Cultural differences in international contexts

Acculturation and cultural identity are both valuable tools in our understanding of cultural differences, and are surrounded by a fair amount of discourse and political controversy. What follows is an analysis of each concept and their implications for fostering our knowledge and understanding of cultural differences.

Acculturation is the concept of a minority group (i.e. immigrants) assimilating to the dominant majority by successfully adopting a second culture or separating from it and becoming marginalized (Rudmin, 2006). Rogler, Cortes, & Malagady add to this definition that those in acculturation contexts experience a change in attitude toward their host society (1991). Immigrants' ties with their own societies are often cut off, leaving them to face the difficulties of economic survival and social mobility in an unfamiliar place (Rogler, Cortes, & Malagady, 1991). Immigrants must also adapt to a new cultural system, language, set of behavioral norms, and value characteristics (Rogler, Cortes & Malagady, 1991).

Cultures can 'overlap,' however, and this affects the way in which some scholars interpret the idea of acculturation (Rudmin, 2006). For example, there exists a large overlap and little "cultural distance" between Japan and Korea, as well as the United States and Canada (Rudmin, 2006, p. 70). As such, Rudmin contends that in acculturative contexts, groups select the characteristics by which to identify themselves and "mark their intercultural boundaries" (2006, p. 70). Acculturation, then, is not about cultural values, Rudmin says, but about "encountering and reacting to social constructs created and maintained as perceptual boundary markers between cultures" (2006, p. 70).

Conspicuous examples of acculturation can be seen in, among other situations, Native Americans' adoption of Western-style dress, Native Americans' adoption of capitalism and other Western behaviors (read: opening casinos, drinking alcohol), and Western-style consumer behavior in Mexican-Americans.

Buriel (1993) describes two models useful for understanding acculturation. One is unidirectional; it implies that as immigrants become more competent and sensitive to their host culture, their own culture begins to erode (Buriel, 1993). This model is incompatible with biculturalism -- an idea closely related to acculturation -- the concept of an immigrant preserving his own culture while adopting his host society's (Buriel, 1993). An acculturation model capable of handling biculturalism is two-dimensional and "acknowledges the persistent dual cultural influences" in the lives of immigrants (Buriel, 1993, p. 532).

In his study of the acculturation of Mexican-Americans, Buriel claims that the level of respect for cultural differences can tell us how 'well' immigrant acculturation is proceeding. (1993). His study, in part, showed how elementary school bilingual/bicultural programs can foster understanding and thus respect of cultural differences in an acculturative context among elementary school students (Buriel, 1993).

What we can take from Buriel's (1993) findings is that an acculturative context can foster the understanding of cultural differences. Perhaps an acculturative context, as it is experienced, allows an individual to clearly identify the differences between her host culture and her home society's. Likewise, one close to an individual in the process of acculturation may become more aware of the individual's culture as the nature of the individual's adaptations become more obvious. In other words, watching one 'move through' acculturation may produce a before and after effect of significant contrast, highlighting the cultural differences that shaped it.

Acculturation makes cultural differences conspicuous. It brings to the forefront the convergence and divergence of cultures. Unfortunately, the result is often disagreeable. Rudmin (2006) reports that conflict, oppression, ethnic war, and genocide are the results of acculturation contexts, and that our world is in an "acculturative crisis" (p. 2). Moreover, acculturation contexts are the cause of a more "quiet" distress of individual immigrants (Rudmin, 2006, p. 72). That withstanding, it is important to recognize that acculturation contexts can foster recognition, understanding, and respect of cultural differences, as seen in Buriel's (1993) study. Bicultural school programs and further scientific research are two tools that can help create more positive acculturation experiences.

Closely related to the concept of acculturation is the idea of cultural identity. The term seems to have varying definitions and implications. Hall & Ramirez (1993) define cultural identity as the "set of behaviors, beliefs, values, and norms defined by the ethnic group(s) to which we belong and develop through the process of growing up" (p. 613). The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) identify the accumulated knowledge, unique skills, and unique values as markers of cultural identity (2009). Generally, cultural identity can be conceived of as the group of which an individual calls herself a part. With this label come specific traditions, languages, food, clothing, grooming habits, music, and other cultural markers.

In contrast to this relatively stable notion of cultural identity, Fierlbeck (1996) argues that culture is ever-changing, "continually fluctuating and metamorphosing" (p. 12). She also states that cultures are constantly 'bumping into' eachother, overlapping and shifting (Fierlbeck, 1996). In short, Fierlbeck (1996) argues against the usefulness of the term "cultural identity," positing that identies are just as influenced by culture as by "qualities and quirks that have nothing to do with culture" (i.e. physical traits, sexuality) (p. 14).

Cultural identity is affected by an array of forces. Soedjatmoko (1976) argues that modern communications (read: mass media) shapes and influences cultures and thus cultural identities. Immigration and biculturalism also shape cultural identities.

A review of the literature on cultural identity shows the concept is politically loaded. UNESCO suggests that states have the responsibility to respect the cultural identities of minority groups and prevent them from being socially excluded from the cultural life of the community (2009). Fierblek (1996) contends that the concept of cultural identity requires, at times, treating one group different from another. Take, for example, certain Middle Eastern countries' cultural practice of disallowing women from showing their faces in public. While this is concieved by some as an infringement upon human rights, to respect this cultural identity would be to allow this cultural behavior to survive. Thus, the concept of cultural identity can be confounding when applied to political treatment of immigrants. Moreover, it can present a human rights dilemma: is it more ethical to allow a culture to retain its traditions or to enforce 'universal human rights'? Further, this dilemma points to an even deeper issue: is the Western notion of universal human rights not universal? Does the Western notion of universal human rights fail to understand cultural differences?