La historia del azul

Intercultural literacy is sometimes seen as synonymous with intercultural understanding or ‘awareness’ (e.g. Christensen 1989), the assumption being that knowledge of a second culture is sufficient for successful communication, living and working in a cross-cultural setting. The proposed model rejects this assumption; intercultural understanding is a necessary though not sufficient condition for intercultural literacy.

At Monocultural Level One, Limited Awareness, the individual possesses no significant understandings; is essentially ignorant of his/her own culture, ignorant of the existence and nature of other cultures and ignorant of the nature of culture itself. This level may be typical for very young children or adults living in a highly isolated monocultural setting.

At Monocultural Level Two, Naïve Awareness, an awareness of superficial or highly visible cultural traits, norms and customs in the second culture which contrast markedly with the primary culture emerges. A touristic view of the exotic and bizarre nature of the culture, marked by common and unquestioned stereotypes - both positive and / or

negative, is common. There is little understanding of the primary culture or of the nature of culture in general terms.

At Monocultural Level Three, Culture Shock / Distancing, an awareness grows of significant and subtle cultural traits, norms and customs that contrast markedly with one’s own. The second culture is typically perceived as irrational and unbelievable. An ethnocentric understanding characterises the second culture as deficient and not ‘measuring up’ in terms of the primary culture’s frame of reference.

The culture shock experience may stimulate a radical reappraisal of culture leading to a reassessment of former understandings of both the target culture and primary culture, and a development of understandings in the nature of culture itself and its role in shaping the personal and social world. Alternatively, the culture shock crisis may result in a retreat from further learning and the entrenchment of ethnocentric understandings.

At the Cross-Cultural Level, Emerging Intercultural Literacy, cultural understandings become highly developed as awareness of the role of culture in shaping personal and social realities develops. Increasingly deep awareness of significant and subtle traits, norms and customs that contrast markedly with those of the primary culture develops along with increasingly sophisticated knowledge and understanding of socio-cultural structures and traditions. The second culture is believable at a cognitive level - it ‘makes sense’.

The individual develops significant understandings of the primary culture that parallel those of the second culture and of the nature culture itself and its role in shaping the personal and social world. The development of these understandings may take place over a prolonged period of cross-cultural engagement.

At the Intercultural Level, Bicultural Literacy / Transcultural Literacy, advanced awareness of the relativity of all cultures, of the dynamics of global interdependence and of the global nature of problems and solutions is evident. The individual develops understandings of second culture(s) through the experience of looking at the culture(s) from the viewpoint of the insider. An understanding of the primary culture is informed through the experience of looking at the culture from the viewpoint of a second culture.

The individual is familiar with significant cultural traits, norms and customs and possesses knowledge of significant socio-cultural structures and traditions of the second culture(s). The culture(s) is (are) believable because of familiarity. Understanding of the role culture plays in shaping the personal and social world is advanced.

As can be seen from Figure 2.2, the Understandings dimension of the proposed model draws heavily on Hanvey’s (1982, 1986) schema. In this aspect it is similar also to Elliott and Baumgart’s (1995) model. Understandings develop from Monocultural Level

One, in which the individual has no significant intercultural understanding (either of the

primary or a second culture), through a naive awareness stage (Monocultural Level Two) characterised by stereotypic understandings, to the Culture Shock / Distancing stage in which an understanding of significant cultural differences emerges but the second

culture is perceived as irrational and unbelievable. The Cross-Cultural Level may be thought of as a typically extended period of learning, during which an individual gains understandings in the interpersonal and intergroup aspects of culture along with socio- political understandings and an understanding of culture in the abstract.

Consistent with Hanvey’s (1982, 1986) model, it can be seen that, not only the nature and extent, but the source of understanding shifts as intercultural literacy develops. At the Monocultural Level understandings derive from a short-term and superficial experience of a second culture, or perhaps from vicarious experience through texts, or the media. At the Cross-Cultural Level understandings derive from an extended engagement with the culture, and at the Intercultural Level from the experience of ‘living in the culture’.

This perspective shift is significant: that is from experiencing the culture as an outsider to experiencing it as an insider; or at least through being able to imagine the viewpoint of an insider. It suggests that for intercultural literacy to develop, engagement with the culture must be real and sustained. An advanced intercultural understanding links to the competency of perspective-taking and an ability to see the culture from the perspective of the insider. This may extend to understanding of the impact – positive or negative – of one’s own culture on another culture in contact.

The previous description of intercultural understandings at the Cross-Cultural and

Intercultural levels suggests that three categories of understandings are required for

1. Understandings of the nature of culture in the abstract are required, of its components, structure and influence in human affairs. These could be considered generic understandings.

2. Understandings of the target culture at a socio-political level are required, including understandings of the history, economics, religion and other socio- political structures; of the ‘way of life’ within the culture; and of the artistic traditions of the culture. This is the sort of cultural literacy implicit in the arguments of Hughes and McCann (1991), Fitzgerald (1991), and Willinsky (1992) for an Asia or Pacific-Asia literacy focus in Australian education. These understandings may be considered specific to the target culture(s). 3. Understandings at the intergroup and interpersonal levels are required: that

is, understandings of the rules, norms, values and customs that operate within the culture and enable successful cross-cultural dialogue and participation. These understandings relate closely to intercultural competencies in that they enable the application of generic competencies within a specific cultural context.

At Monocultural Level One no significant understandings are in evidence. The individual at this stage is unaware of culture and its significance either personally or generally, thus he or she thus has no relevant understandings. At the next level,

Monocultural Level Two, understandings may be thought of as shallow and simplistic.

Stereotyping is typical and the individual tends to generalise about the second culture with little awareness of diversity. There is little understanding of the nature of culture in the abstract.

Monocultural Level Three is stimulated by the culture shock experience and a growing

awareness of the differences between cultures. The individual still tends to stereotype and generalise about the second culture. In response to the experience of culture shock, the individual may either move into the Cross-Cultural Level, or remain in an extended ‘distancing’ stage. The Cross-Cultural Level defines an extended learning period in which significant understandings about the target culture are acquired. At the

Intercultural Level an advanced understanding is in place. In the case of the bicultural

this can be taken to mean an understanding of the socio-cultural and interpersonal aspects of the culture which enables full and effective cross-cultural participation. For the transcultural, what might be termed a global understanding reflects participation in a transcultural rather than cross-cultural community.

The question remains as to what understandings might be relevant within the three categories described above. What understandings does an interculturally literate individual require? This question can be sensitive and political in relation not only to what should be learned but who should decide what should be learned.

Whilst the scheme proposed - and supported by Kane’s (1991) taxonomy - is useful for logically separating out the sets of understandings required, in practice it is likely that the three will blend. For example, an understanding of how Kalimantan village life (or the Indonesian political system) is structured, necessitates an understanding of Indonesian history, of the economic, religious and value systems, and of cultural norms related to collectivism, gender, conflict-resolution, decision-making, communication and

attitudes towards authority. These specific understandings in turn require and support a broader set of generic understandings concerning the role of culture in human affairs. As illustrated in this example, learning in each of the three categories is likely to take place simultaneously and in a mutually supportive way.

Intercultural competencies

Alongside intercultural understanding, the interculturally literate individual possesses a range of competencies which enable successful learning, living and working in a cross- cultural, pluralist or transcultural environment. The proposed model suggests that a set of generic competencies when combined with more culture-specific intercultural understandings, language abilities and participation enables effective cross-cultural participation or intercultural literacy.

The generic and transferable nature of intercultural competencies is a key element in the conception of transculturalism and intercultural literacy. The transcultural individual, as defined by Willis and colleagues possesses a high level of intercultural competency enabling an ease of movement within and between multiple cultures (Willis 1986; 1987; 1988; 1991, 1992, 1997; Willis and Enloe 1990; Willis, Enloe and Minoura 1994). Similarly, Hannerz (1990) refers to transnational cultures and transnationals possessing ‘... decontextualised cultural capital ... Their decontextualised knowledge can be quickly and shiftingly recontextualised in a series of different settings’ (Hannerz 1990: 246).

At Monocultural Level One, Limited Awareness, no significant competencies are evident. This level may be typical for very young children or adults living in a highly isolated monocultural setting.

At Monocultural Level Two, Naive Awareness and Monocultural Level Three, Culture

Shock / Distancing, the individual possesses no significant intercultural competencies.

Interpersonal competencies which may be relevant in the intergroup context may have been acquired independently of cross-cultural experience, however, until they are activated in a cross-cultural context, they can not be characterised as intercultural competencies. At Level Three, the culture shock experience may stimulate a rapid development of competencies as a means of dealing with the crisis of incompetence though intercultural literacy learning. Alternatively, the culture shock crisis may result in a retreat from further learning and an arrested stage of incompetence or limited competence.

At the Cross-Cultural, Emerging Intercultural Literacy, Level, cultural competencies become highly developed, as a conscious awareness of the role of intercultural competencies in increasing cross-cultural effectiveness develops. Building on previous theory, the proposed model suggests that an ability to understand cultural differences in real life situations at a cognitive level is accompanied by a range of emerging competencies. These include: mindfulness; flexibility and adaptability; tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, anxiety and frustration management; open-mindedness; capacity to be non-judgemental; capacity to personalise one’s perspectives; empathy, and the ability to communicate respect and display empathy; communication skills

(including sensitivity, tuning-in skills, assertiveness, active listening, feedback, topic management, turn-taking, and the use of inclusive language); differentiation; conflict management skills; intrapersonal and interpersonal skills; sense of humour; decision- making skills (including cross-cultural and global perspectives); and community- building skills.

This list of competencies draws on an extensive literature on intercultural competency. In the 1970s and 1980s a number of inventories of intercultural competencies were proposed, largely with the aim of assisting multinational corporations to place executives in overseas postings, but later in designing cross-cultural training programs (Batchelder and Warner 1979 cited in Wilson 1982; Kohls 1979, cited in Wilson 1982; Brislin 1981; Adler 1986; Ruben 1986). The earliest formulations tend to mix traits for predicting successful cross-cultural experience with understandings and skills (or competencies) which may be learned. More recent lists are more clearly conceived as skill inventories (Hannigan 1990; Hammer, Nishida and Wiseman 1996; Meggitt 1996; Mol, Van Oudenhoven and Van der Zee 2001; Isaura and Corso 2002; Abilock 2003).

These skills can be thought of as behavioural and attitudinal learnings that are put into practical, day-to-day use. For example, increased tolerance may be regarded as more than an attitude. Tolerance for different life styles, value systems, and outlooks, when incorporated into behaviour, is also a skill. Likewise, sensitivity and empathy to others may be regarded as a corresponding skill. The learning of appropriate behavioural responses and reactions in a different cultural or social situation necessarily involves the development of skills in interpersonal competence and communication. The individual

learns how to interpret situations, how to deal with problems and conflicts, how to trust other people, and how to simply enjoy the diversity of people. When an individual undergoes a radical change in cultural environment, these skills become necessary for social survival.

The list of competencies proposed also derives from global citizenship and global awareness competency inventories (Becker 1982; Freeman 1993; Merryfield 1997). Also significant in this context is Gudykunst’s synthesis of the literature on intergroup communication (Gudykunst 1994; Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey and Wiseman 1991) and Willis, Enloe and Minoura’s (1994) description of transculturals.

The development of these competencies may take place over a prolonged period of cross-cultural engagement.

At the Intercultural, Bicultural Literacy / Transcultural Literacy Level a consolidation of learning at the emerging intercultural level leads to advanced competencies as outlined above. Advanced capacity to empathise may be characterised as transpection (Maruyama 1970 cited in Hanvey 1986) or multiple-perspective-taking. The individual is able to adopt multiple cultural perspectives.

The development of competencies outlined in Figure 2.2 follows a similar pattern to the development of understandings. No significant competencies develop before the Cross-

emerging intercultural literacy. At the Intercultural level, the full range of competencies

which are learned in the Cross-Cultural level are in place.

The interculturally literate individual possesses an extensive repertoire of competencies which may be employed in cross-cultural, pluralist or transcultural contexts. In isolation these competencies do not constitute intercultural literacy since in order to employ them to good effect, a corresponding set of understandings, attitudes, language abilities and identities is required.

Intercultural attitudes

Attitudes may be defined as ‘... people’s reactions toward a concept or, in everyday language, their feelings, beliefs, and readiness to act. Attitudes are commonly analysed according to three components: affective, cognitive, and conative’ (Brislin (1981: 41). The affective component refers to emotional reactions and can be summarised as feelings of goodness and badness - broadly a positive or a negative attitude. The cognitive component refers to beliefs and information about a subject. The conative component refers to behavioural intentions towards the subject and might include a desire to form friendships or participate in cross-cultural events.

Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination relate to these three attitude components. Prejudice relates to emotional reactions and the affective component; stereotyping to beliefs and the cognitive component; and discrimination to behaviour and the conative component. The correlation between these three components – affective, cognitive and

behavioural – is significant. Stahlberg and Frey (1996) found that the degree of consistency between cognitive and affective elements of an attitude increases both the stability of the attitude over time, and the ability to predict consistent behaviour. Thus, where beliefs and affective attitudes are at variance, such as where an individual believes that another cultural group is lazy but holds a positive view of an individual member as friendly and helpful, the attitude is likely to be unstable over time and an unreliable predictor of behaviour.

An important theoretical construct relating to stereotypes and cross-cultural attitudes is the theory of attribution (Triandis 1975). Attributions are an individual’s attempt to explain other’s behaviour through reference to traits, disposition or situational factors. Many problems in cross-cultural communication and intergroup contact can be seen to arise from misattributions. Behaviours observed within another culture are interpreted within the frame of reference of the primary culture. Within cultures, attributions have been found to be more generally situational - that is the behaviour is explained as a result of the situation in which it occurs. In contrast, cross-cultural attributions tend to be

dispositional; that is the behaviour is explained as a result of the other’s disposition or

traits which may defined by cultural stereotypes (Hewstone and Jaspars 1982; Jaspars and Hewstone 1982; Hewstone and Fincham 1996).

Three possibilities for improving intercultural attitudes in this context are:

1. increasing the sophistication and complexity of cross-cultural stereotypes; 2. changing attributions from dispositional to situational; and

3. increasing cross-cultural within-group differentiation thereby challenging stereotypes (Gudykunst 1994: 97-102).

An example of the first possibility is as follows: In a Naive Awareness stage, an individual may see members of another culture as ‘polite’ and ‘friendly’, whilst at a higher level of intercultural literacy the same individuals may be perceived as typically valuing a ‘steady state’, avoiding conflict and concerned with ‘saving face’ (Noesjirwan 1986). Triandis’ (1975) concept of ‘isomorphic attributions’ is also relevant here since it allows for the advanced or ‘interculturally literate’ individual to attribute behaviour cross-culturally on the basis of how it might be attributed within the culture.

Isomorphic attributions correspond to the idea: “If I had been raised in that culture and had had the kinds of experiences he [sic] has had, I would do exactly what he did ... ” (Triandis 1975: 41-42).

The concept of isomorphic attributions relates to that of multiple perspective-taking (Willis, Enloe and Minoura 1994) and ‘contextual evaluation’ (Bennett 1993); advanced empathy, or the ability to put oneself ‘in the head’ of others, to see things as they might.

An individual at the Monocultural Level One, Limited Awareness, assumes that all groups share similar cultural traits and values and that these are similar to those held by the individual. Young children and isolated adults may be aware of the existence of different cultural groups but unaware of different traits. The orientation is value neutral with no significant attitudes in evidence.

At Monocultural Level Two, Naïve Awareness, attitudes may be ambivalent. Stereotyping is common and may include positive and negative images of the culture. For example, Australian attitudes towards Asia may be commonly ambivalent, characterising it simplistically as rich and also poor, economically threatening, and at the same time ‘... beckoning us with economic opportunities’ (Viviani 1990: 16). Negative stereotypes with accompanying prejudice and discrimination may predominate - such as Asians being perceived as backward, corrupt, and untrustworthy; or, equally, positive stereotyping with accompanying prejudice and discrimination is possible, with Asians perceived as friendly, spiritual, simple and polite. The common element in both orientations is the superficiality and naïvety of attitudes and a lack of appreciation of the