TASK
1. Culture
- Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving.
- Culture is the systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of people.
- Culture is communication, communication is culture.
- Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior; that is the totality of a person's learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social learning.
- A culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.
- Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group's skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
- Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other hand, as conditioning influences upon further action.
- Culture is the sum of total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation.
- Culture is a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.
Counterculture iscounterculture is a term used to describe a cultural group whose values and norms are at odds with those of the social mainstream, a cultural equivalent of a political opposition. In casual practice, the term came to prominence in the general press as it was used to refer to the youth rebellion that swept Western societies in the 1960s and early 1970s. Earlier countercultural milieus in 19th century Europe included the traditions of Bohemianism and of the Dandy.
Like many social movements such as Protestantism, Islam, the Crusades, the Enlightenment and so on, it has tended to have become capitalized thus: "Counterculture", and that tends to be how it is spelled in this wikia as an indication of its historical and social importance (though the wikia itself is "branded" thus: "CounterCulture".
This movement was a reaction against the conservative social mores of the 1950s, the political conservatism (and perceived social repression) of the Cold War period, and the US government's extensive military intervention in Vietnam. Opposition to the war was exacerbated in the US by the compulsory military draft.
The 1960s youth rebellion largely originated on college campuses, emerging directly out of the USA Civil Rights movement. The Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley was one early example, as a socially privileged group of students began to identify themselves as having interests as a class that were at odds with the interests and practices of the university and its corporate sponsors.
Today, 'Counterculture' is used to describe moving in a theological or material direction that is not the accepted norm in society eyes; this is most easily seen in its manifestation in the media. However, it is strange to see how Counterculture movements quickly become the spearhead of commercial campaigns and how once taboo ideas (men wearing a "women's color" - pink) become popular trends.
Like many social movements such as Protestantism, Islam, the Crusades, the Enlightenment and so on, it has tended to have become capitalized thus: "Counterculture", and that tends to be how it is spelled in this wikia as an indication of its historical and social importance (though the wikia itself is "branded" thus: "CounterCulture".
This movement was a reaction against the conservative social mores of the 1950s, the political conservatism (and perceived social repression) of the Cold War period, and the US government's extensive military intervention in Vietnam. Opposition to the war was exacerbated in the US by the compulsory military draft.
The 1960s youth rebellion largely originated on college campuses, emerging directly out of the USA Civil Rights movement. The Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley was one early example, as a socially privileged group of students began to identify themselves as having interests as a class that were at odds with the interests and practices of the university and its corporate sponsors.
Today, 'Counterculture' is used to describe moving in a theological or material direction that is not the accepted norm in society eyes; this is most easily seen in its manifestation in the media. However, it is strange to see how Counterculture movements quickly become the spearhead of commercial campaigns and how once taboo ideas (men wearing a "women's color" - pink) become popular trends.
2. The comparative study of cultures contributes a
fresh perspective to concepts central to multicultural
teaching and learning; specifically, the concepts of
cultural pluralism and the plural society.
Cultural pluralism is a concept developed in the
context of European administration of heterogeneous,
complex societies; principally, in Burma, Ceylon (Sri
Lanka), and the Caribbean. Created through colonial
intervention, plural societies are characterized by
heterogeneous populations drawn together for politioeconomic, not cultural, reasons. Plural societies have a
characteristic intermix of differing &dquo;races&dquo; and cultural
systems. Plural societies are characterized by social,
spacial, normative, cultural, and institutional stratification and isolation. Plural societies do not evolve
through collective effort and sociocultural concensus;
plural societies are the byproduct of conquest. Pluralism is colonialistic and exploitative. Plural societies are
neither integrative, representative, participatory, nor
democratic. The concept of pluralism is as much sociopolitical and historical as it is cultural. Multiculturalism
implies a
process through which a
person develops competence in several cultures. Pluralism implies limited
cultural interaction and sharing. Ethnological anthropology suggests that education might strive for a multicultural rather than pluralistic society and culture.
fresh perspective to concepts central to multicultural
teaching and learning; specifically, the concepts of
cultural pluralism and the plural society.
Cultural pluralism is a concept developed in the
context of European administration of heterogeneous,
complex societies; principally, in Burma, Ceylon (Sri
Lanka), and the Caribbean. Created through colonial
intervention, plural societies are characterized by
heterogeneous populations drawn together for politioeconomic, not cultural, reasons. Plural societies have a
characteristic intermix of differing &dquo;races&dquo; and cultural
systems. Plural societies are characterized by social,
spacial, normative, cultural, and institutional stratification and isolation. Plural societies do not evolve
through collective effort and sociocultural concensus;
plural societies are the byproduct of conquest. Pluralism is colonialistic and exploitative. Plural societies are
neither integrative, representative, participatory, nor
democratic. The concept of pluralism is as much sociopolitical and historical as it is cultural. Multiculturalism
implies a
process through which a
person develops competence in several cultures. Pluralism implies limited
cultural interaction and sharing. Ethnological anthropology suggests that education might strive for a multicultural rather than pluralistic society and culture.
Plural societies are characterized by structurally
subordinate subgroups or subcultures exhibiting differential patterns of access to strategic and culturally
valued resources. As concerns its component
subgroups, the plural society assumes a separate-yetunequal stance. This notion of subculture undergirds
the multicultural approach to education. Within the
United States, the educational anthropologist John
Ogbu (1974) distinguishes immigrant from subordinate
minorities. Characteristically, immigrant minorities,
such as Italians or Germans, are historically and linguistically part of a continential, European tradition;
vis-a-vis Anglo superordinates, immigrant minorities
become &dquo;White&dquo; ethnics. Comparatively, ethnic social
status and degree of sociocultural access is based more
on culture and history than on &dquo;race.&dquo; Multiethnic
teaching and learning becomes the comparative, sociological study of differing sociohistorical aspects of an
encompassing European tradition. Such subordinate
minorities as Native and African-Americans are characterized by a
comparatively fixed social status, rank, and
degree of sociocultural access as based on culture,
behavior, language, and &dquo;race.&dquo; A multicultural education focuses on non-European cultural traditions and
histories. Inherently, multicultural teaching and
learning is cross-cultural and anthropological.
subordinate subgroups or subcultures exhibiting differential patterns of access to strategic and culturally
valued resources. As concerns its component
subgroups, the plural society assumes a separate-yetunequal stance. This notion of subculture undergirds
the multicultural approach to education. Within the
United States, the educational anthropologist John
Ogbu (1974) distinguishes immigrant from subordinate
minorities. Characteristically, immigrant minorities,
such as Italians or Germans, are historically and linguistically part of a continential, European tradition;
vis-a-vis Anglo superordinates, immigrant minorities
become &dquo;White&dquo; ethnics. Comparatively, ethnic social
status and degree of sociocultural access is based more
on culture and history than on &dquo;race.&dquo; Multiethnic
teaching and learning becomes the comparative, sociological study of differing sociohistorical aspects of an
encompassing European tradition. Such subordinate
minorities as Native and African-Americans are characterized by a
comparatively fixed social status, rank, and
degree of sociocultural access as based on culture,
behavior, language, and &dquo;race.&dquo; A multicultural education focuses on non-European cultural traditions and
histories. Inherently, multicultural teaching and
learning is cross-cultural and anthropological.
Popularly, it is assumed that individuals have only
a
single cultural orientation. However, and especially
within heterogeneous societies, ethnological material
suggests that it is possible, if not normal, for individuals
to participate in and to understand several cultures
(Goodenough, 1976). Multicultural competence is not
assimilation; being multicultural does not require the
dropping of one’s parent culture. The experience of
living in a
complex, heterogeneous national and international society assumes multiculturalism. The more
heterogeneous and complex the culture, the less a prototypic representative of that culture exists.
Most Americans have overlapping and often competing cultural identities and loyalties. Multicultural
teaching and learning must resist the popular tendency
of conceiving cultures and subcultures as
pristine entities : fixed, unchanging, and archetypic. There is no
&dquo;Indian&dquo; culture; at present, there are
only various individual Americans who have Onondaga or
Hopi parent
cultural orientations. One is not so much &dquo;Indian&dquo;-
American as
Hopi-American. For both the cultural
anthropologist and the multicultural teacher, an overemphasis on surface custom promotes stereotyping. An
exclusive focus on &dquo;stoicism&dquo; or powwows or teepees or
tomahawks tends to freeze individuals into a rigid,
monocultural image-an image that does not change.
From both within and without, a Sioux or Ute wanting
to become a
corporate banker might be accused of &dquo;not
being Indian.&dquo; Custom does not equal culture. An overemphasis on custom, especially &dquo;traditional&dquo; custom,
denys contemporary Americans multicultural competence. The cultural alternative for which multiculturalism might strive is the situation where it is culturally
logical to be both a Sioux and a banker as well as Jewish
and a
cowboy.
An ethnological critique of cultural pluralism and
the plural society suggests that multicultural teaching
and learning strive toward a sociocultural reality of balanced cultural alternatives. Multiculturalism must
allow individuals to optimize and maximize a vast
array of cultural resources. True multiculturalism is the
cultural freedom to, at will, participate in many cultures-each having equal access to socially valued and
strategic resources. In and of itself though, multiculturalism cannot solve the structural inequalities of
pluralism (Lewis, 1976). Only with the sterilization of
racism and cultural imperialism will a true multicultural society emerge. Multiculturalism though, can act
so as to foster, it not social, then cultural democracy.
The ethnological perspective further yields a more
inclusive view of the structure of American society and
culture. For better or worse, anthropology reflects the
reality of how we are related, under what circumstances, one to the other ... and why. The United
States is a swirl of differing cultural histories and traditions. There is no one &dquo;model&dquo; American. The United
States is dominated by a national Anglo-Saxon-JudaeoChristian influence we term &dquo;American.&dquo; The country is
institutionally integrated (i.e., compulsory schooling),
yet characterized by structural inequality. The ethnological record is again useful in suggesting that schools,
in part, are institutionalized mechanisms for differentially enculturating subgroups into this national culture
(Cohen, 1970). Culturally, schools seek to integrate a
plural condition by transferring local, subcultural allegience to national, supralocal allegience. One pledges
allegience to the United States-not to Burton Comers
or Grandma Agnes. Vis-a-vis &dquo;Chinese,&dquo; &dquo;Russian,&dquo; or
&dquo;African&dquo; national societies (themselves complex multicultural entities), we are all taught to be &dquo;American.&dquo;
Schools integrate as much as they segregate. At this
level, we all become &dquo;model&dquo; Americans.
a
single cultural orientation. However, and especially
within heterogeneous societies, ethnological material
suggests that it is possible, if not normal, for individuals
to participate in and to understand several cultures
(Goodenough, 1976). Multicultural competence is not
assimilation; being multicultural does not require the
dropping of one’s parent culture. The experience of
living in a
complex, heterogeneous national and international society assumes multiculturalism. The more
heterogeneous and complex the culture, the less a prototypic representative of that culture exists.
Most Americans have overlapping and often competing cultural identities and loyalties. Multicultural
teaching and learning must resist the popular tendency
of conceiving cultures and subcultures as
pristine entities : fixed, unchanging, and archetypic. There is no
&dquo;Indian&dquo; culture; at present, there are
only various individual Americans who have Onondaga or
Hopi parent
cultural orientations. One is not so much &dquo;Indian&dquo;-
American as
Hopi-American. For both the cultural
anthropologist and the multicultural teacher, an overemphasis on surface custom promotes stereotyping. An
exclusive focus on &dquo;stoicism&dquo; or powwows or teepees or
tomahawks tends to freeze individuals into a rigid,
monocultural image-an image that does not change.
From both within and without, a Sioux or Ute wanting
to become a
corporate banker might be accused of &dquo;not
being Indian.&dquo; Custom does not equal culture. An overemphasis on custom, especially &dquo;traditional&dquo; custom,
denys contemporary Americans multicultural competence. The cultural alternative for which multiculturalism might strive is the situation where it is culturally
logical to be both a Sioux and a banker as well as Jewish
and a
cowboy.
An ethnological critique of cultural pluralism and
the plural society suggests that multicultural teaching
and learning strive toward a sociocultural reality of balanced cultural alternatives. Multiculturalism must
allow individuals to optimize and maximize a vast
array of cultural resources. True multiculturalism is the
cultural freedom to, at will, participate in many cultures-each having equal access to socially valued and
strategic resources. In and of itself though, multiculturalism cannot solve the structural inequalities of
pluralism (Lewis, 1976). Only with the sterilization of
racism and cultural imperialism will a true multicultural society emerge. Multiculturalism though, can act
so as to foster, it not social, then cultural democracy.
The ethnological perspective further yields a more
inclusive view of the structure of American society and
culture. For better or worse, anthropology reflects the
reality of how we are related, under what circumstances, one to the other ... and why. The United
States is a swirl of differing cultural histories and traditions. There is no one &dquo;model&dquo; American. The United
States is dominated by a national Anglo-Saxon-JudaeoChristian influence we term &dquo;American.&dquo; The country is
institutionally integrated (i.e., compulsory schooling),
yet characterized by structural inequality. The ethnological record is again useful in suggesting that schools,
in part, are institutionalized mechanisms for differentially enculturating subgroups into this national culture
(Cohen, 1970). Culturally, schools seek to integrate a
plural condition by transferring local, subcultural allegience to national, supralocal allegience. One pledges
allegience to the United States-not to Burton Comers
or Grandma Agnes. Vis-a-vis &dquo;Chinese,&dquo; &dquo;Russian,&dquo; or
&dquo;African&dquo; national societies (themselves complex multicultural entities), we are all taught to be &dquo;American.&dquo;
Schools integrate as much as they segregate. At this
level, we all become &dquo;model&dquo; Americans.
3. BETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM AND ASSIMILATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CHALLENGES AND COPING STRATEGIES OF EXPATRIATE MANAGERS
Based on exploratory interviews with 116 German expatriate managers in Japan and the U.S., this study examined the challenges that expatriates confront in international assignments, the coping strategies that they utilize in response to these challenges, and the effectiveness of these coping strategies. The interviews were fully transcribed, content-analysed by independent raters, and supplemented by data from a survey questionnaire and adjustment scales. The findings revealed that the most troublesome problems that expatriates encountered overseas originated from poor career planning and impaired relations with corporate headquarters. Most other problems can be understood in terms of cross-cultural differences in management systems, work processes, communication patterns, and life style. The identified coping strategies cover a wide range of behavior, both open and intrapsychic, with coping activities that serve to regulate stressful emotions predominating over coping forms that are instrumental towards establishing interpersonal relationships, adjusting to the host culture, and achieving the task goals of the assignment. The findings further indicated that the coping strategies used by expatriates were only moderately effective or even counter-productive in reducing the strains of living and working overseas. A number of coping dispositions were identified that discriminate between effective and ineffective expatriate managers. Further analyses revealed that the nature of the challenges faced overseas, the types of coping strategies used, and the effectiveness of these coping strategies depend on such contingencies as the host country, position level, and stage of assignment. The findings thus call for a contingency approach to the study and management of expatriates.
Based on exploratory interviews with 116 German expatriate managers in Japan and the U.S., this study examined the challenges that expatriates confront in international assignments, the coping strategies that they utilize in response to these challenges, and the effectiveness of these coping strategies. The interviews were fully transcribed, content-analysed by independent raters, and supplemented by data from a survey questionnaire and adjustment scales. The findings revealed that the most troublesome problems that expatriates encountered overseas originated from poor career planning and impaired relations with corporate headquarters. Most other problems can be understood in terms of cross-cultural differences in management systems, work processes, communication patterns, and life style. The identified coping strategies cover a wide range of behavior, both open and intrapsychic, with coping activities that serve to regulate stressful emotions predominating over coping forms that are instrumental towards establishing interpersonal relationships, adjusting to the host culture, and achieving the task goals of the assignment. The findings further indicated that the coping strategies used by expatriates were only moderately effective or even counter-productive in reducing the strains of living and working overseas. A number of coping dispositions were identified that discriminate between effective and ineffective expatriate managers. Further analyses revealed that the nature of the challenges faced overseas, the types of coping strategies used, and the effectiveness of these coping strategies depend on such contingencies as the host country, position level, and stage of assignment. The findings thus call for a contingency approach to the study and management of expatriates.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar