Главная Случайная страница


Категории:

ДомЗдоровьеЗоологияИнформатикаИскусствоИскусствоКомпьютерыКулинарияМаркетингМатематикаМедицинаМенеджментОбразованиеПедагогикаПитомцыПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРазноеРелигияСоциологияСпортСтатистикаТранспортФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияХоббиЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника






Intercultural Relationship Dialectics

 

As you may have noticed from the studies discussed so far in this chapter, much of the research on intercultural friendships and romantic relationships has focused on comparing U.S. Americans (particularly White Americans) with other cultural groups. Many of the studies present very static, categorical information about these cultural differences. Unfortunately, this approach often leads to stereotyping, when we compare these groups' families, marriages, friendships, and work relationships, with our own. A dialectical way of thinking about relationships will help us avoid stereotyping.

A dialectical model explains the dynamics of relationships. There were identified several basic dialectical tensions in relationships: novelty-predictability, autonomy-connection, and openness – closedness (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). We can simultaneously feel the need to be both connected and autonomous in relationship with our parents and with others. We may also feel the need for novelty and predictability simultaneously and the need to be open and yet private in our relationships. We can extend the notion of dialectical tensions to encompass the entire relational sphere (Martin, Nakayama, & Flores, 1998).

Differences-Similarities Dialectic. As noted earlier, this is perhaps the most relevant dialectic to a discussion of relationships. Real, important differences do exist between various cultural groups, and these differences come into play in intercultural relationships. However, there are many similarities in human experience and ways of communicating. To be successful at these relationships, it is important to consider these two notions at the same time.

Cultural-Individual Dialectic. Communication in intercultural relationships is both cultural and individual, or idiosyncratic. This dialectic will help us understand and develop relationships across cultural differences.

Privilege-Disadvantage Dialectic. People may be simultaneously privileged and disadvantaged, or privileged in some contexts and disadvantaged in others. Being sensitive to power differentials is important and usually is less obvious to those in more powerful positions.

Personal-Contextual Dialectic. This dialectic involves the role of context in intercultural relationships. Communication is both personal and contextual, or social. Different communication styles are used in different contexts.

Static-Dynamic Dialectic suggests that people and relationships are constantly in the process of changing and respond to various personal and contextual dynamics. Intercultural relationships are no different in this regard. Changes occur very slowly sometimes, but we need to remind ourselves that relationships are both static and dynamic.

History/Past-Present/Future Dialectic Rather than trying to understand relationships by examining the relational partners alone, it is helpful to consider the contexts in which relationships occur. Often, this means the historical context. Cultural groups have different relationships to each other; some of these relationships are more positive and others more negative. For example, the historical and continuing hostility between the United States and Cuba means that each cultural group has fewer opportunities to meet people from the other nation, thus fewer opportunities to develop relationships.

Communicating in Intercultural Relationships

 

Now that we have considered various ways of thinking dialectically about intercultural relationships, let's turn our attention to how we communicate across cultural differences. As we've noted, intercultural relationships may be very similar to intracultural relationships. However, there may be some unique characteristics that can guide our thinking about communicating in these relationships.

Relationships take time to develop. This is one aspect of involvement. Intimacy of interaction is another element of involvement. So are shared friendship networks. According to the study, sharing the same friends is more important for Japanese students than for American students because the Japanese students had left their friendships behind.

Finally, students mentioned significant points that were related to perceived changes in the relationship — turning points that moved the relationship forward or backward. For example, asking a friend to do a favor, or to share an activity, might be a turning point. They remarked that if the other refused, the relationship often didn't develop beyond that point. On the other hand, a point of understanding—self-disclosure—may move the relationship to a new level.

Communicating in intercultural relationships requires dealing with difference, finding similarity and moving beyond prejudice.

 

Permanent Relationships

According to studies conducted in Canada and the USA, women are more likely than men to marry outside their ethnic groups. Likewise, individuals who are older or who have a higher level of education are more likely to marry outside their ethnic group.

What are the major concerns of couples who marry interculturally? One study compared experiences of inter- and intracultural couples. Their concerns, like those of dating couples, often involved dealing with pressures from the family and society in general. In addition, some issues involved child raising. Sometimes these concerns are intertwined. Although many couples are concerned with raising children and dealing with family pressures, those in intercultural marriages deal with these issues to a greater extent. They are more likely to disagree about how to raise the children and are more likely to encounter opposition and resistance from their families about the marriage.

If we only try to understand romantic love on an interpersonal level, how might we explain the high rates of outmarriage by some groups and not others?

Dugan Romano (1997) interviewed many couples in which one spouse came from another country. She outlined 17 challenges of these international marriages. Some are common problems faced by most couples, including friends, politics, finances, sex, in-laws, illness and suffering, and raising children. The following issues are exacerbated in these intercultural marriages: values, eating and drinking habits, gender roles, attitudes regarding time, religion, place of residence, dealing with stress, and ethnocentrism.

Of course, every husband and wife develop their own idiosyncratic way of relating to each other, but intercultural marriage poses consistent challenges. Romano also points out that most couples have their own systems for working out the power balance in their relationships, for deciding who gives and who takes. She identifies four styles of interaction: submission, compromise, obliteration, and consensus. Couples may adopt different styles depending on the context.

The submission styleis most common. One partner submits to the culture of the other partner, abandoning or denying his or her own. The submission may occur in public, whereas in private life the relationship may be more balanced. Romano points out that this model rarely works in the long run. People cannot erase their core cultural background, even though they may try.

The compromise styleis characterized by each partner giving up some parts of his or her culturally bound habits and beliefs to accommodate the other person. Although this may seem fair, it really means that both people sacrifice important aspects of their life. The Christian who gives up having a Christmas tree and all of the celebration of Christmas for the sake of a Jewish spouse may eventually come to resent the sacrifice.

In the obliteration style,both partners deal with differences by attempting to erase their individual cultures. They may form a new culture, with new beliefs and habits, especially if they live in a country that is home to neither of them. It may seem like the only way for people whose backgrounds are completely irreconcilable. However, because it's difficult to be completely cut off from one's own cultural background, obliteration is not a particularly good long-term solution.

The style that is the most desirable, not surprisingly, is the consensus style,one based on agreement and negotiation. It is related to compromise in that both partners give and take, but it is not a tradeoff. It is a win-win proposition. Consensus may incorporate elements of the other models. On occasion, one spouse might temporarily "submit" to the other's culture: For example, while visiting her husband's Muslim family, a Swiss wife might substantially change her demeanor [= manner of behavior], dressing more modestly and acting less assertive. On occasion, each spouse might temporarily give up something to accommodate the other. Consensus requires flexibility and negotiation. Romano stresses that couples who are considering permanent international relationships should prepare carefully for the commitment: live together, spend extended time with the other's family in the home, learn the partner's language, study the religion, and learn the cuisine. The couple should also consider legal issues like citizenship, children's citizenship, finances and taxation, ownership of property, women’s rights, divorce, and issues regarding death.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

 

- Examined are some aspects of forming relationships with people who are both similar to and different from ourselves.

- Identified are the benefits and challenges to intercultural relationships. Through intercultural relationships, we can acquire specific and general knowledge beyond our local communities, break stereotypes, and acquire new skills. Developing relationships with people who are different from ourselves offers special challenges: dealing with differences, the tendency to stereotype, the anxiety that sometimes accompanies these relationships, and explaining to ourselves and others.

- There are four phases of relational development: initial attraction, orientation, exploratory, and stability. There also are cultural variations in how relationships develop during these different phases. In initial attraction, two principles — proximity and physical attraction — seem to be more important in European American society than in other societies. Two other principles — similarity and complementarity — seem to operate for most people in most cultures. These two principles of relationships are especially important for intercultural relationships, because differences are inherent in such relationships; individuals are simultaneously drawn to the similarities and differences of other people.

- Gay relationships are probably similar in many ways to heterosexual relationships, but they may differ in other aspects. In gay relationships, friendship and sexual involvement are not mutually exclusive, as seems often to be the case for heterosexuals. Gay men seem to seek more emotional support from same-sex friends than heterosexual men do. Friendships may play a special role in gay relationships, because the individuals often experience strained relationships with their families.

- We can view relationships dialectically through the competing tensions of differences-similarities, cultural-individual, privilege-disadvantage, personal-contextual, history/past-present/future, and static-dynamic. These dialectics help us avoid stereotyping. They also help us understand the specific ways of communicating in intercultural relationships.

- Intercultural dating and marriage are still not very common and are often disapproved of by family and society. Due to societal structures, there may be little opportunity or desire to date across differences.

- We must take into account the broader social, political, and historical environments in which relationships develop. The contexts in which we move and live may or may not provide us with opportunity and support for developing intercultural relationships.

 

 

s DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND IDEAS

 

 

1. Do people generally have more friends from their own culture or from other cultures? Why?

2. What are some of the benefits of intercultural relationships?

3. What factors contribute to our forming relationships with some people and not with others?

4. How is the development of intercultural relationships different from that of intracultural relationships?

5. What challenges do intercultural couples face when they decide to make their relationships permanent?

6. What are the cultural differences in relational development?

7. What are the advantages of taking a dialectical perspective on international relationships?

8. What are the styles of permanent intercultural relationships?

 

 

REFERENCES

Baxter, L.A. & Montgomery, B. Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. – New York: Guilford Press, 1996.

Brislin, R. W. The Benefits of Close Intercultural Relationships. In: S. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.). Human Assessment and Cultural Factors. – New York: Plenum Publishing, 1983, pp. 521 – 538.

Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm. – New York: Academic Press, 1971.

Dodd, H. C. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. – Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown, 1983.

Gao, G. Stability of Romantic Relationships in China and the United States. In: S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.). Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication. – Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 99 – 115.

Gareis, E. Intercultural Friendship: A Qualitative Study. – Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995.

Javidi, A. & Javidi, M. Cross-Cultural Analysis of Interpersonal Bonding: A Look at East and West. In: Horward Journal of Communications. No.3, 1991, pp. 129 – 138.

Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A. A Dialectical Approach to Intercultural Communication. In: Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A (Eds.). Readings in Cultural Contexts. – Mountain, CA: Mayfield, 1998, pp. 5 – 15.

Nakayama, T. K. Communication of Heterosexism. In: M. L. Hecht (Ed.). Communication of Prejudice. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 112 – 121.

Nardi, P. M. That’s what friends are for: Friends as family in the gay and lesbian community. In: K. Plummer (Ed.). Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience. – New York: Routledge, 1992, pp. 108 – 120.

Osbeck, L. M. & Moghaddam, F. M. Similarity and Attraction among Majority and Minority Groups in a Multicultural Context. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations. No. 21, 1997, pp. 113 – 123.

Romano, D. Intercultural Marriage: Promises and Pitfalls, 2nd ed. – Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1997.

Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfeld, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A.Love: American Style, Russian Style, and Japanese Style. In: Personal Relationships, No.1, 1994, pp. 349 – 369.

Sherrod, D. & Nardi, P. M. The Nature and Function of Friendship in the Lives of Gay Men and Lesbians. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 1988

Stefan, W. & Stefan, S.Reducing Intercultural Anxiety through Intercultural Contact. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations. No. 16, 1992, pp. 89 – 106.


LECTURE TEN

Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-06-10

lectmania.ru. Все права принадлежат авторам данных материалов. В случае нарушения авторского права напишите нам сюда...