Some Theories on Intercultural Learning

8/18/2019 Some Theories on Intercultural Learning

1/9

SOME THEORIES & CONCEPTS ON INTERCULTURAL LEARNING

I. Milton J. Bennett’s developent!l odel o" inte#$%lt%#!l sensitivit&

Bennett (1993) defines intercultural sensitivity in terms of stages of personal growth. His

developmental model posits a continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with culturaldifference, moving from ethnocentrism through stages of greater recognition and acceptance

of difference, which Bennett calls “ethnorelativism.

!he main underlying concept of Bennett"s model is what he calls “differentiation, and how

one develops the a#ility to recogni$e and live with difference. “%ifferentiation then refers

to two phenomena& first, that people view one and the same thing in a variety of ways, and

second, that “cultures differ from one another in the way that they maintain patterns of

differentiation, or worldviews. !his second aspect refers to the fact that in Bennett"s view,

cultures offer ways on how to interpret reality, how one should perceive the world around us.

!his interpretation of reality, or world'view, is different from one culture to the other.

%eveloping intercultural sensitivity then means in essence to learn to recogni$e and deal with,

the fundamental difference #etween cultures in perceiving the world.

T'e Et'no$ent#i$ St!(es)

*. +eni!l

solation

eparation

,. +e"en$e

%enigration

uperiority*eversal

-. Minii!tion

+hysical niversalism

!ranscendent niversalism

T'e Et'no#el!tive St!(es)

/. A$$ept!n$e

*espect for&

Behavioural %ifference

*espect for -alue %ifference0. Ad!pt!tion

mpathy

+luralism

1. Inte(#!tion

/onte0tual valuation

/onstructive arginality

T'e et'no$ent#i$ st!(es

Seminar, Bridges for democratic structures – Nansen Dialogue Centre, Struga 08-15..11.2001

1


2/9

thnocentrism is understood #y Bennett as a stage where the individual assumes that his2her

view of the world is essentially central to reality.

+eni!l is at the very #asic of an ethnocentric worldview, and means that an individual denies

that there is any difference, that other views of reality do e0ist. !his denial can #e #ased on

isolation where there are little or no chances to #e confronted with difference, so that its

e0istence cannot #e e0periencedor it can #e #ased on separation, where difference is intentionally separated, where an

individual or a group set up #arriers #etween people that are “different on purpose, in order

not to #e confronted with difference.

eparation, therefore, needs at least a moment of recognition of difference, and is a

development for that reason over isolation. !he racial segregation that can still #e found in

the world is an e0ample of this stage of separation.

+eople of oppressed groups tend not to e0perience the stage of denial, since it is hard to

deny that there is a difference, if it is your #eing different or viewing the world differently

that is #eing denied.

4s a second stage, Bennett descri#es de"en$e. /ultural difference can #e perceived as

threatening, since it offers alternatives to one"s own sense of reality and thus to one"s

identity. n the defence stage, therefore, difference is perceived, #ut it is fought against.

!he most common strategy of that fighting is denigration, where the differing worldview is

evaluated negatively. tereotyping and, in its e0treme form, racism are e0amples of

strategies of denigration. !he other side of denigration is superiority, where the emphasis is

more on the positive attri#utes of one"s own culture, and no or little attention to the other,

which implicitly is valued lower. ometimes also a third strategy to deal with the threatening

part of difference is encountered this is called “reversal #y Bennett. *eversal means that

one values the other culture as the superior one, denigrating one"s own cultural #ac5ground.!his strategy may appear more sensitive at the first sight, #ut practically only means the

replacement of one centre of ethnocentrism (one"s own cultural #ac5ground) with another.

!he last stage of ethnocentrism Bennett calls inii!tion. %ifference is ac5nowledged, it

may not #e fought any more #y strategies of denigration or superiority, #ut an attempt is

made to minimi$e its meaning. imilarities are

pointed out as far outweighing cultural difference, which #y that is triviali$ed. any

organi$ations, Bennett points out, seem to perceive what he calls minimi$ation as the final

stage of intercultural development, and wor5 towards a world of shared values and common

grounds. !hese common grounds are #uilt on physical universalism that is on the #asic

#iological similarities #etween humans. 6e all must eat, digest and die. f culture is 7ust asort of continuation of #iology, it"s meaning is minimi$ed.

T'e et'no#el!tive st!(es

“8undamental to ethnorelativism is the assumption that cultures can only #e understood

relative to one another and that particular #ehavior can only #e understood within a cultural

conte0t. n the ethnorelative stages, difference is not any more perceived as a threat #ut

as a challenge. 4n attempt is made to develop new categories for understanding rather than

to preserve e0isting ones.

thnorelativism #egins with the !$$ept!n$e of cultural difference. 8irst, this acceptance

#egins with accepting that ver#al and nonver#al #ehavior varies across cultures and that all


2


3/9

of these variations deserve respect. econd, this acceptance is enlarged to the underlying

views of the world and values. !his second stage implies 5nowledge of one"s own values, and

the perception of these values as culturally made. -alues are understood as process and as a

tool to organi$e the world, rather that as something one “has. ven values that imply the

denigration of a particular group can then #e viewed as having a function in organi$ing the

world, without e0cluding that one has an opinion a#out that value.Building on accepting cultural difference, !d!pt!tion is the following stage. 4daptation has to

#e seen in contrast to assimilation, where different values, worldviews, or #ehaviours are

ta5en over while giving up one"s own identity.

4daptation is a process of addition. ew #ehaviour that is appropriate to a different

worldview is learned and added to one"s repertoire of #ehaving, with new styles of

communication #eing at the forefront. /ulture here needs to #e seen as a process, something

that develops and flows, rather than a static thing.

/entral to adaptation is empathy, the a#ility to e0perience a situation different from that

presented #y one"s own cultural #ac5ground.

t is the attempt to understand the other #y ta5ing up his or her perspective.

n the stage of pluralism, empathy is enlarged so that an individual can rely on several

distinct frames of reference, or multiple cultural frames. !he development of these frames

usually necessitates living in a different cultural conte0t for a longer time. %ifference is

then perceived as part of one"s normal self, as one has internalised it in two or more

different cultural frames.

Bennett calls his final set of stages inte(#!tion. 6hereas in the adaptation stage several

frames of reference e0ist ne0t to each other within one person, in the integration'stage an

attempt is made to integrate the various frames to one that is not a re'esta#lishment of one

culture, nor a simple comfort with peaceful co'e0istence of different worldviews. ntegrationdemands an ongoing definition of one"s own identity in terms of lived e0periences. t can lead

to not #elonging to any culture any more, #ut #eing an integrated outsider always.

/onte0tual evaluation as the first stage of integration is a#out the a#ility to evaluate

different situations and worldviews from one or more cultural #ac5grounds. n all other

stages, evaluation has #een avoided in order to overcome ethnocentric evaluations. n the

stage of conte0tual evaluation individuals are a#le to shift #etween cultural conte0ts,

depending on the circumstances. !he evaluation made is one of relative goodness. Bennett

gives the e0ample of an intercultural choice& “s it good to refer directly to a mista5e you

made #y yourself or someone else: n most 4merican conte0ts, it is good. n most ;apanese

conte0ts, it is #ad. However, it might #e good in some cases to use an 4merican style in;apan, and vice versa.

!he a#ility to use #oth styles is part adaptation. !he ethical consideration of conte0t in

ma5ing a choice is part of integration.

4s a final stage, constructive marginality is descri#ed #y Bennett as some sort of arrival

point, and not as the end of learning. t implies a state of total self'reflectiveness, of not

#elonging to any culture #ut #eing an outsider.

*eaching that stage, on the other hand, allows for true intercultural mediation, the a#ility to

operate within different worldviews.

Bennett"s model has proven to #e a good starting point for the design of trainings and

orientations that deal with developing inter'cultural sensitivity. t underlines the importance


3


4/9

of difference in intercultural learning, and points out some of the (non'efficient) strategies

of how to deal with difference.

Bennett implies that intercultural learning is a process that is characteri$ed #y continuous

advancement (with the possi#ility of moving #ac5 and forth in that process), and that it is

possi#le to measure the stage an individual has reached in terms of intercultural sensitivity.


5/9

!he ice#erg model focuses our attention on the hidden aspects of culture. t is a reminder

that in intercultural encounters, similarities we might find at first sight turn out to #e #ased

on completely different assumptions a#out reality. 4mong young people, cultural differences

may sometimes not #e so o#vious to perceive& across #orders young people li5e 7eans, listen

to pop music and need to access their e'mails. >earning “interculturally then means to

#ecome firstly aware of the lower part of one"s own ice#erg, and to #e a#le to tal5 a#out it with others in order to understand each other #etter and find common grounds.

III. Gee#t Ho"stede’s odel o" $%lt%#!l diensions

@eert Hofstede"s idea a#out culture is #ased on one of the largest empirical studies ever

done on cultural differences. n the 19As, he was as5ed #y B (already then a very

international company) to advise them on the fact that in spite of all attempts #y B to

esta#lish worldwide common procedures and standards, there were still vast differences in

the way the plants in e.g. Bra$il and ;apan were running.

Hofstede researched the differences in how B was running. n several stages, including in'

depth interviews and =uestionnaires sent out to all employees of B worldwide, he tried to

put his finger on the differences that e0isted in the various plants. ince the educational

#ac5ground of B"s employees was roughly the same everywhere, and since the structure of

the organi$ation, the rules and the procedures were the same, he concluded that any

difference found #etween the different locations had to #e #ased on the culture of the

employees in a particular plant and #y that, largely on the culture of the host country.

Hofstede descri#es culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes

the mem#ers of the human group from one another.

4fter several rounds of research, he reduced the differences in culture to four #asicdimensions. 4ll other differences, he stated, could #e traced #ac5 to one or several of these

four #asic dimensions of culture. !he four dimensions Hofstede identified were what he

called power distance, individualism2collectivism, masculinity2 femininity, and uncertainty

avoidance.

4fter some additional research, he added the dimension of time orientation.

Po2e# dist!n$e indicates the e0tent to which a society accepts the fact that power in

institutions and organi$ations is distri#uted une=ually among individuals. +ower distance is

a#out hierarchy, a#out, for instance, what is considered a normal decision ma5ing process in a

youth organi$ation. hould every#ody have a say on an e=ual level:


6/9

families, instead of a tight social framewor5 in which people distinguish #etween in'groups

and out'groups and e0pect their in'group to loo5 after them. n collectivist cultures, for

e0ample, people feel strongly related and responsi#le for their families, and prefera#ly loo5

at themselves as mem#er of various groups.

M!s$%linit67eininit indicates the e0tent to which gender determines the roles men andwomen have in society. s there, for instance, an almost “natural division of tas5s #etween

the male and female participants in a seminar that demands some household tas5s should #e

ta5en over #y every#ody:

Tie o#ient!tion indicates the e0tent to which a society #ases its decisions on tradition and

events in the past, or on short term, present'tense gains, or on what is perceived desira#le

for the future. How important, for e0ample, do you thin5 is the history of your region for

today, and for the future: 6hen people try to show off with where they come from& %o they

tal5 a#out the past, the present, or the future:

Hofstede provides for several grids in which he places different societies (nations) on values

along these dimensions. !hese values are #ased on the evaluation of the =uestionnaires and

repeated research on the #asis of this model.

Hofstede"s model has #een praised for its empirical #asis hardly any other study or theory

of culture can offer a similar =uantitative support.


7/9

n addition, the five dimensions, and one"s preferences along these dimensions, raise the

=uestion of cultural relativity& is there really no “#etter or “worse: 4re hierarchical

structures 7ust as good as e=ual ones: 4re strict and closed gender roles 7ust as good as

open ones: How far does it go: 4nd, if we want to mediate in a cultural conflict along those

dimensions, should we, and can we, ta5e up a neutral stand:

I8. Ed2!#d T. !nd Mild#ed Reed H!ll’s 4e'!vio%#!l $oponents o" $%lt%#e

!his couple developed their model of culture from a very practical point of view& !hey wanted

to give good advice to '4merican #usinessmen who were to travel and wor5 a#road. n

their study that involved many in'depth, open'ended interviews with people in different

cultures that '4merican #usinessmen were li5ely to co'operate with, they focused on

those, sometimes su#tle, differences in #ehavior that usually accounted for conflicts in

intercultural communication.


8/9

conte0t style may #e perceived #y a low'conte0t person as not truthful (since information is

“hidden), and not co'operative. n order to ma5e decisions, low'conte0t persons want a fairly

large amount of #ac5ground information, whereas high'con'te0t persons would #ase decisions

on less #ac5ground information at a given time, since they have constantly 5ept themselves up

with the process of what is going on. !he parado0ical situation however arises when high'

conte0t persons are as5ed to evaluate a new enterprise and then they want to 5noweverything, since they have not #een part of the conte0t of that new idea.

Te##ito#i!lit relates to the organi$ation of physical space, e.g. in an office. s the

president"s office on the top floor of the #uilding, or somewhere in the middle: f, for

e0ample, one considers the pens on one"s des5 as part of personal territory others are not

appreciated when 7ust #orrowing these pens without as5ing. !erritoriality is a#out the sense

people have developed of the space and the material things around them, and is also an

indication of power.

Pe#son!l Sp!$e is the distance to other people one needs to feel comforta#le. !he Halls

descri#e personal space as a “#u##le each person carries around at all times. t changes its

si$e according to the situation and the people one interacts with (people you are close friends

with are allowed closer than others). !he “#u##le indicates what one feels is an appropriate

distance to another person. ome#ody standing further away is considered distanced,

some#ody trying to get closer than what is perceived as the appropriate distance might seem

offending, intimidating, or simply rude.

f the normal conversational distance of one culture is rather close so that it overlaps with

what is considered an intimate distance in a different culture, a pro#lem in communication

might 7ust arise from the different interpretations of what the chosen physical distance toone another means.

Mono$'#oni$ !nd Pol$'#oni$ Tie relate to the structuring of one"s time. onochronic

timing means to do one thing at a time, wor5ing with schedules where one thing follows the

other, where different tas5s have their time assigned to them. !ime for monochronic

cultures is very hands'on, it can almost #e touched and is tal5ed a#out as a resource&

spending, wasting, and saving time. !ime is linear it e0tends as one line from the past

through the present into the future. !ime is used as a tool to structure the day, and to

decide levels of importance, e.g. not “having time to meet some#ody.

+olychronic timing means the opposite& many tas5s are done at the same time there is highinvolvement with people, which implies more emphasis on relating to others than on holding to

a schedule. +olychronic time is not so much perceived as a resource, and could rather #e

compared to a point than to a line.

Hall D Hall perceive some of these dimensions we have descri#ed as #eing inter'related.

onochronic time in their research is closely lin5ed to low'conte0t and to a design of space

that allows the compartmentali$ation of life (a structure where different areas of

involvements are separated from one another, or put into different “compartments). n

addition to the dimensions mentioned, Hall D Hall introduce several other concepts as

important to #e attentive to, e.g. how scheduling in a culture wor5s, how much time ahead

meetings should #e arranged, what is considered appropriate in terms of punctuality, and how


8


9/9

fast information flows in a system ? is the flow #ound to an hierarchical system (up2down), or

does it flow more li5e a large networ5 in all directions:

n dealing with other cultures, Hall D Hall suggest to their target group, '4merican

#usinessmen, to recogni$e the cultural differences and, if possi#le, to adapt to the different

ways of #ehaving in the culture they wor5 in.

Hall D Hall"s 5ey concepts when descri#ing different cultures point out some significantdifferences that people e0perience in intercultural encounters and therefore are very

recogni$a#le to many readers.

Relev!n$e "o# &o%t' 2o#3 In intercultural groups, the dimensions introduced by Hall & Hall can function well as a first

"theoretical” approach to cultural differences.

!hey lend themselves to very nice e0ercises, e.g. having participants tal5 to each other and,

while tal5ing, change the distance they have towards each other. %o #oth have the same

feeling of an appropriate distance: How would they deal with some#ody needing less2more space:

ithuania at the seminar&

:+estin!tion) inte#$%lt%#!l vi! e9pe#ienti!l; o#(!nised 4

Documents

Some Theories on Intercultural Learning