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.