Time for a Revolution in Culture Teaching and Learning?
Mike Guest
Miyazaki Medical College
Like many teachers, I regularly receive copies of language textbook publishers'
new offerjings. Every year the number seems to increase as does the variety
and scope of titles, a large number of which seem to center on the topic
of "culture," certainly something of a buzzword in the EFL/ESL
community these days.
After having scanned many of these new textbooks, though, I have begun
to notice some questionable trends. A great number of these textbooks seem
to rely heavily upon a taxonomy of alleged cultural differences to fill
their pages. Many seem founded upon rather set, static cultural dichotomies
outlining gaps between the West (especially the United States) and Japan,
and proceed to dissect from there. Although many of these books try to be
non-judgmental or evaluative in their presentations of culture, and indeed
some do try to focus upon similarities or points of common behaviour, almost
all profess the need to learn about culture through a discrete-point, rule-based
form.
Thus, I retain a nagging sense that something is amiss with this whole
business of teaching culture through emphasizing differences. I can't help
but wonder if in Japan, where there already exists a rather pronounced sense
of cultural distinction, that by highlighting differences we don't inadvertently
exacerbate a type of "us vs. them" mentality, a mentality that
can easily come to manifest itself in exclusionary or overtly racist forms.
Others have questioned the methodology behind much of the recent "cultural
differences" research, asking whether this in fact constitutes a type
of exoticizing or othering of cultures (i.e., Kubota, 1999; Susser, 1998),
arguing that such approaches often serve to perpetuate crude and outdated
stereotypes. Some have politicized this tendency, seeing the pernicious
tentacles of neo-colonialism at work (i.e., Pennycook, 1998; Kubota, 1999).
More concisely, these authors plus other current researchers (i.e., Littlewood,
2000; Rose, 1996; Spack, 1997) appear to contradict much of the received
cultural wisdom as found in such canonical papers as those of Hall (1976),
Bruneau and Ishii (1994), Hofstede (1986), and Kaplan (1966).
Personally, what I have noted in the current interest
in disseminating cultural awareness is a methodological flaw, one that perhaps
can be best explained by comparing culture teaching methodology with grammar
teaching methodology. I would like to do this by making five points that
are generally agreed upon regarding grammar and grammar teaching these days,
and then apply these to our discussion of culture and culture teaching.
- We know that languages are living, dynamic, nebulous entities. They
are not static and set. They cannot be easily categorized. Thus to reduce
language to a set of discrete rules (such as grammar) and to teach these
under the pretext that you are teaching the language is to completely miss
the heart of the matter. Likewise, the idea of teaching a culture via a
few cultural "pegs" stated as behavioural rules of a people is
bound to come up lacking as an accurate description of a culture. In short,
it may be argued that the emphasis upon examples of cultural differences
as the base material for understanding culture is to culture learning what
yakudoku, or grammar translation, is to language learning.
- We know that grammar rules have so many exceptions that it often becomes
difficult and unwieldy to apply them to immediate communicative problems.
We have to be very wary about the presumed scope of their applications
as they often fail to adhere in this or that case. Likewise, the mass characteristics
of a culture that may be identifiable in an abstract or generalized schema
are unlikely to be immediately applicable to the individuals, small groups,
or classrooms that most of us actually face when dealing with other cultures.
The dynamics of monolithic cultures and the dynamics of smaller groupings
from that culture are liable to be very different. As a philosophical maxim
it can be stated as follows: That which may be true of the whole is not
necessarily true of the parts. And it is the parts that we face on a daily,
practical basis.
- We now know that there is not one singular, pedagogical grammar, but
rather a variety of grammars. We know that the grammar of speech varies
considerably from the grammar of writing. Likewise, we should be very aware
that there exists no singular monolithic Japanese or American culture,
but rather a variety of specialized and diverse cultures, each related
in some way to the whole perhaps, but nonetheless distinct.
- We now know that the forms and structures of communication are determined
and controlled by such features as register, mode, and genre. For example,
we take it for granted that the style and content of a formal academic
presentation would be completely out of place during a beery chat session
in your local nomiya. Likewise, we must understand that deviances
and varying norms exist within every culture, that there are numerous sub-cultures
which may be quite different from the more standard forms. Monolithic or
representative constructs cannot and must not be applied to every avenue
of a society. For example, the classic depiction of the "salaryman
as samurai" as a metaphor for modern Japan does little to explain
why 13-year-old Saori-chan and her friends want to wear ganguro-girl
fashion. Understanding the role of the Zen koan is unlikely to be a useful
way of deciphering the values of your neighbourhood skateboard dudes. So
many culture guides and textbooks focus almost entirely on national/ethnic/racial
culture, ignoring the subcultural ethos that invariably crosses national,
racial, and ethnic lines. Why are the subcultures of gender, academic background,
hobby, occupation, or age so ignored in favour of the national? Don't these
subcultural qualities have as much influence on the nature of our interaction
with others as does nationality?
- We generally agree these days that one does not learn a language well
by listening to and memorizing discrete rules about a language. Rather,
most agree that general language competence is best achieved by participating
in meaningful communicative tasks, tasks that are superordinate goals within
which language skills can be practiced and absorbed. Likewise, learning
a bunch of differences is hardly likely to enhance an understanding of
culture. Doesn't it seem more likely that simply engaging in activities
with members of other cultures, activities geared towards superordinate
goals, and not discrete knowledge ends, would be a better way to absorb
and understand cultures? After all, Suzuki Ichiro is one of Japan's best
exponents in terms of presenting a positive image of his country to the
U.S., and he does it simply by playing baseball and doing it as well as
he can. For that he is widely recognized and appreciated. I believe that
Ichiro has done more to better the image of Japan in many Americans' eyes
than any number of Monbukagakusho-endorsed apologists following
the tired and divisive ibunka (cultural differences) or hikaku
bunka (comparative culture) routes.
References
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
Ishii, S. & Bruneau, T. (1994). Silence and silences in cross-cultural
perspective: Japan and the United States. In L. Samovar & R. Porter
(Eds.), Intercultural communication (pp. 246-251). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.
Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications
for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1),
9-35.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey?
English Language Teaching Journal, 54(1), 31-35.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism.
London: Routledge.
Rose, K. (1996). American English, Japanese and directness: More than
stereotypes. JALT Journal, 18(1), 67-80.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 765-774.
Susser, B. (1998). EFL's othering of Japan: Orientalism in English language
teaching. JALT Journal, 20(1), 49-82.