INTERCULTURALCONSCIOUSNESANDTHECONSTRUCTIONOFCITIZENSHIP
MiltonJ.Bennett,Ph.D.
PresentationforCFC/FSEAConference,TheFormationofSustainableCitizenship
MonteCarasso,SwitzerlandFebruary5,2015
Theissueofcitizenshipforourtimeishowtoreconcileunityanddiversity.
By“unity,”Imeanthecommonalityofpurposethatallowsgroupstocompeteand
surviveintheirenvironments.By“diversity,”Imeanthevarietyofwaysthathuman
beingshavedevisedtoattainthatcommonalityofpurpose.Asinourpast,we
humanscontinuetoseekunityattheexpenseofdiversity,sincewecannoteasily
conceiveofhowcommonalityofpurposecouldbemaintainedindiverseways.
Underlyingourinabilitytoreconcileunityanddiversityistheethical
dilemmaofrelativism.Oneaspectofrelativismisthefactthatgroupsofhuman
beingsorganizethemselvesindifferentways–theyoperateindifferentcontexts.
Wecanrefertothosecontextsas“cultures”–thustheterm,“culturalrelativism”or
moregenerally,“diversity.”Aspartofmaintainingtheirunity,peopleinonecultural
contextmustagreeonsomegeneralideasofgoodness,andthoseideasmaydiffer
from“goodness”inadifferentculturalcontext.Wecanrefertothataspectof
culturalrelativismas“moralrelativism.”
Theproblemisthatmanypeoplewanttorespect(oratleasttolerate)
culturalrelativism,buttheyalsowanttorejectmoralrelativism.Inotherwords,
theywanttoaccepttherelativistideathathumanshaveviablealternativewaysof
survivingandthrivingintheirenvironments,buttheydonotwanttoacceptthe
concomitantideathathumansmighthaveviablealternativeideasoftruthand
goodness.Thisuneasydichotomycanbemaintainedfromafar,butitdeteriorates
quicklywhenabsolutistideasoftruthandgoodnessareimposedinmulticultural
societiesandpropagatethroughtheinterconnectedglobalvillage.
Atroot,thatisthethemeofthispresentation:howcanweconstructanidea
1
ofcitizenshipthatreconcilesdiversityanditsmoralambiguitywithunityandthe
moralcommitmentnecessarytomaintaincommonpurpose?Ofcourse,acomplete
answertothisquestionwouldconstituteagrandphilosophyofgovernment.So,
moremodestly,Iwillsuggestsomewaysthatconstructivistinterculturaltheoryand
practicemightcontributetothereconciliation.
InterculturalConsciousness
IamhererepresentingtheInterculturalDevelopmentResearchInstitute,a
nonprofitorganizationincorporatedintheUSAandinItalythatsupportsthe
constructivistschoolofinterculturalism.Anexplicationofcurrentconstructivist
interculturaltheoryandpracticeandsomeoftheoriginalfoundationalarticlesof
theschoolcanbefoundinmynewlyrevisedtext,BasicConceptsofIntercultural
Communication:Paradigms,Principles,&Practices.ItisavailableinEnglishfrom
InterculturalPressandinItalian(PrincipidiCommunicazioneInterculturale:
ParadigmiePractiche)fromFrancoAngeliPress.
Theprimaryassumptionoftheconstructivistschoolisthat“culture”isnota
thing,butaprocess.Itisawayofobservinghowpeoplecommunicate–thatis,how
theycoordinatemeaningandactionamongthemselves.Becomingconsciousofthat
processallowsustoconstructwaysofbeingthataremoreintentionallyand
sustainablyadaptivetochangingenvironments.
Anotherimportantassumptionoftheschoolisthatchange(adaptation)is
developmental–itdependsonconstructinganunderlyingperceptualinfrastructure
toallowdifferentkindsofexperience.Thedevelopmentalapproachcontraststoa
moretransformationalviewinwhichworldviewscanchangequickly.Inthelatter
view,wemightgotoaneveningpresentationondiversityandhavea
transformationalexperience–thescaleswouldfallfromoureyesandsuddenlywe
wouldnotbeprejudicedanymoreandwewouldknowhowtolivetogetherin
harmoniousdiversity.Thesetransformationsusuallydon’thappeninasustainable
way.Rather,developmentalchangeisaprogressiveactivitywherewe,both
individuallyandcollectively,acquirethecompetencetolivedifferentlythanwe
havetraditionallylivedincommunities.Wecandothat;wehavedoneitbefore,and
2
wecandoitagain.Buttomakethischangeintentionallyandsustainably,weneedto
exerciseakindofconsciousness–aself-reflexiveconsciousnessthatallowsustobe
awareofcontextandbeabletomodifyit.
Interculturalconsciousnessisrootedinepistemology.Theepistemological
paradigmthatallowstheconstructionofamutuallyadaptivelivingconditionisnot
thesameonethatpeoplehavetraditionallyusedtogenerateunity.Peopleusedto
think(andstilldoinsomequarters)therewasasingletruth,thatone’sowngroup
hadit,andthatthereforeone’sowngroupwassuperiorandjustifiedindominating
othersinthenameofthetruth.Inthesepost-colonialand(moreorless)postimperialisticdays,mostpeoplebelievethatworlddominationinthenameofa
singletruthisunsustainableandunethical.Yetthealternativeisnotasimplematter
ofsaying,“Well,youhaveyourtruth,Ihavemine,whatever…”Thatwouldbe
diversitywithoutunity.Infact,weneedtocoordinateourselvestosurvive.Sothe
questionis,“howdowecoordinateourselvesinnon-absolutistways–waysthat
preservediversitybutalsogeneratecommonpurpose?”
Theprinciplesofinterculturalcommunicationthatcouldaddresssucha
questionhavebeendevelopingsincethemid-1950s,bothinEuropeandinthe
UnitedStates,andalsointerestinglyinsomeplacesinAsiaincludingJapan.The
termitself,“interculturalcommunication,”wascoinedbytheanthropologist
EdwardT.HallinhisseminalbookTheSilentLanguage.Hallandalinguistnamed
GeorgeTragerdevisedapracticalstrategyforidentifyingrelevantcultural
differencesandimprovingcommunicationincross-culturalsituations.Thatstrategy
didnothavemuchtodowiththerecipesofdo’sanddon’tsorthesimplistic
comparisonofnationalgroupsthataresometimesencounteredinso-called
interculturalcommunicationtraining.Rather,theimplicationoftheirworkwasthat
culturalcontextscouldbebridgedbyintentionallyexpandingpeople’srepertoireof
culturalbehaviortoincludethatofalternativecontexts.Thisallowedpeopleto
experiencesituationsindifferentways,andthustogeneratedifferentappropriate
behavior.Thegoalofthiskindofinterculturaldevelopmentwasnotjustmore
competentcommunication,butpeoplewhoweregenerallymorecompetentin
livinginrelativisticmulticulturalsituations.
3
Theseideasareobviouslybecomingmoreandmorerelevantaswelookat
currentaffairs.Itisnotthattheywereirrelevantbefore,butithascometoour
attentionthatwhatwearedoinginthenameofuniversalvaluesandtoleranceis
insufficientforaddressingtheissuesoflivinginmulticulturalsocieties.Thelesson
fromEdwardT.Hallisthatinterculturalconsciousnesscanbeapproachedasa
practicalcommunicationissue–somethingthatconcernsmedicalpractitionerswith
multiculturalpatients,socialoperatorsworkingwithmigrantandrefugee
populations,employeesinmulticulturalworkforces,studentsininternational
universities…inotherwords,allofus.Interculturalconsciousnessshouldbea
centralgoaloflifelongeducation.
ButaswesayintheUS,“don’tputthecartbeforethehorse.”Thecartisthe
application,thehorseistheepistemology;practicalapplicationsshouldalways
followawayofthinking,nottheotherwayaround.Toooftenwegetthosereversed
andwesay“Justtelluswhattodo,giveusapracticaltoolthatwecanuse,some
recipe,andwe’llthinkaboutitlater.”Recipesforcross-culturalbehaviordonot
work,unlesstheyderivefromafeelingfortheappropriatenessoftheactivity;that
is,fromanexperienceofthealternativereality.ThatwasHall’spoint,buthemay
haveunderestimatedtheprerequisiteneedforinterculturalconsciousness.Lacking
self-reflexiveconsciousness,practicalapplicationstendtobe,atbest,incoherent.
Eveniftheyarereasonablyeffectiveinalimitedcontext,wecanmakethemmore
effectivebyorganizingourepistemologicalpositionscoherentlywiththepractical
application.
Citizenship
Letmesayawordaboutcitizenship.Citizenshipistypicallydefinedas
membershipinsomekindofpoliticalentity;recently,ofcourse,theentitiesof
nationsandstates.Mostpeopleagreethatcitizenshipinvolvesrightsand
responsibilities.However,therearetensionshereinSwitzerlandnotably,but
elsewhereaswell,betweennationalityinthesenseofresidencyinanation,and
citizenship,inthesenseofenjoyingtheprivilegesofmembershipsuchasvotingand
otherformsofparticipation.Doesone,byvirtueofresidinginanation,takeonthe
4
responsibilitiesbutnotnecessarilytheprivilegesofmembershipofthat
organization,unlessoneisacitizen,inwhichcasecitizenshipbecomesakindofa
perk–aconditionofrelativeelitism?Anotherissueisthenotionofmultiple
membershipingroups,suchasdualnationalcitizenship,ormultiplelevelsof
citizenship,forinstanceofastate,ofacanton,ofanation,ofacommonwealthora
union.Dualormultiplecitizenshipisparticularlytroublesomewhenpolitical
entitiesofwhichoneisacitizenareinoppositiontooneanother,suchaswhen
nationsareatwarorastateisrebellingagainstafederalgovernment.Whenwe
thinkofourselvesashavingthesemultiplelayersofgroupmembership
simultaneously,weneedsomenewwaysoftalkingaboutcitizenship.
Mysuggestionfromtheconstructivistperspectiveisthatwethinkof
citizenshipasakindofbelongingness,ratherthanasaconditionthatwehaveor
don’thave.By“de-reifying”theconceptofcitizenship,wecanmoreeasilyconceive
ofsimultaneouslymaintainingdifferentkindsofmembershipindifferentkindsof
groups,andthatthemembershipscanbeaccompaniedbydifferentfeelingsof
belongingness.Wecanthinkofmembershipinbothindividualisticandcollectivist
ways.IndividualmembershipmeansthatIfeelaffiliatedwiththegroup:Ifeel
American,orIfeelItalian,orIdonotfeelItalian,IfeelMilanese,orIdonotfeel
Swiss,IfeelItalian-Swiss.Thegroupsyouaffiliatewithbecomepartofyourcultural
identity.Also,inacollectivistsense,youareascribedtomembershipingroups.So,
whetherornotIfeelAmerican,IamascribedtobeanAmerican.Theascriptionmay
bebasedoncitizenship(passportidentity),orlong-termresidence,cultural
heritage,orsomecombinationofthosethings.SowhetherornotIaffiliatewitha
groupisnottheonlyissue–itisalsowhetherIamascribedmembershipinthe
group.Theascriptionofmembershipmayseriouslyadvantageordisadvantageme,
sothepersonalstakesarehighintryingtonegotiatethiskindofidentity.
PoliticalentitiessuchastheEuropeanUnionortheUnitedStatesalsohavea
highstakeinenablingmultiplefeelingsofbelongingnessalongwithmultiple
citizenship.TheadditionofaFederallevelofcitizenshiptothestatelevelis
relativelyrecentintheUS,andexpressionsofdistrustbycitizensofstatestoward
“thefederalgovernment”arestillcommon.Inthetermsbeingusedhere,someof
5
theUSAmericanswhoareattributedmembershipinthefederalentitybyvirtueof
theircitizenshipinfactdonotfeelaffiliatedwithit–theiraffiliationisonlyforthe
smallerentityofstateorlocalgovernance.Thediscrepancyismorepronouncedin
theEU,wherethelonghistoryofindividualnation-statesimpedesaffiliationwith
thelargerregionalentity.Inbothcases,thelargerentitiescouldbenefitfrom
stressingthataffiliationwiththemdoesnotconflictwithmorelocalaffiliation.
Switzerland,withitsrelativelyweakfederalstructureandstronglocalstructures
maybeonemodelofhowmultipleaffiliationscanbemaintained.
InterculturallyConsciousCitizenship
Byvirtueoflivinginincreasinglymulticulturalsocietiesandanincreasingly
connectedglobe,weareinevitablymembersofmulticulturalgroups.Weareall
“globalcitizens”inthesensethatourmembershipisattributedtothosegroups,
whetherwelikeitornot.Wouldtherebeanadvantageinalsofeelingaffiliatedwith
suchgroups?Toanswerthatquestion,wecanlookatwhatweknowabout
membershipinmulticulturalgroups.Infactweknowquiteabitaboutwhatit
meanstobeamemberofamulticulturalgroup,andhowthatmulticulturalgroup
doesordoesnotworkwellundervariousconditions.Mostofthisresearchisbased
onmulticulturalgroupsinorganizations,butasfarasIcansee,itgeneralizesrather
welltolargersocieties.Hereisadescriptionofthisresearch,basedona
compendiumreportedinNancyAdler’sfinebook,InternationalDimensionsof
OrganizationalBehavior(4thEdition).
Amonoculturalteamofpeoplewhoarelargelysimilartooneanotherare
givenataskdemandingcreativity–perhapsataskinwhichtheyhavetocomeup
withanumberofdifferentkindsofsolutionstoaproblem–andtheirperformance
isdefinedasaverage.Thenthegroupsaremademulticulturalbyaddingdiversityin
variousformssuchasagedifference,genderdifference,differentnationalities,
differentregions,etc.andgiventhemthesametaskdemandingcreativity.The
multiculturalgroupseitheroutperformorunderperformthemonoculturalgroups.
Thatis,themulticulturalgroupsareeitherbetteratcomingupwithmultiple
solutions,ortheyareworsethanthemonoculturalgroups.Thisisanimportant
6
finding,particularlyasitmightapplyinalargercontext.Weusuallyhearaboutthe
betterpart:thevalueofdiversity,thevalueoflivinginmulticulturalsocieties,and
thegreaterproductivityofmulticulturalsocieties.Butthisresearchshowsthat
oftenitgoestheotherdirection–multiculturalgroupsaremoretroublesomeand
lessproductive.So,thosepeoplewhocomplainthatmulticulturalsocietiesareless
effectivethanmonoculturalsocietiesarealsocorrect,atleastsometimes.
Oneresponsetothisresearchcouldlegitimatelybe,“sendalltheimmigrants
homeandallowustoreturntoamoremonoculturalcondition–average
performanceisbetterthattakingachanceondecreasedperformance.”However,
thisignorestheobservationmadebyMarshallMcLuhanwhenhecoinedtheterm
globalvillage.Fromhisperspectiveinthe1960s,heobservedthatduetoincreased
communication,transportation,andinternationaltrade,wewouldnolongerbe
livingintraditionalenclavesofsimilarity.Instead,ourneighbors–thatis,the
peoplewithwhomwehavedailycontact–wouldbeculturallydifferent.Weare
nowdefinitelyandirrevocablylivinginthatglobalvillage.Whetherwelikeitornot,
wearemembersofamulticulturalteam.Thequestionisnotwhetherthat’sagood
thingornot–itishowtoadaptandthriveinthatcondition.
Abetterresponsetothemulticulturalteamresearchwouldbetolookforthe
factorsthatmadethemulticulturalteamsmoreproductive,withtheideathatthose
factorscouldbedeployedmoregenerallyinmulticulturalsocieties.Intheresearch,
thecrucialfactorwasleadership.Iftheleaderofthemulticulturalgrouprecognized
andsupportedculturaldifference,itappearsthatculturaldifferencebecamean
assettoperformance.If,ontheotherhand,theleaderofamulticulturalgroup
ignoredorsuppressedtheculturaldifferences,theydidn’tgoaway–theybecame
obstaclestoperformance.Inotherwords,thekeytomakingamulticulturalgroup
superiortoamonoculturalgroupwasrecognizingthepotentialvalueofthecultural
differencesandestablishingtheconditionsfortheirdeploymentinthetask.
Itisimportanttonoteinthisresearchthataccesstoculturaldifferencewas
notasufficientconditionforthegrouptobesuccessful.Boththelesssuccessfuland
themoresuccessfulmulticulturalgroupshadequalaccesstodiversity.AsRosabeth
MossKanter,aHarvardBusinessSchoolprofessorsaidinherbookWorldClass,
7
everyorganizationinthe21stcenturywillhaveaccesstoculturaldiversity;onlythe
organizationsthatcanturnaccesstodiversityintoanassetwillbenefitfromit.Writ
large,thismeansthatdiversityitselfisinsufficienttocreatevalue:mandatedgender
diversityoncorporateboards,affirmativehiringpractices,oralargerimmigrant
populationarenotintrinsicallyvaluabletoasociety.However,thoseconditionsdo
creategreateraccesstodiversity.Thetrickistoturnthataccessintoanasset.
Returningtotheresearch,howdidtheleaderseitherencourageor
discourageproductivityintheirmulticulturalgroups?Basedonmyown
professionalexperiencewithmulticulturalgroupsoverseveraldecades,Icanmake
thefollowingobservations.Whenleaderssupportculturaldifference,theymakeit
safetotalkaboutthosedifferencesasassets–theycreateaclimateofrespectfor
diversity.Inthatclimate,membersofthegrouparemorelikelytofeeltheyare
equalmembersofthegroup,toacquirethecommunicativecompetencesnecessary
tonegotiateconflict,andtofocusdiversityontothetask.Whenleadersignoreor
suppressculturaldifference,frequentlyinthenameofthecommoncorporate
culture,theymakeitunsafetotalkaboutdifferencesatall–theycreateaclimateof
fear.Membersofsuchgroupsaremorelikelytoengagein“groupthink,”towithhold
theirresources,and/ortofightabouttheonerightwaytoapproachthetask.Inthe
termsIintroducedearlier,thesuccessfulleaderswereoneswhofounda
reconciliationofunityanddiversity--theymaintainedgroupcohesionand
opennesstodifferencesimultaneously.Theunsuccessfulleadersveeredtoomuch
intounitybystressingconformitytoasinglecultureorintodiversitybyfocusingon
politicalcorrectness.
Byextensioninlargersocieties,leaderswhocallforgroupunity–weareall
Swiss,weareallItalians,weareallFrench,weareallCharlie–maybeimpedingthe
reconciliation.Bysayingthatweallareorshouldbeunifiedbysomevaluesuchas
fraternity,orfreedom,orallegiancetoasingleleader,oraparticularphilosophy,
thoseleaderssuppressdifferencesinvaluesthatarealsorepresentedinthegroups.
Thosedifferentvaluesprobablywon’tgoaway–theyjustgoundergroundand
impedetheeffectivenessofthegroup,sometimesbygeneratingorganized
resistance.Thiscontinuestobetrueevenifleaderssimultaneouslycallfor
8
“tolerance”oftheoffendingvalues.Toleranceimplies,“itwouldbebetterifyou
werelikeme,butifyouinsistonbeingdifferent,Iwon’timmediatelytrytodestroy
you.”So,thequestion,ifweacceptthatwearelivinginmulticulturalsocietiesand
thatweneedtofigureouthowtodothatmorecompetently,ishowtorecognize,
acknowledge,andrespecttheculturaldifferencesthatarepartofthesociety.The
competentgloballeaderisonewhocanembracethedichotomyofunityand
diversityandreconcileitintoaworkingdialectic.
Oneofthekeyissuesofcitizenshipinmulticulturalgroupsisthethorny
questionofwhoadaptstowhom.Thetraditionalanswerhasbeen“WheninRome
doasRomansdo.”AsMcLuhanmightsay,“noweverywhereisRome”–intheglobal
villageitisunclearwhothe“Romans”are.Aretheythemajority?Thedominant
groupwhomaketherules?Thepeoplewho’vebeenaroundthelongest?Thepeople
who’vebeenmostsuccessful?Thepeoplewhoexercisethemostimmediatepower?
Thequestiondemandsconsiderationfarbeyondsimplebehavioralchecklistsor
equationsofculturedifferencethatpopulatesuperficialinterculturaltraining.The
deeperissueishowwecanlivetogetherwithdifferentandpossiblycompeting
values,andstillmaintaincoordinationofmeaningandactionthatallowsourgroup
tosurviveandthrive.Thequestioncannotbe,“whosevalueswillprevail?”Weare
nowtoointerconnectedacrossdifferentvaluesystemstoindulgeinthatexercisein
ethnocentrism.Thequestionnowmustbe,“howcanweincorporatevalue
differencesintothefabricofoursocieties.?
Andtheanswerbasedontheresearchdiscussedaboveseemsisthatitneeds
tobeamutualprocess.ThemereexistenceofpeopleofcultureAandpeopleof
cultureBinanorganizationdoesnotrepresentanyparticularvaluetothat
organization;itgivestheorganizationaccesstotheculturaldifference,butitdoes
notmakeitanasset.WhatdoesmakesitanassetiswhenAattemptstoadapttothe
societyincludingB,andBattemptstoadapttothesocietyincludingA,which
generatesaconditionthatwecancallthirdculture.Thirdcultureisavirtual
condition–itcomesintoexistencewhenAandBaretryingtoadapttooneanother,
anditgoesoutofexistencewhenAandBarenottryingtoadapttooneanother.A
societyoranorganizationdoesnotitselfbecomeathirdculture;rather,the
9
organizationbecomesmorecompetentinsupportingthirdculturepositionsthat
flickerinandoutofexistence.Anditisfromthesethirdculturethatthevaluecomes
totheorganization;thevaluedoesnotcomefromAandBbeingaround,itcomes
fromAandBattemptingtoadapttoeachotherandtheorganizationalcontext.
Thereareseveralprofoundimplicationsofthirdculture.Oneisthat
diversityeffortsthatfocusontherecruitmentofunderrepresentedpeopleinto
organizationsarenotinherentlyvaluable.Sucheffortsneedtobeaccompaniedby
mechanismsthatallowthediverseviewscarriedbypeoplewithdifferent
worldviewstointeractwithoneanotherinrespectfulways.Onasocietallevel,
culturaldiversitydrivenbyimmigrantorrefugeemobilityislikelytobe
troublesomeunlessitbecomespartofamutualadaptationinthesociety;thatis,
newcomersadapttothehostculture,butthehostcultureequallyadaptstothe
newcomers.Inbothcases,theestablishmentaclimateofrespectfordiversity
generatestheconditionsformutualadaptation,andtheresultingthird-culture
solutionsaddvaluetotheactivityofthegroup.
DevelopingInterculturalConsciousness
Thenextpartofthispresentationsuggestsadevelopmentalprocessthat
movestowardsustainablemutualadaptation.ItistheDevelopmentalModelof
InterculturalSensitivity,sometimescalledtheBennettScale,butabbreviatedas
DMIS.ThemodelisbasedonPiagetandotherdevelopmentalistswhosuggestthat
buildingunderlyingperceptualscaffoldingwillallowustoperceiveandexperience
particularsituationsinmorecomplexways.Anexampleofthisisbecomingawine
connoisseur.Onestartswithavaguerecognitionthatthereissomethinglikewine.I
haveaneight-year-oldkid,andheknowsthatthereissuchathingaswine,buthe
thinksitisyucky.Heknowsoftheexistenceofthesubstance,vaguely,buthedoes
nothaveanyabilitytorecognizethatthereistheredkind,andthereisthewhite
kind,andthereisthatkindinthemiddle.Butashegetsolder,ifhefollowsthelead
ofhisparents,hewillgetinterested,andnotonlyinthatthereisawhitekindanda
redkind,butthattherearedifferentkindsofwhitekinds,andthatthereare
differentkindsofredkinds,andthattherearedifferentgrapes,andthattheygrow
10
indifferentplaces,andthesamegrapethatgrowsinthelowhillsofPiemonte
becomesstressedwhenitgrowsonthesteepslopesoftheAlpsandtastesdifferent.
Whatarewedoing?Wearebuildingaperceptualscaffoldingthatallowsusto
engageandexperiencesomethinginamoreinamorecomplexway,inthiscase
tastingwine.Exactlythesameideacanapplytothewaythatweengageand
experienceculturaldifferences.TheDMISmodelsthestagesthroughwhichwecan
moveindevelopingmoreperceptualsophisticationvisavisculturaldifference,
towardstheendofbecomingmorecompetentinsustainingmutualadaptation.
Briefly,themovementisfromEthnocentrismtoEthnorealtivism–fromthe
experienceofone’sowncultureas“centraltoreality”toexperiencingone’sown
cultureasoneofmanyviablewaysofcoordinatingexperienceintheworld.The
stagesinEthnocentrismare:1)Denial–failingtoperceivetheexistenceorthe
relevanceofathingtoone’sowncontext,suchasnotseeinghowwinemightbe
relevanttoadiningexperience,orhowculturemightberelevanttocomputerchip
production;to2)Defense–perceivingtheexistenceofathing,butnegatively,such
asmysonthinkingthatwineisyucky,orinthecaseofculture,organizingone’s
experienceinapolarizedwaysuchthat“wearethegoodguysandtheyarethebad
guys”,butsometimesinReversalwherewearethebadguysandtheyarethegood
guys,forexampleasininternalizedcolonialismwherenondominantgroupsexalt
thesuperiorityofthedominantculture,orwhendominantculturepeopletakeon
thecauseofoppressedpeopleinapolarizedway;to3)Minimization–focusingon
sharedhumanexperienceanduniversalvalues,whereprejudiceisreducedand
toleranceincreasedbyemphasizingourcommonhumanityorassumedlyuniversal
values,asdefinedbyus.
Amainpointofthispresentationisthis:movingtotheendofEthnocentrism
notasustainablecondition;itisnecessarybutnotsufficienttorecognizethatweare
alljusthuman.Anditisbothunsustainableanddisrespectfulofdiversitytoassert
thatthereareuniversalvalues(religiousorsecular)thatjusthappentobeour
valuesbutthatwearesureapplytoeveryoneintheworld.Ofcourseweneedto
recognizeourcommonhumanityovercometheworstofracism,sexism,and
genocidalviolence.Butitisstillethnocentrictosay“Ah,we’resotolerant!Oh,look
11
atourcommonalities!Deepdowneverybodyisprettymuchlikeus,oratleastthey
wanttobe.”Theseideasaredeeplyirritatingtopeoplewhoareproudlydifferent
thanwhoeverismakingtheassertionofsimilarity.Inadditiontotheinstability
causedbythisirritation,Minimizationdoesnotwithstandthenextdemagoguewho
comesalong,orthenextterroristattackthatoccurs,inwhichcasewefallbackto
Defenseandsay“Well,exceptforthosepeople,they’reanimals,weshouldkill
them!”AndthenweslowlycycleourwaybacktoMinimization,andsomebodywins
theNobelpeaceprizeforsaying,onceagain,“Lookatourcommonalities;lookat
howwearealljustbasicallyhuman.”AsfarasIknow,noonehaswonthepeace
prizeforassertingthatpeoplearereallyprofoundlydifferentfromoneanotherin
theirexperienceoftheworld,andthatthedifferenceisanecessaryandgoodthing.
Weneedtomoveon.Andmovingon,intermsofthismodelanyway,is
movingintoEthnorelativism.Thefirstofthesemoreinterculturallyconscious
stagesistheAcceptanceofculturaldifference.Acceptancedoesnotmeanagreement
withwhateverthedifferenceis–itjustmeansacceptingthatthereismorethanone
viablewayofbeingintheworld.Atbase,Acceptancemeansattributingequal
humancomplexity(notjustsimilarity)topeopleofdifferentculturalgroups.Thisis
notanobviousortrivialthingtodo,becauseitdemandsthatweconsciously
overcomemostofourspecieshistory.Upuntilfairlyrecently,andevennowtoa
largedegree,welivedingroupsthattriedtoavoidcontactwithgroupsthatwere
different.Ifwecouldn’tavoidthecontact,wetriedtoconvert(assimilate)theminto
ourgroup,sotheywouldn’tbesodifferent.Ifthatprovedinconvenient,wekilled
them.Howfarawayfromthishistoryarewe?
Theprevailingnotionofcivilizationattheturnofthelastcenturywasakind
ofpyramidalstructure.Civilizedpeopleatthetopofthepyramidbelongedthere
becauseoftheirinherentsuperiorityorevolutionarydevelopment(culturally,
socially,physically,etc.).Belowthemwerethebarbarianswho,iftheycouldbe
convertedtocivilization(throughcolonization,forinstance),hadachanceofbeing
fullyhuman.Butthenextleveldownconsistedofsavages,whowereintractablyless
thanhumanandwhothereforecouldbeexploited,enslaved,and,ifnecessary,
killed.Inanattempttocounteractthisideaof“socialDarwinism,”the
12
anthropologistFranzBoasandhisfamousstudentsRuthBenedictandMargaret
Meadconstructedtheideaofculturalrelativism.Inthatview,nobodyismore
primitivethananybodyelse;weareallequallycivilized,butindifferentcontexts.
Therearenotmoreprimitiveormorecivilizedpeople;Picasso’spaintingisnota
higherformofartthanNativeAmericanHopisandpainting;Beethoven’s
symphoniesarenotahigherformofmusicthanPeruvianflutemusic.Thesearejust
differentmanifestationsofequallycomplexworldviews,accordingtotheprecepts
ofculturalrelativity.TomovebeyondMinimizationandtheendofEthnocentrism,
weneedtoacceptculturalrelativism.Overacenturyhasnowelapsed,andwe
shouldbeatleastfamiliarwiththeseideas.Yettheykeepeludingus–wekeep
fallingbackintotheideathatsomepeoplearereallynotascivilized(andby
implication,notashuman)asweare.Iamnotsayingusmorethananybodyelse.
Cuttingpeople’sheadsoffontelevisionisprettyeasytoattributetoinhumanity,but
soisanonymousandindiscriminateaerialbombing.Noneofuscanmakeoracton
theallegationofinferiorhumanity,andsurvive.
ThemovetoAcceptanceandgreaterinterculturalconsciousnessisfraught
withethicalambiguity.Partofwhatwearedoingbyacceptingtheequalhumanity
ofothersistoacceptthatfundamentalistreligiousgroupswhochopofftheheadsof
unbelieversareequallyhumantothoseofuswhofindthatbehaviorreprehensible.
AsIsaidbefore,acceptanceofequalhumanityisnotagreementwithreprehensible
behavior,butneitherisitademandforpassivityandinaction.Infact,wemustactin
theworld;failuretoactisstillaconsequentialaction.Sohowcanweactintheface
ofreprehensiblebehavior?Howdowe(all)dosoinawaythatisrespectfulofthe
equalhumanityoftheother,withoutimposingourvaluesinthenameofsuperior
civilization?Onlyrecentlyhaveinstitutionscomeintobeingwhoseprimary
purposeistofacilitaterespectfulbutalsodecisiveinternationalandintercultural
action,suchastheUnitedNations,theEuropeanUnion,theInternationalCourtof
JusticeortheInternationalCriminalCourt.Theseandotherconsensesofnations
andpeoplescreatenotionslikehumanrightsandwarcrimesandsay“thisispretty
muchthewaythingsshouldbeaccordingtoawiderangeofpeople,andwhilewe
respectyourhumanity,weneverthelesscollectivelyinsistthatyoudon’tdocertain
13
things,andherearetheconsequencesifyoudo.”Itisnotaquestionofchoosingto
makethingshappenornot;thingsaregoingtohappenanyway,perpetratedinthe
nameofsomething.Thequestionis:howcanpeoplecollectivelymakethings
happenthatservethecollectiveinterestoflivingintheglobalenvironmentwehave
created?Itisunlikelythiswillhappenautomatically,sinceitdemandsofusalevel
ofconsciousnessandintentionthatweasaspecieshavenotheretoforeexercised
veryconsistently.
BuildingonAcceptance,thenextstageofdevelopmentisAdaptation–the
abilitytogenerateappropriate,authenticbehaviorindifferentculturalcontexts.
Suchbehaviordoesnotresultfromfollowinglistsofdo’sanddon’tsorfromcrossculturalskillstraining.Authenticbehaviorisalwaysbasedonthefeelingofthe
situation–a“senseofappropriateness”ofparticularbehaviorinparticularcontexts.
Thisishowweknowhowtoactinourownculture–notfromalistofcorrect
behaviors(exceptmaybeetiquette),butfromanunconsciouscompetencebasedon
ourculturalexperience.Whenthegoalistogenerateauthentic,appropriate
behaviorinadifferentculturalcontext,weneedfirsttoseektomoveourexperience
intothatculturalcontext.Weneedtoaskquestionssuchas,“Whatdopeoplepay
attentiontointhatculture?Whatstatuspeoplehave,orwhatthey’veaccomplished?
Whatpeoplesay,orhowpeopleact?”Theseandamyriadofsimilarquestionscan
allowustoshiftourperceptionintocategoriesthataremorelikethoseoftheother
culture,andinsodoing,toshiftourexperienceintothatcontext.Then,andonly
then,canweauthenticallygenerateappropriatebehavior.
Wealreadyknowhowtoshiftourexperience,sincewedoiteverytimewe
readanovelorwatchamovie.Weallowourperceptiontobeguidedintodifferent
contexts,andwethenhavedifferentexperiences.Thisiscalledaestheticempathy
anditisthebasisofourjoyinengagingart.Wealsoknowhowtogenerate
alternativebehavior.Forinstance,whenyoutalktoyourgrandmother,Iimagine
youdosodifferentlythanyoudotoyourparentsoryourspouse.Ifyoudonot,you
probablyhaveacompulsivedisorder.So,youaretalkingdifferentlytoyour
grandmother;doesthatmeanyouarebeingauthenticwithherandnotauthentic
withyourparentsorwithyourpartner?Probablynot,probablyyouarebeing
14
completelyauthenticwithher,butalsoauthenticwithyourpartner.Wecandothat
becausewenormallyhavearepertoireofbehaviorthatallowsustobehave
differentlyindifferentsituationswithinourownculture.Wearesimplyextending
theconcepttoincludealternativeculturalbehavior,muchasabi-ormulticultural
personisabletoshiftbetweentwoormorealternativesetsofauthenticbehavior.
Byapplyinginterculturalconsciousness,wecanchoosetoexpandour
repertoireofculturalbehaviorandthustobehaveadaptivelyinadifferentcultural
context.Ifthisisaone-wayprocess,itmightmakeusmoreeffectiveinthatcontext.
However,ifitisatwo-wayprocess,ifitismutualadaptation,theprocessgenerates
thevirtualthirdculturesthataddvaluetoorganizationsandsocieties.Atfirst,this
processofmutualadaptationisnecessarilyconscious–itisnotwhatwedo
automatically,anditneedstobeactivelychosenandfacilitated.Howevereventually
webecomeunconsciouslycompetentatmakingtheculturalshifts,andthe
interculturallyappropriatebehaviorhappensautomatically.Ineffect,itbecomes
partofouridentity,eitherpersonallyororganizationally.ThisiswhatIcall
Integration–thesustainableconditionofincludingculturalcontextintodecision
makingandbeingabletoactethicallyacrossculturalcontexts.
EmpathyandContextualEthicalCommitment
Iwillconcludemyremarkstodaywithsomecommentsofdeveloping
interculturalempathyandethicality.YearsagoIwroteanarticlecalled“Overcoming
theGoldenRule”thatwaswidelydisseminated(bypre-internetstandards).The
goldenruleis,asyourecall,“doontootherswhatyouwouldhavedoneontoyou”,or
“treatotherpeoplethewayyouwouldliketobetreated”.Right?Soundsgood!
Somethinglikethegoldenruleisinmostmajorreligions.Butinmodern
multiculturaltimes,weneedtoask,“Whywouldotherpeoplewanttobetreatedthe
wayyouwanttobetreated?”Leaveasidethatyoudonotwanttobekilledsoyou
shouldn’tkillotherpeople…ok,goodidea!Butbeyondthat,tomakethegoldenrule
workweneedtoassumethatotherpeoplearebasicallylikeus–itistheassumption
ofsimilaritythatwemetinMinimization.
15
Thegoldenruleencouragesustotrytounderstandotherpeople
sympathetically,bywhichImeanattemptingtounderstandanotherpersonby
puttingyourselfintheirposition–“howI’dfeelifIwereinyourshoes.”For
instance,ifIwanttounderstandhowyouarefeelingaboutthistalksofar,Icould
imaginativelyputmyselfinyourposition,seatmyselfinyourchair,lookbackat
myselfandexclaim“Brilliant!Fantastic!Whatagreatpresentation!Iloveevery
word.”WhoamIfindingoutaboutwhenIputmyselfinthisposition?Notyou;Iam
findingoutaboutme(inanidealizedself-confidentcondition!).AndwhydoIthink
thatfindingoutaboutmeistellingmeanythingaboutyou?BecauseIammakingthe
assumptionofsimilarity:IamassumingthatyouandIaresufficientlysimilartoone
anotherthatIcanassumethatifIputmyselfinyourposition,thenIwould
understandhowyoufeel.
Ofcourse,thereasonthegoldenruleissopopularisthatitoftenworks–
particularlywithyourfriends.Andwhydoesitworkwithyourfriends?Becauseyou
choseyourfriendstobelikeyou.Thisisconsistentwithattractionstudiesin
psychology,wherestudyafterstudyshowsthatifyouattributetencharacteristics
toyourself,andthosetencharacteristicsaregiventotenfictionalpeople,oneof
whomhasallofthesametencharacteristics,anotherhasnine,oneeight,seven,six,
…downtozerocharacteristicsincommonwithyou,andyouwouldhavethento
rankorderofthosepeopleintermsofwhoyouwanttospendtimewith,howdo
yousupposeitgoes?Ten,nine,eight,seven,six,…weareattractedtosimilarity,
except–interestingly–forthepeoplewemarry.Therethestudiesshowthatwe
tendtoselectfordifferenceratherthansimilarity.Sothegoldenruleworkswith
yourfriends,becausetheyaresimilartoyou.Italsoworksasanalternativeto
bigotryandprejudice:youdonotwantsomebodytobeabigotagainstyouandsoit
worksprettywelltosay“well,don’tbebigotedagainstotherpeople.”Thegolden
rulefails,however,inmarriageandatwork.Why?Becauseyoudidnotchosethe
personyouaremarriedtoonthebasisofsimilarity,andgenerallyspeaking,youdo
notchoosethepeopleyouworkwith.Infact,ifyouareinthepositionofhiring
workersandyouchooseonlysimilarpeople,youmayrunafouloflegalsanctions!In
DMISterms,thegoldenruleisaMinimizationstrategy.ItworkstoreduceDefense,
16
anditworksinactuallyhomogeneoussituations.Whenitisusedoutsideofthese
purposes,thegoldenrulecreatesoratleasthelpstomaintaintheunsustainable
conditionofMinimization.
Insituationsofdifference,andforthepurposeofincreasingintercultural
consciousness,thegoldenrulefails.WhathappenswhenItreatyouthewayI’dlike
tobetreatedandyoudon’trespondthewayI’drespond?DoIrealizemymistakein
assumingsimilarityandtryadifferentstrategy?Probablynot.Iammorelikelyto
thinkthatthereissomethingwrongwithyou.Iemploytheleadrule:dountoothers
astheydeservetohavedonetothem–treatotherpeoplethewaytheydeserveto
betreated.HowyoudeservetobetreateddependsontheexplanationIhavefor
whyyoudon’trespondwelltothegoldenrule.IfIthinkthatyouareunawareofthe
rule,Imayseektoeducateyou–toexplainhowmypreferredbehavioristhebest
oneforyou.Ifyourefusetobeeducatedinthisway,Imayshifttotheexplanation
thatthereissomethingwrongwithyou–youmusthavesomekindofmental
problem.ThenIcantherapizeyou;typicallythatmeansthatIcanexercisepatience
andsaythingslike“there,there,you’llgetoverit,eventuallyyou’llseethelight,
etc.…”.Andiftheydonotgetoverit,thenIcanassumethatyouareengagedinbad
behaviorwithamalevolentintent,andIcanpunishyouinsomeway.
Whatwe’dliketodoinsteadisshifttotheplatinumrule.Theplatinumrule
is:doontoothersastheywouldhavedoneontothem;oratleastbeawareofhow
peoplewouldliketobetreated,andbepreparedtoexplainwhyyouarenotdoingit.
So,ifpeoplesaythattheyliketodressinaparticularwaythatshowstheir
commitmenttoareligiousprinciple,buttheyaretryingtooperateinasocietythat
hasdecidedtohavepublicspacesinwhichthatdressisnotallowed…OK.All
societiesoperatebythemajorityorsomeotherdominantgroupofpeopledeciding
whatisacceptableandwhatisnotacceptable.Eitherformallyorinformally,such
ruleswillbeimposedoneveryoneinthesociety.Thequestionis:howcanthatbe
donerespectfullyinthefaceofdisagreement?Inotherwords:howcanoneavoid
applyingtheleadrule–“youstupidpeopledon’tunderstandhowimportantthisis!”
–infavorofusingtheplatinumrule–“Irecognizehowthisisanimportantthingto
you,andhereishowwe–together–cantrytocomeupwithasolutionforthis,that
17
isrespectfultoyouandyourcustom,butneverthelessoperateswithinthissocial
context.”Theplatinumruleisbasedontheideathatpeoplearedifferentandthat
differenceisgood,butrecognizesthatactionmuststillbecoordinatedinsomeway.
Inotherwords,itseekstoreconcileunityanddiversity.
Thestrategyforunderstandingothersassociatedwiththeplatinumruleis
empathy.EmpathydemandsthatItrytotakeanotherperson’sperspective,notthat
Imerelyputmyselfinhisorherposition.Andthatisanotherwholestory,because
whenItrytotakeanother’sperspective,Icannotunconsciouslyprojectmyown
experienceontotheevent.Ihavetoconsciouslytrytounderstandhowtheotheris
potentiallydifferentfromme.Inotherwords,Ineedtoattributeequalcomplexityto
theother,andgothroughthetroubleoftryingtounderstandhowherorshemight
beperceivingandexperiencingthesituationdifferentlyfromme.
Obviously,whenwesaywewanttoappreciateculturaldifferenceand
engageinmutualadaptation,weneedtouseempathyandtheplatinumrule.But
returningtotheearlierdiscussionaboutAcceptanceandaction,howdoweemploy
empathywheninevitableconflictrises?Howcanweactdefinitivelyinwaysthatare
respectfulofdifferingviews?Inconflictualsituationsthatdemandaction,we
usuallyhavenotdevelopedanyalternativetotheimpositionofabsolutestandards,
eitherinsecularorsacredterms.Theabsolutestandardsmightbesecular
principlesthatareseenastheultimateofhumandevelopment,suchashuman
rightsorfreespeech,ortheymightbesacredvaluesthataretakentobeuniversal–
God’swordinoneformoranother.Whenstandardsareimposedintheseterms,
theyareinherentlydisrespectfulofthedifferenceinvolvedintheconflict.Yetthey
continuetobeinvokedbecausetoooftentheonlyalternativeisakindofextreme
relativisminwhichnodefinitiveactionispossible–“whatever.”Societiesand
organizationscannotrunonthebasisof“whatever.”Butiftheonlyalternativeto
whateveristheimpositionofuniversalvalues,societiesandorganizationswillbe
unabletoreconcileunityanddiversity.
WilliamPerry’smodelofcognitiveandethicaldevelopment,especiallywith
LeeKnefelkamp’sadditions,offersadirectiontowardsaddressingthisconundrum.
LiketheDMIS,thePerrySchemeisadevelopmentalsequence.Intheinitialstagesof
18
seekingtruth,thereisanabsoluterightandwrongthatisgivenbyanauthority,
frequentlyparents,orchurchfigures,orothers.Inthefaceofdifferingtruthssuchas
mightbeencounteredinhighereducation,peoplemaydevelopmultiplicity,whichis
thewhateverposition.Itisthepositionofhavinglostabsolutetruthbuthavingno
alternative.Aslongasweareseekingtruth,weoscillatebetweenabsolutismand
multiplicityinthesamewaythatwecyclebetweenDefenseandMinimization.To
breakoutoftheseoscillations,boththeDMISandthePerrySchemerequirean
epistemologicaldevelopment–aparadigmshiftthatallowsperceptiontobe
processedinadifferentway.Thatshiftisfromanabsolutistposition,througha
relativistposition,toaconstructivistposition.Intherelativistposition,whatthe
DMISlabelsasAcceptanceandKnefelkampcallsContextualRelativism,theassumed
goodnessofsomethingisnecessarilyseenincontext.Wemovetowardsthe
epistemologicalpositionthatvaluessuchasfreedomofexpressionaregoodin
context.Whilewemightthinkthosesecularideasaretheacmeofhuman
development,othersareconstructingtheideathatfollowingGod’swordistheacme
ofhumandevelopment.Wedonothavetosaywhichoneofthoseistrue,wejust
needtorecognizethattheyexistinacontextandareconsequentialtothepeoplein
thatcontext.
Perry’sstagesofCommitmentinRelativismaddressthequestionthatI’ve
posedthroughoutthistalk:howcanweactindefinitivewaysthatcoordinate
meaningandaction,thatsupportunityofpurposeinawaythatisrespectfulto
disagreementandthusincorporatesdifferenceintothedialecticofunityand
diversity?InDMISterms,weneedtoengageinmutualadaptationtocreatethird
cultures.Perryaddsthattodothat,weneedtocommitourselvestoanactioninthe
faceofviablealternatives.So,weencountermultipleopinions,weencounter
multipleperspectives,andweencounteranddevelopmultiplecommitmentsto
values.Inotherwords,weconstructawayofbeingintheworldthatrespectsthe
viablealternativeoftheother,andyetmovesforwardintoourcommitment.
Assumingitisamutualadaptation,othersarealsomovingtowardtheir
commitment,butwithequalrespectfortheviabilityofourcommitment.Theresult
19
isathirdculturethatideallyincorporatesvaluefrombothpositionsinasynergistic
way.
Althoughtheidealisthirdculture,andinmostcircumstancesthatisavery
achievablegoal,somecircumstancesmayprecludethemutualadaptationfrom
occurring.Usuallythishappenswhenonepartytoadisagreementthinkstheyare
absolutelyrightbasedonanabsolutetruth,andtheotherpartyisabsolutelywrong.
Inotherwords,oneside(ormaybebothsides)deniestheviabilityoftheother
position.Assumingthedisagreementisconsequential,judgmentsmustbemadeand
actiontaken.Butjudgmentsshouldbemadewiththerecognitionofcontextual
goodness.Religiouszealotswhoarechoppingofftheheadsofinfidelsthinktheyare
doingagoodthing.Why?Beforeaconsortiumofpeopleintheworldmounta
campaigntostopthezealotsfromdoingthat,weneedtounderstandwhypeople
believethatbeheadinginfidelsisgood…notwhytheactionisanevilthingbeing
donebyanimals,butwhyitisagoodthingbeingdonebyequallycomplexhuman
beings.Onceweunderstandthatwecanmakeacommitment.Inmyopinion,that
commitmentshouldbetostopanyformofgenocide,forciblyifnecessary.Butifwe
trytostoppeoplefromdoingsomethingbeforeweunderstandwhytheythinkitisa
goodthing,orifwedenytheirequalhumanity,thenweareengaginginthesame
kindofhegemonic,colonialist,imperialisticimpositionwehavealwaysengagedin;
weimposeourtruthbecausewehavethepowertodoso.Andthenwearebackto
thepyramidofcivilization.Thealternativeistoacknowledgetheviabilityofthe
other’sposition.Inthiscase,theworldhassurvivedunderreligiouszealotsforalot
longerthanithasbeenrunbypost-enlightenmentsecularists,soitisatleasta
historicallyviableposition.Butdoesthatmeanthatweshouldagreetotheworld
continuingtobethatway?No.Bybeingknowledgeableandrespectfulofthe
alternativecontextbeforewetrytochangeit,wehaveexercisedourresponsibility
tobeinterculturallyconscious.Thisistheroadtosustainableglobalcitizenship.
20