M. Bennett

With the best of intentions, we often travel through different countries, meet persons from different backgrounds and come away after brief encounters believing that people are basically alike.  Some call this the “One World” theory – the idea that language and other cultural differences are quite superficial and that basically people are the same.

But really, are we all alike?  We may differ not only in the languages we speak but how we answer such basic questions as the character of human nature, the relationship of humans to nature, the importance of time in human activity, the purpose of human activity and the nature of human relationships. While all cultures address these questions, they don’t all answer them the same way.

As we grow up in our own cultures, we view the way we do things as right, natural, and possibly the only way to respond. This is the basis of what is called ethnocentrism – the tendency to view our own culture as the right, natural and only way. When we encounter another culture that is different, we then unconsciously judge that culture by our own cultural frame of reference.  The very first encounter with the culturally different almost always provokes an extreme ethnocentric response of defensiveness toward people of the other culture, by criticizing or feeling superior to them.

After repeated exposure to another culture and the development of some cultural awareness, we may move on to a position where we no longer deny the existence of differences between cultures, but neither do we accept the fundamental nature of those differences. This then becomes a stage of minimization of those differences, essentially recognizing they are there but are not as important as the basic underlying similarities between people. The “One World” theory is an example of this. The similarities are sometimes viewed in terms of physical needs (such as, we all have to eat, procreate and die) or in universal transcendent terms (such as we are all God’s children, or all people want and need to realize their individual potential).  While people in this stage are able to recognize and accept cultural differences, they are uncomfortable with emphasizing those differences and resolve them by minimizing their significance. But the resolution is still basically ethnocentric, in a more subtle way.

There are further potential stages of cultural sensitivity, and they almost always come only after extended immersion in another culture, along with the development of substantial cultural competence. As a result there is a major shift from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. Ethnorelativism is conceptually different in that it assumes that cultures can only be understood relative to themselves.  There is no natural, right standard that can be applied to all cultures. This assumes that one’s own culture is no more central to reality than any other, regardless of one’s own preferences.

The move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism, is usually difficult, both intellectually and emotionally. If no one culture is inherently right or wrong, but just different, many people mistakenly conclude that they must necessarily approve of all aspects of all cultures. Although there is no necessity of ethically agreeing with all cultures in this stage, many people believe that is what they must do. As a result, they are often overwhelmed by this apparent dilemma, and either move on to a more developed stage of sensitivity, or fall back to some form of ethnocentrism.

On the other hand, moving to ethnorelative thinking can be liberating and exciting. We can learn to expect and look for differences, knowing that understanding those differences will help give the new culture meaning and help make sense of it. Instead of judging another cultural practice as bad, because it is different, we look for differences in behaviour and values and try to understand why they occur from the point of view of that culture.  For example, Canadians tend to pride themselves on punctuality, especially in matters of business. In trying to make a business appointment in another culture, a Canadian might find that his or her business counterpart arrives late, keeps them waiting, and then allows all sorts of interruptions, other business and social events to interfere. An ethnocentric interpretation might be that the other person isn’t very businesslike, is rude, disrespectful and disorganized. An ethnorelative view might be to try to understand why those behaviors and values are present, and what they mean. It assumes that the above behavior is normal for that culture and that the person is behaving exactly as he or she should. In that culture, it may be that time is very past or future oriented, not present oriented. It may be that business and social life are constantly mixed, not separated. It may be that no disrespect whatsoever has been shown, and the other person may be behaving quite ethically, within the values of that culture.

Acceptance of these differences and trying to understand them leads to the ability to learn to adapt to them, when operating in that culture. Adaptation then becomes another developmental stage in ethnorelativism. It is more than the adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” because such behavior comes with an understanding of why it is important. As one might expect, this stage takes a considerable degree of cultural competence and the time in which to develop it.

The final stage of ethnorelative awareness is an open-ended one. It is a stage of true integration of a multicultural point of view. The person is essentially at home and competent in at least two cultures, often ones with radically different points of view on many basic aspects of life. Paradoxically, the person is also not really at home in either culture.  Because they can now see their own culture from another point of view, and because they have lived life from that point of view, they can never be exactly as they were before. On the other hand, no matter how well they adapted to the host culture, they know that is not completely “them” either.   

In time, and with some help interpreting their experiences, they can come to see that they now view their own culture more clearly, often appreciating it much more, while also being more critical of it. They develop a sharper concept of who they are and what they stand for. At the same time, they understand and appreciate at least one other culture that is different from theirs, and different at some fundamental levels. They have learned to appreciate those different behaviours and values as being just as right and valid for that culture as theirs are for their own culture.

People with a true multi-cultural or at least bi-cultural orientation, who have integrated those awarenesses, think not in terms of one world, but instead, of many worlds. But they are not so concerned that these differences exist. They not only tolerate differences, they appreciate them. They become part of an ongoing process of moving in and out of their own cultural context. Since they are not bound by their native cultural frame of reference at all times anymore, they are able to shift, appropriately, among points of view.

Taken from speech by Dennis White, Ph.D.