The Language Teacher
03 - 2002
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of cultures (i.e., Kubota, 1999; Susser, 1998), arguing that such approaches often serve to perpetuate crude and outdated stereotypes.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.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website