When people feel their values threatened in ambiguous situations (as intercultural interactions are with few exceptions), they often tend to assert these values more aggressively in their behavior. The aggressive assertion of one’s values, and the attempt to impose them upon another through argument, persuasion or force signals to me not a firm commitment to said values, but rather a lack of such commitment. How can values we are truly committed to, that is, ones we genuinely believe in, be threatened by interacting with others, even if they do not share these values? My exposure to and exploration of other cultures has absolutely not diluted my values or eroded my identity. On the contrary, I feel that it has strengthened my commitment to certain values by making me less defensive about them and more willing to think critically about the foundation they are built on. From my perspective, this process is by no means one of identity erosion, but rather one of identity enrichment.
Yet there persists all around us a fear and aversion to the notion of cultural relativism, a term that to many connotes moral relativism or even nihilism. This fear is often expressed through the belief that venturing too far outside our respective identity groups will lead to a “watering down” of values and beliefs that will spell the certain demise of our civilization. It is my opinion that this impending doom brought on by cultural relativism, and perhaps even the possibility of cultural relativism existing at all, is a chimera. This entry as well as my next explores this mythology of intercultural resistance, which I perceive as nothing more than a convenient defense mechanism and a barrier to interpersonal connectivity.
From my experience, intercultural experience does not necessarily entail any fundamental change in values, although it can facilitate change of a certain nature. That is to say, it has the potential to clarify and enhance our existing values – but only if we voluntarily embrace this process. Nothing is compulsory here; as adults we do not passively absorb our beliefs and principles through a process of osmosis the way we imagine children do (and even this is debatable, in my opinion). The intercultural experience certainly does not lead to any “watering down” of values or identity. I believe this kind of phenomenon is more likely to be caused by cultural isolation and rigidity brought on by fear of difference. Any identity rooted in the fear of engagement with difference is likely to be brittle, maladaptive to changing circumstances, and therefore prone to decay. Furthermore, the aggressive assertion of ones values is likely to contradict and undermine the very values being defended. My next entry will expand on this topic and give an example of how a value can negate itself when pushed to its extreme. I will also suggest a potential reconceptualization of what constitutes true commitment.
Ian, I heartily agree with your comments especially in the first and the final paragraph. Intercultural experience should not make us more defensive, or even offensive, but rather, as you say, lead us to examine the foundations of our values. Intercultural experiences leave us with interactions that help us shape who we really are; the foundations which we are all born with (personality, natural inclination, and such). I know the previous statement is ambiguous and up for debate, but the crux of the issue lies in the fact that intercultural interaction should bring out the best in us and others, if we humbly allow it to (even though we only have responsibility for our own response).
For example, my experience studying abroad in Ecuador for a semester during college involved a season of intense intercultural interaction which served to clarify and formulate how I believe and think. Negative comments made by my host family about Americans could have easily caused a defensive reaction, however that was not the purpose of such an interaction. That particular homestay did not fundamentally change my values, but rather clarified them, helped me articulate them, and opened me up to more possibilites than I’d considered about what my values integrally mean.
I’ll end this reply with a quote that I think speaks to this delicate process:
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” – Leo Tolstoy
Thank you for your input Rebecca! It is great to hear about your experience in Ecuador and it reminds me of a strategy I read about in a book called Personal Leadership. In the book the authors refer to intercultural moments that have the potential to trigger a defensive reaction as “Something’s Up” moments. A negative comment about Americans made by a host family is a perfect example of this. Then the book outlines a process that you can go through once you have identified this called the “Critical Moment Dialogue”. Basically this lets you short-circuit some of the “knee-jerk” reactions that lead to conflict situations. I wonder if in another entry you could share any personal strategies you may have used (in Ecuador, South Africa, West Bank, etc.) that allowed you to overcome these obstacles…from my own experience I have found it REALLY difficult to stop the knee-jerk when my identity seems to be under fire.
p.s. that is a great quote from Tolstoy!
Ian, that is a great idea! I would love to share a reflection of a “knee-jerk” moment. Thanks for the suggestion.
I find that reflecting on these experiences in light of what I know now, to be helpful in learning from those moments. It also encourages me to take more risks in the future.
On another note, it might be interesting as well to write about experiences one has returning to one’s own culture; often called “re-entry.” One often has “knee-jerk” responses when re-entering their own culture. I think this is an interesting topic, as it includes re-examining once again, one’s values and outlook on life.
Rebecca,
This is a great point you bring up regarding re-entry. It’s a subject that is pretty neglected (this was pointed out explicitly at SIIC), I think mostly because in part of our minds we tend to think of the intercultural experience as having ended once we return. As a result there is a lack of literature on this aspect of interculturalism. To overlook the challenges of re-entry can have adverse effects because so much of the learning and growth takes place after the fact and those who return are generally left to fend for themselves. It would be great if we could produce some blog entries about this!
I enjoyed reading both of your entries. It was fun to feel all kinds of reactions firing off in my mind and heart.
Let me press into your thinking a bit. I agree that cross-cultural experiences can be fruitful. I also agree that interacting with people who see things differently than we do can spark a variety of responses that lie somewhere deep in our selves… some positive… some negative… many that are ambiguous. I wonder if some of the difficulty we have in these circumstances has as much to do with our not having processes or expressed some of these feelings over time. Such that at some point the ‘build up’ yields especially strong feelings, thoughts, etc.
Perhaps a key practice to develop is recognizing the feelings/thoughts that we are having… And learning what to do with them such that when we experience people/circumstances that seem to threaten our values we are more prepared to respond in honoring ways?
Also… I am don’t know that I would minimize the potential for Intercultural experience to yield change… Often inways that we can’t predict. Perhaps more on that later.
Thoughts?
John,
Thank you for your comment. I think this notion of the ‘build up’ of unprocessed thoughts & feelings (esp. feelings) is a very helpful way of conceptualizing what causes the ‘knee-jerk’ that Rebecca and I are discussing. Definitely a key practice to develop is recognizing this unprocessed raw material and learning what to do with it in threatening situations. The biggest problem I am dealing with is that it is difficult to develop this recognition ‘behind the scenes’ in detached, artificial spaces. Usually when we are dealing with this subject we are in a safe space with people who share a similar cultural background or at least have the same convictions. What I wonder is: to what degree can the product of this ’safe dialogue’ be integrated into the actual experience of demanding confrontations with difference in our lives?
Regarding your second point, I agree as well. I certainly do not wish to minimize the potential for intercultural experience to yield change. What I am grappling with in my entry is how to articulate different types of change and draw a distinction between the type of change that connotes alteration or loss and the type of change associated with enhancement, refinement, or sublimation of what we already possess in our hearts, souls, etc. In this second conception of change there is no element of loss or ‘watering down’ regardless of how intense a change might occur. I am drawn to Carl Jung’s ideas on individuation here, which he describes using the metaphor of medieval alchemy. The purpose of alchemy is to take some sort of coarse or unrefined raw material and elevate it to higher states. This process produces a radical change but not in the sense of radical sacrifice or conversion. I think intercultural experience can be one of the most powerful catalysts for this process of individuation or self-actualization.
The final point about how this often occurs in ways we can’t predict – I think this is HUGE! Do you think there is a relation between this unpredictability and the anxiety or cautiousness often felt during these experiences? Many of my intercultural materials place a major emphasis on developing high tolerance for ambiguity rather than attempting to offer more specific prescriptive advice. This is challenging.
Dude, you are busting out with Jungian though. That is awesome. An anthropological take can be found in the work of Marshall Sahlins where the focus is on the society/community level rather than the personal.