Download Intercultural Sensitivity - LBCC e

Intercultural Sensitivity
What is it? A concept that describes a development in an individual of the ability to
differentiation cultural forms.
Goal: Develop intercultural sensitivity or inter-cultural competence by creating learners
capable of transcending traditional ethno-centrism and become ethno-relative.
Assumption 1: Individuals are capable of personal growth. But individuals see things
differently because cultures differ in the way they maintain patterns of difference called
worldviews. What are the constructions one experiences in culture? Culture is inherently
subjective, so constructions begin with difference. This situation gives rise to the
problem of cultural difference.
Assumption 2: Intercultural sensitivity involves the creation and increasing
differentiation of cultural categories. The more we experience ourselves as a member of
more than one culture, the more we can be said to have intercultural sensitivity. How
these elements or aspects are integrated by the self, that is self-consciously, the more we
can be said to have intercultural sensitivity. This is also a question about individual
identity. How does one integrate disparate aspects of experience into a complex identity?
Assumption 3: The way people culturally construct their experiences and interpret their
world, or their reality, represents their worldview. Each worldview represents how
reality is constructed in a particular way. This constitutes a particular meaning making.
We experience culture (or worldviews) in a complex way. We experience a national
culture, an ethnic culture, a gender culture, a regional culture. But we may or may not be
sensitive to these differences.
Bennett Scale describes a development from ethnocentric to ethnorelative
The Ethnocentric side of the scale
Ethnocentrism: What is it? A worldview that is central to how a culture constructs
reality.
Consider the example of American Ethnocentrism
I. Is the United States of America different from the rest of the world?
A. To listen to American spokesmen, we are the great exception to the rule among
nations. This is the claim of American exceptionalism.
1. It is the view that America has somehow escaped the behaviors and norms of
other nations. Other countries suffered irrational traditional behaviors that have
yet to be overcome or when overcome resulted in terrifying conflicts; Other
countries suffered from class conflicts engendered by profound inequalities in
economic and social life; other countries political norms failed to elevate the
individual to the status of citizen and thus failed to protect their civil rights; Other
countries economic institutions failed to allow sufficient freedom for individuals
to engage in dynamic and innovative behavior, and thus condemned their people
to poverty and stagnation. America stood for equality of opportunity for all and a
resulting social system that was rooted in merit, not ascription.
2. Thus, it is the view that American institutions and values are unique and superior
to other nations.
3. Thus, in this view the United States is the antidote to the ills that trouble the
world. This antidote can be simply a shining example to the world or it can be an
evangelical idea Americans forces others to adopt for their own good.
4. Thus, it is not simply a healthy pride in what Americans have accomplished in
their brief period as a nation in this world, it is a claim that America is an
exceptional nation and therefore superior to other nations.
B. There is a parallel in egocentrism. This is the view that one’s existence is central to
the reality of perceiving others and that everything that happens is about oneself.
C. At the heart of ethnocentrism is the view that differences are poorly construed,
construed using stereotypes, distinctions, and inclusive/exclusive thinking, or the belief
that everyone should be like oneself.
Ethnocentric developmental stages: Denial, Defense, and Minimization
Denial
An individual in the state of denial doesn’t consider “the other” as relevant. Others ma
be important elsewhere, but not here. It is a parochial state. The constructions of
difference are weak. In other words, from a cognitive perspective, they are not likely to
create effective categories for cultural difference. Effective categories are invisible to the
individual. Or the individual may invent wide categories of cultural difference. They
may lump very diverse peoples together into fat categories of little real relevance. For
example, speak of “Asians,” or “Africans,” or “Europeans,” as though these terms
describe reality. The problem here is that there is no subtlety in the categories of
difference. They are too broad. They are poorly differentiated categories. The behaviors
exhibited by individuals in the denial stage may take the form of making dumb
statements like, the dumb question: “Is every Italian in the Mafia?” From an affective
perspective, the emotional state of the individual in denial is bliss, as in the statement,
“ignorance is bliss.”
Bennett as the result of two pre-conditions explains how someone could have such
underdeveloped categories of difference: Separation and Isolation.
In Isolation, an individual experiences physical isolation from groups different from the
individual and the group the individual lives with. The isolation may be relative or
absolute, depending upon the demographics of the area in question.
In Separation, individual experiences intentional physical or social barriers constructed in
order to shield the individual from “the others.” Where social policy has been designed
to maintain a state of denial, one sees separate neighborhoods, schools, clubs, etc. One
could speak of a system of legal or de facto segregation, apartheid, or exclusive
nationalism. The outcome is generally to limit or prevent contact with “others” and to
actively oppose contact.
Denial is more a naiveté than negativity, but it can devolve into violence, if threatened
with abrupt change.
Denial can’t be experienced by the oppressed, since they are being denied. Denial may
be said to be the luxury of the dominant.
Defense
In this stage of cultural sensitivity, specific cultural differences are perceived as
threatening to one’s sense of reality or identity. Difference is overtly acknowledged;
hence this is a development in intercultural sensitivity over denial. One is now aware of
others, but this awareness produces an effort to fight the differences in order to preserve
one’s worldview, privileges or way of life.
Defensiveness takes three forms: Denigration; Superiority; and Reversal. These forms
are not mutually exclusive and came be seen interacting in individuals.
In Denigration, the individual constructs a negative evaluation of difference through
negative stereotyping of others. This negative stereotyping attaches undesirable
characteristics to others. We are all familiar with this type of thinking. We might only
ask, what are the typical stereotypes associated with different ethnic and racial groups?
Asians can’t drive,
Italians are all criminals,
Irish are drunks,
Mexicans are lazy,
Black males have large penises,
Feminists are lesbians,
Homosexuals are promiscuous carriers of STDs,
Women are bitches,
Academics are leftists,
Students are cheaters,
Administrators are overpaid authoritarians,
Southerners date their cousins,
Jews are cheapskates, etc., etc.
Each one of these statements is false and reflects a logical fallacy of composition. Such
constructions are also hurtful to those on the receiving end. That they have such a wide
currency in the population suggests that they can become a form of institutionalized
hatred.
In superiority, one begins with a positive evaluation of one’s own cultural status. This
can express itself in categories of white pride, black pride, ethnic nationalism, or the
nationalism of ideals. Whatever these categories emphasize, the focus begins with the
positive element about a group. However, superiority enters into the picture when the
value of the identity becomes over-emphasized to the point that one cannot see the
benefits of different cultures. In other words, superiority does not necessarily denigrate
other groups, but such devaluation is implicit in the assumption of one’s own superiority.
Superiority is often linked with socio-evolutionary assumptions about the development of
human cultures from lower to higher forms of social organization. When we speak of
civilization, for example, implicit in this notion is the linked concept of savagery, the
lowest form of human organization. This way of constructing difference is not
necessarily inferior, but it is something to be overcome. Put another way, we can say
difference is acknowledged, even if it is not valued. This is why it is ethnocentric.
Superiority thinking may reflect a healthy pride in one’s culture, like an individuals
healthy self-esteem. But it caries the danger if it is an end in itself because this would
block development of intercultural sensitivity. Another example involves modernization.
IN modernization theory, writers often slip into the idea that what is modern is superior to
traditions that have been replaced because modernization involves change, innovation,
individuality, efficiency, and therefore progress. What intercultural sensitivity teaches,
however, is the view that all cultures have a valid perspective.
In reversal, the individual flips to the others side. Reversal involves the denigration of
one’s own culture and an attendant assumption of the superiority of the other’s culture.
This does not represent a more superior position, only a reversal of ethnocentrism
because it devalues the original host culture. Hence, it is not really an ethno-relative
position, only a changing of sides. To cite a couple of examples: environmentalists who
contrast an idealized native American valuing of nature to that of rapacious Anglo
Americans; Black Muslims who disparage American black culture and view African
Moslem values as superior; Americans who find other values superior to our own.
The defense stage typically carries a heavy affective or emotional baggage with it. The
negativity inherent in these three modes of defensiveness, suggest that affectively,
hostility, fear, pride, and anger accompany these cultural constructions of difference.
Minimization
In this stage of ethnocentrism, cultural differences are perceived not as threatening, but as
trivial. Instead, cultural similarities are held to be central. The strategy here is to take a
position that human similarities are more profound than cultural differences. What
occurs is that a polarized construct is replaced by a larger construct? For example, when
guys make a girl, one of the guys. This position appears to be sensitive: aren’t we one
world, one people, the human race? But this is naïve because it asserts all people share
the same basic characteristics. For many people in this stage, the lack of awareness
extends to their own culture’s underlying assumptions. Hence, if they can place more of
their own behavior in a cultural context, they are less inclined to assume all behavior is
universal.
Minimization takes two forms, physical universalism and transcendent universalism.
In physical universalism, the constructions assert that we all share common physical
needs and behaviors. This represents a form of biological universalism because it asserts
that we all have to eat, procreate, sleep, be sheltered, die, etc. According to the discipline
of ethnology, we all have instinctual behaviors, territoriality, sex, and hostility to
strangers.
This view is accurate, but trivial. It ignores the culturally specific context of physical
behavior. The way biology is tied to specific worldviews. Hence, the biological model is
not adequate. And this view becomes ethnocentric if they use their cultural assumptions
to interpret the behavior of others. There are real, substantive cultural differences in the
interpretation of behavior and therefore, it is necessary to understand the social context of
human behavior.
In transcendent universalism, the claim is advanced that we are all products of the same
single transcendent principle, law, or imperative. We are all gods’ children; we are all
subject to the same historical forces (class struggle or the march of freedom and
democracy); we are all imbued with individual selfishness; or in psychology, we all have
the same needs, the same drives.
Transcendent universalism can be progressive if it acknowledges and studies differences,
but it can still become ethnocentric if the principle is derived from one’s own culture or
worldview.
The affective state of minimization is benign sensitivity and naiveté.
Ethno-relative Stages: Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration
These stages represent a fundamental shift in the construction of difference that reflects
several assumptions about culture.
Cultures can only be understood relative to each other.
Particular behavior can only be understood within a cultural context.
No absolute standards of rightness or goodness apply to culture.
Differences in cultures are neither good nor bad, just different.
Some cultural behaviors are more adaptive than others to particular environmental
conditions.
Two Questions:
Does ethno-relativism imply moral acquiescence?
It doesn’t imply agreement with all differences (think of clitoral mutilation or
circumcision). Ethical choices are made on grounds other than ethnocentric projection of
one’s own worldview or in the name of some absolute principles.
Is ethno-relativism immoral?
Far more atrocities have been committed by ethno-centrists in history than by ethnorelativists. By its very nature the ethnocentric-ethno-relative continuum makes
judgments about behavior and values.
Meaning of Ethno-relativism.
It represents a major change in meaning attributed to difference. A different experience
of difference as non-threatening. It is the elaboration of new categories rather than retreat
to existing ones. The meaning of difference is more enjoyable and sought after. The
outcomes expected from this way of thinking are that people will recognize the need to
live together, be willing to accord respect to each other, and actively build toward
understanding cultural differences.
Acceptance
In acceptance difference is acknowledged and respected. It is a necessary and preferable
human condition. The individual respects culturally different behavior. Language is
probably the most important behavior human’s exhibit. It is our most obvious behavioral
difference. Hence, one accepts linguistic relativity. Coupled with this is the acceptance
of different communication styles, whether these have to do with descriptions (linear or
circular), arguments (inductive or deductive, or ways to express feeling (implicit or
explicit). One also accepts nonverbal behaviors such as different body language.
In acceptance difference is respected as it relates to culturally different values. One
recognizes different worldviews and assumptions underlying culturally variant behaviors.
Both in others and in oneself. One views values as expressions of human creativity.
What we value is the result of a process we actively assume things about the world. It is
own plaything! This allows the world to be organized in particular ways. We recognize
the danger of allowing our valuing to become absolute, because that leads to
ethnocentrism: the reification or extension transference of ideal. To quote one expert,
If the act of valuing is reified into having values, then these values are more likely
to be defined as intrinsic to one’s identity, and competing values become threats
that must be countered. P. 17
You can recognize the valuing of others finding their culture worthy, without agreeing
with them. You don’t judge what they value as an offending trait. It is just their way of
organizing their world. You don’t condemn it from an ethnocentric perspective.
The affective state accompanying these acceptance constructs might be said to represent
the idea of live and let live, or comfort with difference.
Adaptation
What are the skills needed for effective relating to and communication with people of
other cultures? These are additive skills. They are added on top of the way you perceive
your cultural identity. This isn’t about assimilation to another culture. In adaptation one
can behave or value in a way appropriate to another culture without threatening one’s
own cultural integrity. Adaptation involves any effective intercultural communication
operating on a high level of sensitivity and awareness of beliefs and behaviors different
from one’s own.
One skill is empathy, the ability to experience reality differently than by one’s own
culture. Empathy allows one to create a common meaning. Empathy isn’t the same as
sympathy. Empathy imagines the other’s perspective. It assumes difference. Sympathy
assumes we all feel the same way under a given set of circumstances.
A second skill is pluralism: Pluralism here means internalizing multiple frames of
reference. Those who live cross culturally live in a manner in which cultural difference is
intrinsic to the self. One can speak of a bicultural identity. Examples of pluralism.
The affective state associated with adaptation is competence born of the useful skills one
has as an intercultural communicant.
Integration
In this stage of intercultural sensitivity, the individual transcends their indigenous culture.
They become a “multicultural person.” The multicultural person is one “whose essential
identity is inclusive of life patterns different from their own and who has psychologically
and socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities.” This person has just not
acquired skills; they have adopted a new way of life in which “the person is always in the
process of becoming a part of and apart from a given cultural context. One becomes a
true cultural broker, operating on the margins of more than one culture, but still internally
intact.
Bennett identifies two forms of integration: contextual evaluation and constructive
marginality.
In contextual evaluation the individual confronts the problem of ethical choices for the
multiculturalists. One attains “the ability to analyze and evaluate situations from one or
more chosen cultural perspectives. Implied by this ability is both the skill to shift cultural
context and the concomitant self-awareness necessary to exercise choice.” Awareness of
the specific context is essential in making decisions about what to do. What might be
cheating or inappropriate in one context might be good form and appropriate in another.
In constructive marginality, the individual confronts their subjective experience of
operating as an outsider, or cultural broker who straddles different worlds. For this
person there is no natural cultural identity (ethnocentrism), “no intrinsically absolute right
behaviors nor any necessary reference group.” One creates one’s own reality.
A fully integrated individual would not have to think of what would be “appropriate” in
intercultural circumstances. Their behavior and conversation would reflect comfortable
and natural interaction with “others.”
Ethnocentric Denial
Defense
Minimization Acceptance Adaptation
stage
Cognitive
Weak
Stereotype; Universal
Diversity
Skill sets to
State
constructions Superiority; similarity
of cultural foster
of difference Reversal
categories
Intercultural
competence
Affective
Ignorance;
Pride; Fear Generosity
Live and
Competence
State
Bliss
and
Let Live
Hostility
Integration
Authenticity
of cultural
complexity
Comfort;
belonging