The Language Teacher
05 - 2000
Relativism and Universalism--Opposing Views of Education for Internationalization
Aiko Inoue & Joseph Shaules
Rikkyo University
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).
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website