Cross Cultural Understanding

1. Question Stereotypes

2. Misinterpretation of Communication

3. Cultural Barriers to Effective Communication

4. Unofficial Communication, Citizen Diplomacy, and Multi-track Diplomacy

5. Constituent Communication Problems

6. Communication Skills Improvement

 

Terminology within the cross cultural communications field can sometimes be baffling to those reading the literature, websites or promotional material. Many ask what is the difference between 'intercultural' and 'cross cultural'? What is 'cross cultural awareness' as opposed to 'cross cultural knowledge' or, are 'cultural sensitivity' and 'cultural competence' the same thing?

With a view to clarifying some of the above mentioned terminology, this article will examine terms used in relation to building cross cultural understanding within the business world.

Cross cultural understanding simply refers to the basic ability of people within business to recognise, interpret and correctly react to people, incidences or situations that are open to misunderstanding due to cultural differences. The fundamental intention of cross cultural training is to equip the learner(s) with the appropriate skills to attain cross cultural understanding.

Once the foundations of cross cultural understanding have been laid, the learner(s), either through continued training or experiences within the workplace, gradually attains a more acute appreciation of cultural differences. The different types of appreciation are cross cultural knowledge, cross cultural awareness, cross cultural sensitivity and cross cultural competence. Although all the terms may appear similar in meaning, subtle differences exist between them.

'Cross Cultural Knowledge' is critical to basic cross cultural understanding. Without it cross cultural appreciation cannot take place. It refers to a surface level familiarization with cultural characteristics, values, beliefs and behaviours.

'Cross Cultural Awareness' develops from cross cultural knowledge as the learner understands and appreciates a culture internally. This may also be accompanied by changes within the learner's behaviour and attitudes such as a greater flexibility and openness.

'Cross Cultural Sensitivity' is a natural by-product of awareness and refers to an ability to read into situations, contexts and behaviours that are culturally rooted and be able to react to them appropriately. An suitable response necessitates that the actor no longer carries his/her own culturally determined interpretations of the situation or behaviour (i.e. good/bad, right/wrong) which can only be nurtured through both cross cultural knowledge and awareness.

'Cross Cultural Competence' is and should be the aim of all those dealing with multicultural clients, customers or colleagues. 'Competence' is the final stage of cross cultural understanding and signifies the actor's ability to work effectively across cultures. Cross cultural competency is beyond knowledge, awareness and sensitivity in that it is the digestion, integration and transformation of all the skills and information acquired through them, applied to create cultural synergy within the workplace.

1. Question Stereotypes

Stereotypes are essentially assumptions that are made about a person or group's character or attributes, based on a general image of what a particular group of people is like. Just as people assume that all cars have four wheels, while all bicycles have two, they also assume that all men have certain attributes that differ from women. In reality, a few vehicles that might be called "cars" have three wheels-as do some bicycles. So, these stereotypes about cars and bicycles are not always accurate. Stereotypes about men and women are even less likely to be accurate, as people's characteristics vary much more so than do vehicles. Some men have physical or psychological characteristics that are more characteristic of women, while some women may resemble men in certain ways. So stereotypes are generalizations that are often oversimplified and wrong.

Stereotypes are especially likely to be wrong in conflict situations. When people are engaged in a conflict, their image of their opponent tends to become more and more hostile. As communication gets cut off, people make generalizations and assumptions about opponents based on very sketchy and often erroneous information. They see faults in themselves and "project" those faults onto their opponent, preferring to believe that they are good and their opponents are bad. Eventually, opponents develop a strong "enemy image," that assumes that everything the other side does is evil or wrong, while everything they do themselves is good. Such negative stereotypes make any sort of conflict resolution or conflict management process more difficult.

A first step toward overcoming these problems is becoming aware of the tendency to hold negative stereotypes of opponents, and then making a conscious efforts to correct the inaccuracies. Often this is done by increasing person-to-person contacts between people from different groups. Usually, when people meet each other, talk together, and/or work together, they will soon learn that the opponents are not nearly as awful as they had earlier believed. (Of course, sometimes opponents will confirm the negative images,which makes overcoming them even harder.) Small group workshops-dialogues, analytical problem solving workshops, mediation sessions, joint projects, and training programs are all ways in which stereotypes can begin to be broken down and more accurate images of the opponents developed.

 

2. Misinterpretation of Communication

 

Social conflicts often involve some misunderstanding. Conflict parties communicate by what they say (or do not say) and how they behave toward one another. Even normal interaction may involve faulty communication, but conflict seems to worsen the problem. The higher the level of conflict, the more costly misunderstandings may be. During the Cold War, miscommunication between U.S. and Soviet leaders could have been catastrophic in its consequences. At every stage and level of conflict, clear communication among parties usually works to reduce unwise decisions by and costs for the participants.

All communication has two parts: a sender and a receiver. The sender has a message he or she intends to transmit, and she puts it in words which, to her, best reflect what she is thinking. But many things can intervene to prevent the intended message from being received.

If the communication is verbal, tone of voice can influence interpretation. The bosses' words "hey, I noticed you were taking an especially long break this morning," could be interpreted as an attack if he said that in a disapproving tone; while the comment might be seen as a minor reminder about office rules, if it was said in a friendly way. If the employee had a problem requiring the long break, the comment might have even been a friendly inquiry about what has happening and whether the employee needed any help. Here, tone of voice as well as situational and relationship factors would influence the interpretation of the message.

Nonverbal cues also are important. Is the sender's posture open and friendly, or closed and cold? Is her facial expression friendly or accusatory? All of these factors influence how the same words will be received.

In addition to how the message is sent, many additional factors determine how the message is interpreted by the receiver. All new information we learn is compared with the knowledge we already have. If it confirms what we already know, we will likely receive the new information accurately, though we may pay little attention to it. If it disputes our previous assumptions or interpretation of the situation, we may distort it in our mind so that it is made to fit our world view, or we may dismiss the information as deceptive, misguided, or simply wrong.

If the message is ambiguous, the receiver is especially likely to clarify it for herself in a way which corresponds with her expectations. For example, if two people are involved in an escalated conflict, and they each assume that the other is going to be aggressive and hostile, then any ambiguous message will be interpreted as aggressive and hostile, even if it was not intended to be that way at all. Our expectations work as blinders or filters that distort what we see so that it fits our preconceived images of the world.

An analogy can be made to the science experiment done to test people's interpretation of visual cues. When people were given eye-glasses which turned the world upside down, they had to suffer through with upside down images for a week or two. But after that, their brains learned to turn the images back over again, so they were seeing things right side up. The same thing happens when we hear something we "know" is wrong. Our brain "fixes" it.

Given our tendency to hear what we expect to hear, it is very easy for people in conflict to misunderstand each other. Communication is already likely to be strained, and people will, most likely, want to hide the truth to some extent. Thus the potential for misperceptions and misunderstandings is high, which can make conflict management or resolution more difficult.

 

3. Cultural Barriers to Effective Communication

 

Effective communication with people of different cultures is especially challenging. Cultures provide people with ways of thinking--ways of seeing, hearing, and interpreting the world. Thus the same words can mean different things to people from different cultures, even when they talk the "same" language. When the languages are different, and translation has to be used to communicate, the potential for misunderstandings increases.

Stella Ting-Toomey describes three ways in which culture interferes with effective cross-cultural understanding. First is what she calls "cognitive constraints." These are the frames of reference or world views that provide a backdrop that all new information is compared to or inserted into.

Second are "behavior constraints." Each culture has its own rules about proper behavior which affect verbal and nonverbal communication. Whether one looks the other person in the eye-or not; whether one says what one means overtly or talks around the issue; how close the people stand to each other when they are talking--all of these and many more are rules of politeness which differ from culture to culture.

Ting-Toomey's third factor is "emotional constraints." Different cultures regulate the display of emotion differently. Some cultures get very emotional when they are debating an issue. They yell, they cry, they exhibit their anger, fear, frustration, and other feelings openly. Other cultures try to keep their emotions hidden, exhibiting or sharing only the "rational" or factual aspects of the situation.

All of these differences tend to lead to communication problems. If the people involved are not aware of the potential for such problems, they are even more likely to fall victim to them, although it takes more than awareness to overcome these problems and communicate effectively across cultures.

 

4. Unofficial Communication, Citizen Diplomacy, and Multi-track Diplomacy

 

In situations in which official, diplomatic communications between countries or between a government and an insurgent group have broken down, unofficial channels can often operate effectively. The terms "track two" or "citizen" diplomacy refer to unofficial contacts between people–usually ordinary citizens– which can later pave the way for official "first track" or "track one" diplomacy.

As originally conceived by Joe Montville, the term "track two diplomacy" refers to private citizens negotiating topics that are usually reserved for official negotiations–the formal resolution of an ongoing conflict or arms reductions, for example. Over time, however, the term has come to be used more broadly: to encompass processes such as problem-solving workshops, dialogues, cultural and scientific exchanges, traveling artists, sports teams, or any other contacts between people whose groups are currently engaged in an intractable conflict. John McDonald and Louise Diamond invented the term "multi-track diplomacy" to convey the sense that there are many ways to bring people together in addition to official negotiations. They list nine tracks: 1) official (track one) diplomacy; 2) unofficial, yet professional conflict resolution processes, 3) international business negotiations and exchanges, 4) citizen exchanges (such as teacher exchanges), 5) international research, education, and training efforts, 6) activism, 7) contacts and exchanges between religious leaders and followers, 8) international funding efforts, and 9) public opinions and communication programs.

The value of such unofficial contacts between opposing sides is that they can often de-escalate a conflict before any official negotiations can do so. These contacts can build bridges between people, increase trust, and foster mutual understanding. They can serve to correct misperceptions and unfounded fears, and can reverse the trend toward dehumanization and the entrenchment of enemy images that often occurs in escalated conflicts. Often the de-escalation that results from such contacts is necessary, before official negotiations will be considered politically possible.

 

5. Constituent Communication Problems

 

Most dialogue, negotiation, and consensus processes involve a relatively small number of people, who may be acting on behalf of a much larger constituency. As the small group works together over time, they often develop a level of understanding, trust, and an image of the problem that differs considerably from their constituents, who have not been involved in the small group process.

Then, when the representatives come back to their constituents with a proposal which seems reasonable to them (as they understand the constraints under which it was developed), the constituents may react very differently, because they don't have the understanding of the process or the substance of the ongoing discussions. (Some scholars refer to this as the "re-entry problem,"--negotiators or dialogue participants must "re-enter" their old groups, but when they do so they find they are not welcome, but rather are shunned, and their work denounced, not applauded.)

One of the causes of this problem is inadequate communication with the constituent groups as the small group process is going on. Although it is impossible to have everyone involved in the negotiation or dialogue, if the results of the process are to be transferred to the larger population, the representatives should frequently check back with their constituencies to make sure they understand what is happening in the small group process and, in the case of negotiation, feel as if they have adequate input to it. Without frequent communication with constituents, the risk of a re-entry problem and the rejection of any ultimate agreement increases significantly.

 

6. Communication Skills Improvement

Although all people communicate all the time, most have difficulty communicating effectively in conflict situations. Practicing communication skills can have a very beneficial effect on conflict management and resolution processes.

Roger Fisher and William Ury list four skills that can be learned which will improve communication in conflict situations. The first is active listening. The goal of active listening, they say, is to understand you opponent as well as you understand yourself. Pay close attention to what the other side is saying. Ask the opponent to clarify or repeat anything that is unclear or seems unreasonable (maybe it isn’t, but you are interpreting it wrong). Attempt to repeat their case, as they have presented it, back to them. This shows that you are listening (which suggests that you care what they have to say) and that you understand what they have said. It does not indicate that you agree with what they said–nor do you have to. You just need to indicate that you do understand them.

Fisher and Ury’s second rule is to speak directly to your opponent. This is not considered appropriate in some cultures, but when permitted, it helps to increase understanding. Avoid being distracted by outside parties or other things going on in the same room. Focus on what you have to say, and on saying it in a way that your opponent can understand.

Their third rule is to speak about yourself, not about your opponent. Describe your own feelings and perceptions, rather than focusing on your opponent’s motives, misdeeds, or failing. By saying, "I felt let down," rather than "You broke your promise," you will convey the same information. But you will do so in a way that does not provoke a defensive or hostile reaction from your opponent. (This is often referred to as using "I-statements" or "I-messages," rather than "you messages." You messages suggest blame, and encourage the recipient to deny wrong-doing or blame back. I messages simply state a problem, without blaming someone for it. This makes it easier for the other side to help solve the problem, without having to admit they were wrong.

Fisher and Ury’s fourth rule is "speak for a purpose." Too much communication can be counter-productive, they warn. Before you make a significant statement, pause and consider what you want to communicate, why you want to communicate that, and how you can do it in the clearest possible way.

A number of other rules might be added to these. One is to avoid inflammatory language as much as possible when dealing with people on the other side. Inflammatory language just increases hostility and defensiveness–it seldom convinces people the speaker is right. (Actually, it usually does just the opposite.) Although inflammatory remarks can arouse people’s interest in a conflict and generate support for one’s own side, that often comes with the cost of general conflict escalation. To the extent that one can make one’s point effectively without inflammatory statements, the better.

Likewise, all opponents should be treated with respect. It doesn’t help a conflict situation to treat people disrespectfully–it just makes them angry and less likely to do what you want. No matter what one thinks of another person, if they are treated with respect and dignity–even if you think they do not deserve it–communication will be much more successful, and the conflict will be more easily managed or resolved. This means that personal attacks and insults should be avoided, as should verbal or nonverbal clues that one is disdainful of the other side.

 

Showing Empathy

 

To show empathy is to identify with another's feelings. It is to emotionally put yourself in the place of another. The ability to empathize is directly dependent on your ability to feel your own feelings and identify them.

If you have never felt a certain feeling, it will be hard for you to understand how another person is feeling. This holds equally true for pleasure and pain. If, for example, you have never put your hand in a flame, you will not know the pain of fire. If you have not experienced individual passion, you will not understand its power. Similarly, if you have never felt rebellious or defiant, you will not understand those feelings. Reading about a feeling and intellectually knowing about it is very different than actually experiencing it for yourself.

Among those with an equal level of innate emotional intelligence, the person who has actually experienced the widest range and variety of feelings -- the great depths of depression and the heights of fulfillment, for example, -- is the one who is most able to empathize with the greatest number of people from all walks of life. On the other hand, when we say that someone "can't relate" to other people, it is likely because they haven't experienced, acknowledged or accepted many feelings of their own.

Once you have felt discriminated against, for example, it is much easier to relate with someone else who has been discriminated against. Our innate emotional intelligence gives us the ability to quickly recall those instances and form associations when we encounter discrimination again. We then can use the "reliving" of those emotions to guide our thinking and actions. This is one of the ways nature slowly evolves towards a higher level of survival. In other words, over time, awareness of our own feelings may lead us to treat others in a more pro-survival way.

For this process to work, the first step is that we must be able to experience our own emotions. This means we must be open to them and not distract ourselves from them or try to numb ourselves from our feelings through drugs, alcohol, etc.

Next, we need to become aware of what we are actually feeling -- to acknowledge, identify, and accept our feelings. Only then can we empathize with others. That is one reason it is important to work on your own emotional awareness and sensitivity-- in other words, to be "in touch with" your feelings. -- and to help children stay in touch with their feelings.

 

Awareness & Acknowledgment

 

Empathy begins with awareness of another person's feelings. It would be easier to be aware of other people's emotions if they would simply tell us how they felt. But since most people do not, we must resort to asking questions, reading between the lines, guessing, and trying to interpret non-verbal cues. Emotionally expressive people are easiest to read because their eyes and faces are constantly letting us know how they are feeling.

Once we have figured out how another person feels, we show empathy by acknowledging the emotion. We may say, for example,

- I can see you are really uncomfortable about this.

- I can understand why you would be upset.

We can also show empathy through a simple sign of affection such as hug or a tender touch. Though empathy is usually used in reference to sensing someone else's painful feelings, it can also apply to someone's positive feelings of success, accomplishment, pride, achievement etc. In this case a "high five" would also be a sign of empathy.

 

Empathy and Sensitivity

 

In one of the Mayer et al studies, many variables were measured. Of these many variables, sensitivity was found to have the highest correlation to emotional intelligence as they define and measure it. (Selecting a Measure of Emotional Intelligence) It can be assumed that empathy and sensitivity are also significantly correlated. By definition sensitive people are more likely to notice someone else's feelings and to feel something themselves. But even those who are not naturally sensitive, or do not have a high natural level of EI, can take steps to show more sensitivity to the feelings of others.

A basic guideline for showing sensitivity to someone is to not invalidate their feelings by belittling, diminishing, rejecting, judging, or ignoring them. Even just a simple acknowledgment without any real empathy is much better than totally ignoring someone's feeling. (See section on invalidation)

Sensitivity also means being receptive to others' cues, particularly the non-verbal ones such as facial expressions. This is similar to a highly sensitive radio antenna which can pick up faint signals. The more information you are able to receive, the more you can help them and yourself. By the way, a person can never actually be "too sensitive" any more than someone can be too intelligent. It is only a question of how they use the information their extra sensitivity is giving them.

 

Empathy, Understanding and Compassion

 

Empathy is closely related to compassion, but empathy both precedes compassion and is a pre-requisite for compassion. When we feel empathy for someone we are getting emotional information about them and their situation. By collecting information about other people's feelings, you get to know them better. As you get to know others on an emotional level, you are likely to see similarities between your feelings and theirs, and between your basic emotional needs and theirs. When you realize that someone else's basic emotional needs are similar to yours, you are more able to identify with them, relate to them and empathize with them.

All humans share similar emotional needs. (See human emotional needs) The wide variety among our needs is mostly a difference in degree, rather than in type. For example, we all need to feel some degree of freedom, but one person may need more freedom than another.

Compassion can be defined as a combination of empathy and understanding. Greater empathy gives you greater information, and the more information you have on something, the more likely you are to understand it. Higher emotional intelligence makes possible a greater capacity for such understanding. Thus, the logical sequence is as follows: Higher emotional sensitivity and awareness leads to higher levels of empathy. This leads to higher levels of understanding which then leads to higher levels of compassion.

Haim Ginott wrote that "It takes time and wisdom to realize that the personal parallels the universal and what pains one man pains mankind." Now we might add that it also takes highly developed emotional intelligence.

 

Empathy and Conscience

 

Those who are not in touch with their own feelings are not likely to have a sense of conscience. They may feel no remorse, no guilt for causing harm to others. As could be expected, studies show that such people are unlikely to respond to rehabilitation.

One thing which could easily cause a person to lose touch with his own feelings and to lose his sense natural sense of conscience is an extremely painful childhood and adolescence. Such people have experienced so much pain that they shut themselves from it. This pain may have come from physical, individual or emotional abuse. The end result though is similar. They do not experience their own pain, so they have no compassion for the pain of another. Nor do they have any empathy.

They are also likely to be extremely needy. In other words they have many, and deep, unmet emotional needs.. As adults, they will have developed elaborate defense mechanisms in an attempt to block the pain coming from both these unmet needs and from the guilt they would feel if they allowed themselves to feel.

As Freud helped us see, attempts to defend our brains from psychological pain usually involve the cognitive parts of the brain. For example, common defenses are rationalization, justification, denial, intellectualization, moralizing, preaching, proselytizing, self-righteousness, projection, suppression, etc.

In the absence of a conscience, behavior must be controlled by fear, threats and punishment, or by separation from society. This comes at tremendous social cost, and evidently is ineffective, given the overcrowded prisons and rising fines.

It seems that laws are really only needed when conscience has failed. We might say that the more laws a society needs, the less emotionally intelligent.

 

Too Much Empathy?

 

In one of their 1990 publications Salovey and Mayer hypothesized that there was a positive relationship between empathy and emotional intelligence. Since then their studies have indeed shown this to be the case, (using their test which tries to measure IE). (See Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence.) Still, their definition of EI and their detailed chart of its many aspects does not mention empathy -- something which is a bit puzzling. Upon reflection though, it does seem possible that one could feel too much empathy, to the point where they become overly-affected by another person's moods, for example, in an unhealthy co-dependent relationship.

Therefore, it seems to make sense that while our innate emotional sensitivity gives us the ability to feel empathy, our emotional intelligence helps us decide what to do when we feel empathy and what to do when someone else's moods are affecting us too much.

Even though it may be possible to sometimes feel too much empathy, many people, including the new President of the USA, Barrack Obama, believe empathy is something we could use more of in society. In fact it is likely that our human ability to empathize is one of the main ways our emotions contribute to the survival of the species.

 

References:

1. Bennett, M. (1991). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10. 179-196.

2. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An enquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

3. Booth, E. (1997). Visitors and hosts in Fiji: A professional and cross-cultural experience. In B. Hill, N. Thomas & Joost Coté (Eds.) Into Asia: Australian Practicums in Asia. Carlton, Victoria: Asian Education Foundation.Ch.4.

4. Brake, T., Walker, D. M. & Walker, T. (1995). Doing business internationally: The guide to cross-cultural success. New York: Irwin.

5. Brick, J. (1991) China: A handbook of intercultural communication. Sydney: Macquarie University.

6. Brill, R. (1995). Internationalising professional practice for undergraduates. In A. Barthel (Ed.) International Interaction and Development: Convergent Perspectives Conference Proceedings

 

Lecture #2

Culture shock

1. What Causes Culture Shock?

2. Stereotypes: An Intercultural No-No

3. Types of stereotypes

 

 

What Is It?

 

Culture shock isn't a clinical term or medical condition. It's simply a common way to describe the confusing and nervous feelings a person may have after leaving a familiar culture to live in a new and different culture. When you move to a new place, you're bound to face a lot of changes. That can be exciting and stimulating, but it can also be overwhelming. You may feel sad, anxious, frustrated, and want to go home.

It's natural to have difficulty adjusting to a new culture. People from other cultures (whom you'll be hanging out with and going to school with) may have grown up with values and beliefs that differ from yours. Because of these differences, the things they talk about, the ways they express themselves, and the importance of various ideas may be very different from what you are used to. But the good news is that culture shock is temporary.

 

1. What Causes Culture Shock?

 

To understand culture shock, it helps to understand what culture is. You may know that genes determine a big part of how you look and act. What you might not know is that your environment — your surroundings — has a big effect on your appearance and behavior as well.

Your environment isn't just the air you breathe and the food you eat, though; a big part of your environment is culture. Culture is made up of the common things that members of a community learn from family, friends, media, literature, and even strangers. These are the things that influence how theylook, act, and communicate. Often, you don't even know you're learning these things because they become second-nature to you — for instance, the way you shake hands with someone when meeting them, when you eat your meals each day, the kind of things you find funny, or how you view religion

When you go to a new place, such as a new country or even a new city, you often enter a culture that is different from the one you left. Sometimes your culture and the new culture are similar. Other times, they can be very different, and even contradictory. What might be perfectly normal in one culture — for instance, spending hours eating a meal with your family — might be unusual in a culture that values a more fast-paced lifestyle.

The differences between cultures can make it very difficult to adjust to the new surroundings. You may encounter unfamiliar clothes, weather, and food as well as different people, schools, and values. You may find yourself struggling to do things in your new surroundings that were easy back home. Dealing with the differences can be very unsettling; those feelings are part adjusting to a new culture.

 

2. Stereotypes: An Intercultural No-No

 

As more or more people from different backgrounds, countries, cultures and religions immigrate to foreign lands, those countries become an intercultural melting pot. In order for the native people and the immigrant population to blend and create a thriving and successful atmosphere both sides need to develop some sort of intercultural tolerance and understanding of the differences that may exist between them. An example of poor intercultural understanding, or one based simply on stereotypes, is offered by the town of Herouxville in Quebec, Canada.

A declaration issued by the town in January 2007, which was designed to inform immigrants, "that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here [i.e. Herouxville]". It then went on to state that the immigrant population would therefore have to refrain from their cultural norms and activities such as to "kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them, etc."

The declaration paints a rather sad picture of the officials that administer the town and highlights not only their rather insular outlook but a world view of "others" based on crass and frankly incorrect stereotypes. To simply consider that anyone from another country (in this case more than likely a Middle Eastern or Asian one) regards the stoning of women and burning them alive as part of daily life derives from crude, and media led, stereotypes of other peoples.

Stereotypes are at their most basic level a set of assumed characteristics about a certain group of people whose actual beliefs, habits and realities more often than not disagree with the imposed assumptions. Stereotypes are usually based on factors such as exaggeration, distortion, ignorance, racism, cultural factors or even historical experiences. Stereotyping is therefore rightly seen as a negative way of seeing people. This is even true of what are called "positive stereotypes". A positive stereotype is where we use a blanket expression for a whole people, i.e. all the Chinese are great at maths, all Germans are well organised or all English people are well mannered. Although the intent behind the statement is positive, it still does not reflect the truth.

What we have witnessed in Herouxville should not be seen as an isolated incident. Such assumptions about foreigners exist all over the planet. However, this does not make it right or excusable. The message it does give is that there is a lot of work to be done in order to educate people to become more culturally competent.

Cultural competency is a term used to describe the ability to work, communicate and live across cultures and cultural boundaries. One achieves this through an instilled understanding of cultures on a general level as well as an informed one about specific cultures on a more detailed level. As well as knowledge it has to work in tandem with behavioural and attitudinal changes.

Cultural competency is important in this day and age for exactly the reasons cited in this article. We, as citizens of planet earth, are no longer confined to our national and cultural borders. We mix with people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions and colours on a daily basis. In order to make this intercultural experience work on all levels from education to business to government, people have to develop basic skills in intercultural communication and understanding. In order to assist the officials at Herouxville, five basic steps to cultural competence are presented below:

1. Break Assumptions

Everyone makes or has assumptions about others. Assumptions are beliefs rather than objective truth and are usually influenced by a number of subjective factors. People need to assess their assumptions and ask themselves why they hold those ideas or beliefs.

2. Empathise

In order to come to appreciate and understand people from different cultures, empathy is vital. Through putting yourself in someone else's shoes you come to see or appreciate their point of view.

3. Involve

Involving others in your world and involving yourself in other's empowers and educates. Don't build walls between people but learn from one another.

4. Avoid Herd Mentality

Herd mentality refers to a closed and one dimensional approach. Such a way of thinking curbs creativity, innovation and advancement as people are restricted in how to think, approach and engage with people or challenges. Cultural competency can only develop if people are encouraged to think as individuals, bring their cultural influences to the table and share ideas that may be outside the box.

5. Shun Insensitivity

People can and do behave in culturally insensitive ways. By attacking someone's person, you attack their culture and therefore their dignity. This can only be divisive. Cultural competency is based upon people thinking through words and actions to ensure they do not act inappropriately. When insensitive behaviour is witnessed it is the responsibility of all to shun it and ensure it remains unacceptable.

6. Be Wise

Wisdom is not called wisdom for nothing. People need to be aware how to interact with people with respect and knowledge. Cultural competency is essentially founded upon wisdom, i.e. showing maturity of thought and action in dealing with people. Through thinking things out and have background knowledge to intercultural differences much of the communication problems witnessed within business could be avoided.

 

Intercultural in Piermont - Liguria

 

The researcher whose purpose is to analyze interculture in Europe has to travel over a varied and articulated path, made of distinct roads crossing at different points.

To create a path also means to choose one, deciding to investigate some pathways while (necessarily) neglecting others.

While outlining this varied European map, we tried to incorporate the countless activities and practices which have an “intercultural” aim or consequence; we then divided them into into five macro-sectors, conventionally defined as: art, media and publishing trade, education, quality of life, and university research. We followed the same method with regard to a specific research we carried out in Piemonte and Liguria, two Italian regions which offer a rich intercultural outline, likely to provide useful ideas and suggestions for the practice and the concept of intercultural dialogue.

The “Africa e Mediterraneo” association, one of the European project’s partners, has analyzed the intercultural practices which are developing in these areas; it did this by employing the same instruments as those of the European research.

This site section propose the map that we built thanks to this survey. To search the map use the research in the database or the projects and case studies’ lists. Two reports offer an overall view of the research that has been carried out in each region.

This research project’s material is available in the Italian version only.

Interculture Map in Piemonte e Liguria is supported by Compagnia di San Paolo and by the European Commission (DG Justice, Freedom and Security

Etymology

 

The word stereotype is of Greek origin (στερεότυπος), literally meaning "solid-kind". It was invented by Firmin Didot in the world of printing; it was originally a duplicate impression of an original typographical element, used for printing instead of the original. American journalist Walter Lippmann coined the metaphor, calling a stereotype a "picture in our heads" saying "Whether right or wrong,...imagination is shaped by the pictures seen... Consequently, they lead to stereotypes that are hard to shake." (Public Opinion, 1922, 95-156).[1] In fact, cliché and stereotype were both originally printers' words, and in their literal printers' meanings were synonymous. Specifically, cliché was a French word for the printing surface for a stereotype.[2]

The term "stereotype" derives from Greek στερεός (stereos) "solid, firm" + τύπος (typos) "blow, impression, engraved mark" hence "solid impression". The term, in its modern psychology sense, was first used by Walter Lippmann in his 1922 work Public Opinion although in the printing sense it was first coined 1798.

Sociologists believe that mental categorizing (or labeling) is necessary and inescapable. One perspective on how to understand stereotyping process is through the categories or in groups and out groups. In groups are viewed as normal and superior, and are generally the group that one associates with or aspires to join. An out group is simply all the other groups. They are seen as lesser or inferior than the in groups.

The second perspective is that of automatic and implicit or subconscious and conscious. Automatic or subconscious stereotyping is that which everyone does without noticing. Automatic stereotyping is quickly preceded by an implicit or conscious check which permits time for any needed corrections. Automatic stereotyping is affected by implicit stereotyping because frequent conscious thoughts will quickly develop into subconscious stereotypes.

The third method to categorizing stereotypes is general types and sub-types. Stereotypes consist of hierarchical systems consisting of broad and specific groups being the general types and sub-types respectively. A general type could be defined as a broad stereotype typically known among many people and usually widely accepted, whereas the sub-group would be one of the several groups making up the general group. These would be more specific, and opinions of these groups would vary according to differing perspectives.

Certain circumstances can affect the way an individual stereotypes. For instance: Studies have shown that women stereotype more negatively than men, and that women read into appearance more than men. Some theorists argue in favor of the conceptual connection and that one’s own subjective thought about someone is sufficient information to make assumptions about that individual. Other theorists argue that at minimum there must be a casual connection between mental states and behavior to make assumptions or stereotypes. Thus results and opinions may vary according to circumstance and theory. An example of a common, incorrect assumption is that of assuming certain internal characteristics based on external appearance. The explanation for one’s actions is his or her internal state (goals, feeling, personality, traits, motives, values, and impulses), not his or her appearance.

Sociologist Charles E. Hurst of the College of Wooster states that, “One reason for stereotypes is the lack of personal, concrete familiarity that individuals have with persons in other racial or ethnic groups. Lack of familiarity encourages the lumping together of unknown individuals.[6]

Stereotypes focus upon and thereby exaggerate differences between groups. Competition between groups minimizes similarities and magnifies differences.[7] This makes it seem as if groups are very different when in fact they may be more alike than different. For example, among African Americans, identity as an American citizen is more salient than racial background; that is, African Americans are more American than African.[8] Yet within American culture, Black and White Americans are increasingly seen as completely different groups.

 

Theories

Different disciplines give different accounts of how stereotypes develop: Psychologists focus on how experience with groups, patterns of communication about the groups, and intergroup conflict. Sociologists focus on the relations among groups and position of different groups in a social structure. Psychoanalytically-oriented humanists have argued (e.g., Sander Gilman) that stereotypes, by definition, the representations are not accurate, but a projection of one to another.

Many scientific theories have derived from the sociological studies of stereotyping and prejudicial thinking. During the early studies it was believed or suggested that stereotypes were only used by rigid, repressed, and authoritarian people. Sociologists concluded that this was a result of conflict, poor parenting, and inadequate mental and emotional development. They now know differently. Scientist and theorists have concluded that stereotypes do not only exist, but are actually a never ending chain of thoughts.

One theory as to why people stereotype is that it is too difficult to take in all of the complexities of other people as individuals. Even though stereotyping is inexact, it is an efficient way to mentally organise large blocks of information. Categorization is an essential human capability because it enables us to simplify, predict, and organize our world. Once one has sorted and organized everyone into tidy categories, there is every incentive to avoid processing new or unexpected information about each individual. Assigning general group characteristics to members of that group saves time and satisfies the need to predict the social world in a general sense.

Another theory is that people stereotype because of the need to feel good about oneself. Stereotypes protect one from anxiety and enhance self-esteem. By designating one’s own group as the standard or normal group and assigning others to groups considered inferior or abnormal, it provides one with a sense of worth. Some believe that childhood influences are some of the most complex and influential factors in developing stereotypes. Though they can be absorbed at any age, stereotypes are usually acquired in early childhood under the influence of parents, teachers, peers, and the media. Once a stereotype is learned, it often becomes self-perpetuating.

 

3. Types of stereotypes

Stereotypes can have a negative and positive impact on individuals. Joshua Aronson and Claude M. Steele have done research on the psychological effects of stereotyping, particularly its effect on African-Americans and women.[9] They argue that psychological research has shown that competence is highly responsive to situation and interactions with others.[10] They cite, for example, a study which found that bogus feedback to college students dramatically affected their IQ test performance, and another in which students were either praised as very smart, congratulated on their hard work, or told that they scored high. The group praised as smart performed significantly worse than the others. They believe that there is an 'innate ability bias'. These effects are not just limited to minority groups. Mathematically competent white males, mostly math and engineering students, were asked to take a difficult math test. One group was told that this was being done to determine why Asians were scoring better. This group performed significantly worse than the other group.[10]:443

Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes are:

Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance

Unwillingness to rethink one's attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped group

Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from entering or succeeding in activities or fields

 

The effects of stereotyping can fluctuate, but for the most part they are negative, and not always apparent until long periods of time have passed. Over time, some victims of negative stereotypes display self-fulfilling prophecy behavior, in which they assume that the stereotype represents norms to emulate. Negative effects may include forming inaccurate opinions of people, scapegoating, erroneously judgmentalism, preventing emotional identification, distress, and impaired performance. Stereotyping painfully reminds those being judged of how society views them.

Role in art and culture This article does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.

 

Stereotypes are common in various cultural media, where they take the form of dramatic stock characters. These characters are found in the works of playwright Bertolt Brecht, Dario Fo, and Jacques Lecoq, who characterize their actors as stereotypes for theatrical effect. In commedia dell'Arte this is similarly common. The instantly recognizable nature of stereotypes mean that they are effective in advertising and situation comedy. These stereotypes change, and in modern times only a few of the stereotyped characters shown in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress would be recognizable.

In literature and art, stereotypes are clichéd or predictable characters or situations. Throughout history, storytellers have drawn from stereotypical characters and situations, in order to connect the audience with new tales immediately. Sometimes such stereotypes can be sophisticated, such as Shakespeare's Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Arguably a stereotype that becomes complex and sophisticated ceases to be a stereotype per se by its unique characterization. Thus while Shylock remains politically unstable in being a stereotypical Jew, the subject of prejudicial derision in Shakespeare's era, his many other detailed features raise him above a simple stereotype and into a unique character, worthy of modern performance. Simply because one feature of a character can be categorized as being typical does not make the entire character a stereotype.

Despite their proximity in etymological roots, cliché and stereotype are not used synonymously in cultural spheres. For example a cliché is a high criticism in narratology where genre and categorization automatically associates a story within its recognizable group. Labeling a situation or character in a story as typical suggests it is fitting for its genre or category. Whereas declaring that a storyteller has relied on cliché is to pejoratively observe a simplicity and lack of originality in the tale. To criticize Ian Fleming for a stereotypically unlikely escape for James Bond would be understood by the reader or listener, but it would be more appropriately criticized as a cliché in that it is overused and reproduced. Narrative genre relies heavily on typical features to remain recognizable and generate meaning in the reader/viewer.

The teen sitcom, Saved By The Bell features a typical group of high school stereotypes such as a class clown (Zack Morris), a jock (A.C. Slater), a nerd (Samuel "Screech" Powers), a cheerleader (Kelly Kapowski), a feminist (Jessie Spano), and a superficial fashion plate (Lisa Turtle). Some observed the sitcom, like many teen sitcoms of that time, in addition to stereotyping people, stereotyping an institution itself, that of high school. TV stereotypes of high schools have often promoted a "typical American school" as football games, fashion styles, skirt chasing, and not much devotion to academics or studying.

In movies and TV the halo effect is often used. This is when, for example, attractive men and women are assumed to be happier, stronger, nicer people, explained by Greenwald and Banaji from Psychological Review.

 

Racial and ethnic stereotyping

Native Americans

 

Native Americans have been stereotyped by others in both a negative and positive sense. There has long been an admiration of Native Americans as fitting the archetype of the noble savage within European thought, stemming from a cultural sympathy grounded within the post-Enlightenment theory of primitivism.[11][12] These positive portrayals of Native Americans as being noble, peaceful people, who lived in harmony with nature and each other continue within modern culture, e.g. the 1990 film Dances with Wolves.

Over time, as settlers spread west, Native Americans were seen as obstacles and their image became more negative. Native Americans were portrayed in popular media as wild, primitive, uncivilised, dangerous people who continuously attack white settlers, cowboys, and stagecoaches and ululate while holding one hand in front of their mouths. They speak invariably in a deep voice and use stop words like "How" and "Ugh".

In drawings their skin colour was depicted as deep red. In westerns and other media portrayals they are usually called "Indians". Examples of this stereotypical image of Native Americans can be found in many American westerns until the early 1960s, and in cartoons like Peter Pan. In other stereotypes, they smoked peace pipes, wore face paint, danced round totem poles (often with a hostage tied to them), sent smoke signals, lived in tepees, wore feathered head-dresses, scalped their foes, and said 'um' instead of 'the' or 'a'.

As colonisation continued in the US, groups were separated into categories like “Christians” and “heathens” and “civilised” and “savage”. Many Whites view Native Americans as devoid of self-control and unable to handle responsibility. Malcolm D. Holmes and Judith A. Antell hypothesise that such ideas about Native Americans form the ideology that is used today to justify the disparity between Whites and Native Americans.[10] Today, a 19th century stereotype of Native Americans lives on for many people. Modern Native Americans as they live today are rarely portrayed in popular culture.

Due to somewhat recent reparations made by the U.S. government to the tribes which allow unregulated construction of casinos, along with unmonitored revenue received from the gambling, it has become a modern stereotype that a Native American must either own a casino or be in the family of one who does.

 

Inuit stereotypes

 

Inuit or Eskimo people are usually dressed in parkas, carving out trinkets, living in igloos, going fishing with a harpoon, traveling by sleigh and huskies, eating cod-liver oil and the men are usually called Nanook in reference to the famous documentary Nanook of the North. Eskimo children may have a seal for a best friend. Eskimos are often believed to have an unusually large number of words for snow. This is however an urban legend.

Eskimos are sometimes shown rubbing each other noses together as some sort of greeting ritual (Eskimo kissing). They're also often depicted surrounded by polar bears, walruses and inaccurately, with penguins, which only live in the Southern hemisphere and not on the North Pole. Sometimes Eskimos themselves are depicted living on the South Pole, which is again wrong for the same reason.

 

Black stereotypes

Early stereotypes

 

Early minstrel shows lampooned the supposed stupidity of black people. Detail from cover of The Celebrated Negro Melodies, as Sung by the Virginia Minstrels, 1843

In centuries before and during the first half of the 20th century black people were often depicted as dumb, evil, lazy, poor, animalistic, smelly, uncivilised, un-Christian [6] people. The early British colonists brought these initial thoughts with them to the US. White colonists commonly believed that black people were inferior to white people. These thoughts helped to justify black slavery and the institution of many laws that continually condoned inhumane treatment and perpetuated to keep black people in a lower socioeconomic position.[6]

Black people were usually depicted as slaves or servants, working in cane fields or carrying large piles of cotton. They were often portrayed as devout Christians going to church and singing gospel music. In many vaudeville shows, minstrel acts, cartoons, comics and animated cartoons of this period they were depicted as sad, lazy, dim-witted characters with big lips who sing bluesy songs and are good dancers, but get excited when confronted with dice games, chickens or watermelons (examples: all the characters portrayed by Stepin Fetchit and black characters in cartoons like "Sunday Go to Meetin' Time" and "All This and Rabbit Stew").

A more joyful black image, yet still very stereotypical, was provided by eternally happy black characters like Uncle Tom, Uncle Remus and Louis Armstrong's equally joyous stage persona. Another popular stereotype from this era was the black who is scared of ghosts (and usually turns white out of fear). Butlers were sometimes portrayed as black (for example the butler in many Shirley Temple movies). Housemaids were usually depicted as black, heavy-set middle-aged women who dress in large skirts (examples of this type are Mammy Two-Shoes, Aunt Jemima, Beulah and more recently the title character of Big Momma's House). Children are often pickaninnies like Little Black Sambo and Golliwog. Black jive (dialect) was also often used in comedy, like for instance in the show Amos 'n Andy.

African black people were usually depicted as primitive, childlike, cannibalistic persons who live in tribes, carry spears, believe in witchcraft and worship their wizard. White colonists are depicted tricking them by selling junk in exchange for valuable things and/or scaring them with modern technology. A well-known example of this image is Tintin in Africa. When white people are caught by African tribes they are usually put in a large, black cauldron so they can be cooked and eaten. Sometimes black Africans are depicted as pygmies with childlike behavior so that they can be ridiculed as being similar to children.

Other stereotypical images are the male black African dressed in lip plates or with a bone sticking through his nasal septum. Stereotypical female black African depictions include the bare breasted woman with large breasts and notably fat buttocks (examples of this stereotype are the 19th century sideshow attraction Saartjie Baartman and Robert Crumb's comic strip character Angelfood McSpade) or the woman who wears multiple rings around her giraffe-like neck (note: this type of neck ornament is also common in Burma with women from the Kayan tribe, but is generally associated with Africa (like in the Bugs Bunny cartoon "Which Is Witch").

Secretary of State John C. Calhoun arguing for the extension of slavery in 1844 said "Here (scientific confirmation) is proof of the necessity of slavery. The African is incapable of self-care and sinks into lunacy under the burden of freedom. It is a mercy to give him the guardianship and protection from mental death."

Even after slavery ended the intellectual capacity of Black people was still frequently questioned. Lewis Terman wrote in The Measurement of Intelligence in 1916:

"(Black and other ethnic minority children) are ineducable beyond the nearest rudiments of training. No amount of school instruction will ever make them intelligent voters or capable citizens in the sense of the world…their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stock from which they come…Children of this group should be segregated in special classes and be given instruction which is concrete and practical. They cannot master abstractions, but they can be made efficient workers…There is no possibility at present of convincing society that they should not be allowed to reproduce, although from a eugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of their unusual prolific breeding.)"

 

Modern black stereotypes

 

Since the 1960s the stereotypical image of black people has changed in some media. More positive depictions appeared where black people and African-Americans are portrayed as great athletes and superb singers and dancers. In many films and television series since the 1970s black people are depicted as good natured, kind, honest and intelligent persons. Often they are the best friend of the white protagonist (examples: Miami Vice, Lethal Weapon, Magnum Force).

Some critics believed this political correctness led to another stereotypical image where black people are often depicted too positively. Spike Lee popularized the term Magical negro, deriding the archetype of the "super-duper magical negro" in 2001 while discussing films with students at Washington State University and at Yale University.

One media survey in 1989 showed that blacks were more likely than whites to be described in demeaning intellectual terms.[15] Political activist and one-time presidential candidate Rev. Jesse Jackson said in 1985 that the news media portray blacks as less intelligent than we are.[16] Film director Spike Lee explains that these images have negative impacts. "In my neighborhood, we looked up to athletes, guys who got the ladies, and intelligent people," and the images widely portrayed black Americans as living in inner-city areas, very low-income and under-educated than whites.

Even so-called positive images of Black people can lead to stereotypes about intelligence. In Darwin's Athletes: how sport has damaged Black America and preserved the myth of race, John Hoberman writes that the prominence of African-American athletes encourages a de-emphasis on academic achievement in black communities.

In a 1997 study on racial stereotypes in sports, participants were shown a photograph of a white or a black basketball player. They then listened to a recorded radio broadcast of a basketball game. White photographs were rated as exhibiting significantly more intelligence in the way they played the game, even though the radio broadcast and target player represented by the photograph were the same throughout the trial.[18] Several other authors have said that sports coverage that highlights 'natural black athleticism' has the effect of suggesting white superiority in other areas, such as intelligence.

Patricia J. Williams, writer for The Nation, said this of Jar Jar Binks, a character from the 1999 and 2002 Star Wars films The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, respectively: "...intentionally or not, Jar Jar's pratfalls and high jinks borrow heavily from the genre of minstrelsy. Despite the amphibian get-up, his manchild-like idiocy is imported directly from the days of Amos 'n' Andy." Many aspects of Jar Jar's character are believed to be highly reminiscent of the archetypes portrayed in blackface minstrelsy.

Middle Eastern and Muslim stereotypes

Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims and Western stereotypes of West and Central Asians