Multicultural dialoging beyond political correctness.
Gabriela Melano has been blogging on Engage Her’s website since the fall of 2009 regarding the multiple dynamics common to dialoguing across cultures and other diversity matters.
The following are a collection of her blogs:
Multicultural Dialoguing in the Post “Political- Correctness” Era
In 1987 and in my early twenties, with a knapsack and $300, I landed at an International Conference Center in Stony Point, New York. Having been raised in a bilingual and bicultural family in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Montevideo, Uruguay, and having lived in different parts of the world, I was eager to engage in multicultural dialogs with people from all over the globe. My one-year assignment proved to be very meaningful and fun at many levels—but there was one recurrent surprise: there seemed to be this unspoken assumption that “multicultural” meant “all cultures, with the exception of the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, Caucasian, United Statesian (pick the language you prefer) cultures.”
In the era of Political Correctness, I picked up on other barely spoken assumptions that fueled this amazing blind spot. For instance, somehow, Anglo-United Statesians appeared to be “the norm”, or “the neutral” culture. “Are you kidding!” was my initial youthful response. “Neutral?! What type of culture would have even want, should that be humanly possible, to claim that they were neutral in the first place?!!” I would add in a thought-provoking fashion whenever I could. As I observed and analyzed power dynamics, of course, the matters became more and more complicated as well as utterly interesting.
Since 1987, I have lived and worked at different latitudes of The Americas (the continent), and I have been happily residing in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years. The conversations about multicultural differences and similarities have consistently captured my fascination. Since 1997, nationally and internationally, I have been serving as an Organizational Development Consultant and diversity matters (intentionally defined in an inclusive fashion) have always been at the center of my professional practice.
That is why when I attended the Engage Her Conference at UC Berkeley in the spring of 2009, I was thrilled beyond imagination. The definition of “multicultural women” was “ women of ALL cultures—including White, Caucasian, Anglo, etc.!” In fact, we went further to indicate that we were clearly welcoming of men in this critical dialogue about ensuring that women of ALL colors become more empowered in our country. The essential difference, however, is that in the spirit of multicultural acceptance (not just mere tolerance), White or Caucasian women will not be always at the center of the scene, defining reality for the rest of us, in the name of some alleged neutrality.
“Welcome to the Post- Political Correctness Era, Gabriela!” I told myself, and I am gladly telling you all. Our imagination is the limit as to how meaningful and deep we can get—and in the globalized world we are living, these conversations are only becoming more and more crucial to the well being, if not survival, of our societies and planet! Within that spirit it is my utmost honor and pleasure to accept Engage Her’s invitation to lead a blog about multi-cultural dialoguing.
Is referring to common patterns inherently stereotyping?
As a facilitator of group conversations and educator, I have come across many dynamics that are common to multicultural dialogues. Some are fairly typical of people who are socialized in the United States, others they appear to be common to other cultures; sometimes, they are typical of humanity in itself!
Perhaps the most prominent one in the United States is the tendency of interpreting generalizations as stereotypes. That is, when discussing matters that pertain to diversity and thus involve dwelling with differences and similarities between cultures, genders, generations, socio-economic class and other similar types of categories, generalizations are often interpreted as stereotypes.
For example, when exploring experiences about genders, someone may say: “ but I know a man who is very inclined to ask for directions when lost.” That is, the experiences of common people and research have recurrently shown that men have the tendency of being reticent to ask for directions while women are inclined to ask for directions when lost. Of course, that is a generalization; in this case, one that is gender based. That does not mean, however, that exceptions or “non-typicalities” to this tendency can exist. For instance, we could come across women who tend not to ask for directions. A stereotype, however, is the assumption that being a man, somehow, prevents you from asking for directions and that being a woman, somehow, makes you inherently someone who asks for directions.
Quite often when teaching about multicultural matters in the United States, especially certain types of students have frequently stated that “if we did not have generalizations, we would not have racism.” My response has been, “if we cannot openly discuss generalizations in human behavior, we would not have sociology, ethnography, nor gender studies… who would benefit from that?”
Food for thought: I offer you a mini-quiz: What types of social groups may tend to be more resistant or have more problems in talking about social patterns? Men or women, Caucasian/Anglos or people of other cultural backgrounds? Is that a mere coincidence? Who benefits from not talking about patterns?
Professionally and personally, I am extremely interested in fostering authentic dialogues that directly dwell with similarities and differences across social groups, of any kind. Engage Her’s purpose is very clear: to promote the non-violent creation of societies that work for all, regardless of culture, gender, generation, socio-economic class, and so forth.
Distinguishing intent and impact- both are critical!
When I first arrived to the USA in the late 80’s, the Political Correctness Era was in full fledge. A fascinating advance towards improved integration of people’s of all type, those were times when people paid close attention to the use of language. For instance, in an interest to promote higher awareness around gender matters, gender inclusive language was proposed and has gradually become more common in every day communication. Examples of gender inclusive language are the use of “his or her” as opposed to the use a male only or “firefighter” when referring to firemen and firewomen… and the list goes on and on.
I found this focus on language use to be particularly interesting as it gave a focal avenue for entering the often-delicate conversations that increased multicultural understanding entail. As a result of those dialogues, whether they were carried in the quasi-safety of a classroom setting or the more volatile environment of diversity workshops, it was thrilling to be a witness of enhanced awareness of how language can include or exclude, respect or disrespect people’s from diverse life paths.
This stage in the field was certainly worthwhile and necessary—and is still relevant, as there are still long ways to go and territories to explore in the development of inclusive language. However, what I believe we appear to be more ready to embark in our new era is to get deeper and, if we are successful, start building bridges among differences.
Let me share one concrete example of a principle I have found useful when facilitating multicultural dialogue. I call it the “intent as well as impact principle”. When talking about differences of any type, it is quite possible (and almost expected) that we may inadvertently offend someone. Without a need for a guilt-driven feeling, it is often helpful to acknowledge that we did, in fact, say something offensive as it helps to restore some level of trust and comfort in the conversation. A very similar spirit is also required for those who may be at the receiving end of the offense. That is, when letting someone know that they stated something offensive to us, we need to keep in mind and heart that, most likely, they have not realized they were disrespectful to us. Sharing our feelings, thoughts and perspective without guilt or a self-righteous attitude will prove to be critical ingredients to deepen and further those conversations that are so critical for improved multicultural understandings.
An esteemed colleague in the field of race relations, Glenn Singleton, states the following in his workshops on racial matters in education. “It is hard for an African American man to walk around in society having to constantly prove that he is not a thief nor a murderer. In conversations with Caucasians I have learned to realized that it must be tough for a White person, of any gender, to go about the world having to prove that they are not racist.”
Food for thought: Remember any conversation you had around diversity matters that did not quite end in improved understandings. Re-track the steps in the dialogue. Would being aware about the importance of intent and impact have helped? If so, how differently may have the conversation evolve?
Do I know or am I interpreting or assuming?
(Either way, it’s great information– just be sure to know the difference!)
In my role as a group facilitator and mediator who pays close attention to diversity matters, I have often found that people disagree with or become offended by something that has not been either said or meant. That is, even before they know what the other person is saying or intending to say, they interpret it in some fashion and have a negative reaction to it.
Of course, just like in the case of religion, politics or other topics that are rooted in deep values, talking about diversity matters frequently winds up being a very sensitive endeavor. Engrained in past experiences of exclusion or sometimes outright racism or sexism, it makes plenty of sense that people recurrently become very emotional. However, in and of itself, that is not the problem. What complicates dialogues about diversity matters is a common tendency of loading our own negative interpretations to what others are saying, meaning or even doing—and not knowing the difference!
For instance, let’s imagine a scenario in which someone is describing a scene about interacting with people of a different gender, culture or any other diversity aspect. While they are describing what their experience was, and before they made any value judgment about it, they are often blamed for being “racist”, “sexist” or otherwise intolerant. Of course, the result is a shut down in communication and any real interaction across cultures, of any type, is missed. Everyone is to lose in such scenarios.
In a recent trip to South America, I heard Chileans describing North Americans as being “less emotionally expressive than South Americans”. That, in and of itself is a fair enough description of differences. A judgment, however, would have been if “being less emotionally expressive” was somehow interpreted as “not caring or caring less about what was happening” at this fairly emotionally charged event. The first one was a description, the second would have been an interpretation.
Food for thought: A trick that I have found helpful to me and my clients is the old virtue of curiosity and its ancient wisdom. It goes like this: “when confronted with something that triggers a reaction in you, hold on to your interpretation (as it is rich in information about you) and become genuinely curious!” Just like for me and for my clients, it is my hope that by finding out more about what the other person is saying that you will not only gain insight as to what their perspective is, but that you may further learn about your own point of view. Remember to distinguish what is being described from what you are making of it. Both are valid, just refrain from mixing them up. And, yes, becoming offended is often a personal choice.
The courage to be committed to non-violence in a violent world.
I have recently returned from a business trip to Memphis, Tennessee. Fortunately, the client (The Kellogg Foundation) squeezed a visit to the National Civil Rights Museum into our extremely busy schedule. The legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders was a compelling reminder of the critical importance of non-violent principles in multicultural dialogues. That is, since we too must proceed with utmost clarity of values and the courage and conviction that deeper understanding across cultures is not only possible, but utterly needed.
In my prior blog I made reference to distinguishing what we know from what we interpret others doing or saying. The common confusion between facts and perceptions causes people to be at odds even prior to really knowing what they are reacting to. I call this dynamic “jumping into confusions.” However, once we have taken the time to truly understand (and hopefully with some level of depth) what others are stating or doing, there is nothing wrong with respectfully disagreeing or even changing our minds! As Mohandas Gandhi would state: “ I’d rather be truthful than consistent!”
Engaging in dialogues about differences that matter in non-violent fashions certainly requires an open mind and heart, but does not mean that everything counts or that we must always respect other people’s values. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan has deeply ingrained racist values that are contrary to any genuine spiritual or humanitarian path and should not be tolerated. In fact, the act of tolerating any similarly inclined school of thought and practices is an act of violence in itself. The challenge is how to confront those without becoming violent ourselves. This is were clarity of values and courage come in, but they must be coupled with some practical principles.
One principle that has been instrumental in my facilitation practice is the one of passive-resistance. This means that I do not collaborate with, not even react to, any act of disrespect or violence. There are different ways through which I strategically do not get tangled into that distructive energy. For instance, when someone insults me or someone else, I intentionally do not respond. Sometimes, I literally ignore them, at others, I take a different angle (a positive or clarifying one) on the same issue. Consistently, I become curious rather than reactive. Mind you that this is a very active role, not a passive one at all! In fact, practicing passive-resistance takes much more energy and courage than being reactive or violent.
Food for Thought: Think back on some instance in which someone directly disrespected you or others. Holding on to the understandable tendency to “hit back” in some fashion, and not judging it, reflect on the various creative ways through which you could channel your energy in non-violent fashions. Being angry is valid and functional; just what we allow ourselves to do with our anger makes us more or less humans—more like Dr. Martin Luther King, or more like the Ku Klux Klan.
Blogs on Code Switching
“But, many of my friends are of diverse backgrounds!”
Or, “I am married to an African American or a Latino!”
No matter what cultural background or spiritual path we come from, it is a well-known reality that relating openly and effectively to people who are different from us is not a guarantee, no matter how much we try, or we think we try. We all relate to the world and to others from our own personal values and cultural, gender and many other types of lenses. And, yes, this is also true of Caucasians or Anglos, or whichever term they may prefer to self-describe.
It makes plenty of sense, doesn’t it? What is appropriate to say or not, or what tone of voice to use, or what may be a good or a poor timing for expressing or doing anything is always framed by our world views. If, hypothetically, we were all aware of how our views mold our perceptions and judgments, we may be able to understand or, at least, be curious about when ours collide with the perceptions of others different from us. However, the reality is that most people rarely review their worldviews as valid, yet partial, and assume theirs is somehow the ‘right’ one. In fact, in all societies it happens mostly to those groups who happen to be the mainstream, the majority or those in most position of rank or power. Therefore, in the United States, it is not surprising that we often hear Caucasian individuals state that their perceptions are ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’—as if that was even possible, or even desirable!
What Caucasians or other individuals who happen to hold privileged positions within our society (regardless of culture or race, at times) do not seem to be aware of is how those who are placed on the margins constantly adapt to their ways of talking, being or expressing themselves. That is, unless they have some kind of rank, people of color, women, immigrants, the economically poor or somehow disenfranchised need to learn to code switch into “Caucasian mainstream ways of talking, being and going about life” while in the presence of Anglos. Unless Caucasians are exposed to environments in which the vast majority are people of color or any subdominant group, and they do not hold any rank over them, there is no way for them to notice the difference. And even in those circumstances, it is a matter of their level of sensitivity—which varies among peoples of all colors!
What is particularly tough for those of us who come from such sub-dominant groups (and clearly not by choice) is to learn how to code switch. Nobody is explicit or clear about it, it is mostly subtle, and there are many contradictory messages in the ambiance. The later is extremely common in groups that consider themselves liberal and “have many friends or a husband or wife who is a person of color.” Unfortunately, in those groups there is frequently a façade of openness about multicultural power dynamics, but when anyone intends to address issues, Anglos tend to become uptight, nervously silent, or out right verbally aggressive indicating that “they are children of the sixties”, or some other interesting excuse that interferes with any genuine and non-blaming dialogue. Of course, a critical ingredient in these possible dialogues is a non-blame and shame approach. Remember that any group, not just Caucasians, may simply be unaware of how they negatively affect others in the way they go about life. Due to their position in Unitedstatesian society, Anglos are more prone to be oblivious to it—and they will continue to be oblivious as much as the conversations remain superficial or don’t occur at all.
At last April’s Engage Her conference at UC Berkeley, there was at least one delightfully powerful breakthrough. Gloria Steinem admitted that the women’s movement was racist. It takes someone of her statue and rank to have such courage, and we are lucky that she used her leadership to set that truism on the table of discussion. I am utterly excited to be a member of Engage Her, as meaningful and transformational conversations about multicultural matters, especially those that affect women and their rank in society are emerging everywhere! And, yes, we are including women of ALL colors, including Anglos!
Food for thought: Regardless of your cultural heritage, reflect on how you may change your behavior, especially the way you talk (tone of voice, topics to cover, timing, pauses, etc.) when you interact with people who are somehow different from you. If you are Anglo, ask your friends of color if they “talk in a different language” (known as “code switching”) when they talk or behave with you. If you approach the conversation within a curious and non-blaming attitude, I bet you you’ll learn about many things you were unaware of!
How does ‘code switching’ look like in today’s world?
On my last blog, I introduced a common behavioral change practiced by people who are not completely integrated into a group. In socio-linguistic terms, it is referred to as “code switching.” A strategic social move, it is practiced by almost anyone who is treated as having lesser rank in society. Just think of how you talk or behave if you are the only woman in a group of men, or a young adult in a group of elders, or a person of color in a work team of Caucasians or Anglos, and the list goes on.
This week, I watched a TV program in which a Caucasian young woman was relating to a Caucasian middle-aged female professional just how tough it is to show herself as strong and self-reliant in today’s society. Almost in tears, she referred to the negative reaction she often gets and how she is painfully learning to “tone it down”. A sad, but real and extremely common dynamic. Of course, it is unfortunate that it happens, regardless of who needs to endure these types of scenes. However, I thought to myself, “if she were to be poor, or a woman of color” the reaction would be even heavier!” I believe this lesson is particularly tough for those of us who have been taught that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, and more so, if we come from a somewhat privileged background ourselves. Take my case, for example. Raised in a middle class family with really high educational privileges, it has taken me years to realize that my values of equality and expectations to be treated as such would never equate the impact that code switching would. If fact, going about the world as if such negative reaction was not real could easily make it worse. Of course, we need not loose our identity when we intentionally behave like what the mainstream society expects of us. Yet, it is complicated is to learn what does that look like, as no one is telling you “how to act or speak White” (as teenagers often refer to it). I mostly have learned a few things by trial and error, and believe me, have much more to learn!
In my experience, many African Americans are geniuses in code switching. The fact that not so long ago they could be lynched for “looking a White person the ‘wrong’ way” (and according to the White’s interpretation of their behavior) may have a lot to do with it. I always say that if President Obama talked and behaved like Jesse Jackson (regardless of what he said), he would not have made it to the White House. The fact that his first culture happens to be White is not a coincidence and a great advantage to him. In fact, he is not code switching!
But, how does code switching look like? Through my almost 20 years living in the USA, I have learned that my passionate and exuberant conversational style is only somewhat accepted when talking about nice and joyful events—and not always. When talking about complicated or unfair matters, it is best to tone down, slow done, talk less and for shorter periods of time, and be very careful with superlatives—as the tendency in Anglo culture is to take things literally. More over, it is best to first very softly try with a complicated matter and watch the response of the group. If ignored or unheard, as it often happens, I may later on try again with other language and/or angle. If it is ignored or unheard again, I just drop the topic altogether—as the chances of being further excluded are pretty high. Since making a positive difference is my only agenda—I am utterly aware that there is no point in being outspoken if not heard, or outright disregarded. Needless to say, it does not mean that in the process I give up or transform the essence of who I am. I was glad to listen to the female middle-aged professional suggesting something along these lines to the young woman realizing this unfortunate dynamic. And, again, they were both US nationals and Anglo women!
Food for thought: Regardless of your cultural heritage, reflect on how you may change your behavior, especially the way you talk (tone of voice, topics to cover, timing, pauses, etc.) when you interact with people who are somehow different from you. How did you learn how to do that? Does it always work? If you are Anglo, ask your friends of color if they “talk in a different language” when they talk or behave with Caucasians. If you approach the conversation within a curious and non-blaming attitude, I bet you’ll learn about many things you were unaware of! As mentioned, my only hope is that it will make a positive difference in your life.
Suggested bibliography: “Black and White. Styles in Conflict”, 1981, by Thomas Kochman. University of Chicago Press. Amazingly contemporary, despite of it being written almost 30 years ago.
Why is ‘code switching’ not the same for everyone?
On my last two blogs, I have addressed a fairly common interpersonal dynamic that occurs when people from different backgrounds interact. In socio-linguistic terms, it is referred to as “code switching”. It is about how certain women and certain people of color tend to adapt their way of interacting in order to be better heard, if lucky, understood or, even better, accepted by mainstream society.
There is no question that everyone, regardless of gender, socio-economic background, ethnicity or age, tends to talk differently depending on who is before them. If we are interacting with a young child, regardless of their background, we may all use a different tone of voice or choice of words than if talking with an adult. If we come from a cultural background that distinguishes gender roles quite clearly, we may even further adapt our topics of conversation to match the fact that we are relating to a boy or a girl. If we come from a counter-culture that advocates for gender equity, we may intentionally not choose to make such adaptation. An African American successful business entrepreneur coming from humble beginnings will certainly not talk to her family and childhood friends the same way she would relate business partners on Wall Street. However, that is not the code-switching we are referring to in intercultural dynamics. There are critical differences when we pay attention to who needs to adapt to whom, who is simply oblivious to this dynamic, and how the adaptation is learned.
Changing the way we speak when talking to a child, our neighbor, or a complete stranger is a sign of how socially adept we may be. In normal circumstances, we learned such skills at an early age from our social surroundings. And, even if we are not completely proficient at it, the social consequences of not using the right terms or tone are not usually drastic, nor as mind boggling. However, it is quite a different story when those who are recurrently seen and treated as having ‘lesser social rank’ adapt the way they interact with the hopes to “fit in” mainstream society. First of all, the adaptation is only one-way. Second, most people coming from ‘higher social rank’ are completely oblivious to the fact that others adapt to their ways in order to be heard, and if lucky, understood. Third, since all of these dynamics are rarely talked about all the learning is done by a hit or miss process, and no explicit feedback. Can you imagine how confusing it is for those learning?
To put it more bluntly, how does a young adult immigrant from Asia or Latin America learn to interact with his or her middle class peers in the USA? What are their chances of their choice of words, or tone, or body language being seriously mis-interpreted, and thus judged, by their local counter-parts? If the interaction is fairly informal and on a friendly basis, it explains why social integration has such a long way to go, at least, in the USA. However, if we take a look at this dynamic in the workplace, then… we have a lot of insight why discrimination in employment is so prevalent, even in the Twenty First Century!
Food for Thought: Have you ever been in a situation in which you are, by-far, the minority in a group or society? Was your ‘minority status’ one that placed you in a higher or lower rank? If you were perceived and treated as one of lesser rank— did you learn to interact in a fashion that would make you more heard in the group? How did you learn how to do that? I am extremely interested in learning about others experiences in this very complex and rich field.
Listening and Speaking in a Second Language—what is it like?
In 1987, working as a receptionist at an International Conference Center in New York, I had the following experience: A loud, large, and fast-speaking woman asked me a long and convoluted question. Since I did not understand her, I asked her to repeat it. She went ahead and repeated the question in the same pace and with identical terms. Thus, I requested another iteration of her question, to which she replies in an angry tone: “Am I speaking in another language?!” Fortunately, a colleague from South Africa standing right beside me and of a similar size, replied to her: “No, it is she who is speaking in a second language, what can I do for you, ma’am?”
From then on, I have witnessed multiple situations in which people simply did not understand what it is to be listening and speaking in a second language. Of course, not speaking a second language leaves anyone in a vacuum of experience to use as reference. That is understandable. However, I have also witnessed many people who are monolingual, and yet have managed to develop the required understanding and sensitivity. Thus, being bilingual is not a prerequisite for cultural competence, as just a notch-up in awareness can make a huge difference in ensuring good communication.
Of course, with experience, I have learned that in similar situations it does help to answer something along the lines of: “Sorry, could you repeat that in a slower pace for me, please?” Sometimes, I may have added: “ I am listening in my second language.” Additionally, I learned that being soft spoken does not always work with loud individuals— especially, as I am petite! Thus, raising up a notch of my voice and expanding my chest a wee bit can do wonders! I cannot say it has always worked, but I bet I have increased my chances of being heard. Sure enough, humans are fascinating animals, are we not?
In attempting to find a way to explain what the experience is for second-language listeners, I have found the following analogy to be useful. Imagine yourself listening to the radio. When the reception is right, you can hear the person speaking or singing quite clearly, right? However, if there is static, or there are portions of the speech cut off, you will not hear well, or make sense of the entire message. Well, for a second-language listener, the reception is clear while the terms are familiar to us. When language is unknown, there are moments of static or outright silence in the midst of the cacophony of understood language. It requires a high tolerance to ambiguity and an ability to make sense of the whole message from the context as understanding every single word is often an impossible mission.
The recurrence of the static or silences varies depending on the level of language proficiency of the listener, their specific knowledge of the topic at hand, and many nuances of the entire context. Even being fully proficient in English since I learned the language from childhood, have lived in the USA for almost 20 years, and hold a doctoral degree obtained at a competitive school in California- there are still moments in which there is static or outright silence when I listen in my second language. That is absolutely normal. What I have learned, however, is to say… “please, slow down…” or “what does X or Y mean?” when I encounter those situations. However, not all second-language speakers feel entitled to ask such questions, or have the interpersonal skills to do so. That is where the attitude and skills of the person on the other side of the interaction truly comes in handy to achieve good communication.
Food for thought:
Imagine what it would be like for you if you were in a similar situation to the second-language listener. What would it feel like? What would it be like if the experience would be fairly common? How would you cope with it? What if you were in a group in which you had very little rank?
Listening and Speaking in a Second Language—what is it like? (Part II)
In the past blog, I described what it is to be listening in a second language. I also explained how critical it is for those who are talking to a second-language listener to understand and be sensitive to their experience (the second language speaker, that is) if effective communication is to happen. Again, those of us who speak two or more languages tend to be equipped with the experience that allows us to be sensitive to those matters. However, not everyone develops such sensitivity and being bilingual is certainly not a requirement to developing it.
Today, I’d like to describe what it is like to be speaking in a language other than one’s mother tongue. We often come across situations in which we don’t quite know the exact terms or idiomatic expressions that would best suit what we are trying to convey. When that happens, there are essentially two options: either to say nothing or to attempt creative routes to convey what we are thinking or feeling. The second option entails describing what we mean using, perhaps, more rudimentary language. For instance, suppose I am trying to say ‘thermometer’ and do not know the term, I may say: “the instrument used to measure how cold or hot something is.” When concepts become more abstract or complicated, you can readily imagine just how gradually more challenging the endeavor becomes.
Two attitudes are critical for the second-language speaker. First is the confidence to go ahead and speak up regardless of how ‘clumsy’ we may sound. Second is the ability to confront the common disregard from those at the listening end who may react as if we were less intelligent, did not know what we are talking about, or come up with all sorts of other colorful assumptions about us. These types of disregard are palpable, and they can range from being quite subtle to being fairly grotesque. Perhaps the most common dynamic I have seen in my professional practice is when the second-language speaker is completely ignored, and those at the listening end act as if he or she was not even present. The second most common dynamic is being subtly questioned or not-so-subtly ridiculed for not using the proper terms.
One tactic I have found to be helpful is the use humor, as it helps to lessen the unnecessary judgment that transpires in such scenarios. Let me give you a very simple example. Many years ago, I stated that something was “ringing music to my ears!” Everyone laughed, as they should have, yet in a ridiculing tone that was both unnecessary and an unmistakable put down. Fortunately, a colleague picked up the vibe and, with a twinkle in her eye, stated something along the lines of: “hey, if it is music, it sure would ring to anyone, right?” That is when I realized I had wrongfully used the idiomatic expression. Fortunately, in this case, I was able to tell what the gaff was and jokingly replied: “hey, either ringing or bringing, it is still music to my ears! So, please, tell me more about …” This interaction completely shifted the conversation into one that was more respectful of me, and, thus, more productive for all involved. Again, you can imagine that the scenarios are not always as simple, or easy to address.
Another very recurrent dynamic I have encountered is monolingual English-speaking people possessing an attitude about certain second-language speakers requesting an interpreter when talking in public. “But, if he or she speaks English, why use an interpreter?!” is the common observation. Even though this may be accurate in some basic or moderate level, what it is not understood is the loss of power someone experiences when speaking in public in his or her second language. At worst, the speaker may be completely ignored or only partially heard, and, at best, barely understood. No wonder, some second-language speakers simply choose to say nothing at all!
Food for thought: Regardless of whether you are monolingual, bilingual, or have the privilege of being multilingual, observe yourself while listening to someone speaking in another language other than their mother tongue. How close do you listen to them? Does it vary in any way? What gets in the way of asking for clarification when you do not completely understood the other’s point of view?
Speaking Across Languages:
What is your tendency when you hear foreign accents?
My father was a U.S. citizen of Anglo heritage; my mother was Argentinean of Italian descent. I grew up, mostly, in Uruguay and Argentina. Even though English was spoken at home, and I started formally learning English in first grade, Spanish is indeed my mother tongue. Therefore, I do have a foreign accent when speaking English, although it has softened greatly after almost two decades of living in States.
I’m amused by the different takes people have on my accent. Some people state that I have a strong accent, and that sometimes they cannot understand me because of it. Others say it is “quaint” or “soft” and that it adds to my lively style of talking. A few indicate they cannot hear it, and believe English is, essentially, my first language. To me, the moral of these scenarios is: “accents are in the ears of the beholder.”
Of course, just as in any perception, how people listen to and make sense of someone’s way of talking in a second language cannot be debated. Just as with feelings, the perceptions are what they are. No value judgment is meant, nor warranted. What I have noticed is that those people who indicate that I have a “strong” accent tend to be older. It is quite probable that they have had less exposure to people speaking with a second language. Thus, they are drawing from less experience as they try to understand me. With very few exceptions, those who do not hear my accent are second-language listeners themselves. Thus, I sound like a native speaker to them.
What makes or breaks good communication, however, are our attitudes towards accents, as accents do require some extra attention on the part of the listener. The amount of “extra” effort varies as stated above. In my facilitation practice, I have noticed that people who are speaking in their second language (and have some type of a foreign accent) are frequently heard less than those speaking without such accent. People in the audience tend to doze off or suddenly become distracted when listening to those second-language speakers. If the speakers are not blessed with some kind of rank—they are recognized “experts” or are in some leadership position—before the group, they must find other ways to be heard. Either consciously or not, he or she can speak a little louder, infuse humor into or dramatize his or her speech, or make use of other attention-getting tactics. However, this requires a boosted sense of confidence, which is tough to develop if you are used to being disregarded in such types of settings. Additionally, many cultures find public behavior that draws attention to oneself as impolite—and is thus, seriously discouraged.
One behavior that I found helpful when I am listening to someone whom I perceive to have a strong accent, is to ask them to slow down their pace. Additionally, I do ask questions to ensure that I understand the speaker correctly. Of course, this is not always possible. However, it is more possible than most people think, as most humans would rather be asked clarifying questions than sense that they aren’t really being heard—wouldn’t you?
Food for thought: Next time you are listening to someone speak in his or her second language, pay close attention to your listening tendencies. Do you listen-up or listen-down? Do your expectations for understanding the person vary in any way? Imagine what it would be like if you were that speaker.
Speaking Across Cultures:
Where are you in the direct-indirectness spectrum?
When researchers take a close look at cultural differences, they often use some type of concept that allows them to compare. For instance, they may specifically look at how community-oriented or individually-oriented two or more cultures are, or what is the cultural tendency to deal with uncertainty and so forth. The key is tendency—as cultures are not absolutely one way or another, and people belonging to any culture can certainly deviate from the general cultural trend. We need to be careful of not confusing generalizations with stereotypes.
One of those cross-cultural spectrums is how direct or indirect a culture can be in terms of how people tend to communicate. For instance, in my professional practice as a cross-cultural facilitator, I often observe how direct or indirect people are in a meeting. When people are direct and open, it can be much easier to deal with issues. However, indirectness also has its good use when matters are delicate or if they need time for people to absorb and understood in deeper fashions. For instance, Anglo Americans tend to be more direct than Salvadorians. However, as a participant in my doctoral study stated: “but, Salvadorians, in not saying things directly, they can be more clear—as they are giving you the context often missing when Americans communicate.” By the way, this participant was an Anglo American who had been living in El Salvador for a few years.
For example, when asking for a favor, Anglos from the United States tend to be very direct in asking what they need from you. The assumption is that you will, in return, tell them whether you can extend the favor or not. Instead, Salvadorians may start by telling you a story of how things have evolved in their lives, the impact it has had on their family, a concern that is emerging and so forth. The unspoken expectation is that you offer some kind of assistance, say, lend them money or a suggestion on how to deal with a conflict at work. The assumption is that they don’t want to impose on you or embarrass you to either comply or decline on a specific favor.
Because I come from two fairly direct cultures (American of Anglo ancestry and Argentinean of Italian ancestry), my own tendency is to be fairly direct. However, I have had to learn to temper my expectation of others who communicate in indirect fashions. The unspoken and almost unconscious assumption is that being direct is being more clear, or at worst, more honest. At the same time, I have found myself helping people to listen-up when stories are being told, as they are often pregnant with deeper understandings of the topic at hand. In fact, they are frequently an open door to improved communication, leading to better solutions to complex issues. Of course, in a world that has the tendency to rush through everything, it requires more the use of intuition than a mere clock to balance time and efficiency of dialogue. Additionally, not all conversations require this level of time and depth—only certain ones.
Food for thought: What is your natural tendency in terms of how direct or indirect you are? Is it culturally or personally-based—or both? Are there some variables that affect it (i.e., the topic, who you are talking to, the social context, etc.)? Are there any inadvertent assumptions you may hold about how direct or not people should be? Could it help to adjust your expectations when others are communicating in a different style from yours?
In a Multicultural World: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”?
It is often stated that when we are in a different culture, we should adapt to it. Thus, the old expression: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” I completely agree with the spirit of being respectful of any other culture, especially when we are guests in that culture. However, not only is it easier said than done, there some critical caveats to this sound recommendation.
Let’s imagine we are, in fact, in Rome. It is obvious that Italian is the language, and it’s fairly easy to pick up on many cultural traits, such as the prevalence of works of art, the expressive nature of most people, and the high value placed on food and family. If we read a tourist guide, or even better, take a class on Italian culture prior to traveling, we will certainly have many more cultural mores to consider when interacting with the locals. Should we happen to live in Rome for a while, our experience will probably allow us to grow deeper in our understanding of what “doing as the Romans do” actually means. What is critical, however, is that we are curious enough to notice the subtleties, and that we are nonjudgmental when different ways of going about the world come up in our daily interactions.
If the cultural differences do not have a direct impact on us and our values, of course, it is easier to be curious and it can even be entertaining to experience them. When I lived in Costa Rica, for instance, I noticed the sweet and cheerful language people would use in daily interactions. “¡Qué dicha!” (“How joyful!”) or “¡Pura vida!” (“Wonderful!”) are often stated with a friendly smile. However, it was much tougher for me to know what to do when I saw people quite openly cutting in front of a long line while the locals would do or say nothing in response. This lack of a reaction on the part of the locals surprised me, even though I know that being polite and avoiding conflict is of high value in Costa Rican culture. Regardless, my job was to learn to adapt to the culture that was hosting me. The culture did not have to adapt to me!
However, having lived and worked in different parts of the world, I have had to do a lot of soul searching when attempting to adapt to ways that are foreign to me. For instance, when I first arrived to the United States, I was disturbed when I saw people screening phone calls through their answering machines. I thought of it as impolite, regardless of the cultural value of individual needs and a practical sense of use of time. A few years later, as I adapted to the frenzied speed of life, I caught myself doing the same thing! Still, there are aspects of American individualism that still trouble me and ones that I wonder whether I will ever acclimate to. For instance, Americans place a high value on speed, even in interactions that would certainly benefit from slowing down. As a group facilitator, I am constantly navigating that tension, hoping to help my clients realize that doing less can frequently lead to increased value and overall effectiveness. Of course, this is unlike many aspects of modern life in which quality is increased with speed, such as the benefits stemming from the internet, teleconferencing and the like.
As our societies are becoming more multicultural, even Romans come from very different cultural backgrounds, and there is no one set way of doing things in any given culture. The challenge ahead of us, individually and as societies, is to find ways to navigate the inevitable tensions arising when differences are not entertaining or readily compatible. My sense is that all answers will be mostly case specific.
Food for thought: Think of the cultures you have interacted and the differences you have noticed. When is it easier to just experience the difference? When is it harder and why? What have you managed to do in the midst of tougher scenarios? What would you do differently, should you be given a chance?
