The February, 1999, issue of The Language Teacher was
a special issue dedicated to teaching world citizenship in the language
classroom. Reactions to the contents of this issue from colleagues at our
university, all of whom are currently teaching a required course in intercultural
communication, ranged from feeling inspired to being disgusted.
One teacher felt that some articles attempted to push a liberal North
American sociopolitical agenda onto students, while another teacher liked
those same articles and felt that the intercultural communication class
offered at our university ignored pressing social issues. Both agreed that
being socially responsible was important. Teachers agreed broadly with the
general goals of greater world citizenship, but disagreed on how to accomplish
those goals.
Though little consensus emerged, discussion did seem to polarize between
two groups which could be described as "globalists" -- teachers
who emphasized focusing students attention on a global vision of shared
humanity, and "inter-culturalists" -- those who emphasized drawing
attention to cultural difference as a way to defuse what was seen as inevitable
cross-cultural conflict.
These two positions roughly correspond with the field of global issues
education (the globalists) and the field of intercultural communication
education (the inter-culturalists). What our discussion highlighted was
the perhaps unexpected difficulty of reconciling these two points of view.
We believe that this is a result of often unexamined hidden assumption behind
the goals of these respective disciplines. This paper seeks to examine these
hidden assumptions and introduce an educational model to reconcile them.
What We Share or How We Differ?
It is a truism to say that humans all share certain characteristics.
It is equally true to say that no two people or cultures are exactly alike.
Since good human relations require both common ground for understanding,
and respect for difference, educators seeking to encourage cross-cultural
understanding are asked an important question. Is intercultural conflict
caused more fundamentally by a lack of appreciation of what we share? Or
a lack of appreciation for how we are different? And based on this answer,
to what degree should learners' attention be focused on points of commonality
across culture, as opposed to focussing on points of difference?
The answer to this question can be divided into two opposing viewpoints
which we believe correspond roughly with the often unspoken assumptions
behind global issues education and intercultural communication education.
The "Universalists"
A universalistic point of view maintains that humans are all subject
to certain universal imperatives. Bennett (1993) divides universalism into
two categories. Physical universalism refers to the assumption that "human
beings in all cultures have physical characteristics in common that dictate
behavior which is basically understandable to any other human beings"
(p. 23). Transcendent universalism assumes that "all human beings,
whether they know it or not, are products of some single transcendent principle,
law, or imperative" (p.23). Bennett gives examples of religious forms
of universalism ("We are all children of the same God"), socio-political
forms (Marxist theory of class struggle) and psychological forms (theories
of psychological needs). Proponents assume these principles to be invariably
valid across culture (p. 23-25).
We believe that a universalistic view is strongly represented in the
Teaching World Citizenship in the Language Classroom issue (Feb. 1999) of
The Language Teacher. Cates (1999) refers to "developing an
allegiance to humanity as a whole" (p. 15). This allegiance is, we
assume, based on universal elements of shared humanity. What precisely we
share is left undefined. Harrison (1999) argues that teachers should "enable
young people to act collaboratively to influence or change (the) world"
(p. 29). We assume Harrison intends to encourage things like justice and
equality, yet in so doing downplays the possibility that what may seem just
to you, may not to me. His reasoning appears to rest on universalistic assumptions
of the self-evident nature of goodness or justice.
Strain (1999) uses educational goals promoted by the Baha'i International
Community, some of which are clearly universalistic, such as "creating
conditions in which unity emerges as the natural state of human existence,"
and some of which are also more specific, such as "supporting social
and economic justice", and "achieving gender equality " (p.
26). The underlying assumption seems to be that what is "just"
or "equal" or "natural" is universal enough for us to
all recognize.
Higgins and Tanaka (1999) feel that "a fundamental goal of teaching
is the empowerment of others" (p. 15). Empowerment is defined as helping
students "tap the powers of their own minds and hearts" to greater"
develop themselves within the matrix of the world", including the concept
that "our world can be shaped and reshaped by our own vision"
(p. 15). While we find these goals so vague as to be nearly meaningless,
Higgins and Tanaka also go on to promote the development of more specific
skills such as critical thinking, to give students a "greater sense
of self" and an "internal guidance system" to enable students
to become "'empowered' independent citizens" (p. 16).
The emphasis on individuality, independence and internal guidance (moral/ethical
standards?), suggests that the universalistic assumptions behind their educational
goals are related to seeing students in sociopolitical, or perhaps ethical/moral
terms, as agents of unspecified social or attitudinal change. Higgins and
Tanaka (1999) seem to feel that Japanese students fall far short of some
desired universalistic state of development. They describe their students
as "naive and undernourished in their vision of the world" (p.15)
and refer to students' "cultural reticence, ritual training and educational
battle fatigue" which "strongly resembles incompetence" (p.
16).
Higgins and Tanaka (1999) also say that students must "overcome
cultural obstacles" (p. 15), and "connect to the power of a deeper
motivation" (p.16). We take "deeper" used in this context
to mean more universal and less influenced by culture. This view -- that
culture is something layered on top of a deeper universal self -- is at
the heart of the universalistic point of view.
The "Relativists"
While world citizenship education as outlined by Cates (1999), and interpreted
in the recent special issue of TLT (Feb. 1999) emphasizes universalism,
the field of intercultural communication (IC) education has a very
different background. While it also developed after World War II, it evolved
not from the field of education, but initially from cultural anthropology
as well as training for aid workers and Peace Corps volunteers (Damen, 1987,
p. 24-27) (Gudykunst, 1985). Edward Hall (1959) was the first to use the
term intercultural communication, and his groundbreaking work on the hidden
nature of cultural difference set the tone for the development of the field
(Gudykunst, 1985, p. 2-3).
Currently, the field of IC includes not only the academic discipline
of anthropology, but also, sociology, social psychology, communication and
others. The discipline of IC emphasizes cross-cultural comparison (e.g.
Barnlund, 1989; Condon, 1984; Hofstede, 1997; Stewart & Bennett, 1991;
Trompenaars, 1998) as well as intercultural training and education (e.g.
Bennett, 1993; Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Gaston, 1992; Kohls, 1996) as
well as theorizing on the nature of culture and its relationship to communication
and social reality (e.g. Kim, 1988; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1985; Watzlawick,
1984).
One common thread, however, in contrast to what we have considered from
the field of world citizenship education, is an emphasis on cultural difference,
rather than similarity. As Lustig and Koester (1996) state explicitly in
the introduction to their introductory college text on intercultural communication
"Our purpose . . . is to provide the conceptual tools for understanding
how cultural differences can affect interpersonal communication" (p.
4).
This emphasis on difference flows from assumptions that are diametrically
opposed to the universalistic notions of global education. Bennett (1993)
states: "Intercultural sensitivity is not natural. It is not part of
our primate past" and therefore "(e)ducation and training in intercultural
communication is an approach to changing our "natural" behavior"
(p. 21). This formulation assumes that cultural conflict is a natural (though
not desirable) product of unavoidable cultural difference.
From Theory to Practice
These two contrasting theoretical assumptions regarding cultural difference
lead to extremely divergent views concerning education for cross-cultural
understanding. To illustrate that divergence, we present differing answers
to the kinds of fundamental questions that we believe language teachers
face in approaching this issue. In an informal survey of colleagues, we
found most respondents gravitated towards either a universal or relativistic
set of answers.
What is the ideal for a global community?
Universalistic Global identity and community comes from
mutual understanding based on knowledge and awareness of shared humanity,
respect for individual development (and social justice?); concepts which
transcend culture.
Relativistic Global identity and community comes from understanding
the limitations of one's particular viewpoint, resulting in relationships
based on constructive engagement between people with different social realities.
Why is there intercultural/international conflict?
Universalistic Justice is self-evident. Oppressors (governments
and individuals) selfishly seek to perpetuate their advantage. Informed
people can find solutions to conflict. Prejudicial attitudes and behavior
is a result of a negative socialization which should be eliminated.
Relativistic Justice is difficult to define. Reasonable
people disagree because knowledge and world view is relative. Prejudicial
attitudes (ethnocentrism) is a natural product of human social evolution.
Ethnorelativism is developed by construction engagement with difference.
How can we achieve greater intercultural understanding?
Universalistic Seek to understand elements of shared humanity.
Emphasize global point of view and ethical standards as a tool for viewing
social issues and personal development.
Relativistic Seek to understand the differences between
people. Emphasize process of understanding different points of view as tool
for viewing social issues and personal development.
The Critics
We have also summarized what we believe to be possible criticism of these
two points of view.
Critics of universalism may say: 1) Emphasizing commonality works
only for shallow interactions; 2) Ethical vision espoused has a cultural
bias (confrontational, individualistic, doing oriented); 3) Social activism
is reflection of sociopolitical view of its proponents (liberal North American?);
4) In extreme form, universalism is condescending and naive.
Critics of relativism may say: 1) Relativism ignores deeper (according
to universalists) elements of humanity; 2) Focus on difference is divisive
because it downplays points of common understanding; 3) Relativism lacks
ethical vision and may ignore pressing social and humanitarian issues; 4)
In extreme form, relativism can be self-serving and immoral when used to
justify oppression.
Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
The majority of language teachers in Japan don't have formal training
in either intercultural communication education or global issues education,
yet are often expected to take the lead in movements towards internationalization
within educational institutions. We believe that there has been a lack of
rigorous thinking behind many of the educational initiatives to promote
internationalization. Subsequently, "internationalization" is
sometimes seen as only a catch phrase to be "used and abused in Japanese
society". (Higgins & Tanaka, 1999, p.15)
The divisive dichotomy between relativistic and universalistic positions
is an example of the dangers of failing to clearly delineate an educational
model upon which one's educational goals are predicated. Language textbooks
regularly explain the educational assumptions behind the organization of
materials. A text based on silent way methodology will be different from
one that is based on audiolingualism. We feel that this theoretical underpinning
is necessary for education aimed at internationalization as well.
Bennett (1993) provides an educational model which we believe can provide
a broader and more rigorous framework for education for internationalization,
and which also encompasses both difference and similarity. His Developmental
Model of Intercultural Sensitivity proposes that the ultimate goal of intercultural
training is to "transcend traditional ethnocentrism and explore new
relationships across cultural boundaries" (p. 21), with the requisite
intercultural sensitivity defined in stages of personal growth. This growth
is defined in terms of "increased sophistication in dealing with cultural
difference, moving from ethnocentrism through stages of greater recognition
and acceptance of difference (ethnorelativism)" (p. 22). Educational
activities should focus on helping students move from one stage of development
to the next.
His model consists of six stages:
Denial At this stage, a learner is unaware that cultural
difference exists. Everything is judged by an absolutely ethnocentric standard.
A person in denial might say "I don't believe in that culture stuff"
or "All cities are the same, just crowds and cars."
Defense At the defense stage, difference is recognized,
yet denigrated and resisted. Racism is a form of defense, as is the attitude
of "they sure have a thing or two to learn from us."
Minimization In the minimization stage, difference is recognized,
yet seen as relatively unimportant. Bennett describes forms of universalism
as being typical of the minimization stage of development because judgements
are still based on an individual's culture. To say "We're all basically
animal" or "We are all God's children" rests on the speakers
definition of what it means to be an animal, or a child of God (p. 23).
People with other world views don't necessarily agree with those definitions.
Learners at this stage don't see that what they assume to be universal principals
actually are a product of their cultural point of view.
Acceptance At this stage, learners have recognized that
their world view is a result of their culture, and accept that other people
have equally valid world views. At this stage, a learner might say "well,
people there have their own way of doing things which works just fine."
Adaptation At this stage, learners gain the ability not
only to accept difference, but also gain the attitudes and skills to function
within another cultural framework. At this stage a learner might say "well,
I'll try dealing with this issue Japanese style" (for non-Japanese).
Integration The stage of integration implies that one can
function comfortably in two or more cultural settings, and shift perspectives
as necessary or desired and engage in the ongoing creation of a world view
which is not dependent upon a single culture point of view.
These stages are not exclusive, but form a continuum of development.
An important element of Bennett's model is his assertion that the focus
of educational activities depend on the stage of development of the learner.
(Bennett, p. 2-3) As a learner progresses through different stages, different
kinds of activities are better or worse suited to taking the learner to
the subsequent stage.
At the defense stage, for example, because learners resist the differences
inherent in accepting cultural others, learning activities can effectively
focus on similarity and common humanity. Focusing on qualities that everyone
shares can help learners go beyond the distrust and resistance typical of
the defense stage. When this is coupled with providing objective information
about the cultural others, it can also act as a starting point for communication
and mutual understanding.
At the minimization stage, on the other hand, it can be useful to focus
on ways in which people from other cultures are not as similar as the learner
might expect. Activities which focus on clarifying cultural values, or cultural
dilemmas which ask students to look at a situation from other cultural points
of view, can be effective for learners at this stage.
Given a more substantial theoretical framework from which to base our
educational decisions, we not only are given guidance in how to accomplish
the broad goals of mutual understanding or internationalism, but are also
given a point of departure for discussing which framework best suits out
intentions. If Bennett's model is not suited to our purposes, then what
model is? And for what reasons? Different models provide points of comparison
and a way for us to make progress in international education, much as debate
about language learning theory drives innovation in materials and teaching
methodology.
Conclusion
The special issue of TLT that focused on world citizenship education
(Feb. 1999) forced the authors to more carefully examine the premises behind
our own teaching and curriculum planning. This article has been influenced
by our particular bias (decidedly relativistic with a background in intercultural
communication education) yet we hope to find common ground with teachers
who have different perspectives.
We feel strongly that the distinction between universalistic thinking
and relativistic thinking is important. In terms of educational goals, we
feel that activities and materials which focus on commonality, particularly
objective culture, are effective for relatively inexperienced or sheltered
students as a first step to recognition of the reality of the world beyond
their neighborhood and beyond Japan.
At the same time, we feel that any goodwill generated will probably not
provide students with the ability to cope with deeper or long-term exposure
to cultural difference, such as living abroad. We also shy away from a social
activist stance in our teaching, and strongly feel that the notion that
students need to "overcome" their culture is ethnocentric.
For some students, and certainly for more sophisticated students such
as English majors, or those with more international experience, we feel
that exploring the nature of culture difference is important. However, care
needs to be taken not to reinforce stereotypes. For this reason, we feel
that awareness activities which focus on cultures within Japan can be effective
as a first step before attempting to focus on the cultural difference outside
of Japan. We agree with Higgins and Tanaka (1999) that there is a danger
of reinforcing the us-them mode which is a strong element of Japanese
culture.
We hope for a continued discussion, characterized by thoughtfulness and
intellectual rigor, on how language educators can further international
understanding. If we cannot reach some working consensus on how to encourage
mutual understanding, then we have failed in those same skills we want our
students to develop.
References
Barnlund, D. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans:
Images and realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of
intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.) Education for the Intercultural
Experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Cates, K. (1999). Teaching English for world citizenship: Key content
areas. The Language Teacher, 23 [2], 11-14.
Condon, J. (1984). With respect to the Japanese. Yarmouth, MN:
Intercultural Press.
Cushner, K. & Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural Interaction: A
practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language
classroom. Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley.
Gaston, J. (1992). Cultural awareness teaching techniques. Brattelboro,
VT: Pro Lingua Associates.
Gudykunst, W. (1985). Intercultural Communication: Current status and
proposed directions. In B. Dervin & M. Voigt (Eds.) Progress in Communication
Sciences, VI, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hall, E. (1959). The Silent Language. Greenwich, CN: Fawcett
Hall, E. (1977). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Harrison, D. (1999). Communicating classrooms: English language teaching
and world citizenship, The Language Teacher, 23 [2], 29-31.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and organization: software of the mind.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Higgins, M. & Tanaka, B. (1999). Empowering ESL students for world
citizenship, The Language Teacher, 23 [2], 15-19.
Kim, Y. (1988). On Theorizing Intercultural Communication, in Kim, Y
& Gudykunst W. (Eds), Theories in Intercultural Communication: Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Kohls, R. (1996). Survival kit for overseas living: for Americans
planning to live and work abroad. Yarmouth, MN: Intercultural Press.
Landis, D. & Bhagat R. (Editors) (1996). Handbook of intercultural
training. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lustig, M. and Koester, J. (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal
communication across cultures. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Gudykunst, W. and Nishida, T. (1989). Theoretical perspectives for
studying intercultural communication. In Asante, M. & Gudykunst,
W. (Eds.) Handbook of International & Intercultural Communication, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Stewart, E. & Bennett, M. (1991). American cultural patterns.
Yarmouth, MN: Intercultural Press
Strain, J. (1999). So, what's world citizenship?, The Language Teacher,
23 [2], 25-28.
Trompenaars, F. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Watzlawick, P. (Ed.) (1984). The invented reality. New York, NY:
Norton & Company.
Joseph Shaules is an Associate Professor at Rikkyo University.
He is a curriculum coordinator there, and oversees required courses in Intercultural
Communication (ICC). He is the co-author of ICC related textbooks, including:
Different Realities and Culture in Action and Culture Riddles. He
also co-hosts an NHK English educational television program.
Aiko Inoue received her MS in Education of Intercultual Communication
from the University of Pennsylvania. She is currently an adjunct lecturer
at Rikkyo University. Recently published books include Aspects of Different
Cultures (with Tamotsu Tanaka, et.al) and The Wagner Method of Excellence
in Business English (translation).