Check out my video blog! Click the link below!

Video blog

Hi, First I would like to thank you for following my blog, I have had a lot of fun writing it and I’ve had several interesting revelations concerning intercultural communication. Today, I would like to share some of these with you to sort of sum up what I have learned this past semester.

In my first blog, I philosophized a bit about cultural imperialism, which is basically the phenomenon where you force your culture upon others. I wrote that I found it be a very pejorative phenomenon, people always seemed to see it as a threat because they couldn’t let go of their culture, but in essence, I believe almost all forms of cultural imperialism have been exerted with very good purposes. People believed their culture was somehow superior and wanted the rest of the world to join it because they though they could make the rest of the world happy too. However, since they felt so threatened by it, it almost always ended in violence, for instance the second World War, the Vietnam war and so on. This was a very interesting introduction to the course and I’m glad I chose this to philosophize about on my very first blog.

In the second blog, I wrote about high and low context cultures, which I also find very fascinating. Specifically in this part, I learned a lot about the way I look at communication. It’s true that there is always more formal and informal communication, but it was very interesting learning where formal actually became informal and the other way around. It’s quite fascinating to learn about human behaviour and the rules we have set for ourselves. We act completely different when we are in the presence of friends and family than we are in class or church or city hall for example. However, as I always think very hard about all these things, I was recently thinking about how we actually behave different inside our circle of friends, depending on which friend we are talking to. There are friends, for instance, with whom I mostly talk about music and bands and festivals and such, and there are friends with whom I talk about sports or school. And I enjoy this difference in conversational topics because these topics are based on the similar interests you have with a certain friend. However, if you really think about it, you are always taking on a certain role when you are talking to someone. If I don’t agree with something for instance, I wouldn’t really go into this besides just saying that I have a different opinion. So in that sense, can we really be ourselves when we are near friends? Or are we really only ourselves when we are alone? These are all very cool thoughts and theories that have popped into my head.

Then I would like to close this video blog by talking a bit about my latest and probably final blog. As you have probably read, I focus on Albert Hoffman’s communicational model, and I already knew Mr. Hoffman and I knew about his scientific discoveries after having watched several documentaries about him but I never knew he was also active in the field of communication. He has created a very basic communicational model which he based on the earlier models made by Pinto and Hofstede. And this model basically states that, when engaging in conversation with someone, you must first acknowledge each other’s equalities and secondly you must acknowledge each other’s differences. And to me, it just doesn’t get any more simple than that and I believe that is what we need right now. We don’t need very complicated plans on how to deal with other, we just need to think about we are doing and maybe have a very easy 1 or 2 step plan to point us in the right direction.

I am very impressed by him and what he has achieved. I mean, how many people can say they invented methods of dealing with and possibly curing strange illnesses such as schizophrenia and cluster headaches but have also made such an incredible contribution to the field of communication. Right, thanks for watching and reading, see you next time!

Hoffman and arts: the mystery unraveled?

I have recently come in contact with Mr. Albert Hoffman's theories on intercultural communication and I must say I am pretty impressed by his vision. I have already come in contact with some of his scientific discoveries a few months ago after having watched some of his documentaries.

As most of you know, Mr. Hoffman became famous with the discovery of a certain psychedelic phenomenon, but he has also done so much for intercultural purposes. He set up a special kind of model with a fellow scientist/anthropologist by the name of Mr. Arts which is based on the similarities between the earlier models but with a fresh outlook on everything. Since they felt that society was over-generalizing cultures too much, he first stated that: "a meeting between an educator and a parent is not primarily a meeting between two cultures, but a meeting between two individuals." This immediately struck me as very interesting, and after reading his model, I was convinced:

1. Acknowledge equalness
2. Acknowledge difference

I dare you to make it any more simpel than that! While other psychologists focus on so many less relevant things, Hoffman and Arts go back to the basics. However, we mustn't forget that there are a few more complications that need to be taken into account; Hoffman integrated Paul Watzlawick's five axioms into his model, which basically sum up the most important qualities and characteristics of human interaction. In order to understand the next paragraphs, its adviced to read these axioms first, which can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick

The axiom that intrigued me the most was Axiom 3 (punctuation): Mr. Watzlawick states that every message can be interpreted differently according to the person that is interpreting it. I think this can be visualized with an example of Creationism vs Evolution (or alternate theories, obviously): As long as we have lived on this planet, there have been certain questions that cannot seem to be answered, such as: "how did we arrive on this planet?" Because there are so many theories based rather on interpretation than on evidence, I feel this is a decent example of Mr. Watzlawick's third axiom.

It seems that I have found my psychologist/anthroplogist/scientist of preference. I have since long admired Mr. Hoffman's scientific breakthroughs and therefore know he was a very wise man. His theory on intercultural communication seems to fill in the blanks much more than David Pinto's or Geert Hofstede's theories.

How to approach and befriend other cultures

"How to approach and befriend other cultures?"

I recently found out that there are several social and cultural experts who each have their own theories on how to befriend people from another culture. They all have their little 2- or 3 step plans which they believe hold the key to establishing a civilized conversation.
I must admit that after hearing about these steps, I found them a bit unnecessary. My first thought was: "Why the complicated explanation? Just bloody talk to someone if you want to become friends with them, regardless of their culture." I was however pleasantly surprised by David Pinto's explanation and 3-step plan:

1. Know yourself and your own norms
2. Know the other(s)
3. Adjust to the other(s) and have them do the same

So to sum up, his theory simply states that when 2 people have different ideals and theories, they must find a compromise in order to get along. This is actually the most simple way of explaining, if only this 3-step plan would work our proces of forming a gouvernment...

High and low context cultures

After reading the chapter on high and low context cultures, it immediately occurred to me how easily you can spot these in our day to day society. It’s also very cool to notice that whether you are at a small party with friends or at a family get-together or even at church, these same characteristics are all taking place. These are all examples of high context, informal cultures. If we take a look at low context cultures which are much more formal and rule oriented, we can all tell which one is the most appealing to us. However, can it really be that hard to turn low context cultures into high context cultures? And aren’t there already many similarities between the two? Let’s take a look at the characteristics:

Low context:

-          Rule oriented -> Are you really that rule-oriented when you are in a cafeteria?

-          More knowledge is public -> I don’t see how knowledge gets more public than at a party with friends?

-          Knowledge is more often transferable -> Do I really need to answer this one?

The only big difference between the two is the way tasks and activities happen. It’s true that when you go on excursion with a travelling group, there are many formalities and a lot of administration that needs to be dealt with where as a party with friends can be arranged with a few 20 second phone calls.

It seems to me that since everyone is much more comfortable in high context cultures, that these should be taking place much more often.

What are your suggestions for turning low context cultures into high context cultures?

The effects of multicultural education

After having read the second chapter of the course on intercultural education, I found the part on the effects of multicultural education the most interesting one. Why, you ask? Well, for the obvious reason that it is very important to evaluate everything we are doing and to look at the results we are receiving while doing so.

The first sentence that got my attention was: “Negative racial and ethnic attitudes toward others can be changed through deliberate intervention, but the process is longrange.” It is clear to almost everyone that deliberate intervention is necessary because at this moment we can hardly even use the world “intercultural” when talking about our educational system. As you may remember from my previous post, what I find most important in the whole multicultural society is that we all learn to live with one another in peace. The prejudices that go around in this world about different cultures can only be dismissed through some sort of intervention. And what better place to start than during students' education? We all know that in this period of time in Flanders, there are barely any classes left with people of one same culture and/or ethnic background. Now don't me wrong, this is a magnificent start, but there is more that needs to be done. As an aspiring language teacher myself, I always look for ways to integrate different cultural factors in the lessons I am giving. When students have to take a listening or reading exam for instance, it's very easy to choose a text that talks about global cultures. Students are always very attentive during these so they subconsciously learn a lot about the culture too rather than just the language. This way, we can improve the students' tolerancy toward the unknown.

While it was not one of my biggest motivations for becoming a teacher, I am very happy to now notice that I and my classmates are effectively contributing to the global village.

Cultural Imperialism

I have chosen to philosophize about the short part on "Cultural Imperialism" in the course for the simple reason that I found the articles to be very interesting and inspiring. Specifically Phil Taylor's article on the British Council's website has not only helped me better understand the definition of the phenomenon, but has also helped me get a better global view on the different ways that the "-ism" is being exerted.

The first thing I thought while reading the article was that Mr. Taylor was speaking in a very pejorative way about the subject. On one side, this is of course understandable seeing as that most "-ism's" seem to have this negative reputation, but when looking at the big picture, I couldn't help but notice that this phenomenon can be interpreted as very positive: Isn’t enforcing ones culture upon another just a way of wanting the best for them? After all, everyone believes their own culture is the best one, otherwise they wouldn’t agree with it, right? It makes sense to want to convert other people to your culture because you want to convince them that they would be better off with it. As simple as it sounds, this is unfortunately not how cultural imperialism is being exerted. When we look at the various examples in the Cold War, the Vietnam war for example, we can see all the violence that seems to accompany the phenomenon. Ground wars, torture, napalm strikes, .. Are these really the best ways of convincing someone that your culture is superior?

Another thing that intrigues me is the “cocacolonization” phenomenon that is mentioned in the course. When I looked up the definition, I once again read a pejorative one: “an invasion of Western culture that threatens the local culture.” Apparently it became so bad at one point that several French communists had attempted to actually illegalize Coca Cola in their country around 1949. It is very interesting to see how many people are so protective about their own culture and wish to remain in their own sanctuary of beliefs rather than contributing to the global village.

In conclusion I would like to say that, though I don’t agree with the negative way cultural imperialism is being defined, I do not agree with the way it is being applied either. Excuse me when I integrate my own “peace-and-love state of mind” for a moment and say that there is never an excuse for using violence, unless the use of it somehow prevents even more violence (Which I suppose is what the Americans thought they were actually doing in Vietnam). If only people would get over their egos and accept other people’s cultures instead of finding them affronting and threatening to their own. While I go take a walk and ponder about positive ways cultural imperialism is being exerted, I will leave you with a very famous Dalai Lame quote: “If you wish to experience peace, provide peace for another.”