TOP

What Good is Google Translate?

Feb 07
Posted by Sean Oliver in General, Translation

Whenever I tell people what I do for a living, the first question I get asked is: “So how many languages do you speak?” (A: 2)  The second is often what my opinion of Google Translate is. If I’m concerned that it will make our industry obsolete (not really), what the quality of translation is (varies), and isn’t it amazing? (Yes) Google Translate works by analyzing web pages and other online content that is already translated into multiple languages, and using this content as its “translation memory”.  So in reality, its output is only as good as the input… and being that the internet as a whole is its input… you get the idea.  Individual users can suggest better translations, which seem to have helped its quality, but you still get pretty quizzical translations sometimes.  It’s also important to remember that anything you feed into GT might become the property of Google forever, so if you have any confidential or sensitive information, you at least want to take out any identifying company names, or names of individuals out of any text, if you decide to use it at all.

Having said all that, GT is an amazing tool. I use it at least a few times a week. The main ways I find it useful is for the purposes of:

1.  Verifying Text Placement – Translators tend to regard themselves as artisans, more than technologists. To this day, when working with certain translators, they ask if they have to use a computer-assisted program rather than just translating “as they see it” (yes, yes you do).  As a consequence, even though our translations are seen by the initial translator, their proofreader, and another translator, we still have to take the additional step as project managers to make sure that nothing got missed (especially white text), that there are as many paragraphs/numbers/bullets as the original, and that the text all fits where it’s supposed to (doesn’t get cut off due to text growth).  I use GT to identify target lines of text against the source, to make sure the text is in the right place.

2.   This just looks wrong! I had a Kannada translation the other day, and part of it was a date. However, the portion that was supposed to be the date seemed to be in the wrong cell.  I ran it through GT, and found that the date was indeed in the wrong cell. As it turned out, the translator informed me that because word order is different in Kannada than English, they did it that way so the text would display correctly. But I’m still glad I checked.

3.   What does this say? vs. what does this mean? GT provides very “Gist”-y translations.  It’s useful if you find an article, or document in another language, and want a direct translation just to get a general idea of what it’s about.  However, professional translators aren’t looking for verbatim word-for-word equivalencies in the target language, they’re looking for a way to effectively communicate the meaning to a reader who speaks the target language (and almost always belongs to another culture).  For example, to say “I dropped the ball” in Spanish, you wouldn’t say “yo lo cae la pelota” (literal) you would say instead: “Se me cayó la pelota”, or the ball got dropped.  GT has been improved enough where if you enter in English “I dropped it”, you get the correct Spanish translation (color me impressed!), BUT if you enter the incorrect “yo lo cae la pelota” (SPA>ENG), guess what English translation it gives you?  Similarly, if you enter “I missed my plane,” it gives you “Me perdí mi avión” (it should be “vuelo”… “avión” makes sense, but almost no one will ever actually say this. I found 3 hits over all of Google when I entered it as a search term, vs. 383,000 for the correct translation).  Now, if you enter “I missed my flight”, it gives you the correct translation. But you have to be expecting these issues in order to get the correct output.  A non-Spanish speaker is going to get some pretty inaccurate results, or at least funny-sounding ones, eventually.

GT is an amazing tool. I can’t stress that enough.  Some in the translation industry have been offering proofread Google translations as a way to cut customer costs, in an industry that often finds it difficult to explain its overhead to its customers.  We find that this approach restricts the translator too much, and it also makes it difficult to work with our existing translation memories for our long-time clients, so up until now GT post-editing hasn’t been a service that we offer.  We have to advise against ever using GT by itself for anything that’s going to be disseminated, whether on a public sign, or even an internal document without the caveat: “This came from Google Translate”.  I’ll leave you with one more funny Spanish-English example. I entered “I am full” into GT, and I got “Estoy lleno”.  If I’m a woman, it’s “estoy llena”… but in many places that means “I’m pregnant”!  Use Google Translate as the amazing tool it is, but recognize its limitations.  Or be prepared for some embarrassment.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

Seeming Unwise While Being Wise: The Case of Language Expertise

Jan 15
Posted by Monica Marcel in Cross-cultural, e-learning, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Working with...

Why do we assume someone is not as smart or capable, when they have an accent?

At LCW we know that accents can be challenging to work with, and clients often report this as one of their greatest challenges in global work. But this new research from the University of Chicago points to something even deeper —that we often decide someone is not smart or competent, based solely on the fact that they might speak an accent we find challenging.

So what? The business cost of such a bias can be huge. Imagine you are a manager who intentionally avoids people who have accents when making selection for her team, thinking it’s not worth the trouble to include them. While we understand the inclination, this decision also means that the team may likely miss out on some amazing brainpower packaged with those accents—brainpower that might just bring the innovation and breakthroughs that the team needs to reach and even exceed its goals.

Or, imagine an executive overseas who surrounds himself with an advisory team who speaks English that is easy for him to understand. Though convenient for him at the time, this executive is also eliminating from his talent pool those accented geniuses who may offer the greatest insight or intelligence. The University of Chicago research shows it’s human nature for us to sometimes assume that someone with an accent is less intelligent, so the in a globalized world, we need to work to overcome this bias or else deal with the consequences of missed opportunities.

Everyone speaks even their native language with an accent that someone, somewhere is likely to find hard to understand. So what do we do about it?

The skill-set requires getting comfortable working with accents, managing the psychological distance and bias that accents introduce—by focusing on relationship-building and listening past the accent. Check out our virtual toolbox of solutions here, including some tips for “Listening Past the Accent”.

 

Read More
Tags:
Comments (1)
TOP

What if men had to adapt to women in the workplace?

Dec 18
Posted by Rebecca Parrilla in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

My partner Sue emailed me a link to a NYT article this week, and prefaced it with: “Look, the wage gap has a cultural component! (Of course.) Very interesting story!”  Well I finally had a few minutes to read it and interesting it was.  It touches on various things, but among them is culture – which many people are often afraid to touch for fear of being seen as someone who sees women as “less equal” than men.  I tend to get extremely excited when culture is brought up as a component of the (complex) reasons behind why a male/female wage gap still exists in the U.S.  Culturally learned behavior and perceptions are real, and to ignore them is to consciously decide they either don’t matter or don’t exist (both of which are an insult to both men and women).  In particular, this article mentions that many (though of course not all) women have learned, explicity or implicitly, that speaking up and assertively asking for things like raises and higher pay can be perceived as “unladylike” and can be seen as pushy or arrogant.  And therefore in many cases, women may not even realize that they are “allowed” to ask!  In fact, the article talks about how being assertive or being percieved as not nice enough or not friendly enough (relative to how women “should” be) sometimes actually results in negative consequences for women, like not being offered a job because you weren’t likable enough.  Many if not most of these cases may be due to unconscious bias, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it happens.  The point of the article is that “the good news is that all of these things [assertiveness in negotiating salary and raises] can be learned.”  It cites various entities and individuals who are teaching these skills to girls and young women.  But something about this just doesn’t sit all that well with me.  And I think it’s this: teaching women to be more assertive and agressive in speaking up and asking for stuff is all well and good, and it will certainly help women be more successful in a man’s world – but it’s yet another example of how women must adapt to men to get ahead.  Why is it never the other way around?

Imagine this alternate world: women hold the vast majority of leadership and powerful positions in business, education, and government.  Men are paid 77 cents on every woman’s dollar. It’s found that part of the reason for this is that men tend to be too blunt and too forceful when they ask for what they want, and aren’t warm enough in their interpersonal interactions.  Studies have found that employers generally find this type of behavior to be in opposition to teamwork, effectiveness, and success, and so men tend to get hired less often.  How do we close this gender wage gap? Well here’s the good news - humility, collaborativeness, and warmth can be learned!  Let’s go around the country and teach men when they’re young how they can work on their indirectness and modesty skills.

In that world, this solution might work – at least on the surface – because the reality there is that most places that hire people are run by women.  But wouldn’t many men feel a little odd, a little uncomfortable, or even a lot uncomfortable – acting in ways that don’t feel natural to them? Would they be able to be their full selves at work, and make their best contribution, by acting as someone other than themselves?   Maybe some of them would, but I’d venture to guess most of them wouldn’t.  And that’s what bugs me about this article.  When we start leveraging and embracing everyone’s styles – when we see the benefits of competition, collaboration, assertiveness, modesty, intensity, warmth, pushiness, and cooperation – and not systematically penalize one side over the other – we can explode our self-created limits and create and think in ways that we never thought possible.

Read More
Comments (5)
TOP

Which is true: ‘I missed my plane’, or ‘the plane left without me?’

Nov 29
Posted by Monica Marcel in Cross-cultural, General, Intercultural Competence, Training, Translation, Traveling to..., Working with...
People waiting in an airport

'I missed my plane', or 'the plane left without me?'

Research from Stanford shows the answer may lie in your native language, revealing insight into critical cultural differences resulting from native language influences. And these differences can have extraordinary impacts on the productivity and effectiveness on cross-cultural teams.

For example, cultures prioritizing ‘individualism’ and ‘internal control’ would tend to frame the scenario as ‘I missed the plane’, while cultures prioritizing ‘collectivism’ and ‘external control’ would frame the scenario as ‘the plane left without me.’  And the reason these cultures see the same events differently lie, at least in part, in the influence that language has on one’s worldview.

For example, the Stanford research details the influence that speaking Japanese or Spanish or English has on one’s perception and understanding of peoples’ roles in events and accidents, and finds that speaking Japanese or Spanish or English as your native language (as cited in the research) will manifest in a different sense of ‘who is to blame’ for the missed plane.

Navigating such differences across cultures is critical to the effectiveness of cross-cultural teams. Did she miss the deadline, or did something happen outside of her control that caused the deadline to be missed?  One’s perspective tends to be different, depending on whether someone is sitting in Peru or London… or in Mumbai or Chicago.

Resolving these differences is an important focus at LCW, and at the heart of modules in both our “Navigating Cultures” and “Working with…” solutions. For example, LCW’s Describe-Interpret-Navigate (D-I-N) model helps you interpret an event or problem from multiple perspectives, and understand where you personally have learned to ‘interpret’ a scenario as you do, compared to how a colleague has learned to interpret the very same thing.  So one interpretation would be: “I’m not responsible for the plane leaving me” (or the deadline being missed); the alternate interpretation: “I missed the flight.” (I missed the deadline).

Read More
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

Machine-Generated Voices: Utility for Translation and Dubbing

Nov 15
Posted by Maria Fagrelius in General, Translation

Last week I attended a very interesting webinar from one of our vendors (JBI Studios*), about machine-generated voices for voiceover projects. In general, this new technology is recommended for e-learning courses and short announcements such as airport announcements or telephone customer service. Here at LCW, we specialize in the translation and publishing of e-learning courses, and for us, coordinating the voiceover talent and/or inserting subtitles is always one of the most time-consuming parts of these projects, beyond the translation itself.

The webinar was very informative on the pros and cons of using this technology; it made me think about how and when this might be used on our e-learning projects. The webinar also raised awareness about what to look for while working on these projects. Here is what I found:

PROS:

  • Lower minimum session costs, and post-production costs since there are fewer people and resources involved. Also, there is a lower turnaround time due to shorter “recording” times (compared to human voice talent).
  • At first glance, it may seem that this technology is cheaper due to the fact it requires very few human resources and interactions. However, our vendor recommended making sure we do a cost analysis prior to considering machine-generated voices, because sometimes the cost may be higher than using “human” voices (due to initially higher time investment to set up the technical aspects of the project).
  • Besides having to create a phonetic list, one of the setbacks includes having to “train” these voices for tricky pronunciations. If the training is rather extensive, this may not be a cost effective option.
  • Costs are coming down slowly but surely.
  • The faster turnarounds are a result of: the absence of session scheduling, no recording breaks, faster postproduction etc…
  • Turnaround time is probably one of the main reasons to choose machine over human voices.

CONS:

  • Some clients had complaints about the voices sounding ‘unnatural’, ‘non-human’, and even ‘irritating’.  Computer-generated voice can eventually sound awkward when listened to for an extended period of time.
  • Currently, there is a limited language set available on the market including most European languages (Russian included), Japanese, Korean, Chinese Mandarin, and Arabic. Though this list continues to grow every day.
  • Like we mentioned before, using computer-generated voiceovers may not be your cheapest option.
  • Lastly, make sure your vendors have the right licenses; the machine-generated voices you often here are usually proprietary.  There are various options for free voiceover talent available online, BUT these options are usually not available for commercial use.

 

In conclusion, make sure you consider all these variables before deciding to replace your voiceover talent with machine-generated voices. This technology will be the most cost-effective option for smaller projects with low word-counts, multiple languages, and multiple voices. But, keep in mind that technology is constantly improving so these recommendations may change. It’s not likely that machine-generated voices will ever completely replace human voice talent, but eventually a hybrid approach is likely.

*JBI Studios is a full-service audio, video and multimedia production house specializing in foreign languages.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

Foreign Policy, Debates, and Political Culture

Oct 23
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Chinese Culture, Cross-cultural, Intercultural Competence

A Bloomberg BusinessWeek article published today asks the question: How do the Chinese see the “China bashing” that has been a highlight of the 2012 debates?  China was mentioned 35 times during last nights’ debate.  The article brings up a number of points, but I think most salient for me:

  1. America and China have a symbiotic relationship, and it would be economic mutually-assured destruction (possibly for the whole world) for either country to start a tariff or trade war.
  2. This is mostly rhetoric intended to score political points, rather than any kind of real threat to engage in hostile economic actions.  That goes for Obama’s WTO complaints, and Romney’s assertion that he would label China as a “currency manipulator”.

I think what’s really happening, is that as many Americans seem to lament the fact that America is no longer the world’s only superpower, there’s a fear of “the other” there, and that fear can be used to try to influence voters, in either direction of the US’s political spectrum.  Turning the electorate against a perceived threat outside the US borders has been a time-tested tactic for presidents and other elected officials since the United States was founded, and is an ingrained part of our political culture.  No matter the outcome of the 2012 elections, I think that there will continue to be extensive economic activity between the US and China, regardless of the rhetoric.  The American consumer-spending based economy, and the Chinese manufacturing-based economy absolutely need one another.  I doubt either country would be willing to cut off its nose, to spite the other’s currency.

It’s always best to take this kind of rhetoric with a grain of salt (as the article recommends), as understanding that the words spoken by world leaders, and hopeful candidates, are a reflection of their own values and beliefs, but moreover, part of a specific sub-culture of political discourse, that might not always reflect an objective reality.  If we’re working from a space of Intercultural Competence, then we know that interpreting the political discourse of another country can’t be done in the context of one’s own country’s political culture.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

Did Culture Play a Role in the Rappahannock’s Firing on a Fishing Vessel?

Jul 23
Posted by Sean Oliver in General

Recently, the US naval vessel USNS USNS Rappahannockfired at a rapidly approaching Emirati fishing vessel (crewed mostly by Indians).  The Rappahannock is a US Naval Ship which means it is a vessel owned but not operated by the U.S. Navy, and used to resupply and refuel other naval vessels.  Any military use of force by the Rappahannock would not be ordered by the master in charge of the ship, but rather by the Senior Naval Officer leading the security team, who was apparently under the impression that the fishing vessel could possibly be a pirate ship, or worse, a vehicle for a suicide attack like the one used to attack the USS Cole in Yemeni waters back in 2000.  Tragically, one fisherman was killed, and 3 others wounded. The incident is eerily similar to the attack on another Indian fishing vessel by Italian military personnel a few years ago, where the Italians mistook the fisherman for pirates while guarding an oil freighter.

In both incidents, the fishermen claim that there was no warning given whatsoever. So what constitutes a warning? Lt. Greg Raelson, a spokesman for the Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, declined to say what warnings the Rappahannock’s crew issued before opening fire, though he stated they acted “in line with standard procedures.” (source: NY Daily News).  According to the International Institute of Humanitarian Law Rules of Engagement Handbook, the protocol for responding to threatening behavior by another vessel (for which there is no concrete checklist; it is up to the discretion of the security personnel) includes:

1. Verbal warning (in English, presumably),

2. Visual signals (flares),

3. Noise signals (ship’s whistle),

4. Firing warning shots across the bow of the vessel.

It’s possible that the Indian crew didn’t recognize the Rappahannock as a military-affiliated vessel, and it’s also possible that they didn’t hear a whistle if they were under full power, or might not have recognized the sonic boom of a 50-caliber round (or may have said to themselves: “what was that?”) fired as a warning shot.  It’s been reported that there was only one crew member on the deck of the Indian vessel at the time, who may have been preoccupied with trying to overtake the Rappahannock.  There is no one-size-fits-all “right of way” in international waters; for a simple fishing vessel without a radio, it’s possible that the captain and crew were not even familiar with the UN Law of the Sea Convention, and perhaps did most of their fishing close to land, and not in international waters.  All news accounts I have read place the fishing vessel about 50 yards away from the Rappahannock when they opened fire; probably too close under any circumstances.

It seems to me that what occurred was likely an unfortunate cross-cultural misunderstanding between two cultures with specific, diametrically opposed cultural norms: one that prioritizes rigorous protocols and rules (known as universalism), and one that prioritizes situational, contextually-specific decision-making (known as particularism)….  Most Indians have probably never heard of the USS Cole (though the Emiratis on board might have), and I think we can reasonably assume the fishermen weren’t intending on taking any action that would have led to them being fired upon.  They may have taken similar actions in the past to overtake other larger vessels with or without military affiliation from any number of other countries (Indian, Emirati, Saudi, or Iranian), and perhaps not faced any kind of warning or forceful response. From the pictures I’ve found of the Rappahannock, it’s not clearly a military vessel to my untrained eye. It’s telling that as I read published reports on what happened, many American commenters show more of a tendency towards saying things like, “The US followed appropriate rules of engagement, and the fishermen didn’t.  The mistake was theirs, and the US has nothing to apologize for.”  Comments from Indians and Emiratis, however, tend to say things like: “The US killed innocent people. Regardless of any ‘rules of engagement’, they need to apologize for killing an innocent person. How would you feel if it was your family?” which align with what would be expected based on the general difference in universalism/particularism between the two cultures.

The US ambassador to India, Nancy Powell, conveyed her regret for the loss of life to Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, according to the Indian foreign ministry. The US embassy in New Delhi released a statement conveying condolences to the families of the crew of the vessel as well… while at the same time the US government has stated that the security personnel on the Rappahannock followed proper procedures in warning the fishing vessel.  It’s an unfortunate series of events, which hopefully doesn’t happen again, though with the Persian Gulf being a relatively narrow body of water, and its waters being frequented by fishing boats, freighters, and warships from various countries, I’m not sure I would bet on this being the last incident we hear of between US Naval vessels, and others in the Gulf.

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

(The Right) Diversity Training Works –The Impact of Cross-Cultural Training

May 17
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

You may have seen a series of articles and blog posts regarding the value of diversity training recently, most of which refer to a study which was done by scholars Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev, and Erin Kelly. The gist of these articles is that diversity training is “a waste of time” – and completely ineffective at preventing workplace conflicts, mitigating misunderstandings, or preventing lawsuits. The Bregman article starts off with an anecdote about an HR manager whose company is being sued, lamenting the fact that their company was doing any kind of diversity training at all, since the training has somehow failed to prevent the offending behavior, and the subsequent lawsuit. Interestingly, the HR manager and the author seem to be blaming the training for the lawsuit. The Suzanne Lucas article lists 5 ways to improve communication in the office (ostensibly while ignoring cultural differences or acknowledging any differences at all):

• Don’t look to be offended.¹
(I’m not sure I would suggest to workers that their experience of being offended is a result of their actively looking for it.)
• Treat everyone nicely and fairly.
(This presumes that everyone has the same interpretation of ”nice” and “fair”)
• Look to yourself first- it’s possible to find discrimination around every corner, even if it doesn’t exist. (I don’t think asking “is my coworker equally rude to everyone?” is necessarily the place to start when confronted with behavior that you interpret as discriminatory.)
• Report truly discriminatory behavior to HR or the chain of command
(Given the previous recommendations that one should “not look to be offended”, and that it’s possible “to find discrimination in every corner, even if it doesn’t exist”, how am I supposed to know if it’s “truly discriminatory”)²

What these articles have in common is that their proposed alternative solutions (since diversity training theoretically doesn’t work) focus on “the individual”: Don’t reinforce categories, and treat everyone the same…but as a unique individual. Focus on your own behavior, and your own thinking. The apparent measuring stick for success? The presence or absence of lawsuits.
According to Peter Bregman, acknowledging categories just leads to more conflict, so he proposes “communication training” as a viable and more effective alternative:

“We decided to put all managers through communication training. It still fulfilled the requirement of the lawsuit. But it did something more. People learned to listen and speak with each other — no matter the difference — which is the key to creating a vibrant and inclusive environment. As it turns out, it’s also the key to preventing lawsuits. The communication trainings I led for Bedia were ten years ago and they haven’t been sued since.”³

The obvious question, of course, is what exactly is “communication training”? The author doesn’t explain. It leads me to wonder how people are being taught to communicate? And in what cultural contexts is that communication style the norm? Given that we’re ignoring differences, are we also ignoring differences in communication styles? It’s interesting to attribute a 10-year absence of lawsuits to training done 10 years ago.

The study that all of these articles are referencing is a little bit dated (2007; a more current study by Dobbin can be found here), and after careful review, this particular study cannot be interpreted as stating: “Diversity Training doesn’t work.” I don’t doubt the good intentions of Bregman and Lucas, but I think it can be said that some of the study data has been extrapolated without interpreting the results comprehensively. So what does the study say? This is the paragraph that sums it up for me:

“There are two caveats about training. First, it does show small positive effects in the largest of workplaces, although diversity councils, diversity managers, and mentoring programs are significantly more effective. Second, optional (not mandatory) training programs and those that focus on cultural awareness (not the threat of the law) can have positive effects.”

In other words, the study says that cross-cultural training does have a measurable impact… In other words, it can work. Now, the study does indicate that mandatory, compliance-based, legal/lawsuit-inspired training rarely, if ever produces the desired results. And in our experience, this kind of legal/compliance-based diversity training can definitely make people defensive, and worsen a situation, which I think is what Bregman and Lucas are recounting in their own experiences. This is why anyone serious about behavioral change should avoid diversity training that is rooted solely in compliance and superficialities. We have found extraordinary benefit for organizations who are serious about good training, provided it is linked to a comprehensive strategy, that it is consistent with senior leadership’s messages and delivered first to the most senior leaders- Training that it is modified appropriately for each participant’s level, role, the overall organizational culture, and that it is designed for skill-building rather than just awareness-building in working with differences. At LCW we call this approach “building cultural agility” or “developing intercultural competence”.

In our reading of the study, the headline “diversity training doesn’t work” is not a great interpretation of the conclusions, and a little misleading in our opinion. We think it is also erroneous in its assertion that glossing over differences, and focusing on commonalities will always lead to better results for an organization. The orientation towards cultural differences communicated in these articles is called minimizationª. Sometimes, it is certainly advantageous to focus on the commonalities between people, particularly if you know nothing about their specific culture(s). However, it’s quite possible to understand how another person is likely to be different from you based on their cultural communities, but not stereotype them based on them (while at the same time not ignoring the commonalities). Understanding these differences doesn’t mean that you have to put someone in a box; it means that you understand the dozens of cultural “boxes” that people have lived in during their lives, and how those experiences have affected what they believe, how they act, and what they value, in reference to yourself. We can follow the golden rule, but following that rule doesn’t work if others don’t want to be treated, or communicated with the same way that we do.

To summarize, cross-cultural training does help develop intercultural competence, and it can have a positive, lasting, and measurable impact, depending on the type of training, its goals, and its methodology.

 

¹Italicized sentences in parentheses are my own responses.

² Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57425771/why-you-should-stop-attending-diversity-training/

³ Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-we-work/201203/diversity-training-doesnt-work

ª“Minimization” as defined within the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (3)
TOP

Do you believe in “American Exceptionalism”?

May 01
Posted by Rebecca Parrilla in American culture, Cross-cultural, General, Intercultural Competence

If you speak with cross-cultural competence, don’t run for office – at least in the U.S.

That’s the lesson I learned, anyway, by the current fight over who is a firmer believer of “American Exceptionalism” in the U.S. political arena.

In November of last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote about the decline of American exceptionalism.  He noted that in 2011, for the first time, a majority of Americans (51%) did not agree with the statement: “Our people are not perfect but our culture is superior to others” in a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.  To be sure, Pew has only been asking the question since 2002 (when only 40% disagreed) so we don’t have a whole lot of history to go on, but we do know that the idea of the U.S. being “the greatest nation in the history of the Earth” (Mitt Romney), a place where all others want to go and want to be like, even a place anointed by God him/herself, has been around for a long time.

There’s nothing inherently wrong in believing that your culture is superior to others.  However, if your goal is to achieve cross-cultural competence in your interactions with colleagues, co-workers, clients, and others – then we have to talk.

The Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC) is a scientific model that shows the various developmental stages of intercultural competence that people go through, as their experience with cultural differences expands.  There are monocultural stages and intercultural stages.  In the monocultural stages, the world is seen solely in the context of your own life experiences and socialization.  Your own worldview – with its foregone conclusions on what’s right and appropriate (and what’s wrong and inappropriate) is taken for granted and is “just the way things are.”  There’s a (usually unintentional) lack of awareness that you are how you are because of the culture and context in which you were raised and the ways those around you – your parents, teachers, friends, and role models – rewarded you or penalized you.

The Pew survey statement reflects the stage of Defense, which is a monocultural stage.  In Defense, people tend to see the world in “us vs. them” ways – where “us” is superior or more evolved and complex, and “them” is usually inferior, simplistic, and sometimes even threatening.  People in Defense tend to think that the reason why others haven’t jumped on their ship is because they don’t know better or haven’t been adequately informed about “our” way (if they were, they would surely agree with us!).

What’s missing in Defense is not only the ability to see what “us” and “them” have in common (which requires knowing “us” well first!), but also the ability to observe and evaluate other cultures without judgement and in their own cultural context.   When we act with intercultural competence, we understand that our own worldview is complex and we’re able to explain why it makes sense for us.  We also understand that others’ cultures and worldviews are just as complex and just as explainable and sensible when seen through the set of circumstances in which they were raised and rewarded and penalized.

Being cross-culturally competent and being a true believer that your country is the best place on Earth are not incompatible states.  It’s the unbending belief that our culture is inherently superior, the act of deliberately shutting our eyes and ears to understanding why others may have valid reasons for disagreeing, that is monocultural.

Perhaps President Obama’s response in 2009 to whether he believes in American exceptionalism shows this best: ”I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”  He went on to explain why: because of the values laid out in the Constitution, including free speech and equality. “I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.”

But if you’re running for office in the U.S. right now, I would keep comments like that under your hat!

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

Hunger Games: Why Didn’t Some Readers Notice Black Characters?

Mar 29
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

By now, you’ve likely heard or read about the controversy surrounding the “Hunger Games”, and some viewers’ reactions to the casting.  Quite a few people expressed disdain, dislike, or general consternation via social media with the fact that some of the characters that they had envisioned as white, were portrayed by black actors and actresses… though in reality, the casting decisions reflect the actual descriptions of the characters in the book.  The feeling from these viewers seems to be that the casting was done in a manner to consciously include actors and actresses of color, as some sort of Hollywood affirmative action program.  I don’t dispute that the reactions are extremely distasteful, but at the same time most of the viewers in question appear to be in high school, so we can at least point to age and immaturity as minor contributing factors.

I think what really struck me personally (as I’m unfortunately not shocked at overt racism on the internet anymore), is that these readers didn’t notice that the characters were black.  The book clearly spells it out (albeit briefly), and an interview with the author in 2011 specifically states that these characters are African-American.  So the readers read the passage, they understood and comprehended everything else that was going on in the story, but somehow their image of what the main characters looked like in their mind’s eye didn’t gel with what they were reading.  It didn’t even register!  Ugly reactions to their appearance aside, how can it be that a person wouldn’t notice something like this?

I think part of the answer lies in unconscious bias, but also in our own orientations toward cultural differences.  People who are oriented in the monocultural stages of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (or what we at LCW refer to in shorthand as the DMIS) may see differences and assign value judgments to them (Defense/Reversal), or be incapable of seeing or acknowledging differences at all (Denial).  People may be oriented in monocultural stages for a number of reasons, but lack of experience with those different from themselves, or having experiences limited to stereotypical portrayals in the media can be two contributing factors.  Being punished for noticing and verbalizing differences when we’re young, or being taught that our own culture is superior by our elders can also play a role. These may not be intentional lessons in racism or discrimination, but clearly though, there is some unconscious bias occurring here.

There is no other explanation for completely glossing over a literal description of a character… though it’s not difficult to think of white people as “normal” or “default” when looking at the statistics on minorities on Television and in the movies. If you haven’t seen some of the “bias” videos on YouTube, such as Michael Shermer’s 2005 TED talk, it’s highly recommended.  Another great tool is Harvard’s “Project Implicit”, a series of assessments to help show you your unconscious biases –and as it turns out, I have biases too, according to the tests and my own honest reflections.  We all do, in reality.  Understanding and working through our unconscious biases, and discovering where those biases come from, is a key component of developing intercultural competence.

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)