National Art Education Association

Promoting Intercultural Understanding through ArtAuthor(s): Arthur NewmanSource: Art Education, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1970), pp. 18-20Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191398 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 03:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:52:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

romoting ntercultural

BY ARTHUR NEWMAN-In Art as Experience, John Dewey distinguishes between recognizing and perceiv- ing an object. According to this interpretation, to rec- ognize something is to interact with it on an exclusively cognitive level. The process of perception, on the other hand, involves cognition plus the deliberate effort to enrich the self through imaginative interaction.

The recognition-perception distinction is an intrigu- ing analytic tool when employed in an inquiry into the dynamics of intercultural understanding. Just as paint- ings can be dispassionately recognized or intimately perceived, so can the cultural matrices within which they are created. One can be remarkably well informed about another culture, but regardless of how astute his intellectualizations, he can be said to understand it only as his recognitions are invested with empathetic appreciation.

To imbue the student with an empathetic disposition -to facilitate his willingness and ability to perceive- is among the responsibilities with which the school has been traditionally charged. That such a disposition is glaringly absent in America is attributable, in part, to the presence of sociopolitical and socioeconomic in- equities incompatible with the liberalizing efforts of many well-meaning classroom teachers. On an inter- national scale, the development of such a disposition is impeded by a propagandizing which issues from the game of power politics. It is inexcusably naive not to recognize the impact of sociocultural forces such as these which militate against the development of inter- cultural empathy; education should not be regarded as an independent causal variable. On the other hand, it is just as indefensible to conclude negatively that edu- cation is powerless to transform "recognizers" into "perceivers."

Operating on the assumption that the school can fa- cilitate student empathy, what are some pedagogical vehicles which might be fruitfully exploited toward this end? One such tool which suggests itself is student in- teraction with the art of the culturally different. (Quite obviously, unless one is prepared to write a sophisti- cated philosophic treatise, any effort to define "art" is sheer folly. Recognizing this, it will be sufficient for purposes of this discussion to suggest that by "art" is meant any object which initiates aesthetic perception. This includes the "fine", the "useful", and/or the "fine- useful" arts. A corollary point is this: given the generic sense in which we are using the term "art", aesthetic interaction is not a process limited to a "cultured" elite, but largely an experiential phenomenon of the folk.) Artistic expression has long been regarded as one of the better indices into a particular culture's ethos. This assumption has been presupposed by recommen- dations based upon the notion that appreciation of the art of others might issue in an increment of intercul- tural understanding.

The claim that art is preeminently well suited for fostering a sense of empathy is prima facie compelling. But, educational recommendations, if they are to bear fruit, must be grounded in something more than an intuitive hunch. There must be a conceptual frame- work within which the claim can be grounded. The following inquiry is concerned with suggesting some of

theoretical considerations. One assertion frequently advanced in support of the

proposition that art provides one with invaluable cul- tural insights pivots upon the notion that a particular culture's essence is best captured by the imaginative- interpretive expression of the artist-this, as distin- guished from other cultural phenomena which bear a logico-empirical impress. In this regard, it is often argued that the aesthetic is that mode of expression which most authentically communicates a culture's "true feel." Edward Sapir makes the point when he suggests: ... the highest manifestations of culture, the

very quintessence of the genius of a civilization, neces- sarily rest in art, for the reason that art is the authen- tic expression, in satisfying form, of experience; expe- rience not as logically ordered by science, but as direct- ly and intuitively presented to us in life ... art . . . is bound to reflect culture.'

In inquiring into the validity of the position which

Sapir presents, one might pursue a host of theoretical thrusts. One might choose to engage in a logical anal-

ysis of normative discourse. The problem can be ap- proached from the vantage point of the communica- tions theorist. Epistemological tools might well be used to probe the contention. Mindful of these, and other theoretical possibilities, this inquiry will draw largely upon selected conceptualizations integral to theoretical cultural anthropology.

In support of Sapir's position, the anthropologist- psychologist Lawrence Frank, suggests:

Poetry and drama, literature and folklore . . may create empathy, communicate insights, develop aware-

ness and respect for other ways of life, because the aesthetic combines, as in the arts, both the ethos and the eidos of a culture and so may communicate what just factual content and logical, rational learning or teaching cannot.2

By eidos, Frank is referring to the cognitive network which constitutes the Weltanschauung to which the members of a particular culture subscribe. Herein are included all the culturally inherited postulates and as- sumptions which influence one's interpretation of the true, the good, and the beautiful. The eidos also em- braces the logic and "criteria of credibility" which affect one's perceptions. Ethos denotes the emotion which the members of a particular culture invest in their eidos. It can be stated that for most people this early-internalized global outlook-indelibly imprinted

18

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:52:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

understanding through or

during the process of enculturation-is rarely acknowl- edged and only infrequently expressed. Except where he takes pains to purposively, deliberately examine this working philosophy and subject it to critical evaluation, man behaves as an unconscious cultural transmitter (unless, of course, the eidos-ethos is modified through diffusion, borrowing, or external coercion).

Frank's observation that the artist is able to grasp and symbolically express the often obscured philosoph- ic wellsprings of his culture is a view which is shared by other cultural anthropologists among whom can be counted Melville Jacobs and James Feibleman. The latter writes that:

... the myth is an affective and symbolic presentation of philosophic truths, the value-equivalent, objective- ly presented, of the emotional response of a social group to the ultimates of the external world.3

John Dewey shared this insight. Regarding architecture, he wrote:

It expresses also enduring values of collective human life. It "represents" the memories, hopes, fears, pur- poses, and sacred values of those who build in order to shelter a family, provide an altar for the gods . . . Just why buildings are called palaces, castles, homes, city-halls, forums, is a mystery if architecture is not supremely expressive of human interest and values.4

What then, is the significance of the foregoing re- marks as regards educating for intercultural under- standing? First of all, it can be observed that unless one is familiar with the undergirding premises of others' global outlooks, his comprehension of these ways of life will be truncated. And, even an informed awareness of others' global outlooks (or eidos) is not sufficient for generating an empathetic disposition. As was earlier suggested, cognitive erudition, unless com- plemented by affective appreciation, makes not for perception, but for mere recognition. In other words, among the necessary conditions for developing em- pathetic intercultural understanding are knowing an- other's eidos and appreciating his ethos. If the artistic is that mode of expression which most successfully captures and communicates this critically important eidos-ethos, then a cogent case can be made for includ- ing aesthetic inquiry as an integral part of the required learning experience.

While my main concern is not an explication of the aesthetic underpinnings of my position, it is appropri- ate to respond to a weighty objection which some might have, to wit: Does not one prostitute art when he adopts it for extra-aesthetic purposes? As an abbre- viated retort to this objection, I shall draw heavily up- on Iredell Jenkin's masterful analysis of the aesthetic experience in Art and the Human Enterprise. One of Jenkin's main contentions is that in interacting with any environmental object, one's interpretation is gov-

erned by the predominance of the aesthetic, the affec- tive, or the cognitive perspective. It is the function of aesthetic predominance to capture the "particularity" of an object, i.e., to clearly apprehend it as it intrin- sically is. The predominance of the affective perspective issues in one's perception of the actual or potential "import" of the object for the self and/or others. In interpreting an object in a primarily cognitive manner, one seizes upon its "connectedness" with other experi- ential phenomena. As these three interpretive modes interpenetrate during any existential encounter, they inform and complement one another. One's cognitive comprehension of an object is immeasurably enhanced if he is able to apprehend aesthetically its particularity (and the converse). The same holds true for affective impact: I feel the import of an object for myself arid others the more I'm able to participate in its particu- larity. Assuming that certain artists are successful in embodying the nuances, the subtleties, the intricacies of their cultures in forms accessible to others, then an aesthetic appreciation of these art objects will serve to enhance one's cognitive comprehension of and affective sensitivity to the artists' cultures. Quite clearly, what is being asserted is that the aesthetic is not an isolated domain sui generis, but is integrally related to the non- aesthetic. Thus, in employing art as a vehicle for pro- moting intercultural understanding, we are in no way prostituting it. Rather, we are, at one and the same time, recognizing and respecting the integrity of the art object while drawing upon it to illuminate that to which it is experientially integral.

Turning now to some of the curricular implications of our position, it is apparent that one prerequisite is some regularly scheduled, systematic provision for the learner to interact with the art of others. In allowing for such learning experiences, one must take care to insure that such activities are not relegated to discrete, atomistic courses, variously labeled "Appreciating Oth- ers' Art", "International Understanding through Art," etc. Rather, such experiences should be organically in- terrelated with other areas of inquiry-e.g., the anthro- pological, the sociological, the geographical, the histo- rical (or ideally a social studies program which incor- porates all these disciplines)--which are primarily geared to the cultivation of intercultural awareness (of course, this also involves such awareness on an intra- cultural plane). On the lower elementary level, the reading activity can be coordinated with the young- sters' familiarizing themselves with others' art. What would hopefully transpire in such a program would be the enrichment of those learning experiences in which the learning materials are discursive and mainly cogni- tive by the more nondiscursive (as well as the discur- sive) arts. The latter, in turn, would take on more meaning as they are related to the spatiotemporal ma- trix in which they were created. This interdisciplinary

19

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:52:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

approach, if successful, would preclude learning expe- riences geared to appreciating the art of other people from degenerating into sterile episodes wherein the untutored student simply gawks at the exotic and giggles at the esoteric.

Implicit through the entire discussion has been the assumption that all men are psychobiologically similar (a necessary assumption if one is to contend that it is possible to empathize with others by appreciating their art). The educator's commitment to this proposition is a sine qua non for the successful adoption of art as a vehicle for promoting intercultural understanding. If the educator is not so committed, his efforts at promot- ing understanding will be impaled upon his prejudices. One implication for teacher education programs is clear: the teacher-to-be (or the "veteran," for that matter) must undergo whatever "cultural therapy" he needs in order to surface his value commitments and modify or eradicate those components which are ungrounded or illgrounded. (The phrase "cultural therapy" is borrowed from the anthropologist George Spindler who employed it in a study labeled "The Transmission of American Culture" (in Education and Culture, ed., George Spindler, New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, 1963, pp. 148-172). By cultural therapy is meant a process by which one surfaces his internal- ized attitudes and beliefs toward the end of:

1. Recognizing internal inconsistencies among them and

2. Recognizing inadequate groundings for that which has been uncritically accepted.)

Another crucially important implication for teacher education programs is the acknowledgment that knowl-

edge of other people's ways of life can be gained through modes of inquiry other than the exclusively empirical. The teacher-to-be must be provided with

learning experiences which enable him to realize that so rich and intricate a phenomenon is man that he defies being comfortably accommodated by conceptual models which are comprised solely of the logical, ra- tional constructs of the positivist. For many an aspiring educator this will involve a willingness to entertain the notion that the Western intellectual biases to which he is heir-those biases which often inhere in a cavalier

rejection of modes of inquiry other than those which entail empirical verification-are inadequate as episte- mological foundations for understanding the human condition. Hopefully, the future educator's suspension of disbelief will facilitate his awareness that a deep, holistic comprehension of human experience involves intuitive apprehension and empirical illumination (among other modes of knowing). This is in no way to denigrate the aims, purposes, and methodologies of the scientific humanist, but to insist that unless the scien- tific perspective is complemented by other perspectives, e.g., the aesthetic, a spurious, truncated understanding of the human cultural condition will result.

I do not pretend to know the exact pedagogical strat- egies which an adequately prepared educator would employ in his efforts to adopt art as a vehicle for pro- moting intercultural understanding. I shall, nonethe- less, make some effort at concretizing some of the notions I have discussed by indicating their bearings upon a contemporary American sociocultural problem,

namely, racial misunderstanding. The average white American's acquaintance with his black brother, when it does not spank of the miasma of racial prejudice, is nonetheless usually shallow and superficial. On this score, many white Americans "recognize" rather than

"perceive" their black compatriots. This is attributa- ble, in part, to the confinement of their understanding to cognitive comprehension. They might "know" the blacks' history, they might "know" the blacks' plight from a sociological perspective, but, because of their

strictly cognitive-intellectualistic orientation, they are

precluded from knowing the black in the most humanly significant way, the way of empathetic appreciation. Nor can the white ever realize a complete affective identification with the black. But, he can most assuredly facilitate an approximation of this condition if, among other efforts, he strives to empathize with the black

through the latters' art (thereby complementing pre- dominantly cognitive comprehension). If he makes a

real, sustained effort to be seized by the plaintive song of a Nina Simone; to be captured by the engaging words of a Langston Hughes; to be entranced by the

penetrating drama of a Leroi Jones, then, perhaps, he can make a real beginning toward empathically expe- riencing American blackness. Perhaps then he can be-

gin to appreciate the black's ethos and comprehend his eidos. Perhaps then he can begin the long, arduous

process of transforming recognition into perception. One concluding note: the international and intracul-

tural suspicions and enmities which plague us will not be appreciably mitigated by simply employing art in the manner we have described. To insist on such a prop- osition would be hopelessly naive. As we mentioned

in our introductory remarks, education, conceived as a

sociopolitical institution, should not be regarded as an

independent causal variable vis-a-vis the lessening of sociocultural strife. Audacious, imaginative experiments in promoting sociocultural understanding-both within and without the educational enterprise-are urgently needed. Adopting art for purposes of augmenting this

understanding, while perhaps a necessary meliorative measure, is clearly not sufficient. On a macrocosmic scale, hating others is largely an ideological phenom- enon. Thus, regardless of how well conceived and ex- ecuted they might be, pedagogical activities will not

significantly mitigate sociocultural virulence unless

they are complemented by far-reaching political recon- struction.

Arthur Newman is an assistant professor of education at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

REFERENCES

1 Edward Sapir. "Culture, Genuine and Spurious." Culture, Lan-

guage, and Personality. D. G. Mandelbaum, ed. Berkeley, Cali- fornia: University of California Press, 1966, p. 112.

2 Lawrence Frank, discussant in symposium, "Learning Inter- cultural Understanding." Education and Anthropology. George Spindler, ed. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1955, p. 115.

3 James Feibleman. The Theory of Human Culture. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946, pp. 54-55.

4 John Dewey. Art as Experience. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1934, pp. 221-222.

5 Iredell Jenkins. Art and the Human Enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958, especially Chapter II.

20

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:52:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions