Intercultural Dialogue Leading to ‘Integration’?

1. Intercultural Dialogue Leading to ‘Integration’? S. Paul Verluyten University of Antwerp SoLLs.INTEC.O9 Language and Culture, Malaysia, 5-6 May 2009

2. Evanoff 2004 & 2006 • Richard J. Evanoff, ‘Universalist, relativist and constructivist approaches to intercultural ethics’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28:5 (2004), 439-458 • Richard J. Evanoff, ‘Integration in Intercultural Ethics’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30:4 (2006), 421-437

3. Richard J. Evanoff, ‘Universalist, relativist and constructivist approaches to intercultural ethics’, IJIR, 28:5 (2004), 439-458 • Universalism • Transcendental (deductive): «ours» • Common core (inductive): never found • Relativism • Not a good basis for IC dialogue • → Constructivism • There are no universal values at the outset, but through dialogue between cultures we can build such universal values together • «Both sides critically reflect on what is positive and negative within their respective traditions and imaginatively seek to integrate positive aspects of both traditions into a wider conceptual framework.»

4. Richard J. Evanoff, ‘Integration in Intercultural Ethics’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30:4 (2006), 421-437

5. Integration vs. adaptation • Adaptation = sojourners adapt to the norms of the host culture • Integration = “individuals changing themselves to fit into their host cultures but also [.] the process by which host cultures transform themselves to accomodate the presence of sojourners (2006:424) • Integration “requires immigrants to adopt the basic values of the receiving society”

6. Richard J. Evanoff, ‘Integration in Intercultural Ethics’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30:4 (2006), 421-437 • “Integration”... • “aims at ‘mutual accommodation’ between different cultural groups” • both sides “engaging in constructive criticism of the values and norms of both cultures” and “construct[ing] new norms across cultural lines”. →“Third cultures” (Useem 1971), “hybridity” (Werbner&Modood 1997), “dynamic inbetweenness” (Yoshikawa 1987).

7. Critique of Evanoff • Always asymmetrical, unidirectional • Inherent tendency toward homogenization • Poor basis for a multicultural society

8. “Dialogue between equals”? • «Moral suasion can still be regarded as a legitimate tactic in cross-cultural dialogue, provided that all sides are allowed to fully participate in the process in an open and uncoerced manner.» (Evanoff 2004) • «In an interdependent world, if culture A objects strenuously enough to a practice in culture B, culture B may fear a loss of foreign aid and other privileges.» (Alison Dundes Renteln, International Human Rights: Universalism vs. Relativism, 1990)

9. Evanoff’s (few) examples... • «Asians as a whole, not just leaders and intellectuals, should be given the opportunity to decide if they prefer to stick to Asian values—or perhaps to embrace Western human rights or selectively combine the two.» (2004:455) • “Japanese society could become more oriented towards individualistic values (which in fact is the direction Japan seems to heading in) or America could become more oriented towards collectivist values (which Western communitarians would urge us towards).” (2006:429) → Asymmetry

10. The illusion of a ‘dialogue between equals’ • Competing constructs get a ‘fair hearing’ • Did the Japanese really get a fair hearing of both their own traditional, ‘collectivist’ system of hiring and firing practices (such as life-time employment) and the American system (where firing a worker is a lot easier and more common), and then ‘decided’ that they prefer the latter? • Did Americans get fair exposure to the Japanese value system which involves life-time employment and then decided to reject it? Asymmetry → Homogenization

11. “Better” : Western bias • «It is […] impossible for individuals who have been exposed to these differences to simply accept them all on equal terms. Inevitably, distinctions will be made between what is considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in any given culture. » • «[It can] be argued that competing constructions can be evaluated according to the pragmatic criterion of how well they enable us to get along in the world.» • “Realize their full potential” • A monk, a Wall Street stock broker • an Indonesian woman saving for her funeral

12. Homogeneism... • Hybridity, “third cultures” • Possible for immigrants to create a “third space” in which various aspects of both the dominant and the immigrant culture are hybridized” (2006:423) • ‘for immigrants’?? Or “mutual accomodation”? • melting pot or salad bowl?

13. Fear of la différence • Leads to homogeneism • Whipes out cultural diversity • May lead to ethnic cleansing • “What is different, is dangerous” The island of Cyprus before and after the Greek-Turkish conflict

14. Successful examples of multicultural societies • Hassidic Jews in Antwerp • Parsis in India (Mumbai)

15. In business communication... • June Francis, When in Rome...? The effects of cultural adaptation on intercultural business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies 1991, 22(3), 403-428 • American’s responses to the simulated behavior of “Japanese and Korean business people” • Three degrees of adaptation: • substantial • moderate • no adaptation • Results: • Moderate adaptation > No adaptation > Substantial adaptation

16. In business communication... • Behavior not consciously monitored • E.g. eye contact • Risk of inappropriate attempts at adaptation • Japanese trying to be more ‘direct’ • Hypercorrection

17. Beware of attempts to adapt! Don’t be afraid of la différence!

18. Beauty... Sexy... Raoni Metuktire, Kayapo Indian chief (Brazil)

19. Western Individualism...