text presentation "building trans-cultural communities"

Erik van ‘t Klooster www.getupandgo.nl [email protected]

Dear all,

Welcome to my presentation, called “Building trans-cultural communities: a travel to learn approach”.

With building trans-cultural communities I mean citizens and communities which are able to bridge

differences between different cultures in a meaningful way, during their physical and virtual travels. In

particular my perspective is based on individual learning. Hence, throughout my presentation I focus

on what competencies individuals need to develop to make a community trans-cultural. The

responsibility of succes in the end lies with the individual.

My argument in this presentation is based on my recently defended PhD thesis called “Travel to learn:

the influence of cultural distance on competence development in educational travel.” Through

theoretical and empirical research I developed a competence framework for educational travel, which

includes study abroad, international internships, study tours and international research projects. The

competence framework included cross-cultural competencies, personal development and professional

competencies. With the framework both students and teachers can better assess the effectiveness and

efficiency of educational travel experiences.

In this presentation I build on the findings of my PhD thesis by emphasizing some fundamental

concepts and processess that lie at the heart of travel (physical or virtual), namely leaving the familiar

context and engaging with the Other, the other culture. I will explain why this becomes more

important in a more global uncertain society by focusing on the concept of ontological security.

Ontological security means a security of being, you could say at the level of the human as an

organism, not related to job role, community role or family role. Next I will argue that to gain a better

sense of ontological security three types of competencies are needed: First is the need to understand

cultural differences and their dynamics. Second is understanding the basic coping mechanisms to deal

with uncertainty and new information. Third, is a better understanding of identity and personal

development.

The imperative for my research is the fact that over the past two decades, innovations in transportation

and information communication technology have resulted in an ever expanding global perspective

among people and companies. On the one hand this offers opportunities for international business.

Also, more and more people travel abroad to gain new experiences and get in touch with other

lifestyles, other cultures. However, this new playing field doesn’t solely offer advantages. The world

has also become much more dynamic, competitive and more uncertain due to international supply

chains, global restructuring, and interdependent markets. Global power is shifting from West to East.

Cultural differences increase the chance of conflicts in international business and politics. Hence, this

uncertainty doesn’t merely apply to the world of work and material things but also refers to deeper


feelings of uncertainty about who we are and what we can expect from others (e.g. other cultures). The

British sociologist Anthony Giddens uses the term ontological security / insecurity to describe this

phenomenon.

For example, take the recent political (and economic) conflict in Ukraine. In order to fully understand

the situation we not only need to understand the geo-political situation but also the different cultural

perspectives involved and their history, from the viewpoint of Russia, Europe and USA. Often in the

media a one sided distorted picture is painted of unfolding events and in order to resolve the conflict

we need to come to a more realistic judgment of the situation, taking into account the other

perspectives as well.

Often in a conflict we first look at the surface first, thinking that our viewpoints are the same.

However, below the surface are different values and attitudes which can differ greatly. Values /

attitudes / meaning perspectives lie at the heart of a person. Perhaps the most famous scholar on

writing about cultural values and differences is Geert Hofstede who has recently added another

dimension to his model: Indulgence / Restraint, based on the outcomes of the world values survey

which I will discuss later on. It is important to note that the cultural dimensions are basic

characteristics of how communities can be characterized, so for me looking at these dimension doesn’t

only mean looking at nations but also provide guidelines for understanding the values of a particular

person / group within a society.

Values lie at the heart of a person and a threatening of these basic assumptions threaten ones sense of

ontological security: “a security of being, a sense of confidence and trust that the world is what it

appears to be. Trust of other people is like an emotional inoculation against existential anxieties”

(Kinnvall 2004; Giddens 1991). A threat of this security is also threatening to ourselves as an unclear

definition of the Other also implies an unclear definition of ourselves. In order to feel secure we want

to be sure in who we are as well as what we can expect from others. Identity is seen as an anxiety-

controlling mechanism reinforcing a sense of trust, predictability, and control” (Erikson 1950).

This leads me to the important questions of what competencies are needed to succesfully deal with

ontological security? Based on my PhD thesis I suggest 3 types of competencies that are needed: 1)

understanding cultural differences and their dynamics, 2) Understanding uncertainty coping

mechanisms, and (3) understanding personal development.

Based on research by Huntington but also the world values survey there can be identified several

stable cultural zones, each with their own characteristics, see for example the Hofstede dimensions.


In this graph, based on the world values survey, which started in the eighties, we see two things which

regard to cultural differences and the dynamics. The first is that as countries get richer, develop from

agrarian to industrial to service society their values become more secular (non-hierarchical, non-

religious) and more self expressive (individualistic & tolerance). Second we see that countries remain

clustered around traditional belief systems transmitted through different religions, geographical and

language spheres.

The first dynamic is the change from agrarian to industrial economy where societies become more

tolerant of divorce, abortion, more feminine, less authoritarian and more individualistic. The second

dynamic is that as economies develop from industrial to service economy they shift values to trust,

tolerance, subjective well being and political activism. Third, although economic development triggers

these shifts, the nature of actual change is dependent on a countries broad cultural heritage, as we saw

earlier. In sum we need to understand different persistent value systems but also the dynamic of values

due to economic development.

How do we deal with the other culture, which can be so foreign to us: “the Other” the opposite of

“Me” and “the same”. Often our first reaction is to turn inward and disconnect from “the Other”,

which is not us. “At the root of this turning inward and disconnect is a great fear – one of the most

primal known to man, and perhaps the least understood” (50 Cent and Robert Greene 2009). The first

rational reply is that we need cross-cultural competencies which recognize behavioral approaches and

perceptual approaches. I already discussed the importance of the often not in time recognized

perceptual cultural knowledge. However, this is a rational solution which “in the heat of battle” is

often forgotten.

Often the real problem lies in how we deal with uncertainty, our emotional reaction to information that

is not familiar to us. Schema theory explains this very well. Schema are associations in the brain

which are build from previous experiences and retrieved for current and new situations. The

development of schema in particular has a strong influence in our childhood where fundamental value

schemes are anchored around the age of ten through socialization.

Schemas are very important to make sense of the world. The more we experience a situation the easier

it is to react to it with the help of previously build schemas. Schemas work like stereotypes. The

downside of stereotypes is that they simplify decision making but can be totally wrong in unfamiliar

situations. Dealing with other cultures is of course unfamiliar by nature.

In order to deal with unfamiliar situations and other cultures three types of adjustments can happen:

assimilation, accommodation and withdrawal. Assimilation: the process of making the experienced


world fit into the existing schemas. Accommodation: modification of the existing schemas to fit the

new experience. Withdrawal: Instead of changing the schemas that have proven inadequate in a new

context, they choose to change their situation and environment (Chang 2009). We use these strategies

in life in general but are often not aware of it.

The key to survival in modern world is not to over rely on one particular schema adjustment strategy,

in political conflicts, business conflicts or with other social groups. It is about finding the right

balance. This is also recognized by Karen Horney, a famous psychoanalyst. She revealed three types

of neurotic approaches for dealing with the uncertain external environemnt: aggresive / move against;

complaint / move towards ; and withdraw from the environment. Well-adjusted individuals utilize all

three of these strategies.

Finally, when we talk about better understanding the Other, there are also implications for better

understanding of “I” or yourself. The confrontation with the Other is also a confrontation with the self.

As we have seen earlier the most fundamental value schemes are established in our youth, these are

hard to shake off and have a great influence on who we are. On the other hand associations are

malleable as people often notice when they enter a new environment (for example through traveling):

they discover something new of themselves. At the superficial level (at the top of the iceberg) we can

feel more confident in dealing with new situations (independence + flexibility) However to establish

more deep changes in our personalities (e.g. in the form of attitude) is much more difficult. Still such

understanding shines a new light on our identity, at once a reassurance of a core, but on the other hand

also options for change. Altogether we need to find ontological security in the understanding that

identity is both more fixed and fluid than we initially think, and this is knowledge we need to adapt to

an ever changing dynamic World.

In conclusion, in my presentation I discussed an increasing international perspective and the need to

deal with ontological security, explained through underlying cultural values. I proposed three ways to

deal with this: 1 understanding other cultures and their dynamics, 2 understand coping mechanisms

and 3) a better understanding of personal development. My hypothesis is that a better understanding of

such processes leads to greater ontological security, one we don’t find by escape from the Other

because we don’t understand, or try to dominate by force. Hence, in my last slide I would like to quote

Victor Frankl, survivor of the Holocaust, neurologist and psychiatrist.

In modern society, human instincts and cultural traditions have lost their place. The result is an

existential vacuum, an absence of meaning or purpose in life. The pursuance of pleasure or power

cannot bring substance to this void, as they are merely empty quests. Growth is the result of the

discovery of meaningful connections with others (Frankl 1969).

text presentation "building trans-cultural communities"

Education