Globalisation and the spread of English in the modern world

Cross cultural awareness and intercultural competence

This article is the result of a workshop designed for students participating in the Erasmus student exchange programme. The workshop is designed to respond to the needs of students travelling abroad (for the most part French) and students arriving to study in France (mixed nationalities). The course is given at the ISIT (Institut Supérieur d’Interprétation et de Traduction), at l’Institut Catholique de Paris at the end of the second year for the departing students and at the beginning of the autumn semester for the newly arrived Erasmus students.

The workshop, which lasts half-a-day, is designed to raise awareness of cultural differences and similarities and eventually to lay the groundwork for developing cross-cultural communicative competence. At the ISIT the course is run in English for the departing students and in French for the arriving students. Because the students have specialised in language study (and are competent in 2, 3 or sometimes more languages) they have a certain level of awareness of cultural difference due to the links between language and culture. Learning another language implies learning the idiosyncratic ways in which each culture expresses itself and defines the world (see perception below). However, students can master the linguistic elements of the language without necessarily developing skills in either communicative competence or cultural competence. In addition, through text study and selected readings, students learn facts about the target culture. So while not parochial in their outlook (not recognising that cultural differences exist – sometimes the term culture blind is used) many areas of cultural awareness are unmapped territories for them.
Increase positive attitudes toward people of other cultures.
Increase participants’ awareness of their own cultural values and unstated cultural assumptions.
Introduce the notion that cultures are relative to one another and not hierarchical.
Increase awareness of the origin of problems that can arise in communicating with people of other cultures.
Call attention to counterproductive stereotypes and prejudices toward people of other cultures.
The methodology of the workshop is based on experiential learning and consists of problem solving (critical incidents) role-plays, discussions and experiments. The themes progress from perception and culture, to behaviour and culture, and finally culture and communication.
The fundamental principle for this workshop is based on the notion that in order to comprehend and appreciate a different culture, one must first have a conscious understanding and insight into one’s own culture. Consequently, self-discovery is a major element in the workshop. This self-discovery process consists primarily of identifying the shared beliefs, values, assumptions, perceptual patterns, behavioural norms and communication preferences within one group. Students are then introduced to the idea of convergence and divergence that occurs when different cultures meet.
The notions of convergence and divergence are fundamental to the workshop for two reasons. First, they provide an opportunity to discuss assumptions: the things we take for granted or the belief that we can correctly predict the outcome of our actions. When there is convergence, that is to say, when others do things in the same way as we do, then we don’t notice their behaviour. It is normal, they are behaving like us, in other words normally, or the way people should behave. We usually expect people to react in the same way we would, and get confused when this is not the case—is this person a non-conformist, an eccentric or worse? Expected behaviour and appropriate responses allow us to negotiate our own personal preferences within the limits of cultural acceptance that regulates our daily lives. But none of this necessarily applies when we find ourselves in another culture. Our assumptions no longer hold, or is everyone in culture X an eccentric? Secondly, we can’t accurately predict what elements will be similar and which ones will be different. For the most part those elements which converge and diverge between cultures appear to be arbitrary.
Often too much attention is paid to divergence and not enough time is spent on reflecting on convergence, or what is similar between culture X and Y. Focusing on the similarities gives us the opportunity to discuss how easy it is to see a universality of human behaviour based on our own cultural norms. The idea that people are people and all one has to do is be polite and one can adapt anywhere is a result of universalistic thinking. This allows us to further the discussion of the arbitrary nature of culture—the very idea of what it means to be polite or impolite. This is valuable time spent, especially as a preview to defining culture, which follows next in the workshop. Discussing divergence or where norms, values etc, differ is in many ways a much easier task than looking at convergence. It is what the student expects the course to be about; ‘tell us what they do differently and how to deal with it’ is a common participant request in the workshop. These “do’s” and “don’ts” can be found in the popular literature devoted to “Understanding the X’s” and not part of this workshop. If used at all, they are examined in developing awareness of stereotypes, which in some cases can be more of a hindrance to understanding another culture than a resource. Divergence is examined from two basic standpoints. First is the idea that the greater the difference in the norm, the more importance we attach to it. Secondly, we see that the more the behaviour is different from our norm, the more likely we are to attach a negative value to it. This reflects a basic ethnocentric response summed up as ‘our way is best’. Geographic distance, religion, economic modes, ethnic difference, language—any example of human response to our environment, does not necessarily help to predict where cultural differences or similarities will occur. One striking example is the convergence found between Swedes and Japanese concerning use of silence, avoidance of physical contact and even a very superficial element (the artefacts discussed in the models and definitions) such as removing shoes indoors.