| No 18, Vol. 6, 2000 |
 |
The teacher's intercultural competence
|
Language teachers focus in particular on the linguistic dimension of intercultural competence and the intercultural competence they develop is what one, more precisely, refers to as intercultural communicative competence - where 'communicative' normally means 'linguistic', even though the concept of communication is actually wider than that. It is important to emphasise, however, that possessing intercultural communicative competence does not only mean that one is even better at communicating linguistically than one was previously.
Intercultural competence is broader than the linguistic dimension, adding something else that is also important, something to do with content - a greater knowledge of the world.
Developing one's intercultural competence is an aspect of the lifelong socialisation process, or - to express it in more constructivist terms - a lifelong project. From early childhood and throughout our lives, we learn more and more about dealing with social and cultural differences and relating to them in developing our own identity. When we are involved in formal learning of a foreign or second language - at school or during teacher education - there is special focus on a particular kind of cultural differences, namely the national or the ethnic. We focus to a great extent on a national language, e.g. French, and on how life can be lived in France or in other French-speaking countries. We can be more or less aware of cultural, ethnic and linguistic variation - and of international and transnational relationships - but the national or nation-state framework normally asserts itself at some level or other - at least when it comes to language teaching in Europe. Themes such as 'the typically Danish' and 'Danishness', 'the typically German', 'the typically American', etc. are fairly common, and this naturally calls for a great caution and a critical sense if we in our own knowledge of the world are to avoid promoting national stereotypes that actually have little basis in fact.
It is important to stress that intercultural competence should not simply be perceived as 'bicultural'. All present-day societies are culturally complex at many levels, as a result of cultural developments and processes of dispersal over most of the world. Nation states attempt, generally speaking, to maintain an awareness of a common national culture and identity, though, in fact, cultural complexity reigns - a complexity that is characterised by the power structures that exist in the societies concerned and in the world. Intercultural competence is the ability to handle (productively and receptively) this cultural complexity in the micro-context and the macro-context: in the residential area, the burger bar, at home in front of the TV, out shopping, at the workplace, on the Internet, at the international seminar, etc. as well as at more general level in the multicultural and globalised world.
Intercultural competence is an active and productive ability, for, in actually using it, we create culture, i.a. in the classroom. In communicating, we create or confirm our identities, and understanding is an active process where one creates an understanding of what has been said from one's own perspective and own horizon. I think that it is productive to have such a social-constructivist approach to intercultural communicative competence. On the other hand, one must not forget that this liberty to create our own identities soon runs up against fairly solid systems that identify us against our will. Liberty encounters coercion.
The affective dimension is something I see as being the primary dimension, in the sense that its development stems from the first years of life. It has to do with the basic trust one has in the world and in other people, with one's self-image and self-respect. This is the most important prerequisite for curiosity, openness and a willingness to reject false assumptions, as Byram i.a. emphasises as characterising intercultural competence (see Byram's article in this issue). There is a strong need for psycho-dynamic studies of intercultural competence, including the linguistic dimension. What happens mentally when one uses a foreign language? Does one feel elated or insecure? There is also a question of identity linked to this: What does it mean to be able to use another language than one's native language? Is it nice, even a relief, to 'assume' another identity as a user of that language, or is it connected with unpleasant experiences and fear? What role does the linguistic perfection requirement play in how one sees oneself? These questions, naturally, exert a great influence on one's function as a language teacher.
The behavioural dimension consists, first and foremost, of one's experience in using the foreign language in various situations and various domains: at school or during education and training, in the workplace, at home, etc., no matter whether it is in one's own country or in the target language country. In addition, it consists in a number of other forms of behaviour, some of which run parallel with language practice (body language and the way one uses space when communicating) and others which are relatively independent of the course of language practice (clothing and other signs on the body). Once again, one can stress that behaviour is not something one simply learns: What is it that makes it difficult for some to learn unfamiliar forms of body language, while others happily plunge in at the deep end? This, too, can be a considerable challenge for a teacher, who, after all, is exposed to the class for most of the time.
The cognitive dimension comprises knowledge about and insight into the world, with a certain focus on the countries where the language is spoken as a native-language. It is important to emphasise here that knowledge is always a matter of perspective - linked closely to our 'position' in the world: where we come from geographically, socially and historically, our gender, etc. Our knowledge is formed by our family background, our schooling, the media, travel, etc. Certain areas of our knowledge are relatively objective in nature, e.g. factual knowledge about the number of parties in a country, but otherwise our knowledge is linked to our personal experiences, varying from one person to the next. Are we as language teachers aware of the perspective from which we view the world?
As Byram emphasises, the development of intercultural competence ought to lead to a critical cultural awareness and a political awareness of oneself as a citizen. I would add that it ought to lead to a political awareness of oneself as a citizen of the world. This is because I feel that language teachers, by virtue of their experiences with various languages and various language areas have special opportunities to contribute to developing the global vision and involvement of their students/participants.
Kramsch (1993) is one of those who say that when one develops one's intercultural competence, one develops 'a third place', i.e. one creates a special personal linguistic and cultural identity that is new and completely one's own. One does naturally not become a native speaker of the foreign language; one develops into something else, something which Byram calls an intercultural speaker, i.e. a person who can take in and mediate between various cultural contexts, also in terms of language: interpret, translate, clear up misunderstandings, etc.
The teacher ought to be able to describe and assess his or her own intercultural competence. For that reason, I would suggest that teachers and student teachers work with their own linguistic and cultural biography, collecting their own individual portfolios (see Byram's article in this issue) - if only for private use.
In the teaching situation, one can distinguish between two different ways in which the teacher can use his or her intercultural competence:
On the one hand, (s)he can develop personal knowledge of the world and the use of language as a tool in language teaching. (S)he communicates with the various students - and they can differ i.a. because they have different ethnic and social backgrounds. We are dealing here with dyadic relationships, i.e. relationships between two parties: the teacher and a student/group of students. One could refer to it as the 'I-you axis' in intercultural communication. It has to do with how 'I' am able to communicate with another person or another group of persons. It has to do with my own attitudes to the others, my own personality, my own self-development, my own intercultural learning, and/or my own lack of intercultural competence.
On the other hand, the teacher also develops a more mediating competence, because the student group consists of different people. The teacher learns how to make these different people relate to each other, to communicate and to cooperate. Here we are dealing with something which one could refer to as a 'you-you axis' (where there also is an implicit 'I'). We are dealing here with a triadic relationship, a relationship between three parties, and it is a matter of how 'I' am able to make two (or more) people or groups communicate with each other, to go beyond cultural differences.
So the teacher constantly has to ask himself or herself: How is it possible for me to exploit cultural differences in a positive way? How is it possible for me for intervene and mediate? What different forms of ballast do the students have as regards skills and attitudes to the target language? How do they perceive each other and each other's language knowledge? Which of them are good at cooperating - how can they supplement each other? How can I help the students by discussing disagreements and conflicts? This axis is more oriented towards the social and cultural complexity in the outside world and it has to relate to the various groups' identities and ideas about each other. It focuses on the others' intercultural competence. The teacher has to make use of it when it is necessary to create good conditions for each of the students to be able to develop both an 'I-you competence' and a 'you-you competence'.
Central to language and culture pedagogy is the question: How can we organise teaching in the best possible way, so that the students can develop their communicative and intercultural competence? Apart from - and as a supplement to - this more target-oriented interest it could be exciting to develop a culture-analytical approach to language teaching, one which asks: What actually happens? What type of social and cultural practice are we looking at, and why does it look the way it does? What sort of discourses about the world are taking place here? In what respects does school or education offer potential for learning that cannot take place outside? In this connection, I am, for example, thinking of the content of the teaching materials: How should one view the mediation of culture and society in them? Should one, for example, prefer images that can serve as a counterweight to those that circulate in the mass media and advertising, or should one, on the contrary, make use of media images?
There are doubtlessly many teachers who reflect on their own practice and the intercultural competence it provides or does not provide. But it is not an integral part of the common debate among those teaching languages. In my opinion, there is a real need for casting a critical glance at the practice of language teaching and the possibilities given it. Why is there practically no one who is carrying out critical discourse analyses of language teaching (cf., however, Dendrinos 1992)? Why is there practically no feminist critique, no ideological critique, no post-colonial critique (cf., however, Phillipson 1992, Pennycook 1994)? I myself have written a small culture-critical discussion of the critique of textbooks (Risager 1998), but apart from that this field is fairly uncharted.
An issue that also calls out for greater clarification is the cultural diversity of the language subjects. The various languages play completely different roles at a global level. The cultural and societal contexts that are relevant for the various languages are also completely different. The teaching of French in Denmark is surrounded by very different perceptions and expectations than French teaching in England, even though we are dealing with 'the same language'. All of this doubtlessly plays an important role for the understanding of culture and society in the various language subjects and what texts and topics there is the strongest tradition for.
Like it or not, language teaching is to a certain extent bound up with the idea of the nation, not least in Europe. So the language teacher's competence will be able to contain an interesting element: Awareness of what is referred to as 'banal nationalism'.
The expression 'banal nationalism' comes from the British social psychologist Michael Billig (1995). Banal nationalism is an ideology that maintains or legitimises the nation state. Banal nationalism finds expression in the many small everyday things and statements which remind us that the world is divided into nation states and which presuppose that this is common sense, something which is quite natural and which could not be otherwise. The flag on the official buildings; the political map where the countries are clearly marked off from each other and have different colours; expressions such as 'Danish weather' or 'Danish birds': the expression 'the whole country' (implicitly: Denmark); the political understanding that underlies the use of 'us' and 'them' - all of these are examples of apparently innocent things that keep our nationalist view of the world alive. It is virtually ubiquitous, and Billig has analysed it in political speeches and in newspaper reports, i.a. the sports pages.
Even if banal nationalism seems innocent and simply standard procedure, Billig underlines that it is by no means harmless. It is an ideology, and, what is more, the most successful ideology in the history of mankind, for the belief that the whole world must of necessity be divided into nation states with precise borders is now universal, despite the fact that nationalism and the establishing of nation states is only two to three centuries old.
When one uses the word nationalism, one normally refers to a passionate and violent phenomenon. Whereas banal nationalism is something that follows us unnoticed in our everyday lives, 'nationalism' is something which 'others' cultivate: separatists, fascists and guerrillas. This more passionate form of nationalism Billig calls 'hot' nationalism, and he uses the flag as a metaphor: hot nationalism is the waved flag, banal nationalism the unwaved flag. Banal nationalism is, as mentioned, not harmless, for it functions as a mental preparation for hot nationalism and can easily switch into this form in connection with, for example, war propaganda.
It is clear - and Billig also emphasises this - that all of us are influenced by banal nationalism, even though we are aware of it and that its history has a relatively short life-span. We are dealing with a completely habitual present-day structuring of thought. And in language teaching, banal nationalism has got a tight hold - for who does not think of language subjects as being more or less national subjects? For this reason, among others, it is important to stress that intercultural competence does not simply have to do with dealing with national differences but that is also means dealing with the actual cultural complexity that has arisen as a result of transnational and global processes.
Reflecting on one's own practice in teaching has an ethical or political dimension: The language subjects help to develop identities as well as images of culture and age in both a positive and a negative sense - for it is not immaterial which images of the world circulate in the classroom! This leads me to a more wide-ranging question: How can the language subjects help to make the world less skewed?
Intercultural competence is used for many things: to sell Coca Cola all over the world, to delay vital decisions in the UN, to organise international drugs trafficking, to incite nationalist and racialist movements. But we as language teachers are probably agreed that intercultural competence justifies itself by creating certain preconditions for intercultural understanding and cooperation. If we take an extra step, intercultural competence has to do with the ability to establish cross-cultural movements, organisations and institutions that can fight for a better world and seek to prevent the great social and environmental problems that researchers can already predict but that 'we' refuse to take seriously. In my opinion, this ought to be the most long-term aim for teacher education and for school language teaching.
Billig, Michael: Banal Nationalism. London: Sage Publications, 1995.
Byram, Michael: Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative
Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1999.
Dendrinos, Bessie: The EFL Textbook and Ideology. Athens: N. C. Grivas
Publications, 1992.
Kramsch, Claire: Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Pennycook, Alastair: The Cultural Politics
of English as an International Language. London and New York: Longman, 1994.
Phillipson, Robert: Linguistic
Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Risager, Karen: Critique of textbook criticism.
i: Dorthe Albrechtsen, Birgit Henriksen, Inter M. Mees og Erik Poulsen (eds.), Perspectives
on Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy. Odense: Odense University Press, 1998. S.
53-62.
The next full-text article in this issue of Sprogforum is:
Tove Heidemann:
Organisation culture and intercultural competence
Sprogforum's homepage
Telephone, e-mail,
address, rates, etc. Contents of
this number
Ordering
Sprogforum
via e-mail (sprogforum@dpb.dpu.dk)Sprogforum no. 19:
Multilingual Denmark - in pdf-format