Breve introducción a la fraseología

is that intercultural literacy is learned in a cross-cultural context. This assumption is shared to some degree in all the theoretical models surveyed. It is the shock of cross- cultural contact; the crisis or challenge of engagement; that stimulates the learning necessary for intercultural literacy (Adler 1986, Hanvey 1986, Christensen 1989, Kordes 1991, Meyer 1991, Triandis, Kurowski and Gelfand 1994). Without cross-cultural contact, the learning can only ever be about another culture and, since intercultural literacy is defined in terms of successful cross-cultural engagement, it requires a cross- cultural experience. Understandings and competencies that reflect a high level of intercultural literacy develop in response to the experience of confronting another culture. Equally, it is through the experience of confronting oneself in another culture that the individual’s own cultural identity becomes salient (Sussman 2002) and interculturally literate attitudes are formed.

This last point is supported by research into the attitudes of international school students which found that graduates of international schools attributed their intercultural

understanding primarily to the cross-cultural experience of international schooling (Hayden and Thompson 1995a) and that ‘…global awareness and an international outlook often enhance the understanding of one’s own culture and reinforce one’s identity rather than detracting from it.’ (Hayden and Wong 1997: 358). The role of foreign language and culture learning in developing students’ own-culture understanding is also recognised by foreign language educators (Byram, Lloyd and Schneider 1995: 5).

The premise that intercultural literacy is acquired in a cross-cultural context may also be thought of as deriving initially from the ‘contact hypothesis’ of Allport (1954). Allport’s hypothesis has been widely researched and debated, particularly amongst social psychologists studying intergroup contact. Miller and Brewer (1984a) restated the hypothesis as ‘... the idea that prejudice and hostility between members of segregated groups can be reduced by promoting the frequency and intensity of intergroup contact’ (Miller and Brewer 1984a: xv). This hypothesis, perhaps since it reflects common sense, has been widely accepted by policy makers, notably in relation to the desegregation policies adopted in USA schools in the 1970s and 1980s, and, more recently, to mainstreaming, integration, inclusion, bicultural and multicultural programs in schools in Britain, Australia, USA and throughout the western world. In the international school context, the common sense ‘contact hypothesis’ is reflected in mission statements and a commonly held belief that the ‘international’ experience ‘broadens the mind’ in the sense that it produces more tolerant, interculturally sensitive individuals.

In this section, theory relevant to cross-cultural contact and the development of intercultural literacy is introduced. Specifically, the following four theoretical

frameworks are explored: (1) the contact hypothesis; (2) theoretical frameworks to describe the outcomes of cross-cultural contact; (3) conditions for intercultural literacy; and (4) cultural distance.

Culture status and the outcomes of cross-cultural contact

Notwithstanding the intuitive appeal of the contact hypothesis and a widespread popular belief that the international experience, of itself, leads to international mindedness or intercultural literacy, a number of theoretical outcomes of cross-cultural contact have been described. Bochner (1982, 1986), from a social psychologist intergroup perspective, outlined four possible outcomes of cross-cultural engagement:

1. marginalisation (in societal terms, segregation); 2. passing (assimilation);

3. chauvinism (in its most extreme form, genocide or ethnic cleansing); and 4. mediation (integration, pluralism).

Bochner’s model was developed further by Berry and colleagues (Berry 1984, 2001; Berry et al. 1986, 1992) with the four alternative acculturation strategies defined as separation, assimilation, marginalisation and integration. The contribution of Berry and colleagues is important to this study since they link the four possible outcomes to the relative status of cultures in contact. The outcome of intergroup contact can be predicted using this model by the value placed on host and home cultures – by participants in a cross-cultural encounter from both cultures.

Figure 2.3: Berry’s Categorical Model of Acculturation

(Adapted from Ward, Bochner and Furnham 2001: 102)

Whilst categorical models such as this (Figure 2.3) have been criticised for oversimplification (Ward, Bochner and Furnham 2001; Nauck 2001), the model remains influential in the research field (e.g. Florack and Piontkowski 2000; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk and Schmitz 2003) and is useful in setting out the various alternative outcomes of contact. These same four alternatives appear with slightly varied emphases and titles in a number of recent intercultural learning theories (Anderson 1994, Bennett 1993, Pollock and Van Reken 1999, Allan 2003). Within this framework the reasons and contexts for cross-cultural contact are likely to impact on the outcomes. Is the contact voluntary? If so, what is the individual’s motivation for the contact? What is the relative status afforded by the individual to the cultures in contact? These questions will prompt different answers, for example, from refugees, business sojourners and

High valuing of home culture

Low valuing of home culture

H ig h va lu in g of h os t c ul tu re Separation / chauvinism segregation / apartheid Marginalisation Integration (acculturation) Assimilation (passing) L ow v al ui ng o f h os t c ul tu re

tourists in different contexts. They will also prompt different answers from children and international school students in differing contexts, who, for the most part, are involuntary sojourners. An ethnography of the Kobe Academy in Japan (Willis 1987; Willis Enloe and Minoura 1994) suggests that, although individual responses vary, involuntarily expatriated students from high status Anglo-American backgrounds exhibited the characteristics of cultural chauvinism in this international school context, whilst the behaviour of some Japanese students could be characterised as passing. The dominant student culture in this school was described as ‘transcultural’. The ethnography and its implications for this study are discussed in more detail later in this chapter, along with similar findings from recent research in a European international school (Allan 2002, 2003).

Bennett (1993) categorises the outcomes of contact, referring to forms of denial and defence, as isolation or separation, denigration or superiority, and reversal. Anderson (1994) refers to returning, escaping, ‘beavering’, timeserving, adjusting and participating as alternative outcomes. The concept of marginalisation is given special treatment in Bennett’s (1993) model with the possibility of a positive form of marginalisation as an idealised end-point posited.

Each of the four alternative responses identified by Bochner (1982) and Berry (Berry et al. 1992; Berry 2001) is readily identifiable within international school students (Willis Enloe and Minoura 1994; Allan 2002). Far from automatically leading to intercultural literacy, the international experience, and with it the international schooling experience, often produces the subtractive, negative responses of cultural chauvinism and distancing

from the host culture, marginalisation or passing. The cross-cultural experience is thus a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the development of intercultural literacy (Haywood 2002). The key question is what makes the difference? Why do some students respond to the international or cross-cultural experience in negative ways whilst others progress to become interculturally literate? The following sub-section addresses this question.

Conditions for intercultural literacy learning

The work of social psychologists such as Sherif (1966), Triandis (1975), Miller and Brewer (1984a), Johnson, Johnson and Murayama (1984) and Stephan (1985) offers part of the answer to the question of why some students respond to the international or cross- cultural experience in negative ways whilst others progress to become interculturally literate by suggesting the conditions which are likely to result in reduced prejudice from cross-cultural contact. Whilst formal curricula may be significant in this context, the research discussed in this section suggests that it is the social context within which learning and the cross-cultural experience occurs that is likely to make the greatest difference. In a supportive social context, intercultural literacy learning is facilitated, whereas in a non-supportive context distancing or identity confusion may result.

…in many interethnic and intercultural contexts, participants are not motivated to communicate well. In such cases, the larger socio-political situation must be addressed… (Gallois 2003)

To Allport’s original contact hypothesis, Klineberg (1982) added the concept of ‘superordinate’ goals (Sherif 1966, Triandis 1975), suggesting that mutual goals must be common to both groups, ‘… but that the effect is enhanced if success is dependent on cooperation, with each group requiring the help of the other in reaching the desired goal and solving the problems which are important to both of them’ (Klineberg 1982: 53).

Hewstone and Brown (1986) and Amir and Ben-Air (1988) expanded on this formulation, identifying similar prerequisites for positive perceptions and interactions to arise from intergroup contact:

1. equal status groups;

2. cooperation and the pursuit of common goals;

3. multi-group membership and cross-cutting social categories; 4. contact on an intimate, rather than casual, nature; and

5. a broader social climate supporting superordinate goals.

Other factors associated with positive perceptions in cross-cultural contact include language ability, social skills and participation. (Cho and Harajiri 1997 cited in Ward, Bochner and Furnham 2001). In school contexts, pairing new students with a ‘cultural mediator’ or ‘buddy’ may also be a powerful strategy (Bennett 1993; Pearce 1998; McKillop-Ostrom 1999).

Based on investigations into contact in desegregated USA schools in the 1980s, together with more recent studies into multicultural education, there is significant empirical support for, and a broad agreement and on, the institutional and social conditions that are

likely to facilitate adaptation and intercultural literacy learning in schools. Specifically, the social and learning environments of the school should be structured so that in the cross-cultural context, co-operation rather than competition is the focus, and students are ideally of equal status, and share a similar level of competency. Students should be encouraged to develop friendships with individuals within the group and, if possible, engage in opportunities provided for the contact to continue out of school and in a variety of contexts over time. The contact should, ideally, be voluntary. (Thomas 1984, Stephan 1985, Johnson, Johnson and Murayama 1984, Epstein 1985, Cook 1984, Miller, Brewer and Edwards 1985; Banks, Cookson, Geneva, Hawley et al. 2001; Obakeng Mabokela and Madsen 2003).

There is now significant evidence which suggests that not only adolescents, but also pre- and primary-aged children are motivated primarily by social needs to learn second languages, plus intercultural competencies, understandings and attitudes (Bochner 1982; Fritz 1989; Willis 1987; Willis, Enloe and Minoura 1994).

Studies which correlated ‘world-mindedness’ and biculturalism with cross-cultural friendships in Australian adolescents (Bochner 1982) support these perceptions. The acquisition of ‘world-mindedness’ or biculturalism was clearly related to friendship, with children who had close cross-cultural friends more aware and appreciative of cultural differences than others. The ethnography of an international school in Japan conducted by Willis (1987) also supports the view that friendships and culturally diverse social groupings based principally on mutual interest are the prime agent for learning of

intercultural attitudes, competencies, understandings, language and identity amongst international school students.

Hayden and Thompson (1995a) investigated the perceptions of undergraduate students in the UK who had experienced an overseas international education. The students were rated highly in terms of holding an ‘international attitude’ which included high levels of tolerance for divergent cultural viewpoints (Hayden and Thompson 1995a, Hayden and Wong 1997). The study concluded that ‘... it is interaction with people (other students, parents, individual teachers), rather than aspects of the school such as the formal curriculum, which are perceived by students to be shaping their international attitudes’ (Hayden and Thompson 1995a: 399).

In summary, based on the research surveyed, the following factors are likely to support positive outcomes from cross-cultural contact and intercultural literacy learning:

1. The development of positive cross-cultural relationships is likely to have a highly significant impact on student’s learning in all dimensions of intercultural literacy. Students are motivated primarily by social needs, particularly in adolescence, though the social motivation and utility of cross- cultural friendships for intercultural literacy learning appears to be significant from early childhood onwards (Stephan 1985, Fritz 1989).

2. Within classrooms, activities which maximise cross-cultural interaction, entail cooperative small group work towards the achievement of superordinate

goals, and are likely to produce successful outcomes will have positive results for intercultural literacy learning. Competition between individuals and groups should be avoided in favour of goal interdependence (Klineberg 1982; Johnson, Johnson and Maruyama 1984; Cook 1984; Slavin 1985; Epstein 1985; Fry 1994; Cooper and Slavin 2001; Banks, Cookson, Geneva, Hawley et al. 2001).

3. The voluntarity of group members should be sensitively weighed against the aim of encouraging cross-cultural, rather than monocultural groups and groups should be kept small (two to four) to encourage high levels of interdependence and the participation of all members (Johnson, Johnson and Maruyama 1984, Miller, Brewer and Edwards 1985).

4. Consideration should also be given to grouping children cross-culturally, based on similar competency levels and interests (Stephan1985; Cooper and Slavin 2001; Banks, Cookson, Geneva, Hawley et al. 2001).

5. School and class practices which segregate groups on the basis of ability (tracking, streaming, ability grouping) should be carefully monitored and employed cautiously in mixed cultural environments. Where ability grouping tends to separate children along racial, ethnic and/or cultural lines, negative attitudes are likely to result, opportunities for cross-cultural friendships will be limited and intercultural literacy learning hampered. Cultural bias in assessment, intelligence testing, teacher attitudes and curriculum which results

in lower achievements in some cultural groups compared with others will negatively impact on the potential for intercultural literacy in all groups. These issues in practice should be critically examined within schools as part of the process of institutionalising pluralism and intercultural values (Thomas 1984; Bullivant 1987; Darder 1991; Banks, Cookson, Geneva, Hawley et al. 2001; Pattnaik 2003).

6. Cross-cultural relationships which persist outside the classroom are likely to have greater impact on intercultural literacy learning than those confined to the classroom. Extra-curricula activities which promote cross-cultural interaction and allow for voluntary, non-superficial contact over many occasions in a variety of contexts are likely to have positive results for intercultural literacy learning (Stephan 1985).

The proposed model highlights the period of first real engagement with a second culture as the critical point for intercultural literacy – Monocultural Level Three – Engagement or Distancing. If the appropriate supports are available to students at this point, the outcome is likely to be continued learning, cross-cultural engagement and intercultural literacy. If not, negative responses that result in arrested development or distancing are likely to result. In line with Anderson’s (1994) recursive model of adaptation, it is hypothesised that learners are likely to shuttle back and forth between the Monocultural and Cross-Cultural levels as the process of problem-solving progresses and intercultural literacy learning gains momentum.

Cultural distance

Cultural distance is a useful theoretical construct for the study of intercultural literacy learning (Gudykunst 1994, Triandis, Kurowski and Gelfand 1994). This section explores the theory on cultural distance, which is illustrated through the differences between mainstream Australian and Indonesian cultures.

Cultures can be construed as close (similar) or distant (dissimilar) according to the extent to which they include many similar or different elements. Distance can be defined by objective elements including language, religion, political, social or economic systems. For example, a second culture which shares the same language as the first, or uses a close variant, will be more accessible than one in which a totally alien language is dominant. Cultural distance can also be defined by subjective elements. That is, some cultures operate with rules, norms and values that are relatively close to the primary culture, whilst others are relatively distant.

Hofstede (1980) identified four dimensions along which dominant value systems in forty countries surveyed are ordered: power distance; uncertainty avoidance; individualism and masculinity. Power distance refers to the way in which a culture typically defines authority and power, and the degree to which leaders in society and organisations are separated from subordinates and followers. Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which individuals within a culture typically tolerate uncertainty. Collectivism/Individualism refers to the degree to which individuals within a culture are oriented towards the group. Masculinity pertains to cultures in which gender roles are clearly distinct while femininity pertains to cultures in which gender roles overlap. Although category

theories, including Hofstede’s, have been criticised in recent years for oversimplifying a complex and dynamic reality (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1997, Hermans and Kempen 1998), the model remains influential in the research (e.g. Triandis, Kurowski and Gelfand 1994; Triandis 1995; Triandis and Singelis 1998; Gudyukunst 1998; Redmond 2000; Goodwin and Giles 2003) and provides a useful framework in this study, particularly in relation to the Collectivism/Individualism dimension.

Collectivism may be thought of as a dominant value system which contrasts with individualism as one aspect of cultural distance (Hofstede 1980; Triandis, Bontempo, Bond, Leung, Brenes, Georgas, et al. 1986). In simple terms, collectivist cultures are group-oriented whereas individualist cultures are oriented to the individual. Triandis, Kurowski and Gelfand (1994) define the distinction as follows:

Collectivism reflects the way the self is defined (as part or representative of a group), and the importance of the ingroup (family, work group, country) in determining behaviour. Individualism reflects an autonomous self and the importance of personality, attitudes and other internal factors in determining behaviour. In individualistic cultures, individual goals (e.g. pleasure) have primacy over group goals ... Individualism is higher among affluent, socially mobile, and educated persons who have occupations that do not require much teamwork. Collectivism is higher in traditional cultures, especially those whose base is agricultural ... Such cultures socialise their children to obey and do their duty (i.e., be good workers and members of the ingroup). Homogeneous cultures often have clear norms; groups can impose these norms on their members. Heterogeneous cultures have many groups; if a person does not get along with one group, he or she can

join another. Thus in complex, heterogeneous cultures there is more individualism (1994: 787-788).

Applying the theory to cross-cultural contact between (Anglo) Australian and (Javanese) Indonesian individuals, Noesjirwan (1978, 1986) identified three contrasting ‘cultural value-orientation themes’:

Theme One

Indonesia: An emphasis on sociability or mutual togetherness. Physical, emotional closeness to others but not best friends.

Australia: An emphasis on privacy and respect of privacy. Strong individual friendship bonds but no general sociability.

Theme Two

Indonesia: The greater importance of the group than of the individual. It is the individual’s responsibility to obey the will of the group and the group leader.

Australia: The greater importance of the individual than of the group. The individual is responsible for his/her actions and should take the initiative.

Theme Three

Indonesia: The importance of maintaining a lifestyle that is smooth and graceful. Emphasis on correct form and politeness.

Australia: The importance of efficiency and getting things done with a minimum of fuss. Very direct and open manner.

The first two of these three themes, sociability and community, indicate a clear distance between the collectivist culture of Indonesia and the individualistic culture of (Anglo) Australia. An understanding of themes such as these, and the many social rules of which they are composed, is clearly required for intercultural literacy.

Noesjirwan’s third theme, steady state, relates to a further significant aspect of cultural distance: low-high context communication. In predominately low-context cultures such as (Anglo) Australia, speech tends to be direct, ‘open’ and unambiguous. In a predominately high-context culture such as Indonesia, speech tends to be indirect and less ‘open’; the meaning conveyed significantly through the ‘context’ and the interlocutor expected to understand that meaning through reference to a store of unstated cultural information (Hall 1977).

For example, giving and saving face - both for the individual and, in collectivistic