Theories of intercultural education, Joseba Arregi, Asier Barandiaran, Dmitrii Enygin, Venera Midova [7 ebook reader .TXT] 📗

to different cultural repertoires. Like language, culture is a shared repertoire that each individual of the group interprets in his or her own way. Referring to a common language/culture does not mean that all locutors are going to perform it in the same way and, least of all, that they would say or think the same things (Barmeyer 2007). Different languages/cultures are more or less close, more or less similar/different. They vary in space and time. if languages and cultures, as shared repertoires of signification, have similar func- tioning they are also deeply interrelated: individuals who speak the same language (or, more precisely, refer to the same linguistic code) develop shared cultural understandings, which differentiate them from other groups. On the other hand, individuals who share common cultural references develop a common language or variety of a language (as in groups of adolescents, or in professional groups), which strengthens their internal cohesion and their differentiation from other groups. This metaphor of culture as language can in our view de-dramatise the idea of cultural difference, inherent to the idea of cultural diversity.

4.2. Culture is like the air we breathe

in the intercultural communication and training field, culture is often represented as an iceberg (see e.g. Ting-Toomey 1999), in order to illustrate that the visible, observable, part of culture (artefacts) is much smaller than the invisible part (assumptions, norms, values). But this metaphor is misleading: it contributes to the idea that culture is solid, and that there would be isolated cultures (‘a culture’ being then equated with ‘a cultural group’), separated

EuROpEAN JOuRNAL OF TEACHER EDuCATiON 395

by clear limits and more or less distant from one another. The metaphor of the atoll would be more appropriate in order to take into account the more profound layer: universal human needs. But even if in our view the atoll should replace the iceberg, this metaphor still solidifies and isolates culture, failing to capture its complexity.

As we have seen in the introduction, Segall, Lonner, and Berry (1998) prefer to compare culture with water for a fish: essential for its life, but generally unnoticed until the fish is taken out of water. Culture can then be seen as the air we breathe: it is everywhere in our environment but invisible, we notice it only when we miss it. The metaphor can be devel- oped further: there is air on the whole surface of the Earth and all humans (not only them, of course) can breathe it, but its quality varies (humidity, scents, oxygen, presence of pollution, etc.). We have to move into an unfamiliar context to become aware of the quality of the air we breathe, unless there is a sudden change in our environment (a storm, a fire) which makes the change in the air quality perceptible.

Variations of the air on the surface of the Earth are gradual; they of course do not follow the lines of national borders, and there are no clear limits between the different qualities of air which change progressively. However, if cultures can be understood as open-ended and overlapping systems (Mason 2008), variations between cultures have a stronger link to political borders than air has: frontiers delimit territories in which institutions (school in particular for our concern) are active, contributing to the (trans)formation and transmission of the cultural repertoire shared by the individuals living in this territory. Therefore, two individuals may live quite close to one another, breathing a similar air, but have different cultural references as they are part of two different socio-political contexts that are related to territory. We are also reminded of Barth (1969) who shows that it is on the frontiers, on the contact zones, that differences are maintained and performed: geographical closeness does not imply cultural sameness.

The metaphor of culture as air also helps to visualise the different levels of culture: air varies on the vertical dimension as well as on the horizontal dimension, and there are mul- tiple layers ranging from microclimates to larger climatic zones. The same for cultures: an individual refers to different layers of culture to give meaning to his or her experience, from the smaller scale (the neighbourhood he or she lives in) to the larger ones (national, con- tinental). Should we then regard any social group we belong to as contributing to these multiple layers of culture? if we consider that a social group develops a specific culture in the sense of shared meanings which differentiate it from other social groups, any situation implying various social groups should then be considered as ‘intercultural’. The question is complex and has given rise to subtle theoretical debates (see in particular Frame 2013), the metaphor of culture as air may prove a useful heuristic tool for comprehension. Like air on the surface of the Earth, culture is thus multi-layered, and each individual is embedded in his or her specific combination of layers. To make it more complicated, the salience of the different layers of culture impregnating the individual varies according to social contexts, and also through the lifespan. Therefore, no individual can be said to ‘have a culture’, by which it is generally meant a national culture: the cultural references that inspire an individual’s thinking and action are always multiple and combine the different layers of culture he or she relates to, from the very specific to the broader ones. if no individual ‘has a culture’, every individual refers to a unique combination of cultural references, which he or she interprets in his or her unique way.

396 T. OGAY AND D. EDELMANN

Representing culture as multi-layered may be considered to be similar to the principle of intersectionality, introduced into intercultural education mainly by German scholars (Krüger-potratz 2005; prengel 2007). intersectionality addresses the multiple identities of the individual, who does not belong to one social group only (a national culture in the culturalist view), but to many at the same time: gender, generations, social classes, ability, religion, etc. Differences intersect, making each individual unique, but also creating simi- larities between individuals who may be members of the same group on one dimension, but to different groups on another dimension (what is known as crossed categorisation in social psychology, see Crisp and Hewstone 2007). in our view, however, culture cannot be considered as one dimension among others (and then often reduced to a single layer, generally the national layer). Being for example a middle-aged protestant female academic is embedded in a specific cultural context, in other contexts these social memberships and identities would have different cultural meanings. Therefore, we consider culture to be the general frame in which the other dimensions of difference between individuals find their meaning. Differences between genders, generations, etc. are interpreted within a cultural frame of reference. Some social groups and individuals comprising a society adhere fully to this cultural frame of reference, and others more reluctantly. Of course, a common cultural frame of reference does not prevent individuals from referring also to other cultures as a function of their personal and familial history, notably in the case of migration. Thus, when individuals leave their cultural context for another one, they bring to it an ensemble of cultural meanings, among which notably a way of organising relationships between men and women (a theme that appears often in intercultural situations reported by teachers). The way of conceiving relations between men and women is precisely one of the meanings produced by culture; it is culturally situated and cannot be interpreted without cultural contextualisation.

4.3. Culture is like a non-newtonian fluid

When dealing with metaphors for the concept of culture, it is helpful to return to physics and the different states of matter: culture has been compared with water, a fluid, we have compared it with air, a gas, and Dervin (2011) has denounced a solid conception of culture, which is found for example in the iceberg metaphor. Dervin, inspired by another thinker of postmodernity, Bauman (2005), proposes the replacement of the solid conception of culture with a liquid understanding. But are liquid and gas the only possible alternatives to the solid state of matter? isn’t the change from a solid understanding of culture to a liquid or gaseous one nothing else than an overcompensation, an excessive backlash from culturalisation to indifference, as reflected in the dialectical square of cultural difference? instead of replacing the solid conception of culture with a liquid one, we suggest a further metaphor which illus- trates the dialectic of culture. it is neither solid, nor liquid: culture is both at the same time, or more precisely it quickly changes from one state to the other. The metaphor of culture as air has allowed important insights into the complexity of the concept. But another one is needed in order to account for the dynamic of culture. We here tentatively propose the metaphor of culture as a non-newtonian fluid: these special types of fluid become almost solid (their viscosity increases) when a force (like movement, or sound waves) is applied onto them; when the force disappears, the fluid turns back to a liquid state. Culture is usually liquid, (or gaseous like air), permeating everything in the context, but remaining unnoticed.

EuROpEAN JOuRNAL OF TEACHER EDuCATiON 397

But when there is pressure (for example through identification/differentiation issues as a result of intercultural contact), culture becomes solid and perceptible, and differences are perceived and performed. Coming back to the definition of culture by Camilleri (1989), when there is pressure, links between the shared meanings tighten, the group affiliation becomes salient and the attributions are more subject to intergroup bias (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005). The aim of intercultural education and training might then be to foster the understanding that culture should not be dismissed when liquid, nor taken too seriously when solidified by pressure.

5. Conclusion

The way for a reasonable understanding of culture and cultural difference is narrow and it is easy to fall into the traps of culturalisation and indifference. Teaching about culture in teacher training is for sure a challenging task; the concept is particularly complex, and pre-service as well as in-service teachers are not necessarily interested in the theoretical debates about it. intercultural training sessions which present culture as an important dimension to take into account, and then criticise it at length are confusing and unconvincing. The metaphors of culture (as language, air and non-newtonian fluid) are helpful to foster an understanding of culture as indispensable yet at the same time unseizable. The dialectical square of cultural difference helps to put words on the contradictions and tensions experienced in intercultural situations. it helps to understand how short-sighted either-or choices are and to accept the dialectical tension between equality and diversity. The dialectical square is also directly useful for teacher educators: to assess students’ needs, to design a training programme that will lead students through the developmental lines towards the positive dialectical tension, and also to stay alert to the pitfall of a culturalist training in response to colour-blind students. We are convinced that the dialectical square of cultural difference as well as the three metaphors of culture developed in this article contributes to a dynamic and complex understanding of culture and cultural diversity in education.

Notes

Our translation.

Our translation.

Our translation.

Our translation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Tania Ogay is a professor for Anthropology of education at the university of Fribourg in Switzerland, at the Department of Educational Sciences, where she teaches in particular intercultural education and intercultural communication. Her scientific interests lie in intercultural communication processes in educational contexts; she is currently conducting an ethnographic research on the building of the relation between school and families in a context of cultural diversity.

398 T. OGAY AND D. EDELMANN

Doris Edelmann, prof. Dr phil., is the director of the institute of‘Education and Society’at the university of Teacher Education in St. Gallen, Switzerland where she teaches in particular in the field of diver- sity-education and relation between school and families. Her areas of research are social changes and its impacts on educational processes and institutions (e.g. diversity and equity). She is currently conducting a research-project about teacher