[report] 異文化リテラシー

이거 쓰다 정말 눈 돌아가는 줄 알았음.

문법같은 건 모른다; 다 틀렸을지도;

어차피 영어 실력을 보는 수업은 아니었으므로 배째라 하고 막 갈겼다;

그래도 AA 받았음. -_-V

1. Explain Samuel P. Huntington’s idea of the “crash of civilization” and what the United Nations’ Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations hoped to achieve.

  Samuel P. Huntington’s idea of the “crash of civilization” is that opposition and conflict of civilizations will be the most important issue of international society after a cold war. He insisted the predominant reason of separating human beings will be something cultural, especially the main will be non-west civilizations’ opposition to western civilizations’ force and values. The main structure of conflict he took is not ideology or economy but religion, represented Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, Hindu, Buddhism, etc; especially the crash of civilizations between the West and the Islam. The modern society’s conflicts are not fights by force of soldier, economy, or expansion of territory anymore. They changed to fights in one nation and fights of ideologies.

  By the needs of the times like this, the United Nations designated the year 2001 as “Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations.” UNESCO, charged with conduct of commemorative project, progressed to establish common values of human beings; that can overcome conflict among every civilizations; a so-called universal ethics. In 1999, UNESCO made common values that human beings have to pursue in the 21st century; use of nature within the limits of not to destroy of nature’s ability to regenerate by itself, complement of individual and society, peace which is based on justice. “Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations” is for understanding of civilizations and it’s the most important in the 21st century. On account of rapid development of nature science, post-liberalistic globalization, conflict among religions and races, con fusion of values deepened; and it was urgent task of human beings to try to find the solution. 

2. Give your own opinion about ONE of the following case studies:

  C. George Bush claims that the United States will not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it would threaten “the American way of life.” Is this argument valid? Why or why not?

  Fundamentally Kyoto Protocol would like to solve environment pollution by reducing the principle of environment disruption, so deliberate to reduce consumption of CO₂. I can’t accurately know the intend of the United States’ disagreement to Kyoto Protocol, but may be, they don’t want to have a negative influence upon economical growth and industrial development. And also they may think that they can solve the environment pollution by science and technology.

  Probably it isn’t wrong to pursue domestic profits and we can not criticize. But in this case, as it’s an international problem and many developed countries agreed to Kyoto Protocol, the United States can not avoid international criticism about absence in spite of quantities that United States discharges CO₂is 28% of the whole world. Actually Kyoto Protocol would threaten “the American way of life.” But it is not only to the United States, but is applicable to other countries. Many countries that agreed to Kyoto Protocol submit to resignation of economical growth or industrial development partly. 

  The problem of the earth’s pollution needs cooperation of the entire world. According to Habermas’s discourse ethics, if my action has an effect on other people, then those people have the right to participate in the communication process by which a decision is made about that action. Actions of the United States effect on other countries and the whole world. Of course every country has its own way and all the differences of societies have to be recognized. But in international problem, we need to cooperate and compromise domestic profits sometimes. So I think it’s invalid that the United States do not participate in Kyoto Protocol.

3. What is the difference between empirical, theoretical, and normative approaches to the study of culture?

  Empirical approach is a method of study ‘what is actually happening in the world’. It is based on what the ‘case’ is. So, in this approach, we study what the people in various cultures are doing and thinking about actually. There is two way in empirical approach. One is a quantitative method. This method is to survey quantity, so it researches what percentage of people agree or disagree, how many people are doing or not. The other, qualitative method is not study number but quality. So, we can interview with people to know what they really think. In conclusion, Empirical approach studies only the fact of various cultures. 

  Theoretical approach is not only studying the fact of the culture, but the root causes of that situation got by analyzing the empirical data. That is, not only studying what is actually happening in the world, but why they are doing that. So, in this approach, we can know more definitely about that culture.

  Normative approach is studying not facts or causes, but what should the case be. Normative means imagining the best choice, that is, ‘ideal’. It is describing the world not as it is, but what the ideal of the world to be. When we found difference of cultures, it’s the most important what the ideal is, that can resolve the problem of conflict among different cultures.

4. Briefly explain the difference between the convergence, divergence, and dual theories of globalization.

　Convergence theory is unilinear model of cultural evolution. Unilinear means one line. In this theory, all the traditional things are moving to modern things. So, in case of development of developing countries, all of developing countries are moving to developed country. According to this theory, developed countries are superior than developing countries, so, in ‘main development theory’ (one of Convergence theory), if developing country can not developed, the reason is that the country doesn’t have knowledge or technology to be able to developed country.

　Divergence theory is multilinear model of cultural evolution. Multilinear means many lines, so this theory recognizes diversity. We don’t have to come together. Every person, every group has its own agenda. So they accept diversity of cultures and they do not touch another culture. There are not some contacts among various cultures.

　Dual theory is ecological model of cultural evolution, and it has some contacts among cultures that divergence theory doesn’t have. We can recognize differences of cultures exist, but we can communicate each other. We are different, but we also communicate and interact together with each other. Dual theory says that we have both convergence and divergence together. 

5. Briefly summarize the idea of “objectivism” and explain some of the standard objections to this idea.

  Objectivism believes that there is one truth in the world. It is based on foundationalism that handles all of things by believing that established facts are right from first. According to this theory, there are some general facts that people or society believe right. For example, there are religious texts, natural law, dialectical materialism and universal reason, etc.

  This theory can be connected with universalism, too. Universalism believes that society or group is more important than individual. People should conform to the general norm of the society. So objectivism connects to a thought that there is some universal ideal in the world and all of countries move to that ideal. It can be also connected with modernism which is trend to follow the newest fashion or modern sensibility, so all of world move to modern which is presented by mass media or something like that. In addition, objectivism can connected with globalization, and unilinear model of development, too.

  But objectivism is not always right. The problem of this theory is that there is no agreement about what is authoritative, natural, historical, or reasonable. It’s not true that all of people believe religious texts are true. There are some convert or conflict. In case of natural law, all human beings do not have to follow natural law. For example, when a man get married a woman, even if the society tells that men is stronger than women so there are men’s roles some hard and women’s roles some soft, they do not have to accept roles decided by society. They can choose if they would accept that natural law or not. It is not natural. It’s just a choice on the culture.

  And also in case of universal reason, people in various countries don’t think in same ways. They think differently even if about same thing. For example, Japanese think the color of tiger is yellow, but Americans think that is orange. So, it is excessive generalization to believe that there is one truth in the world, like objectivism. 

6. Briefly summarize the idea of “subjectivism” and explain some of the standard objections to this idea.

  According to subjectivism, everyone has his own opinion and we can not say which opinion is right or wrong. It’s just his opinion, not everybody think. There are no objective statements about what is good. But it is not true that we always can not say “it’s wrong” concerning decisions made in accordance with personal preferences. For example when a man want to eat vanilla ice cream because he like vanilla ice cream, it’s just his opinion and we can not say it’s good or bad, right or wrong. But, when a man wants to kill someone because he likes murder, it’s not permitted because murder damages some other people. This is ethical individualism. We can say that’s wrong and regulate the act in case it is an offence against ethics and affects another person.

  Subjectivism in collective side can connect with cultural relativism. Every country has own particular culture so we can not say which culture is superior. It’s obvious that various cultures construct ethical systems in different ways and that they are often incommensurable. Cultural relativism is an attitude that culture which includes customs or values of one society has to be understood and valuated in coherence of the society. When we understand another culture, we need to put ourselves in another’s position. When we go into new culture from that we’re born, we can not do both systems at the same time. 

  The most often proposed solution, particularly in intercultural communication, is “respect” or “When in Rome do as Romans do.” which is a standard statement that represents cultural relativism. It is sometimes good, but not always. Though we are in other culture, we do not have to waste our culture in which we’re grown up.

  And cultural relativism can not be equated with ethical relativism. While cultural relativism is to respect for other cultures, ethical relativism is conformity to the norms of another culture. And also descriptive ethics, which is actually done in this particular culture, does not equal normative ethics which is what should be done. For example cannibalism, eating humans, actually exists but it doesn’t mean cannibalism ought to exist. So, the argument, “this is what is done in this particular culture, therefore this is what I should do” is invalid because it confuses what is with what should be done. This is standard philosophical objection deriving from Hume’s Naturalistic Fallacy.

  From pragmatic perspective “When in Rome do as Romans” is not a solution in intercultural communication because it means nothing gets done. It implies simple conformity to cultural norms rather than critical reflection. It is not progressive. Ethical relativism seems progressive but is in fact conservative and tradition-bound. It regards culture in “essentialist” terms, culture has an essence, rather than in constructivist terms, culture is a human construct and therefore susceptible to creative change. For example if there is a individual Japanese, people say “you are strange”. It is a situation premised an essence that Japanese are not individual.

7. Explain the shift in the U.S. from universalism to “multiculturalism” and how this compares with the shift in Japan from particularism to “internationalization.”

  Universalism as a legacy of U.S. culture has historical origins in philosophy and religion. The present U.S. society is called “melting pot” which means being mixed with various races and cultures. It was necessary to bring together all the cultures of the world and mix them in America. In U.S. society as universalism, it is basic thought, “Everybody can join us and let’s enjoy all together.” It is good to be open-minded and inclusive but also has disadvantage, sometimes force people to their own way not recognize everybody has his own identity and own culture.

  So recently there is a shift in the U.S. from universalism to multiculturalism. It is moving from universalism focuses on sameness to particularism focuses on difference, which is found in Japanese society. That is called from melting pot to mosaic salad bowl. Mosaic salad bowl means that if there are mixed various vegetables, each vegetable is still different. So multiculturalism is beginning to think of difference of people and to recognize various cultures.

  Conversely there is a shift in the Japan from particularism to internationalization. Particularism as a legacy of Japanese culture, is good to be respectful of “cultural differences.” But it is dangerous because particularism can be too nationalistic or exclusive. They thought western people never can understand real Japanese culture and can not join them. But recently Japanese began to think of themselves part of the world, and to be aware that there are other people in the world.

8. Explain how the interactive approach tries to overcome some of the standard objections to the objectivist and subjectivist approaches to intercultural communication.

  Interactive approach is connected at constructivism. We are each situated in a particular culture and socialized into certain norms. When we are grow up in a particular culture, all of values, like what kind of knowledge is true, comes from our particular culture. But we don’t just adjust ourselves to norms of the society. We can reflect back on those norms, too. And we can also reflect on the norms of other cultures. When we accept other cultures we don’t just accept the culture, critically reflect on both cultures. We can construct. 

  Of course we can not have “God-eye” view of the world. People have narrow point of view actually. But when we experience another culture, we can have little bit wider point of view. So we need to experience another cultures. We are different. When new problem emerge, new solution must be found. We can not always fall back on past traditions and new forms must be created.

  There is both what really happened and what everybody and society tells us true but we don’t know whether it has really happened or not. And we can make agreement about something happened. Every culture has its own thought but we can talk each other and gain some different view. We need to get a wider point of view by sharing various ideas. We can make agreement about intercultural differences, not to just accept or refuse that culture.

9. Give your own opinion about what you think is the best way to promote cross-cultural dialogue.

  In case of cross-cultural dialogue between individual and culture, actually it’s so difficult to change a particular society for one person. When I first came to Japan, I felt anger about Japanese bureaucracy. They always said that they should ask a higher officer so the speed of management was too slow. But I was able to do nothing but waiting.

  The best way to promote cross-cultural dialogue is probably to recognize difference of cultures and to be open-minded first. And also we need to study about another culture how different from our own culture. But actually individual is weaker than society, I think. As in case of me, when individual goes into the different culture, he needs to understand about that particular culture and accept that culture in some measure, because it is impossible to change the society for individual. So I think adaptation is the best way for individual. But consideration for people from different culture is required, too. Even if it’s impossible to change society for individual, it’s also unreasonable that individual just has to accept that society. So society, as long as possible, had better prepare some systems for people from different culture.

  In case of dialogue between society and society, it’s more optimistic, I think. Of course it’s unreasonable one society imposing its view on the other society. In this case, understanding of object is required acutely; otherwise misunderstanding could occur between two societies. But it’s not enough to just know difference of cultures. Then concession is necessary, I think. Even if knowing difference of culture, the attitude to adhere to own perspective triggers conflict between societies. By dialogue, we should change ourselves not the other. Not imposing our opinion, but thinking how we can understand the other.

10. Choose one particular intercultural conflict which we did not discuss in class and show how it might be resolved using the modes of criticism discussed in Part VII of the “Outline for the 1st Semester.”

  In Japan, there is a way to talk in a roundabout way when they need to say something negative; towomawashi. For example, if American enterprise proposes something like affiliation, Japanese say, “We will inform you our conclusion later.” So American wait from that day on, but there is no answer form Japanese. It was refusal of Japanese, but American doesn’t know that; “you didn’t answer anything.” In this way, Japanese think that it is so rude to refuse or say something negative in the presence of the other person. So they never say straightly.

  Oppositely the western talk straightly. They think it’s good to express their opinion certainly not only for them but also for others. So they express their opinion frankly and of course it doesn’t matter to them to be refused in the presence of the other man.

  We can think about this in accordance with ethnocentric criticism. The Japanese style is good because it’s so considerable. And the western style is good because it’s so open-hearted and easy to know the other’s feeling. But we can not say which style is better by only this mode.

  So secondly we can think this problem by internal criticism. Internal criticism think from both one’s point of view and other’s point of view. So we can think about merit and defect of each society. Japanese style is good to have consideration for others and to make a good relationship with peoples. On the other hand, it’s bad because it’s difficult to know the others’ feeling or opinion and easy to misunderstand intend of the others. The western style is good it’s easy to understand what the others’ opinion is and there is little possibility of misunderstanding because talking straightly. On the other hand, people can feel displeasure because there isn’t considering of the others, just expressing his own idea.

  Thirdly, we can compare with each merit and defect by cross-cultural criticism. Considering for others is better than talking straightly own opinion without considering the others. So we can conclude Japanese style is better than western style. On the other hand, if we compare merit of western style with defect of Japanese, understanding others’ opinion easily is better than misunderstanding the others. So in this case we can conclude western style is better than Japanese.

  Following this process, we can go to integration. Integration is what we accept only merits of each culture. So we can integrate merit of Japanese communication style, considering the others, and merit of western style, easy to understand the others’ opinion. It doesn’t debate on Japan or west any more. The integration of two cultures’ merits can move to the creation of “third culture.” When we work with people of different culture, it is necessary to hybridize two cultures. We want to preserve differences and integration of the differences can make synergy, like creating third culture; it is neither of two cultures anymore, it’s something new. So in this case, we can solve this problem by creating something new way, talking certainly to know the other man can know what our opinion is, not just straightly but with considering the others.