Teachability of Intercultural Sensitivity from the Perspective of Ethnocentrism Vs

Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL).vol.14 , no .1 , march 2011.

Teachability of Intercultural Sensitivity from the Perspective of Ethnocentrism vs. Ethnorelativism: An Iranian Experience

Ali Rahimi

University of Kashan

Ali Soltani

ZanjanMedicalUniversity

Abstract

This study was an attempt to investigate the probable realtionship between Iranian EFL learners' linguistic competence andintercultural sensitivity on the one hand and the feasibility of enhancing theirintercultural sensitivity through actual classroom training on the other. To this end, 36 male and female college seniors were randomly selected from two classes after being homogenized. The participants were required, at the outset, to complete an Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS).They, then, attended a half-a-semester-long intercultural sensitivity training course and completed the same scale once again at the end of the semester. The results obtained through pre-test and post-test and subjected to paired t-test as the most approprite statistical technique indicated a remarkable increase in Iranian EFL students’ intercultural sensitivity level and their propensity for moving from ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative stages.This effective stride can in turn crystallize the possibility of teaching intercultural sensitivity in an asian context theorized by some scholars and can, if generalized nationwide, most probably revolutionize foreign language teaching.It is specifically intended for all stake-holders in the field of ELT who have restricted themselves merely to linguistic competence; and have consequently not given due weight to intercultural communicative competence as a sine qua non for modern language education.

Key Words: Intercultural Sensitivity, Intercultural Training, Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism

Introduction

Monumental changes occurring in the fields of science and technologyhave changed the world into a global village of expanding technology and shrinking geography. All these shifts, especially in the realm of cybernetics, have resulted in the drastic reduction of the distance between people from different cultures and societies.As Peng, Lu & Wang (2009) argue, “rapid advancements in telecommunication technologies, particularly the Internet, have created opportunities for users to acquire immediate access to the world” (p.95).

Whenever one speaks of telecommunication, communication, globalization, and “glocalization” – a term coined by East (2008:156) to represent the combined nature of globalization and localization, language is the most immediate concept which crosses one's mind.In other words, speaking a different language appears to be the most problematic impediment. However, what seems to be even more significant and maybe to the same degree difficult is to speak a different language at a level which must be beyond one's linguistic competence to fulfill the intended objectives. As Novinger (2001) asserts, “speaking a different language is an obvious obstacle to intercultural communication, but a greater and more difficult hurdle is to “speak”a different culture”.(p.1)

Today's global society proves unable to survive without interculturally competent individuals who have already obtained an understanding of different cultures and have equipped themselves with the ability to appropriately and effectively notice and experience cultural differences in their cross-cultural encounters (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003).

Taking into consideration the shift of attention, over the recent years, from such fields as syntax, phonology, and semantics to pragmatics and sociocultural issues, Widdowson also claims:

If we do not engage students with socio-cultural meanings then do

we not trivialize the subject? ....what do students learn English for?

we are teaching an impoverished (Italics Mine) pragmatics, and we

provide little basis for the kind of awareness of other cultures

and communities which is claimed one of the purposes of

foreign language study (1992:335).

Having conducted a study on the role of cultural aspects in foreign language teaching, Cortes (2007) also concludes that, “if students do not learn about these aspects, they will never achieve full communicative and sociocultural competence in the foreign language"(p.230). Young et al.(2009) go even further and claim if culture is not actively approached in the classroom, it may negatively impact on learning.

Consequently, in the contemporary world in which preparing language learners for intercultural communication seems a sine qua non for modern language education, hardly can one deny the significance attached to intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communicative competence (ICC) as the prerequisites for effective interaction with members of other cultures.Thus, language educators need to feel the necessity of the inclusion of cultural components in their syllabi in order for their learners to become successful in their intercultural interactions (Byram,1997; Bennett, 1998; Kramsch, 1998; Byram, Nicholas, & Stevens, 2001; Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Phillips, 2003; Hammer & Bennett, 2004).

Interrelationship between Language and Culture

Emphasizing the inseparable socio-cultural characteristics of language, Brown (1994) points out "a language is a part of a cultureand a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture"(p.165).Rivers (1981) also believes understanding culture is an important component of foreign language learning without which we cannot use the foreign language situationally appropriately.

Making an attempt to demonstrate the relationship between intercultural competence development and foreign language teaching, Byram (1997) concludes if language teachers would like to be successful in training competent language learners, they need to help language learners develop intercultural competence through extensive teaching. Parallel to this, Barletta (2009) also maintains, “needless to say, the teaching of intercultural competence should be an area in the curriculum of undergraduate language education”(p. 155).

The interesting point which is well worth mentioning is that although the centrality and importance of including culture in ESL/EFL learning and teaching has widely been recognized and stressed by a large number of outstanding scholars (Oxford,1994; Ting-Toomey,1999; Sercu, 2002; Cortes, 2007), seldom can one find cases in which due weight has been given to culture in practice. In other words, inclusion of culture in ESL/EFL curricula is overdue and is conspicuously neglected and may lead to irremediable consequences (Young, Sachdev, & Seedhouse 2009).Explicating the other side of the coin, Young et al.(2009) contend that if culture is approached actively, it might have a positive effect on learning.Merits of including cultural elements in L2 learning have been pinpointed by several other scholrs(Oxford, 1994; Kramsch, 1998; Stagigh, 1998; Ho, 1998; Chastain,1988;James,2000; Tseng, 2002; Genc and Bada, 2005).

Intercultural Sensitivity

Intercultural sensitivity, according to Bhawuk and Brislin (1992), refers to "a sensitivity to the importance of cultural differences and to the points of view of people in other cultures(p. 414).Zakaria (2000), who outlines the ingredients of intercultural competence, concludes that intercultural competence in general is comprised of affective, cognitive, and behavioral components.The cognitive component is concerned withcultural awareness which leads to a change in one’s thinking about his environment based upon the understanding that one should not limit himself to his own perspectives due to the fact that there are multiple perspectives.This alteration in one’s manner of thinking can bring about some changes in his behavior (behavioral component)on the basis of the impacts of culture on one’s behavior (cultural awareness).The affective component of intercultural competence, labeled sometimes as (inter)cultural sensitivity,deals with varied feelings which are resulted by changes in people, environment, and communicative encounters while refraining from ethnocentrism (Chen & Starosta, 1996).It is noteworthy thatalthoughintercultural competenceandintercultural sensitivity are interchangeably used by some scholars to refer to the same thing,Hammer, Bennet, and Wiseman (2003) assert thatintercultural sensitivity is the prerequisite forintercultural competence.

On the other hand, individuals have an increasing number of opportunities to communicate with people from dissimilar cultures on account of growingly rapid trend of globalization nowadays.Thus, the significant role intercultural sensitivity can play in harmonizing diverse cultural groups becomes more crystallized day by day.

Viewing the issue from socio-pragmatic viewpoint,some scholars have regarded intercultural sensitivity as an important predictor of success in situations in which people need to interact with individuls with different cultures. Bhawuk and Brislin (1992), among others, assert:

To be effective in another culture, people must be interested in other cultures, be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and then also be willing to modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures.A reasonable term that summarizes these qualities of people is intercultural sensitivity.(p. 416)

Perspectives on Iranian Culture

Providing a comprehensive sketch of diverse elements existing in Iran’s culture is definitely beyond the scope of this paper.What follows is a snapshot of drastic differences within Iran’s culture compared to non-Iranian cultures particularly those of North America and the United Kingdom. These differences seem to stem from differences in terms of language, worldview, value system, attitude, lifestyle, tradition, belief, religion, demographic background, ethnic background,and literature among other things.

Koutlaki (2010) who has conducted an in-depth investigation into Iran’s culture implicitly supports the above-mentioned claims and describes Iran like this, “for the majority of people in the West, Iran remains a tantalizing mystery, a challenge to established patterns of thought, a source of paradoxes. Just like Rumi’s elephant, Iran is different things to different people, whereas in fact it is more than the sum of its parts”.(p.2)

Under the strict influence of their culture deeply rooted in their psyches, Iranians ,if not trained interculturally, are neither expected nor able to interculturally act like Americans or Britishers or any other people from dissimilar cultures.How do they react when invited by a next-door neighbor in America? Do they consider it as ostensible or genuine? How do Americans react under similar circumstances? The answers to these questions are provided by Eslami (2005: 453 cited in Sharifian,2007):

Over the years of my intercultural experiences in the United States and observation of other Iranian/American interactions, I have witnessed that Iranians sometimes take Americans’ genuine invitations as ostensible (not to be taken seriously) and therefore reject them, while Americans may take Iranian ostensible invitations as genuine and accept them.(p.41)

This single quotation might cogently and explicitly reveal the depth of cultural differences in general and tremendously dissimilar conceptualizations in particular.Delineating the link between Persian culture and Persian language, Sharifian (2007) also argues, “the distinctiveness of Persian culture is deeply embedded in the social and conceptual basis of the Persian language”(p.35).

A variety of such schemata as the schema of face(aberu), the schema of ritual politeness (tarof), the schema of modesty (shekasteh-nafsi), and emotion schema, among many others,which are numerously applied in Persian culture as a sign of respect towards others, bring about various fundamental misunderstandings, some irremediably offending, in intercultural encounters. Take the following case in which an Australian lecturer congratulates his Iranian student on his recent achievement.

Lecturer: I heard you’ve won a prestigious award. Congratulations!This is fantastic.

Iranian student: Thanks so much. I haven’t done anything. It’s the result of your effort

and your knowledge. I owe it all to you.

Lecturer: (appearing uncomfortable) Oh, no!!! Don’t be ridiculous. It’s all your work.

Exracted from Applied Cultural Linguistics by Sharifian & Palmer (2007:43)

With respect to this conversation, Sharifian (2007)comments,“In the above conversation between an Iranian student and an Anglo-Australian lecturer, the student’s reply to the lecturer’s congratulation appears to have left the lecturer with a certain degree of discomfort, as he feels that his contribution to the student’s success has been overestimated”(p.43)

Getting help from corpus linguistics,we can avail ourselves of a huge number of such cases whose detailed discussions will definitely open up new horizons in this regard. It could also make us more determined to give due weight to pragmatics as well as metapragmatics in order to be able to delve into the real causes of such pragmatic failures in intercultural contexts.One of the reasons put forward is the conceptual system transferred from L1 to L2.In this respect, Sharifian (2007) maintains, “many learners bring the conceptual system that they have developed while learning their L1 into the learning of an L2, assuming that every single unit of conceptualization in their repertoire has an equivalent in the conceptual system associated with the L2”(p.33)

Necessity of Intercultural Training

Lewis (2005)argues that culture can be learned through teachers.This argument implicitly confirms the feasibility of intercultural training.A variety of other channels of culture transfer have been suggested by other scholars.William(1989) believes that newspapers, radio,computer, magazines, books are among the channels through which cultural differences could be passed on to individuals.

The positive effect of intercultural training on individuals’ methods of thinking,behavior, and interaction has been confirmed by many studies(Sercu, 2002; Corbett,2003; Cakir, 2006; You-ping, 2007;Bloom, 2008; Young, Sachdev and Seedhouse,2009).The findings of a study conducted by Mendenhall and Oddou (1991),for instance, revealed that intercultural training causes businessmen to act successfully due to improved perceptions, and relational skills.The undeniable role of intercultural training in improving various interactional skills has also been proved by some other scholars through empirical studies (Triandis, 1977; Gudykunst & Hammer,1983; Gudykunst et. al., 1996; Fowler & Blohm, 2004).Supporting the necessity of intercultural training, Byram (2008), as one of the pioneers in this realm, also asserts, “acting interculturally pre-supposes certain attitudes,knowledge and skills that need to be learnt.”(p.69)

Ethnocentrism versus Ethnorelativism

Bennett (1998) has organized the developmental stages of increasing sensitivity into two general categories: ethnocentric and ethnorelative stages which are shown in figure 1 below.He describes ethnocentric stages including denial, defense, and minimization as "using one's own set of standards and customs to judge all people, often unconsciously"(p. 26) and ethnorelative stages includingacceptance, adaptation and integration as "being comfortable with many standards and customs and ... having an ability to adapt behavior and judgments to a variety of interpersonal settings."(p.26)

Figure 1. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity(DMIS)

Source: (Hammer & Bennett, 2001)

Delineating the stages involved, Hammer & Bennett (2004) argue "each stage is indicative of a particular worldview structure, and that certain kinds of cognitive processing, attitudes, and behaviors would typically be associated with each such configuration of worldview" (p.12). In other words, each stage of intercultural sensitivity deals with the extent to which our worldview structure changes.

Ethnocentric Stages:In these stages,one’s own culture is regarded as central and is preferred to dissimilar cultures.Racism, as an example, is one of the outcomes of this kind of worldview.

• Denial: It is a stage in which cultural differences are either experienced with some sort of indifference or are not experienced at all(Bennett, 1993). It is “the purest form of ethnocentrism” (Bennett, 1993, p.30). Considering the issue from a different angle, Hammer et al.(2003) believe, “denial of cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture is experienced as the only real one”(p.424).

Taking into account the cultural differences of the Asians and Westerners, Bennett (1986) claims, “Asians are different from Westerners, without recognizing that Asian cultures were different in any way from one another” (p. 183).

• Defense:As the label represents it is a kind of defense against dissimilar cultures . In this stage, one considers one’s own culture as “the only viable one” (Hammer et al., 2003, p. 242).Looking at the issue from a different perspective, Bennett (1993) considers the cultural differences at this stage as a threat to “one’s own sense of reality and thus to one’s identity, which at this point is a function of that onecultural reality”(p. 35).One moderated form of this stage is labeled as Reversal. At this stage, as Hammer et al. (2003) argue, there is a type of ‘us’ and ‘them’ worldview.It is different from defense in that a different culture is not considered as a threat anymore.
• Minimization: At this stage, various elements constituting one’s own culture and worldview are considered and “experienced as universal” Hammer et al. (2003, p.424).Cultural differences continue to exist, however, they are at a minimized level. According to Bennett (1986), “cultural difference is overtly acknowledged and is not negatively evaluated” (p. 184) at this stage.Also, individuals, who are now more open-minded and exhibit more tendency towards accepting other worldviews, do not regard cultural differenc a threat any longer.

Ethnorelative Stages:These three DMISorientations appear to be more ethnorelative.Individuals experience their own culture “in the context of other cultures” (Hammer et al. 2003, p.425).

• Acceptance: At this stage, individuals are more inclined to respect cultural differences and “values and assumptions are not seen as things so much as they are perceived as manifestations of human creativity”(Bennett, 1993, p. 50).It is claimed by Bennett (ibid) that it is the stage at which there is a move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism.Hammer et al.( 2003) assert that at this stage, “by discriminating differences among cultures (including one’s own), and by constructing a metalevel consciousness, people with this worldview are able to experience others as different from themselves, but equally human”.(p.425)
• Adaptation:It is the stage which is ascribed “to the practical application of ethnorelative acceptance to intercultural communication” (Bennett, 1993, p. 51). Similarly, Hammer etal.(2003) define this stage as, “the state in which the experience of another culture yields perception and behavior appropriate to that culture.One’s worldview is expanded to include relevant constructs from other cultural worldviews”(p.425).Engagement in empathy has also been mentioned as one of the characteristics of this stage.This stage is characterized as including cultural pluralism according to which different cultural wordviews can coexist peacefully.
• Integration: This stage is described by Hammer et al. (2003) as, “the state in which one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews. Here, people are dealing with issues related to their own cultural marginality; they construe their identities at the margins of two or more cultures and central to none”(p.425).People who reach this level view cultural differences as a blissful segment of their lives (Bennett, 1986).

In the process of moving from ethnocentric stages towardsethnorelative stages, one admittedly undergoes some shifts in one’s skills, and attitudes, among others, which are believed to be the “manifestations of changes underlying the worldview” (Bennett, 2004, p. 75). Overall, Intercultural sensitivity has been taken into consideration as the core of transferring from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism in the developmental process. Therefore, any attempt to identify individuals' intercultural sensitivity, as a step towards this transfer, will be of assistance for them to realize and understand why cultural differences are important. and the DMIS, whose major objective is conciousness raising with regard to comprehension of cultural differences, can serve as one of the best models which can be employed when it comes to identification of intercultural sensitivity level as well as its enhancement.