Multiculturalism in today’s environment: will it ever be the same?

1. Multiculturalism in today’s environment: will it ever be the same? Roger Matthew Bell, Department of HR management, ESADE Business School, Av Pedralbes 60-62, 08034, Barcelona Roger.bell@esade.edu

3. Berry: available strategies… INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION MULTI-CULTURALISM MELTINGPOT SEPARATION MARGINALI-ZATION EXCLUSION SEGREGATION ISSUE 1 MAINTENANCE OF HERITAGE, CULTURE AND IDENTITY + + - + - ISSUE 2 - RELATIONSHIPSSOUGHTAMONG GROUPS STRATEGIES OFETHNOCULTURALGROUPS STRATEGIES OFLARGER SOCIETY Source: Berry (1997), in: Handbook of Intercultural Training

4. How can we improve our intercultural skills? Gudykunst (1998) • Minimize anxiety (from no interest to no cognitive capability i.e. paralysis!) Knowledge reduces uncertainty • Watch different perspectives: perception explains behaviour • Theirinterests: watch for differences: seek similarities: interpret what are their interests • Mindfulness enables open-ness, tolerance, awareness of own perspectives. Intercultural communication is inter-active • Categories: we need finer distinctions: over-simplification is root of false stereotyping

5. Integration Ethnorelative Adaptation Acceptance Ethnocentric Minimization Defence Denial Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) Milton Bennett (1986, 1993). How is it influenced by ideological indoctrination in other cultures?

6. Individual rights v social constraints • “… my religion demands that I wear this (the niqab) … I feel much more comfortable… it’s a question of modesty as well as religion…” • Look at nuns: nobody tells them what they can wear …. • In these day when security matters so much …. It’s all very well to have your photograph on forms but what’s the use if you can’t glance at the face to check? • It’s weird not knowing who you’re passing in the street especially late at night when they might jump you …

7. How we learn about cultures, macro and organizational Emics: symbols, meanings Comparing on etic dimensions Experiential learning at the interface Multi-dimensional picture Political, ethnic, historical realities Interpretative problem: distinguish cultural, situational, personal business negotiating issues or others ….

8. Stereotypes overlook distributions. Confirmed by extreme cases; not necessarily disconfirmed by counter-stereotypical behaviour (Rudman & Fairchild 2004) Culture B Culture A Common area EXTREMES e.g. Indirect, rhetorical EXTREMES e.g. Direct, low context

9. How much do we see? Behind the “veil of the visible” Cultural Paradigm: macro (systemic), organizational, sub-unit Values, basic assumptions, beliefs, symbolic meanings, location on etic dimensions Relational Functional Communication conventions, norms

10. Fundamental attribution error • When dealing with out-groups we tend to notice character, personality traits, abilities or cultural motives not external situational factors. • We focus on simplified affiliation of the person more than situation, about which we may know very little. • Western culture exacerbates this error, emphasizing individual freedom and autonomy; • Of ourselves and our in-groups, however, we tend to make situational attributions…

11. Advice from David Pinto (Pinto 2000) • Be aware of your own norms, values and the behavioural codes influencing your ways of thinking, acting and communicating • Get to know the norms, values and behavioural codes of the other party, distinguishing opinion and stereotypes from facts • Decide how far to accommodate to the other party. Make this clear in a timely fashion consistent with the communication codes of the other party.

12. We expect others to behave like us, but they don’t. We react with anger, worry, etc. to cultural incidents) We become aware our own behavior (expecting sameness) causes incidents We are thus motivated to learn about the local culture And begin to expect the local people to behave like themselves And there are fewer cultural incidents Storti’s vision (2001)

13. Making sense: be aware of what you fear:anxiety, negative expectations • Self concept: identity threat, • Personal consequences: be ripped off, dominated, strangers’ rejection, ridicule, stereotyping • In-group disapproval • Heightened by feeling no control; the more anxious, less cognitive capacity, desire control in spite of initial desire to be understanding (Gudykunst 1998) • Violence and physical menace?

14. Effective communication requires that we support (others’) self concepts, including their preferred ethnic identities” (Gudykunst 1998 P 84) Empathy requires that we be aware of the impression that we give to others

15. Extreme position: “unconditional constructiveness” (Gudykunst 1998); • Rationality: avoid emotional traps • Understanding and communication .. even if they don’t listen • Reliability: even if they seek to deceive • Non-coercive mode even if they try to coerce us • Acceptance even if they don’t accept us • But “apocalyptic meaning flows into the vacuum of lost confidence (A Karatnycky, director of Freedom House)

16. Managing inter-group conflict : avoid defensive reactions • Mutual problem orientation: win-win • Describe not evaluate • Adapt communication style • Co-operative not competitive mode • View them as equals, respect culture • Clarify own assumptions: be mindful • And if we don’t ….?

17. Predictors of XC success: Triandis 1994 • Sensitivity, tolerance (explain before value judgments) • Cultural flexibility (substitute suitable behaviours) • Social orientation (establish new XC relations) • Willingness to communicate (e.g in host language) • Risk taking (low personal security needs) • Skills in conflict resolution (collaborative style) • Patience and humour (ability to suspend judgment) • Commitment and interest in cultures

18. Cross-cultural interactions and attitudes Knowledge of Culture Perceived History of Conflict Perceived trustworthiness Likely satisfaction: repeat encounters Inter-group attitude Perceived Cultural Distance Opportunity For Contact Perceived need contact Adapted from Triandis (1992)

19. ITT fundamentals lead to unfavourable attitudes towards out-groups • Real or imagined threats (resources, employment) • Symbolic threats (values, norms and beliefs that threaten worldview, identity, self-image) • Inter-group anxiety (fear embarrassment, ridicule, exploitation, violence) • Negative stereotyping

20. Integrated Threat Theory : a causal model (Stephan, Stephan & Gudykunst 1999, Landis 2004 P200) Real threats, Symbolic threats Inter-group anxiety Negative stereotyping Behaviour: Discrimination, Delinquency, Denigration Defensiveness Insularity etc History of Intergroup conflict Status inequalities Strong in-group identification Lack of Knowledge Past contacts negative Prejudice

21. Approaches to culture contact: ABC + ITT(Ward C in Landis et al 2004) Affect, stress, copingwith cultural adaptation (Berry) Behavioural learning, skills, sociocultural adaptation (Argyle) Intergroup outcomes: Psychological, sociocultural, Cognitive (perceptions) Cognitive, Social identity; Change/maintain (Tajfel) ITT: Real, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, negative stereotypes

22. But does this deal with power issues? • It has to be argued on different levels: individual, group, national, regional, global • Groups involved in conflict and religious fundamentalism (of all kinds) • Solutions lie in the long run in dealing with the economic issues that surround the globalizing demonstration effect, the digital divide, the haves and have nots

23. Fundamentalism is a reaction to economic demonstration effects, internet, material things, beautiful people • Le discours de la victimization (Arkoun) • And humiliation: “it has always been my view that terrorism is not spawned by poverty of money: it is spawned by poverry of dignity” Thomas Friedman

24. The problem of big numbers • Huntington’s Hispanic immigrant wave in US • Hayek: there is a necessary reduction of the range of duties we owe to others • Polanyi’s great transformation when face to face market turns into commodity impersonal market place “ a solvent of traditional moralities”. • De-humanization is always the issue

25. A universalistic view? • A nation-state is not composed of a single homogeneous ethnic group (a community), but of a variety of individuals willing to live together (Ernest Renan) • This requires common adherence to the laws, values and conventions. • Being a citizen of a country is like joining a club. "If you want to join, follow the rules. If you do not accept them, you cannot be a member. If you want to play by other rules, then go elsewhere (Elie Barnavi). • This can no longer be true, implying the supremacy of dominant culture: a culture into which “they” fit or don’t fit.

26. A now untenable view • David Goodhart: “acts of sharing are more smoothly and generously negotiated if we can take for granted a limited set of common values and assumptions … but as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded … we cannot see reasons for sharing where we believe we have little in common, starting with the right to be in the same place”

27. Strategic options depend on circumstances (role, intention, power) Our Way Dominance Synergy Compromise Accommodation Avoidance, Denial Their Way

28. Learning Strategic options (2) Our Way Balance of power ours: Dominance (what power?) Joint satisfaction; learning, win win synergies Balance of power theirs: accommodation Lose- lose: no adapting, denial Their Way

29. Image of Western military presence