It is essential for people who work internationally or in multicultural settings to familiarize themselves with implications of cultural differences. Hofstede’s model can be used as an excellent guide for educators who are aiming to operate more effectively in different parts of the world.

We live in a world of diverse cultures. It is crucial to understand the implications of cultural differences in order to be successful in such a diverse world. Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) in their book, “Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival,” present a detailed overview of culture and its dimensions, as well as why intercultural cooperation is vital for a brighter future for humanity. The purpose of this essay is to review the model of culture presented by Hofstede et al (2010) with a focus on educational considerations. As intercultural encounters in schools can lead to confusions, it is especially critical for educators to understand the implications of working in diverse educational settings.

According to Hofstede et al. (2010, 6), culture is the collective mental programming of our minds, much of which is acquired during our childhood when we are open to learning and assimilation. The first 10-12 years are when we are most receptive and when we unconsciously absorb what our environment presents us, which ultimately becomes our mental program (Hofstede et al. 2010, 9). Culture can be inferred by the patterns of how we think, feel, and act (Hofstede et al. 2010, 11). It is reflected in all areas of life, from family and school, to organizations and politics, and is an important aspect in explaining why countries differ in many ways.

Culture has multiple layers (Hofstede et al. 2010, 8-9). Rituals, symbols, and heroes of a country represent the outer layers of culture that are visible practices and that can change relatively easily as compared to values. At the core of the culture lie values that constitute the relatively constant layer of culture. Values relate with broad tendencies to things such as “good-evil,” “clean-dirty,” “rational-irrational.” Values shape the institutions of a country, such as families, education systems, governments, and laws (Hofstede et al. 2010, 23-24). Institutions are vital in shaping the future of a country. For example, culture and institutions can explain why some countries develop and others remain underdeveloped, or why some countries are ruled by authoritarian regimes as opposed to democratic ones.

Six dimensions of culture identified by Hofstede et al. (2010, 29-38) can be stated as:

power distance,
collectivism versus individualism,
femininity versus masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance,
long-term versus short-term orientation, and
indulgence versus restraint.

These dimensions can help explain certain prevalent characteristics in a nation or society. For example, power distance can be associated with the use of violence in a country’s domestic political system and the existence of inequality; individualism can help explain national prosperity and social mobility between social classes; femininity and masculinity can have an impact on both parenting, laws, and even the amount of humanitarian aids; whereas uncertainty avoidance is associated with religion, and long-term orientation with national savings rates. Indulgence versus restraint concerns human desires such as enjoying life and having fun.

Since culture affects us in every level of society, it would be a complex task to try to explain all aspects of it. Therefore, the rest of this article focuses on culture as it relates to education along the first five dimensions, which have been shown to have an association with certain educational outcomes as presented by Hofstede et al. (2010). The approach followed by Hofstede et al. is neutral (2010, 25). Hence, both individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures, for example, can have advantages and disadvantages, therefore one should not be perceived superior to the other.

The first dimension “power distance” (Hofstede et al. 2010, 53-86) represents how inequality is expected and accepted by the less powerful members of a society. In large power distance societies, where inequality is the norm, children are expected to be obedient to their parents as well as teachers. There is a relationship of dependence, and the elderly are treated with respect. In an educational setting, which is teacher-centered, teachers are regarded with respect and even fear. In such cultures, students stand up when teachers enter the classroom and they show respect for the teacher even outside the classroom. The teacher dictates the communication pattern by deciding who speaks when. There is a strict order in the classroom. The educational quality is dependent on the teacher, who is seen as the guru or “the wise one.” High power distance countries are mostly Asian countries, Eastern European countries, Latin countries, Arabic-speaking countries, and African countries. In low power distance cultures, on the other hand, education is student-centered. Students and teachers are expected to treat each other as equals. Students are expected to take initiative and shape their own growth paths towards being independent individuals. Students can intervene while the teacher is talking; they are expected to ask questions; they can criticize or challenge the teacher intellectually, and are not expected to show respect for the teacher outside the school setting. In low power distance cultures, two-way communication is vital to a student’s success. Examples of low power distance countries are German-speaking countries, Scandinavian countries, Baltic countries, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.

The second dimension of culture is “collectivism and individualism” (Hofstede et al. 2010, 89-133) and relates to the role of the individual versus the role of the group. Most of the world’s population lives in collectivist cultures and individualist cultures are the exception. Examples of countries with individualist cultures include the United States, Australia, Great Britain, and Canada. Examples of collectivist cultures include Latin American countries, Pakistan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China. Collectivist cultures are “we” oriented whereas individualist cultures are “I'” oriented. The in-group and out-group distinctions are starker in collectivist societies making them more exclusionist as compared to individualist cultures that are more universalist (or inclusive) with respect to the larger society outside one’s moral circle. In collectivist cultures, children grow up in extended family settings whereas in individualist cultures children grow up in nuclear families. In collectivist cultures, the purpose of education is to get a good paying job that can benefit the extended family whereas in individualist cultures the purpose of education is to facilitate children to become independent and stand on their own feet. In collectivist cultures, loyalty to the family is central to one’s life and there is a dependence relationship between family members. On the other hand, healthy individuals in individualist cultures are supposed to leave home after they become financially independent.

In an educational setting, students from collectivist cultures show a tendency to not speak up. This is because the student sees herself as part of a group, and feels no need to speak up unless the rest of the group makes her speak. In such cultures, the teacher needs to take the initiative and call a student by name to help her speak. Also, in collectivist cultures students tend not to speak up in larger groups without the teacher’s presence, especially when there are strangers. The remedy for this tendency is to divide the group into smaller sizes to increase participation. Due to strong in-group and out-group identities in collectivist cultures, students tend to form subgroups based on their ethnic or clan backgrounds. Therefore, it is a challenge to form groups based on task assignments in collectivist cultures as compared to individualist cultures where task assignments determine formation of groups. Furthermore, in these cases, students expect to see preferential treatment from the teacher if they share the same background. In individualist cultures, such a treatment is seen as nepotism and treated as immoral. This is in contrast with collectivist cultures that perceive it as immoral if the teacher does not exhibit preferential treatment for his or her kin.

In the individualist educational setting, students expect to be treated as individuals and in an impartial manner without any discrimination. Students can easily form groups, discuss issues or differences openly without worrying about losing face, and can also confront each other. In contrast, in the collectivist educational setting, the teacher needs to deal with a student as part of an in-group, not as an individual. Collectivist cultures avoid confrontations and conflict, as students feel a need to save face and not to be ashamed.

In individualist cultures, learning is perceived as a life-long process that should continue after school and throughout one’s whole life. The focus is on how to learn rather than knowing how to do certain tasks. The aim of education is to prepare the student to become an individual in a society that is composed of other individuals. Thus, it is critical to teach students to learn how to deal with the surprises of life that cannot be guessed beforehand. On the other hand, in collectivist cultures, the focus of education is to prepare an individual to become a good group member. Therefore, students are given virtues and skills on how to do things and how to fit into the tradition of the in-group. Education is a one-time process that is attained during youth and does not continue later in life. In the individualist society, diplomas and certificates are regarded as individual accomplishments that foster one’s self-respect as well as feeling of achievement, and help to enhance one’s economic capability. In the collective society, diplomas and certificates bring honor to the individuals and their in-groups such as the family, and are regarded as tools to engage with higher status groups such as becoming a member of a rich extended family through marriage.

The third dimension of culture, “masculinity and femininity” (Hofstede et al. 2010, 135-184), is related to the prevalence or desirability of assertiveness versus modesty in a society. A society can be characterized as masculine when emotional gender role differences are apparent. In other words, men are supposed to take responsibility outside the home and be assertive, tough, and financially oriented; whereas women are supposed to take responsibility at home by being the caretaker of all, modest, kind, and tender. These stark distinctions get blurry in more feminine cultures where both men and women tend to take on the role of the compassionate caretaker of the family. Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway are examples of feminine cultures, and Latin American and Eastern European cultures are examples of masculine cultures.

In masculine educational settings, students strive on showing themselves off and competing openly with classmates. Failure is hardly acceptable, which may even lead students to commit suicide. Competitive sports are taken very seriously. Job choice decisions by students are mainly based on a student’s perception of availability of career opportunities. A teacher’s brilliance and student success are the most important criteria in evaluating teachers. Boys tend to get priority in education. Women generally teach younger students, whereas men teach at the college level.

In feminine educational settings, success is something that one keeps to oneself and assertive behavior is mocked. Displays of smartness and excellence easily induce jealousy. Failure is a minor issue and is not cared about as much. Competitive sports are only extracurricular activities that do not carry much importance. Job choices are made based on a student’s interests. A teacher’s social skills and student’s social adaptability are the main criteria for evaluating teachers. Both boys and girls are educated using the same curricula. Both men and women can teach young children and college students, since roles are mixed.

The fourth dimension, “uncertainty avoidance” (Hofstede et al. 2010, 187-233), relates to the society’s degree of tolerance of the ambiguous and the unpredictable. As human beings, we have to live with the fact that the future is uncertain. This dimension shows itself in the form of a need for rules and is expressed through nervous stress or anxiety. Examples of high uncertainty avoidance cultures include Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay, Belgium, and Russia. Examples of low uncertainty avoidance cultures include Jamaica, Singapore, Sweden, and Denmark.

In the classroom setting, students from strong uncertainty avoidance cultures may prefer highly structured learning with clear objectives, clear timetables, as well as detailed assignments. Accordingly, accuracy should be rewarded, such as in the case of finding the one correct answer to a problem. Students expect the teacher to be the expert and respect teachers who use cryptic academic language. Students do not disagree with their professors. Students are more likely to attribute their success to luck and circumstances. Parents are occasionally brought in by teachers into the classroom, but they are almost never consulted as the teacher is always the expert.

On the other hand, students from weak uncertainty avoidance cultures do not prefer too much structure. Instead, they favor open-ended problems with vague objectives as well as broad assignments without timetables. Students from such cultures do not hesitate to disagree with instructors and they still respect them even if they admit that they do not know the answer to a particular question. Students are more likely to attribute their success to their own achievement. Teachers actively involve parents in a student’s education and ask for ideas for enhancement.

The fifth and final dimension of culture, “long-term versus short-term orientation” (Hofstede et al. 2010, 235-274), relates to the importance of future rewards. It can be observed in the form of “perseverance and thrift” in long-term oriented cultures and has been associated with economic growth in East Asia. Short-term orientation can be observed more in the form of giving precedence to virtues related to past and present, such as respect for tradition, protecting face, and meeting social obligations. Examples of long-term oriented cultures include China, Honk Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Examples of short-term oriented cultures include Egypt, Nigeria, Puerto Rico, and Ghana.

In short-term oriented cultures, the main work values include freedom, rights, achievement, and thinking for oneself, whereas in long-term oriented cultures, the main work values include learning, honesty, adaptiveness, accountability, and self-discipline. Math scores are strongly correlated with the long-term orientation of a culture (e.g. East Asian countries) as measured by the TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study – an international comparative test of math and science scores). Also, math and science scores are highly mutually correlated. This suggests that learning and teaching are culturally conditioned. This difference of scores across cultures can be explained by the differences in the encouragement of self-enhancement that reduces children’s interest in self-improvement activities like education. Accordingly, in such cultures, people seek positive information about themselves, and dismiss negative information. One needs to admit that he or she needs self-improvement and that takes a culture which encourages admitting such a deficiency. For example, Asian students in the United States are more likely to attribute success to effort and failure to lack of it.

Apart from the dimensions of culture, intercultural encounters can have important implications both between migrant or refugee students and local teachers, as well as expatriate instructors teaching in a foreign country to native students (Hofstede et al. 2010, 393-395). Hofstede et al. (2010, 395) suggest that the teachers should learn the language of the students (rather than expecting students to learn their language) to be able to overcome cultural barriers and be more effective in teaching in a culturally relevant manner. Information should be fit into a cultural framework to be meaningful. Therefore, culturally adequate translation is a very valuable art, as what is considered to be important in one language does not necessarily translate into another language meaningfully.

Moreover, differences in cognitive abilities need to be considered by teachers working in foreign cultures (Hofstede et al. 2010, 394). We learn fundamental things according to the demands of our environment while growing up. Therefore, we become better at things that we often do and that are important to us. Learning abilities including memory power emanate from cultural patterns of a society. For example, in China the visual nature of the script develops the pattern recognition abilities while imposing rote learning on students. Another complication arises from use of irrelevant material in classrooms. Some concepts that may be relevant in some countries may not apply in others. For example, organizational behavior concepts in wealthy countries may be irrelevant in poor countries. Finally, intercultural issues can emerge from institutional differences that create varying expectations in relation to the educational process and the role of different parties. Examples include the pay and status of teachers, whether the students served are from elite families or whether the educational system is elitist, and the role of the state in dictating the curriculum (Hofstede et al. 2010, 395).

In sum, culture is a complex concept with multiple dimensions. Cultural differences are a fact of life. It is essential for people who work internationally or in multicultural settings to familiarize themselves with implications of such differences. Hofstede et al. (2010)’s cultural model helps us understand this complex phenomenon, and can be used as an excellent guide for educators who are aiming to operate more effectively in different parts of the world.

Reference

Hofstede, Geert, Gert J. Hofstede and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Generally accepted as a Christian country, Australia became exposed to Christianity along with Judaism and Islam little more than 200 years ago, due to the arrival of the British settlers and scattered landings of Muslim Indonesian sailors on the northern shores (Stephenson, 2007). Evidence has shown that it is inaccurate to claim that Indonesian Muslims were the first to discover Australia. The earliest reliable evidence dates their presence in Australia to the mid-1700s, whereas it is known the Dutch had discovered it by 1606 (Ganter, 2008). Since the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, Australia has been subject to a regular influx of refugees and immigrants. As a direct result, integration of cultures has become an integral part of Australian society. Over the last 60 years, the population of Australia has become one of the most ethnically diverse in the world (Kurti, 2013). It is clear that today’s Australia is a multicultural and religiously diverse society. According to the 2011 Australian Census, over a quarter (26% or 5.3 million) of Australia’s population was born overseas and a further one-fifth (20% or 4.1 million) had at least one parent born overseas (Ozdowski, 2012). Since the 1970s, federal and local governments, NGOs, and various intercultural and interfaith organizations have worked incessantly to make Australia everyone’s home. The primary aim of this was to overcome misconceptions and to promote community cohesion through principles of respect, acceptance, tolerance, and collaboration.

Many cultures, including Australian (and by implication Western European cultures), view anything or anyone who comes across as different in regard to customs, appearance, dress or language, in a mistrustful way which can invoke a variety of emotions, ranging from mild loathing to extreme fear. Such views are further affected by constant media exposure of adverse events, including minor misdemeanors carried out by minority groups from particular ethnic and religious backgrounds. Controversial news travels faster and attracts more attention than noncontroversial news, so it is unsurprising that print and electronic media release unfavorable news almost exclusively on a daily basis. Furthermore, the overwhelming influence of visual and print media has on people’s perceptions and views, intentionally or otherwise, results in a one dimensional view of events. This type of news, informed by biased information, tends to shape responses to events in our lives in a way that creates serious prejudices.

Australia can be proud of its record when it comes to amicable and respectful inter-cultural community relations. This, along with its inclusive view of the religious beliefs of others, is founded on mutual respect and the forbearance of alternative points of view. In recent times, however, small but concerning components of insularity and corresponding multi-racial indifference has emerged, threatening the otherwise harmonious levels of co-existence. Much of the early success of colonial expansionism was due to the respect and tolerance of cultural differences by the British colonialists, especially in the Indian-sub continent. A notable exception, however, was the early treatment of the native Aboriginal people in Australia by European settlers (Reynolds, 1987). The initially negative treatment of native people by the white settlers evolved over time and led to a general shift in attitudes towards accepting each other’s views, cultures, and traditions.

In today’s world, one would have to be either intellectually myopic or simply deeply misinformed to have formed the view that ‘all is well’ in the world of human relations, with naked violence, in its worst possible forms, paraded in front of us daily in the international and local media. Those who profess naivety would appear to accept no responsibility for what is all too often a one-sided view of events. At a personal level, our relationships are strengthened by an open minded approach to the beliefs of others without feeling the need to force others with differing views to believe what we believe and perceive. However, they can also be affected by a sense of profound disquiet that comes in the wake of the often quite virulent proselytizing of those who cannot, or will not, acknowledge the rights of others to believe in their own version of the “truth.”

Few will argue that prejudice ‘feeds’ on ignorance, possibly the worst form of ignorance being one that is “fed” by innuendo, half truths, and downright slander. Australia, as a country with a historically Christian tradition, can be quite proud of its generally open-minded and fair approach towards fellow Australians who choose to follow other religious or cultural beliefs and traditions. According to (Koleth, 2010-11; 3-41) in Australia: “Multiculturalism has served a variety of goals over the years, including, the pursuit of social justice, the recognition of identities and appreciation of diversity, the integration of migrants, nation building, and attempts to achieve and maintain social cohesion.” This has become one of many reasons why our immigration policies, which have led to an enhanced acceptance of “multiculturalism,” now enjoy high levels of success and positive acclaim within the international community (Ozdowski, 2012).

One of the achievements of our immigration policy has been the acceptance of those who are refugees on humanitarian grounds, providing the bounty of many skills and practical abilities that migrants bring to our country. This has become vital to engender notions of acceptance and understanding in all people. In Australia, communities come from diverse political, cultural, and religious persuasions. Thus, the focus should be on a deeper level of unconditional acceptance, understanding, and affection between people who may not necessarily be well acquainted at a personal level. A good example of this is contained in a biblical utterance from Paul of Tarsus in his letter to the Corinthians: “And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (Corinthians 13:2). As this quote highlights, love forms the foundation of social acceptance and cohesion. It is, therefore, not too fanciful or naive to suggest that this type of love offers the best possibility for peaceful and harmonious co-existence between peoples of widely differing cultural and religious backgrounds.

Similar to the Christian teachings, Islam and its proponents promote tolerance at all levels: between family members, husband and wife, parent and child, as well as between groups and nations. The Qur’an says, ”O Mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you might [affectionately] come to know one another. Surely, the most honored among you, in the sight of God, is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted” (49:13). To this end, the Qur’an commonly advocates tolerance, respect, and goodwill towards the People of the Book (Christians and Jews). For example, the Qur’an declares: “God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your home, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable” (60:8).

Thus, in a spirit of tolerance, acceptance and understanding, Australia seems to fit well within this ideal paradigm. In Australia, immigrants of all nationalities and religious beliefs are well integrated by international standards. However, there still exists a pressing need for interfaith and intercultural dialogue between all members and from all strata of society. Currently, there are government organizations and NGOs promoting dialogue through various events and programs. Affinity Intercultural Foundation, the Australian Intercultural Society, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Victoria Multicultural Commission, and the Community Relations Commission for a multicultural NSW are some of the organizations who are genuinely exerting creditable efforts toward the goal of dialogue. The high degree of diversity in Australia could quite naturally lead to social segregation. Fortunately, the commonsense and basically fair-minded attitudes that prevail in Australia have prevented this from happening to the same extent as in Europe (Ozdowski, 2012). At the beginning of white settlement in Australia, by a combination of free and convict settlers, there existed a degree of European based xenophobia towards anyone who either looked or dressed differently; but familiarity, liberal values, and a broadly democratic view of life have tempered misconceptions.

Australia is proud of its strong and unshakable friendships with people of varying religious beliefs, including those encompassed by the large monotheistic religions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It needs to be acknowledged after all, that if we can believe in one single external power in our lives, it is possible to accept that we are all children from the same source. Many philosophers have suggested that ultimately ‘all is perception’; however, if that perception of our fellow human beings is one of ‘difference’ in terms of language, culture, dress, and beliefs, then we are presented with the challenge to ensure that these differences do not create the sort of divisions that lead to a ‘ghetto’ response that is sadly all too often one of the consequences of such differences.

There is beauty in diversity and diversity in beauty. This beauty is further enhanced in the human experience if all people in the world agree to differ amicably with a sense of respect for different views, or more simply put, “agree to disagree.” What a beautiful world that would be to live in. Finally, it may be said that the achievement of cultural and interfaith harmony begins with the necessary education that enables us to recognize that whatever differences there are, these must not cause divisions and unfounded suspicions. Differences are something to be embraced rather than feared; they give life a special richness that would be absent if everyone was the same. Above all, along with viewing love as a bond between people, we are bound to recognize love as an ingredient for human tolerance and harmony.

References

• Ganter, R. 2008. Muslim Australians: The Deep Histories of Contact. Journal of Australian Studies, 32(4), 482–483.
• Koleth, E. 2010-11. Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas, Parliament of Australia, Research Paper No.6, pp. 3-41.
• Kurti, P. 2013. Multiculturalism and the Fetish of Diversity. CIS policy monographs 138: Centre for Independent Studies (Australia)
• Ozdowski, S. 2012. “Australian Multiculturalism: the roots of its success.” Third International Conference on Human Rights Education: Promoting Change in Times of Transition and Crisis, The Jagiellonian University: Krakow, Poland.
• Reynolds, H. 1987. Frontier: Aborigines, settlers and land. Sydney: Allen – Unwin.
• Stephenson, P. 2007. The outsiders within: Telling Australia’s indigenous-Asian story. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd

Interfaith dialogue has been a very controversial issue and there have been a lot of discussions about it: its necessity, rationale, and success (Kurucan 2006). These questions have made it obvious that people are not aware of the real meaning of interfaith dialogue.

Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca (1969) explain dialogue as follows: “… (it) is not supposed to be a debate … but rather a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (196, 37). Related to this description, Gulen (2000) describes interfaith dialogue as “… seek(ing) to realize religion’s basic oneness and unity, and the universality of belief. Religion embraces all beliefs and races in brotherhood, and exalts love, respect, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, human rights, peace, brotherhood, and freedom via its Prophets” (The Fountain, September 2000). These descriptions bring out another question: how useful and beneficial can interfaith dialogue be in solving problems?

Interfaith dialogue does not aim to change the ideas of people about their religions or faiths, but seeks to find common ground between religions, to focus on communities, and through an emphasis on harmony and peace, find solutions to many of our common problems. In fact, one of the reasons for interfaith dialogue is to “provide an atmosphere of freedom” (Kurucan 2006, 17).

Another major proponent of dialogue was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University. When he visited the Vatican in 1977 in a delegation, Nasr highlighted five areas that Christianity and Islam can work together to make the world better. These five areas are “dangers of modern technocracy and ecological ruin, energy crises, youth problems and decadence of morality and faith” (Kot 2009). In addition, Rev. Allman states, “The ability to discuss our religious and cultural differences is more than an ‘extra-curricular activity’; it is a skill which is vital for participants in democracy, especially a democratic society such as ours, which is filled with people whose differences are deep and complex” (The Network, 1999).

These statements show the importance of interfaith dialogue for the improvement of humanity and the goodwill of societies. Pinto (2003) highlights the role of interfaith dialogue in today’s society as “…an inevitable fact of our being-with-other-faiths.”

In connection to this, Swidler et al. (2007) state that, “In the past, during the age of divergence, we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly live in a global village” (Stress added, p.1).

Today most of the common reasons for dispute between religions, or between people of different religions, are that they do not understand one another’s beliefs or ideas (Baum 2011). Interfaith dialogue meetings, panels, conferences help these misconceptions and unfamiliarity disappear. And the result of such dialogues can be tremendous. As Smock states, “… when two or more faiths come together to explore or promote the possibility of peace, the effects can be especially potent” (viii).

The benefits of interfaith dialogue are obvious but still it is not an easy work. Once again, Smock (2002) highlights that “interfaith dialogue is a difficult, often painful endeavor” (viii). There are some prerequisites for interfaith dialogue to be successful. Swidler (2003) categorizes them as:

“1) an openness to learn from the other. 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition. 3) a similarly disposed and knowledgeable dialogue partner from the other tradition” (p. 12).

The importance of each prerequisite will be explained in detailed below.

Ingredients for a successful interfaith dialogue meeting

1) The most important component of interfaith dialogue is to remember the real meaning of dialogue. It is a two-way discussion that requires respect and understanding. This component may seem very simple to understand but it is very easy to forget. Swidler (2007) states that, “If this basic goal is kept fixed in view and acted on with imagination, creative and fruitful dialogue – and a growing transformation of each participant’s life and that of their communities – will follow” (p. 19). So for better results out of interfaith dialogue, the real meaning of dialogue should not be forgotten. Be sure to explain dialogue as “… a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca, 1969, 37).

2) In these meetings, participants must be aware of the fact that all of the participants are from different religious and cultural backgrounds, so interfaith dialogue is based on understanding and respecting all participants. In interfaith dialogue, none of the participants should try to discredit or question the belief system of the other participants.

3) Smock (2002) writes that stating the purpose of the meeting very clearly and choosing the right participants goes a long way towards determining the success of a dialogue. The purpose of the meeting should be decided by the participants before the meetings, very clearly and in detail.

4) While describing how to start dialogue, Bohme et al. (1991) state that suspension is an important part of dialogue. Listening to the other participants is a compulsory part of the process. During these meetings, all of the participants should be free of their biases and be open to understanding and recognizing new perspectives. Interfaith dialogue meetings are great ways to learn about different religions and different thoughts.

5) It should not be forgotten that in these meetings, we come together as people, not as belief systems, but these meetings provide an incredible opportunity to learn about, discuss, and understand other religions. “… the dialogue among the world’s religions and traditions should lead to a better mutual knowledge and understanding, and an exchange of the mutual values as an enrichment of one’s own faith and of the faith of the others” (Cosijns & Braybrooke, 2008, 55-56). However, a problem or mistake made in the meetings should not be used to generalize about a whole belief system. Kurucan (2006) states that by interfaith dialogue, “We refer to dialogue between the people of different religions” (17). So people in these meetings should not be seen as categories, sole representatives of their religions, but they should be seen as individual people, with their strengths and flaws – just like all of us.

6) Interfaith dialogue aims to find solutions to the problems of the world and other people by focusing on the similarities between belief systems. It does not focus on the differences and controversial issues.

7) Smock (2002) states that one-time interfaith dialogue meetings cannot be very useful, so there should be some follow-up sessions to enforce the benefits of the meetings.

8) In addition, it would be a good idea to learn about the religious practices of the other participants, see the differences between your own understandings, and be very careful about these differences during the dialogue process. Crowley (2006) states that setting the stasis – the parts that the participants may have different ideas about – is an important part of civil discussion. In interfaith dialogue, being aware of the stasis is important, so as not to offend the other participants.

9) No exclusives and no syncretism. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) state that in interfaith dialogues, no religion should be excluded. This would be a huge handicap for the success of interfaith dialogue. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) also highlights that trying to synchronize all religions into one can be just as dangerous as exclusiveness. As stated above, it is very crucial to accept all religions and religious people in their own belief system.

10) Dialogue can only happen between equals. If a religious group sees one group as inferior or even superior to another, no dialogue can happen. There cannot be sharing and understanding between the groups, which is the main aim of any interfaith dialogue.

Interfaith dialogue is an important concept in the globalized world. People from different religions live side by side in the globalized village and there are tons of problems that human beings face today. These interfaith groups are very crucial for a world in which “every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds” (www.bread.org). The role of the interfaith dialogue in solving these problems cannot be underestimated. Smock (2002) states that “while religion can and does contribute to violent conflicts, it can be a powerful factor struggling for peace and reconciliation (viii).

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. & Khoury, A. & Welty, E. 2007. Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Bohm, D. & Factor, D. & Garrett, P. 1991. Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved from http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
• Cosijns L.F. & Braybrooke , M. 2008. Dialogue among the faith communities. Lanham, MA: Hamilton Books.
• Crowley, S. 2006. Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press
• Gulen, M.F. 2000. “Necessity of interfaith dialog.” The Fountain Magazine. Issue 31.
• Kot, Z. 2009. “Muslim-Christian relations: The traditionalist interfaith dialogue” (Unpublished master thesis) George Washington University, Washington, DC.
• Kurucan, A. 2006. Nicin Diyalog: Diyalogun temelleri. Uskudar, Istanbul: Isik Yayinlari
• Perelman C.H. & Olbrechts- Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Pinto, H. 2003. Faucault, Christianity and interfaith dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge Publications
• Smock, D. R. 2002. Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Swidler, L. & Duran, K. & Firestone, R. 2007. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

In a globalized world, some regions – like Anatolia, which could be considered a bridge from east-to-west, past-to-future, and a melting pot for different cultures and religions – could pull from their centuries-long experience in child education to help others.
Ali Fethi Toprak

Child education or training is one of the biggest challenges parents face. During the child-raising process, every parent experiences some difficulties and needs help and guidance. Therefore, many parents naturally look for resources to educate themselves on how to better raise their children.

Pedagogy, defined as the art or science of teaching, offers different educational methods and models for children’s education. Some methods are so common that they are institutionalized. For example, there are about 4,000 certified Montessori schools in the United States, and about 7,000 worldwide. However, the necessity of a prepared environment and special Montessori teachers make this method available only to those who can afford it.

In addition to economic considerations, many pedagogical approaches in different countries have to balance cultural, religious, and regional considerations, so to better educate children. In a globalized world, some regions – like Anatolia, which could be considered a bridge from east-to-west, past-to-future, and a melting pot for different cultures and religions – could pull from their centuries-long experience in child education to help others.

Although most of the world only became interested in child education after the dawn of the twentieth century, there has been a long standing tradition of child education and training in Anatolia. Just as people specializing in child education today are called pedagogues, Anatolian professionals were called “mürebbî” and “murebbiye” during the Ottoman period. A mürebbî, or governess, provided great support in child training to parents, and when parents fell short or needed guidance in any respect, mürebbîs were in the immediate vicinity, available to help.

Fathers were also important figures in childhood education, and the Anatolian children were living as honorable members of society. Besides, Anatolia was an admired center for peace during this period. A Western observer, A. Ubicini (1818-1884, Lettres sur la Turquie – Letters on Turkey), made the following note in his diary on the role of the father; it is a great example of the father-model which today’s pedagogy is seeking:

“I don’t know of any other country where children live with so much love, care and compassion. Oddly enough, all this compassion and care is deepened in the fathers rather than mothers. It is really something to see that an Ottoman Turk holds his kid’s hand and walks with him on the road on Fridays (holiday in Ottoman times) or on another holiday. He keeps his steps as small as his child’s. When realizing that the child is tired, he puts him on his shoulders or let’s him sit by him while he rests in a coffee house, and he speaks to him with a great compassion and care.”

Understanding the roots of Anatolian pedagogy

There are studies to understand the basis of childhood education in the Anatolian model. Pedagogue Adem Güneş provides a systematic approach called “Anatolian Pedagogy.” According to his model, Anatolian Pedagogy aims to educate children in a way that is more compatible with the true human nature. It abstains from any behavior or stress that will disturb the nature of children. The nature of children is like that of plain paper. Since whatever is initially imprinted on it will remain for rest of its life, parents should aim to leave good images on this clean page.

In addition, according to Anatolian Pedagogy, a child should not be afraid to make mistakes, and parents, as much as possible, should not interfere with issues arising from childhood. Instead, mistakes should be accepted as strong and easily remembered lessons that provide a path for kids to correct themselves. Furthermore, Anatolian Pedagogy states that every child should be treated differently. Because Anatolian Pedagogy puts an emphasis on the differences of children, kids are not treated equal, but treated justly. For example, if one child is emotional while another is more social, the way parents show their love, mercy, and care should not be the same for both. Anatolian Pedagogy also implies that parents should not buy their children the same type of clothes. In addition, parents should not have the same expectations for the future education of different children.

Anatolian approach to reward and punishment

The approach of Anatolian Pedagogy to punishment is mainly shaped by the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. He educated kids not with punishment, but through mercy and compassion. Anatolian Pedagogy, thus, affirms that punishment will cause kids to lose self-esteem and will make them embarrassed. Moreover, Anatolian Pedagogy does not confirm giving rewards in order to change the unwanted behavior of kids. Thus, it aims to avoid the development of any artificial behaviors or false personalities in children.

The importance of living a child-centric life

Anatolian Pedagogy recommends that parents be tightly connected with their children. Interestingly, Anatolian Pedagogy advises parents to earn the love of their kids to avoid the common misconception that “your kids love you only because you are their parents.” From this perspective, mercy and love toward children should be unconditional. Kids must become aware of this, so that they do not fall into indebtedness.

Another aspect of Anatolian Pedagogy deals with the understanding of children’s emotions. Parenthood is not possible without this consideration. Parents in the Anatolian model were expected to adjust their lives according to their kid’s world – to live a kid-centered lifestyle. This also includes not disturbing the biological rhythm of children. A common problem of modern times is to live fast, and this may end up meaning “living without feeling.” Anatolian Pedagogy aims to prevent such carelessness.

Effect of culture on childhood education

Pedagogical advice cannot be independent from the traditions that compose a community. If cultural differences are not taken into consideration, the advice given for childhood education will be a new source of problems. The suggestions to solve similar problems in child training may even be different for families who live in the same region, but in different cities.

For instance, some habits considered as usual in a family from a metropolitan city can be unusual in a family from a rural city. If it is so different in the same country, imagine how pedagogical methods can differ from country to country? Would a German family and a British family have the same pedagogical perspectives? Could you compare the family structure and child training techniques in a French or Turkish family? In some cultures, it is essential that the child leaves his parents when he is 18, and he should be able to earn his own living, thus becoming an independent thinker who contributes to the social, economic, and intellectual welfare of the community. Under such conditions, the goal is to ensure that a child doesn’t have any emotional weaknesses. From this perspective, keeping a child’s emotions controlled is a positive. As a result, there are differences between this perspective and the Anatolian model.

These differences between Europe and Anatolia do not mean, “European pedagogy is bad,” and, “Anatolian Pedagogy is the best.” On the contrary, Europe defines its pedagogic standards by its own cultural values. European pedagogical approaches could be acceptable and valid for Europe. But if you try to apply them in Anatolia, or vice versa, they will likely be incompatible.

Each society should establish its own science of pedagogy from its own values. For this reason, pedagogical experts who understand their own cultural values should establish scientific theories for their own country and land. In the West, Piaget, Van der Horst, John Bowby, Alice Miller, and Maria Montessori have been influential; Sufi masters Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi and Yunus Emre, who are marvels of love, compassion, and peace, offer great examples of Anatolian pedagogy that could inspire the world.

• Hatice Kocabas is a Psychology Student at FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany.
• Adem Gunes is the Chair of Child Education Department, Fatih University, Istanbul.
• Ali Fethi Toprak is a Senior Researcher, Texas Institute of Biotechnology at North American College, Houston, TX, USA

References

1. Montessori Schools. Retrieved from http://www.montessori.edu/FAQ.html on 03/04/12.

2. Montessori education. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education on 03/04/12.

3. Adem Güneş. Anatolian Pedagogy 1&2. Şebmen Dergisi. Retrieved from http://www.sebnemdergisi.com on 03/04/12.

4. Adem Güneş (Pedagogue). Pedagojide Anadolu Ekolü & Insanlığı zirvelere taşımış terbiye yöntemi. Retrieved from http://www.ademgunes.com/?p=271 and p=677 on 03/04/12.

But our similarities and differences can also be much more significant, as well. On one hand, for instance, the tenth anniversary of 9/11 was a major occasion for the U.S., but for a great majority of the world it was just a single chapter-albeit a long one-in the chronicles of violence in human history. On the other hand, almost every nation today from the Philippines to Nigeria has diverse security issues, and in many countries mass killings, violent attacks, and explosions have become astonishingly unastonishing. Just before the turn of the year, for instance, terrorism showed its monstrous face once again against Christians observing Christmas in Nigeria. Indeed, these attacks were an unprecedented form of violence by so-called Islamic terrorists-where in the history of Islam can one show violence against Christians as they are worshipping, especially when the Qur’an and the Prophet forbade harming worshippers in churches or monasteries? Is there any permission in Islam to attack civilians? Iraq and Syria have their own fashion of violence: sectarian conflicts in the fight for obtaining the right to rule. There are many major concerns that all human beings share, and this calls for developing a common understanding so that we can tackle them together. In all of the events The Fountain organizes, we try to raise awareness of our commonality by cultivating an environment in which we can learn from our differences.

The lead article in this issue underlines one dimension of one of our universal humanness by relating “happiness” to “virtue.” The article on autism tries to open a window of hope for families suffering from this really difficult ordeal. In “The Optimizing Man,” you will read on the many economic irrationalities we commit for the sake of transient fancies. The article on cultural differences shares with us some interesting differences between varying nations of the world with memorable examples. De Villa guides us on an exploration of the fantastic civilization of Al Andalus, an exemplary era of coexistence in human history.

According to the British writer Raymond Williams, culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in English. It has many definitions but here is the crux to remember: Culture is the way of life of a given society. Our culture is what we are as a group; it is learnt from birth and is passed down from one generation to another.¹

Culture is to the person as water is to the fish. It influences the way we perceive the world, tells us how to behave, and tells scholars how to think about the causes of behavior. It even shapes the moods and opinions of public about what to eat, what to wear, what to think is right or wrong, and much more. However, people are generally unaware of their cultural conditioning and do not realize that the way they recognize the world is not necessarily same as the way other groups do.²

An array of traditions, norms and values observed in a society raise its cultural character which distinguish societies from one another. These cultural variations influence the course of communications, may cause (the escalation of) conflict when it leads to miscommunication or misinterpretation, and can be problematic in cross-cultural encounters when one acts as if differences did not exist.³ The deeper one interacts with a different cultural group, the more he/she understands its the norms and priorities. This awareness of the ways cultures operate in communication and conflict will yield to the ability to respond effectively to these differences and prevent misunderstandings in intercultural settings.

One can list many dimensions or their sublevels that cause variations both between and within cultures. Below, we will discuss some major aspects along which cultures vary. Although it seems that there are no direct linkages between each topic, it is interesting to see how they actually relate to one another.

Senses of Self:

From the outside, a tree grown in California would probably look just like a tree grown in Japan. However, the growth of each tree is largely dependent on the soil that roots of the trees have to interact with in order to grow. The strength of the roots is also dependent on the environment the tree is exposed to, from sunshine to thunderstorms. Imagine the values of a particular culture represented as the roots of a tree. These roots (values) are the source of strength needed by the tree to survive in the surrounding environment (society). Of course, we don’t really see the roots, but we are constantly exposed to the tree nevertheless. The type of fertilizer and water fed to the tree contributes significantly to the growth of it. In addition, you can not transplant a tree into other soil unless you prepare the roots for the new soil.

The roots of each tree may have a different form, much like the cultures they represent. The Japanese roots are twisted together because they may have rockier soil and need the combined strength of the roots to support the tree during rough weather. The American roots, however, are individual, separate, straight, and deep, responding to their soil condition. ⁴

Societies that value individual uniqueness and self-determination are referred to as individualistic cultures in which people make up their own mind and show initiative independently. In this way of life, people deem themselves as the masters of their lives which they think they can control by themselves. On the contrary, cultures in which people identify themselves with groups are categorized as collectivistic societies. These societies consider many external parameters outside one’s control that affect the course of their lives, and there is more emphasis on the role of destiny in daily life. Many of the Asian cultures are collectivist, while Anglo cultures tend to be individualist.

A “self-determining” individual tries to preserve his/her image and interests by taking a competitive stance in interpersonal encounters. However, for those in collectivistic cultures, direct confrontation may reflect poorly on the group or disturb overall harmony; then open criticisms of others are generally avoided. When there is conflict, a third party is utilized for resolution. Since no direct confrontation takes place, potential damage to the relationships is minimized.

The value placed on individual freedom in individualist societies leads to the idea that everybody is equal regardless of age, social status, or authority, which calls for a tendency to be informal when addressing one another. In the US, for instance, superiors and subordinates often interact socially as equals, and an outsider typically cannot tell them apart. However, collectivistic societies place more value on seniority and hierarchy and, therefore, are more formal. They also put more emphasis on the role of power/status: Is the boss, a) always right because he is the boss, or b) only when he gets it right?

Someone devoted to freewill and someone with a more philosophical orientation may face miscommunication. The first would expect immediate action and responsibility and, failing to see it, may conclude that the latter is lagging, hindering, or dishonest. The second person would expect respect for the natural order of things and, failing to see it, may conclude that the former is pushy or impolite.

Communication styles:

Japanese can find Westerners to be offensively blunt. Westerners can find Japanese to be secretive, devious and bafflingly unforthcoming with information. French can feel that Germans insult their intelligence by explaining the obvious, while Germans can feel that French managers provide no direction. ⁵

In some cultures, people presume ample commonality of understanding and attitude in their counterparts hence they feel that it is unnecessary to be “over-explicit”; information is communicated in indirect ways embedded in the existing context or internalized in the person per se. Whereas in other cultures, information is part of, and conveyed through, the verbal content of the communication; things are made explicit, and there is considerable dependence on what is actually said. The first types of cultures are known as high-context, and the latter low-context respectively. Due to the significance of social information networks, collectivistic cultures tend to be high context.

Since the focus is the message itself rather than the context, low context cultures are open to communication errors when they assume more shared knowledge than there actually is. This direct approach may help to avoid communication errors when used properly (in a good timing and context). However, communicators may fail to “feel the emotional state” of the other party, or may hurt feelings while trying to be “direct.”

Though, low context cultures expect thorough explanations, high context cultures take them as redundant discussions on details, and even somewhat hesitate to make mistakes with too much talk. These cultures are more cautious about the potential implications of the message delivered. Silence and other indirect/non-confrontational methods are frequently applied and patience is promoted for the sake of overall harmony. On one side, silence is viewed as a communication breakdown, whereas on the other it is utilized as an actual communication component at times.

Perception of time:

I was once told that one of the South American groups in the U.S. used to send to different invitations for the same occasion. One was truly showing the ceremony time, yet the other was for an hour before the actual kickoff. The first was for the American friends and the latter one was for their own community to offset possible delays.

Time is beyond what a clock reads: “There are two blessings in which most people are in great loss: Good health and free time.” ⁶ In addition to being a major blessing, it is one of the most central differences that separate cultures and cultural ways of doing things.

In the West, time has a present focus moving toward the future at an acknowledged swiftness. Events are explained via specific causes, and there is an appropriate time and place for everything. This notion of time is actually a product of the Industrial Revolution which requires certain tasks to be achieved at a predetermined hour. Concentration is on one event at a time, schedules and deadlines take priority, and interruptions are not very welcome, which ultimately seals people off from one another, as limited time allows some people in and leaves some others out.

In Western cultures, time is considered as a limited reserve which is continually being used up. It’s like having a bathtub full of water that is running down the drain, and can never be replaced. It has to be used as it runs down the drain or it is wasted.⁵ Time is perceived quantitatively; it is measured and almost tangible. Many expressions such as Boucicault’s following words highlight its importance and urge its awareness in these societies: “Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them.” “Time is money” is a household expression, and people often talk about “saving,” “spending,” “wasting,” “finding,” or “losing” time. Time orders life and priorities: “I don’t have time to do that.” Since time is prioritized, so is accomplishing a task as quickly as possible; thus taking risks are expected to bring the future closer.

As time is limited, punctuality becomes a desirable quality and wasting someone’s time is regarded as an insult. Lest communication takes more time, individual-oriented cultures promote direct and competitive communication, whereas group-oriented cultures prefer indirect and harmonious approaches to communicate and avoid direct confrontation. Individualistic cultures may view this communication avoidance as passive, unwilling, or even ignorant. On the other hand, collectivistic cultures may view the direct approach to communication as being rude.

In the East, time is circular, spiral, even repetitive, and has unlimited continuity; in old agricultural societies which depend on the months/seasons of the year, it renews itself annually (traditional Chinese calendar has a period of 12 years). Other unrelated events or mystical reasons may be used to explain a given event, “as time is viewed an unfolding of stories already written, or a play in which much of the set is invisible.” ³ This idea of time also goes along with fate and destiny, and is connected to other people as well as periods of history. People may handle many things at once in this approach. A manager’s office in such a culture typically has an open door, a ringing phone and a meeting all going on at the same time. Within all these intermingling events, punctuality is nice, but not essential.

In Eastern cultures, time is more plentiful and people tend to be more patient. It is quite acceptable to make people wait all day, and then tell them to come back later. Time-abundant cultures tend to rely on trust to do business, whereas time-limited cultures don’t have time to develop trust and have other mechanisms to substitute trust (such as judiciary mechanisms).⁵ This time pressure may also account for segmented relationships in Anglo cultures, while time-abundant societies tend to establish lifetime relationships. Furthermore, societies that have a more flexible sense of time are more comfortable with uncertainties and accommodate changes in verbal plans, whereas time-limited cultures prefer everything to be expressed in written details and abide by these binding plans.

In one viewpoint, past and future are both present in this stretching time that loops back and forth. In the other, time starts with the very current instant and extends into the future. In a negotiation setting of parties with these two different notions of time, one of the parties may take time to provide extensive information regarding their stories and their relationships to the issue; weaving themes, feelings, ideas, and experiences together as they remember the past and project the future. When it is the other party’s chance to speak, they may promptly project flow charts showing processes for decision-making and speak about their intentions for entering the negotiation process right away. Neither side would feel satisfied with this meeting, but everyone would feel that they were not “on the same page.” ³

Therefore, as people from different cultural backgrounds work together, they should ask questions about their values and needs, and how these may affect their progress. Both cultures would be comfortable with meeting face to face in a mediation setting to frankly discuss differences of any sort.

Figure 1, serves as a summary of the dimensions we have mentioned so far. While the generalizations listed do not apply uniformly to all cultures, they will help convey a pattern:

Figure 1. Comparison of various cultural dimensions

Most North European and North American cultures fall into Group A.

Most Latin American, Asian, South European, and some African cultures overall fall into Group B.

Each of the variables discussed here shows only a glimpse of various dimensions across cultures, which do not apply to all individuals within a culture. One should not generalize by ignoring individual differences; e.g., “he is like that because he is Asian – all Asians are nonverbal.” An individual’s behavior may well vary depending on the situation, individual personality, mood, etc. as well. Cultural differences discussed here are general guidelines and there will always be exceptions. Anyone is unique in a sense and must be approached accordingly. It is important to remember this uniqueness at times of negotiations or unease, and not rush to make decisions before clearly understanding the situation. Keep in mind that different cultures see the world through diverse filtering lenses; there may not be a disagreement but just a different interpretation of what is going on.

As a result of globalization, the world is becoming smaller and people of various cultures are able to communicate freely. Ideas and perspectives can span across cultures through different forms of media like the television, the newspapers and the Internet; thus, cultures are blending more and more every day, which makes dialogue and mutual understanding essential. Only by learning about, respecting, and celebrating these differences, we can build mutuality and co-operative relationships, rather than breeding enmities.

Osman Senkaya has a Master’s Degree in Nonprofit Leadership.

Notes

¹ http://www.celt.iastate.edu/international/culture-extras/CultureResources.pdf

² Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

³ LeBaron, Michelle. “Cross-Cultural Communication.” http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cross-cultural_communication

⁴ Elashmawi, Farid, and Philip R. Harris. 1993. Multicultural Management: New Skills for Global Success. 3rd ed.: Gulf Publishing Company.

⁵ “Differences in Cultures.” http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/cultural.htm

⁶ Sahih Bukhari: Vol. 8, Book 76, Number 421.

⁷ Foster, Dean A. 1992. Bargaining Across Borders: How to negotiate business successfully anywhere in the world: McGraw-Hill.

Over the millennia, Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood has been documented in several revelations and scriptures and related across a myriad of cultures and civilizations more or less in the same form. Every major creed, every race or civilization will have something to say about “The Great Flood.” The re-iteration of such an overwhelming event over thousands of years of history seems to convey a timeless message, as well as certain codes of universal moral conduct.

Many aspects from the world of matter are reflected as sublime meanings in the spiritual or metaphysical realm. If the Ark is likened to a spiritual and social sanctuary, then the great flood symbolizes not only a physical destruction of Earth but also a destruction of the spiritual and moral aspects of humanity. The surging of flood waters and the sinking feeling are analogous to the spiritual drowning of a lost individual in the ocean of life. Overwhelmed and burdened by a heavy weight on their shoulders, they are unable to carry on their journey in safety. Although the soul constantly seeks and yearns for continuous safety and security where it can let go of the heavy burdens of daily life and take a deep breath, it usually turns towards many false sanctuaries or havens. Not having adequate protection, the great floods of spiritual turmoil eventually drown and suffocate it.

The Ark as a representation of faith

Just like the physical need for air, water and food, the human soul similarly needs its own nourishment to survive. Without this food, it gradually decays and dies, wherein the heart becomes hardened, and a loss of sensitivity towards its environment begins. This apathy is the slow death of the human soul. In this context, the great miracle of Noah’s Ark, a significant event in the common history of humankind, represents the true spiritual sanctuary of faith that can guard humanity from drowning in the tumultuous ocean of life.

In fact, true concern for and connection with others can only be found in faith. One can even say that the greatest spiritual sanctuary and satisfaction for the human soul is faith. It enables the human soul to “let go” of those burdens that pull it down and drown it in materialism. It illuminates the heart and mind to truly feel and see beyond the prism of material life. The false perception that this fleeting world is the only goal of our life will not and cannot satisfy the innate need of the human soul for permanence and perfection. Neither comfort, wealth, nor a high social status (including other attractive but destructive desires like the love of fame) will satisfy these needs, as they are just means to a great end, not an end in themselves.

Faith is both light and power.1 Only the attainment of true faith can enable one to overcome any confronting challenges. The great enduring quality of the Ark resonates with the great qualities generated from a deep, certain faith. These attributes include perseverance and patience in doing good both in times of prosperity and in adversity, where it is especially difficult to do good in times of hardship, and even more so in times when advocating good is deemed dubious.

The Ark: A representation of common universal values

The great dangers surrounding and threatening our existence are not just in the visible world around us, but also within us: arrogance, pride, selfishness, greed, oblivion to the suffering or needs of others and many other such traits. We can certainly say that all these dangers, whether apparent or dormant, represent a “Great Flood” and, if correct precautions are not taken, they are bound to crush us – either physically or spiritually or perhaps both.

“The Ark” on the other hand can represent the common universal values that humanity at large shares. When the core human virtues, such as, being trustworthy, honest, loyal, sincere, and patient, are applied correctly and appropriately, they will be a means to protect us from the threat of the imposing “Great Flood.”

One can even say that the force of “The Flood” is so enormous that a protective sanctuary of an “Ark” with the ability to withstand such a destructive force is inevitable. This Ark must be established through the co-operation and dialogue of cultures, where the common universal values of humanity are realized and brought forth again. It will be these shared values of humanity that will serve as a protective shield against the debasing forces of “the Flood,” the real threat to our existence.

The common universal values of humanity are the moral pillars that will and can move each individual to take action for the sake of all and for the betterment of all because in essence these values are based upon recognizing the great, common needs we share rather than our apparent differences. Hence, for the sake of our common needs, it is pertinent to make every effort to co-operate and prevent animosities to the best of our abilities.

The application of these values requires the alleviation of misconceptions and misunderstandings of the great systems that formed civilizations, as well as pro-active dialogue between cultures, communities and individuals. Becoming increasingly more relevant in a constantly developing “global village” such as our contemporary society, these values will be founded and driven by respect, appreciation for the differences of cultures and their contributions to world history. As each individual is a masterpiece of the Creator of the Universe, then their freedom or right to belief, expression and travel should not be violated, for each individual has an inviolable dignity and honor.

The contemporary “social sanctuaries” or “Arks”

Existence is based upon the creation of opposites. Just as the darkest hour of the night happens before dawn; so too the Ark provided much needed solace and sanctuary as the “Great Flood” engulfed all. Similarly, the contemporary “social Ark” will serve to rectify and protect humanity from the social torment and tumults of our current times. Indeed, a great characteristic of a contemporary “social sanctuary” is that it will receive its energy and passion from deep faith and an ultimate sense of responsibility for its actions aiming to reinstate the common values of humanity first within itself and then with others. Each individual (moving as part of a collective whole) of this society will be a kind of “devotee and advocate of love” to provide selfless, altruistic service, consciously reaching out to help the community they come across and to overcome their problems at the expense of their own worldly desires. Being aware of their unremitting duty of gratitude and obligation towards the Creator, their philosophy will be to give without expecting anything in return, seeking only His approval. They will suffer great distress, but in this process they will set forth a great example of tolerance, respect, understanding and generosity. Over the last three decades, millions of individuals have been moved in this way through the inspiration of a great thinker and leader, Fethullah Gulen. 2, 3

One of the greatest diseases of our current times is prejudice and discrimination. Millions of people have suffered and still continue to suffer great anguish as a result of this crippling psychological and social disorder. The contemporary “social Ark” will take upon itself to help cure this disease by consciously drawing attention against the mentality which disregards the myriad of similarities and great common needs of humanity but instead focuses on small but unique differences of individuals or communities, thereby sowing the seeds of hatred. In contrast, they will actively teach what a great act of justice it is to focus on what brings humanity together rather than what seems to divide them. To further demonstrate this reality with example, they will recruit all their personal resources within their reach to melt the icebergs in hearts and bring together communities. Their actions will serve to blow out the fires of hatred and jealousy, fostering what has been neglected for centuries.

As they do so, they will learn and demonstrate how to hate hatred (which is easy to do) and love the act of caring (which is difficult to do). They will establish platforms where people can find common ground to work together to solve the current chaotic problems of our times. Social justice will be born when individuals begin to realize that each person is a unique master-piece that reflects (like a mirror) the most beautiful attributes of its Creator in various ways. When individuals will not be judged by their differences, but when their differences will be viewed as enrichment and a contribution, true global peace will arise. At that point humanity will board the final Ark of social justice and find solace and comfort in appreciating each other.

Sebnem Unlu, PhD, is a Research Faculty at University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, USA.

Notes

1. Bediüzzaman Said Nursi. The Words, Twenty-third word, Third point, The Risale-i Nur Collection.
2. Mücahit Bilici. “The Fethullah Gulen Movement and Its Politics of Representation in Turkey,” The Muslim World, volume 96, Issue 1, pgs. 1-20.
3. Serif Ali Tekalan. “A movement of Volunteers.” Paper presented at the conference “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice,” Rice University, Nov. 12-13, 2005.

Rwanda is a country that has passed through a disastrous conflict and genocide with devastating effects. But the lessons learned in the aftermath of the genocide have changed the country forever.

Rwanda, a small country located in central Africa, has been home to nine million people from two tribes known as the Hutu and the Tutsi which have lived side by side in peace for centuries. There was no known ethnic conflict or major conflict between Hutus and Tutsis until the last fifty years. Rwanda was first colonized by Germany in 1899. Belgium took control of the country in 1919. In 1961, Rwanda’s monarchical government was removed by a referendum and the first parliamentary elections were held but at the expense of a number of massacres. In the following year, the country gained its independence.

Although the country became independent in 1962, the effects of colonialism lingered until recently. An example of this is the ethnic division between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes. During the colonial period, the Belgian colonizers and the Church significantly favored the Tutsis over the Hutus. The colonizers had followed a divide and rule strategy and used the Tutsis in power instead of controlling the country directly; this widened ethnic differences. The colonizers had made membership of the Tutsi tribe a means of getting better education or obtaining a government or administrative position. Since both tribes speak the same language and have the same skin color, it was virtually impossible to tell them apart, so the colonizers had issued ethnic identity cards based on the measurement of people’s nose length. Until World War II, the Tutsis were masters of the country with a proven long record. However, the strategies of outsiders including the Church had changed in the mid-twentieth century so that Hutus gained more access to positions of power. In the 1950s, the Hutus took power and controlled the country. Considerable numbers of Tutsis were exiled to neighboring countries on many occasions. Until the 1990s, Hutu power was largely unchallenged in Rwanda. However, Tutsi exiles were organizing in neighboring countries and this was perceived as a grave threat to Hutu rule. Political conflict over the control of power and resources resulted in an exponential increase in ethnic violence. The Hutu government conceived Tutsi empowerment as a threat to their own interests and launched a media campaign calling for genocide. After a chain of events, including the death of the Rwandan president in a plane crash, a terrifying genocide commenced. For a while, Hutu people were strongly encouraged to kill their Tutsi neighbors, and those who did so were rewarded for their actions.

As a result, the genocide exploded quickly between April and June 1994. The world did not attempt to prevent the massacres. Men and women, children and the elderly, all were identified by their ethnicity and executed wherever they were found. Hatred was at its peak so that even relatives turned against each other. While a Hutu husband was among the survivors, his Tutsi wife was killed, and their children were kept alive as they were seen as sharing their father’s Hutu ethnicity. More than 800,000 people (Tutsis and moderate Hutus), according to official records, were massacred by the army and the extremists.

At last, without any international help, the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), a Tutsi-led rebel movement, overthrew the regime in June 1994 and the genocide was stopped. The country has been at peace ever since; however, Rwandans continue to struggle with the legacy of genocide.

After the Rwandan Genocide, one of the biggest challenges for the new RPF government was handling the detention and prosecution of more than 100,000 people who were accused of genocide-related crimes. Pointing to the seriousness of the situation one of the RPF government ministers said, “When we captured Kigali, we thought we would face criminals in the state; instead, we faced a criminal population.” The genocide orders were given by executives of the state but the crimes were carried out by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. The pink uniform of prisoners is well known in Rwanda today since the transfer of prisoners from one place in the country to another is common. By 2000, approximately 120,000 people accused of genocidal acts were being held in the prisons, which were populated far beyond their capacity. In ten years, the courts have only managed to prosecute about 10,000 suspects. In other words, it would require at least another 110 years to prosecute all prisoners accused of genocide-related crimes. Although almost half of the prisoners have been released to ease the system at various times, the courts still need to work faster.

To overcome the backlog in the legal system the Rwandan government introduced the Gacaca (pronounced “gachacha”) courts, a community justice system inspired by traditional procedures for cultural communal law enforcement. Gacaca means “justice on the grass” and the court is launched in an open grassy area or village green, near the main street. The main advantages of these courts are the ease of assembling the court in public, and the way they provide the opportunity for everyone to exercise their right to speak through an interactive court. Gacaca is the latest means used by the Rwandan government to realize truth, justice, and more importantly the reconciliation and healing of the community much sooner than would otherwise have been possible. Rwandans have welcomed the Gacaca. One man who lost his brother in his twenties and another who abandoned his wife since she belonged to the so-called hostile tribe have found the Gacaca court in their local area a valuable place to express their feelings and seek justice in the shadow of ineradicable memories. Yet other people, who participated in the genocide, have found the opportunity and encouragement to admit their wrong-doing and relieve the pain of their remorse.

Gacaca has its pros and cons, which I will not go into here; however, the genocide carries important lessons both for Rwanda and the world. It showed how lack of tolerance and understanding of negligible differences can indeed turn into cruelty and brutality, resulting in one of the biggest genocides in history. Rwandans, who were previously divided as Hutus and Tutsis, now do not even pronounce the words Hutu and Tutsi in public in their daily life. Rwanda today exemplifies a good example of living together with differences despite the fact that those differences were recently the cause of a tragic conflict.

Indeed the Rwandan people, who once killed each other without mercy, can tolerate with no discomfort a diversity that in other nations is a great source of potential conflict, an area of interaction that other countries have been struggling with for a long time. Rwandans welcome all religious traditions in their cultural richness. Saturdays and Sundays are like a festival time; Christians all dress in their best clothes and walk to church. (Many Christians observe and practice Saturday Sabbath in Rwanda.) Although Muslims are in a minority, the adhan (call to prayer) is recited from mosque loudspeakers; the shifting Islamic holidays are accepted as national holidays. If religious differences were a cause of fighting, then Rwanda would still be one of the most problematic countries in the world today. In contrast, Rwanda is a good example of how the establishment of accountability combined with tolerance and understanding can help to transform and strengthen a country even when it has fresh memories of one of the biggest genocides in history.

Mehmet Sen is an engineer in San Francisco Bay Area. He visited Rwanda many times for business purposes.

References

• Mahmood Mamdani, When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda, Princeton University Press, 2001.
• Reyntjens, Filip and Stef Vandeginste. 2005. “Rwanda: An Atypical Transition.” In Roads to Reconciliation, edited by Elin Skaar, et al. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Stover, Eric and Weinstein, Harvey (2004). My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Susanne Buckley-Zistel (2006): “The Truth Heals?” In Gacaca Jurisdictions and the Consolidation of Peace in Rwanda. Die Friedens-Warte Heft 1–2, pp. 113–130.

As cultural differences continue to be an important part of life, we need to examine how different cultures make sense of the world in terms of the meanings that represent the mind, and within which the concept of intelligence is defined. First, I will explore some basic philosophical views about the conception of intelligence which I believe constitute the root of cultural constructions of the notion.

Historical conceptions of intelligence

Some scholars of the past, such as philosophers, writers and theologians, explored intelligence but did not attempt to define the nature of intelligence. For example, in the Odyssey, Homer distinguished between good looks and good thinking. He remarked that one may have a poor physical appearance but may speak in an articulate way. Another man may be handsome but lack the ability to communicate well with others. Plato made his comments regarding the nature of intelligence in Theaetetus. In the dialogue, Socrates asks Theaetetus to imagine that there exists in the mind of man a block of wax that is of different sizes in different men. The block of wax can also differ in hardness, moistness and purity. Socrates suggests that when the wax is pure and sufficiently deep, the mind will learn easily and will not be subject to confusion. Because impressions in the wax are clear, it only will think things that are true. However, when the wax is impure or very soft or very hard, there will be defects in the intellect. People whose wax is soft will be good at learning but be apt to forget. People whose wax is hard will be slow to learn but will retain what they learn. People whose wax is shaggy or gritty, or whose wax is a mixture of earth and dung will have only indistinct impressions. Those with hard wax will have the same because there will be no depth to their thoughts (Sternberg 1985).

In the Posterior Analytics Book, Aristotle conceived of intelligence in terms of “quick wit.” For example, an intelligent person seeing someone in conversation with a man of wealth might conclude quickly that the person is seeking to borrow money from the wealthy man.

Cultural conceptualization of intelligence

In recent years, researchers have found that people in Eastern and Western cultures often have fundamentally different ideas about intelligence. Richard Nisbett, in The Geography of Thought, argues that these differences are due to the different cognitive styles of both cultures, including how intelligence is understood. He suggests that people in Western countries tend to view intelligence as a means for individuals to devise categories and to engage in rational debate, while people in Eastern cultures see it as a way for members of community to recognize contradiction and complexity and to play their social roles successfully.

I think, as Nisbett says these differences between Eastern and Western views of intelligence are related to differences in the basic cognitive processes of people in those cultures. In most cases, Western notions of intelligence are not shared by other cultures. For example, at the mental level, the Western emphasis on speed of mental processing (Sternberg 1981) is not shared by many cultures. In contrast, people in Eastern countries may even be suspicious of the quality of work done very quickly and emphasize depth rather than speed.

Similarly, Chen (1994) found three factors underlying Chinese conceptualizations of intelligence: nonverbal reasoning ability, verbal reasoning ability and memory. These factors differ substantially from American people’s conceptualizations of intelligence which have mostly mental attributions, such as: practical problem solving, verbal ability and social competence (Sternberg 1981).

About Eastern notions of intelligence, Das (1994) has suggested that in Buddhist and Hindu philosophies, intelligence involves waking up, noticing, recognizing, understanding, and comprehending but also includes such things like determination, mental effort, and even feelings and opinions (Sternberg and Kaufman 1998). In a related study, Yang and Sternberg reviewed Chinese philosophical conceptions of intelligence. The Confucian perspective emphasizes the characteristic of benevolence and of doing what is right. Again, Taoist culture emphasizes the importance of humility, freedom from conventional standards of judgment, and full knowledge of oneself which appears well-correlated with Plato’s “Know yourself” notion.
Differences between cultures in conceptions of intelligence have been recognized for some time. In a study, Gill and Keats (1980) reported that Australian University students value academic skills and the ability to adapt to new situations as critical to intelligence, while Malay students emphasize practical skills, such as speed and creativity, as well as both social and cognitive attributes in their conceptions of intelligence.

Studies done in Africa provide evidence of substantial differences in the notion of intelligence. Serpell (1974, 1977, and 1982) found that people in Zambia emphasize social responsibilities, cooperativeness, and obedience as important to intelligence; intelligent children are expected to be respectful of adults. In Zimbabwe, the word intelligence means to be prudent and cautious, especially in social relationships (Dasen 1984). As in many Eastern countries, service to the family and community, politeness and respect for elders are seen as the key to intelligence.

In his study. The Geography of Thought, researcher Nisbett, compares the Greeks and the Chinese in order toshow the different cognitive styles of East and West, which in turn causes different conceptions of intelligence. The Ancient Greeks were known for their strong sense of agency, the ability to exercise free will, while the Chinese found their belief system in harmony. The Greeks also had a curiosity about the nature of the world. They were not satisfied just to make systematic observations about the world; they were also interested in the underlying principles of their observations. Debate and confrontation were discouraged in Chinese society, whereas they were encouraged in Greece. The Eastern way of life is based on the principle that the life is ever-changing and filled with contradictions. It was interrelationships that defined the Chinese; who they were with would define who they were and what roles they were to fulfill. The sense of identity was defined by social context, by individual attributes while in Greece, objects and people would be analyzed separately. These fundamental differences in thought patterns have implications that extend to all aspects of life.

At this point, the differences seen in the individualistic culture of the West and the collectivistic (Petersen 2004) culture of the East need more attention to provide a better picture of the notion of intelligence in terms of its cultural construction.

Different thinking styles of East and West

There are some assumptions which are thought to be true by most Westerners. That is, they are individuals with characteristics that make them distinctive; moreover, we want to be unique. Westerners are in control of their own behavior and feel better when they believe that they can choose and control the outcomes of their actions. They are goal-oriented and success-driven (Nisbett 2004), and relationships can sometimes interfere with attaining success. Personal success and feeling positive about oneself are important for the sense of well-being.

Conversely, Easterners are less concerned with personal success; they are far more group driven (Nisbett 2004). Their sense of well-being is related to their being in harmony with those around them; moreover, rules that apply to relationships are not universal, instead relationships are dictated by the context and are unique to the roles each holds in that context. This collective sense of the East extends also to language. For example, in the Japanese language, there are many words for “I,” each dependent on the situation. Who “I” am is different when I am with a boss, co-worker, family member, or friend. In my home country, in Turkey which has strong Eastern roots; there is still the tradition of using “We” instead of ‘I’ in an effort to be humble and avoid egocentric ownership of success. In contrast, Americans rarely take context into account when asked for self descriptions. Moreover, Americans are more likely to overestimate their personal attributes (Nisbett 2004). On the other hand, it is the goal of harmony and fulfilling one’s role in social life to achieve collective success that prevails in Eastern culture.

Another notion of Eastern culture that has a substantial effect on its cultural conceptions of true intelligence and progress is self -criticism which is regarded as part of learning. Self-criticism is taught to Japanese children to help them learn how to solve problems and improve relationships with others. Again, in Turkey, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and some other Islamic scholars affect people’s conceptualizations of progress and success, such as, “Happy are those whose own faults preoccupy them too much to think of the faults of others” and “The strongest among you is the one who controls his anger.”

Differences in culture start early in life and continue throughout life. Western parents encourage their children to be independent. Generally they do this by focusing attention on objects. In Eastern cultures, parents focus attention on social relationships and feelings. When children grow up, the differences can be seen in experiments, for example, that Easterners’ have a superior ability to be aware of the emotions of groups of others (Peterson 2004). One theory that accounts for this difference is communication styles. In the West, it is the communicator who is responsible for making the information clear to the listener. In the East, it is the responsibility of the hearers to understand what they are told. The implication of these two contrasting styles can leave Americans feeling that Easterners are difficult to “read” because of their subtle and indirect communication styles. Conversely, Easterners may feel Americans are so direct that they may even be thought to be rude (Nisbett 2004).

Not surprisingly, the East and West have very different styles of dealing with conflict. As in ancient China, debate is still uncommon in the East. Because argument and debate pose a threat to group harmony, what Westerners consider controversial topics would not be brought up in conversation in the East (Becker 1986). Moreover, while debate is part of the rhetoric of science in the West, a skill Westerners are taught throughout their education, it is new to many Easterners that come to the West to pursue a scientific career.
Easterners and Westerners also differ in their perception of control. In Western culture, feeling in control promotes a feeling of well-being to a much greater extent than it does for Easterners (Nisbett 2004). On the other hand, Westerners have more difficulty tolerating ambiguous situations than Easterners. Westerners tend to believe that if things are going to change, it will be in the same direction and at the same level, whereas Easterners see the world as a complex dynamic system (Peterson 2004).

It is at this point that researchers (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, Norenzayan 2001) comment that Easterners appear to think more holistically, paying greater attention to relationship and context, relying more on experience-based knowledge than abstract logic and showing more tolerance for contradiction. Westerners are more analytic in their thinking, tending to separate objects from their context, to avoid contradictions and to rely more heavily on formal logic.

Conclusion

Taken all together, it is certain that people who grow up in different cultures do not just think about different things but they think differently. Thus, the connotations of the word intelligence do not only include a particular set of mental functions but also some value-based conceptions of appropriateness, such as competence, helpfulness, and so on. So, for example, when someone tells a parent that their child is very intelligent, they may be talking about child’s education, or their good relations with others, and sometimes their being a good listener, or lots of other meanings which all depend on the context of the culture in which people live.

References

• Becker, C. B., (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 75–92
• Chen, M. J. (1994). Chinese and Ausralian concepts of intelligence. Psychology and Developing Societies, 6, 101–117
• Choi, Nisbett, Norenzayan, Peng (2001). Culture of Thought. Psychological Review: 108, 291–310
• Curtis Mary E.; Glaser Robert. Changing conceptions of intelligence. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 9 (1981), 111–148
• Das, J.P. (1994). Eastern views of intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Intelligence (Vol.1, pp.387–391).New York: Macmillan
• Dasen, P. (1984). The cross- cultural study of intelligence: Piaget and Baoule. International Journal of Psychology, 19,407–434
• Gill R, Keats DM. 1980. Elements of intellectual competence: judgments by Australian and Malay university students. Journal of Cross – Cult. Psychology. 11:233–43
• Nisbett, Richard E. (2004). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why. New York: Free Press
• Norenzayan, A., CHOI, i., & Nisbett, R. E (1994). Eastern and Western perceptions of causality for social behavior: Lay theories about personalities and social situations. In D. Prentice & D. Miller ( Ed.s), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp.239–272). New York: Sage.
• Serpell, R. (1974). Aspects of intelligence in a developing country. African Social Research, No.17, 576–596
• Serpell, R. (1994). The cultural construction of intelligence. In W. J. Lonner & R. M. Malpass ( Eds.), Psychology and culture. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of the intelligence. New York: Cambridge U. Press
• Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37–55
• Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,479–502
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985c). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627
• Yang, S. R. & Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). Conceptions of intelligence in ancient Chinese philosophy. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 17, 101–119

Like much of what I saw in Turkey, I spent a great deal of time processing the experience, letting it really sink in, and figuring out what it meant for me. I saw this experience as a powerful metaphor for the wider communion of God-seekers, attempting to live together on a world stage. Each of us as individuals and as units−places of worship, denominations, religions−each is spinning in a hungry drive to experience the divine, to understand and be a part of the mystery and magnitude of God. We are too often, however, distracted by the waxing and waning distances between the dancers, the different ways of spinning, insecurities in our own movement. We are colliding with one another in a clumsy, chaotic mess. If we could lift our eyes and our arms to God and just spin, moving in the ecstatic reality of God’s love, not only would our personal spiritual experience be enriched, but we would begin to spin together, to fall into a beautiful, cosmic dance, one of peace and harmony.

The question then comes: how do we do that? This place of harmony and peace, quite frankly, seems distant and illusory. Humanity is a diverse assortment of peoples, trying to live together in an increasingly small world. And, it’s not looking good.

There is a startlingly prevalent tone in the world arena of intolerance, judgment, and hatred. Mankind is tragically plagued with violence, hurt, oppression, and war, and too much of this takes place in the context of religious differences. Our differences aren’t going to dissipate any time soon, nor should they. What has to happen is dialogue. We have got to learn to love one another, to respect one another, and to communicate with one another. As people of God, we can do one of two things. We can couple our religious identity with that of a soldier, armed and ready for the clash of religious empires, or we can take our seat at the table of humanity with a voice of love, humility, and faith.

Religious tolerance is a huge first step that we must take, first in our personal lives, then toward a peaceful world communion. Religion is one of the most deep and penetrating faces of the human condition. It bears in it an energy of passion and intensity, a power that little else in the sphere of human existence does. We are inherently driven to seek a union with our creator, with the divine, with something that is greater than ourselves. While I personally believe that this hunger is a universal, natural core of our being, it undoubtedly manifests itself in infinitely varying ways. There is no ignoring the fact that there are huge differences and points of separation between the world’s religious nomenclature. There are points of convergence and divergence on every level, from East to West, Jew to Buddhist, Episcopalian to Baptist, and from me to you. The only way to love all in the context of this diversity is to acknowledge and respect those differences.

Now, it is important to note that religious tolerance is not merely a failure to stand up for what one believes. It isn’t a weak cop-out. It begins with a security and understanding of one’s own identity, one’s spiritual core. An awareness of and conviction to one’s own beliefs allows for calmly, strongly held, but permeable boundaries. Tolerance does not require an abdication of those boundaries, but neither does it call for a relentless defense of those boundaries.

Stopping at tolerance is not enough, though. There is no room for growth in merely recognizing differences and agreeing to respect one another from a distance. If we, as individuals, seek growth, and if we as a global religious community seek movement toward a peaceful existence together, have to take it further. We have to dialogue, to engage in a meaningful conversation with one another. Dialogue is a two way sharing between different sides. This means that through love, you share your faith with others. But, it also means that through love you seek a better understanding of those whose faith is different from your own.

Interfaith dialogue is an extremely powerful, highly underestimated tool for achieving peace in such a deeply divided world. Globalization is rapidly and forcefully changing the way we live our lives, whether we realize it or not. Every day, technology transportation, and communication are getting better, placing the entire world in our reach. Geographical separation is becoming much less significant and real. The cultural and religious separations, however, are not narrowing. I live in a tiny global neighborhood with Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Methodists and the like. We are neighbors who don’t understand one another, don’t talk to one another….we just stay at home, separated by high fences. The fences are there for a reason, we tell ourselves. Better yet, let’s build them higher, and let’s build some more. How much energy have we spent on building these barriers? We have to be intentional about breaking down those fences and living out the inclusiveness and universality of God’s immeasurable and unconditional love. This doesn’t mean losing our identity or abdicating our beliefs. It means making love, compassion, and understanding a priority.

One of Christ’s major endeavors as a social activist was to tear down the walls that separate humanity and to unite all of mankind under the banner of divine love. The Jewish community during his time was in a tumultuous state of tension between its religious identity and a growing Roman presence. Among the varying responses from the Jewish community, one of the most prevalent was that of the Pharisees. They believed that the redemption of Israel would come from a strict adherence to the complex codes of holiness and purity. Christ made clear, though, that it is Yahweh’s love, compassion, and mercy that supercede the walls that we build to separate and compartmentalize ourselves. He wanted to override the barriers that separate Jews and Greeks, Slaves and Free, prostitutes and tax-collectors, Pharisees and Saducees, rich and poor with divine love. We are called to do the same.

While there are very real issues that separate the religions of the world, our points of commonality are far greater. In loving one another we must understand, dig deeper into our differences. We must move away from a polemic approach to one another and toward a respectful appreciation for religious diversity. We must come to the table with humility and a sincere desire to grow.

In “The Dialogue Decalogue,” Leonard Swidler lists some commandments for effective inter-religious dialogue.

1. The purpose of dialogue is to increase understanding.

2. Participants should engage in both interfaith and inter-religious dialogue.

3. Participants should be honest and sincere.

4. Participants should assume that other participants are equally honest and sincere.

5. Each participant should be allowed self-definition.

6. There should be no preconceptions as to areas of disagreement.

7. Dialogue can only occur between equals.

8. Dialogue can only occur where there is mutual trust.

9. Participants must be self-critical of their religious traditions.

10. Participants must attempt to experience how the traditions of others affect them holistically.

Basically, interfaith dialogue brings people of faith together, creates a loving, respectful relationship between them, and offers immeasurable growth to every party.

I know I’m running on some really broad, abstract ideas, so I want to offer my real, personal experience with interfaith dialogue. My interest in dialogue between religions and within my own faith goes far back, but my recent trip to Turkey transformed that interest into something much deeper and more passionate.

We traveled all over the country, visiting important cultural and religious sites and spending time with people who were a part of this huge movement in Turkey and within Islam. The movement stems from the teachings of Fethullah Gulen, a religious leader and social activist.

I also left with a massive charge on my heart to bring Christianity to the table with equal fervor and conviction. We need to step it up, join our voices in this exciting and hopeful journey toward peace through understanding and education. We have so much to gain, and so much to offer.

I want to leave you with a quote by Huston Smith. “What a strange fellowship this is, the God-seekers in every land lifting their voices in the most disparate way imaginable to the God of all life. How does it sound from above? Like bedlam, or do the strains blend in strange, ethereal harmony? Does one faith carry the lead, or do the parts share in counterpoint and antiphony where not in full-throated chorus? We cannot know. All we can do is try to listen carefully and with full attention to each voice in turn as it addresses the divine.”