Zaretta Hammond states, “Building background knowledge begins with becoming knowledgeable about the dimensions of culture as well as knowledgeable about the larger social, political, and economic conditions that create inequitable education outcomes…teachers also have to be aware of their beliefs regarding equity and culture.” We all heard about culture being referred to as an iceberg, which is the work of psychologist Edgar H. Schein, but Hammond refers to it as a tree. A tree has many different levels, but it’s also part of a bigger ecosystem, rather than being socially isolated. This makes sense to me, because our cultures have similar roots to other cultures, but how we engage with them might be different.  If you have ever seen a cultural iceberg or tree diagram, you know that there is a tip, which can be quite superficial. It’s what we can see, such as the food, dress, music, art, and holidays. These are at the surface culture level and if used to describe a culture can feel like tokenism. For example, when I moved to Dubai, someone asked me if I knew how to surf and did I know any celebrities, because I came from California. I began talking like a Valley Girl, if you don't know what I’m talking about researching it on YouTube, and shared that I knew so many actors I couldn’t count them all. The next level is shallow culture. This is what makes up everyday social interactions and norms, such as friendships, concepts of time, personal space between people, communication styles, and eye contact. These aspects help us to know how to interact within society. For example, when I moved to Germany, I had a difficult time interacting with everyone. Every time I left a shop, the clear would say “tschüss”. I didn’t know how to respond so I would hurry away until my German teacher shared that they were simply saying, “bye”. Hammond describes deep culture as a way of being consciously and unconsciously that drives our worldview, such as ethics, spirituality, health, and theories. “Deep culture also governs how we learn new information.” This part stopped me in my tracks. I had to think about an example of what this means. Hammond gives this example that adds clarity, “In Eastern culture, the color red means good luck while in most Western cultures red means danger.” This makes sense, because I usually associated red to danger and violence growing up in the United States. It’s sad to say, but these are the messages that I saw growing up with red being associated with blood and death. Not all Americans might think the same of course, but it has been a common thread since I was a little girl. Naturally, we are going to have learners with different cultural backgrounds in our classroom. So how do we honor each of them? Hammond suggests building relationships that are based on the deep level. Look at the shared values, principles, and worldviews that we all share and how they are demonstrated similarly and differently. This makes sense, because this is the heart of international or global mindedness. We seek for areas where we have similar ground and work up from there. Even within similar cultures, there are going to be differences based on how the culture is orientated towards collectivism and individualism. She speaks about people moving from different communities and how it can create individualism. I noticed this while teaching in Germany. Weather in Europe was cold in the winter, so many colleagues would scamper home after work, except my Spanish colleagues. They would frequently meet up and do things within their latin community in Koeln. Anyone was a friend, including myself, whereas German colleagues were much more reserved and primarily spent time with school mates. My Spanish colleagues were used to living in a collectivism society whereas my German colleagues were used to individualism. Neither is better than the other, but it does shape our level of expectations and interactions. Hammond delves further into this process by looking at Hofstede's list of individualism-collectivism continuums. Looking at individualism, Hofsted looked at self-orientation, individual effort, competition, etc. No surprise that the United States scored 91 out of 100. We are a very individualistic community that strives for excellence and living the American dream of going to university and home ownership. This isn’t a bad or good thing once again, but just another way of identifying similarities and differences. While Guatemala scored the lowest for individualism, which means there is a strong emphasis on making decisions within the community. It’s all about building up the community so everyone thrives. Very interesting. All of this discussion reminds me of an interesting book that I have on my shelf called The Culture Map. This book was recommended to me from a mentor, Dalit Halevi, about being more aware about how culture drives out interactions and transactions with each other in the business world. I remember reading a story about a woman who transferred to the United States for work. Her reviews were broad, so she assumed that she was doing a wonderful job while the employers were distressed about her approach of communication. This miscommunication occurred, because of the two contrasting ways of evaluating employees. It’s not right or wrong, just recognizing that we can’t assume that people from other cultures know our way of doing things. What are specific things we need to be mindful of in learning?Now that we have set the stage about how culture shapes our interactions, what are some specific things that we need to be mindful of in our practice?
Oral and written traditions: Some learners will prefer to share their ideas in a story-like format. This is natural in many cultures where oral traditions are alive and thriving. While sharing oral and written traditions, learners are building relationships with each other while demonstrating language skills such as figurative language, alliteration, movement, and emotion. Implicit bias: our unconscious attitude and beliefs towards certain groups based on their race, class, and language. An example is meeting learners from a certain community and determining that they cannot achieve, because of their linguistic ability. Structuralized racialization: how social, political, and economic policies strive to make neutral policies, but have racialized outcomes. An example, public/state school funding in the United States is based solely on property tax values. The areas with the lowest amount of values receive the least amount of support. This is justified, because they didn’t have to pay the same amount of property tax. It is deemed equitable. Culture of poverty: there are certain stereotypes of families with lower economic means as not caring about education, lifestyle choice, and being involved in illegal activity. For example, my eyes were opened about the culture of poverty while working in a low income school. Many parents were considered lazy, but they were struggling with their own issues and did the best they could. Cycle of poverty: this is where families are trapped in the cycle of poverty for three generations. There is no living member of the family that has ever possessed the intellectual, social, or cultural power to get out of poverty. This shapes the next generation to lose motivation in school, because they know that poverty will continue with their lives. I’ve seen this with my own eyes and it breaks my heart each time. As you can see, culture has a lot to do with our roles as educators. I’ve engaged with other people from around the world who tell me that racialization is a United States problem. Ironically, this was coming from a person of Caucasian heritage and I wonder if the answer would be the same from a person of color living in poverty.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
June 2025
|
RSS Feed