Hi guys
Sorry if I spoke too fast today, I'm trying to correct the habit of speaking fast (and my friends complained I speak and type fast).
Here's the video that the role-play was based on, in case some of you wanted to know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLTvAOijPKs&list=PL3548E861A6158AA0&index=29
I don't think this is part of the assessment but I just wanted to share some thoughts that I had while preparing for this peer teaching.
For starters, to reiterate, there is a growing importance for inter-cultural communication in today's world because of globalization. People are moving to new locations to study or to find a job. Even businesses are moving to new locations to set up branches.
Besides the examples raised in class, I find that McDonald's is a good example for how one business adapts itself to various cultures, or more specifically, eating habits. The burgers in Asia are generally smaller than those in the States because Asians eat less than Americans. McDonald's came up with McSpaghetti in Philippines to appeal to Filipinos' love of the stringy pasta. McDonald's also had to adjust the taste of their food to become sweeter, saltier and adding more spices to cater to the Filipinos' taste.
In preparation for this peer teaching, I read a material from another module that although is not related to inter-cultural communication per se, talks about communication amongst different identity groups and how communication between identity groups can break down. (For my Engineering friends you might find this familiar; it's from HR2002. The material is listed in the source below.)
The identification of an individual (and things) is the key to symbolic interaction as once things are identified and their meanings (for us) established, we can then proceed with out individual strivings. In a generic sense, identification is mainly the placing of things in terms of systematically related categories. Thus, a person is said to be belonging to a particular identity group is s/he can be associated with it (for example, gender, religion and culture).
The author, Gentile, points out nine ways in which we typically think about differences and how they affect communication across identity groups. He also emphasis that the objective of point out the following points is not to explain how the origins or racism or sexism or any other form of oppression came about, but rather to make known to us the habitual but often unconscious patterns of thinking that causes destructive behaviours. I will summarize the points briefly below:
1. The "Rights Talk"
There is exists an emphasis upon "absolute" rights, which translate to a tendency to view rights as an "all or nothing" issue. Also, there is a tendency to emphasize on the protection of individual rights but not balancing emphasis upon responsibilities. These two tendencies compromises one's ability to move towards reasonable and equitable solutions to inevitable conflicts. The tendency towards dichotomous thinking on rights fuels divisiveness (among identity groups and even individuals) and limits one to reason properly or to solve a conflict peacefully and effectively.
2. Self-Definition through Oppositionality
There exist a human tendency to perceive and understand experiences as dualities or binary oppositions. By defining oneself through oppositionality can become a problem as it will set up a 'chain reaction' in each individual. I know who I am because I am not you; therefore I value the ways in which I am different from you; therefore I begin to devalue the traits that make you distinct from me.
Michelle Fine in her keynote address to Columbia University Teachers College Winter "Roundtable on Cross-Cultural Counseling and Psychotherapy: Race and Gender" gave an example of how this self-definition through oppositionality works. In her observations and interview at The Citadel, an all male military college in South Carolina, she noted that male students were regularly exhorted to behave in ways that would prove their masculinity, strength, and courage, rather than to behave 'like a female'. Fine made the conclusion that the institution was organized around a concept of "oppositional identity", arguing that despite their official exclusion of females, they (females) were "omnipresent at the school as entities to be reacted against".
3. Cultural Generalizations: Dichotomy or Continuum
"If women speak and hear a language of connection and intimacy, while men speak and hear a language of status and independence, then communication between men and women can be like cross-cultural communication, prey to a clash of conversational styles." writes Deborah Tannen in her book "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation".
If there is a tendency to value one pole of dichotomy over another, it can result in prejudices in which one style is valued over the other. For example in the case above, men's conventional style may tend to be valued over women's, as argued by Tannen. Interestingly, if we take this argument to the other extreme, then understanding is sacrificed. If we affirm that differences does exist between identity groups, we can get lost in stereotyping and generalizing and that will keep us from seeing the distinctiveness of individuals and commonalities between these same groups, and thus can reinforce discrimination.
While coming across reading stereotypes for different identity groups, I do believe that we often find ourselves agreeing with the behaviours for other identity groups, but not the ones for which we belong to. This is where we begin to see the crux of the issue - it is much easier (and appealing) to generalize about others than to be generalized.
4. Seeing for Innocence
The conflict between races is a conflict over power, and that this pursuit of power is rationalized by an appeal to innocence. There are several dichotomous thought patterns embedded in this model of behaviour. First, individuals are seen and see themselves in terms of a single identification, as opposed to possessing multiple identities. Second, individuals are seen and see themselves as existing in a state of guilt or innocence, thereby limiting their options for learning, change and complexity.
5. Racial Reasoning
Cornel West, author of Race Matters, describes a particular way of thinking he finds all too prevalent among black leadership in America. "Racial Reasoning", as he names it, is a way of thinking about black progress that tries to promote the race as a whole at the expense of many within its ranks. The basic line of reasoning goes like this: "American's will to racial justice is weak... black people must close ranks for survival in a hostile country". This "closing ranks" mentality depends upon individual's ability to lay claim to "racial authenticity because if one is not "truly black" or "black enough", he or she would be a threat to the group as a whole, and not possess the entitlement that goes with "innocence". This underscores the diversity that exists within identity groups as well as between them. And it illustrates the ubiquity and limitations of dichotomous, us/them patterns of thinking.
6. Defensive Reasoning
Humans want to avoid feeling embarrassed or threatened, feeling vulnerable or incompetent. In this respect, the 'master programme' that most people use is profoundly defensive. Defensive Reasoning encourages individuals to keep private the premises, inferences and conclusions that shape their behaviour. And without this willingness to reveal the sources of and assumptions behind our conclusions, we unwittingly reinforce others' tendencies to hear and understand us in terms of their pre-existing stereotypes.
7. How We Know What Isn't So
Humans have series of reasoning flaws (that frequent surfaces) and by examining those, we readily recognise how they can help to generate and reinforce counter-productive ways of thinking about diversity. This can contribute to an adversariality, a resistance to change and to trust, and a closed mind when dealing with questions of difference.
8. Pareto Optimality/Scarcity Thinking
There is a sort of "all or nothing", "me or you" quality to several of the mental paradigms which constrain our thinking about questions of diversity. However, a preoccupation with 'resource scarcity', the assumption of a limited pie to be divided among all corners limits our creativity and sense of possibility.
9. Masking and Overdetermined Terminology
Meritocracy, equal opportunity, fair treatment, unbiased standards of performance, so on and so forth. There is an assumption that all these terms carries the same definition through time and are consistent in being able to evaluate an individual fairly. However, terminologies acquire meanings over time, through repeated use and misuse and through association. For example, 'Meritocracy" is firmly held and valued by many as the preferred and only truly fair, efficient standard by which to evaluate performance. However "merit" is a subjective term. The indicators that causes us to see merit are multiple and are based upon many factors besides servable talent (examples can be familiarity, comfort, association with a familiar institute). All of these factors can be masked by the term "merit".
There are many resources out there that take about challenges and tips for communication between two dissimilar individuals. What I feel is more important in an inter-cultural context is being able to open your mind you accept differences, and to be more tolerant of other cultures.
Sources:
Gentile M.C., (1996). Managerial Excellence Through Diversity: Text and Cases. Ways of Thinking About and Across Differences. Irwin: Boston.
No comments:
Post a Comment