Towards Ethnorelativism: A development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Where to start? A question I have been asking for the last two weeks since I began this “leadership project”, but one thing is clear to me: there has to be an intercultural aspect added to leadership training going forward. The problem – intercultural sensitivity (or lack thereof) is often an issue in multinational companies headquartered in a particular nation. The need – most new employees signing up to a multinational company also expect it to be multicultural. The competitors – many companies are actively trying to promote intercultural awareness and believe there is a competitive advantage to be achieved. The market – suppliers are flooding it with intercultural training offers. An intercultural aspect has to be added!

So to start, I sought out the work of Milton Bennet, “Towards Ethnorelativism: A developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity” from “Education for the Intercultural Experience”, R M Paige (ed.), Intercultural Press, 1993.

Here’s the summary followed by my culturally biased critique (“et alors?”)

Towards Ethnorelativism: A Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Ethnocentrism is, according to Bennet, “the assumption that one’s own culture is central to all reality”. To move “away” from this, he suggests three “Ethnocentric pitfalls” to overcome and then three “Ethnorelative approaches” to achieve, thus:

Pitfall 1: Ignore differences

• Probably ignorance due to isolation, it could also be denial.

Pitfall 2:  Recognise differences but evaluate them negatively

• Manifested by at first seeing others as inferior, then your (or another) culture as superior.

Pitfall 3: Recognise differences but minimize their importance

• In this pitfall people say “we are all the same” and focus on the similarities.

Approach 4: Recognise and accept differences

• Respect and appreciate all cultural differences, values, norms, assumptions, as well as the tangible aspects of the culture (not just the food)! 

Approach 5: Adaptation to differences

• Adaptation of behavior occurs but does not mean adoption (or assimilation). Empathy is used to try and see the world from the other culture’s relative viewpoint.

Approach 6: Integrate differences

• Instead of only temporarily adapting behavior, any situation at any time can be seen from any cultural viewpoint.

Et alors?

“Integrating differences” appears to be a nirvana-like state we can only hope for! I have rarely seen people at this level where according to Bennett “you are outside all cultural frames of reference by virtue of your ability to consciously raise any assumption to a meta-level” And that’s without losing your own sense of identity! Still there’s always that “expat void” where having lived overseas for a while you no longer feel fully connected to your home culture, nor completely connected to your host culture. Not quite the same though…

Anyhow, that’s probably not a level we will be seeing here just yet! Back in France, we need to learn to walk before we can learn to run this journey away from ethnocentricity… Having said that, perhaps France is not in pitfall number one: but then who is? Some isolated states in the mid-West USA… Perhaps Europeans are guilty of pitfall number two – seeing others (such as in the example above) as inferior and by definition, Europeans as superior? Generally speaking, that unfortunately seems to be the case. Take any European newspaper, any day of the week and there will be an article wherein it is noted that the Americans are inferior whereas the readers are smarter, better educated and always superior! Pitfall number two “seeing your culture as superior” does seem to be prevalent in this great nation. Who else has a city as wonderful as Paris, a language as rich and as beautiful as French, Cartesian logic, codified laws and who else has had a Napoleon? Surely everyone else is just catching up? Other cultures might achieve certain things, but no one has put it all together to anything which could possibly resemble France? Alas, that can sometimes be the start line here!

Pitfall number three appears to be common in the work environment: “Recognising differences but minimizing their importance” could be a tag-line for corporate diversity. This seems to be particularly notable amongst “grand-ecole” graduates who like to think that there is only one essential: intellect! Other aspects (including culture) are not important! Unfortunately, even at this inner-Cartesian core there are still cultural values, norms and assumptions which continue to have an impact on the way we behave. I once had a “grand-ecole” colleague insist that even if we are not all the same, we are all in the same company and should therefore behave according to the corporate culture. A good point, but unfortunately, the remark was hardly celebrating cultural diversity; instead, cultural differences were being minimized (and what if that corporate culture is ethnocentric to start with?)!

Approach number four, “recognize and accept differences” is something which can also be seen here in corporate France. (It is not just all pitfalls!) Many executives have been expatriated or otherwise exposed to an international environment. Differences are recognized and accepted, but not necessarily all the time: outside work and in general conversations – yes; when at work and talking business – no! Then it’s usually back to one of the pitfalls! Again, the corporate culture can quite often be inextricably linked with the local national culture and so it is difficult to move away from one of the ethnocentric pitfalls during work. Finally, approach number five, “adaptation to differences” is still a project. Yes, “you need to adapt” – that is what is often said, but what tends to be meant is that people arriving in a new culture (“expatriates”) need to adapt to that (“host”) culture. Unfortunately, if we are going to truly move away from ethnocentricity we all need to adapt. The expatriates and the host: both need to adapt to the differences of each other!