Multiculturalism in today’s environment: will it ever be the same?

Roger Matthew Bell,

Department of HR management,

ESADE Business School,

Av Pedralbes 60-62,

08034, Barcelona

Roger.bell@esade.edu

Berry: available strategies…

STRATEGIES OFETHNOCULTURAL

GROUPS

STRATEGIES OF

LARGER SOCIETY

MELTINGPOT

MULTI-CULTURALISM

SEGREGATION EXCLUSION

INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION

SEPARATION MARGINALI-ZATION

RELATIONSHIPSSOUGHTAMONG GROUPS

ISSUE 2

ISSUE 1 MAINTENANCE OF HERITAGE, CULTURE AND IDENTITY+

-

+ - + -

Source: Berry (1997), in: Handbook of Intercultural Training

How can we improve our intercultural skills? Gudykunst (1998)

• Minimize anxiety (from no interest to no cognitive capability i.e. paralysis!) Knowledge reduces uncertainty

• Watch different perspectives: perception explains behaviour

• Their interests: watch for differences: seek similarities: interpret what are their interests

• Mindfulness enables open-ness, tolerance, awareness of own perspectives. Intercultural communication is inter-active

• Categories: we need finer distinctions: over-simplification is root of false stereotyping

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) Milton Bennett (1986, 1993). How is it influenced by

ideological indoctrination in other cultures?

Denial

Defence

Minimization

Acceptance

Adaptation

Integration

Ethnocentric

Ethnorelative

Individual rights v social constraints

• “… my religion demands that I wear this (the niqab) … I feel much more comfortable… it’s a question of modesty as well as religion…”

• Look at nuns: nobody tells them what they can wear ….

• In these day when security matters so much …. It’s all very well to have your photograph on forms but what’s the use if you can’t glance at the face to check?

• It’s weird not knowing who you’re passing in the street especially late at night when they might jump you …

How we learn about cultures, macro and organizational

Emics: symbols, meanings

Comparing on etic dimensions

Multi-dimensionalpicture

Experiential learning at the interface

Interpretative problem: distinguish cultural, situational, personal business negotiating issues or others ….

Political, ethnic,historical realities

EXTREMES e.g.Direct, low context

EXTREMES e.g.Indirect, rhetorical

Commonarea

Culture BCulture A

Stereotypes overlook distributions. Confirmed by extreme cases; not necessarily disconfirmed by counter-stereotypical

behaviour (Rudman & Fairchild 2004)

Cultural Paradigm: macro (systemic), organizational,

sub-unit

Communication

conventions, norms

How much do we see? Behind the “veil of the visible”

Values, basic assumptions, beliefs, symbolic meanings,location on etic dimensions Functional Relational

Fundamental attribution error

• When dealing with out-groups we tend to notice character, personality traits, abilities or cultural motives not external situational factors.

• We focus on simplified affiliation of the person more than situation, about which we may know very little.

• Western culture exacerbates this error, emphasizing individual freedom and autonomy;

• Of ourselves and our in-groups, however, we tend to make situational attributions…

Advice from David Pinto (Pinto 2000)

• Be aware of your own norms, values and the behavioural codes influencing your ways of thinking, acting and communicating

• Get to know the norms, values and behavioural codes of the other party, distinguishing opinion and stereotypes from facts

• Decide how far to accommodate to the other party. Make this clear in a timely fashion consistent with the communication codes of the other party.

We expect others to behave like us, but they don’t.

We react with anger, worry, etc. to cultural incidents)

We become aware our own behavior (expecting sameness)

causes incidents

We are thus motivated to learnabout the local culture

And begin to expect the local peopleto behave like themselves

And there are fewercultural incidents

Storti’s vision(2001)

Making sense: be aware of what you fear: anxiety, negative expectations

• Self concept: identity threat, • Personal consequences: be ripped off, dominated,

strangers’ rejection, ridicule, stereotyping• In-group disapproval• Heightened by feeling no control; the more

anxious, less cognitive capacity, desire control in spite of initial desire to be understanding

(Gudykunst 1998)

• Violence and physical menace?

Effective communication requires that we support (others’) self concepts, including their

preferred ethnic identities” (Gudykunst 1998 P 84)

Empathy requires that we be aware of the impression that we give to others

Extreme position: “unconditional constructiveness” (Gudykunst 1998);

• Rationality: avoid emotional traps• Understanding and communication .. even if they don’t

listen• Reliability: even if they seek to deceive• Non-coercive mode even if they try to coerce us• Acceptance even if they don’t accept us

• But “apocalyptic meaning flows into the vacuum of lost confidence (A Karatnycky, director of Freedom House)

Managing inter-group conflict : avoid defensive reactions

• Mutual problem orientation: win-win

• Describe not evaluate

• Adapt communication style

• Co-operative not competitive mode

• View them as equals, respect culture

• Clarify own assumptions: be mindful

• And if we don’t ….?

Predictors of XC success: Triandis 1994

• Sensitivity, tolerance (explain before value judgments)

• Cultural flexibility (substitute suitable behaviours)

• Social orientation (establish new XC relations)

• Willingness to communicate (e.g in host language)

• Risk taking (low personal security needs)

• Skills in conflict resolution (collaborative style)

• Patience and humour (ability to suspend judgment)

• Commitment and interest in cultures

Knowledge of Culture

Perceived History of Conflict

Perceived Cultural Distance

Perceived trustworthiness

OpportunityFor Contact

Likely satisfaction: repeat encounters

Cross-cultural interactionsand attitudes

Adapted from Triandis (1992)

Perceived need contact

Inter-groupattitude

ITT fundamentals lead to unfavourable attitudes towards out-groups

• Real or imagined threats (resources, employment)

• Symbolic threats (values, norms and beliefs that threaten worldview, identity, self-image)

• Inter-group anxiety (fear embarrassment, ridicule, exploitation, violence)

• Negative stereotyping

History of Intergroup conflictStatus inequalitiesStrong in-group identificationLack of KnowledgePast contacts negative

Integrated Threat Theory : a causal model(Stephan, Stephan & Gudykunst 1999, Landis 2004 P200)

Real threats,

Symbolic threats

Inter-group anxiety

Negative stereotyping

Prejudice

Behaviour:Discrimination,

Delinquency,Denigration

DefensivenessInsularity etc

Affect, stress, coping with cultural adaptation (Berry)

Approaches to culture contact: ABC + ITT (Ward C in Landis et al 2004)

Behavioural learning, skills, sociocultural adaptation (Argyle)

Cognitive,Social identity;

Change/maintain(Tajfel)

Intergroup outcomes:Psychological, sociocultural,

Cognitive (perceptions)

ITT: Real, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety,

negative stereotypes

• But does this deal with power issues? • It has to be argued on different levels: individual,

group, national, regional, global• Groups involved in conflict and religious

fundamentalism (of all kinds)• Solutions lie in the long run in dealing with the

economic issues that surround the globalizing demonstration effect, the digital divide, the haves and have nots

• Fundamentalism is a reaction to economic demonstration effects, internet, material things, beautiful people

• Le discours de la victimization (Arkoun)• And humiliation: “it has always been my

view that terrorism is not spawned by poverty of money: it is spawned by poverry of dignity” Thomas Friedman

The problem of big numbers

• Huntington’s Hispanic immigrant wave in US• Hayek: there is a necessary reduction of the range

of duties we owe to others• Polanyi’s great transformation when face to face

market turns into commodity impersonal market place “ a solvent of traditional moralities”.

• De-humanization is always the issue

A universalistic view?

• A nation-state is not composed of a single homogeneous ethnic group (a community), but of a variety of individuals willing to live together (Ernest Renan)

• This requires common adherence to the laws, values and conventions.

• Being a citizen of a country is like joining a club. "If you want to join, follow the rules. If you do not accept them, you cannot be a member. If you want to play by other rules, then go elsewhere (Elie Barnavi).

• This can no longer be true, implying the supremacy of dominant culture: a culture into which “they” fit or don’t fit.

A now untenable view

• David Goodhart: “acts of sharing are more smoothly and generously negotiated if we can take for granted a limited set of common values and assumptions … but as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded … we cannot see reasons for sharing where we believe we have little in common, starting with the right to be in the same place”

Strategic options depend on circumstances (role, intention, power)

Our Way

Their Way

Dominance Synergy

Avoidance,Denial

Accommodation

Compromise

Strategic options (2)

Our Way

Their Way

Balance of power ours: Dominance

(what power?)

Joint satisfaction; learning, win win synergies

Balance of power theirs:

accommodation

Lose- lose: no adapting, denial

Learning

Image of Westernmilitary presence