“Birds of a feather flock together” is an idiom(1) that exists in several languages and can be interpreted as people with a similar socio-economic and cultural background resembling each other and therefore presumably “playing” well together. This very idiom clearly demonstrates how we construct us and our in-group and that way create the other and otherness from which we want to separate and disconnect ourselves. Another well-known proverb(2) “Birth is much, breeding is more” indicates that since the very first moment we are born, our environment and the upbringing (incl. formal education) we receive are shaping our identities and consequently influencing our attitudes, beliefs, behaviour, values, and most importantly our sense of belonging to a group of people to whom we happen to relate for one or another reason.

As part of this enculturation process – especially if we lack criticism and adult guidance as children and youngsters – we may adopt intolerant and discriminative attitudes as a norm without being able to judge the incorrectness of such conduct. Usually the acquisition of cultural categories is to a large degree an unconscious process, as Dundes Renteln (2005) describes, and therefore individuals are mostly unaware of having internalized them. Thus, the more people only stick to their own cultural home-base, where they can easily and lazily live with autopilot mode on, the more their (bad) habits and behaviours become automatic and repetitive. This indeed can have a negative impact on their readiness and willingness to deal with unexpected changes and challenges originating from their external environment.

What happens when we have to leave our comfort zone, the safety and security provided by our in-group, and encounter somebody representing the other? What if this other is an individual with a completely different background than ours as regards his/her country of origin, language, worldview, life experience, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.?  Do we in such a situation manage to cope with the fear factor that may make us feel threatened by the unknown other? Will we in such an intercultural encounter be able to think rationally and decide consciously on building the relationship upon similarities rather than focusing on any visible or invisible differences? This is probably easier said than done as, for example, Lavancy et al. (2011) point out, there are complex mechanisms of social categorization in the human mind that result in othering processes (i.e. opposition between us and them), which often may create tension, anxiety and intolerance in situations of intercultural interaction.

But don’t we too often and too hastily assume that culture is static and explains everything and in so doing gives us the perfect excuse to continue being ignorant towards what is actually taking place and eventually going totally wrong in an intercultural encounter? Isn’t it pretty convenient to think that as my own behaviour is valid conduct in my own country and in my own social network, it is therefore justified in any other context as well, and thus there is absolutely no reason for me to modify my behavioural conduct (rather the other should change and adapt to my behaviour!)? The famous Dutch researcher Geert Hofstede (2002) quite correctly claims that culture does not exist as such, but is a dynamic, ever-changing construct. As long as culture proves its utility by explaining and predicting behaviour, it serves its proper function. However, as soon as it fails to do so, it is to be dropped or traded for something better. Hofstede continues that culture is often redundant, and that other factors (such as economic, political or institutional) offer better explanations. But sometimes they do not, and then the construct of culture is needed to understand and interpret human interaction.

Dervin (2014) highlights the evolutionary nature of cultures and that every single culture is constantly co-constructed by people participating in it through their actions and discourses. This leads to regarding people as actors actively involved in negotiating representations on themselves, their life experiences and their daily environment, and moves away from seeing them purely as cultural objects. In this setting, the term “intercultural” becomes even more essential as it is strongly suggesting that everything is negotiated between (“inter”) people and that their identities are constantly transforming through the ongoing process of human interaction. In this respect, interculturality should be observed as a vivid and dynamic relationship for negotiating images of the self and the other (incl. cultures, languages, worldviews, religions, …) instead of relying on them as explanatory static elements. This allows us to conclude that any culture or any identity is a result of co-creation between individuals representing a wide variety of different backgrounds, and thus we all are doers giving our input to “designing” our joint culture in a highly globalized world (Dervin & Gao, 2012).

 

(1) For example, in Swedish: « Lika barn leka bäst. »; German: « Die Vögel gesellen sich zu ihres gleichen. »; Latin: « Pares cum paribus facillime congregantur. »; French: « Les oiseuax de même couleur se cherchent volontiers. »; Spanish: «  Yo como tú, tú como yo, diablo nos juntó. »

(2) In French : « La naissance ne fait pas la noblesse. » ; German : « Nicht Geburt macht den Adel. »

Bibliography:

Dervin, F. (2014). Exploring “new” interculturality online. In Language and Intercultural Communication, 14:2, 191-206.

Dervin, F. & Gao, M. (2012). Constructing a fairy tale around intercultural couplehood on Chinese television. In Language and Intercultural Communication, 12:1, 6-23.

Dundes Renteln, A. (2005). The Use and Abuse of the Cultural Defense. In Canadian Journal of Law and Soceity. Volume 20, Number 1, pp. 47-67.

Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney.

Lavancy, A., Gajardo, A. & Dervin, F. (Eds., 2011). Interculturality at stake. Politics of Interculturality. Newcastle: CSP