The Language Teacher
November 2000
Response: Over a Beer
Joseph Shaules
Rikkyo University
We are encouraged that our article has invited such a spirited response. We hope that the debate about the role of cultural learning in the language classroom will continue.
Trevor Sargent's criticisms notwithstanding, we continue to believe that the field of intercultural communication tends to focus on cultural difference rather than similarity. It is the existence and importance of cultural difference which makes the study of intercultural communication meaningful. After all, cultural similarity doesn't create barriers to communication and understanding (though a lack of recognizing similarity might). Our purpose was not to imply that researchers in the field of IC do not recognize cultural similarity or cultural universals, nor to say that the field of IC is dominated by extreme relativists. We are somewhat puzzled by Sargent taking such strong exception to what seems to us a very straightforward point.
We also believe that World Citizenship (WC) education, at least as described in the special issue of TLT (Feb 1999), has goals which explicitly emphasize cultural universals. We think that it does so in a way which makes the role of learning about cultural difference subordinate. As we stated in the article, we feel that this distinction is important. Our purpose in making the admittedly artificial distinction between these two positions is not to force readers to choose, or to 'defy reality', but simply to emphasize the importance of thinking clearly about what the goals of intercultural education are. As we stated in the article, we believe that an understanding of both similarities and difference is important in intercultural education.
We agree with Sargent that a strength of Bennett's model is its phenomenological base. Still, the goal of Bennett's model is a cognitive and functional ethnorelativism (as opposed to the moral relativism Sargent refers to). Sargent seems to feel that we are insulting universalistic thinking by proposing this educational model. As we explained in our article, however, we feel Bennett's model is useful precisely because it gives us a framework for including both similarity and difference in intercultural education. We would be happy to hear Sargent's ideas for other educational models which he feels would be better than Bennett's.
Sargent takes us to task for 'assumptions' and 'insinuations'. From what he has written, however, we can't tell precisely what this is in reference to. We did refer to an article in TLT which states that Japanese need to 'overcome' their culture to become international. We gave the opinion that this particular statement was ethnocentric. We included this as an example of one danger of educational goals which stress universalistic thinking. Sargent was not the author of the statement we referred to, but if our opinion has caused offense to him or others, we are sorry. Our opinion about this issue hasn't changed.
We hope to further dialogue about intercultural education in language teaching. We were surprised to be characterized as 'extremists', 'elitist', and 'self-proclaimed experts' whose ideas are 'hoopla'. We are convinced, however, that given the right circumstance -- over a beer perhaps -- that we could find much common ground with Mr. Sargent. We find it unfortunate that he finds so little of value in our point of view.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website