This paper is from M.L. Ennis & C.E. Riley (eds.), Practices in Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning, (pp. 62-88),
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2017.    ISBN (10): 1-5275-0031-4  /  ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0031-0

FROM STEREOTYPING TO BECOMING INTERCULTURALLY COMPETENT

PETER ANDERSON

ANDERSON HOUSE, BERGAMO, ITALY

PATRICK BOYLAN

ROMA TRE UNIVERSITY

Keywords: Stereotyping, Intercultural Competence, Developmental Model, Constructivist Workshop

Abstract

This chapter illustrates a pedagogy aimed at training people of all ages and backgrounds to resist facile stereotyping of cultural diversity and, instead, seek a genuine understanding of, and entente with, that diversity. This enables such learners, after the training course, to better accommodate their language and interactional behaviour to the culturally different interlocutors they may encounter in the future, thus facilitating more successful relationships with them and promoting better cooperation between cultures. Such an ability is often called “intercultural competence” and it is much needed in today’s globalized world. The pedagogy illustrated in detail in this chapter is geared toward a short, one-off workshop. It consists of four introductory activities taken from The Intercultural Resource Pack published by Cambridge University Press, followed by a presentation of Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. The model may be used by learners as a tool, after the workshop, to chart their lifelong (intercultural) learning path.

Introduction

Globalization, mass migration, the internet, and world-wide mass transportation for business and tourism have brought a myriad of ordinary, monocultural individuals—whose world until recently had consisted mostly of kinsmen and compatriots—into sudden, intensive contact with cultural others.

Stereotyping those cultural others (i.e., applying blanket categorizing clichés to them, whether naively, jocularly, or maliciously but in any case uncritically) has largely been people’s immediate reaction (Askjellerud, 2006). Stereotyping immediately reduces the anxiety caused by uncustomary behaviour that bewilders and perhaps unsettles. It offers ready-made categories that explain away the strangeness by giving it a (pseudo) explanation. Like this comment (reported in Boylan, 2017) by a Milanese woman about a new neighbour on her block, a swarthy (and, for her, “suspicious looking”) Sicilian: “Just look at that new car outside his flat! And you never see him work, he’s always having parties! I’ll bet you anything he’s in with the Mafia”.

In other words, stereotypes furnish pseudo-knowledge that assuages, much like primitive peoples are said to be assuaged by attributing a fearsome thunderstorm to an imaginary battle between the gods in the heavens. At least they have an explanation!

But real comprehension of cultural others—and, in the final analysis, of oneself—requires much more than pseudo-knowledge. Thus, the major and surely the most difficult task facing intercultural trainers consists of getting people to want to make the effort required to understand cultural others genuinely, that is, from within their otherness (Boylan, 2000).

People, in fact, strongly resist understanding others in their subjective otherness. Ratford (2010), for example, notes how, in Ireland, most immigration workers justify their refusal to engage with migrants empathetically and emotionally, on the basis that it would be “unprofessional” not to “keep their distance.” This attitude is not necessarily a sign of callousness; it may simply be the expression of an ill-advised defence mechanism, aimed at preserving the pre-eminence of one’s native set of values and way of life, felt to be threatened.

For if we endeavour to see “from within” and thus as “normal” the strange behaviours and customs we encounter continually, not only in interacting with migrants but in all walks of life in today’s global village, then we may risk losing sight of what we consider “normality” to be and end up in the state Durkheim (1964 [1897]) called “anomie”, no longer knowing what “truly” to believe in any more. Or, at least, this implausible outcome is what many people who cling to their stereotypes like a life vest, unconsciously fear. All this explains the difficulty of teaching intercultural understanding genuinely, that is, as a “change of consciousness” (Boylan, 2009).

The present chapter proposes a pedagogy which accommodates to such fears by means of a gradual and non-impositional, two-step approach based on constructivism. It was initially devised for those participants, of all ages and backgrounds, who voluntarily attend the workshops on intercultural understanding and communication that one of the authors conducts regularly at his language school in Bergamo, Italy. It was subsequently adapted to the needs of the language teachers attending the workshops co-organized with such professional associations as CRTDrils LINGUE in Bergamo and TESOL Val D’Adige in Trento. It could conceivably be used even in schools where racial, ethnic, and religious tensions among students are rife, such as those described by Moore (2006).

The first of the two steps is a series of four preliminary exercises, rooted in constructivist learning theory, which have been taken from the Intercultural Resource Pack (henceforth IRP) by David Utley, published by Cambridge University Press. The second step is based on Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (henceforth DMIS) originally devised as a description of six basic attitudes towards cultural diversity (Bennett, 1986), and here used as a didactic tool for self measurement of personal development in a perspective of lifelong (intercultural) learning.

1. A constructivist pedagogy for coming to grips with stereotyping

Constructivism (see Taber, 2011, for an ample discussion of constructivism as educational theory and classroom practice) distinguishes between genuine knowledge and rote learning. The latter is the acquisition of mere “information fragments” to be stored away and applied mechanically in given set tasks, such as demonstrating “knowledge” of the periodic tables in chemistry through a fill-in-the-blanks exercise; it is essentially tautological. Constructivist (genuine) knowledge, on the other hand, is open-ended: It is the reorganization of acquired experience—to some extent unpredictable but always meaningful—together with the continual search for new input from whatever sources are at hand, in order to acquire a better hold on reality, one that permits creative experimentation (as in a chemistry lab).

Constructivist teaching therefore begins by trying to get learners to make better sense of what they know, or rather what they think they know: for example, the words they use and the beliefs they hold in a particular thematic domain. In the case of the model workshop described here, that domain consists of the words used and the beliefs held in speaking of cultural identity and stereotyping. This preliminary activity is akin to what Aristotle typically does at the beginning of each of his enquiries: He examines the most commonly held beliefs (doxa) about the subject to be investigated and then calls those beliefs into question.

Constructivist teaching does the same: After getting learners to make an inventory of what they think they know about a given domain, it then goes on to challenge them to rework their personally-held or communally held verbal and mental constructs, in order to gain a better grasp of what they have heretofore considered “reality”. Destabilizing ploys may be used for this purpose.

As for the intercultural workshop that this paper will illustrate, constructivist methodology of the kind just described is clearly evident in the four initial workshop activities listed below in a series of four cards. The cards are divided into three sections:

1) Each card begins by stating the goal of the exercise to be presented and, if required, additional explanations for the teacher/facilitator.

2) Then it gives the instructions for the learners to follow in completing the IRP exercise proposed.

3) Lastly, each card (except the first one) reproduces a page from the IRP that contains an exercise that the learners are asked to complete.

The fifth and culminating activity of this workshop, on the other hand, is only in part an activity. It mostly consists of rather traditional, top-down, “input teaching”. This change in procedure is justified by the fact that, at the end of the four preliminary exercises, the terrain has been sufficiently ploughed for sowing to be effective; indeed, learners at this point are usually looking for a way to give coherence to their newly acquired perceptions of stereotyping and cultural identity, and even ask the teacher/facilitator for suitable input.

Contrary to popular belief, in fact, constructivist methodology does not abolish “input teaching” totally. It provides occasional moments of such teaching to enable learners to remap their newly acquired experiences by means of the explicative input (theoretical models) presented by a teacher/facilitator, input that is, in any case, rooted in the learners’ newly acquired or reworked experiences. In addition, learners are invited to call into question the models or other input offered them on the basis of these experiences, as will be seen in the last activity described in this workshop. In as much, the explicative input offered to learners in constructivist teaching is fundamentally different from the presentation of theory, which seemingly descends from above and is blindly accepted as such by muted learners, so frequent in archetypical traditional teaching.
 

2.  A model for describing the gradual acquisition of intercultural competence
     and for charting one’s intercultural development in the future

At this point of the workshop, assuming that the four initial activities in the First Step have produced their intended effects, jumbled together in learners’ minds are the various perceptions, newly acquired, of what it means to stereotype—or, on the contrary, to truly understand—cultural “others”. Something is needed to give coherence to all these new mental constructions.

It is therefore at this stage that the teacher/facilitator can usefully switch from constructivist to more traditional teaching procedures and offer learners one possible model (even several, if time permits) for describing the process of coming to grips with cultural diversity in ways that go beyond stereotyping.

Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) is a top candidate for this task, for the DMIS describes understanding cultural “others” as a continuum that goes from rejecting and stereotyping cultural diversity to accepting and understanding it fully.

On one side is the ethnocentric pole. It groups together three different kinds of understanding of cultural diversity, all of them superficial in that they are centred on the self and on one’s own set of values, instead of on the “other” and on a value system different from one’s own. In a sense, one could say that the ethnocentric pole groups together three different kinds of refusal to understand “others” in their otherness.

Take the Milanese woman mentioned earlier, for example. She thinks she has really understood her southern Italian neighbour (who “never seems to work and is always having parties, yet has a new car”) by imposing on him the stereotype of the Sicilian Mafioso. “I've got his number!”, she gloats. In reality, by doing so she has denied her neighbour and his ethos any right to exist as such; she has defended her Milanese work ethic as a moral absolute (anything that deviates from it must therefore be criminal); and she has minimized as inconsequential any positive traits that her neighbour might have (like his sociability), thus minimizing at the same time the originality of his Southern Italian culture and lifestyle, with respect to the more regimented Milanese way of life.

Denial, defence, and minimization are, in fact, the three degrees of understanding cultural “others” superficially (or refusing to understand them genuinely) that Bennett groups around his ethnocentric pole. Stereotyping can be found at all three levels, in particular in the defensive mode of “understanding” people of another culture.

However, there is more behind ethnocentric understanding and stereotyping than just defending one’s own set of values while denying and minimizing those of the cultural “other”. There is the less-discussed but more ominous effect of such objectification, that is, the exploitation of that “other”.

In other words, by imposing on other people our pre-determined perceptive schemata, we not only deny them any autonomous subjective existence and thereby “objectify” them (i.e., turn them into mere objects to be used), but we are led to use that objectification to justify manipulating them and exploiting them for our purposes (Bennett, 2013b).

Here are three examples to clarify that point. They all illustrate a refusal to truly understand “others” by stereotyping them in order to manipulate them. While in only one case is the stereotype ethnocentric in the strict sense, in all cases it is self-centric and this comes close enough.

1. The Casanova (womaniser) who claims he has “understood” all the women he has pursued, has in reality understood only a stereotype: the tiny part compatible with his self-centred interests (which are ethnocentric in the sense of being male-culture centric). He even admits it, when he boasts: “All women are the same; they all want to hear such and such; so I tell it to them”. Through diligence, the Casanova does get to know certain specific things about each woman he pursues: her favourite night spots, her favourite places to go afterwards, and the seduction technique she is most vulnerable to—but little else. Certainly not her deepest needs, aspirations and struggles, about which the Casanova could not care less. For that kind of understanding takes too long, too much effort and can even distract from the goal at hand, which is overtly manipulative and exploitative.

2. Less obviously self-centred and ethnocentric (in the strict sense), but equally manipulative and exploitative, is the mode of “understanding others” that many of us put into practice on holiday trips abroad. Our declared intent is “getting to know” the country chosen and its people; but our overriding intent is having a good time. Thus, once there, like a Casanova, we tend to treat the foreign country as something to be used for our pleasure—a kind of amusement park. As for the inhabitants, we treat them like movie extras, at most co-stars, in the videos we make for our future consumption back home. Only fleeting moments are spent on learning to see things as the local inhabitants see them (our filming schedule is too intense). As for trying to understand their deepest needs, aspirations, and struggles, we never get around to that, and the reason why is simple. To continue with the cinema metaphor, paraphrasing Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind: Frankly, we don’t give a damn.

3. The last example of manipulative stereotyping is making “friends” on Facebook, a web platform with a culture of its own, based on just that, manipulative stereotyping. Facebook-centric “friendships”, in fact, are people who fit into our Facebook-defined preferential categories and we theirs. Thus, we end up in a self-generated, auto-referential universe which is a stereotype of ourselves. Sometimes not even ourselves: In fact, at times we pretend to be what we are not, or simply exaggerate about ourselves, to win over more “friends” who, thus, can only misunderstand what we are really like (idem for us). How can we call “friends” people who do not “like” us so much as a fictitious us? No matter: By playing the game, we get to use these “friends” to promote our interests in exchange for letting them use us to promote theirs: They are our FOCs (friendships of convenience).

Diametrically opposed to the self-centred and manipulative way of “understanding others” that Casanovas, consumer tourists, and Facebook “friends” share, is the kind of understanding that Bennett locates on the other side of his continuum, the ethnorelativist pole.

This pole groups together three different degrees of “other-oriented understanding”. At all three degrees (acceptance, adaptation, and integration), we recognize and respect the different “world” that the cultural “others” have within them and wish to understand it. However, at the second of the three degrees (adaptation), we go further and, as we understand that other world better, we try to adapt our own behaviour to it. When we are with people of that other culture, we act and interact in ways that are consonant with their way of being.

At the last degree, the fullest development of intercultural sensitivity (integration), we go even further still. We displace ourselves into the world of the “other” and, instead of trying to know it (and judge it) from the outside, we become one with it. We find “right” the things that are considered right according to the system of values of that other world; we find humorous the things people in that culture find humorous and laugh spontaneously at the things that make them laugh; and we share their concerns, to the degree and in the way that they do, for their deepest needs, aspirations, and struggles.

All this does not mean that we “lose” our identity. On the contrary, we double it by acquiring a second existential worldview (Weltanschauung), which permits us—when we return to our home society—to see its merits and demerits contrastively and thus more clearly. This enables us to work to improve things there with a much wider vision of what is needed: We see our own culture from the inside and from the outside simultaneously.

From the standpoint of communication, the second and third degrees of ethnorelative sensitivity (adaptation and integration) permit us to communicate with people in the other culture using common frames of reference and vocabulary. Note that this does not necessarily mean that we must use their language or they ours (although it is preferable to do so). Any third language, or lingua franca, will do; for, with it, we can express ourselves in the kind of talk (parlance) and style (register) to which the people of the other country relate.

Only at the third level (integration), however, do we establish the bonds of solidarity and trust which permit us to feel in the words used by our interlocutors, exactly what they feel in using them, so that even our (and their) most idiosyncratic thoughts and feelings do not get lost in the translation. We and they speak unashamedly and authentically, and listen without being condescending or hypocritical. All this without betraying our historical selves. Obviously we are not always in agreement with the other party; but we can see and accept why this is so—just as when we entertain contrasting sides on an issue in our own mind, before finally opting for one or the other side. This is what it means to understand genuinely. The French call it entente, mutual understanding deriving from a community of views and conformity of sentiments (Entente, ATILF, 1971). Augustine of Hippo describes it as having “one soul in two bodies” (Confessions, IV, 6).

The two poles and the three degrees within each pole are illustrated in the following diagram.

Figure 4. Development of intercultural sensitivity (adapted from Bennett, 2014)

This, then, is the theoretical model that the teacher/facilitator can propose to learners, in the mini-lesson that s/he gives after conducting the four activities illustrated above.

The focus of the mini-lesson should, in any case, be on the main theme: stereotypes. Describing the DMIS serves only to contextualize how stereotyping, which we have defined as the naive, jocular or malicious “blanket application” of unverified categorizing clichés:

• Is a form of ethnocentric understanding;

• Is particularly frequent as a defence mechanism;

• Is fundamentally manipulative: The Casanovas who stereotype women (“they're all the same”) while convincing themselves that they understand them, are clearly being manipulative. But so are consumer tourists who stereotype the country they supposedly want to understand, while they manipulate its inhabitants as movie extras or co-stars in their videos. Equally stereotypical and manipulative are Facebook “friendships”: By pretending to be what they are not or exaggerating about themselves in order to attract more likes, Facebook “friends” end up manipulating themselves as much as they manipulate others.

The teacher/facilitator should emphasize these three examples for their possible salutary destabilizing effects on learners. Often, in fact, these three examples manage to “shake the learners up” by pointing out to them how much they stereotype and manipulate in their ordinary life: romantic relationships, holiday trips, use of Facebook, etc. Suddenly, stereotyping becomes for them a very real question, one that goes beyond ethnic, religious, or racial categorization. This jolt can be an awakening and provide the motivation to follow the rest of the workshop more closely.

The teacher/facilitator should then move on to the classic example of manipulative stereotyping given above: That of the Milanese woman who stereotypes her new Sicilian neighbour as a Mafioso. Without seeking to get to know the man, the woman proclaims her “certainty” to the entire neighbourhood, perhaps even to the point of “imagining things” to back up her suspicion, as gossips often do, and this contributes to putting the man into a ghetto: People in the neighbourhood, whether they believe the woman completely or not, instinctively begin avoiding the Sicilian. This is clearly a manipulation of another person’s life and shows the unconfessed goal of malicious negative stereotyping: It is an attempt to police the world, using language to put unwanted people into little boxes.

The mini-lesson should, of course, make it clear to learners that there are other, and far more genuine, modes of understanding cultural diversity that they can choose from. Bennett lists three under his ethnorelativist pole: acceptance, adaptation, and integration. However, there are variants, too (e.g., Boylan, 2010). And learners, in their discussions, may come up with more.

Which mode of ethnorelative understanding should one aim for in a conversation with cultural others? That depends entirely on circumstances, how one feels toward the other culture, and how much time and energy one is prepared to spend to enter into that culture. In any case, Bennett's DMIS is not prescriptive and does not claim that everyone should aim at the fullest form of understanding (integration) in every situation. Nonetheless, simply knowing that this maximum level exists and what it is like can serve as a North Star in orienting the communicative choice one finally makes in a given context.

Conclusion

The second part of this chapter has outlined the “teacher-input” session that should follow the four exercises described in the first part and thus conclude the workshop. Obviously the brief account of Bennett’s DMIS given above is insufficient to prepare a mini-lesson confidently; the reader is therefore encouraged to visit Bennett’s website (www.idrinstitute.org) and to consult, in particular, the page offering a selected bibliography (http://www.idrinstitute.org/page.asp?menu1=4).

The final card (in Appendix 1 below) contains the last workshop activity. The teacher/facilitator can judge whether to have the learners do this activity as a form of preparation for her mini-lesson on the DMIS, or use this activity during the mini-lesson to focus attention on what has been said and will be said, or else propose the activity at the end, to give learners the possibility of coming up with an alternative to the model proposed by Bennett. This last option (which permits learners to judge whether the DMIS fits with their views, or needs to be amended) is most coherent with the overall constructivist pedagogy advocated in this model workshop.

What will workshop participants take home with them? They should have acquired a clearer perception of what stereotypes are: generalizations that are inevitable, given the way that the human mind works, but potentially deceptive generalizations that therefore must be constantly tested. To do this, however, participants must have a truly open and inquisitive mind, which in turn means they must accept calling into question even their most cherished cultural certitudes. This is not easy, but it is possible if done gradually, as illustrated by the DMIS. This is the second key perception that participants should have acquired from the workshop.

Their reward for learning to relativize their stereotypes and entrenched convictions will be the capacity to see things from many different perspectives at the same time, an ability that will make them better students, better citizens, and better able to handle life’s uncertainties.

Appendix 1

References

Askjellerud, S. (2006). Tourism and peace: The traveller. (IIPT Occasional Paper no. 4). Global Educators Network of the International Institute for Peace through Tourism. Retrieved from www.iipt.org/educators/OccPap04.pdf

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 17995. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2

—. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

—. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource.

—. (2013a). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, & practices. Boston: Intercultural Press.

—. (2013b). Ethnocentrism/xenophobia. In C. Cortes (Ed.), Multicultural America: A multimedia encyclopedia. New York: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.idrinstitute.org/allegati/IDRI_t_Pubblicazioni/66/FILE_Documento_Ecyclopedia_entries.pdf

—. (2014). The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Retrieved from www.idrinstitute.org/page.asp?menu1=15

Boylan, P. (2000). To be or not to be: Success or failure in intercultural communication In: D. Lynch & A. Pilbeam (Eds.), Heritage and Progress. From the past to the future in intercultural understanding (pp. 106-116). Bath: LTS. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/462270/To_Be_or_Not_to_Be_Success_or_Failure_In_Intercultural_Communication

—. (2009). Cross-cultural accommodation through a transformation of consciousness. Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 2009(2), 33-48. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/463571/Cross-Cultural_Accommodation_ Through_a_Transformation_of_Consciousness

—. (2010). A conversation on cultural identity and integration: Milton Bennett interviewed by Patrick Boylan. Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 3, 15-41. Retrieved December 15, 2015 from www.cultusjournal.com/files/Archives/boylan_bennett_interview.pdf

—. (2017, May). Containing stereotyping in multi-ethnic settings. Presentation at the 9th Annual Conference of SIETAR Italia, Multicultural Identity: The Meaning and Value of Belonging in a Global World. Milan, Italy.

Durkheim, E. (1964 [1897]). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: The Free Press.

Entente. (1971). In ATILF: Trésor de la langue française. Lorraine: Université de Lorraine. Retrieved from http://stella.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/visusel.exe?11;s=183885855;r=1;nat=;sol=0;

Gudykunst, W. B. &, Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. Boston, MA: AddisonWesley

Moore, J. R. (2006). Shattering stereotypes: A lesson plan for improving student attitudes and behaviour toward minority groups. The Social Studies, 97(1). 35-39. doi:10.3200/TSSS.97.1.35-39

Ratford, K. (2010) ‘Unkind cuts’: Health policy and practice versus the health and emotional well-being of asylum-seekers and refugees in Ireland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(6), 899-915. doi:10.1080/13691831003643348

Stereotype. (2016a). In Macmillan dictionary online. Retrieved from www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/stereotype

—. (2016b). In Oxford advanced learner's dictionary online. Retrieved from www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype_1?q=stereotype

—. (2016c). In Longman dictionary of contemporary English online. Retrieved from www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/stereotype

—. (2016d). In Cambridge learner's dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/stereotype_1

—. (2016e). In Collins English dictionary. Retrieved from www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/stereotype

Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp. 39-61). New York: Nova.