Cultural prejudice and cross-cultural dialog

Cultural prejudice and cross-cultural dialog

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): I have been involved in a number of discussions
on cross-cultural interaction, about its increasing necessity and
importance, and about problems in managing it.

The expression "cross-cultural interaction" has been used in
the discussions to refer to a broad range of situations, from
interactions between members of two Indonesian subcultures to
interactions between and among members of a number of cultures: a
mix of Western cultures, a mix of Asian cultures and a mix of
Indonesian subcultures.

The general problem discussed in the meetings is how to
overcome cultural prejudices inherent in national cultures and
subcultures in order to maximize the effectiveness of
multinational teams working on either national or international
projects.

Throughout the discussions, examples from real-life situations
were cited showing how cultural habits, perceived as being
innocent and "natural" in their original settings, can become a
negative force in cross-cultural settings. How an interaction
suddenly became "uncomfortable" because someone "habitually"
performed an act that is appropriate in his or her original
culture, but inappropriate in a particular cross-cultural
encounter.

I found one case reported in one of the meetings very
instructive. A team of two consultants, one Indonesian and one
American were visiting the headquarters of an Indonesian
organization, gauging the possibility of establishing a
professional partnership between the organization and an American
consulting company.

During a lunch break, Indonesian dishes were served. There
were spoons, forks and finger bowls filled with water but there
was a strange item on the dining table -- three rolls of toilet
paper. The Indonesian consultant who reported this incident told
us how surprised and disgusted he felt at the moment. Who with a
right mind would ever use toilet paper as a substitute for
napkins? He concluded at the time that this office must be run by
a bunch of culturally illiterate guys who do not know the
difference between paper for wiping your lips and paper for
wiping your behind.

But in a number visits to other Indonesian offices, the pair
of consultants had similar experiences and the pair began to see
the "logic" of this practice. In a society where washing the anus
after relieving oneself is done with water and the left hand, a
roll of toilet paper is seen simply as a roll of clean paper. You
can do everything you want with this paper: clean your shoes,
clean your eyeglasses, wipe dirt from your book, etc. So, why not
use it for cleaning your hands and lips after eating with your
fingers?

Here is an example of how cross-cultural experiences and a
cultural transcendence that emerges from them generate a powerful
mode of reasoning that can overcome a cultural prejudice and
bias.

Through discussions like this, the participants have come to
accept the idea that to become a successful member of a
multinational team, one has to be able to recognize and overcome
cultural biases existing in his or her own culture and develop a
new kind of cultural literacy.

Basically, this "new cultural literacy" is literacy about
one's own culture, broadened and deepened by knowledge about
other cultures.

This knowledge about other cultures does not have to be as
extensive, of course, as knowledge about one's original culture.

But however small and partial this additional knowledge may
be, it has to be sufficiently deep. Superficial partial knowledge
about other cultures will not enrich our cultural literacy. Such
knowledge can be harmful. It can generate prejudices that are
detrimental to the cultivation of genuine cross-cultural
understanding.

How does cultural prejudice come into existence? And is it
true that every culture has its own share of prejudices?
According to William Hazlitt (1778-1830), prejudice is "the child
of ignorance". If we can accept this opinion, then we can
conclude that cultural prejudice is caused by ignorance about
other cultures.

This may be the primary reason underlying the popular opinion
that knowledge about other cultures, especially that coming from
personal contact with those other cultures, will enable us to
overcome our cultural prejudices.

In reality, however, the problem is not that simple. Knowledge
about other cultures does not necessarily bring about a broader
and more tolerant view regarding realities of life. It does also
not necessarily lead us to the ability to overcome our cultural
biases. Such an ability can be obtained only when we succeed in
comprehending our own cultural habits at the deepest level, i.e.
at the level of values and value systems, that we shall be able
to appreciate different formats of behavior coming from other
cultures, but which express values similar to those that underlie
some of our habitual dispositions.

Jacques Martin Barzun, a French-born American educator, author
and historian, expressed the same principle, I think, when he
said: "Above all, the ability to feel the force of an argument
apart from the substance it deals with is the strongest weapon
against prejudice."

I experienced how true this statement is in a recent
discussion about basic cultural differences. Two groups of
participants were reporting the results of their discussions
concerning some basic characteristics of their respective
culture.

One group of expatriates reported, among others, that in their
culture, individuality is highly valued, that their culture
values achievement much more than ascription, and that they feel
at home in organizations with a low or flat power distance. The
second group consisting of Indonesian participants, on the other
hand, reported that their culture is definitely collectivistic,
that ascription or asal-usul is a very important factor in life,
and that a high power distance in organizations makes it easier
for them to adjust themselves to the demands of the company.

This is all standard stuff which suggests that there is an
unbridgeable gap between Western and Indonesian cultures. But
then, the spokesman for the expatriate group gave a beautiful
explanation concerning the group's interpretation of
individualism as a cultural trait.

The spokesman said: "To us, individualism means, among others,
that responsibility is always personal. Achievement or success is
personal. But failure is also personal. When something goes wrong
in the process of implementing a team's job, there must be
someone responsible for it. And when in a time of crisis no one
steps forward and takes full responsibility, that means that the
organization is in a big trouble."

I was stunned by this explanation. Interpreted this way,
individualism becomes not only a trait for the Western culture
but commendable as well for the Indonesian society -- especially
during a time when no one seems responsible for anything that
happens in this country.