Distancing Emerging Intercultural Literacy Bicultural or Transcultural Unconsciously
Incompetent Unconsciously Incompetent Consciously Incompetent Consciously Competent Unconsciously Competent Understandings No significant intercultural understandings. Unaware of own culture or of the significance of culture in human affairs. Aware of touristic, exotic and stereotypical aspects of other culture/s. Little understanding of metaculture. Aware of significant cultural differences. Other culture/s perceived as irrational and unbelievable. Increasingly sophisticated understandings of socio-political and intergroup aspects of culture and metaculture. Aware of how culture/s feel and operate from the standpoint of the insider. Understandings of primary and metaculture and global interdependence. Competencies No significant intercultural competencies. No significant intercultural competencies. No significant intercultural competencies. Developing competencies include mindfulness, empathy, perspective- taking, tolerance and communication.
Advanced
competencies include mindfulness, empathy, perspective- taking, tolerance and communication. Attitudes No significant
intercultural attitudes. Assumes that all groups share similar values and traits. Value neutral. Naïve and stereotypical attitudes which may be positive, negative or ambivalent. Typically negative attitudes. Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. Differentiated, dynamic and realistic attitudes. An overall respect for integrity of culture/s.
Differentiated, dynamic and realistic attitudes. An overall respect for integrity of culture/s accompanied by legitimate and informed criticism. Participation No significant participation or unaware of cultural dimension of contact. Tourism, early contact, ‘honeymoon’ period or experience of culture/s through texts, media etc. ‘Living alongside’ rather than ‘living with’.
Culture conflict. ‘Living alongside’ rather than ‘living with’. Increasing cross- cultural engagement and development of meaningful relationships. ‘Living with’ rather than ‘living alongside’. Well established cross-cultural / transcultural friendships and/or working relationships. ‘Living in’ the culture/s. the ‘mediating’ person. Language No significant second
language competencies. May be unaware of language differences. Aware of language differences. Possible ability or communicate at a superficial level in the second language/s (greetings etc.) Limited functional competencies in the second language/s. Language learning. Increasingly sophisticated knowledge of and ability to communicate in second languages/s. Bilingual or multilingual understanding and competencies.
Identity Unformed cultural
identity. Basic cultural identity characterised by stereotypic
comparisons with other cultures.
Culture shock may force an examination of cultural identity.
Increasingly highly developed and secure primary cultural identity.
Bicultural or transcultural identity. ‘Species’ or ‘global’ identity may emerge.
The changes made to the first iteration of the model and incorporated in this second iteration occurred through a reflexive process of shuttling back and forth between input from the reference groups and the theoretical background. For example, in the course of discussions with the Tanjung Bara Reference Group, it became clear that very young (pre-school) children were simply not at the developmental stage at which it would be meaningful to place them on the model. Young children growing up in a bicultural family or transcultural community, and who might be thought of as potentially advanced in terms of intercultural literacy, also did not fit easily into the first iteration of the model. There were thought to be a number of such children in Poppets Child Care Centre or the early-childhood class of the school.
In response to inputs of the Tanjung Bara Reference Group, the model was subsequently revised and an extra stage added to account for these children. This, in turn, prompted further reference to the background theory – particularly into the theory addressing the development of cultural understandings and identity in early childhood (e.g. Selman 1976; Vaughan 1978; Thomas 1984; Minoura 1992; Fry 1994). The final iteration includes a Limited Awareness stage, which may apply to very young children or to adults who live in environments that are extremely isolated and culturally homogeneous. The proposed model introduced in the previous chapter is thus the result of a two-way engagement of theory with feedback from practitioner reference groups.
A second example is the addition of the term ‘Distancing’. The first iteration of the model characterised this level as simply ‘Culture Shock’. The evidence of the Tanjung
Bara Reference Group suggested that many individuals became ‘stuck’ at this stage and did not progress beyond to the next level. The term ‘culture shock’, taken from the earlier theoretical models, implied a more dramatic and sudden event – a make-or-break process which would either see the individual adapt to the new situation or retreat to their home country. Input from discussions with the Tanjung Bara Reference Group suggested that this was a less dramatic stage for many; a stage that drifted on with the individual remaining in the community but avoiding cross-cultural contact. The term ‘Distancing’ was suggested in a discussion with one of the teachers, a key member of the Tanjung Bara Reference Group. This adjustment to the model was also consistent with Anderson’s (1994) model of recursive problem-solving in intercultural adaptation. In line with the theory discussed in Chapter Two outlining alternative responses to cross- cultural contact (Bochner 1982, 1986, Berry 1984, 2001), ‘Distancing’ implies either cultural chauvinism, marginalisation or, potentially, passing.
Two further changes were made in response to input from the Study Tour Reference Group; both resulting from discussions with administrators and staff of international schools on the issue of identity for international students. These discussions prompted a re-thinking of the model, collapsing the final two levels on the first iteration of the model to one, and the addition of a sixth dimension in the model, Identity. Many of the students of the international schools visited were described by Study Tour Reference Group members as ‘Third Culture Kids’ (Useem and Downie 1973, Pollock and Van Reken 1999), biculturals or multiple-identity personalities. These discussions led the researcher back to the theory, suggesting: (1) the significance of identity as an interrelated dimension of intercultural literacy, and (2) the complexity of identities for
many international students. The revision of the model reflected these new understandings.
The early iteration of the model presented to the reference groups included two parallel final stages - Intercultural Literacy and Transcultural Literacy – to allow for individuals identifying with a transcultural group and those identifying with more than one culture – biculturals - to be categorised in alternative ways at this level in the model. As described, the input of the Study Tour Reference Group participants suggested a more complex multiple identity prompting a return to the literature and introducing the notion of multiple cultural identities. This, in turn, made it more appropriate for the two parallel levels to be collapsed into one, allowing for the reality of individuals identifying simultaneously with a transcultural ‘third culture’ and other multiple cultures.
Appendices One and Two illustrate the change that occurred between the first and final iterations. The first iteration was based purely on the theoretical background researched prior to the first period in the field. As a result of this engagement with practitioners in the reference groups and a subsequent re-evaluation of the theoretical literature in the period February-April 1996 the final iteration of the model was developed. This was prior to the first phase of Case Study interviews conducted in the field in May 1996. In addition, detailed descriptors in the various dimensions and stages of the model were adapted and refined in consultation with the Tanjung Bara Reference Group (Appendix Six).13
13 This process did not involve the Study Tour Reference Group as it required more time in a workshop