuts meat with the fork and knife in the same hands as an American; but then does not switch the fork to the right hand but continues to use it in the left hand. In the same situation, a Japanese person may expect the food to be placed on a low table, at which he or she will kneel, and the utensils used to carry food to the mouth will be two long, slender wooden or plastic implements that many Westerners call chopsticks. And in yet other cultural contexts, the hand and fingers (particularly the right hand) would be used to pick up or scoop food. On a global scale, it is estimated that roughly one third of people prefer to eat with knives and forks, one third with chopsticks, and one third with their hands. In all cases, the people eating will not consciously think about these expectations and behaviors, they will simply expect and do them because they are “right,” “appropriate,” and “proper.” Friedman’s (1984) book How My Parents Learned to Eat is an interesting children’s story that discusses Japanese and American eating customs and can be used to introduce such similarities and differences to children.

 

Within this general “American” set of rules for eating (as within any large nation-state), however, there are many variations. How formally we set our tables, how many utensils we use, whether our plates are served for us or we serve ourselves (and how many different plates we use), what kinds of food we eat, what we commonly use as a beverage (water, milk, wine, soda or pop, coffee, and tea), and whether we bring the beverage to the table in its original container or in a pitcher, all depend somewhat on the region in which we live; the ethnic, social class, and religious origins of our parents; our ages; and so forth. No matter what the particulars are of our personal and family rules for eating, however, we believe they are “normal” in part because we have internalized them.

 

Page 100

 

Here is another example of both the secret nature of primary socialization and the degree to which knowledge acquired through primary socialization is internalized: the way people learn to speak. Do you remember how you learned to talk? If you have taken another language in school, perhaps it was difficult for you—but your own language, now that was easy! Or so it seems. It might, however, be very difficult for you to teach a non-English speaker to correctly pronounce the sentence “Can you tell me the time?” when that person might more easily say “Can you dell me the dime?” What might you tell this person about English that would correct his or her pronunciation? Go ahead; try it. How would you teach someone to make the correct sounds?

 

Most people begin to play with their tongue, noting supposed differences in where it is placed in relation to the teeth. But that is not where the distinction lies. If you have determined that a little puff of air passes out of the mouth when the t sound is made in such words as tell and time that is not passed in words beginning with the letter d, you are on the right track to discovering the secret. Correct speakers of English aspirate their stops; that is, some air passes out of the mouth when such letters as t, p, or k are spoken. This aspect of pronunciation is considered a secret because even though most of us differentiate these sounds quite regularly and easily, you probably were not able to describe the difference to others. This practice has become so much a part of your behavior that you take it for granted; you must consciously think about it in order to describe it to others. This is not the end of the secret, however. If you think about it some more, you will realize that English speakers aspirate their stops only at the beginning and in the middle of words, not at the end. We do not aspirate the t in hit, bit, or cat.

 

That you have learned these rules is quite clear; you use them all the time. How these rules were learned, however, is considerably less clear. They were probably not taught in formal sessions with your parents or by reading appropriate language texts. Indeed, you may not have been able to talk about them at all because you did not have the language to use words such as aspirate or stops. Rather, you probably learned these rules through trial and error and with much reinforcement while you learned to speak your native language. This particular language pattern is often hidden, as are its results. The same is true for other aspects of cultural learning; they, too, can be conceived as patterns that are hidden from our conscious thought and behavior.

 

Few people receive formal instruction in how to be an appropriate member of any particular cultural group. Rather, people are culturally socialized by observing others, by trial and error, and by continuous reinforcement. In other words, cultural knowledge such as the rules for speaking and eating are learned experientially, not cognitively. Consequently, it becomes difficult for many people to speak comfortably about the cross-cultural problems they might encounter. One of the difficulties people often face in their intercultural encounters, then, is that while they may feel uncomfortable or unsure in a given situation, they may be unable to talk about the problem with any specificity. Thus, as is natural to most, people may try to avoid situations in which they feel discomfort—certainly not one of the long-term goals of multicultural or intercultural education. A reasonable goal is for people to become more knowledgeable and thus conversant about the issues at play in cross-cultural interaction so that when problems or misunderstandings arise, we have the cognitive and linguistic tools, as well as the comfort level, to inquire into and talk about our differences.

 

Page 101

 

Secondary Socialization

 

Perhaps the most important source of secondary socialization in most people’s lives is the school. It is in school that individuals are often introduced to ideas and values that differ from those they acquired at home. In fact, one of the purposes of education is to “lead forth” or “liberate” individuals from the narrow confines of their primary socialization—in a sense, to expand their cultural identities. The difficulties of this process of alteration, however, should not be minimized, especially in situations where the cultural knowledge, beliefs, values, and skills required by the school may be in conflict with some of those of the home. Still, teachers often find themselves attempting to serve as “change agents” of their students’ cultural identities.

 

The main goal of most school socialization in the United States has traditionally been to teach the rules of middle-class attitudes, values, and behavior. This cultural socialization to the middle class is no less a secret than the varied cultural socialization of individual families. The school, like the family, does not make cultural socialization explicit; it is simply taken for granted as “normal.” Few people ever take a formal course in the variations of cultural knowledge that exist, and they almost never examine their own cultural patterns in contrast to others. Few ever learn why they behave the way they do, or why they think many of the things they think. Fewer still ever evaluate the assumptions they make. People thus generally lack the concepts and vocabulary with which to talk about these things. Yet cultural patterns that are a given, along with the assumptions, beliefs, and behavior associated with them, often do guide us along whether we are aware of it or not.

 

There is yet another aspect of socialization that must be analyzed: the power of early socialization when viewed from the inside. It is certainly true that as we grow up and meet people outside our childhood social groups, we learn that there are a variety of ways to interact with the physical and social environment. As children, however, we experience the imposition of patterns of socialization as absolute (Berger & Berger, 1972). There are two simple reasons for this absoluteness: (1) the power of adults in relation to young children and (2) ignorance of any other possibilities. Berger and Berger described the nature of this experience in the following way:

 

Psychologists differ in their view as to whether the child experiences the adults at this stage of life as being very much under his control (because they are generally so responsive to his needs) or whether he feels continually threatened by them (because he is so dependent upon them). However this may be, there can be no question that, objectively speaking, adults have overwhelming power in the situation. The child can, of course, resist them, but the probable outcome of any conflict is a victory on the part of the adults. It is they who control most of the rewards that he craves and most of the sanctions that he fears. Indeed, the simple fact that most children are eventually socialized affords simple proof of this proposition. At the same time, it is obvious that the small child is ignorant of any alternatives to the patterns that are being imposed upon him. The adults confront him with a world—for him, it is the world. It is only much later that he discovers that there are alternatives to this particular world, that his parents’ world is relative in space and time, and that quite different patterns are possible (p. 51). Page 102

 

Some Consequences of Socialization

 

Ethnocentrism

 

Because of the absoluteness with which the child experiences socialization, he or she begins, early on, to share the human tendency to view the world from his or her own perspective and to begin to believe that his or her way is, if not the only way to view the world, certainly the best way. This perspective, called ethnocentrism, refers to the tendency people have to evaluate others according to their own standards, and it is an almost universal result of socialization. Think again about the example of eating behaviors: when confronted by someone from an Asian or African country who may eat with his or her hands, most Americans would consider such behavior not as simply different but as beneath their own, and may make negative judgments about the person. While a certain degree of ethnocentrism serves to bind people together, it can also become a serious obstacle when those who have internalized different ideas and behaviors begin to interact with one another.

 

One major expression of ethnocentrism is a strong resistance to change. People have a tendency to resist change, even under the best of circumstances, as illustrated in the story of the Wheat Religion people in Chapter 1. If people believe that their way of doing things is best and if they have the power to choose to continue in familiar ways, why should they change? Consider the case of the United States and the adoption of metrics. At this time, all countries of the world have adopted the metric system as their primary means of measurement except the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar. We continue to resist this change despite the difficulties it causes travelers, manufacturers, and others who must interact in a variety of ways with people from other nations. Failure of a Lockheed Martin engineering team to convert English measures to metric values used by NASA scientists was the cause of the September 1999 loss of the Mars planet orbiter, a spacecraft that smashed into the planet Mars instead of reaching a safe orbit. This oversight resulted in the destruction of a $125 million spacecraft and jeopardized the entire Mars program.

 

While this example comes from life outside of schools, other examples of ethnocentric behavior do not. There is, for example, continued insistence on the part of some educators and politicians that we need to strengthen a Eurocentric curriculum in our schools on the grounds that a curriculum based on “the best of Western civilization” is the most valuable preparation any student could have. However, there is increasing interest among some educators to consider alternative perspectives. Consider this response to American educators in the 1700s about sending Native American children to American schools:

 

You who are wise must know that different Nations have different Conceptions of things and you will therefore not take it amiss if our Ideas of this kind of Education happen not to be the same as yours. We have had some Experiences of it. Several of our Young People were formally brought up at the Colleges of the Northern Provinces: they were instructed in all your Sciences, but when they came back to us they were bad Runners, ignorant of every means of living in the woods … neither fit for Hunters, Warriors, nor Councellors, they were totally good for nothing.

 

We are, however, not the less obliged by your kind Offer, though we decline accepting it. And to show our grateful Sense of it, if the Gentlemen of Virginia will send us a Dozen of their Sons, we will take Care of their Education, instruct them in all we know, and make Men of them (as cited in Blaisdell, 2000).

 

More recently, the debate over Afrocentric curriculum efforts is, for example, one that should be examined quite closely. Can a school experience that embraces an African perspective effectively reach African American children better than the standard Eurocentric curriculum? Is this curriculum worth embracing and evaluating? After years of emphasis on common curriculum content, evaluated by standardized tests that are close to national in scope, and increased pressure and movement toward the adoption of Common Core curriculum standards across the nation, American policymakers (and many educators) are increasingly less open to variations in curriculum driven by differences in the cultural backgrounds of American students. Yet, if culturally driven curricula are to continue to be a part of our educational system, expressions of ethnocentricity on the part of all sides in that debate must become more aware of ways in which their ethnocentric attitudes become a barrier to finding the “good” in diverse approaches to knowledge and skills.

 

Page 103

 

Perception and Categorization

 

Another result of socialization is that we learn to perceive the world and to categorize information about people and things in our environment in particular ways. Perception and categorization are both cognitive processes that are shaped by socialization. People receive millions of bits of information each and every day through their senses. To think that people can respond to each individual piece of information is expecting too much; a person’s physical and emotional systems would be overwhelmed. Because of the need to simplify things, people organize their world into categories; into each category they put items that share similar characteristics. People then generally respond to the category to which an individual item belongs.

 

Perception refers to the stimulation of the sense organs; that is, to what people immediately report seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling. While no two people have exactly the same physiological structure and therefore no two people perceive stimuli identically, those with healthy nervous systems tend to perceive similar things in the environment in similar ways. Physicists, for example, tell us that the human eye can discern more than 8 million colors as distinguished by variations in wavelength. There is no practical reason, nor is it humanly possible, even to consider all these fine variations of shade and hue let alone to react to each individual color. Individuals, therefore, need some schema with which to group colors, the most familiar probably being the one based on the spectrum in which red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet are the major colors. When asked about the color of the sky, a Westerner’s response typically is “blue.” A sapphire is blue, oceans depicted on a map are blue, and robin’s eggs are blue. Grass, however, is green, as are the leaves of most trees and the inside of a kiwi fruit.

 

In traditional Japanese language, however, the term aoi refers to colors that span blue and green wavelengths. When asked the color of the sky, a Japanese individual’s response might be “aoi.” When asked the color of grass, the response might again be “aoi.” How would you explain these responses? Certainly the entire Japanese population is not color-blind! Rather, whereas European Americans have learned to place these particular stimuli into different schemata, traditional Japanese have learned to place them in the same one.

 

Clearly, sense perception alone is not sufficient. We also need to make sense out of the busy world around us, and to do so, we utilize schemata. Another term for such schemata is category. Categorization is the cognitive process through which human beings simplify their world by putting similar stimuli into the same group. What kind of categories we use, how narrow or broad they are, and what meanings are attached to them are all shaped by culture and acquired through socialization. A good example of the relation between perception and categorization is the dog: how people perceive the animal, and how they have learned to respond to the stimuli. All people will see, or perceive, the dog in a similar way, but they will certainly think about it differently. You, and many of your family and friends, for instance, probably think of dogs as pets, as companions, and in some cases, as important members of their families. A traditional Muslim, when confronted by the same creature, might consider the dog filthy, a lowly animal, and something to be avoided at all costs—similar to the reaction you might have to a pig. People in some Asian or Pacific Island nations might place a dog in the category of food. It is not uncommon to find dog meat as part of the human diet in some parts of the world.

 

Page 104

 

The concept of a prototype image is critical in the analysis of categories. For most categories that humans create, there is one set of attributes or criteria that best characterizes the members of that category. In other words, there is a clear example of what the category encompasses. This example becomes a “summary” of the group and is the image most often thought of when the category is mentioned. If you were asked to think about a bird, for instance, you might conjure up an image of a creature about 8 or 9 inches long (beak to tail feathers), brown or perhaps reddish in color, that has feathers, flies, and nests in trees. You probably did not think of a turkey, penguin, ostrich, or even a chicken. For someone socialized in or near the jungles of South America, the prototypic image of a bird might be larger and more colorful because those birds that we call exotic (e.g., parrots) are part of their everyday world. Yet robins, parrots, and penguins have all the critical attributes that characterize members of the bird family; they all have feathers, beaks, and hollow or lightweight bones, and they all lay eggs. Teachers must examine what their own prototype image of a student is and how they will respond to those who do not fit neatly into this image.

 

Stereotypes

 

Categories help people to simplify the world around them. That is, people put stimuli that have common characteristics into one category and then respond to the group. People do not, for instance, respond to each and every chair or table when they walk into a room but refer to them in their broader context of chairs, tables, or furniture.

 

People respond in a similar manner in their interactions with people. Stereotypes are examples of categories of people. Socially constructed categories designed to simplify the identification of individuals who are in some way “other” frequently become negative stereotypes associated with groups. Here we find that the processes of perception and categorization along with ethnocentrism combine to create a potentially harmful situation. Although any cultural group may teach its members to categorize other groups either positively or negatively, most stereotypes end up as negative labels placed on individuals simply because they are members of a particular group.

 

In the most general sense, the word stereotype refers to any sort of summary representation (or prototypic image) that obscures the differences within a group (Brislin, 1993). Stereotypes obtain their power by providing categories that appear to encode a significant amount of information in a concise manner and that help us avoid having to pay serious attention to all the sensory data that are available. Negative stereotypes also enable us to keep our ethnocentric ideas intact by preventing us from seeing contradictory evidence before our very eyes. For example, it is much easier and quicker for us to think of all girls as stereotypically weak or passive than it is to notice that at least some of the girls in our classroom are stronger and more aggressive than the boys. Indeed, if we do notice such a thing, we tend to label those particular girls as “unfeminine,” which helps us avoid the larger task of accurately differentiating one girl from another and also allows us to maintain a cultural value that teaches that boys are supposed to be strong and aggressive while girls are not. Stereotypic conceptions of others can be acquired through both early and later socialization and are powerful insofar as they promote group solidarity and ethnocentric beliefs. Page 105

 

Some Limits on Socialization

 

Although perception and categorization both depend in part on the cultural knowledge and meanings associated with the physical and social environment in which a child is socialized, and although early socialization is a powerful factor in the development of identity, it is also true that the power of socialization has limits. Three of these limitations are particularly important to educators.

 

First, socialization is limited to some extent by the nature of the child’s physical organism. For example, it is true that an infant or very young child can learn any language and any particular pattern of living, but it is not true that any child can be taught beyond his or her biological limits. Socialization to color wavelength categories, for example, may be limited by color blindness to red and green. Similarly, socialization to musical sounds will not necessarily produce an operatic singer. However, sensory limits in one area may be, and often are, compensated for by increased attention to other senses, as in people with hearing limitations.

 

Second, because socialization is an unending process that is never completely finished, its powers of control are never absolute. Because a child is socialized according to one set of patterns (language, situational behavior, understanding of role, categorization) does not mean that he or she cannot learn new patterns. Indeed, the extension of socialization beyond childhood knowledge is one of the chief purposes of formal schooling.

 

Third, socialization is limited in its power because human beings are not simply passive recipients of socialization; they always act on that socialization in some way. Individuals resist or reject accepted norms, they reinterpret accepted norms, and they create new kinds of normative behavior. Thus socialization can be seen not as an all-powerful force that totally molds the human creature but rather as a transactional process through which individuals are shaped but not totally determined. Your future students might become Nobel Prize winners, astronauts, or famous inventors.

 

Each of these limits on socialization is a resource on which educators can build. However, as Dewey (1916/1966) noted repeatedly, the most effective learning takes place when it begins with what the child already knows and builds from there. It is important for teachers to understand not only the nature and purpose of cultural socialization in general but also the specifics of the cultural patterns to which they and their students have been socialized.

 

Understanding Cultural Differences

 

Variations in Cultural Environments

 

Figure 3.4 summarizes the discussion of the culture-learning process and points out its complexity in such multicultural societies as the United States, Canada, Australia, or England. Although the sources of cultural identity are the same for all societies, each society—indeed, each community—varies considerably in the number and character of its socializing agents. Thus, in a technologically less complex and relatively homogeneous society like the traditional Maasai of Kenya or Tanzania, the sources of cultural identity shown in Figure 3.4 may be transmitted through fewer socializing agents, most notably the family and the members of other families in the community. Because these families have nearly every aspect of life in common, there is likely to be little conflict in the way the various attributes of culture (e.g., age, sexuality, social status) are transmitted to the individual in such a society. The same, by the way, may be said of small towns and villages anywhere in the world, although much of this is changing due to the ubiquitous presence of technology and social media that is rapidly bringing people the world over into closer contact.

 

Page 106

 

Figure 3.4 The Culture-Learning Process

 

In complex societies like the United States and many other industrialized nations, however, most individuals interact daily with a vast array of socializing agents, each of which puts a slightly different spin on each of the cultural attributes. For example, your place of worship is likely to have a significantly different view of sexuality than your peer group or your favorite television program. Daily interaction with a variety of socializing agents, each of which may have a unique interpretation of cultural attributes, means that individuals are bombarded with a variety of conflicting cultural messages.

 

Furthermore, individuals are not simply passive recipients of incoming messages. Once a message is received, each individual interprets and acts (or not) on its content according to his or her own personality and prior experiences. This interactive aspect of culture learning is depicted in Figure 3.4 by the directional arrows that connect the individual to various socializing agents and through them to the universal cultural attributes. In short, culture learning is a two-way process in which individuals are both forming and being formed by incoming cultural messages. And in many ways, no two individuals construct their world in the same manner.

 

Page 107

 

Perhaps another example would be helpful. Gollnick and Chinn (2002) described two hypothetical women who live in Chicago and who are both 30 years old, white, middle class, Polish American, and Catholic. One woman identifies very strongly with her Polish American heritage and her church in the context of living in Chicago, which has a large Polish American population. She does not identify very strongly with her age group, her class status, or her gender. The other woman defines herself as a feminist, is equally interested in her urban life, and is conscious of her age but does not pay too much attention to her ethnic background, her religion, or her social class. The significance of these patterns lies not in each woman’s self-definition but in the attitudes, values, knowledge, and behavior that such definition entails.

 

The first woman may well spend more time with family than with nonrelated friends, may be a member of a right-to-life group, might choose wine rather than Perrier, may be knowledgeable about and participate in Polish ethnic organizations, and is likely to understand, if not speak, Polish.

 

The second woman may find her most intimate companions among women’s groups, be pro-choice in her stand on abortion, choose to live in the city despite the possibility of living in a small town or the country, and—if she does not have children—hear her biological clock ticking.

 

This example illustrates how individuals operating in relatively similar settings with relatively similar environmental demands and socializing agents can develop distinctly different ways of living their lives. Perhaps you can begin to imagine how different groups and individuals operating in different settings with differing environmental demands and using different sets of socializing agents can develop distinctly different cultures. Figure 3.4 can help you recognize the multitude of factors that enter into the cultural identity equation.

 

In addition, consider that each of the two outer circles in Figure 3.4 can spin, so that every cultural attribute can be filtered differently by each of the socializing agents, which might combine differently with a variety of personality types. For instance, a passive-reflective individual would interact with the many incoming cultural messages differently than a volatile, nonreflective person might. You can begin to see how complex culture learning can be; how variable individuals can be in the manner in which they receive, process, and output the various influences they encounter; and how these messages can be transformed into differing behavior and belief patterns. Although you might think that in reality an infinite number of cultural formations is possible, the three parts in Figure 3.4 can be used with a little practice as a diagnostic tool for analyzing any multicultural or intercultural situation.

 

Despite this enormous potential for variation among individuals and within groups, similarities or generalizations can be made about groups of people, and these generalizations are referred to throughout this book. People have a tendency to use information that may or may not be reflective of all individuals within a given group. We must always be cautious when using culture-specific information to discuss whole groups because there will always be individuals who do not fit. Individual differences between two people who belong to the same group may be greater than between two people who belong to different groups.

 

Generalizations differ from stereotypes about people, and this point must be kept in mind. Generalizations refer to the tendency of a majority of people in a cultural group to hold certain values and beliefs and to engage in certain patterns of behavior. Thus this information can be supported by research and can be applied to a large percentage of a population or group. Stereotypes refer to the application of a specific piece of information (which may be a generalization or possibly an inaccurate piece of information) to every person in that group. Thus, unsupported information blurs specific knowledge about other individuals.

 

Page 108

 

Variations in Cultural Attributes, Socializing Agents, and Cultural Learners

 

Building a positive attitude toward differences requires a more sophisticated way of looking at diversity. Much of the educational research on individual differences related to culture rests on three assumptions.

 

First, it is assumed that there is a standard or ideal against which difference can be seen, measured, or understood. In American society, people who are white, middle class, Protestant, English-speaking, healthy, physically and mentally typical, heterosexual, and male are said to make up the dominant cultural group. This “ideal” is, of course, a stereotype, much like the stereotypes of other cultural groups. It is important to note, however, that in the United States this particular stereotype refers to people who are socially privileged by virtue of birth characteristics over which they have little or no control (Howard, 1993; McIntosh, 1992). They are also educationally privileged in that their preschool socialization tends to prepare them for schooling, which is based on middle-class attitudes and values. One unfortunate consequence of belonging to this model group is that its members don’t have to think of themselves as just one of many groups, each with its particular pattern of characteristics. Because they are the model group, they fit into perceived societal norms and thus do not have to think about their cultural patterns much at all (see the discussion of “white privilege” in Chapter 6). It also must be recognized that many of the nation’s institutions have been built with this stereotypical model group as their foundation—the very framework that is in conflict with an increasing number of Americans.

 

The second assumption is that any deviation from this normative group is the very definition of difference. If a person speaks only Spanish rather than English or is Asian rather than European American; Jewish rather than Protestant; female rather than male; homosexual rather than heterosexual; working class rather than middle class; chronically ill or with a physical, emotional, or mental disability rather than healthy or typical, that person is likely to be perceived as different, and this difference is seen as a deficit to be overcome.

 

Finally, research on difference assumes that studies of large groups of children with certain characteristics will tell us a great deal about all children who possess some or most of these characteristics. This assumption has at least two serious problems, however. One is that while most research looks at only one characteristic at a time (e.g., gender or social class), no one ever belongs to just one group. Every individual simultaneously belongs to a number of groups: gender, social class, ethnic, and so forth. What these “single-characteristic” studies look for are central tendencies, ways in which each particular group of children is the same. This tendency to focus on one narrow point may be problematic and may encourage stereotypes. In and of themselves, such stereotypes are oversimplifications that tend to ignore the diversity of behavior differences that exist within a group.

 

Page 109

 

While this single-characteristic research has taught us much, it does not enable us to focus on differences within groups, only on differences between groups. Furthermore, it compares groups according to only one characteristic. Thus, it does not help us understand how various characteristics (gender, social class, ethnicity, disability, etc.) combine with one another to form individual personalities and learning styles. For example, to be a deaf American who uses American Sign Language with other deaf people but uses English in interacting with hearing persons, as Humphries (1993) noted, is “to be bicultural and bilingual. This is just for starters. To be a deaf sign language user and African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian in the United States is to be multicultural” (p. 15).

 

The second serious problem is that such research is most often statistical and tends to be interpreted by practitioners (and the public) in more global terms than its results warrant. If, for example, 65% of a given group of girls are found to be less successful at math than a comparable group of boys, the tendency is to believe that all girls are less successful at math. Although this generalization is not warranted by the research, it tends to become “true” in the minds of many people and thus to influence their behavior toward girls. Similarly, educators’ attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities have too often been based on broad labels or classifications such as mental retardation, learning disability, and behavior disorder, all of which obscure wide individual differences.

 

This book tries to avoid this problem of group stereotyping by looking at the universal connections between culture and learning. These connections are universal in the sense that they seem to apply to all people no matter what their various group affiliations. Figure 3.2 illustrates the sources of cultural knowledge that, when mixed together, form the cultural identity of all groups and individuals. These attributes are, for the most part, societal designations that have little meaning for the individual except as experienced through various socializing agents such as the family, house of worship, neighborhood, and peer group. In other words, individuals acquire a cultural identity within the larger society through their experiences with a variety of daily socializing agents.

 

What teachers must understand is that cultural-learning patterns vary considerably both between and within various cultural groups. Subsequent chapters describe in more detail some of the ways in which differences in cultural learning may lead to misunderstanding and conflict in schools and classrooms. This book also shows how these same differences can be used as a positive resource in learning-community classrooms. For now, play with the model in Figure 3.4. Ask yourself what the universal attributes mean to you in view of your own life experiences and which socializing agents have accounted for your understanding of them. Do the same for others who are close to you, such as family members and friends.

 

This book will ask these same questions about students, teachers, parents, and school administrators. With the help of the stories incorporated in this book for illustrative purposes and the cases presented for analysis, you will gradually become a sensitive and skillful teacher of all children, not just those whose cultural background matches your own. For example, although a person may seem to be quite different from you by virtue of membership in a different race or class or religion, that person may also share some important cultural aspects with you. Similarly, when an individual seems to have many cultural aspects in common with you, they may in fact be quite different in some important ways.

 

Page 110

 

Critical Incident

 

Aren’t We the Best?

 

In the conversation the group was having with students traveling on the ship Alan said he grew up believing that the American lifestyle is the ideal lifestyle, that other people aspired to be like Americans, and if they are not living like us, they are somehow “less developed” and must be fixed.

 

How might you explain this in terms of the concept of ethnocentrism?

 

Identify how two of the socializing agents (Figure 3.3) might operate to reinforce this notion.

 

It’s not Like I Thought!

 

At the end of their Skype conversation with the students on the ship, Alan shared some of his initial experiences in Ghana that challenged what he had expected to see. While he had images of starvation, malnutrition, and child labor in his mind, what he actually encountered was far different.

 

What socializing agents (Figure 3.3) do you think helped to form the initial images in Alan’s mind, and how did they operate to influence him in this way?

 

How might you explain this in terms of stereotypes and generalizations?

 

As a teacher, what might you do to help your students learn to develop a broader perspective on issues?

 

A Strong Initial Reaction!

 

Esther shared her strong negative reaction and confusion when she encountered the swastika, especially when she was later told that it was a Hindu symbol commonly seen in India that had positive meaning.

 

How can the concepts of perception and categorization help to explain this?

 

How did the socialization process operate here in Esther’s life?

 

How are some of the sources of cultural identity evident here?

 

 

 

Summary

 

All people, regardless of the culture in which they were raised, share certain common experiences. This chapter presented the dynamics of culture and the culture-learning process that all people, students as well as teachers, experience and bring with them to the school context. Of particular interest to educators are the primary and secondary socialization processes and the 12 sources of cultural knowledge that represent the diversity of knowledge and experiences to which people are exposed. Critical to educators concerned with improving people’s skills in intercultural understanding and communication is the recognition that some of the results of the socialization process present barriers to cross-cultural interactions. Effective intercultural education understands and addresses such issues as critical process as well as content.

 

Page 111

 

Key Terms

 

ability/disability

 

affirmative action

 

age

 

categorization

 

culture

 

culture-general approaches

 

culture-specific approaches

 

enculturate

 

ethnic group

 

ethnicity/nationality

 

ethnocentrism

 

generalization

 

geographic location/region

 

health

 

in-context learning

 

institutional racism

 

language

 

microculture

 

minority group

 

objective culture

 

out-of-context learning

 

people of color

 

perception

 

race

 

racism

 

religion/spirituality

 

sex/gender

 

sexuality

 

social class

 

social status

 

socialization

 

stereotypes

 

subculture

 

subjective culture

 

The Nature of Culture and Culture Learning

 

Purpose: To identify qualities that characterize the concept of culture.

 

Instructions: Read and review the following material. Respond accordingly in the space provided using examples from your own life.

 

The process by which people come to believe that there is a “right” way to think, express themselves, and act—in other words, how people learn their culture—is called socialization. It is the process by which individuals learn what is required of them in order to be successful members of a given group, whatever that group may be. Socialization is such a potent process that people are hardly aware that other realities can exist. This results in the presence of ethnocentrism, the tendency people have to judge others from their own culture’s perspective, believing theirs to be the “right” or “correct” way to perceive and act within the world.

 

Most people in today’s industrialized societies can be considered to be multicultural because they have been socialized by a number of different individuals or groups that influence their behavior and thought patterns (e.g., gender, nationality, ethnicity, social class, religion, and so forth). At this point, it may be helpful to look at how culture, in the broadest sense, influences people’s behavior. Brislin (2000) and Cushner and Brislin (1996) offer a discussion of features that are helpful in understanding culture’s influence on behavior and that can be applied to the multiple influences suggested previously. This list is summarized below. You should consider each, and then apply it to your own lives and experiences with the various groups with which you interact. First, individually identify examples from your own past that reflect each of the aspects of culture. Then share your responses in small groups. Be ready to share an example of each aspect with the larger group.

 

Page 112

 

Culture usually refers to something that is made by human beings rather than something that occurs in nature. Thus, sand along a beach may be a natural occurrence, but the condominiums along the beachfront are not.

 

My example of something made by human beings:

 

Culture concerns itself with people’s assumptions about life that are often unspoken or hidden from consciousness. Thus, most Americans, when putting a hand out to greet someone new, assume they will do likewise and then they can shake hands. This may not be the case when meeting someone from Japan.

 

My example of an aspect of my culture that I believe is “hidden” or a “secret”:

 

Culture is a collective creation that most members of the group practice. In the United States, as well as many other countries, it is common for people to unconsciously walk on the right side of a hallway or sidewalk. In other countries, such as Britain, Australia, or New Zealand, it is common for people to walk on the left side of hallways and sidewalks.

 

My example of something most people from my cultural group practice that might be different from another group:

 

Clear childhood experiences that individuals can identify exist that help develop and teach particular values and practices. For instance, the American value of individualism is often introduced to young people through early jobs they may have had (babysitting, saving an allowance for something I want, etc.).

 

My example of something I did in my childhood that teaches a cultural value or practice:

 

Because culture is often a secret and most people do not share a common vocabulary and understanding, people are often unable to comfortably discuss cross-cultural problems with others. Cultural differences, thus, become most evident in well-meaning clashes.

 

My example of a culture clash that occurred because people did not understand the differing cultural perspectives that were operating at the time:

 

Culture allows people to fill in the blanks so they do not have to repeat the rules for every action to other members of the group. Thus, when someone is invited to a happy hour after work, it is clear to most people that they should expect to spend no more than a couple of hours at the bar or pub, and not plan to make a night of it.

 

My example of a common behavior that seems mostly automatic and commonly understood:

 

People experience strong emotional reactions when their cultural values are violated or when a culture’s expected behaviors are ignored. Thus, recent rulings in France that student’s heads must remain uncovered in school has drawn strong criticism from the Islamic community.

 

My example of a strong emotional response I have observed when people’s cultures clash:

 

When changes in cultural values are contemplated, like legalizing same-sex marriages or outlawing the right of citizens to carry handguns, the reaction that “this will be a difficult uphill battle” is likely.

 

My example of a major cultural change that is or was difficult for people to make:

 

Page 113

 

Reflective Questions

 

1. Look back at Webb and Sherman’s definition of culture on page 82. Compare two different cultures or ethnic groups that you are familiar with in terms of the categories to which they refer. What categories are similar and which ones are different? How would you explain the differences and similarities?

 

2. Differentiate between objective culture and subjective culture. Can you provide two examples of each from the cultures or ethnic groups you identified in the first question?

 

3. Consider the 12 sources of knowledge described in the chapter. Complete an inventory on yourself. How might your inventory differ from one of your parents? Compare your inventory to that of a classmate. How are they similar? Different? How would you explain some of the differences?

 

4. How does the way your parents or community socialized you to understand your social class differ from the way the popular media does? How about your understanding of your gender? How about your understanding of sexual relations?

 

          

 

Chapter

 

4

 

Classrooms and Schools as Cultural Crossroads

 

wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

 

Page 117

 

Focus Questions

 

How might the cultures of students and teachers be similar or different? How might they be in support of one another? In conflict with one another?

 

What cultural characteristics might people who appear to be different from one another share? How can teachers begin to understand the culturally determined traits and behaviors of students and families?

 

How might teachers become better prepared for the cross-cultural differences they are certain to encounter among students? How can they begin to help their students understand and appreciate these differences, thus preparing them better for the increasing number of intercultural interactions they are certain to encounter in a global society?

 

“ It is often hard to learn from people who are just like you. Too much is taken for granted. Homogeneity is fine in a bottle of milk, but in the classroom it diminishes the curiosity that ignites discovery. ”

 

VIVIAN GYSSIN PALEY

 

Page 118

 

Case Study

 

An Induction Year Dilemma

 

David was in the class one day when the discussion began to focus on the large number of new teachers who were finding their first teaching position in urban environments — something many of them did not feel well-prepared for. He related an experience a friend of his sister recently shared with him. Melinda, his sister’s friend, had completed her degree in science education at a large northern university the previous year and was excited about the prospects of teaching in one of the suburban high schools close to where she grew up. All through her education she had been encouraged to pursue the STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) as areas of specialization. She had often heard about the shortage of science teachers, especially women in these areas, and thought she might have an edge in terms of employment as well as be a model for other young girls. Melinda felt confident that she would obtain a position in a high school not too far from where she had grown up and gone to school. She had held this dream ever since her own high school years.

 

When Melinda finally graduated, however, the employment situation in the area close to her home had changed. Many of the schools had fallen on difficult financial times, and in most districts, school levies had failed year after year. When school districts from the South came to recruit teachers at her university, Melinda found herself seriously considering the possibility of relocating. After all, she did want to teach, and she felt well prepared for any classroom situation.

 

Ultimately being offered a position at Wake Central High School, Melinda gladly accepted and eagerly made plans to move to North Carolina. Wake Central High is an urban school of approximately 2,200 students in grades 9 through 12. Approximately 25% of the students are African American, 6% are Latino representing Mexico as well as a number of different nations throughout Central and South America, 5% are of Asian descent, 60% are European American, and about 4% represent other parts of the world. A majority of students come from families at or below the poverty level with a surprising number of students uncertain of where they will sleep when the school day is finished because of the increasing number of homeless families in the county. The school has a large vocational program in which more than half the juniors and seniors are enrolled. Approximately 80% of the faculty is European American with the remaining 20% Latino or African American.

 

Wake Central High has an aging faculty with an average age of 46. Last year the principal, Mr. Henderson, was unable to hire any teachers of color. This year he has been able to attract one new Latino and two new African American faculty members among the new teachers. Melinda was one of the three European Americans hired in the same year. She was excited about her first teaching situation and confident that she would be successful. She had, after all, taken a course in multicultural education in her undergraduate teacher education program, and at least knew some of the basic concepts and theories.

 

A few months after the start of the school year, Melinda knew that she was confronting a reality far different from the one she had originally imagined. She felt unprepared for the student diversity that she faced each and every day, and had no idea how to help students address what she felt were basic educational needs. She was unaccustomed to the variety of languages and dialects spoken by students, had little understanding of what went on in students’ lives outside of school, and struggled daily to present class lessons that motivated and engaged students. And to top everything off, Melinda found herself in the middle of significant racial strife.

 

It seems that in January of the previous year, Mr. Henderson had met with the African American teachers at their request. They had many concerns, ranging from insufficient minority representation on the teaching and coaching staffs to the way white teachers were interacting with many of the African American and other students of color. They felt that most white teachers did not appreciate the need for the proposed Martin Luther King recognition activities; they were disappointed by the lack of white response to a request for donations to the United Negro College Fund; and they felt a negative response to Black History Month activities and other efforts to make the curriculum more culturally relevant.

 

Page 119

 

As a result of this meeting, a Human Relations Committee was formed. This volunteer group planned and organized a 2-day race relations institute. The results of the workshop were disastrous. Instead of improving race relations in the school, the situation became worse. A group of white teachers sent around a list of possible themes for the coming school year, a few of which were perceived as racist by the African American teachers. A group of concerned Black teachers and parents sent letters to community leaders and administrators voicing their concern. Once parents of the Latino students became aware of the situation, they started demanding equal attention to address the needs of their children, many of whom became increasingly alienated from school-related activities. Students formed a group they called “Students Against Racism” as a means to express their concerns and frustrations.

 

Last year in March, Mr. Henderson had met with the Equal Opportunity Officer in the district and with a racially mixed group of teachers. While concerns were aired, none of the problems were resolved. A discussion was begun, but as Mr. Henderson puts it, “We have a long way to go. We definitely have some white teachers who are insensitive to the needs and experiences of others, as well as some teachers of color who perceive the white teachers as racist. I’m not quite sure how to begin addressing the students’ needs, except to say that we will continue to bring the various parties together to address whatever needs arise. I only hope people will stay with me for the long haul.”

 

Melinda told David and her sister that she was becoming increasingly uncomfortable attending faculty meetings, and that the spin-off was affecting her classroom interactions. She was frustrated, unsure of what was really going on, and uncertain if she could remain in such an environment. She began to seriously question how anyone could teach in such a stressful situation, wondered why she hadn’t been prepared for such an environment in her teacher education program, and was considering just going back home and searching for a teaching position again somewhere where she at least understood the lay of the land.

 

David asked his class and Professor Adams how they might be better prepared to make major cultural transitions such as this.

 

Schools, in particular, are cultural crossroads in a society where distinct but overlapping student, teacher, parent, community, and school cultures intersect. This chapter examines what occurs when people from different cultures come together, as they increasingly do in pluralistic societies. We then take an in-depth look at a culture-general model for understanding intercultural interactions. We introduce an intercultural perspective, which draws from the work of cross-cultural psychologists and trainers who, more than any other group of scholars and practitioners, have been developing practical strategies to help people understand and navigate the oftentimes ambiguous and stressful waters of intercultural transition and interaction. Finally, we present this model in action and provide opportunities for you to apply this model to the analysis of some common cross-cultural situations found in school settings.

 

Schools and Classrooms: Where Cultures Intersect

 

Within the important limitations of economic circumstance, most people choose the neighborhoods they live in, the places they work and shop, and where they spend their leisure time. In schools, however, as nowhere else in American society, people of many different backgrounds are forced to come together in close quarters for significant periods of time. In this section, we first examine the various cultures (student, teacher, parent, and school) that come together in the context of the school. Second, we examine the role of the teacher as a cultural mediator who is responsible for developing a cooperative learning community within this complex and potentially chaotic setting.

 

Page 120

 

Student Culture

 

Students make up by far the largest percentage of people in a school community. Roughly 50.8 million students were enrolled in public schools in the year 2019, with an additional 5.8 million attending private institutions (NCES, 2019). In addition to those students in domestic schools, an increasing number of students are attending schools outside of their home country or receiving an internationally focused education in international schools. Although there are approximately 6,000 such international schools around the world today that serve approximately 3 million students, this number is expected to have increased to more than 10,000 schools by the year 2020 serving more than 5 million students (Hallgarten, Tabberer, and McCarthy, 2015). Perhaps more than most social groups, as discussed in Chapter 1, students represent and exhibit the greatest diversity in American society. Of the 50.8 million public school students in pre-K through grade 12 in the fall of 2019, 23.7 million were of European American descent, down from 24.6 million in 2016. The remaining 27.1 million included 7.7 million African American students, 13.9 million Latino/a students, 2.9 million Asian/Pacific Islander students, 0.5 million American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 2.1 million students of two or more races (NCES, 2019). The percentage of students enrolled in public schools who are European American is projected to continue to decline as the enrollments of Latino/a, Asian/Pacific Islander, and mixed-race students increase. Add to this the alarming increase of homeless children in public schools that during the 2016–17 school year numbered more than 1.3 million. Like the experience of many minority students, homeless students experience significant academic, social, and socioemotional challenges. Homeless youth, for instance, are ill four times as often as other children; experience three times the rate of emotional and behavioral problems; are four times as likely to show developmental delays; are twice as likely to exhibit learning disabilities; and 83% of homeless youth are exposed to at least one serious violent incident (NEAHCY, 2017). Not only do students reflect the cultural identities of their families (ethnicity, religion, social class, etc.), they also define themselves by creating their own particular in-school groups.

 

It is a cultural universal that all people categorize others into one of two major divisions: those with whom they identify and wish to spend their time (called ingroups), and those with whom they may interact in the workplace or hallways yet keep a respectable distance from (known as outgroups). Ingroup formation in school can be based on many different criteria, from the more potent cultural identities already discussed (e.g., ethnicity, race, religion, gender) to the relatively fluid but no less important unifying features of academic groups (e.g., biology club, French club), special interest or skill groups (e.g., choir, football), or groups that are, from the point of view of most adults, less desirable but nonetheless purposeful, such as gangs. Stop for a moment and think of the many varied student cultures that can be found in schools, some to which you belonged and some which you may have even shunned. Typically, individual students gain a certain school identity from participation in these groups. These microcultures within the school operate in ways similar to the macroculture outside it. Individuals learn appropriate rules of interaction, modes of communication, expression of values, and so forth. And as with larger groups such as nation-states, membership in these in-school microcultures (gangs, chess club, choir) often brings exclusion from other microcultures (other gangs, sports teams, band).

 

Page 121

 

Teacher Culture

 

Teachers make up the other dominant social group within the school community, with approximately 3.2 million teaching in public schools and another 500,000 in private institutions (NCES, 2019). And just as the presence of international schools worldwide will continue to grow, the number of teachers in these schools is also expected to increase, from the current number of about 300,000 to the anticipated need for up to half a million teachers by 2020 (Hallgarten, Haberer, and McCarthy, 2015). An increasing number of teachers are finding employment in these international schools—either for their entire career or for a short-term experience. But unlike the diversity found within the student population, teachers regardless of where in the world they are found are a relatively homogeneous group. Indeed, a disturbing reality, given the increasing diversity of students in public schools, is the relative cultural homogeneity of the teaching force. In the United States, about 82% of the teaching force are European American and three fourths are female. Despite long-standing efforts to recruit underrepresented groups into the teaching profession, it is projected that well into this century the majority of new teachers will continue to be female and white. This statistic is not surprising. Teachers in the United States have always been mostly female and white, at least since the early part of the 19th century. However, this statistic raises interesting issues about the cultural and economic backgrounds of teachers in contrast to that of students.

 

The fact that a large proportion of our teachers are female is related to the power structure of schools. Teachers have a good deal of authority in their classrooms, but it is not true that they have much authority in the schools. For example, teachers are just beginning to have something to say about school policy or about the curriculum they are expected to teach. Reasons for this lack of authority may vary, but an important one has to do with the way in which large numbers of women entered the teaching profession in the 1830s and 1840s. Prior to that time, the person behind the schoolroom desk was a schoolmaster, a man. However, after about 1830, the growth of industry began providing more and more lucrative jobs for men, leaving teaching vacancies in the classroom. At the same time, the common school movement was evolving across the United States, opening up additional teaching positions. Conveniently, it was determined that women, who were “natural mothers” and therefore possessed the knowledge, skills, and talents needed to deal with young children, must also be “natural teachers.” The elementary school was projected as an extension of the home and the teacher an extension of the mother. The fact that women would work for about one third the wages paid to male teachers was also a significant factor in their employment in American schools.

 

Given the history of their entry into the profession, female teachers have never had the status that male teachers once had. Unfortunately for all teachers, the low status of women teachers has become associated with teachers more generally. Although the number of female principals, particularly in elementary schools, has increased over time, it is still the case that administrators, who have greater authority, higher pay, and higher status, still tend to be mostly European American men. Thus, in our society, schools have become organized in such a way that leadership and policy are very often the exclusive province of white, male administrators.

 

Page 122

 

Parent Culture

 

It is increasingly recognized that parents play a critical role in the academic success of their own children as well as in building a sense of community within the school. Yet it may sometimes be difficult to encourage all families to be active participants in the classroom. New immigrant and refugee families may come from cultures where the status of the school was such that parents had little say, or were actively discouraged from contributing and participating in school life, leaving all decisions and actions to the “professionals” in charge. Language facility may be another barrier that keeps many parents from contributing fully in school life. Sometimes socioeconomic and perceived status differences may discourage parents from feeling welcomed in the school. Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (Lightfoot, n.d.) has been quoted as saying, “For those parents from lower-class and minority communities [who] have had minimal experience in negotiating dominant, external institutions or have had negative and hostile contact with social service agencies, their initial approaches to the school are often overwhelming and difficult. Not only does the school feel like an alien environment with incomprehensible norms and structures, but the families often do not feel entitled to make demands or force disagreements.” Effective teachers and other school officials then must seek ways to invite and otherwise encourage participation from a wide range of families who may not have much direct exposure and experience in schools. This may include such things as meeting in various community centers, sending communications home to families in multiple languages, employing bilingual teachers and other staff, and having translators available for parent-teacher conferences.

 

Comstock Images/Alamy Stock Photo

 

School Culture

 

Both schools and the teachers who inhabit them are, to a large extent, culture-bound, and the culture most are bound to is the dominant culture of European American, middle-class society. This, however, is only one of the many culture groups in the United States. One purpose of public schooling has always been to transmit the cultural beliefs, values, and knowledge affiliated with the dominant group to those in the next generation. The danger, of course, is the ethnocentric tendency of most people, teachers included, to believe that their own cultural tradition represents the “best” way. Too often, the perception of both power and virtue combine to lessen the chance that white, middle-class teachers will make a real effort to understand the cultural differences that direct the lives of many of their students. At best, many of these teachers are predisposed to regard diversity as interesting; at worst, they are likely to regard it as a deficit. Teachers seldom come to their classes with the notion that diversity is an exciting and enriching phenomenon. Lightfoot (1989) described many good teachers as wishing that the diversity they see in September will somehow fade away as the class becomes a cohesive group.

 

Page 123

 

Teachers as Cultural Mediators

 

The cultural interplay between teachers, students, parents, and their school produces a context within which significant culture learning can occur. In a sense, teachers must become cultural mediators in their classrooms and must walk both sides of a double-edged sword. Teachers must become more knowledgeable about the role of culture in teaching and learning while becoming better able to address the educational needs of students and families from a variety of backgrounds. At the same time, teachers must turn this knowledge and skill into content that actively engages students in learning about and more effectively accommodating cultural differences. Students need to learn how culture is formed and how to understand and handle the many intercultural interactions they are certain to encounter.

 

Throughout this process, it is imperative that teachers and students understand that a certain amount of adjustment and discomfort may occur. It is useful to remember that when we as individuals are confronted by someone who looks, behaves, or thinks differently from ourselves, we suddenly become aware that our way of doing things may not be the only one. Such a confrontation often affects us at an emotional level—we may feel anxiety, uncertainty, and discomfort. Lacking a vocabulary to describe most cross-cultural differences and wishing to avoid discomfort, people may choose to avoid further interaction with those who are different from them. Such avoidance behavior perpetuates the cycle of discomfort, mistrust, and ignorance and confounds our efforts to improve intergroup relations.

 

These same feelings often characterize teachers whose students are different from them and perhaps different, as well, from the value and behavior norms of the school. From the school’s point of view, such students are often perceived as having deficits that need to be overcome through some type of remedial action. Sadly, such actions are often punitive to students, involving exclusionary practices such as tracking and negative labeling (e.g., at-risk students, learning disabled students). Because most of us do not have a wide variety of experience with cultural patterns other than our own, deliberate instruction in culture, including acquiring a vocabulary in order to talk about its patterns, its substance, and its behavioral results, is one way to create a dialogue concerning differences. Such strategies help us truly understand ourselves and others.

 

Cross-Cultural Adaptation

 

It would be easy for teachers to give in to discouragement and try to find a school where the students were like them. The reality, however, is that such schools do not exist in today’s world. Like Melinda in our case study, teachers will have to adjust to the fact that they will continue to find themselves in significantly diverse settings.

 

Early studies of cross-cultural transitions suggested that people experience a predictable pattern of adjustment when undergoing significant, long-term encounters in new cultural settings (Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960; Trifonovitch, 1977). These early models, although brought into question in recent years (Ward et al., 1998), presented a visual representation that plots people’s experiences on a graph, with emotional experiences along the vertical axis and time across the horizontal axis. The resulting image appeared as a U, hence this process of adjustment to living and working in another culture, often referred to as the “U-curve hypothesis”, was meant to characterize the experience of what is commonly referred to as culture shock.

 

A term that is more accurate and useful than culture shock—transition stress—captures the variety of ways that individuals may experience the challenges that accompany major transitions. Within the course of a day, a week, or a month, for instance, an individual in a new setting may experience transition stress as a result of many things: changes that occur in his or her identity and/or role; confusing or misunderstood communication styles and interactions; the energy required to learn new ways; coping with the fact that one’s normal behavior does not produce the expected results; the perception of being judged or stereotyped by others; the need to build new relationships; as well as managing the sheer emotional complexity of going through many of these simultaneously (Berardo, 2012).

 

Page 124

 

Early in an intercultural experience, for instance, people may be eager and enthusiastic, as Melinda was in the case study. However, these same people can, at the same time, be anxious and uncertain, encountering an array of emotions from anxiety, uncertainty, and ambiguity, to excitement and enthusiasm—in other words, a range of situations and contexts that may bring on stress. The list of possible reactions to transition and intercultural interaction can go on and on, and will vary depending on the role of the individual (e.g., teacher, student, business professional, tourist), as well as the location (e.g., encountering domestic diversity within one’s own country; interacting overseas in a culture relatively similar to one’s own; interacting with people from a culture vastly different from one’s own).

 

There are many examples of similar transition stress in the psychological literature (e.g., newlyweds, retirees). Beginning teachers and new students moving into the culture of a particular school face a double challenge. Teachers new to the profession must simultaneously adapt to the culture of the surrounding community and to that of the teaching profession, which, of course, has a culture of its own. In the school context, new teachers must integrate themselves into the norms and attitudes of both a well-established teaching staff and their students, who bring with them the norms of their own communities. After some time, new teachers, like arrivals in any new culture, may become so frustrated by their inability to make sense of their new world that they begin to react in an aggressive, regressive, and perhaps hostile manner. At the same time, new students must also adjust not only to the school culture, which may be very different from their home and neighborhood cultures, but also to the behavioral and academic expectations of schooling and to the many possible student microcultures within the school. If their school experience is too stressful and anxiety-provoking, students can become so frustrated that they may give up, act up, or drop out.

 

At this point, the individual must make a critical choice: remain, and learn how to function effectively within the new setting; or allow the frustrations to build, and eventually retreat from the unpleasant situation. Those individuals most likely to succeed in their new setting begin to confront their new cultural environment. They learn to cope with embarrassment, disappointment, frustration, anxiety, and identity problems at first, and then begin the process of culture learning by focusing on the subjective culture of the new environment.

 

Eventually, people who succeed in altering their own cultural identity to include the new experience are able to interpret the world and interact with others both from their own perspective and from the perspective of that which had been alien to them before. A major change occurs in an individual’s ability to process information and to understand the world in ways similar to those in the other group. The individual now shows indications of becoming more genuinely appreciative of differences because the world now seems reasonable and acceptable from more than one point of view. This is the point where one begins to become bicultural or intercultural.

 

Most individuals require a significant amount of time before they can develop the in-depth understanding that is required for them to live and work effectively and comfortably with people from other cultural backgrounds. Some researchers suggest that this period may be as long as 2 years—and that with the individual experiencing full immersion and speaking the local language.

 

Page 125

 

A related experience is often encountered by bilingual learners whose primary language is not English (see Chapter 8). Such children often encounter two levels of linguistic adjustment (Cummins, 1979). On one level, children may acquire Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) relatively quickly and within 2 or 3 years appear to be quite fluent—on a surface, or objective, level. That is, non-English speakers may quickly be able to communicate effectively with other children on the playground, during their free time, and during informal interactions in the classroom. Yet when these children are given standardized tests of educational achievement, they do not do as well—a secondary, deeper level of linguistic competence is at play. Students may need between 5 and 7 years to attain Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)—the level of linguistic competence in a second language that is typically required in schools. Clearly, if acquiring a cultural identity through primary socialization requires full immersion in a culture over a long period of time, it stands to reason that reshaping a cultural outlook as a result of secondary socialization will also take considerable time.

 

In Chapter 3, Figure 3.4 provided a visual overview of how the various sources of cultural identity are acquired by individuals through interaction with the many socializing agents they encounter. Although the sources of cultural identity (e.g., race, language, sexuality) are universal and appear in all societies, the socializing agents (family, school, media, and so forth) that transmit them vary considerably from one society to another. In most industrialized societies, a wide variety of socializing agents bombard people daily, often with contradictory messages. In agriculturally oriented societies, on the other hand, a few primary socializing agents (e.g., family and gender group) may share the bulk of the culture-transmission process. The result is that individuals with different cultural patterns develop very different worldviews.

 

Acculturation and Identity

 

Extended intercultural contact can have a significant impact on individuals as well as groups. Acculturation refers to the changes that take place as a result of continuous firsthand contact between individuals of different cultures (Berry, 1990, 2004; Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Such contact not only produces changes in people’s attitudes, values, and behaviors, but may also significantly affect their cultural identity. At least theoretically, long-term contact between people of different backgrounds should impact both the individual experiencing the transition and the larger host or receiving culture. Historical as well as present-day experiences of different groups, however, may determine, to a great extent, the outcome. For instance, immigrants and refugees who enter a new culture with long-standing, distinctive cultural norms may have very different experiences from members of established ethnic minority groups (Ward, Bochner, & Furnam, 2001). Newcomers, for example, may have come from relatively homogeneous countries such as Japan, where cultural identity is rarely challenged, and may have had no experiences with the new host culture. Under such conditions, the pressures for cultural change are often intense, immediate, and enduring. For successive generations, the pressures may take on a different form as the groups evolve into established ethnic communities.

 

Page 126

 

John Berry (1990) addressed two issues that are at play when differentiating among acculturating groups. Comparing the degree of mobility and the degree of choice (or voluntariness of contact), he identified four distinct groups of interest to educators: (1) those people with a high degree of mobility and who voluntarily made the contact are referred to as immigrants (relatively permanent) or sojourners (temporary visitors like travelers or students who are studying abroad in another country); (2) those with a high degree of mobility who may have little or no choice related to their contact, like those fleeing the recent conflict in Syria or other war-torn regions, are considered refugees; (3) those with a low degree of mobility but a high degree of voluntary contact with others are known as ethnic groups; and (4) those with a low degree of mobility and a low degree of voluntary contact reflect the native people, or indigenous people, of a nation (see Figure 4.1). Members of each of these groups can have distinct needs and experiences within the school community.

 

Figure 4.1 Acculturating Group Types

 

People also differ in the degree to which they wish to retain or are willing to change their cultural identity. Here, people’s acculturation attitude can be determined by their responses to two distinct questions: “Is it of value to me to maintain my own cultural identity and characteristics?” and “Is it of value to me to maintain relationships with other groups?” As shown in Figure 4.2, four distinct outcomes are possible in response to these questions. In integration, people maintain relationships with other groups while at the same time maintaining their own cultural identity and characteristics. Such people retain their own unique cultural identity while functioning fairly well within a mainstream culture. They can, in a sense, walk in two worlds and are well on the way to being bicultural. American Jews are often cited as an example of a well-integrated group in U.S. society; there are many well-established Jewish agencies, educational offerings, and community organizations that people can interact with while they maintain relatively positive interactions and involvement within the mainstream.

 

Figure 4.2 Acculturation Strategies of Ethnocultural Groups

 

In assimilation, people maintain relationships with other groups but generally do not consider it of value to maintain their own cultural identity. An assimilation decision that is freely chosen is often referred to as the “melting pot.” However, when assimilation is forced, a situation more akin to a pressure cooker might develop. Although American society has often, but somewhat inaccurately, been referred to as a melting pot, some people contend that significant social and cultural barriers prevent many people from achieving assimilation and that many people simply do not wish to give up their heritage in favor of a mainstream culture. The pot, as was mentioned in Chapter 2, never melted.

 

In situations where people value their own cultural identity but do not value relationships with other groups, two possible outcomes exist. When the situation is by choice for both groups, it is referred to as separation. When such a scenario is forced on one group by another, more dominant group, the situation is called segregation, as was prominent in the American South in the first half of the 20th century or under apartheid in South Africa until 1994.

 

Finally, a unique situation occurs when people do not value their own identity nor do they value relationships with other groups. In such a scenario, marginalization may occur, and individuals may experience extreme cases of ethnocide or deculturation.

 

Members of each of these four groups have distinct needs, experiences, and expectations of the school community. It is possible to observe each of the four acculturation attitudes within a given family unit. Imagine a family of four from a small village in Guatemala who recently immigrated to the United States. The father may lean toward integration for job prospects. He may work hard to learn English so he can fit in at work yet may still remain quite active with local Guatemalan/Latino community affairs. The mother, unable to enter the host society, may work hard to retain her Spanish language and her local social interactions. She then becomes a separatist. Hearing the Spanish language at home and eating Guatemalan food all the time may bother the teenage daughter. She may prefer assimilation, so she works hard to speak only English and to blend in through school activities. The brother, on the other hand, may not want to accept his Guatemalan heritage but may be rejected by his classmates. He may retreat and thus become marginalized.

 

Themes From Cross-Cultural Psychology

 

The fields of cross-cultural psychology and intercultural training offer teachers the following set of themes or principles that can be used to study intercultural interactions in the classroom (Pederson, 1988).

 

Page 128

 

People tend to communicate their cultural identity to others in the broadest possible terms. For instance, on meeting someone for the first time, you may communicate many different things about yourself—your age, nationality, ethnic group, religious affiliation, where you grew up, and the nature of your family. At other times, you may describe your status at work or in the community, your health, your social class, or the way you have come to understand your gender. Each of these sources of cultural identity carries with it associated rules for behavior. When offering such information to new acquaintances, we give them cultural clues regarding what to expect from us and how to interact with us. Multiple “cultures” influence us at various times, so every one of us may be considered multicultural.

 

We are all multicultural, and our cultural identity is dynamic and always changing. As our environmental circumstances and group associations change, we adapt our cultural identity and behavior accordingly. For example, in certain circumstances our gender-related knowledge and beliefs may be predominant; at another time our religious beliefs may stand out; and at still another, our ethnicity may be most important. Thus, our multicultural nature leads to behavior variations that are sometimes difficult to understand and appreciate.

 

Identifying patterns in people’s behavior helps to demystify culture. Culture helps individuals make sense of their world and thereby to develop routinized behavioral patterns to fit different contexts and circumstances. Common phrases such as the “culture of the organization,” the “culture of the community,” or the “culture of the society” refer to the fact that culture is not simply patterned for an individual but also for a setting, a community, or a society as a whole. When viewed from the outside, these patterns can appear quite complicated and difficult to understand. Yet each of us moves quite easily among the cultural patterns with which we are familiar. When confronted by someone whose behavior is not familiar, it is the responsibility of the outsider to listen, to observe, and to inquire closely enough so that the patterns of that person (or social group or society) become evident and understandable. To do so decreases the possibility of misunderstanding and conflict and increases the likelihood of acquiring new and useful understanding and appreciation.

 

Understanding cultural complexity can be a resource. In this case, complexity can be an asset. The more knowledge and experience we have with other groups, the more sophisticated we can be in our interpretation of events. The more complex our thinking is, the more lenses or insights we can bring to help understand a given situation. Culturally different encounters help prepare us to deal more effectively with the complexity that is increasingly a part of our lives. In short, the number of cultural variables we learn to accommodate will determine our ability to navigate within a fast-moving, ever-changing society.

 

Use your knowledge of culture to better understand people’s behavior. Observable behavior cannot be understood apart from the context in which it occurs. Seen outside its context, another’s “different” behavior can, at best, seem meaningless and, at worst, be profoundly misinterpreted. Contextual inquiry enables us to be more accurate in our judgments of others. Consider this real-life example of an 11-year-old boy shared with one of the authors. This child would become rowdy and disruptive in the classroom every day about 2:00 in the afternoon. Inevitably, the teacher sent the child to the office, his mother was called, and she was asked to come take him home. Defined in terms of the middle-class cultural context of the school, this child was definitely a troubled child, and he was so labeled by nearly all the adults in the building. Eventually, however, an astute counselor recognized a pattern and did some inquiry. It turned out that the mother’s boyfriend would come home every day about 2:45, often quite drunk and abusive. In his rage, the boyfriend frequently abused the mother. The boy, quite accurately understanding the cultural pattern of the school, figured out that his misbehavior would result in his being sent home and that if he was sent home by 2:30, he would arrive before the boyfriend did and thus be able to protect his mother. Suddenly this so-called troubled boy’s behavior makes sense, and he becomes something of a hero because he had found a way to protect his vulnerable mother. Without full knowledge of the context, behavior is often meaningless or badly misinterpreted. Culture, thus, provides a context from which to view and judge others.

 

Learn to see both the cultural similarities and the differences between people. In a sense, we must strive to be bifocal. While it is the differences that tend to stand out and separate people, it is precisely in our similarities where common ground, or a common meeting point, can be found. An intercultural perspective permits disagreement without anyone necessarily being accused of being wrong. If culture in all its complexity is understood as an individual’s attempt to navigate the river of life, then cultural differences can be understood simply as pragmatic acts of navigation and judged accordingly. In this view, cultural differences become tolerable and the “we-they” or “us-them” debate is avoided. There are no winners and losers. We are all in this together. Either we all win—or we all lose. The International Baccalaureate® (IB), for instance, in its mission statement states that it aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people who help create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect. To this end the organization works with schools, governments, and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment. These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate, lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right. More about the IB and other global or international initiatives can be found in Chapter 7.

 

Page 129

 

A Model of Intercultural Interaction

 

Researchers in the field of cross-cultural psychology have developed a variety of methods that can be used to analyze, understand, and improve intercultural interactions. Cushner and Brislin (1996) developed a framework for understanding the dynamics of any intercultural encounter between individuals with different cultural patterns. The approach is grounded in the recognition that people have similar reactions to their intercultural encounters regardless of the setting or the person they are interacting with, the role they adopt, or their own cultural background. Research suggests that because various stages or phases are experienced universally, they can serve as the basis of an analytical model that anyone participating in an unfamiliar intercultural encounter can use to better understand and anticipate the cultural nuances they might encounter (see Figure 4.3). Although most people assess informally, using whatever bits and pieces of relevant experience they may have, employing a general model provides a more systematic and effective means of assessment.

 

Page 130

 

Figure 4.3 Stages of Intercultural Encounters

 

Because this model is culture general in nature, its usefulness lies in its adaptability to a broad range of intercultural encounters. This captures the experience of cultural differences from a variety of perspectives (emotional, informational, and developmental), while offering frameworks within which specific problem situations can be addressed. However, it does not go beyond its diagnostic purpose. That is, the model does not offer prescriptive courses of action for dealing with difference. Such approaches are not only impossible, they are unethical given the complex realities of today’s classroom. It is the individual student or teacher, empowered with cross-cultural knowledge, who must inquire into the causes and then propose solutions to the specific problems and issues that arise. The discussion that follows provides an examination of each stage in the culture-general framework and describes 18 culture general themes encompassed by this model. The critical incidents, or scenarios, found later in the chapter will give you an opportunity to apply this framework.

 

Stage 1: Understanding Emotional Responses in Intercultural Interaction

 

In any intercultural encounter, people’s emotions are quickly aroused when they meet with unpredictable behavior on the part of others or when their own behavior does not bring about an expected response. The nature and strength of these emotional reactions quite often surprise the people involved, especially in the case of students who do not anticipate the differences between their own cultural patterns and those of the school. Strong emotions can also be experienced by teachers, like Melinda in the case study, who find themselves in a school or classroom context that is significantly different from what they expect. Recognizing and accommodating the strong emotional responses that people are certain to have when they become involved in intercultural interactions are critical to successfully negotiating those interactions. Figure 4.4 identifies the emotional responses most commonly experienced by persons confronting an unfamiliar culture. A brief description of these responses follows.

 

Page 131

 

Figure 4.4 Emotional Responses in Intercultural Interaction

 

Anxiety

 

As individuals interacting with greater frequency with those different from themselves, they are likely to become anxious about whether their own behavior is appropriate. Children and teachers in new schools, individuals in new jobs, and families in new communities will all experience some degree of anxiety as they attempt to modify their own behavior to fit new circumstances. Such feelings may be powerful, while their cause, if it is due to cultural differences, may initially be unidentified. Feelings of anxiety may result in a strong desire to avoid the situation altogether, and individuals sometimes go to great lengths to do so, all the while rationalizing their avoidance behavior on other grounds. Such a response should be avoided as this does not serve to improve one’s understanding nor the relationship.

 

Ambiguity

 

When interacting with those who are culturally different, people may often receive messages that are not quite clear—yet they must make decisions and somehow produce appropriate behavior. Most people, when faced with an ambiguous situation, try to resolve it by applying culturally familiar criteria. For example, it is quite common, when giving instruction to individuals who are just beginning to speak English to ask them if they understand what has just been said. In an attempt not to seem ignorant or impolite people will often respond in the affirmative but then act in ways that suggest they do not fully understand. Because the new intercultural situation may not fit familiar criteria, this strategy is often ineffective.

 

The uncertainty of ambiguous situations may be the most critical element in the development of anxiety and is one of the more important factors in intercultural misunderstandings. People who are effective at working across cultures are known to have a high tolerance for ambiguity. That is, in situations where they do not have full understanding of what is going on, they can tolerate a certain degree of uncertainty and discomfort, are skilled at asking appropriate questions, and are able to modify their behavior accordingly.

 

Disconfirmed Expectations

 

Individuals may become upset or uncomfortable not because of the specific circumstances they encounter but because the situation differs from what they expected. Despite the recognition that differences are all around, people have a tendency to expect others to think and behave in ways similar to themselves. Thus, when involved in intercultural interactions, most people are surprised and disconcerted when others do not respond in expected ways. For example, a child may consistently look at the floor when being spoken to by an adult rather than looking the adult in the eye. This reaction sets up a cycle in which unexpected behavior is attributed both negatively and inaccurately according to preconceived notions of what is right, or correct (this student is thus perceived as not paying attention and judged as being disrespectful). Further actions, such as the student being scolded for showing disrespect based on such negative or inaccurate attributions, also do not produce the intended result (the student continues to look at the floor). This situation is often very upsetting for all parties involved. For another example, teachers, especially new ones, want to succeed and do well in their classrooms. If the reality of the classroom does not meet the new teacher’s expectation, significant discomfort may result. Think back to Melinda’s initial expectations of her move to North Carolina and the reality she ultimately encountered.

 

Page 132

 

Belonging/Rejection

 

People have the need to fill a social niche, to feel that they belong and are at home in the social milieu in which they find themselves. When they are immersed in an intercultural situation this sense of belonging may be difficult to achieve because they do not know the rules of behavior in the new situation. Instead, people may feel rejected as outsiders, and when this sense of rejection is strong enough, they may become alienated from the situation altogether. Students, for example, who feel alienated from the classroom or school are more likely to become discipline problems and have difficulty paying attention to classroom work. Similarly, teachers who work with youngsters very different from themselves may feel alienated from their students and their students’ families, and may respond with undue exercise of power or with burnout.

 

Stock4B-RF/Getty Images

 

Confronting Personal Prejudices

 

Finally, a person involved in intercultural interactions may be forced to acknowledge that previously held beliefs about a certain group of people or certain kinds of behaviors may be inaccurate, inappropriate, or without foundation. Such a revelation may result in embarrassment or shame. It may also require a basic change in attitude and behavior toward others. For instance, it is not uncommon for young college students who grew up hearing from parents or other adults that certain groups of people were lazy or unintelligent to suddenly confront contradictory evidence when they encounter people from that group in their residence halls, classrooms, or the workplace. People confronting personal prejudices must decide to question their earlier beliefs and change their subsequent behavior, or maintain those beliefs even in light of their new information. Since change is difficult even in the best of circumstances, people often continue to harbor their prejudices even when faced with contradictory evidence. Making the cognitive shift can be very demanding, bu t it is essential. Similarly, it is also possible that people may experience being the target of prejudice exhibited by others for the first time and have to confront this new reality.

 

Page 133

 

Stage 2: Understanding the Cultural Basis of Unfamiliar Behavior

 

In addition to accommodating their feelings, the parties in an intercultural encounter need to understand the impact of the particular cultural influences that have shaped one another’s knowledge about the world. Individuals typically try to understand another person’s behavior according to their own cultural knowledge base. Put another way, since most people do not have extensive experiences with people who think and act differently from them, they tend to interpret another’s behavior in terms of their own cultural frames of reference. This tendency is the basis of ethnocentrism. In brief, people see what they expect to see, and with incomplete information or inaccurate knowledge, they may make inappropriate judgments about a given situation.

 

Consider the student referred to earlier who consistently looked at the floor when being spoken to by an adult. Some children from certain ethnic groups (e.g., some Mexican Americans, African Americans, or South Pacific Islanders) may be taught to demonstrate respect for elders or persons in authority by avoiding eye contact. Hence, a child who is being spoken to by an adult would avoid gazing into that person’s eyes. On the other hand, most European American children (who become the majority of teachers in the United States) are socialized to look a person of authority directly in the eye. Imagine the outcome of an interaction involving a Mexican American, African American, or South Pacific Island child being addressed by a European American teacher. The child, as she or he may have been taught, looks away from the gaze of the teacher, thereby from their perspective, demonstrating respect. The teacher, expecting eye contact as a sign of respect, may interpret the child’s behavior as “He is not listening to me” or “She does not respect me.” This incorrect judgment may result in a reprimand, in response to which the child attempts to show respect by continuing to look away. Without understanding the cultural basis for this behavior, future interactions between this particular teacher and student may be in serious jeopardy. Such incorrect judgments might also be what prompts the strong emotional responses discussed above.

 

The individual skilled in intercultural encounters learns to suspend judgment and seek alternative explanations of unexpected behavior rather than to simply interpret such behavior according to his or her own cultural framework. The question “Why is this behavior occurring?” precedes the question “What is the matter with this child?”

 

There are many aspects of cultural knowledge, each of which reaches the individual through a network of socializing agents (see Chapter 3). Regardless of the complexity of this socialization process, the resulting knowledge base functions to give us satisfactory explanations of our world and to tell us how best to interact with the people around us. Within this cultural knowledge base, however, the following kinds of knowledge are likely to differ across cultural patterns (see Figure 4.5).

 

Figure 4.5 Analyzing Unfamiliar Behavior

 

Communication and Language Use

 

Communication differences are among the most obvious issues that must be confronted when crossing cultural boundaries. Language issues exist whether the languages involved are completely different (e.g., Japanese, Kiswahili, English, American Sign Language), are similar in root but not in evolution (e.g., French, Italian, Spanish), or are variations or dialects of the same language (e.g., French, French-Canadian; English, Ebonics). In any case, it is not always easy to learn a second or third language, although it is increasingly becoming a necessity. In addition, nonverbal communication customs such as facial expressions, gestures, and so forth also may differ across cultures, so that what a particular gesture means to one person may be different from what it means to someone with another cultural pattern. The familiar head nod up and down that means “yes” to you may indicate “no” in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, and Greece.

 

Page 134

 

Values

 

The development of internalized values is one of the chief socialization goals in all societies. Values provide social cohesion among group members and are often codified into laws or rules for living; for example, the Ten Commandments for Christians and Jews, the five pillars of Islam, or the Hippocratic Oath for doctors. The range of possible values with respect to any particular issue is usually wide, deeply held, and often difficult to change. For example, in the dominant culture of the United States, belief in progress is highly valued and seemingly religious in character. A teacher holding that value may have a difficult time interacting with parents who seem not to value their daughter’s academic potential. The young woman’s parents may believe that she should assume the traditional role of wife and mother after high school rather than seek a college education. The teacher, on the other hand, may believe that the young woman should “look to the future” in another way, “change with the times,” and “make progress” for herself. These differences are not small and can be the cause of tremendous tension.

 

Rituals and Superstitions

 

All social groups develop rituals that help members meet the demands of everyday life. Such rituals vary in significance from rubbing a rabbit’s foot before a stressful event to the intricate format of an organized religious service. The difficulty, however, is that the rituals of one social group may be viewed as silly or superstitious by members of other social groups. Increasingly, children from a wide variety of religious and cultural backgrounds bring to school behaviors that are often misunderstood and labeled “superstition.” Traditional Native American spirituality, for example, often includes rituals involving the personification of natural objects such as trees, rocks, and animals. People who have been brought up with a scientific and technological mindset may view such personification as superstition.

 

Page 135

 

Situational Behavior

 

Knowing how to behave appropriately in a variety of settings and situations is important to all people. The rules for behavior at home, school, work, sporting events, and so forth are internalized at an early age and, of course, vary with the given context. Such rules can be easily broken by an individual who has internalized a different set of rules for the same setting or situation. A child, for example, who has learned that learning is best accomplished by quiet listening and intense observation is likely to run afoul of a teacher who believes that learning is best accomplished by active participation with others in class.

 

Roles

 

Knowledge of appropriate role behavior, like that of situational behavior, may vary from role to role and from group to group. How an individual behaves as a mother or father, for example, may be different from how that person behaves as a teacher. Similarly, the role of mother, father, or teacher may vary among sociocultural groups. Furthermore, role patterns change over time. For example, middle-class mothers now are increasingly also working mothers, which necessitates considerable alterations in the role of mother. Indeed, this change in middle-class motherhood brings it into closer correspondence with the pattern that has long been established by working-class mothers.

 

Social Status

 

All social groups make distinctions based on various markers of high and low status. Both social class and social status are the result of stratification systems whose role assignments may vary considerably from group to group. The role of grandmother, aunt, or other family member may be more flexible among some African American, Latino, or Asian cultures with these individuals assuming different responsibility and greater importance than it does in middle-class, European American society. Often the aunt of an African American child bears considerable responsibility for the well-being of that child. Middle-class, European American teachers who are unaware of this status and relationship may, when confronted by a proactive aunt, believe that the child’s mother is somehow shirking her responsibilities.

 

Time and Space

 

Differences in conceptions of time and space may also vary among social groups. In addition to differences in the divisions of time (e.g., a week, a crop harvest), groups vary in the degree to which time is valued. It is common for many European Americans, for example, to value punctuality because it is seen as an expression of respect. Because time is so highly valued, such people pay much attention to its use—time is seen as money, something to be spent or saved, or in some circumstances, to be wasted. Measures of time and their value may be much more elastic in some societies where work is less synchronized. Similarly, the ease and comfort of a person’s position in space vis-à-vis other people may vary. How close one person stands to another when speaking and the degree to which people should stand face-to-face with another are both subject to cultural variation.

 

Page 136

 

asiseeit/E+/Getty Images

 

Relationship to the Group Versus the Individual

 

All people sometimes act according to their individual interests and sometimes according to their group allegiances. The relative emphasis on group versus individual orientation varies from group to group and may significantly affect the choices a person makes. In the dominant culture of the United States, for instance, individualism is highly valued. Schools have traditionally reinforced this value through emphasis on “doing one’s own work,” the ability to “work independently,” and the recognition of “individual responsibility.” However, other social groups, such as the Japanese or some American ethnic groups, place much greater emphasis on collective behavior, group solidarity, and group helpfulness and well-being. These social groups often consider it wrong to stand out, to be independent, or to “rise above” the group. In a major study comparing national cultures on this dimension, the United States, Australia, and Great Britain stood out among the top nations on individualism (Hofstede, 1983). Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Indonesia, and Taiwan ranked among the highest on collectivism.

 

Stage 3: Making Adjustments and Reshaping Cultural Identity

 

Finally, as a result of prolonged intercultural interaction, individuals may experience personal change. That is, people may alter the way they perceive others and themselves, as well as how they process those perceptions. Typically, for example, individuals who have had significant intercultural experiences become more complex thinkers. This accomplishment is, of course, one of the central goals of multicultural or intercultural education because it enables people to handle more culturally complex stimuli, to be more accurate in their interpretations of others’ behavior, and thus to deal more effectively with the differences they encounter. As individuals continue to have intercultural experiences, they become less culture-bound and more understanding of how others perceive the world. Such individuals can now see from another’s point of view; they are more complex thinkers and can handle a greater variety of diverse information. They are also less likely to make inaccurate judgments or attributions because they are more likely to inquire into puzzling beliefs and behavior, thereby improving their understanding.

 

Page 137

 

Think back to the gaze-avoidance behavior in the interaction between the European American teacher and the Mexican American, African American, or South Pacific Island child. The interculturally knowledgeable teacher understands the meaning that underlies the child’s gaze-avoidance and more accurately judges the child to be listening and demonstrating respect. Although even people who have considerable intercultural experience may have limited knowledge of the content of a particular cultural knowledge base, they do know that all people process information in similar ways, and they are willing to investigate the outcomes of such processes. Several important ways of processing information are listed in Figure 4.6, each of which can be investigated by the participants in intercultural exchanges.

 

Figure 4.6 Ways of Processing Information

 

Categorization

 

Because people cannot attend to all the information presented to them, they create categories for organizing and responding to similar bits of information. Cultural stereotypes, for example, are categories usually associated with particular groups of people. People involved in intercultural interactions often categorize one another quickly according to whatever category systems they have learned. Examples of this kind of categorization might be old/young, rich/poor, native/foreigner, and typical/disabled. The context within which people categorize each other also influences the categorization process. Recall the earlier example of the boy who was sent home from school before the end of each day. From one perspective, the boy was categorized as a troublemaker. Once the context of the situation was better understood, the boy was seen as a hero, doing whatever he could to help protect his mother. Of particular importance is the fact that category systems and their meanings not only differ from group to group but also are rarely neutral in value. Thus, “placing” another person in a particular category may also “place” that person in a more or less valued position (e.g., many people place being learning disabled in a less valued position than not to be learning disabled).

 

Page 138

 

Differentiation

 

Information related to highly meaningful categories becomes more refined or differentiated. As a result, new categories may be formed. Such refinement or differentiation is usually shared only among people who have had many experiences in common (e.g., doctors) and thus may be unknown even to those whose background, apart from occupation, is similar. A good example of this process is the way in which people in Asia might differentiate rice. Because it is an extremely important part of their diet and thus their way of life, rice can be referred to by many different terms and can have many different uses. For most European Americans, rice is not as important, and thus fewer references are made to it. A school-based example of differentiation might be found in the manner in which students in a particular high school differentiate their peers into groups such as brains, nerds, jocks, and so on. Although a similar type of differentiation may occur in most high schools, the particular categories and their meaning may differ considerably from one school to the next.

 

Ingroups and Outgroups

 

People the world over divide others into those with whom they are comfortable and can discuss their concerns (ingroups) and those who are kept at a distance (outgroups). Based on initial categorization and differentiation as well as on continuing interaction, individuals may identify one another as potential members of their own ingroup or as members of an outgroup. People entering new cultural situations must recognize that they will often be considered members of an outgroup, will not share certain ingroup behavior and communication, and thus will be kept from participating in certain ingroup activities. A really good, if somewhat mundane, example of this process is the situation experienced by a substitute teacher who is, by definition, an outsider in the culture of the classroom and school.

 

Learning Style

 

Sometimes called cognitive style, learning style refers to a person’s preferred method of learning. Learning styles are partly the result of strengths and weaknesses in sensory perception (one’s hearing may be more acute than one’s vision, for example). However, cultural patterning may teach a child to attend to certain kinds of stimuli rather than others, as when children from collectivist societies learn better in cooperative groups. How (and what) an individual perceives, the categories into which that person places sensory stimuli, and whether that person prefers to learn through observation, listening, or action can all be based on cultural patterns. For example, some Native Hawaiian or Native American children, as they are growing up, learn from a variety of individuals, both adults and other children. Such children may also participate more in group learning; that is, they may learn and practice a skill with other children, not necessarily on their own. These children’s preferred learning style (the way in which they have learned how to learn) may be more group oriented than the learning style of the majority of their European American counterparts, who have a tendency to learn how to learn in a more individualistic manner. Such children may not achieve as well in a more traditionally oriented classroom as they might in a cooperative learning situation.

 

Page 139

 

Attribution

 

People not only perceive others according to familiar categories, they also make judgments about others based on the behavior they observe and its meaning in their own social milieu. People judge others, for example, to be competent or incompetent, educated or naive, well-intentioned or ill-intentioned. Psychologists call these judgments attributions and tell us that within about 7 seconds of meeting someone new, initial judgments are made. These initial “sizing-up” judgments, once made, are usually quite resistant to change. Human judgments, however, are fallible, and certain judgment errors occur repeatedly in human thought. One of these, called the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), describes the tendency people have to judge others on different sets of criteria than they apply to themselves, particularly with respect to shortcomings. Thus, if I fail at a given task, I am more likely to look to the situation for an explanation—it was too hot, someone else was unfair to me, the task was well beyond my capabilities. If I observe someone else fail at a task, I am more likely to explain the failure in terms of the other person’s traits—she is lazy, he is uneducated, she is uncaring. This tendency is even more prevalent when individuals with different cultural patterns interact because there is likely to be unfamiliar behavior in such situations. Given the speed with which people make judgments and the probable lack of intercultural understanding, attribution errors abound in intercultural situations. Couple this with the tendency people have to form categories (and thus, sometimes, negative stereotypes about people) and you can quite easily see how a very detrimental, complex situation can evolve.

 

Applying the Culture-General Model

 

At this point, you may appreciate the potential of the culture-general model but not know how it can be applied in your daily interactions. The main value of such a model is that it allows people to build a common, culture-related vocabulary that can be used to analyze intercultural interactions in a variety of contexts. That is, it provides a tool whereby people can more accurately judge the nature of the interactions in which they are reading about, witnessing, or participating.

 

We can apply this to the traditional model used to explain the communication process, for instance, to show how the attribution process may be operating in an intercultural dialogue between a teacher and student from different cultures. The following four diagrams illustrate this.

 

Page 140

 

In the traditional communication model (see Figure 4.7), Person A, the sender, has a message she/he wishes to communicate to Person B. The sender encodes the message in a form she/he believes the receiver, Person B, will understand. The channel refers to the medium in which the message is transmitted (e.g., print, spoken, electronic). Person B then decodes the message, hopefully attributing the same meaning that was intended by the sender.

 

Figure 4.7 Traditional Communication Model

 

In the traditional communication model, noise (see Figure 4.8) refers to interference that may occur in the interaction between the Sender and Receiver. Such noise can be a physical disruption like loud background noise; a physiological impairment, such as deafness; psychological interference, such as one’s emotional state that may distract her from focusing on the message; or cultural difference, such as using different languages or having different meanings attributed to words.

 

Figure 4.8 Traditional Communication Model (expanded)

 

The traditional communication model can be modified to explain the interaction that may occur between a teacher and student in an Intercultural Learning Arena model (see Figure 4.9). In this case, we understand that teacher A, socialized within her or his culture, perceives the world from her or his own culture’s perspective and orientation. The student, B, has similarly been socialized within her or his culture to view the world from her or his own perspective or cultural point of view. The channel, here, may be expanded to include the instructional approach used by the teacher, including both the verbal and the nonverbal language used.

 

Page 141

 

Figure 4.9 Intercultural Learning Arena Model

 

The noise in the Intercultural Learning Arena model (see Figure 4.10) can be expanded to include the subjective or silent messages both student and teacher may be making to themselves throughout their interaction or learning encounter. For example, the student may be wondering if the teacher may be prejudiced, if she or he truly understands and values their culture, or how their group or experience is portrayed in the curriculum. The teacher, likewise, may be wondering if her or his instruction is reaching the student, how she or he may develop effective rapport with the student, or how the teacher will know if the student has achieved the instructional objectives. This internal dialogue, which can also include the various attributions each is making about the other, is going on silently all the time within the minds of all participants in an intercultural instructional event as it is in any dialogue.

 

Figure 4.10 Intercultural Learning Arena Illustrating Possible Subjective or Silent Thoughts

 

The following discussion of Mexican Americans, paraphrased from Farris and Cooper’s book, Elementary Social Studies: A Whole Language Approach (1994), can be used to illustrate how the culture general framework can be applied to enhance one’s understanding of the cultural differences about a specific group. In the discussion, specific themes of the culture-general model are designated in italics. Following this discussion are a few cases for you to analyze.

 

Page 142

 

Although tremendous diversity exists within the Mexican American culture, some generalities about the traditional Mexican American experience can be made. To begin with, there is strong identification with the family, the community, and the ethnic group at large (belonging; relation to the group; ingroups and outgroups). The individual achievement readily encouraged in many European American children is not stressed. Rather, achievement for the child means achievement for the family (status; relation to the group; roles). Parental involvement in the education of Mexican American children is important for the children’s success. Because parents provide a positive support system, every attempt should be made to inform parents of their child’s progress. Sending work home as well as accepting items from the home in school helps strengthen the necessary home-school relationship (belonging; roles; values; learning styles).

 

Mexican American culture typically encourages cooperation rather than the competition that is more frequent in European American culture. As a result, many Mexican American children may find the typical reward structure of schools confusing and frustrating. Teachers may find greater success when motivation is applied to a group activity rather than for personal gain such as a letter grade (relation to the group; learning styles).

 

Mexican Americans also tend to be sensitive to the emotional needs of others. Strong interpersonal relationships should be expected. As such, teachers should encourage children to help one another (belonging; learning styles; relation to the group). Mexican American children are also more likely to use both verbal and nonverbal means to elicit a teacher’s attention. This may explain their reluctance to ask a teacher for help or to pose a question; their actual request may have been nonverbal (communication and language use; attribution).

 

The Mexican American humanistic orientation extends well beyond the nuclear family. Extended family actively includes primos, or cousins with the same last name but no blood relationship; tocayos, or namesakes, those with the same first name; cuñados, or brothers-in-law; cuñadas, or sisters-in-law; and the very important padrinos, or godparents, ahijados, or godchildren, and compadres, or natural parents to the godparents. All these individuals (and others) may play significant roles throughout the individual’s life (roles; ingroups and outgroups; relation to the group; belonging; categorization).

 

In such an extended family, status and role relationships are rigidly defined. Younger children defer to older children, and females often defer to males. Respect for parents is expected, regardless of one’s age. Sexual roles are well defined, with females having responsibility for the condition of the home and the raising of children. Males, having higher status, are primarily the wage earners (roles; class and status; categorization). There is also a strong obligation to the family. Teachers should keep these roles and obligations in mind when hearing that students have responsibilities such as caring for younger children after school or working in the family business (values; relation to the group; roles).

 

Finally, among Mexican American families there exists a strong orientation and identification with Mexican Catholic ideology. This powerful force reinforces their value system, many of their daily actions, and their respect for parents, family, and tradition (rituals and superstitions; values; belonging).

 

Identifying Commonalities Among Groups

 

In the brief example about Mexican American culture, at least 11 culture-general themes were evident; perhaps you have identified others. Used in this manner, the culture-general model can help both students and teachers find commonalities among the cultural differences they encounter. For example, some aspects of the Mexican American experience are similar to those in other ethnic experiences, and some are different. Or, like some of the experiences related in Chapter 3, students may be better able to understand the present plight of refugees and immigrants today when they compare them to what their own ancestors may have encountered when they first came to their new nation. Some may be similar to your own experience, and others will be different.

 

Page 143

 

Viewed in the broadest terms possible, the goal of this model goes beyond simply negotiating intercultural interactions or adapting one’s teaching to accommodate culturally diverse learning styles. Its search for commonalities among people of all cultures offers the possibility that all individuals in a pluralistic society will feel sufficiently similar that they can confront differences. In short, awareness of similarities—kinship feelings, for example—can motivate people to learn about and appreciate differences. This model offers a way to go beyond tolerance, which often means “letting people alone,” to begin to build a truly intercultural society.

 

Identifying Differences Within a Group

 

The Mexican American discussion presented in this chapter has at least two dimensions in which the cultural-general model is useful: (1) in building a common vocabulary around differences between groups, and (2) in using those concepts to analyze culture-specific information. The information about traditional Mexican American culture provided an example of using the model across ethnic/nationality boundaries—differences that are most commonly thought of as cultural differences—and of looking for commonalities among specific cultural ideas and practices. A third dimension of difference is also made more visible through the use of the culture-general model, and that is in identifying and analyzing differences within a specific cultural group. Such differences as social class, geographical location, sexual orientation, or religion, for example, are not always easy to “see” but may in fact be important differences in the way individuals perceive the world, interact with one another, and approach learning.

 

Questions raised by a consideration of these kinds of differences can lead to inquiry about, for instance, whether particular Mexican American children are Catholic, whether particular Mexican American children have learned to operate in a cooperative manner, or whether particular Mexican American children identify strongly with their extended families. Research has shown, for example, that some of these cultural attributes may diminish in successive generations of Mexican American families. Indeed, to automatically assume that such characteristics will occur in all children and adults of Mexican American descent is unwisely to stereotype all individuals who “belong” to a particular ethnic group, and to run a grave risk of misinterpreting observable behavior.

 

Critical Incidents at Wake Central High

 

The next step in understanding the culture-general model is to apply it in the analysis of some school-based intercultural encounters. Only by doing so is it possible to understand the degree to which culture influences teaching and learning in schools. This section examines the kinds of incidents that might occur in the fictitious Wake Central High School described in this chapter’s Case Study (see p. 118). You should realize, however, that the incidents reported here could easily occur in most schools in the United States.

 

Page 144

 

Go back to the Case Study and take a close look at Melinda’s induction year. Stop at this point and consider some of the culture-general themes that may be at play. It seems obvious that this situation is highly charged and emotional for many of the people involved. To begin with, Melinda must reconcile the reality of this situation with her early expectations. Thus, Melinda is clearly experiencing a case of disconfirmed expectations. Melinda must begin to understand the real situation and adjust her behavior according to what is, rather than to what she expected.

 

Melinda is also faced with a considerable amount of ambiguity in her new situation. Although she is enthusiastic about the challenge of an urban teaching experience, she is quite unprepared for its specific dimensions. Such a situation promises to elicit a high degree of uncertainty or ambiguity. Melinda is aware that certain actions are expected, but unsure of what those actions are or how to begin to learn them. At another level, Melinda is certainly experiencing a high degree of anxiety as she strives to integrate into the faculty of the school. Such ambiguity and anxiety, though common, must eventually be negotiated if Melinda is to be effective in her new setting. As Melinda begins to build closer relationships with other teachers and gain a better understanding of her students, her emotions will come under control and she can begin to feel as if she belongs in this setting.

 

Melinda’s situation represents only one of many interculturally complex and oftentimes ambiguous situations that might arise in such a diverse setting as Wake Central High. The Critical Incidents describe some other situations that could conceivably occur. Read each incident and consider responses to the questions that follow, or discuss these in small groups. You will find some discussion at the end of the Critical Incidents section.

 

Critical Incident

 

Andre’s Role Dilemma

 

Andre is a 23-year-old, first-year social studies teacher hired at the same time as Melinda. African American and from a middle-class background, Andre has always prided himself on knowing a lot about people at all socioeconomic levels and from many different ethnic groups. Andre began the year with the intent of relating especially well to the African American students. He intends to show them that he is really one of them and understands their needs.

 

While walking down the hall on his first day in school, Andre sees a group of young African American males standing near a wall of lockers. They are wearing typical casual clothes—low-slung pants, T-shirts, and sneakers. Andre is dressed in slacks, shirt, tie, and sport coat. Andre greets the group with a hearty “What’s happening, bro?” The students look at him and continue with their own conversation. Andre tries to strike up a conversation by asking about any good rap groups in the school, saying that he has done some “bad rappin’” himself. The boys eye him up and down, then slowly move on down the hall. Andre is puzzled, thinking that they would respond to his approach and would see him as a “brother.”

 

The next day, Andre sees the same group again and begins to approach them. Seeing him coming, one of the group steps forward and quite sarcastically says, “Hey, bro! You be down in Room 104 (the teachers’ lounge), not in my face!” Then the group walks away. Andre does not understand the group’s obvious hostility and rejection.

 

Why do you think the students rejected Andre’s attempts to be friendly?

 

What culture-general themes do you see operating in this scenario?

 

 

 

Page 145

 

Rosita’s Alientation Problem

 

Rosita Gomez had been in the United States for 2 months, arriving as an orphan from El Salvador, and sponsored by a European American, middle-class family. Before her arrival, her American parents went to Wake Central High School and provided the administrators and faculty with information about her situation. To make her adjustment easier, a number of teachers organized a group of students to act as sponsors for Rosita. The students were to teach her about the school and community and help her with transition problems as well as to offer friendship.

 

During these 2 months, the appointed students have indeed helped Rosita in school and have been friendly to her. They have encouraged her to become involved in student council and to attend after-school extra-help sessions whenever needed. Rosita, though, is often left out of students’ social activities such as parties, group movie dates, and volleyball games, and she thinks she is being treated as an outcast. She feels lonely and afraid and complains to her parents and school counselor about her feelings. Her complaints confuse the other students and teachers very much because they have tried hard to make Rosita feel at home.

 

How might you explain this situation?

 

What culture-general themes do you see operating here?

 

 

 

Joao’s Identity Crisis

 

Joao is a teenager from Providence, Rhode Island, who has been sent to live for 2 years with his aunt and uncle in North Carolina. This is the first time that Joao has been away from his immediate family, who immigrated from Brazil when he was a child. His family is strongly united and feels a deep pride in their Brazilian heritage. Joao had heard that Wake Central has a reputation as a place where students from different backgrounds get along well together, so he has not been worrying about being the only Brazilian in the student body. He has looked forward to attending his new school.

 

During Joao’s first week in school, he discovered that several members of the faculty viewed him as belonging to a group of students who spoke Spanish. A few teachers greeted him in Spanish, and one suggested that he join a club for mainly Central American students. Joao was surprised and resentful that these teachers just assumed he was Hispanic. During his second week, a teacher gave him a notice to take home to his uncle, and it, too, was in Spanish. Joao startled the teacher by breaking into tears and loudly protesting, “Please try to remember—I’m Brazilian. I speak Portugese not Spanish!”

 

How would you explain Joao’s reaction?

 

What culture-general themes may be operating here—from all perspectives?

 

 

 

Rema’s Classroom Concerns

 

Rema is a 16-year-old girl from Syria who came to the United States as one of just a few Syrian refugees. She was fortunate to have family already living in the country who eagerly welcomed her. Although she still has some difficulties in speaking and writing English, her language skills are sufficient for her to be academically successful in Wake Central High. Midway through the 11th grade, Rema was achieving B’s and C’s in all her classes, including Andre’s social studies class.

 

Actually, social studies is Rema’s favorite subject, and Andre continually remarks to others on the breadth and depth of her reading. Rema reads voraciously and does not limit herself to that which is studied in class. She keeps up on international news and reads literature in two languages.

 

Andre is concerned, however, about Rema’s test scores. When the class takes a multiple-choice, true-false, or fill-in-the-blank test, Rema’s grades are usually among the highest. When the class is assigned an interpretive essay, however, Rema’s grade is always much lower. Andre has said many times, “Rema just never really gets to the point; she tries to talk about everything at once.” Despite repeated efforts to remedy this writing problem, Rema continues to write confusing analyses.

 

How might you best explain this situation?

 

What culture-general concepts do you see in this situation?

 

 

 

Lack of Communication With Kaye

 

Issues of communication affect dialogue among teachers as well. Kaye Stoddard is in the middle of her first year as assistant principal at Wake Central High. She is an energetic person who seeks out staff input concerning school policies and curriculum. She encourages staff participation through periodic surveys and group discussions at staff meetings. Lately, however, Kaye has been disturbed about the dearth of input she is receiving from the two Latino teachers. She is particularly interested in their ideas because so many of the school’s students are Latino. Although she has solicited feedback through weekly questionnaires in each teacher’s mailbox, most of her replies come from the European American teachers.

 

How might this situation be explained?

 

What culture-general concepts may be at play?

 

 

 

Discussion of Critical Incidents

 

Andre’s Role Dilemma

 

There are many possible explanations for Andre’s situation. First, the group may feel that Andre’s clothes are too different. They can’t relate to this different-looking adult (outgroup; categorization). Second, Andre’s use of Ebonics or Black English may be incorrect in this particular time and place and thus may label him in their eyes as a “phony”—someone who can’t be trusted (communication; outgroup). Third, it is possible that Andre came on too hard to these particular students and that he was seen as pushy and was rejected because of it (role; situational behavior; communication).

 

Page 147

 

Using the culture-general framework to analyze the situation suggests another possible explanation. The group may not accept Andre because they see him as an outsider regardless of his race or his language. Andre is still a teacher in the eyes of these students (role; status) and one that they do not yet know. Andre has been categorized by the students in a different way than he would categorize himself; that is, as an outgroup member rather than as the ingroup member he expected to be (disconfirmed expectations; categorization; ingroup versus outgroup).

 

It is important to differentiate the particular criteria that others use to form categories and thus the meaning attributed to those groups. Although Andre may have been fairly close to their age and talked their talk, he is still seen as an adult teacher, an authority figure who perhaps cannot be trusted, at least at the outset. As a teacher, he should not expect to be included as one of their group. Their response told him that he should be in Room 104, that he is a teacher and should act like one. New teachers are usually eager to be accepted by students. This desire is normal, especially because young teachers may not be far removed from the lives and concerns of high school students themselves. Given time, Andre can establish the rapport he wants, but he must do so in his role as a teacher.

 

Rosita’s Alienation Problem

 

It is possible that Rosita, having had a major transition in her life recently, is magnifying the situation. Perhaps the circumstances are such that she is experiencing what is commonly referred to as culture, or adjustment shock. However, culture shock is a very generalized term that refers to an overall reaction to a complex series of events; the term isn’t very useful when analyzing specific situations. There is something more specific going on here.

 

It is also possible that the students do not really like Rosita and are trying to have as little to do with her as possible. The appointed students may feel put upon by their teachers and are thus taking it out on Rosita. However, the students are having what appears to be extensive contact with Rosita in school. If they did not like her, they would probably forgo school contact as well.

 

Viewed through the culture-general model, it is possible that Rosita’s predicament can be understood in terms of ingroup and outgroup behavior. In every culture there exist ingroups, people who are comfortable with one another, share similar values and casual language, and seek each other’s company. Ingroups allow people to share their concerns, laugh and joke about problems as a way to reduce tensions, and generally just let their hair down. The students in this situation represent such an ingroup. Rosita has left her own ingroup behind in El Salvador and needs to reestablish herself as part of a new ingroup. The students, however, do not see Rosita as being part of their ingroup, at least not yet. She would not understand most of their jokes, does not share their intimate and extensive knowledge of other students and teachers, and could not easily enter into their conversation. The students thus do not invite Rosita to share in their social activities. Not belonging to an ingroup, Rosita feels like an outcast (belonging) and is missing the support system so needed during her difficult transition to a new culture.

 

Joao’s Identity Crisis

 

Many different issues may be at play in Joao’s situation. First, Joao might have felt some dislocation at being sent to live with his aunt and uncle in the first place. His sense of unity with his family in Providence was very strong, and it is reasonable to suppose that he missed them very much (belonging). Second, in Providence Joao had been attending schools where many other students were native Brazilians. The idea of going to school with students from other ethnic and cultural groups—but not Brazilian—although initially interesting, might also have been somewhat frightening (ingroup and outgroups). It is also possible that Joao’s parents had kept him under such tight discipline that he never learned much self-discipline. Thus, his first experience of living away from home may have been so demanding that he was unable to control himself.

 

Page 148

 

At another level, Joao was obviously upset about being identified as a member of a cultural group other than his own (categorization; values). Proud to be a native Brazilian and having shared this pride with other Brazilian students back in Providence, he couldn’t adjust to being viewed as a Spanish speaker from Mexico or Central America. In addition, he was used to teachers who recognized the Portuguese language and culture, and he was perhaps shocked to find teachers who did not (disconfirmed expectations).

 

The teachers meant to be helpful to Joao, of course. They no doubt thought he came from one of the Spanish-speaking countries because they needed to quickly fit him into one of the ethnic and cultural categories already familiar to them. Because the Portuguese language is similar enough to Spanish that Joao could understand the teachers when they addressed him in Spanish, they found it convenient to categorize him with the other Spanish-speaking students.

 

Rema’s Classroom Concerns

 

There are many ways to explain Rema’s writing performance. It is possible that she lacks the basic writing skills and vocabulary necessary to write lengthy compositions of this kind. However, her overall academic performance indicates that she is competent in English vocabulary and writing. Her problems with written expression are probably not due to technical deficiencies.

 

It is also possible that Rema has misunderstood or misinterpreted the main elements of the work she is studying. But having read works of equal breadth and depth on her own, it is unlikely that Rema is unable to analyze and appreciate what she is reading.

 

Alternatively, Rema may not be able to think clearly under the pressure of tests. However, she doesn’t seem to exhibit this problem in objective tests; she shows no particular “test anxiety.” So Rema’s problem seems to lie elsewhere.

 

Analyzed from the standpoint of cultural differences, however, it is possible that Middle Eastern and North American preferred learning modes, cognitive styles, and communication patterns are very different. In many cultures, communication is accomplished through associations. Everything that is associated with an idea is considered relevant when thinking about or communicating a concept. Such communication may seem highly indirect to a European American, who typically gets right to the point and reasons in a systematic, step-by-step fashion. In contrast, a Middle Easterner may make many loops while communicating a particular point. In short, when viewed in terms of her native Syrian culture, Rema’s highly associative compositions demonstrate both her knowledge of the subject and her overall intellectual ability. Once Rema and her teacher are aware of these culturally different writing styles, they can take some practical steps to improve the situation.

 

Lack of Communication With Kaye

 

One simple explanation for Kaye’s dilemma might be that the Latino teachers do not want to interact with Kaye because she is not Hispanic. However, there is no justification for this explanation. The entire school population is mixed, thereby making it difficult for the Latino teachers to limit their interactions with non-Latinos. Also, there is no indication that Kaye feels that she is the target of hostility.

 

Page 149

 

It is also possible that the European American teachers dominate the Latino teachers, giving them little chance to express their opinions. Again, however, there is no indication that domination is the problem. Nor is there any indication that the Latino teachers are indifferent concerning the subjects Kaye includes in the surveys and meetings. Like other professionals, most teachers have strong opinions about many issues in their workplace.

 

A more probable explanation can be found in culturally different communication styles. Kaye has taken an impersonal approach to eliciting opinions, whereas the Latino teachers may favor a more personalized approach. Latino culture strongly emphasizes the affective side of interpersonal relationships. Personalized contact is thus very important to many Latino/as. Although Kaye is genuinely interested in the opinions of all her teachers, she has approached them impersonally through her written surveys and large-group staff meetings. The Latino teachers might respond more easily if approached individually or addressed personally at a meeting. At the same time, many Latinos feel strong affiliation with the group (ingroup versus outgroup; individualism versus collectivism), and the Latino teachers might respond even more enthusiastically if they were asked for their ideas and opinions together in a small group.

 

Each of these Critical Incidents has explored several of the many possible cultural issues at work in diverse settings like Wake Central High School. They illustrate ways in which classrooms and schools function as cultural crossroads, as places where people with infinite variations of cultural knowledge, beliefs, values, and behavior meet and are forced to interact. In this chapter, we have presented a culture-general model that offers a language and concepts that provide a common framework for all such interactions, no matter what their variation. Perhaps you would like to analyze experiences you have had that might be understood in light of the culture-general model. See if you can think of some.

 

Part 2 of this book presents longer Case Studies in which teachers, students, administrators, parents, and others also experience various cross-cultural interactions in the context of evolving ideas of good practice in schools. Remember as you read on that there is never any “one best answer” to the issues that arise. Indeed, an understanding of the complexities of cultural diversity suggests that in many instances the idea of a single “best solution” is not only impossible but is also inimical to a culturally pluralistic environment. In short, teachers must learn to feel comfortable with, appreciate the possibilities of, and negotiate effectively in ambiguous situations.

 

Summary

 

In no other social setting in society does such a diverse gathering of people come together for a prolonged period of time than in the school. Thus, the potential for a wide range of intercultural interactions between students and teachers is great. This chapter introduced the 18-theme culture-general framework for understanding intercultural interactions between people, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, who they are interacting with, or the roles that they adopt. Such a framework provides an opportunity for people to better understand their emotional reactions to intercultural situations, the knowledge base that people bring with them as a result of being socialized within any given culture, and the manner in which people’s cultural identity may be reformed. Such a framework also provides a vocabulary and categories with which people can discuss cross-cultural issues with others.

 

Page 150

 

Key Terms

 

acculturation

 

assimilation

 

ethnic groups

 

immigrants

 

indigenous people

 

integration

 

marginalization

 

refugees

 

segregation

 

separation

 

sojourners

 

Observing Cultural Differences

 

Purpose: To apply the 18-theme culture-general framework to casual observations made during interactions with others.

 

Instructions: Make extended observations of yourself as well as others over the course of about a week. The focus of your observations should be on potential misunderstanding or miscommunication between people of different cultural backgrounds (remember that we define culture rather broadly). Record your observations as precisely as possible, identifying any and all of the culture-general themes that you believe apply. Finally, propose alternative explanations or attributions for the behavior you have observed from two (or more) perspectives. Use the following as a guide, but do not necessarily limit yourself to the space provided. You should make at least five different relevant observations. Make additional copies of this form if needed.

 

Example

 

Interaction as I Observed It Cultural-General Theme(s) Possible Attributions

 

Two girls, one Mexican and the other European American, discuss plans of what they will do Friday night. Mexican girl insists upon asking her parents’ permission before making commitment to her friend.

 

Family Roles

 

Individualism vs Collectivism

 

Collectivist orientation (tendency for Mexican). May require approval from others before taking action, whereas European American (individualistic tendency) is more comfortable making her own plans.

 

Observation 1

 

Interaction as I Observed It Cultural-General Theme(s) Possible Attributions

 

     

 

Page 151

 

Observation 2

 

Interaction as I Observed It Cultural-General Theme(s) Possible Attributions

 

     

 

Observation 3

 

Interaction as I Observed It Cultural-General Theme(s) Possible Attributions

 

     

 

Reflective Questions

 

1. Reflect on the 18-theme culture-general themes introduced in this chapter. These themes are meant to identify issues that people are likely to encounter when interacting with people different from them. Using the following sentence as a starting point, fill in the blank with each of the 18 themes and answer the questions accordingly.

 

“Can you think of a time when      was evident in your life or in interactions with others? How might this have interfered with your ability to function effectively? When might it be an asset to you?”

 

2. Interview a student or a family who has come from another country. What experiences can they recall about their cultural adjustment to a new land? What have you learned from them about their experience that would assist you as a teacher?

 

3. Reflect on the acculturation groups discussed in the chapter. What are some needs that would be similar and different among students who were immigrants, refugees, minority group members, members of an indigenous group, or short-term sojourners (such as year-abroad foreign exchange students)?

 

4. Locate a newspaper article that discusses a cultural conflict in a school or community. How can you apply the 18-theme cultural-general framework to better understand the dynamics at play?

 

5. In considering what she’s learned from her intercultural experiences while traveling the world (see Chapter 3 Case Study), Carla noted that the ability to deal with ambiguity–to be patient when what she saw caused anxiety, to inquire about ideas and practices she didn’t quite understand–was an important quality to have. Think about a time when you, too, have felt anxious because a situation was ambiguous: how did you feel? What did you do? Was the situation resolved in time?

 

             Chapter 5 Intercultural Development – submit responses to questions 1 and 3 only

 

Chapter

 

5

 

Intercultural Development

 

Considering the Growth of Self and Others

 

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

 

Page 155

 

Focus Questions

 

Have you ever said to yourself something like, “I certainly wouldn’t have thought that way a few years (or months) ago. I’ve changed and see things much differently now”? As a teacher, you expect students to learn, to grow, and to change as a result of certain experiences or encounters. What benchmarks might you use to determine if your students are becoming more sophisticated in their understanding and analysis of culture and intercultural effectiveness? What benchmarks might you use to determine if you are becoming more sophisticated in your understanding and analysis of culture and more interculturally competent?

 

What differences can you identify in people who are more effective working across cultures in comparison to those who exhibit more ethnocentric or monocultural behaviors?

 

How might you help students as well as yourself to become more interculturally competent—that is, to advance from an ethnocentric or monocultural orientation to one that is more ethnorelative or intercultural in nature?

 

“ One of the higher callings for young people in the coming century will be working to increase intercultural understanding. Such people will be the missionaries of the age, spreading light among groups … by giving them a modern vision of the new global community. ”

 

CARL COON

 

Page 156

 

Case Study

 

Dissent at Maplewood School

 

Professor Adams welcomed the diversity class just as the last student rushed in, apologizing for being a bit delayed. He began, “I’d like you to meet Sue Murray, a fifth– and sixth–grade teacher at one of our local schools. I’ve asked her to join us today to share a bit about a major problem that has emerged in her schools. I’d like us to listen to her story and perhaps explore with her ideas you might have to improve the current situation. Thank you, Sue, for taking the time to meet with us.” Professor Adams took a seat at the back of the room.

 

Sue stood and walked to the front of the room.

 

“I’m really pleased to be here and to share with you a pretty tense situation that began in one of our elementary schools but has now reached the community-at-large. When I went to school to learn to be a teacher, we didn’t have classes in diversity or multicultural education. Given all I see in schools today, I think you’re really lucky to have a foundation in some critical issues related to many of the changes we face in our schools and communities.”

 

She continued. “The situation we’re facing didn’t begin with Mr. Jameson’s letter to the editor in the local paper, but that was when it gained momentum and drew an increasing number of people into the issue. And now, just 3 months into the school year, all kinds of people are angry and hurt, many are confused, teachers are getting anxious, and the students don’t know what to think. Mr. Goodwin, our principal, seems to be doing all that he can to bring the various parties together, and as I understand it, they are making considerable progress. Let’s see if I can piece together all that has happened. I’ll begin with the letter written by a Mr. Jameson that I just referred to. Then there are a few other letters to the editor that show the range of responses. I’ll be interested in your reaction. This is what he wrote.”

 

Sue continued, “As a taxpayer and citizen of this fine city, I resent what I see going on in the schools. As I know them, schools are meant to prepare young people for the future. If students are to go to college, then they should have the prerequisite courses they need to succeed. If they are to learn a trade, then the school should provide them with the skills they will need to do their job. A student who is undecided on what the future will hold should be given an opportunity to try many different things. This is all well and good; and is as it should be. It is the way schools have operated since I went to them many years ago.”

 

“But since when have the schools become responsible for addressing all the demands of any group that comes along and claims they have been mistreated or ignored in society? I do not think the schools should be teaching multicultural education. What is it anyway? It’s not a part of the state assessments, the SAT, nor has anyone shown me a book on multicultural education that students would study from in school. We used to have good schools here that worked for everyone. Now they don’t seem to be working at all. Why should teachers and students spend their time having so-called cultural festivals and potluck dinners, and paying good money to invite some cultural dance group in to perform for kids? Let’s get it straight, schools have a responsibility to prepare people for life, not to teach everyone about other groups’ problems and complaints. With so many different people now living in America, there would be no more room in the school day if that was all that teachers taught. Besides, aren’t we all supposed to be Americans anyway? If people don’t like the way things are, they should go back to where they’ve come from. After all, they came to America—they should do it the American way!”

 

“But perhaps it is not all the teachers’ fault. Perhaps there is a lack of leadership in the schools—from the administrators to the board of education. And while I cannot stop paying my taxes, I can vote ‘NO’ for the next school levy and vote to replace the current members of the board. I think many others would agree with me and follow my lead. This letter was signed,

 

John Jameson, a disgruntled citizen, November 27.”

 

“Then a few days later,” Sue continued, “the paper printed this reply. ‘Dear Editor. I am writing in reference to Mr. Jameson’s letter about issues in the schools. I agree. It’s time we take a stand and stop pandering to every group that comes along. My son returned home after serving in the Army in Afghanistan and has been out of work for 6 months now, and he can’t seem to get a job because of such things as affirmative action and job outsourcing. Yet I see many other people working in jobs that could go to real Americans who support our country in real ways. I’ve traveled to other countries and each time I do I am reminded about how much better we have it here in America. I think the schools are part of the problem, and they’d better shape up soon. Rebecca Reynolds, December 5.’”

 

Page 157

 

PBNJ Productions/Blend Images LLC

 

Sue looked around at the class to try and read their reaction.

 

“How many of you have heard such sentiments from others?” she asked. A few hands went up. Someone from the back of the room shouted out, “Sounds like my Uncle Joe!” There were a few chuckles.

 

Sue continued. “Then a couple of days later the paper printed this letter. I wish to disagree with the letters written by Mr. Jameson and Ms. Reynolds who complained about the schools addressing multicultural education. As someone who works in the business community, I know how fast the world is changing—much faster than many people in this city seem to be—and our children must be prepared for these changes. School may be the only place where children can learn about other people—about other cultures, about how different people think and act, and about how to learn to get along with those who are different. Most parents are too busy or not experienced enough to tackle such a difficult task; therefore, we need the schools to do this for us. After all, it is in the school, like nowhere else in society, that children of different backgrounds come together for long periods of time. What better place is there for children to learn about diversity? I am in full support of our schools doing all they can to address diversity, and I hope others in this community come forward with their support as well. This response was signed, Joyce Maples, December 8.”

 

“As I already said,” Sue continued, “it wasn’t the letters to the editor that started everything, but they do give you a sense of the variety of people’s reactions. To be honest with you all, ever since the start of the school year tensions have continued to mount. It seems as if no one is happy with the way things are, and I don’t understand why. I was excited to begin teaching in the fifth-grade team after teaching for 5 years in a fourth-grade self-contained classroom. But with all the developmental changes the children are going through and all the ethnic and racial tensions that have emerged, I don’t know if I can take another year. We have parents who are angry that we are not addressing what they think are critical issues. We have had a number of parent meetings involving all the teachers as well as the principal where we attempted to discuss their concerns, but nothing seemed to help. And many parents and other local citizens have been showing up at school board meetings to voice their concerns.”

 

Page 158

 

“I think the problems began back in October at the school Halloween party,” Sue went on. “We have been concerned about violence in general and the increase in the number of violent movies that influence many of the children’s choices of costume. Rather than have children dress in whatever costume they might if they went out trick-or-treating, we encouraged them to come dressed as some historical, political, or social figure. I was really surprised when two boys, Tom and Daniel, came dressed as Native Americans and three others, Keenan, James, and Troy, came dressed as sports mascots—two as Cleveland Indians and one as an Atlanta Brave. What a social commentary they were making, and quite sophisticated, I might add, for a group of young students. Tom and Daniel had placards that challenged people’s stereotypes: some demanded changing the team logos and some argued to maintain them out of tradition. Even the imbalance of power was evident in the three-to-two mix they presented. Many of the children were oblivious to the messages these students were trying to make, but not all. Some, in fact, were quite taken by their statement. Their presence even caused a stir among some of the parents who came to observe the annual Halloween march around the school. Mrs. Marks, the president of the PTO, took a photo of them for the school newspaper. The paper was printed a few weeks ago. I think it was this incident, in combination with some of the Thanksgiving plays and classroom activities that were being planned, that really set things off. Some parents of the younger children in the school started complaining that putting on a traditional Thanksgiving play was perpetuating stereotypes. I do agree with them on that account. Then, some of the African American parents started complaining that not enough was being done to present their struggles and that we shouldn’t be doing things only during February for Black History Month. The PTO was asked to form a multicultural committee, and aside from Mrs. Marks, it seemed that there were mostly minority parents involved.”

 

Sue looked around the room. Professor Adams came to the front of the class, looked at Mrs. Murray, and said, “I know it’s been especially challenging for you these past weeks. You told me that you were willing to share your personal experience. Please do, if you’re still willing.”

 

“Sure,” Sue replied. “What really got me was when Mr. Goodwin, the principal, called me in to his office. I wasn’t sure that I would share this with you, but okay. Mr. Goodwin said that one of the African American parents complained that I wasn’t a good teacher. The father said that his son wasn’t learning from me and that I was treating some of the kids differently. I don’t think I treat any of my students any differently. And I really think the parents would accuse me of playing favorites if I did start doing things differently for different groups. After all, we all want the kids to learn what’s best for them. And we’ve been pretty good about being able to make that happen in this school—for everybody. I think the diversity is an asset for us. The more differences we have here, the better. More difference equals more creative ideas in the classroom, and I certainly wouldn’t want all the kids to be the same around here.”

 

“It’s bad enough that most of the teachers are pretty much of the same ethnic background. But I think that if everyone were the same, it would be boring. The more cultures people can know about, the better off we’d all be. I have my master’s degree with a specialty in math, and I’m pretty good at science. I’m a good teacher. Of course, there are differences among students in readiness for new material, and in the ways in which students learn, but it’s part of my job to take those differences into account, and sometimes that means ‘treating’ students a bit differently. It’s not easy work, you know.”

 

“I asked Mr. Goodwin to let me know which of the parents complained, but he wouldn’t tell me. I told him that I’d rather meet personally with the parents to discuss the issue instead of them hiding behind the principal. He said he was arranging a parents’ meeting soon and that would be the time for people to discuss their feelings. He said he was considering bringing in a facilitator to help keep the discussion in a positive light.”

 

Sue looked again around the room.

 

“This is where we stand now,” she stated. “I wonder what questions you may have? How do you think some of the other teachers are feeling and thinking? What would you do?”

 

Page 159

 

Professor Adams looked around the room waiting for students to respond.

 

Carl was the first to respond. “I still don’t know what all the fuss is about. We’ve always had mascots that featured Native Americans and I think that’s a good thing. It’s not like we’re demeaning them or anything, you know. I think it’s a way to honor them, actually.”

 

Susan then chimed in, “I think you’re really missing the point here. First, I disagree with you, and really do think that using people as mascots is disrespectful and can be demeaning as it can easily bring up a whole range of stereotypes. You’re Polish, aren’t you?”

 

“Yes,” Carl replied, “But I don’t know what that has to do with anything.”

 

“Well,” Susan went on, “What if our school mascot was Polish. Would you like it if our opposing teams started referring to us as the ‘Polacks’ or waving kielbasa sausage in their chants against us?”

 

“Well, I guess not,” Carl said, “I’ll have to think about that for a while.”

 

Susan went on, “I’m really beginning to understand some of the deeper issues that Mrs. Murray is bringing up. Things are changing and we’re learning that there are many perspectives that people have around these issues. And this really points out some of the criticisms and resistance we’re likely to encounter as we go about addressing the important role that multicultural and intercultural education can play in the curriculum. And Carl’s initial reaction, I’m sorry to say, really reflects that point.”

 

Professor Adams responded, “Susan is correct. There are multiple points of view around this issue as you are well aware. But if we’re going to be the inclusive society our nations’ founders envisioned, and if schools are to be the place where this all unfolds, we’ve got to put greater attention to these issues and not be afraid of, and perhaps even welcome, the controversy.”

 

This book aims not only to help you develop an understanding of how individuals are socialized into their immediate social and individual identity groups (i.e., family, ethnic group), but also to address your subsequent ability to accept and interact more effectively with people different from yourself. In this chapter, we look at what it means to become more interculturally competent, to develop greater awareness and sensitivity to your own culture as well as your ability to interact effectively with cultures other than you own.

 

The Case Study in this chapter presents multiple perspectives and viewpoints on issues related to culture and intercultural interaction in a school and community. As you read the Case Study, try to identify the variety of points of view. The Critical Incidents at the end of the chapter will bring you back to the Case Study as you explore the development of intercultural sensitivity.

 

Intercultural Competence

 

Just what does it mean to have an intercultural mind-set and skill-set? What are the attitudes and behaviors of people who are not only comfortable but effective working across cultures? How would you recognize such an orientation in teachers and students? In yourself? How can we assist people to develop such an orientation?

 

A few general observations can be made with regard to what it means to be an interculturally effective person. For instance, people with an intercultural mind-set move from an avoidance or a tolerance of difference to a respect and appreciation of difference. They move from an unconscious ethnocentrism to a more conscious awareness of their own and others’ cultures. And instead of being conscious of what not to do to avoid racism, sexism, and other prejudices, they understand what to do to create respectful, productive intercultural relationships. Interculturally effective people are proactive in nature and seek out diverse perspectives and contributions when making decisions and taking actions.

 

Page 160

 

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

 

Different from such terms as multicultural or international, the term “intercultural” refers to a penetration at the interpersonal level, implying an exchange between individuals of different groups with a focus on building trust, understanding and thus interpersonal relationships so people can begin to collaborate across cultural boundaries. Intercultural sensitivity refers to the ability to perceive cultural context, recognizing both cultural similarities and differences. Intercultural competence, then, refers to the enactment of intercultural sensitivity through the acquisition of an expanded repertoire of culturally appropriate behavior that is suitable for the time, place, and circumstances (Cushner, 2014). Intercultural competence is comprised of an open-mindedness and genuine interest in other cultures; being observant and knowledgeable about cultural differences and similarities; an ability to resist stereotypes and anticipate complexity; and, being able and willing to modify behavior so people can interact and communicate effectively with those different from themselves (Deardorff, 2009). In essence, this equally reflects a mind-set, a heart-set, and a skill-set.

 

Interculturally competent individuals thus are able to listen empathically, perceive others accurately, maintain a nonjudgmental approach, gather appropriate information about another culture, shift their frame of reference as required, take appropriate risks, and thus recognize and respond appropriately to cultural differences. In real-life outside the classroom as well as within, such skills are critical when people engage in decision making, negotiation, or problem solving across cultures; when subordinates and authority figures from different backgrounds interact extensively; or when individuals or families make major transitions. The school and classroom provide an ideal context in which to practice and develop these skills.

 

Page 161

 

Intercultural competence may be as much a tool for survival in today’s world as is the development of literacy, mathematics, and technological skill. Educators today must strive to fully integrate an intercultural education and perspective while carrying on with the traditional educational needs of communities and nations. Yet these are not easy issues to adequately address. Intercultural education and training is a delicate and difficult endeavor that must be approached with the greatest of sensitivity. Bennett (1993) pointed out that intercultural interactions among human populations have typically been accompanied by violence and aggression:

 

Intercultural sensitivity is not natural. It is not part of our primate past, nor has it characterized most of human history. Cross-cultural contact usually has been accompanied by bloodshed, oppression, or genocide. Education and training in intercultural communication [and we might say intercultural education] is an approach to changing our “natural” behavior. With the concepts and skills developed in this field, we ask learners to transcend traditional ethnocentrism and to explore new relationships across cultural boundaries. This attempt at change must be approached with the greatest possible care (p. 21).

 

In addition to the intense reactions identified by Bennett, evidence that intercultural contact does not occur regularly or comfortably for most people can be seen in people’s everyday behaviors. Many people, including those who do not harbor intense prejudices, admit that interactions with culturally different others tend to be more anxiety provoking than are interactions with very similar people (Cushner & Brislin, 1996). For a smaller number of people, this anxiety leads to a strong preference for interactions with similar others (a small ingroup) and an active avoidance of intercultural interactions. Such people, however, will not fare well in today’s world, where intercultural interaction is increasingly commonplace.

 

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity

 

So how do people develop intercultural sensitivity? Of great concern is the relative lack of information most teachers and teacher educators have about intercultural development and sensitivity. Just what is meant by this concept? How do we know when we “have it”? What are the benchmarks that teachers should strive for with their students? If we are to aid people’s intercultural development, where do we begin to understand how people move from an ethnocentric perspective to one that is more ethnorelative in orientation? These are all legitimate questions and issues to consider.

 

Page 162

 

The manner in which people develop intercultural competence, in general, is similar to the way people learn anything that is new and different (see Figure 5.1). The general stages one would experience in culture learning begin with the stage of Unconscious Incompetence—that is, not even being aware that one lacks a certain knowledge or skill set; slowly moving toward Conscious Incompetence, where one becomes aware that he or she lacks a skill; to Conscious Competence, where one actively works hard to learn a skill; and ultimately reaching a stage of Unconscious Competence, where one has become so skilled that conscious thought about how to act is no longer needed.

 

Figure 5.1 Stages of Intercultural Learning

 

While no single study can be cited that lists all of the essential qualities of intercultural competence, researchers and practitioners in such fields as intercultural communication and training have something concrete to offer teachers and teacher educators when it comes to understanding how people become interculturally competent. Deardorff’s Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence (2006) identified the need for individuals to exhibit certain motivational attitudes—such as respect, openness, and curiosity—that subsequently lead to the acquisition of knowledge, comprehension, and skill (see Figure 5.2).

 

Figure 5.2 Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff, 2006)

 

Bennett’s (1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) provides a framework for understanding intercultural development and awareness along a continuum from highly ethnocentric (a monocultural mind-set) to highly ethnorelative (an intercultural mind-set).

 

Page 163

 

In explaining the DMIS, Bennett noted that an increase in cultural awareness is accompanied by improved cognitive sophistication. Specifically, as people’s ability to understand difference increases, so does their ability to negotiate a variety of worldviews. As a six-stage model that describes the experience of cultural difference, the DMIS is linear to the extent that it allows us to address the question, “So, what do we do next?” Such a model provides a valuable tool to educators of both young people and adults as they struggle to achieve greater intercultural sensitivity.

 

The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity is based on the observations of thousands of subjects who appeared to develop in similar ways. Three stages lie on the ethnocentric side of the continuum, and three stages reflect increasingly ethnorelative perspectives and skills. The DMIS is a constructivist model, meaning that people build their knowledge based on their experience, which helps us better understand the complex phenomena of culture and intercultural experience. There is a strong affective, or emotional dimension at most levels, especially in the early stages. As people move through the stages, their worldview becomes increasingly complex. On the ethnocentric side, an individual may be at denial, defense, or minimization. On the ethnorelative side, an individual may be at acceptance, adaptability, or integration (see Figure 5.3).

 

Figure 5.3 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1993)

 

Ethnocentric Stages of the DMIS

 

Denial

 

Denial refers to the inability to see cultural differences and is reflective of individuals who isolate or separate themselves in homogenous groups. Individuals at this stage tend to ignore the reality of diversity and are often characterized by well-meant, but ignorant, stereotyping, and superficial statements of tolerance. At this stage, an individual’s understanding of difference is minimal. Cultural difference, if it is considered, is sometimes attributed to a deficiency in intelligence or personality. There is a tendency to dehumanize outsiders, viewing them as simple, undifferentiated aspects or objects of their environment, thus making them easy targets for discrimination, exploitation, or conquest.

 

At a societal level the denial stage can be exemplified by separatists, such as under apartheid in South Africa or segregation in the southern United States prior to the Civil Rights Movement. Such people may have a very complex experience and many categories for dealing with their own reality, but they have limited, if any, experience and few categories for dealing with cultural difference. When experiencing difference, people in this stage tend to organize others in terms of already existing categories, seeing others and the world as subversions of themselves and their own world. People in this stage overemphasize familiar categories; just not seeing the differences. If they are Americans in Paris, for instance, they have an “American” experience, and say things like, “Paris is like the United States—lots of cars, tall buildings, and McDonald’s.” If thinking about immigrants, a person in denial sees major issues rather simplistically. Because they have the category of language differences (a general understanding), but not of assimilation or adjustment (a specific and more complex issue), they may support language development programs as a means to deal with the problem. While such efforts may be helpful on the surface, they tend to ignore other, more fundamental aspects of the groups’ problems (such as racism and discrimination).

 

Page 164

 

Bennett called this stage the “stupid questions syndrome,” suggesting that people in denial tend to have a few, perhaps four, ideas or pieces of stereotypic knowledge about a given country or culture. Consider Africa, the only continent that many people refer to as a country. The stereotypic knowledge many European Americans have about Africa might include wild animals, poverty, disease, and jungle. Everything about Africa, then, is thought of in terms of these four ideas. When an individual at this stage meets an African, all these images come to the forefront. Such a person may think or ask, “So, when you leave your hut in the morning, aren’t you afraid the wild animals from the jungle will attack you?”

 

Stop for a moment and think about the categories many people around the world might have of Americans. Do they tend to see Americans as overweight (lovers of fast food), lazy, rich, and all driving big cars? If so, a person from overseas who is in the denial stage, when meeting an American, might ask, “So, when you leave your big house in the morning, do you get in your big car and drive to McDonald’s for your big breakfast?” They are bringing forth all their stereotypic information in their judgment of an American. Is this a true and accurate characterization of American people? Of course not. Nor in the previous paragraph is it a true and accurate characterization of people who live in the many different countries found on the African continent.

 

Outside of one’s own context, things are rather fuzzy. People in denial see others as living in a different reality and, without having much knowledge of those people, may say such things as:

 

“Live and let live! That’s what I say. Mixing just causes trouble.”

 

“Business is just business the world over.”

 

“As long as they all speak English, there will be no problem.”

 

“Technology doesn’t care about culture.”

 

“They were born here, so they should know how to do it the American way.”

 

“With my experience, I can be successful in any culture without any special effort.”

 

“I never experience culture shock.”

 

Denial has profound consequences, and when people at this stage are brought together with others, unpleasant things can sometimes occur. Because such people have many categories for dealing with their own culture, but few, if any, for dealing with other cultures, they may have only one single category for foreigners—“people of culture.” The title of a book on the Cambodian war experience, To Destroy You Is No Loss: The Odyssey of a Cambodian Family (Criddle, 1996), captures an extreme sentiment of someone in this stage. An orientation such as this can lead to atrocities like the Holocaust, the wave of sectarian violence recently experienced in Iraq, or the increase in hate groups and extremist attacks experienced since 2017 across the United States (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2020). People begin to believe that other people do not have feelings like they have, and they then treat those people as less than human.

 

Page 165

 

Children in this stage are socialized that theirs is the view of the world, instead of learning that theirs is one view of the world. Although the thinking of people at this stage isn’t necessarily evil, it is ignorant, and their behavior can become evil. Individuals at this stage are not capable of thinking about difference and must discover commonalties among people before they can progress to more sophisticated levels. Moving individuals from this stage to the next involves helping them to develop better skills of category discrimination and to become more sophisticated in their thinking and more complex in their cognitive processing.

 

Defense

 

Defense is the next stage of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. This stage is characterized by a recognition of cultural difference coupled with negative evaluations of those whose culture is different from one’s own and superior judgments of one’s own culture. The greater the cultural difference observed, the more negative the accompanying evaluation. Strong dualistic us–them thinking is common in this stage that is often accompanied by overt negative stereotyping. When forced into contact with others, individuals in this stage often become defensive feeling that they are losing out on something they deserve. People at this stage prefer to separate themselves from others because they often don’t have categories for dealing with difference. Although people at this stage are beginning to develop a more differentiated view of others, they tend to have a “hardening of the categories” with a narrow focus on a small, typically elite sample of a society. Such people defend their way as the one best way.

 

Three areas of defense are typically found: denigration or derogation, superiority, and sometimes reversal. Denigration or derogation refers to belittling or actively discriminating against another person. Superiority assumes extreme ethnocentrism to the point where one looks down on another believing that others are beneath them. People exhibiting superiority may act on their belief in a harsh, negative way rather than simply avoiding others as they might do in Denial. Reversal refers to changing sides or evaluating one’s own culture as inferior to another. In an intercultural context, reversal is often referred to as “going native” and is evident when people return home from an overseas experience, identifying more with their host culture and criticizing their own. Individuals who exhibit reversal tendencies may avoid contact with fellow citizens and associate solely with host nationals.

 

Defense protects an individual’s own worldview of the possibilities of other realities. No longer hidden away, other (meaning different) people suddenly become a force that must be reckoned with. Individuals at this stage tend to develop a polarized worldview. They put up a fence and raise their own flag, so to speak, and keep others at a distance. Such a scenario often results in an us–them scenario and may lead to the formation of militia groups or gangs. Both sides, the dominant group and the minority group, act to protect their own position. In reversal, nothing changes in one’s worldview; one just changes sides and acquires the prejudices of the other group.

 

People in the defense stage may make statements such as the following:

 

“Genetically, they just don’t have the capability to understand these things.”

 

“The only way I can live around them is to spend most of my time at the expatriate (or country) club.”

 

“We invented this stuff, and we’re really the only ones who can make it work.”

 

“These are American schools, and they’ve worked really well for us. Others should just learn to do it our way.”

 

“I am so embarrassed by my fellow citizens that I spend all my time with the locals.” (This statement is an example of reversal.)

 

“Women are naturally passive, so they wouldn’t fit at this level.”

 

“Asians are not assertive, hence they are poor leaders.”

 

Page 166

 

It’s not uncommon for people to be in the defense stage, but they must be encouraged to move on. Because defense is a heavy affective state, people need to be supported in this stage. Developmental tasks require supporting people affectively while stressing the commonalities among people. People moving from this stage begin to say such things as “We’re all in this together” and “We all came in different boats—but we’re now in this one together.” A good place to begin when considering how to move people from this stage is to point out such differences as learning style (using learning style inventories) and communication patterns that demonstrate that all individuals and groups have different ways of approaching common concerns. The 18-theme culture-general model also works well here.

 

Minimization

 

Minimization is entered with the discovery of commonality. In this stage, people begin to recognize and accept superficial cultural differences such as eating customs, money, and so forth (the tip of the iceberg in Figure 3.1), yet continue to hold the belief that all human beings are essentially the same. The emphasis at this stage is on the similarity of people and the commonality of basic values, with the tendency to define the basis of commonality in ethnocentric terms (thinking such things as “since everyone is essentially the same, they’re really pretty much like me”). This perceived commonality could exist around physical universalism (with people saying such things as “We are all the same—we all eat, sleep, breathe, bleed red, and die.” or “We are all people of color after all.”) or around spiritual universalism (saying things as “Deep down we are all children of the same God, whether we know it or not.”).

 

Minimization is a very profound stage. There is evidence to suggest that most teachers, for instance, are at this stage—and they are pleased to be here because they have transcended defense (Mahon, 2003; Cushner, 2011). It is difficult to move people from this stage because they think they are doing okay. This stage, for instance, can become official institutional policy, which can be problematic as people tend to be “nice but color blind.” Individuals at the minimization stage see people as basically the same, with little recognition of the differences that in fact do exist. People at this stage tend not to make reference to physical characteristics (race, for instance), believing that such traits are not important as long as they just treat all people the same. In minimization, people ignore the influence of culture and lived experience that may be quite different among people, believing that all people have the same needs—but in reality they don’t.

 

In this stage, although recently considered a transition stage from the ethnocentric to ethnorelative side of the continuum, an ethnocentric assumption that everyone should share the same reality—usually my own—continues to exist. People say and believe such things as, “If everyone knew of my religion, they’d all want to follow it.” In schools, people might say, “They came to this country, so they know we must have the best education system.” Internationally you might hear people say, “Australia is just like the United States, only 10 years behind.” But you must keep in mind, as is becoming increasingly clear on the global scale, that everyone in the world does not aspire to be American.

 

Page 167

 

At the minimization stage people may say things like the following:

 

“The key to getting along in any culture is to just be yourself—authentic and honest.”

 

“Customs differ, of course, but when you really get to know them they’re pretty much like us.”

 

“I have this intuitive sense of other people, no matter what their culture.”

 

“Technology is bringing cultural uniformity to the underdeveloped world.”

 

“No matter what their culture, people are pretty much motivated by the same things.”

 

“It’s a small world after all.”

 

“I don’t see any difference—race, gender, or culture. We’re all just people.”

 

The developmental task to move people out of this stage is cultural self-awareness. Pointing out aspects of an individual’s own culture and showing how it might differ from another person’s is a good place to begin. However, resistance among people might develop around such things as strongly held values. Cultural awareness does not mean that people must like and accept everything; it is not a case of “anything goes.” People can maintain a sense of morality about them by contextualizing another’s behavior and beliefs. Take nudity, for example. Is it appropriate to take off your clothes? Well, it matters—the context is critical. In certain circumstances it is appropriate to take off your clothes (as in the shower), but in other situations (out in public), perhaps not. The context is the key to legitimizing the behavior. Culture, thus, becomes the context from which to explore another’s values and behavior. Once the context is set and understood, then individuals can decide how they will behave. Once cultural awareness is achieved, the person can move from minimization to acceptance.

 

Bennett asserted that a paradigmatic shift in thinking must occur for an individual to move from the ethnocentric stages of the continuum into the ethnorelative side. Movement into the ethnorelative stages represents a significant change in one’s view of difference, from something to be avoided to something that is sought out. Individuals in the ethnorelative stage search for ways to adapt to difference and begin to recognize that people live in culturally different contexts. The notion of context is not understood in ethnocentric stages.

 

Ethnorelative Stages of the DMIS

 

Acceptance

 

Acceptance of difference is the first stage on the ethnorelative side of the continuum. This stage represents an individual’s ability to recognize and appreciate cultural difference in terms of both people’s values and their behavior. Acceptance of cultural differences is seen as understanding that there are viable alternatives to the way people organize their existence and experience. At this stage, the individual is beginning to demonstrate the ability to interpret phenomena within a cultural context and to analyze complex interactions in culture-contrast terms. Categories of difference are consciously expanded and elaborated, with people understanding that others are “Not good or bad, just different.” Later, the individual can see those beliefs, values, and other general patterns of assigning “goodness” and “badness” to ways of being in the world that exist in a variety of cultural contexts. People in this stage also begin to seek out cultural difference.

 

Page 168

 

Acceptance of another’s difference does not necessarily mean agreement nor necessarily how to adapt to those differences. People may have respect and value for cultural differences, but not necessarily agree with all they see. It is here that people begin to discriminate—people do have individual tastes and preferences, and not all cultures or cultural practices will be liked or valued by all people (the cultural belief that the role of all women should focus on home and family, for instance, is not universally accepted). The more sophisticated knowledge you possess in a category, the more personal preference you can bring (as a wine connoisseur is able to do). This behavior is not ethnocentric as long as you assume that the other is equally complex and acceptable within a given context. Even though people find that they may not necessarily agree with all they see practiced within another culture, they can, at least, understand what they witness. Teachers at this stage, for instance, might understand that family or other collective influences may be greater for a Latino or Asian child than for an Anglo counterpart, and this understanding may temper their expectation that students make their own independent choices on major life decisions. They may then seek out ways to work more closely with a student’s family.

 

People in this stage may say things like the following:

 

“The more difference the better—more difference results in more creative ideas.”

 

“You certainly wouldn’t want to be around the same kind of people all the time—the ideas get stale, and besides, it’s boring.”

 

“I always try to study about a new culture before I go there or interact with the people.”

 

“The more cultures you know about, the better comparisons you can make.”

 

“I know that my African American students and their families, and I, a European American, have had very different life experiences, but we’re working together as a learning community.”

 

“Our new student is from Mexico. Where can I learn about Mexican culture so I can be more effective in the classroom?”

 

But acceptance alone is not sufficient to drive effectiveness with another culture. It is necessary to develop new skills to be more effective teachers or businesspeople.

 

Adaptation

 

Adaptation is the stage during which people begin to see cultural categories as more flexible and become more competent in their ability to communicate across cultures. Individuals are able to use empathy effectively, shift frames of reference, and are better able to understand others and be understood across cultural boundaries.

 

Movement into this stage from the previous one is driven by a need for action (better teaching, more profit) and cognitive empathy—the ability to change frames of reference. A significant amount of groundwork must be laid before a shift can occur and people are ready to learn new skills. The greater the cultural gap, the more difficult it will be to make the shift. The individual begins to experience reality in a more “other” way and can understand and feel about the world as the other would.

 

Page 169

 

Two forms of adaptation exist: cultural adaptation and behavioral adaptation. Cultural adaptation refers to the ability to consciously shift perspective into alternative cultural worldview elements and to use multiple cultural frames of reference in evaluating phenomena. Behavioral adaptation refers to the internalization of more than one complete worldview, enabling people to shift into different frames without much conscious effort and then act in culturally appropriate ways. It is at this stage that we say that people are becoming bicultural or intercultural. A teacher at this stage, for instance, would be able to modify his or her responses to and expectations of students from lower versus middle socioeconomic groups as necessary when it comes to students’ ability to participate in after-school extracurricular activities. Fellow students may understand that the needs of refugee students are quite distinct from those of international exchange students—even though they may both be from abroad—and will, in turn, respond differently to them.

 

But at this stage people are not simply acquiring skills. Nor are they simply regurgitating lists of dos and don’ts; this type of reaction creates emulation, not empathy. Knowledge and behavior here are linked by conscious intention, with category boundaries becoming more flexible and permeable, and intentional perspective taking and empathy being evident.

 

In the adaptation stage, people may say things like the following:

 

“To really help this student learn, I’m going to have to change my approach.”

 

“I know they’re really trying hard to adapt to my style, so it’s only fair and right that I try to meet them halfway.”

 

“I interact with my male and female colleagues somewhat differently to account for differences in the way respect is communicated.”

 

“I can maintain my values and also behave in culturally appropriate ways.”

 

“I interact with my Latino families from Central and South America differently to account for differences in the way respect and authority are communicated.”

 

Integration

 

Integration is the final stage of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Although it is rarely achieved, it reflects those individuals who have multiple frames of reference and can identify and move freely within more than one cultural group. Integration refers to the internalization of bicultural or multicultural frames of reference, with individuals at this level being able to mediate between multiple groups. People at this level are able to facilitate constructive contact between cultures and tend to become cultural mediators or cultural bridges.

 

People at this stage may say things like the following:

 

“Everywhere is home, if you know enough about how things work there.”

 

“I feel most comfortable when I’m bridging differences between the cultures I know.”

 

“Whatever the situation, I can usually look at it from a variety of cultural points of view.”

 

Understanding that intercultural development is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process should greatly influence the manner in which we educate both children and teacher education students. Intercultural competence is not achieved in one course or one single experience. Rather, it comes about after recognizing where one is on the developmental continuum, and then engaging in systematic, oftentimes repetitious, and well-planned exposure to intercultural interactions that are designed to nudge one to increasingly complex levels. Think back to the discussion of adjustment in Chapter 4, which emphasized the rather long time required before individuals become fully adjusted to another cultural setting—and that came after full immersion in a new place.

 

Page 170

 

Where are You, and Most Teachers, on the Intercultural Continuum?

 

As implied by the DMIS, acquiring intercultural competence is developmental, comprehensive, and therefore, takes time. That is, it is a process that is more evolutionary, than revolutionary, and cannot be achieved quickly nor with a cognitive-only approach. Significant first-hand experience, or encounters with difference that are reflected upon over a sustained period of time, seem to be essential if people are to advance to more complex intercultural thinking and behavior.

 

Enhancing intercultural competence comes about after recognizing where one is on the developmental continuum, and then while providing both support and challenge, engaging in systematic, oftentimes repetitious, and well-planned exposure to intercultural interactions that nudge one toward increasingly more complex levels. Moving too quickly along the continuum is akin to the scuba diver plunging immediately to a depth of 100 feet without taking the requisite time to equalize pressure and accommodate to the new environment—the shock can just be too great for the system to accept. Alternatively, gradual movement or immersion enables the diver to adjust to the changing circumstances and thus to function more effectively in the new environment. So, too, should it be with intercultural development. Understanding and integrating what we know about intercultural development and sensitivity into the education of young people, as well as ourselves as teachers, will result in a more culturally effective and culturally competent citizenry. Where do you think you fall on the intercultural continuum? Where do you think most teachers fall?

 

The Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer & Bennett, 2003), or IDI, is an assessment instrument designed to determine where on the intercultural continuum an individual, or an organization, lies. As educators, if we know where individuals fall on the continuum, we can be mindful of the particular strategies and experiences that can be used to move them from one stage to another. The particular needs and approaches we might use when moving someone from Denial or Defense to Minimization are significantly different than those that we would use when moving someone from Minimization to Acceptance.

 

When considering how to enhance our own intercultural competence we must consider the prior experiences, or lack thereof, that most bring to the profession as well as where most fall on the intercultural continuum. Most teachers, as reported earlier, are middle class, live in small- to medium-sized communities, and have limited experience with people different from themselves. This is certainly in contrast to the increasing percentage of students of color and the rise in immigrant and refugee populations in American public schools, and the fact that an increasing number of students live in poverty. The picture is not much different in many other nations, by the way, except that the predominant ethnic background of teachers may vary from nation to nation (Cushner, 1998).

 

Page 171

 

Recent research using the IDI provides us with some evidence that the majority of today’s teachers and teacher education students encounter others from an ethnocentric orientation, or at best, are on the cusp of Minimization. Mahon’s (2003) study of 155 teachers from the American Midwest placed all of them at Minimization or below. Her follow-up study (2009) of 88 teachers in the American West found 84% to be in Minimization or below. Bayles (2009) found 91% of 233 teachers in a U.S. urban, southern school district at Minimization or below. Such findings are not limited to the United States. Grossman and Yuen (2006) found that of 107 teachers in schools in Hong Kong, 55% were in Denial or Defense and 43% were in Minimization, with only 2% fully on the ethnorelative side of the continuum. Yuen’s (2009) survey of 386 teachers in nine schools in Hong Kong revealed the majority to be in Denial/Defense, with minimal recognition given to cultural differences. A recent study by Hermanson (2018) found that of 45 preservice teachers 92% were in Minimization or below. Another study of 62 students completing their student teaching overseas but having little to no intercultural preparation, found that 91% were in Minimization or below both before and after their 8-15 week immersion experience (Cushner and Chang, 2015), thus reinforcing the notion that attention to intercultural concepts is a critical component, along with experience, to enhancing intercultural competence.

 

Two studies that look at the intercultural sensitivity of students show some surprising differences between young people and their teachers, and present what has been referred to as an “intercultural conundrum” (Cushner, 2012). Pederson (1998) used a modified version of the IDI with 145 12-year-old eighth graders, and found 35% to be in high Minimization and 35% in Acceptance. Among 336 high school students in an international school in Southeast Asia, Straffon (2003) found 71% to be in Acceptance and 26% in Adaptation, with/only 3% on the ethnocentric side. Both of these studies showed that the greater the amount of exposure to difference (city versus suburban and rural schools in the Pedersen study and the amount of time in international schools in the Straffon study), the higher the level of intercultural sensitivity.

 

So, herein lies an intercultural conundrum. The majority of teachers—those responsible for advancing knowledge, skill, and attitude of young people—appear to be stuck on the ethnocentric side of the continuum, while their students show evidence of being more sophisticated in terms of intercultural development.

 

How might you explain the findings that young people may be further along the intercultural continuum than their teachers?

 

Where do you think you would fall in terms of the developmental model?

 

What are some things you might do to enhance your intercultural competence?

 

What are some things you can do as a teacher to help develop the intercultural competence of your students?

 

Critical Incidents at Maplewood

 

Toward the end of the Case Study Sue Murray asks how the students in the class think some of the other teachers in her school might be thinking and feeling. This chapter’s Critical Incidents are perspectives from other teachers in Maplewood School. At the end of each, you will be asked to categorize the teacher’s orientation according to where you think they fall on the DMIS.

 

Page 172

 

Critical Incident

 

John Reading, Fifth-Grade Social Studies and Language Arts Teacher

 

I’m in “seventh heaven,” you could say. I came into the teaching field after spending 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Kenya. It was the best 2 years of my life. I learned to speak Kiswahili fairly well and had a chance to teach in both a secondary school and a local teachers’ college. I spent weekends working with younger children in the village in which I lived. We did general maintenance around the village, started all kinds of community action projects such as building a small community center, and organized a variety of local artists to showcase their work.

 

That experience changed my life. I grew up in a community not far from where I now teach. In many ways it was quite similar to Maplewood—there were few minorities, although that has changed somewhat over time. I didn’t have too many friends who were different from me—we were all pretty much the same. Not much diversity, they’d say now, although that wasn’t a term we used back then. We were all just “normal,” I guess you’d say.

 

I became interested in the Peace Corps after many years of learning about different people in general. As a little kid I remember looking at National Geographic magazine at my uncle’s house. He was a geologist and taught at a local community college. I was interested in the pictures—the different ways people dressed, or didn’t dress. I was also quite intrigued by the various ways people decorated themselves—from their jewelry to tattoos and body painting to body piercing. I guess even people in this country today, when you think about how they pierce or tattoo their bodies, have much in common with some of the people I would read about then. But most kids probably wouldn’t see the similarity.

 

In high school, I was active in the Exchange Student Club. I could never afford to be an exchange student myself, but I was always interested in other people. Then, I had one teacher, Mr. Philips, my 11th-grade English teacher, who had spent 2 years in Thailand as a Peace Corps volunteer. I was really intrigued by him and his experience. It was then that I began thinking about doing that myself. I applied during my student teaching semester and was accepted to the program in Kenya.

 

What an eye-opener that 2-year experience was for me. I changed more in that time than I ever could have imagined. I’m sure the experience had more of an influence on me than I had on those in my village, who I became really attached to, by the way. I’m now trying to arrange to have a more formal link between the village school and our school, but I haven’t yet been able to raise enough money to do anything substantial.

 

I would like all of my students to have experiences like those that I had. But you know, it’s hard to do. When I returned from Kenya, most of my family and friends weren’t very interested in hearing about my experiences—they wanted me to just fit right back into how I used to be and the way they were. But I couldn’t. I had changed in too many ways. Many of the things they were interested in seemed rather unimportant to me. This created some friction between my friends and me for a while. The Peace Corps tried to warn us about this problem when we returned. They said we would experience a reverse culture shock, that coming back home would be difficult because we had changed so much and most others at home had not. Boy, were they right! I keep in closer contact with many of my old Peace Corps friends now than I do my older friends from home because we ha ve so much in common and are all experiencing the same re-entry shock.

 

Page 173

 

Perhaps here in the school I can do something that can make a difference in the way young people view others. That’s why I’m kind of glad all this discussion about diversity is happening now. I think it’s a wake-up call that, if we’re not prepared for it, will bring all kinds of trouble. There is a place for us as teachers to work with young people on these issues. Not only can I share some of my experiences, but perhaps I can create experiences for the students themselves that will help to introduce them to others in their world in a more personal and substantial way. I think it’s critically important that people learn how to view the world from more than one perspective, and I hope to be able to develop this ability in my students. They have to begin to understand the plight of the world’s indigenous peoples, understand the experiences of the African Americans, Native Americans, and other underrepresented groups in this country, and show greater concern for the environment. Teaching is a great vehicle from which to do this. I’m beginning to feel most comfortable when I’m helping people see the world around them from another perspective—kind of as a bridge builder. I can now look at most situations from at least two cultures’ points of view. I think young people today need this mind-set as well.

 

Where on the continuum of the DMIS would you place John? Justify your thinking.

 

What kinds of activities might John do with his students that would build on his experiences in Kenya?

 

 

 

Fran Violet, Fifth-Grade Language Arts Teacher

 

I’m really getting tired of all the commotion, although I won’t come out and say it to too many people. I feel like an outsider during some of the teachers’ meetings we’ve had. There seem to be two camps developing among the staff. There are those who are in favor of making changes to address the so-called needs of other groups, and others, like myself, who are rather quiet and in the background continuing to do a good job, or so we believe, just teaching kids.

 

I’ve been teaching in the district for 25 years now and have seen all kinds of educational fads come and go. I’m pretty sure this attention to culture will just do the same. After all, we only have so much time in the day to teach all that we are supposed to teach. There’s such an emphasis today on competency tests, which don’t even measure multicultural education. It’s probably only a matter of time until all the hoopla dies down. It even angers me when I think that I’ve had to attend after-school workshops on diversity and multicultural education. They really didn’t teach me anything I could use. They were more of a gripe session presented by some people who had a bunch of complaints to make. Then they handed us a list of multicultural books we should have the kids read. Come on. Give me a break. Do they really expect me to become motivated by that?

 

And the kids! I’ve seen quite a few changes since I began teaching here. That’s what I think the problem is. It’s not about culture. Yes, it’s true that there are more minority children in the school now than there were a number of years ago. But the problem, as I see it, is about kids and their families. It doesn’t matter what a child’s cultural background is. I look at kids pretty much the same. Sure there are some differences, like some just pick things up quicker than others do. Some are better in certain subjects than others. Some are better in sports or art or music. But all in all, kids are basically the same. I want them all to succeed in school, and I do my best to teach them all. While people’s cultures may differ, once you get down to it, kids are kids, and all people are pretty much the same. All people, after all, have the same basic needs. I have a general sense of other people; no matter what culture they are from, I can usually read them pretty well. If kids don’t have a solid, stable family, then that’s where there’s going to be trouble. There has been such an increase in the number of children coming from broken families. Why, one year I had 20 out of 28 kids who came from some sort of rearranged family. If you ask me, that’s where the problem lies.

 

Page 174

 

Where on the continuum of the DMIS would you place Fran? Justify your thinking.

 

What suggestions might you make to Fran to help her advance along the DMIS continuum?

 

 

 

Steven Goodwin, Principal

 

Ever since I became principal of this school 6 years ago, I have been on a continuous learning curve. I had no preparation in college for issues of diversity. It wasn’t even talked about when I first went to school. It’s kind of been “trial by fire,” you might say. As our community changed and as I became more involved in school administration, I suddenly had so many new things which I had to understand. I had training to be a school principal at a nearby university, but most of that training focused on leadership, finances, and management from a dominant-culture perspective. My professors were from, I guess you would say, the “old school,” where everything was supposed to fit one particular orientation. But I quickly learned that things are different in the real world. Ever since our community demographics began to change and people began moving from the city to our suburb, the rules have never quite been the same. I think I’m beginning to understand it quite well—although it still requires a lot of work on my part. I’m not sure I always get it right.

 

Take this recent dispute, for instance. This community has always supported the local sports teams. Even our high school mascot is an Indian, and no one had questioned it since it became part of our culture some 60 years ago. That is, until this year. I’m beginning to understand the other side of the coin now. I guess the more time I spend with people from other groups and learn about their cultures, the more I begin to understand their point of view, their language, and their way of interacting. For so many years, all people have been forced to adapt to one mainstream point of view—like it or not! I guess for the most part, at least for so many years, people tried pretty hard to adapt. Some might say they were forced to adapt. For many years we called it the “melting pot”; all people were to become like the majority culture. For some it worked. As I understand it, and it makes sense to me, it was fairly easy for most European immigrants to fit into the mainstream culture in the early part of the 1900s. Most of these immigrants came from similar language backgrounds—at least they were all European—and shared relatively similar ways of life. Once they learned the English language, their physical features allowed them to pretty much fit right into the mainstream. And then their foods became part of the national diet, like Italian, Polish, or German influences.

 

Many other immigrants, however, had quite different experiences. African Americans were forced to come to this country—some call them “involuntary immigrants,” never wanting to be here in the first place. And today, most immigrants come from countries whose languages, ethnicity, religion, skin color, and general way of life are significantly different—not only from the mainstream but from one another as well. This alone makes it very difficult for people to “just fit right in.”

 

Page 175

 

I guess I look at it this way. So many people have been struggling to adapt to our way of life for so long that it’s only fair that we now try to make some changes. I guess for me that means that so many people in the schools have been trying hard to adapt to my style that it’s only fair that I try to meet them halfway. To solve some of the problems we face in our school and community, I’m going to have to change my approach. I’m beginning to understand that I can maintain my own culture’s values, but at the same time I can learn to behave in ways that are appropriate for another culture. Now it’s getting easier for me to say that about my behavior. But I recognize that for many others in the school community, including parents as well as some of the teachers, the situation is not so clear. Many of them are threatened and are not sure how to make the changes—nor want to make any changes. I’m working real hard, in addition to all the other things I have to stay on top of, to encourage this school community to face these issues and address them in positive ways. I also recognize that I will have to continue to be a role model for others to demonstrate how addressing diversity in our school can be accomplished. I constantly try to learn about other people and account for cultural differences in my interactions with them and to help our school community do the same.

 

Where on the continuum of the DMIS would you place Steven? Justify your thinking.

 

What are some things Steven might do to encourage development among his school community, especially among the more resistant teachers and families?

 

 

 

Summary

 

Fundamental to effective intercultural education is understanding how people develop their ability to interact more effectively with people different from themselves. The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) was introduced as one means to understand how people can grow from being ethnocentric to becoming more ethnorelative in their orientation.

 

Key Terms

 

acceptance

 

adaptation

 

defense

 

denial

 

integration

 

minimization

 

Learning About Others

 

Purpose: To learn about cultural differences by interviewing someone from a different culture or ethnic group while applying concepts from the culture-general framework.

 

Instructions: Find someone from a culture different from your own to interview (preferably someone outside your immediate and known peer group). Try to choose someone you think will have different attitudes, opinions, and experiences than you have. Choose some questions from the list that follows, or develop some of your own. Before you interview the person, answer the questions for yourself. For each of the questions, follow up with “Why?” in order to explore underlying values and reasons for peoples’ behavior or beliefs. Take notes of the responses. Discuss the questions and the “why” with the other person until you have found at least five major areas where there are clear differences between your answer and the other person’s. Also be sure to identify five major areas where you are in agreement with one another. Prepare a short paper or presentation that summarizes your findings.

 

Page 176

 

What people in your life are the most important to obey? Why?

 

Who makes final decisions in your life at home and school? Why?

 

Who do you think determines your fate—the individual, the family, or God? Why?

 

Whom should you respect? How do you show respect? Why?

 

Who should help determine your identity? Why?

 

What does it mean to be successful in life? Why?

 

Whom should you trust? Why?

 

What are the signs of success? Why?

 

What provides “security” in your life? Why?

 

Who should your friends be? Who decides? Why?

 

Where, and with whom, should you live? Why?

 

Whom should you marry? At about what age? Who decides? Why?

 

What is expected of children when they are young? Why?

 

What should you depend on others for? Why?

 

When should you be self-sufficient, if ever? Why?

 

What should you expose to others, and what should be kept private? Why?

 

How should you plan for your future? Why?

 

What should be remembered from your heritage? Why?

 

What was better when you were younger or during your parents’ youth? Why?

 

What do you wish for your children that you could not have? Why?

 

What did you learn about the other person that is significantly different from you? How might this knowledge affect the interviewee as a learner? You as a teacher?

 

What did you learn about the other person that is similar to you? Were you surprised by this? How might this knowledge affect you as a teacher?

 

Reflective Questions

 

3. Return to the case study introduced at the beginning of the chapter. Where on the continuum of the DMIS would you place each of the individuals: Sue Murray, John Jameson, Rebecca Reynolds, and Joyce Maples? Justify your decisions.

 

4. Draft a brief response to each of the three who wrote letters to the editor: John Jameson, Rebecca Reynolds, and Joyce Maples. As a teacher, what would you emphasize in your response?

 

5. Where on the DMIS would you place yourself? What criteria are you using to make your judgment?

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.