The students’ reflection on cultural resources, products, and statements about a particular culture, which Holliday (2011, 2013, 2016c) conceptualised as artefacts of a culture, enabled the students to recognise the stereotypical and essentialised way of describing a group of people. They began to question the image of Japan constructed and represented outwardly, and developed or modified their interpretations through their intercultural communication experiences. For example, the following student, Mika, referred to the overgeneralised image of Japanese kindness:
親日の方とか外国の方とかたくさんいると思うんですけど、そういう人た ちが見てるのは、結構物理的というか、これまでの日本の歴史だったりと か、侍とか武士のこととか、そういうことで。日本人の心とは言うとは思 うんですけど、真に日本人がこう、どういう国民性か（中略）理解してる のかってちょっと思ったりしたことがありました。（中略）日本がすごい 好きって言ってくれる人は、日本人はすごい優しいし、みたいな感じで言 ってくれるんですけど、なんか、こう結構、人にも寄るんですけど（中略） なんか全員が全員そうじゃない・・・ていう。うーん、ちょっとこう海外 の人が思っている日本人像となんかちょっと違ったのかな、っていう風に なんとなく思ったりするんですよね。（みか、帰国後インタビュー） There are many foreigners who are in favour of Japan but I had an
impression that those people are looking at something symbolic4,
such as Japanese history, or um, Samurai warriors. Well, it’s said that the spirit of Samurai warriors represents Japanese mentality but I felt a bit sceptical whether they really understand genuine aspects of the Japanese people. . . . Those people who love Japan compliment the kindness of Japanese but I think that sort of kindness depends on the person. . . . Not all people are like that. I kind of felt that there might
be a gap in the image of the Japanese people. (Mika; post return interview)
Mika struggled to explain the implication of the dissonance she experienced about the conflicting ideas about the Japanese. However, her account indicated that she had begun to realise that particular cultural resources (i.e. history, tradition) and statements of a culture (i.e. what people talk about the Japanese culture) cannot be projected onto the people in an essentialised manner (Holliday, 2011, 2012). For Mika, her cultural realities based on her personal trajectories (i.e. what she had constructed in the contexts of her past relationships) and small cultures (i.e. constant socialising interactions in everyday contexts) were truer to her than the somewhat ideological image of the Japanese appreciated by those she conversed with. The discourse of the Japanese culture gave Mika an opportunity to reflect on how an understanding of a particular culture is contextual-‐ and individually based, leading to her awareness that multiple realities cannot be stated in a reductionist manner (Holliday, 2011).
Reflecting on the use of particular cultural products also triggered an opportunity to evaluate the meaning of cultural artefacts as outward expressions of self. Yoko questioned why the students, including herself, had often drawn on typical cultural artefacts for introducing Japan on various occasions, such as at a Japanese festival or in a group performance designed for local audiences:
私達が日本を紹介するとき、なぜか着物や浴衣、伝統的な地域の行事や祭 りだったり、書道や楽器などの芸能だったりした。これらは、考えてみる と、普段私達が本当にやっていて身近にあるのかというとそうではない、 が、しかし、それらをどうしても私達は海外の人に紹介してしまっていた ことに不思議を覚えた。単に海外の人にもわかるように印象深い日本の伝 統文化を紹介してしまっているのかもしれないが、じゃあ「今」の日本っ てどんな国？と思った時、私はあまりはっきりと思い浮かぶものがなく、 あやふやだなぁと感じた。（ようこ、事後授業ジャーナル）
When we introduced Japan [while in the US], we drew on kimono or yukata5, some traditional regional events or festivals, or performing arts such as calligraphy and instruments for some reason. But when I think carefully, those things are not necessarily something that we actually do [in everyday life] or something that are closely attached to us. I felt curious why we ended up introducing those things to non-‐Japanese people. We might have introduced these impressive aspects so that the culture will be more tangible to others. But when I asked myself what ‘current’ Japan is like, I couldn’t think of anything particularly identifiable and felt it was vague. (Yoko; reflection after studying abroad)
The implication of Yoko’s account is twofold. One concerns the students’ motivation of using particular cultural products. Especially in the context where people might have had little knowledge of the students’ backgrounds, and where the students had to present themselves as a group, they could have been prone to make use of the artefacts of the culture as a way to express, or even for some, to strengthen, their cultural identity (Holliday, 2016b). The students’ decision to use particular cultural products indicated how individuals may draw on different cultural resources at varying times depending on the circumstances (Holliday, 2016b). On the other hand, as Yoko questioned the said situations, her criticality allowed her to deconstruct the purpose and meaning of particular cultural products. In particular, she stated in her subsequent writing that sharing these particular cultural products was not enough, and that she wanted to take her intercultural communication experiences further to be able to mediate between and connect with individuals in the endeavour of being intercultural (Alred, Byram, & Fleming, 2003). Yoko’s accounts illustrated her awareness of, and her willingness to understand and relate to, individual cultural realities aside from the
popular discourse of a culture centring on particular cultural products (Holliday, 2011, 2016c). She stated in the interview later that refraining from stereotypical or biased views is one of the important approaches she incorporates into communicating and connecting with others.
Lastly, the students’ intercultural encounters and communication with the local people enabled the students to evaluate the tendency of labelling people by nationalities. In particular, the following student, Takashi, expressed his strong resistance to associate people with a particular culture in a stereotypical way. He described in the interview how, initially, he had categorised the Americans, but had changed his approach after meeting a range of American friends throughout his sojourn. He started to enjoy experiencing and interpreting otherness based on the individual diversity through his intercultural encounters and communication with others. Likewise, his resistance to essentialisation grew from the uneasiness he had felt by being labelled himself. While he described his personality as quiet and calm in the interview, it was clear that he separated such traits from the typical Japanese characteristics ‘imagined’ by others. He explained how and why he is not happy about stereotyping Japanese attitudes and behaviours as follows:
日本人はその・・・そういう意見を言わない傾向にあるとか、そういう言 われるのもなんか、あんまり嫌になったというか。こっち戻ってきてから そういうこと言われたりするときもあって（中略）なんかそういう文化を 言ってると、なんかそういういう風じゃない人も、そういう風になってし まうかもしれない（中略）やっぱり固定概念を持たしてしまうからなんか、 あんまり・・・文化はこうだっていうの・・・なんかこう好きじゃなくな った、っていうのもあります。（たかし、帰国後インタビュー）
I don’t like to hear [now] that Japanese . . . tend not to say opinions. After I returned to Japan, I was told so on a few occasions. . . . If you talk about the culture that way, those people who do not apply may
also end up conforming to that. . . . I think that [way of talking] will give stereotypes . . . so I developed my preference not to define a particular culture now. (Takashi; post return interview)
Of importance here is that Takashi recognised how stereotypes would be reinforced, and even interfere with, individual cultural realities which are independent of what is said about the culture (Holliday, 2011, 2013, 2016c). He wanted to be perceived and understood as an individual, not by cultural descriptions. Drawing on the negative implication of predefining people, he began to shift his focus on the direct behaviours of, and communication with, people to coconstruct his understanding of a culturally diverse self and others based on their cultural threads (i.e., multiple realities coconstructed and reconstructed through different socialisation processes) (Holliday, 2016b). His disagreement with the discourse of cultural blocks is evident in his statement below: いろんな国の人たちがもうなんかいろんな国に行き来している中で（中略） 口に出して言ってほしくなくて。同じなんか人間だから。あなたは性格こ うで、これ日本人だからね、みたいな大きなくくりの中で言ってほしくな いというか・・・。なんかもう、その、そういうのはあまり聞きたくない。 （たかし、帰国後インタビュー）
Since [so many] different people travel across varying countries. . . . I don’t want people to articulate [those kinds of stereotypes]. We are all the same human beings. I don’t want people to lump an individual into a big group and describe it like, ‘Your personality is such and such and that’s because you are Japanese’. I don’t want to hear that any longer. (Takashi; post return interview)
Takashi’s account indicated his awareness and understanding of the complexity and multiplicity of individual identities, including his own and others, which ties into an intercultural approach to understanding self and others (Dervin, 2009; Holliday, 2016b; Holmes, Bavieri, & Ganassin, 2015).
In sum, the students began to recognise how particular artefacts of a culture are influential in representing and reinforcing the image of the Japanese people as outward expressions of self and others (Holliday, 2011, 2013, 2016c). The dissonance they perceived between their own cultural realities (primarily based on their personal trajectories and small cultures) and the discourse of the culture triggered the students to evaluate their approaches to shed light on, and to relate to, culturally diverse individuals. The newly constructed awareness resonates with one of the key purposes underpinning intercultural learning: to recognise cultural blocks which appear through statements about a culture; and to understand how they lead to stereotypical and essentialised views of people (Holliday, 2016b; IEREST, 2015).
Summary of section 4.2
I focused on the students’ reflections with regard to the sense of hospitality and the use of artefacts of a culture to illustrate how they had evaluated and reinterpreted particular cultural products in relation to self and others. For many students who had initially considered the Japanese hospitality, omotenashi, as a distinctive characteristic of the culture, their interactions and communication with the local people in the US allowed them to understand how people would share similar dispositions but express and demonstrate them in different ways. Furthermore, some students developed criticality and shed light on the gap between the idealised image of the Japanese culture and individual subjective realities. Instead of drawing on particular cultural products, or referring to essentialised statements about the culture, the students
showed awareness of the necessity to recognise and relate to individual realities emergent as cultural threads among the self and others (Holliday, 2016b).
4.3. Increased sense of individuality of self and others through small culture
formations
In this section, I present how the students negotiated and reconstructed their previously held perceptions about self and others. The changes were driven through the social grouping processes within the group of Japanese students and other people involved in the programme as they formed their small cultures in a variety of intercultural contexts. The term ‘intercultural contexts’ here refers to differences in the geographical and institutional environments, language, personal trajectories, and respective roles and statuses in the programme. The contexts are manifold, and are not restricted to the sense of American versus Japanese cultures. I highlight in this section how students reconstructed their self-‐concept (4.3.1); and how they understood and modified the role of self in engaging with cultural diverse others (4.3.2).