culture as a config of learning by oord 2005

7/27/2019 Culture as a Config of Learning by Oord 2005

1/20

IntroductionThe scholarly debate on the inuence of culture on teaching and learningin the arena of international education is one of wide interest. Althoughmany different denitions and conceptions of culture are used, thereseems to be a level of consensus among researchers and educators thatthe role of culture in schools with an international staff and studentbody should not be underestimated and that its inuence needs to be

173

A RT I C L E

Culture as a

conguration of learningL O D E W I J K VA N O O R DUnited World College of the Atlantic, Wales

JRIE J O U R N A L O F R E S E A R C H I N

I N T E R N AT I O N A L E D U C AT I O N

& 2 0 0 5 I N T E R N AT I O N A LB A C C A L A U R E AT E O R G A N I Z AT I O N

(www.ibo.org)andS A G E P U B L I C AT I O N S

(www.sagepubl icat ions.com)

VOL 4(2) 173191 ISSN 1475-2409DOI: 10.1177/1475240905054389

This article approaches the concept of culture from an anthropologicalperspective. It places various cultureconcepts in their historical contexts anddiscusses several models that are utilized inresearch in international education. It isargued that the lack of a theory is a majorreason for the culture concept'sproliferation. A theory is presented thatidenties a culture as a particularconguration of learning and meta-learning. In line with this theory, it isargued that most `cultural' differences inteaching and learning are not cultural andthat real cultural differences will emerge inthe context of international academiccurricula.

K E Y W O R D S academic curriculum, anthropology,culture, international schools, learning

Cet article s'interesse au concept de la culture d'un point de vueanthropologique. Il place divers concepts culturels dans leurscontextes historiques et traite de plusieurs modeles utilises dans larecherche en education internationale. Il est avance que le manque detheorie est la principale explication de la proliferation du concept dela culture. Une theorie est proposee, selon laquelle une culture estidentiee comme etant une conguration particuliere del'apprentissage et du meta-apprentissage. Il est aussi avance que la plupart des differences culturelles dans l'enseignement etl'apprentissage ne sont pas reellement culturelles et que les veritablesdifferences culturelles vont apparatre dans le contexte des programmes scolaires internationaux.

Este artculo se acerca al concepto de cultura desde una perspectivaantropologica. Ubica varios conceptos de cultura en sus contextoshistoricos y analiza distintos modelos que se utilizan en lainvestigacion en el campo de la educacion internacional. El autor sostiene que la falta de una teora es una de las razones primordialesque contribuyen a la proliferacion de los conceptos de cultura. Se presenta una teora que dene una cultura como una conguracionespecial de aprendizajes y meta-aprendizajes. Siguiendo esta teora sesostiene que muchas de las diferenciasculturales en el ambito de laensenanza y el aprendizaje no son culturales y que las diferenciasculturales reales surgen en el contexto de los currculos academicosinternacionales.


2/20

taken seriously at various levels, from the kindergarten playground to thesenior management meeting. And yet, a full understanding of what culture

is and how exactly it inuences those involved in these schools remainsdifcult to grasp.This article analyses the social scientic development of the culture con-

cept, by placing various notions of culture in their historical contexts. It alsodiscusses a theory of culture that tries to approximate what makes humandifferences into culturaldifferences. In the nal section the value of thistheory will be analysed in the context of the international school and itsacademic curriculum. I will present four hypotheses that will hopefullycontribute to a new perception of culture in the eld of research in inter-national education.

The argument in this article will be made from an action research stance.Action research in the context of international education has been denedas `a way of approaching everyday experience and systematically assessingwhat is happening in the classroom or school' (Holderness, 2002: 91).Those who work in schools with an international staff and student bodymight, every now and then, feel that there is a gap between their schoolexperiences and what researchers of culture claim. This article tries tolink everyday experience and practice to a theoretical perception of culturethat has yet remained untouched in research in international education.

Much has been written about the difculty of dening concepts such as`international education,' and there is no need to repeat this debate here.For the purpose of this article, I will adopt the denition of internationaleducation as an education that sets out to foster, amongst other things,international mindedness among the students it serves (Thompson, 1998).

culture, Culture, cultures

Considering culture, one is inclined to turn to anthropology, since thenotion of culture was brought to the attention of the social sciences by arespectable league of anthropologists such as Edward Tylor, Claude Levi-Strauss and Clifford Geertz. Owing to their work and that of others, culture

has emerged as one of the most prominent concepts in the humanities. Oneplayer in the eld even argued that `the concept of culture has come to beso completely associated with anthropological thinking that . . . we coulddene an anthropologist as someone who uses the word `culture' habi-tually' (Wagner, 1975: 1). The usage of the culture concept is obviouslynot limited to the anthropological domain. It is probably no exaggerationto state that the concept has been among the most inuential ideas in 20thcentury thought (Keesing and Strathern, 1998). Inuential ideas, however,

174

Journal of Research in International Education4(2)


3/20

often take on their own lives. Especially in the period 19201950, thenotion of culture evolved in many different conceptual directions.

An inquiry into the academic literature shows that the culture concept isapproached in many different ways. Cultural historian Raymond Williamscharacterizes culture as `one of the two or three most complicated words inthe English language' (1983: 87). He also explains why it is such a com-plicated word: `it has now come to be used for important concepts inseveral distinct and incompatible systems of thought' ( idem.).

These different mutually exclusive systems of thought can be categorizedunder three headings: a classical-humanisticapproach and two differentapproaches in the anthropologicaldiscipline. I will discuss these threeapproaches in their historical order of appearance.

We speak of high culture, low culture and popular culture in order toexpress a hierarchy of values, depicting the difference between classicalmusic and hiphop, between poetry and rap, between visual arts andmediocre amateur painting. Our newspapers have cultural supplements,we organize cultural evenings full of dancing, dressing up and exoticcuisine. These examples refer to the classical-humanisticapproach to culture.This usage of the culture concept has come a long way, with roots in theGreco-Roman world (Lemaire, 1976). Plato used the word paideia, aword associated with general knowledge in the context of educating theyouth. Although the concept of paideialost its signicance in later periods,the Roman writer Cicero gave it new importance under the Latin equivalentcultura animi. Cicero used it in the context of the education of the humanmind. Similar to the cultivation of the soil for agricultural purposes, onecould also tend the mind of a young person.

The rstanthropologicalapproach to culture emerged in the mid-19th cen-tury, where culture came to be seen as the opposite of nature. This conceptof culture is inextricably bound up with Edward Tylor and his 1871magnum opus Primitive Culture. This work can be understood as a prolego-mena to the science of culture, trying to study the `condition of cultureamong the various societies of mankind' (1871: I, 1). This programmeillustrates that Tylor perceived culture as a whole. His interest did not go

out to independent human societies but to the `connection betweenmodern culture and the condition of the rudest savage' (I, 159). Thisapproach is clearly evolutionary: it focuses on development and reformand seeks the `relation of primitive to modern civilization' (I, 529). Tylor'sconcept of culture as opposed to nature is currently being utilized in the lifesciences, where scientists are successfully trying to nd and describe tracesof culture in chimpanzees, whales, dolphins and other intelligent mam-mals (de Waal and Tyack, 2003; Whiten et al., 1999).

van Oord: Culture as a conguration of learning

175


4/20

The third notion of culture (or second anthropologicalapproach to culture)emerged in the early 20th century, mostly as a criticism of Tylor's evolu-

tionary approach. This third notion is connected with names of pioneeringAmerican anthropologists such as Boas, Benedict and Herskovits. Theyunravelled Tylor's anthropology as eurocentric: the modern, Europeancivilization was taken as the solemn criterion for the recovery of culturaldevelopment in all human societies (Lemaire, 1976). Boas realized thatculture is not a universal system, Àbsolute systems of phenomena as com-plex as those of culture are impossible' he said, `they will always be reec-tions of our own culture' (1940: 311).

Boas' shift in orientation was fundamental. He changed Tylor's singularcultureinto the plural cultures. From this perspective, à' culture becomes theobject that unites a group of people within a particular society. While Tylorunderstood culture as a process of progress (rst and foremost as a creationof mankind) American anthropologists now began to see culture as theobject that connects or even binds people to their tradition.

What inspired Boas to this radical idea? Answering this question bringsus back to the Romantic movement in 19th century Europe. In response tothe universal ideas of human values and progress of the Enlightenment,which can be roughly seen as a French movement, German intellectuals(e.g. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Johann Gottfried Herder) started to investi-gate in which ways people were different. They developed the idea of a so-called volksgeistor national character to describe what connected the peopleof a nation. Although they were not very sure what constituted a volksgeist,they put the emphasis on shared history, language and literature. Boastranslated and reshaped the notion of volksgeistand utilized it in Americananthropological scholarship (Bunzl, 1996).

Although the relativity of culture can already be seen in Boas's work, thecase for cultural relativism has mostly been made by his students Benedictand Herskovits. Benedict argued that Òur only scientic course is to con-sider our own culture, so far as we are able, as one example of innumerableothers of the variant of congurations of human culture' (1960: 207).Herskovits formulated the principle of cultural relativism as follows:

`Judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted byeach individual in terms of his own enculturation' (1967: 63). Table 1shows the three different approaches to culture in a scheme.

The third notion of culture dominates the present day social sciences.Speaking of cultural differences, multiculturalism, cross-cultural commu-nication or intercultural education, we are utilizing the anthropologicalapproach to culture as constituted by Boas and his students.

176



5/20

There is however a huge difference between, on the one side, the rsttwo approaches and, on the other side, the third approach. When utilizingthe notion of culture in the classical-humanistic way we clearly know whatthe concept refers to. We know what to expect when we, for instance,attend a cultural evening or when we read our newspaper's cultural supple-ment. The same counts for the notion of culture as opposed to nature. Bothconcepts refer to a solid object. Although debate on the precise denitionof the referent is always possible, the objects are denite enough to workwith. In the next section I will demonstrate that the third notion of culture

is more problematic since this concept lacks a demonstrable object.

Culture as an elusive objectIn everyday language, the word culturedoes not have a clear and consistentmeaning. Political commentators discuss the clash between western andIslamic culture, teachers discuss youth culture, business executives ponderover their companies' corporate culture, local politicians worry aboutregionalism and the cultures of, say, Basque Country, Flanders and Walonia.Culture shock!books are available for every possible country. The concept of culture seems to make its appearance in an ever-changing schizophrenic

guise, its meaning changing according to the contextual preference andavour. This leads to the undesirable consequence that cultural differencesbetween, for instance, Asia and the West are implicitly taken to be of thesame category as differences between the corporate cultures of, say, Shelland Burger King (Van den Bouwhuijsen et al., 1995).

A survey through the recent literature in the eld of research in inter-national education shows that different conceptions of culture are beingembraced as well. Some frequently used visualisations are Hofstede's


177

Table 1 Three different approaches to culture

Approach Focal area Advocates

1 Classical-humanism Focus on the arts and thetending of the mind.

Plato; Cicero; Williams(1983)

2 Anthropology Focus on culture as evolution(culture versus nature).

Tylor (1871)

3 Anthropology Focus on comparison of cultures(cultural relativism).

Boas (1940); Benedict(1960); Herskovits (1967)

Sources: Lemaire (1976) and Bunzl (1996).


6/20

`onion' (Hofstede, 1991) and the `iceberg' (Fennes and Hapgood, 1997;Kohls, 1996). These models share the idea that cultural traits in societies

can be classied between implicit and explicit ones (Allan, 2003).Researchers in this eld deploy terms such as cultural identity, culturalheritage, native culture, school culture, organization and mission cultures,local community culture, host country culture, regional or continental cul-ture, majority student population culture, cultural values, cultural reasons,cultural uidity, cultural dissonance, biculturalism, (adult) third culturekids, intercultural literacy and so on and so forth (e.g. Allan, 2002, 2003;Cambridge, 2003; Drake, 2004; Heyward, 2002; Joslin, 2002; Pearce,1998, 2003; Pollock and van Reken, 1999; Tsolidis, 2002). The conceptis used to describe a growing number of different objects. Yet, we still believethe term signies something solid.

It has been a while since Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1963) collected andcommented on no less than 169 different denitions of culture. Thiscollection is rewarding for anyone who seeks to understand the diversityin denitions that scholars have composed since the emergence of anthro-pology as an independent social science. Some denitions were presentedwith minimalist clarity (e.g. `the commonly recognized mores' 1963: 96)while others came in extravagant complexity (1963: 106) e.g:

Through this process of inventing and transmitting symbols and symbolic sys-tems and technologies as well as their non-symbolic counterparts in concrete

tools and instruments, man's experience and his adjustment techniquebecome cumulative. . . . The concrete manifestations of these processes areusually described by the vague word culture.

Reading such an extensive collection might leave the reader in a state of ironic despondency, sighing that the culture concept is applied in almostas many ways as there are scholars studying it and that it `means whateverwe use it to mean' (Keesing, 1974: 73).

There is good reason to assume that in the last few decades, the numberof denitions of culture has at least doubled (Vermeersch, 1977; Wolf,

2001). Since the 1970s, cultural anthropologists have taken on the chal-lenge to narrow the concept of culture into a more specialized and power-ful concept that includes less and reveals more. Although there has been nogeneral agreement on the best way to do this, it appears that one focal areareceives most attention and support: the concept of culture as an ideationalsystem. Culture is, according to this approach, conceptual knowledge: itrefers to what humans learn, not what they do and make (Keesing andStrathern, 1998).

178



7/20

Restricting the term culture to an ideational system makes culture into apattern for behavior, not a pattern of behavior. The observable events in a

society, the things and phenomena we can count, measure and repeat arebeing ruled out. Patterns for behavior become patterns of behavior as soonas they are realized. Such systems of ideas (`cultures') can be described asa conceptual screenplay. As soon as parts of the screenplay are performed,they become patterns of behavior. The designs for living become socialrealizations in a social environment. These patterns-of-life-of-communitiesare referred to as sociocultural systems(Keesing, 1974; Keesing and Strathern,1998).

The idea of cultures as patterns for behavior is not far from Hofstede'sunderstanding of culture as `the collective programming of the mindwhich distinguishes the members of one human group from another'(Hofstede, 1980: 25). However, his four dimensional model, based onan impressive collection of data, focuses on the social realizations or socio-cultural systems. Likewise, Trompenaars (1993) maps cultural differencesaccording to seven `fundamental' dimensions.

In their concluding analysis, Kroeber and Kluchhohn realize that theincredible number of denitions brings a crucial problem to the surface.One of the main reasons for the meagre theoretical advancing of thestudy of culture is the lack of a scientictheory. In their words:

And yet we have no full theory of culture. We have a fairly well delineated con-cept, and it is possible to enumerate conceptual elements embraced within themaster concept. But a concept, even an important one, does not constitute atheory. . . . Concepts have a way of becoming to a dead end unless they arebound together in a testable theory. . . . At present, we have plenty of deni-tions, but too little theory. (1963: 357)

With similar tone, Herbert argued that `no amount of individual particlesof observed data will sufce to represent a ``culture'' until one has a theoryof their systematic interrelations' (Herbert, 1991:10). The lack of such atheory is a primary factor why some scholars have even decided to send

the concept into exile, removing it from their conceptual toolkit.The blame for this problem has often been put on the concept: scholarsspeak of the fuzzy concept of culture, even considering it a `splendid coverfor a conceptual mess' (Wolf, 2001: 76). However, a conceptcan never be thekey problem, since it can always be replaced by a better one. Concepts areintellectual creations existing only in our minds. They are, however,supposed to refer to actual objects. Here lies the fundamental problem of culture: it is too elusive as an object to be tackled by a single concept or


179


8/20

denition. Only a theoryof culture can clarify what constitutes `a culture'and can explain what makes differences into culturaldifferences. Only a

theory can explain the nature of the object we are studying. I will try toillustrate this with two examples from the eld of research in internationaleducation.

Although no one will disagree with the statement that human beingsdiffer, the question what makes differences into culturaldifferences is noteasy to tackle. If two students, one from Latin America and one fromNorth America, perceive the interpersonal behavior of their teacher differ-ently we are inclined to label these differences as cultural(den Brok et al.,2003; van Oord and den Brok, 2004). However, if two students fromthe same country perceive teacher behavior in different ways, we willexplain these differences as determined by personal preference or character.Likewise, the bullying of a Philippine student in the school's dressing roomby two Dutch students is understood as a `different notion of personalspace, in this case Filipino and Dutch, which is one of the hidden ritualsof societies' cultures' (Allan, 2003: 95) while similar behavior betweenthree students with the same national identity would probably be describedas inappropriate childish behavior. We could ask whether usage of theadjective `cultural' makes scientic sense in cases as the above.

The lack of a demonstrable object is a major reason for the incrediblegrowth of the culture concept. Only a theory of culture will be able tostop this conceptual proliferation. It will allow us to describe particulardifferences between groups of people as the facts of a culture(van denBouwhuijsen, 1995; Vermeersch, 1977).

Conguration of learningIn his book `The Heathen in His Blindness . . .', the philosopher Balagangadharahas taken on the difcult enterprise to develop a theory of culture that bothexplains what constitutes `a' culture and approximates what makes differ-ences into cultural differences (Balagangadhara, 1994). The more than400 pages that precede the presentation of his theory, together with the

scholarly following and criticism that his theory has received, lies beyondthe scope of this article. As the available space requires, I will present histheory briey and to the point. Afterwards, its implications for the studyof culture in the context of international education will be considered.

Learning can be seen as a way an organism makes its environment habi-table. Although learning can be understood in many different ways, theactivity of creating a habitat appears to be a broad and suitable denition.In general terms, human beings learn in the framework of groups. One of

180



9/20

the primary skills to learn for human beings is how to live with others in agiven environment.

Not only do newborns have to learn how to live with others, they alsodepend hugely on what the group decides to transmit to them. What anewborn learns is mostly a group decision: the group decides what isbeing transmitted from the group's `reservoir' of customs, lores, traditionsetc. In his Les Structures Elementaires de la Parente(1949), Levi-Strauss emphasizesthis group choice when he writes:

Every newborn child provides in embryonic form the sum total of possibilities,but each culture and period of history will retain and develop only a chosen fewof them. Every newborn child comes equipped . . . with all the means ever avail-able to mankind to dene its relations to the world and its relations to others. . . .[Each group] represents a choice, which the group imposes and perpetuates.(English translation, 1969: 93)

Learning, in other words, is a balancing act between what our brains can doand what our group values and wants to pass on (Abbott and Ryan, 2000).By focusing on the transmission of the resources of the group, the empha-sis is on whatis being transmitted. By being instructed, however, the pupilalso gets an important meta-message about howto learn properly. Thismeta-message (`learning how to learn') is often referred to as meta-learning. Alternative terms in the literature are proto-learning for learn-ing knowledge and skills and deutero-learning for learning how to learn(Wolcott, 1987). The groups' reservoir and choices do not only put con-straints on whatis learnt, but also on howthis is done, in other words, onthe mechanisms of its transmission. Different groups draw from differentreservoirs, structure their learning differently and focus on different learn-ing areas since their natural and social environments (`habitats') ask fordifferent focal areas.

Taking the above into account, Balagangadhara suggests the followingtheory of culture: a culture is a tradition that can be identied in termsof a specic conguration of learning and meta-learning. In each con-

guration, one particular kind of learning activity will be dominant: itwill subordinate other kinds of learning activities to itself. Such congura-tions of learning processes can be seen as `culture-specic ways of learning'(1994: 446).

These culture-specic ways of learning can also (at least partially)explain cultural differences. Each culture will constitute a kind of learningthat subordinates other kinds of learning. In the words of Balagangadhara:`Specic to each culture is its way of learning and meta-learning. Cultural


181


10/20

differences can, therefore, be characterized in terms of what brings aboutthis conguration of learning' (1994: 447).

The mapping of different congurations of learning is not an easy enter-prise and the academic debate of this theory has just begun. What thenbrings about these different congurations of learning? Balagangadharahas argued that it was Christianity as a religion that brought about thewestern conguration of learning. As an orthodox religion, Christian teach-ing focuses on the intention and concepts behind certain behavior andpractise. Christian ritual (being Catholic, Protestant or any other denomi-nation) is motivated by its underlying meaning.The rituals are important forthe believers involved because they are guided by theology. The ritual of baptism, for instance, refers to the theology of the covenant of God withmankind. This theory-oriented way of teaching has led to the emergenceof conceptual learning as the dominant kind of learning over the otherones. Other kinds of learning do not disappear from the western congura-tion, but will be perceived as derived from or applications of conceptuallearning.

In Asian culture it is argued that ritual (ortho praxyinstead of ortho doxy)has had the functional equivalent role as orthodoxy had in the West. In thisculture, performative (or practical) learning appears to dominate overother kinds of learning. This does not mean that ritual has no underlyingbeliefs. However, they do not play a signicant role as an ultimate explana-tion of the ritual (Staal, 1979).

A well-known description of this difference between orthodoxy andorthopraxy (or `true beliefs' versus `right practice') is the observation bythe Nepalese anthropologist Pradhan, who conducted eld research in aCalvinist rural village in the Netherlands (Pradhan, 1989). The nativevillagers would often invite him for coffee after Sunday service and,naturally, the topic of conversation would be religion. The villagers werecurious to know what their guest believed, a strange question that he founddifcult to answer:

Everybody over here talks about believing, believing, believing. Where I comefrom, what counts is the ritual, in which only the priest and the head of thefamily participate. The others watch and make their offerings. Over here somuch is mandatory. Hindus will never ask `Do you believe in God?' Of courseone should believe, but the important thing is what one does(Vuijsje, 1988.Transl. by Hofstede, 1991: 159, original italics).

Orthodox belief (e.g. Christianity) and orthoprax ritual (e.g. Hinduism) areproducts of different congurations of learning where different kinds of learning dominate over the other kinds of learning. Such a difference in

182



11/20

learning conguration can be observed in the following statement by amanager from Europe working for a multinational in Singapore. In an inter-

view with a Dutch newspaper he comments on the native Singaporeans,saying:

The people here are different. It is mostly a difference in mentality. They areeager to come to a solution. You give them a problem and they will nd a solu-tion. After that, they're done. Someone from Europe would keep on thinking.With the expatriats I am now trying to change the local people's mentality(Trouw, 1996: 6, my translation from the Dutch).

This quote highlights a clash between two different congurations of learn-ing. Conceptual thinkers from Europe seem unable to understand their

Asian colleagues whose performative learning conguration is adequatefor solving problems without the western desire to conceptualize the prob-lem and `keep on thinking.' The manager believes he is encountering a dif-ference in mentality that can be solved by changing the mentality of thelocal people.

Levi-Strauss discusses different congurations of learning amongwesterners and the Native American Navaho. In the Navaho family, hewrites, the art of weaving or jewellery making is learnt by example. Theyoung Navaho learn by looking. Then Levi-Strauss, the western scholar,asks himself:

Whence the complete absence of a way of life so common among us, evenamong adults . . . I mean the habit of asking questions such as Ànd that,why do that?' or Àfter that, what are you going to do?' It is this habit morethan any other which has given the natives their strange opinion of whitemen, for the Indian is convinced that the white man is a fool. (1969: 95)

Apparently, this quote reveals, asking conceptual questions about practicalskills such as weaving is ridiculous to the Navaho mind (see similar obser-vations in Pinxten and Farrer, 1991).

A nal example is taken from the life sciences. Primatologist De Waal

comments on the difference between western and Japanese colleagues inthe pursuit of scientic knowledge. He explains how western colleaguesused to complain about the `lack of theory' in Japanese primatology. In Japan, èmphasis was on data gathering for example about what monkeyseat or whom they groom without mention of the idea behind it' (deWaal, 2001: 188). To western primatologists, de Waal explains, `data with-out a framework to put them in seemed pointless' ( ibid.). These kinds of cross-cultural differences in learning conguration canbe found abundantly


183


12/20

in the scholarly literature (e.g. Almond, 1984; Balagangadhara, 1994;Madan, 1977; Todorov, 1984).

Cultural differences, in sum, are in essence different congurations of learning. Taking the development of these congurations into account,validity can be assumed in huge distinctions such as `western culture,'`Asian culture,' `African culture' and so on and so forth (Rao, 1996).

Adopting this theory of culture leads to the understanding that differ-ences between, say, Belgium and the Netherlands, or between Indonesiaand Malaysia, and between companies like Coca-Cola and Mercedes arenot culturaldifferences. Despite the habit of describing these differences as`cultural' in contemporary scholarship and in everyday language,describingthese different ways of going-about in the world as differences in socialcustom or habit is preferable. Likewise, we should rather speak of, say,corporate custom or school habit instead of school and corporate culture(Richards, 2002).

On the nature of `cultural' differencesAccording to Hofstede, cross-cultural learning situations are `funda-mentally problematic' for both teachers and students (1986: 303). Heillustrates this viewpoint with a number of anecdotes. He mentions anAmerican teacher who exclaimed `You lovely girls, I love you!' to herChinese students in Beijing. According to Hofstede, the students wereterried by such a spontaneous outcry. Likewise, he mentions the stunnedItalian professor teaching in the US who was not familiar with the formalityof student-evaluation at the end of his course. These are just two examplesof many. The literature on cross-cultural education is liberally lled withanecdotes like these.

Are these kind of `perplexities,' as Hofstede calls them, as `fundamentallyproblematic' as he imagines them to be? It is my understanding that thesedifferences in behavior and perception from people of different countriesare neither fundamental nor essentially different at all. These differencesare usually overcome rather easily.

Perhaps the analogy to language can illustrate the argument I am trying

to make. Imagine a person living in a small rural village. This person enjoysa calm and rather predictable life. All the people he meets, his neighbours,the shopkeeper, his barber and so on, speak the same language with a simi-lar accent. Suddenly this person encounters a tourist from another country,asking him a question in a language that he does not understand: Senor, puede usted decirme la direccion a la ciudad?The poor fellow does not understandwho this alien person is, where he comes from and which language he isspeaking. The villager might feel uncertain and will probably not succeed in

184



13/20

responding productively. His response might be similar to: Jongen, ik verstageen woord van wat je zegt, which is as unintelligible for the tourist as it is for

most readers of this article. In this ctitious example both interactingpersons, the villager and the tourist, are ignorant of language differences.This mutual ignorance leads to inconvenience for both.

The city that I have lived in until recently is a popular destination fortourists from all over the world. Especially around the squares and canalsof the old city center, tourists can be seen everywhere, quite well recogniz-able by the travelling guides in their hands. As a resident of the city center,tourists would regularly ask me for directions, usually in a language of theirchoice. Being aware of this situation and with a special interest in differentlanguages and customs, I would often rehearse my explanation of the direc-tions from A to B or from C to D in several languages. Therefore, the ques-tions tourists addressed to me never led to fundamental problems. I mighthave used the German nominative wrongly every now and then, and whena non-English speaking Japanese tourist asked for directions I would havehad to use my hands and body to make myself intelligible. In all cases, how-ever, the tourists and I communicated effectively.

Just as these linguistic encounters are not fundamentally problematic,so-called `cultural' differences are usually not either. Especially when thepeople involved are aware of possible differences in habits and traits, thedifferences can usually be overcome rapidly. Respect, a sense of perspectiveand humour are usually the ingredients that make the interaction work.

I recall, for instance, a conversation with a Peruvian student attending aninternational school in Norway. Coming from a non-expatriate backgroundin Peru, she had left her native country for the rst time to attend an inter-national school in another part of the world, with a language of instructionshe did not yet comprehend. When asked what struck her as the biggestdifference, she complained a little about Nordic food and that the relation-ship between students and teachers was very different to what she hadpreviously experienced. In Peru, she explained, teachers were close toalmighty and would always be addressed by their last name. It took herat least two months, she said, to get used to the Nordic custom of using

the teachers' rst names.`There you have it!' anyone familiar with the scholarly literature mightexclaim. This striking difference can be explained easily, since Peru is acountry, as most Latin American countries, with a large power distancewhile Norway scores extremely low on Hofstede's power distance index(PDI-scores of 64 for Peru and 31 for Norway, Hofstede, 1991).

Her story continues, however. After going back to Peru during Christmasbreak, she visited her old school and greeted one of her former teachers


185


14/20

saying: `Nice to see you, Enrico!' Enrico was shocked. How dare sheaddress him by his rst name! Looking back at this event, the student con-

sidered the custom back home as odd. She was sure she would learn morefrom a teacher with whom she could interact in a more familiar manner,she explained. The speed with which this student got accustomed toNordic habits and even learnt to defend them against the social customsof her native country is, however impressive, and not an isolated case.

The viewpoint that cross-national encounters are not fundamentallydifcult and will not lead to much more than preliminary perplexitiests well into the theory of culture presented in this article. According toBalagangadhara's theory, differences as mentioned by Hofstede, Trompe-naars and many others are not cultural differences. They can better beunderstood as differences in custom or ways of going about. Althoughthey can come across as verydifferent, they are never essentiallydifferent.

Balagangadhara's theory also implies that the focal area of culture as anideational system is not culture free. It clearly unravels a western mind,focusing on culture as a system of ideas and concepts. The same can besaid for concepts of culture such as the iceberg or the onion. Althoughthere might be truth in these approaches in the context of western culture,Balagangadhara's theory suggests that we cannot automatically extrapolatethese concepts to other cultures. His theory is a warning against the entice-ment to interpret other cultures as mere varieties of the west. One of theconclusions of his research is that if we presume that cultures differ, weshould be aware that they will differ differently and that their experiencesof difference will also be different (Balagangadhara, 1996: 512).

Four hypotheses on teaching and learning

What does this theory of culture and its implication for `cultural' differ-ences mean for the international school and its academic curriculum?In order to address this question, the following four hypotheses arepresented:

[1] Most differences in teaching and learning between teachers and studentsfrom different nations are not culturaldifferences. Students and teachers fromdifferent countries have different perceptions and goings-about concerningthe different domains of teaching and learning ( i.e. teacher-student inter-personal behavior, preferred classroom environment, social status of teachersetc.). However, these differences are in most cases not determined by differentcongurations of learning. This leads to the second hypothesis.

186



15/20

[2] Differences in teaching and learning between teachers and students fromdifferent nations are not fundamentallyproblematic for both parties. Encounters

by teachers or students from different societies might begin with some incon-venience, since both parties will need to come to terms with the fact that theirperceptions and goings-about are not universal. It might take some effort to getrid of prejudices about people and traits from other societies. These conictsin teaching and learning, however, should not be seen as products of culturaldifference.[3] Due to the history of international education, the conguration of learningpresumed in international academic curricula is a western conguration basedon conceptual learning as the dominant kind of learning. Since this hypothesismay come across as rather provocative, I will give two illustrations.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma History guide provides IBhistory teachers with markbands that they can use to mark their students'essays. The upper end of these markbands mention à good conceptualability' as the most important skill an IB history student can demonstrate(IBO, 2001: 51). Likewise, an often applied device to categorize levels of abstraction in tests and examinations is Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy(Bloom, 1956). At the top end of the taxonomy, we nd skills under theheading èvaluation.' This includes interpretation and judging of material,creating new solutions, critical comparison and so forth. A hierarchy inacademic abilities as mentioned in these two examples reveals a westernconguration of learning and meta-learning. This leads to hypothesisnumber four.

[4] Real cultural differences in teaching and learning will emerge in the contextof the international curriculum: the question of how to deal with matters likecontent, theoretical knowledge, analytical and abstract thinking are areas wherecultural differences will emerge, since they concern different congurations of learning. Westernized teachers who presume conceptual ways of learning at thecore of their students' learning abilities will perceive difculties with studentswho come from a culture where, say, performative learning dominates otherkinds of learning. These differences are not supercial and will be difcult totackle. These issues ask for serious consideration when deciding what makes

our international curricula ìnternational'. (Skelton, 2002)

Conclusion

In this article I argue for a new understanding of culture in the eld of research in international education. An understanding that prunes the pro-liferation of the culture concept in contemporary scholarship. A perception


187


16/20

of culture that, hopefully, includes less and reveals more. A perception thaturges for another approach to human difference. Labelling differences in

social customs and habits between people as `cultural' does not help usto explain the incredible adaptive skills of people, especially of youngpeople such as the Peruvian student discussed earlier. Labelling these differ-ences as `cultural' suggests that differences between people, especially verydifferent differences, are somehow essential. It suggests that human beingslose (or gain?) something essential, whatever that may be, as soon as theyadapt themselves and incorporate different social customs than the onesthey are familiar with, a process that often leads to, as some believe, `funda-mentally problematic' perplexities, to `culture shock' and states of `culturaldissonance' (Allan, 2002, 2003; Hofstede, 1986; Oberg, 1960).

My experience with students and teachers in international schools isdifferent. The adaptive process by young people to new environments,to unknown social customs and habits usually takes place with incrediblespeed and uidity, and usually without signs of serious crisis and loss of anything essential in their personalities. It seems that a concept of culturebased on an elusive object, in both popular language and academic litera-ture, asks for more perplexities and shocking encounters than reality iswilling to deliver. Hopefully, the theory and hypotheses presented in thisstudy will contribute to a profound scientic approach to culture in theeld of research in international education.

References

ABBOTT, J . AND RYAN, T.ABBOTT, J . AND RYAN, T.(2000) The Unnished Revolution: Learning, Human Behaviour,Community and Political Paradox. Stafford: Network Educational Press.

A L L A N , M .A L L A N , M .(2002) `Cultural borderlands: A case study of cultural dissonance in aninternational school'. Journal of Research in International Education1(1): 6390.

A L L A N , M .A L L A N , M .(2003) `Frontier crossings: Cultural dissonance, intercultural learningand the multicultural personality'. Journal of Research in International Education2(1):83110.

ALMOND, P. C.ALMOND, P. C. (1984) The British Discovery of Buddhism. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

B A L A G A N G A D H A R A , S . N .B A L A G A N G A D H A R A , S . N .(1994) `The Heathen in his Blindness' Asia, the West and theDynamic of Religion.Leiden: E.J. Brill.BENEDICT, R.BENEDICT, R.(1960) Patterns of Culture. New York: Mentor.B L O O M , B . S .B L O O M , B . S .(1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.New York: Longmans Green.BOAS, F.BOAS, F. (1940) Race, Language and Culture.New York: Free Press.VAN DEN BOUWHUIJSEN, H.VA N D E N B O U W H U I J S E N , H .(1995) `What makes human differences into cultural

differences?'. Philosophica55(1): 87116.VAN DEN BOUWHUIJSEN, H. , CLAES, T. AND DERDE, W.VAN DEN BOUWHUIJSEN, H. , CLAES, T. AND DERDE, W.(1995) `Recovering

``culture'''. Cultural Dynamics7(2): 16386.

188



17/20


18/20

VAN OORD, L . AND DEN BROK, P.VAN OORD, L . AND DEN BROK, P.(2004) `The international teacher. Students' andteachers' perceptions of prefered teacher-student interpersonal behaviour in twoUnited World Colleges'. Journal of Research in International Education3(2): 13155.

P E A R C E , R .P E A R C E , R .(1998) `Developing cultural identity in an international schoolenvironment', in M. C. Hayden and J. J. Thompson (eds) International Education:Principles and Practice,pp. 4462. London: Kogan Page.

P E A R C E , R .P E A R C E , R .(2003) `Cultural values for international schools'. International Schools Journal22(2): 5964.

P I N X T E N , R . A N D FA R R E R , C . K .P I N X T E N , R . A N D FA R R E R , C . K .(1991) Òn learning: A comparative view'.Cultural Dynamics3(3): 23351.

POLLOCK, D. C. AND VAN REKEN, R. E .POLLOCK, D. C. AND VAN REKEN, R. E .(1999) The Third Culture Kid Experience: Growingup among Worlds. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

P R A D H A N , R .P R A D H A N , R .(1989) `Mooi weer meneer: Why do the Dutch speak so oftenabout the weather?'. Etnofoor 2: 314.

RAO, N.RAO, N. (1996) À Meditation on the Christian Revelations'. Cultural Dynamics8(2):

189209.R I C H A R D S , N .R I C H A R D S , N .(2002) `Professional development: An international schools'

perspective', in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) InternationalEducation in Practice. Dimensions for National and International Schools,pp. 99111.London: Kogan Page.

SKELTON, M.SKELTON, M.(2002) `Dening ìnternational' in an international curriculum',in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice.Dimensions for National and International Schools,pp. 3954. London: Kogan Page.

STAAL, F.STAAL, F.(1979) `The meaninglessness of ritual'. Numen26: 222.THOMPSON, J . J .THOMPSON, J . J . (1998) `Towards a model for international education', in

M. C. Hayden and J. J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice,pp. 276288. London: Kogan Page.

TODOROV, T.TODOROV, T. (1984) The Conquest of America. The Question of the Other . New York:Harper Perennial.TROMPENAARS, F.TROMPENAARS, F.(1993) Riding the Waves of Culture.London: The Economist.T R O U W T R O U W (1996) Èuropeanen denken verder'. Saturday 21 December.T S O L I D I S , G .T S O L I D I S , G .(2002) `How do we teach and learn in times when the notion of

``global citizenship'' sounds like a cliche'. Journal of Research in International Education1(2): 21326.

T Y L O R , E . B .T Y L O R , E . B .(1871) Primitive Culture. London: Murray.V E R M E E R S C H , E .V E R M E E R S C H , E .(1977) Àn analysis of the concept of culture', in B. Bernardo

(ed) The Concept and the Dynamic of Culture, pp. 173. The Hague: Mouton.V U I J S J E , H .V U I J S J E , H .(1988) `Twee kofe, twee koekjes'. NRC Handelsblad, Saturday 16 April.DE WAAL, F.DE WAAL, F.(2001) The Ape and the Sushi Master. Cultural Reections of a Primatologist. New

York: Basic Books.DE WAAL, F. AND TYACK, P. L .DE WAAL, F. AND TYACK, P. L .(2003) Animal Social Complexity. Intelligence, Culture, and

Individualized Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.WAGNER, R.WAGNER, R. (1975) The Invention of Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.WHITEN, A. , GOODALL, J . , MCGREW, W. C. , NI SHADA, T. , REYNOL DS, V. ,WHITEN, A. , GOODALL, J . , MCGREW, W. C. , NI SHADA, T. , REYNO LDS, V. ,

SUGIYAMA, Y. , TUTIN, C. E . G. , WRANGHAM, R. W. AND BOESCH, C.SUGIYAMA, Y. , TUTIN, C. E . G. , WRANGHAM, R. W. AND BOESCH, C.(1999)`Cultures in chimpanzees'. Nature399: 68285.

W I L L I A M S , R .W I L L I A M S , R .(1983) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.

190



19/20


20/20

culture as a config of learning by oord 2005

Documents