Texts

** Objective Culture (Culture with a big C) **
Every culture must create a system of shared knowledge if it is to survive as a group and encourage efficient communication among its members. These shared patterns of information are both objective and subjective (obvious and hidden). The sharing of these patterns encourages communication and helps members to function more efficiently together. (Jaime S. Wurzel, Towards Multiculturalism, IRC 2004)

// “Today we are going to the RAK Museum.” said the teacher in the bright sheyla. // // “Oh, an afternoon of culture,” responded the student, piercingly staring into her eyes, hoping she would change her mind. //

When people think about doing something cultural, they think about history, art, literature, drama, classical music, or dance. In other words they plan to participate in one of the institutions of culture-behavior that has become fixed into a particular form. I refer to this aspect of culture as “culture with a capital “c.” (Milton J. Bennett, Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication, Intercultural Press, 1998) Objective culture is what human beings make, and what they consciously pass down from generation to generation. It ranges from formal systems of information, music and art, to less complex objects, such as what people wear. By the same token, the content or solution produced by a group of members attempting to solve a problem is also part of objective culture or “big c”. Big c or objective culture is formally learned and it is consciously shared. It emphasizes the information produced by institutions to functionally organize their societies. The study of this information makes up the curriculum in most schools and universities. Examples of big c information are: economic, political, linguistic, historical, geographical systems. A person may be very knowledgeable about a particular group, but unable to communicate with its members. When people study the geography or history of a particular culture they are learning objective or big c culture.

** Subjective Culture (Culture with a little C) **
Every culture must create a system of shared knowledge if it is to survive as a group and encourage efficient communication among its members. These shared patterns of information are both objective and subjective (obvious and hidden). The sharing of these patterns encourages communication and helps members to function more efficiently together. (Jaime S. Wurzel, Towards Multiculturalism, IRC 2004)

// “Today we are going to the RAK Museum.” said the teacher in the bright sheyla. // // “Oh, an afternoon of culture,” responded the student, piercingly staring into her eyes, hoping she would change her mind. //

The less obvious aspects of culture are its subjective side. What we can call “culture with a little “c.”. It refers to psychological features, assumptions, values and needs, often expressed non-verbally or implicitly. "Little c" constitutes the processes that define a group of people. In the exchange about the museum, the student expressed her wishes non-verbally. She was most likely understood by the teacher in the bright sheyla, because they unconsciously shared the meaning of the student’s stare. The same stare, in a different cultural context, may create problems in interaction. People who share similar basic life experiences develop similar ways of thinking and feeling. This causes the cultural group to perceive the environments in certain and consistent ways. These subjective elements emerge naturally in human interaction. It causes problems when people assume that everyone shares the same assumptions about work, the same ways to communicate and the same styles of approaching a task or solving a problem. Consequently working effectively with people from other cultures involves understanding the unconscious hidden messages exchanged between people in the same culture. Subjective culture or “little c” is informally learned and unconsciously shared. It is a given group’s characteristic way of understanding its social environment. Consequently, it is the process, rather than the content, produced by a group of interacting team members attempting to solve a problem.


 * Multicultural Teacher Introspection **

//By Nitza M. Hidalgo //

Many educators around the country are interested in developing a multicultural approach in their teaching. They find themselves in classroom with 25 children of varying racial and cultural backgrounds and are looking for ways to connect what they do in the classroom to the cultures represented by their students. Before we can begin to understand others, however, we need to understand ourselves and what we bring to our interactions with others. For this reason, it is important for teachers interested in learning more about other cultural groups to first look inward.

The initial step in the process involves introspection. Teachers need to ask themselves some fundamental questions: What framework do we bring into the classroom? How does our cultural perspective color our view of the worlds? Posing these questions helps teachers analyze the deep-rooted cultural features of their backgrounds. Teachers may thus begin the process of understanding how our beliefs and behaviors are culturally based and how our system of beliefs is similar to or different from our students’ beliefs.

Many teachers may not be accustomed to thinking of ourselves as cultural or ethnic. This experience in likely rooted in our training and socialization, both direct and indirect, which have been monocultural in nature.

The irony is that each of us has been socialized in some culture, and often more than one culture. Our culture provides a lens through which we view the world and interpret our everyday experiences. 3 Culture informs what we see and understand, as well as what we omit and misconstrue. Many components make up our view of the world: our ethnic and racial identification, the region of the country we come from, the type of neighborhood we live in, our socioeconomic background, our gender, the language(s) we speak, our disabilities, our past experiences, and our life-style. We need to think about the ways in which these parts of us define our perspectives.

We may think about culture as existing on at least three levels: the symbolic, the behavioral, and the concrete. 4 Our values and beliefs lie on the symbolic level. How we ascribe meaning to our experiences depends on the values we hold and the beliefs that we may have. This level is the most abstract and difficult to articulate, yet it is essential to our interpretation of the world. This level of culture is implicit and shared by others within our reference group. Our values and beliefs help us to interpret our experiences and shape socially appropriate behavior. For example, the definition of family may vary from one cultural group to another, depending on the importance the group places on family cohesiveness. The Puerto Rican concept of family may go beyond the extended family to kinlike relations with friends (compadres/comadres), while the U.S. American definition of family may include only the nuclear family living at home. 5

The behavioral level refers to how we define our social roles, the languages(s) we speak, the rituals we practice, and the form taken by our nonverbal communication. Our behavior reflects our values. The roles we ascribe to women and man within U.S. culture are different from the gender roles of other cultures. Even within our culture, for instance, the role of women has undergone subtle modifications because of the women’s movement. These role ascriptions are based on our beliefs, as a society, about the importance of women’s work and their contribution to the household. In response, men have also had to redefine their roles within various situations as evidenced by the development of parenting, rather than solely maternity, leave policies. Also on the behavioral level, language mirrors thought: our language reflects our beliefs and values. Think about the associations we make with simple words like black and white. Is it sheer coincidence that we can generate many negative connotations for the word black and many positive connotations for the word white? Regarding language, the feminist movement has worked to eliminate commonplace correlations such as men and girls (versus men and women) because of the inequality inherent in this type of comparison. These are subtle distinctions that have profound effects on our thinking.

Educators often begin to think about multiculturalism at the concrete level, yet movement to a more abstract understanding is needed. The concrete culture is the most visible and tangible level. The products of culture, such as our cultural artifacts, exist at this level. Technology, music, foods, and artistic works and materials are the concrete, visible elements of culture. This is what is most often interpreted as “the culture” of ethnic groups. School festivals highlighting ethnic foods, flag displays from different countries, performance of ethnic music, and playing international games tend to result in a superficial and exotic impression of multiculturalism. This would be comparable to French students expecting to learn about U.S. culture by studying our ritual practices on the Fourth of July. Knowing about barbecues and fireworks displays tells French students little about the meaning Independence Day has in our nation. Foods, holidays, games, and artifacts reveal little about how ethnic groups experience and make meaning of the world.

Given this definition of culture, we can begin to explore how our own cultural perspectives shape our thinking and actions. In order to answer eventually

the broad question of how our cultural perspective influences our work in the classroom.

National cultures can be described according to the analysis of Geert Hofstede. These ideas were first based on a large research project into national culture differences across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries. Subsequent studies by others covered students in 23 countries, elites in 19 countries, commercial airline pilots in 23 countries, up-market consumers in 15 countries, and civil service managers in 14 countries. Together these studies identified and validated four independent dimensions of national culture differences, with a fifth dimension added later. If you follow the links below you will find a map of the world for each cultural dimension, which enables you to quickly see how similar or different countries or regions are.
 * Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions**

• Power Distance

• Individualism

• Masculinity

• Uncertainty Avoidance

• Long-Term Orientation

The Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions can be of great use when it comes to analyzing a country’s culture. There are however a few things one has to keep in mind. Firstly, the averages of a country do not relate to individuals of that country. Even though this model has proven to be quite often correct when applied to the general population, one must be aware that not all individuals or even regions with subcultures fit into the mould. It is to be used as a guide to understanding the difference in culture between countries, not as law set in stone. As always, there are exceptions to the rule.
 * The drawbacks of applying the Hofstede Model**

Secondly, how accurate is the data? The data has been collected through questionniares, which have their own limitations. Not only that, but in some cultures the context of the question asked is as important as its content. Especially in group-oriented cultures, individuals might tend to answer questions as if they were addressed to the group he/she belongs to. While on the other hand in the United States, which is an individualistic culture, the answers will most likely be answered and perceived through the eyes of that individual.

Lastly, is the data up to date? How much does the culture of a country change over time, either by internal or external influences?

For more indepth information you can find this model clearly outlined in Geert Hofstede’s book, //Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind//.

Hofstede’s Power distance Index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. For example, Germany has a 35 on the cultural scale of Hofstede’s analysis. Compared to Arab countries where the power distance is very high (80) and Austria where it very low (11), Germany is somewhat in the middle. Germany does not have a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, but have a strong belief in equality for each citizen. Germans have the opportunity to rise in society. On the other hand, the power distance in the United States scores a 40 on the cultural scale. The United States exhibits a more unequal distribution of wealth compared to German society. As the years go by it seems that the distance between the ‘have’ and ‘have-nots’ grows larger and larger.

Individualism is the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

For example, Germany can be considered as individualistic with a relatively high score (67) on the scale of Hofstede compared to a country like Guatemala where they have strong collectivism (6 on the scale).

In Germany people stress on personal achievements and individual rights. Germans expect from each other to fulfil their own needs. Group work is important, but everybody has the right of his own opinion an is expected to reflect those. In an individual country like Germany people tend to have more loose relationships than countries where there is a collectivism where people have large extended families.

The United States can clearly been seen as individualistic (scoring a 91). The “American dream” is clearly a representation of this. This is the Americans’ hope for a better quality of life and a higher standard of living than their parents’. This belief is that anyone, regardless of their status can ‘pull up their boot straps’ and raise themselves from poverty.

Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (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, caring pole ‘feminine’. For example, Germany has a masculine culture with a 66 on the scale of Hofstede (Netherlands 14). Masculine traits include assertiveness, materialism/material success, self-centeredness, power, strength, and individual achievements. The United States scored a 62 on Hofstede’s scale. So these two cultures share, in terms of masculinity, similar values.

Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’. For example, in Germany there is a reasonable high uncertainty avoidance (65) compared to countries as Singapore (8) and neighbouring country Denmark (23). Germans are not to keen on uncertainty, by planning everything carefully they try to avoid the uncertainty. In Germany there is a society that relies on rules, laws and regulations. Germany wants to reduce its risks to the minimum and proceed with changes step by step. The United States scores a 46 compared to the 65 of the German culture. Uncertainty avoidance in the US is relatively low, which can clearly be viewed through the national cultures.

Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore, Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension. Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension: Long term orientation

-persistence

-ordering relationships by status and observing this order

-thrift

-having a sense of shame Short term orientation

-personal steadiness and stability

-protecting your ‘face’

-respect or tradition

-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 32px;">Transcending Cultural Barriers: Context, Relationships, and Time ** =Cultures vary dramatically as to how much of the total environment, or context, is meaningful in communication. High-context cultures assign meaning to many of the stimuli surrounding an explicit message. Low-context cultures exclude many of those stimuli and focus more intensely on the objective communication event, whether it be a word, a sentence, or a physical gesture. Thus in high-context cultures, verbal messages have little meaning without the surrounding context, which includes the overall relationship between all the people engaged in communication. In low-context cultures, the message itself means everything. Since context perception is a cultural pattern, most cultures can be placed on a high/low context scale (see Figure 2.3). China, Chile and Iraq, for instance, are high-context societies in which people tend to rely on their history, their status, their relationships, and a plethora of other information, including religion, to assign meaning to an event. The totality of all this information, implicit, explicit, guides their response to the event. This pattern is in sharp contrast to Norway or Austria, for instance, where people depend for meaning on a relatively narrow range of objective information in specific verbal or physical form.=


 * High-context cultures** are characterized by extensive information networks among family, friends, associates, and even clients. Their relationships are close and personal. They keep well informed about the people who are important in their lives. This extensive background knowledge is automatically brought to bear in giving meanings to events and communications. Nothing that happens to them can be described as an isolated event; everything is connected to meaningful context.

People in **low-context cultures**, on the other hand, tend to compartmentalize their lives and relationships. They permit little "interference" of "extraneous" information. Thus in order to give detailed meaning to an event, they require detailed information in a communication. The "context" must be explicit in the message. One might expect, therefore, that low-context communications are perforce wordier, or longer, than high-context messages, since they have to carry more information. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true: low-context cultures use language with great precision and economy. Every word is meaningful. In high-context cultures, language is promiscuous: since words have relatively less value, they are spent in great sums.

High-and low-context cultures have radically different views of reality. And the further apart they are on primary cultures, but also between different professional and functional cultures within a single primary culture. Indeed, context differences between work functions can lead to holy wars.

Consider, for example, the context orientations of marketing people compared to engineers (see Figure 2.4). The marketing culture is driven by rapport-building practices that attach high values to relationships. The best marketing people are good at understanding, accepting, and blending with the views of their customers. They are always selling - either themselves or their products or their clients. Engineers, on the other hand, tend to be driven by analytical thinking. They value precision and skepticism. To the engineer, the marketing people look fuzzy and even unprincipled: "They'll do anything to get a sale - including promising what we can't deliver." But from the marketing perspective, engineers often seem insensitive and rigidly boorish.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">All cultures have unique concepts of time and ways of managing it. Americans tend to worship time and manage it as though it were a tangible and scarce resource: "Time is money." Few cultures - perhaps the Germans and Swiss - can compete with the American obsession with time. In most countries, time is more flexible. Being late to an appointment, or taking a long time to get down to business, is the accepted norm in most Mediterranean and Arab countries. Cultural time differences can be categorized according to whether they are monochronic (sequential) or polychronic (synchronic) and according to the culture's orientation to past, present, and future.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Monochronic/Polychronic Time. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Time can be thought of as a straight line or as a circle: the linear, sequential march of days and years, or the rotation of the seasons. Our cultural orientation has a profound effect on our daily lives and business functions. As Edward and Mildred Hall have noted, "It is impossible to know how many millions of dollars have been lost in international business because monochronic and polychronic people do not understand each other or even realize that two such different time systems exist" (Hall & Hall, 1989, p. 16).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Monochronic time is one-track linear: people do one thing at a time. Polychronic time is multi-track circular; it allows many things to happen simultaneously, with no particular end in sight. Monochronic time is tightly compartmentalized: schedules are almost sacred. Polychronic time is open-ended: completing the task or communication is more important than adhering to a schedule.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">People from polychronic and monochronic cultures have the same difficulties adjusting to one another as people from high-context and low-context cultures. In fact, polychronic time is characteristic of high-context people and monochronic time is characteristic of low-context people. Similarly, the first approach tends to characterize Southern cultures, while the second rules in the North (with some notable exceptions). Monochronic people tend to sequence communications as well as tasks. They would not be inclined, for instance, to interrupt a phone conversation in order to greet a third person. Polychronic people can carry on multiple conversations simultaneously - indeed, they would consider it rude not to do so.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Past, Present, and Future Orientations. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Different cultures function according to different orientations towards the past, present, and future. In general, cultures are either future-oriented or past-oriented. That is, activities in the present are either designed to influence future events or likely to be influenced by past events. In the United States, the present is heavily influenced by the short-termed future. Asian cultures tend to be oriented toward a more distant future. Mexicans and many Latin cultures, on the other hand, are more heavily influenced by the past. Part of the difference may be related to cultural concepts of control over the environment, which may in turn be related to religious tradition. Mexico, for instance, is usually viewed as a fatalistic culture where the past is in control of the present and future. Americans, by contrast, have a greater sense of control over present and future events.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Table 2.2 Common Time Differences in Business <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Source: Hall & Hall (1989)
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Monochronic People ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Polychronic People ** ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Do one thing at a time || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Do many things at once ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Concentrate on the job || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Highly distractible and subject to interruptions ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Take time commitments seriously (deadlines, schedules) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Consider time commitments an objective to be achieved only if possible ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Low-context and need information || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">High-context and already have information ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Committed to the job || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Committed to people ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Adhere religiously to plans || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Change plans often and easily ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Concerned about not disturbing others; Follow rules of privacy and consideration || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More concerned with relations (family, friends, close business associates) than with privacy ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Show great respect for private property, seldom borrow or lend || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Borrow and lend things often and easily ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Emphasize promptness || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Base promptness on the relationship ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Accustomed to short-term relationships || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Strong tendency to build lifetime relationships ||


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Business Implications. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Like context, time is variable across all levels of culture - social, professional, and functional. And its implications in the business environment are almost endless: management of appointments, agendas, schedules, decision making, lead times, and much more (see Table 2.2). Some of the most important time differences have to do with personal and business relationships. Polychronic people tend to be more group-oriented in keeping with their high context orientation. They see relationships as deep and long term, spanning past, present, and future. They seek out business relationships that offer this orientation - even other factors including competitiveness. Monochronic cultures often value relationships according to more practical, future oriented criteria - even discard relationships that don't seem useful to future business goals. Likewise, polychronic employees tend to value long-term employment relationships, as in Mexico. Promotions are based on somewhat subjective criteria linked to one's network of relationships. In contrast, Canadians and Americans link promotion to achievements in the near past and likely success in the near future.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Time orientations have great relevance to cross-functional teaming, where it can become a major source of frustration. Functional cultures, no less than primary cultures, tend to be more or less polychronic or monochronic and oriented to past, present, or future. R&D people typically have a long-term perspective, which is reinforced by the tendency to measure their productivity by the frequency of "big ideas." Accounting, on the other hand, must have a short-term, incremental point of view and a present-tense orientation or face chaos. People with polychronic-oriented functions, as in marketing or advertising, are better able to blend into cross-functional teams because of their ability to handle concurrency and simultaneity. Monochronic, present-oriented individuals, such as accounting and information systems specialists, find this challenge much more daunting. We may find that in turbulent business times such as the 1990's, polychronic-time planning could have unforeseen advantages: after all, relationships tend to outlive even the most objective data. Futhermore, polychronic workers function with far greater comfort and assurance in that sea of information which threatens to swamp monochronic cultures.

Read the information about the following people and in groups discuss the question below.
1 Fareed is 65, and was born in Fujairah. His parents had ten children, and were poor farmers in a rural area. He never went to school, and has continued to farm in the same area as his extended family. He has been married for 48 years, and has seven children and fifteen grandchildren. Fareed likes to hunt and fish, and is very active with his local mosque.

2 Sheikha is a 28 year old divorcee, and has her own apartment in the same apartment building where she grew up in Dubai. She and her three brothers were raised by their mother, who struggled to keep them clothed and fed by juggling minimum wage jobs. Sheikha knows very little about her father, other than that he is from Syria and divorced her mother when she was a baby. Sheikha dropped out of high school and got married at 15, when she had the older of her two children. Two of her brothers are currently still at school, as is the father of her youngest child. Sheikha is studying, and hopes to go to nursing school someday.

3 Malik is 43 years old, and moved to the UAE from Iraq five years ago to escape the war in his country. He owned his own newspaper at home, but now works two jobs, and shares an apartment with three others, while saving money to bring his wife and children to join him in the UAE. Malik dreams of having his family with him, so that they can open their own business and their children can get a good education.

4 Sara is a 28 year old, born in the United States and raised by her mother, who taught at the local elementary school, and her father, who worked for the United States Postal Service. Sarah is an only child, but has close relationships with both sets of grandparents who still live in Palestine. She graduated with honors from high school, and received a scholarship to a prestigious law school. She currently works as a corporate attorney with a well-known law firm in Abu Dhabi. Sarah loves live music and theatre, and enjoys going out at weekends.

5 Raheem is a 32 year old Egyptian, raised in an urban environment in Cairo. His parents were members of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and were well known political activists. Raheem has been attending protests and marches since he was young. He attended college, with a major in political science and Middle Eastern studies, and is currently working on his Ph.D. in political science while teaching in the Political studies department at a local college in Dubai. His dissertation topic is “The Use of Force by Urban Police Departments”.

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 24px;">Cultural Diversity: ** **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 24px;">Towards A Whole Society ** <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">adapted from an article by Mara Hurwitt

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">"In Germany they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up." // <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">- Rev. Martin Niemoller

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 18px;">Celebrating Diversity **

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">Look around and you will see that our society is very diverse. Diversity enriches our lives. Much as the biological diversity of an ecosystem increases its stability and productivity, cultural diversity brings together the resources and talents of many people for the shared benefit of all. Sadly, the differences among us have historically formed the basis of fear, bigotry, and even violence. Yet consider how dull life would be if we all looked alike, thought alike, and acted alike! By learning to recognize our similarities and appreciate our differences, together we can overcome prejudice and intolerance and work towards a more peaceful and productive world.

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">People may fear diversity simply because they are accustomed to the way things used to be and change makes them uncomfortable. Others may somehow feel threatened because they perceive increased participation by traditionally underrepresented groups in the workplace and the political process as a challenge to their own power. If left unaddressed, these fears can lead to resentment and bigotry. However, these fears can often be countered through education. Dr. Samuel Betances, professor emeritus at Northeastern Illinois University and noted author and lecturer offers this observation:

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">//"Education universalizes the human spirit. You cannot be universalized if you are only in one world, the world of your ethnic group, the world of your neighborhood, the world of your religion, or the world of your family. The word ‘university’ is related to this idea. Our lives are enhanced when we understand and appreciate many worlds. It has been said that if you gain a new language, you gain a new world. I believe that the reverse is also true: if you lose a language, you lose a world. When our spirit is universalized, we can cross boundaries and feel comfortable in other worlds. We can teach and learn from others in a mutually supportive effort to acquire a profound respect for the human condition."//

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">Unlike assimilation - where everyone's differences are lost in a giant melting pot - multiculturalism advocates the idea that maintaining our different cultural identities can enrich us and our communities. Multiculturalism does not promote ethnocentrism or seek to elevate one cultural identity above another. Instead, it celebrates diversity by allowing us to value our individual heritages and beliefs while respecting those of others. Respect for each others' cultural values and belief systems is an intrinsic part of cultural diversity. Lack of respect is often based on ignorance or misinformation. If you do not understand another's values, lifestyle, or beliefs, it is much easier to belittle them. And so the seeds of prejudice and intolerance are sown.

= Cultural Differences and Cultural Understanding =

The movement towards cultural understanding is vital to becoming an effective volunteer. As humanitarian entrepreneur Connie Duckworth observes, "It's very hard to just parachute into a developing country. There are so many cultural and ethnic differences, so many things about a particular culture that wouldn't be understandable to someone who's not from there. Success or failure of projects or enterprises depends on creating solutions that work within that cultural context." [|(1)] Culturally sensitive volunteering requires a willingness to learn as well as to give, but most of all, it requires the humility and ability to self-evaluate.

Overcoming ethnocentrism involves more than “getting used to” cultural differences. After having been raised in one culture, suddenly finding yourself in a completely different culture can trigger a series of complex emotions and reactions. For some, it can come as a shock that their worldview isn’t universal, but is instead just one of many equally valid worldviews. For others, basic differences among people from different backgrounds can be difficult to accept. Still others will immediately admire the “beautiful” and “exotic” characteristics of a foreign culture, and may even temporarily shun their own background. Regardless of your initial attitude towards cultural differences, it is important to develop genuine intercultural sensitivity in order to be an effective volunteer.


 * The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity** [|(2)][|(3)][|(4)][|(5)]

Intercultural development and communication expert Dr. Milton Bennett has been recognized for his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. The model describes, in a series of six stages, a continuum of attitudes toward cultural differences. The goal is to move from the ethnocentric stages of denial, defense, and minimization, to the ethnorelative stages of acceptance, adaptation and integration. Bennett describes ethnocentrism as an attitude or mindset which presumes the superiority of one’s own worldview, sometimes without even acknowledging the existence of others. Ethnorelativism, on the other hand, assumes the equality and validity of all groups, and does not judge others by the standards of one’s own culture. Bennett’s six stage model is summarized below.


 * Ethnocentrism:** A simple way to conceive of the three stages of ethnocentrism is in terms of attitudes toward cultural differences: those in the denial stage deny the existence of cultural differences, those in the defense stage demonize them, and those in the minimization stage trivialize differences.

__Denial__: People in the denial stage do not recognize the existence of cultural differences. They are completely ethnocentric in that they believe there is a correct type of living (theirs), and that those who behave differently simply don’t know any better. In this phase, people tend to impose their value system upon others, believing that they are “right” and that others who are different are “confused.” They are not threatened by cultural differences because they refuse to accept them. Generally, those who experience cultural denial have not had extensive contact with people different from themselves, and thus have no experiential basis for believing in other cultures. A key indicator of the denial stage is the belief that you know better than the locals.

__Defense__: Those in the defense stage are no longer blissfully ignorant of other cultures; they recognize the existence of other cultures, but not their validity. They feel threatened by the presence of other ways of thinking, and thus put them down in an effort to assert the superiority of their own culture. Cultural differences are seen as problems to be overcome, and there is a dualistic “us vs. them” mentality. Whereas those in the denial stage are unthreatened by the presence of other cultural value systems (they don’t believe in them, after all), those in the defense stage do feel threatened by “competing” cultures. People in the defense stage tend to surround themselves with members of their own culture, and avoid contact with members from other cultures. [|(6)]

__Minimization__: People in the minimization stage of ethnocentrism are still threatened by cultural differences, and therefore try to minimize them by telling themselves that people are more similar than dissimilar. No longer do they see those from other cultures as being misguided, inferior, or unfortunate. They still have not developed cultural self-awareness, and insist on getting along with everyone. Because they assume that all cultures are fundamentally similar, people in this stage fail to tailor their approaches to a cultural context. [|(7)][|(8)]


 * Ethnorelativism:**

__Acceptance__: In this first stage of ethnorelativism, people begin not only to recognize other cultures but to accept them as viable alternatives to their own worldview. They know that people are genuinely different from them, and accept the inevitability of other value systems and behavioral norms. They do not yet adapt their own behavior to the cultural context, but they no longer see other cultures as threatening, wrong, or inferior. People in the acceptance phase can be thought of as “culture-neutral,” seeing differences as neither good nor bad, but rather as a fact of life.

__Adaptation__: During the adaptation phase, people begin to view cultural differences as a valuable resource, and thus enjoy the differences. Because differences are seen as positive, people consciously adapt their behaviors to the different cultural norms of their environment.

__Integration__: Integration is the last stage in one’s journey away from ethnocentrism. In this stage, people accept that their identity is not based on any single culture. Once integrated, people can effortlessly and even unconsciously shift between worldviews and cultural frames of reference. Though they maintain their own cultural identity, they naturally integrate aspects of other cultures into it.

Once you have progressed to an ethnorelativistic view of cultural differences, you will be bicultural. You will enjoy and effectively operate in culturally different environments, and be able to effortlessly take on subtle characteristics of the local culture. Your intercultural sensitivity will also affect how others view you, and thus how they treat you. Being trusted and accepted by local people into a culture you have recently come to know and accept will be thrilling and fulfilling, and will allow you to be a more effective volunteer.