View
6
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES
CULTURE SHOCK
NECESSARILY OCCUR WHEN
PEOPLE MIGRATE TO OTHER
COUNTRY?
NAME: MARÍA NOGUERA GONZÁLEZ
DATE: 29/01/2015
STUDENT NUMBER: 10836489
Culture Shock-María Noguera
2
CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION. 3
2. CONCEPT OF CULTURE SHOCK 3
2.1. WHY IT HAPPENS? 4
3. CULTURE SHOCK MODELS 4
3.1. THE U-SHAPED MODEL 4
3.2. THE W-SHAPED MODEL OF REVERSE
CULTURE SHOCK. 6
4. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CLASSIC
CULTURE SHOCK MODEL. 7
4.1. THE ACCULTURATION THEORY. 7
4.2. THE “ABC” FRAMEWORK. 8
5. CONCLUSIONS. 9
5.1. MY EXPERIENCE LIVING ABROAD. 10
6. LITERATURE. 11
Culture Shock-María Noguera
3
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper will be focused on the topic of “Culture Shock”, whose main
objective is to try to give an appropriate answer to the question “To what extent
does Culture Shock necessarily occur when people migrate to another country?”
In the first part of the paper the concept of Culture Shock will be discussed,
including why it happens; the two existing models of culture shock will be also
treated briefly.
The second part of the paper will consist of the alternative approaches to the
classic culture shock model, which are the Acculturation Theory and The ABC
framework.
Finally, because I’ve been studying away from my home culture for six months,
I can also rely on my single own experience about the Culture Shock that I
suffered, which is treated in the last part of the paper.
2. CONCEPT OF CULTURE SHOCK
The term “culture shock” was first proposed by Kalvero Oberg, who
argued that “culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing
all our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues
include the thousand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations
of daily life.” (1960). According to Oberg, culture shock is considered as
experienced by people who suddenly transferred abroad. This has its own
symptoms, cause and cure like most diseases.
Many scientists dealt with the phenomenon of Culture Shock and found own
definitions but most of them stick very closely to Oberg’s one. For example,
Adler agreed that “culture shock is primarily a set of emotional reactions to the
loss of perceptual reinforcements from one’s own culture, to new cultural
Culture Shock-María Noguera
4
stimuli which have little or no meaning, and to the misunderstanding of new and
diverse experiences” (1975). Also Hofstede states that Culture Shock is a "state
of distress following the transfer of a person to an unfamiliar cultural
environment", which may also be accompanied by physical symptoms (1969).
These two definitions have in common, that they see Culture Shock as an
unpleasant reaction to being faced with a foreign culture.
2.1. WHY IT HAPPENS?
As Steve J. Heine says in his book entitled “ Cultural Psychology”,
people move to a new culture for many reasons: to be closer to their family,
to seek fame and fortune, to study abroad with the intention of returning to
their home country after graduating and so on. Also, individuals move to
very different kinds of environments, some move to cultural ghettos where
they can speak their original language and keep their cultural traditions with
a little interaction with the host culture.
Moving to a new culture involves psychological adjustment, which occurs
over a wide variety of domains such as acquiring a new language, learning
new interpersonal and social behaviors, becoming accustomed to new
values and adjusting one’s self concept.
When migrants or sojourners start to realize that their language skills are not
yet good enough to communicate with others, when they start to miss their
family and friends, their favorite food, and everything about their heritage
culture, their fall in what is mainly called “culture shock”.
3. CULTURE SHOCK MODELS.
3.1. THE U-SHAPED.
In 1955, Lysgaard published one of the first reports detailing the
“adjustment crisis” experienced by 200 Norwegian Fulbright scholars. His
report advanced the notion of a U-shaped curve that takes place in four
Culture Shock-María Noguera
5
phases. Later, Oberg (1960) wrote in detail about the experience of this
crisis phases and give rise to numerous scholarly investigations of culture
shock and the U-shaped curve. The four phases are:
The Honeymoon Phase: After months of excitement, anticipation,
and preparation, the person finally arrives at the destination. Thus
begins the phase of initial euphoria, or the “honeymoon phase”
(Oberg, 1960), where everything seems to be new, fascinating and
exhilarating. Initially, the similarities between cultures are more
apparent than the differences, and the differences that the person does
notice seem interesting and exotic.
The Crisis Phase or Culture Shock: During the crisis-phase, which
describes the actual Culture Shock, perceived differences in
language, values and symbols between the own and the foreign
culture cause feelings of anxiety and frustration. The individual
predominantly seeks contact to fellow nationals. A general unease is
provoked by the feeling of uncertainty about oneself and the
surroundings, and increased due to the lack of familiar signs of
orientation and belonging.
The Recovery Phase: During this phase, the sojourner accepts his
problem and starts working on it. He improves his language skills
and starts to feel at ease in the new environment. The relationship to
host nationals starts to improve as well.
The Adjustment Phase: Eventually the sojourner will develop the
ability to function in the new culture. The sense of ‘foreignness’
diminishes significantly and he may also feel that he is a part of the
new culture. Everyday tasks and conversation will once again
become effortless. Motivation, self-confidence, and the sense of
humor will have rebounded from the lows of the crisis phase, and the
balance between living abroad while holding onto his own cultural
identity will have become second nature.
Culture Shock-María Noguera
6
3.2.THE W-SHAPED MODEL OF REVERSE CULTURE SHOCK
Similar to Lysgaard’s (1955) U-shaped model is Gullahorn and
Gullahorn’s (1963) W-shaped model. The fundamental difference lies in the
extension of the earlier model to include either a five-stage adjustment in
the host culture or a re-entry stage for individuals returning to their home
countries, as it is hypothesized that these sojourners will undergo an
acculturation process akin to the one in which they were engaged in the
host country. Weaver (1994), for example, asserts that most international
students experience more stress during re-entry rather than entry, and those
who were the most well-adjusted in the host culture actually have the most
difficult problems with reverse culture shock.
In essence, Gullahorn and Gullahorn’s model is a double U reflecting the
stages of excitement at the prospect of returning home, followed by the re-
entry shock of encountering family and friends who may not understand or
appreciate the sojourner’s changed identity, and finally re-integration with
family, friends, and the culture as a whole, signifying a realization of the
positive and negative aspects of both countries.
Culture Shock-María Noguera
7
4. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CLASSIC CULTURE SHOCK
MODEL.
Since the introduction of the term culture shock, a great number of
studies internationally have emerged but I do like to highlight the Acculturation
Theory, which was proposed by Berry in 1970; and “The affect-behavior-
cognition (ABC) framework” that has been developed on the basis of Berry’s
acculturation theory.
4.1. THE ACCULTURATION THEORY.
The concept of acculturative stress proposed by Berry (1970) was
introduced as an alternative to the term culture shock. Acculturative stress is
a response by people to life events that are rooted in intercultural contact.
There is often a particular set of stress behaviors, which occur during
acculturation, such as lowered mental health status (especially anxiety and
depression), feelings of marginality and alienation and so on. Berry (1997,
2006) gave two reasons for replacing culture shock with acculturative stress.
First, the notion of shock tends to be negative, while stress may have both
positive and negative aspects. And secondly, as cultural adaptation is a
process of interactions between two cultures, acculturation is a more
appropriate term, while culture is a concept which has a mono context.
Culture Shock-María Noguera
8
In fact, the item acculturative stress was developed based on the concept of
acculturation, which means to comprehend those phenomena which result
when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous
first-hand contact, with changes in the original culture patterns of either or
both groups (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits, 1936).
There are two models based on the acculturation process. One is the bi-
dimensional model, which is an interlaced process of the receiving-culture
acquisition and heritage-culture retention. Based on the bi-dimensional
model, another well-known model of acculturation developed is Berry’s
acculturation strategies. This model consists of four strategies, which are
integration (to maintain the cultural identity and have interactions with the
host culture), assimilation (build intensive interaction with the local society
without any interests in maintaining the cultural heritage), separation (no
interaction with the local society but high interest in maintaining the original
culture) and marginalization (no interest in maintaining the cultural heritage
and no relationship with the local community).
This theory has been criticized in two ways. First, the four acculturative
strategies are too generalized in explaining a diverse range of intercultural
contact strategies (Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005). Second, the validity
of marginalisation has been questioned as it is hard to understand how a
non-dominant group’s cultural identity develops without interacting with
either their own cultural heritage or the receiving culture (Rudmin, 2003).
4.2. THE AFFECT- BEHAVIOR-COGNITION (ABC) FRAMEWORK.
The ABC framework has been developed on the basis of Berry’s
acculturation theory and it is more comprehensive as it embraces the three
salient concepts described above:
Cultural learning (behavior): It was strongly advocated by Furnham
and Bochner’s (1986). This concept emphasizes the behavioral aspect
of intercultural contact and regards social interaction as a mutually
organized and skilled behavioral performance. Having general
Culture Shock-María Noguera
9
knowledge about the host culture and being competent in
intercultural communication are two important aspects of culture
learning. The culture learning theory involves and demands a great
deal of cultural knowledge and social skills of the receiving society
which are acquired in the new sociocultural context.
Stress and coping (affect): The stress and coping concept holds a
view that stress is inherently caused by life changes in the process of
cross-cultural transitions and thus a sojourner needs to select or
develop effective strategies and tactics to cope with the stress. Both
stress and coping strategies correlate with the characteristics of the
situation and the characteristics of the individual, and in turn, affect
the outcome of adjustment (Berry, 1997).
Social identification (cognition): This concept is regarded as the
cognitive aspect of intercultural contact. The concept is originally
based on theories of social cognition and social identity (Deaux,
1996) which focuses on examining the ways in which people
ethnically and culturally identify themselves, including how they
perceive themselves and others as well as how they establish
relations with their own ethnic groups (in-groups) and other ethnic
groups (out-groups). Intercultural contact and/or cultural transition
are highly likely to affect the sojourner’s perception of his/her
cultural identity and relations with the in-groups and out-groups.
5. CONCLUSIONS.
Does culture shock always occur when people migrate to other
countries? As we saw, culture shock is a process that always occurs when
someone goes out from his heritage culture. However, the effects of culture
shock are different for everyone and can result in different behaviors and
feelings. The timing of the different phases also varies a lot from person to
person. For example, a person who moves to a culture that is similar to his
heritage culture would suffer lower culture shock than if he moves to a
completely different culture, but he will suffer more reverse culture shock.
Culture Shock-María Noguera
10
To sum up, Oberg described Culture Shock with a well-known four-stage
definition. In 1970s-1980s, Barry introduced the concept of “acculturation” and
replaced “cultural shock” with a new definition of “acculturative stress”, which
contains four acculturative strategies. The Affect-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC)
framework is, in fact, an abstract of a great number of studies in the area of
intercultural contacts after Barry’s acculturation theory. The three components:
culture learning, stress and coping, and social identification combined together
to draw a complete picture of intercultural contact.
5.1. MY EXPERIENCE LIVING ABROAD.
When I first arrived in Amsterdam to do an Erasmus for six months I
was completely over the moon with everything. When the plane finally
touched down in Schipol Airport I was so excited and exhilarated that I was
finally in my destination, something I had been planning for many months.
But, even though all exchange students participated in the “Introduction
Week”, no kind of preparation could have avoided the inevitable culture
shock I was experiencing - and I am glad it didn’t! Many people confuse the
term culture shock with the phase of feeling discomfort, confusion,
frustration and homesickness before adjusting to a foreign culture. However,
culture shock is so much more!
It also includes those first weeks or months of the so-called “honeymoon
phase” where you are super happy to be in that other culture and everything
you experience, from cultural aspects such as ways of living and interacting
with others to clothes, music, and food, the ways of transport (my adorable
bike!) seems exotic, new and exciting.
However, as I was going to experience soon enough this feeling didn’t last
forever. After about one month, things started to feel odd. Differences
became more apparent. I started missing my friends, family and town more
and more. Frustrating thoughts increasingly populated my head: “Nobody
really understand me, my English is not good enough. I wish people would
Culture Shock-María Noguera
11
just be able to speak Spanish for one day! I wish public transportation would
work the same way as at home! Why is so cold here? And so on.
These thoughts were of course highly unproductive and unhelpful.
However, these are part of the process and herald the “crisis phases”.
Feelings of anxiety would creep up on me from nowhere! Homesickness
would dominate most evenings. Of course it was not like this all the time.
Initial ‘honeymoon’ feelings of excitement and exhilaration would take
turns with feelings of disorientation and frustration.
Over the next few months, though, feelings of adjustment and belonging
more and more superseded those feelings of displacement and
homesickness. I developed my own little routine, learned to adapt to stress
through various techniques, and made many new friends. I had slowly and
unknowingly entered the “adjustment phase”. I had learned what to expect
in most situations, had adapted my own behavior and learned to appreciate
new ways of thinking and attitudes. My English had improved dramatically
- not only my vocabulary had expanded significantly but I also thought and
dreamt exclusively in English!
Things started to make sense and I understood Dutch culture better and
better. Every day I felt more and more comfortable with my new home. I
adopted many new traits while also keeping earlier ones from my home
country. I would often refer to myself as ‘having a second nationality’.
Here, the recovery phase started and I got fully adapted to my lovely Dutch
culture!
6. LITERATURE.
Adler, P. S. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock.
Journal of humanistic psychology.
Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):
Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of personality 73, 1015-
1050.
Culture Shock-María Noguera
12
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied psychology,
46(1), 5-34.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P. Wong & L. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultrual perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 287-298). New York:
Springer.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis1.
Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33-47.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock. Psychological reactions to
unfamiliar environments.
Heine, S. J. (2012). Living in Multicultural worlds. Cultural Psychology, 383-421.
Jackson II, R. L., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of identity (Vol. 1). Sage.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society. International social science
bulletin.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture Shock: Adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical
Anthropologist.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation,
separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of general psychology, 7, 3-
37.
Ward, C. A., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock.
Psychology Press.
Zapf, M. K. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock.
International journal for the advancement of counselling, 14(2), 105-119.
Recommended