1. Theoretical approaches to research
The study of the effectiveness of educational practices abroad from the point of view of perception, assimilation and reproduction of sociocultural and institutional norms and rules by recipients focuses on the study of such social phenomena as: intercultural communication; sociocultural adaptation of an individual in a group alien to him; variability of human social-normative consciousness; the group's perception of a stranger who came from outside; the individual’s attitude towards his previous environment after gaining experience of interacting with a society alien to him at a normative, cultural, psychological level.
The phenomenon of intercultural interaction, the problem of assimilation of norms and cultural patterns and human adaptation in a different environment have received comprehensive coverage in theoretical sociology. Let's consider some theoretical concepts that interpret the situation of an individual who finds himself in another country in terms of his social and cultural interaction, and which can be used as theoretical and methodological categories of analysis.
The study of the assimilation of Western norms and cultural patterns is directly related to the phenomenon intercultural communication, since assimilation as such is the result of the process of intercultural communication between an individual who finds himself in a foreign environment and the local community.
The concept of “intercultural communication” was introduced into scientific circulation by American researchers E. Hall and D. Trager in 1954 in the book “Culture as Communication: Model and Analysis”. In their work, intercultural communication was considered as a special area of human relations. Later, in his work “Mute Language,” E. Hall develops ideas about the relationship between culture and communication and for the first time brings this problem to the level of not only scientific research, but also independent academic discipline. E. Hall developed an iceberg-type model of culture, where the most significant parts of the culture are “under water”, and what is obvious is “above the water”. That is, it is impossible to “see” the culture itself. In other words, to understand and experience another culture, observations alone are not enough. Full learning can only occur through direct contact with another culture, which largely means interpersonal interaction. The author believes that the value orientations of individuals (regarding actions, communication, situational environment, time, space, etc.) regulate communicative actions in a particular situational context and thus there is a certain exchange of experience between people from different cultures. It should also be noted that E. Hall became the founder of intercultural communication as a separate discipline.
The study of intercultural communication is often carried out using a systems approach (T. Parsons, K.-O. Apel, N. Luhmann, K. Deutsch, D. Eston, S. Kuzmin, A. Uemov). According to this approach in sociology, the object of sociology is declared to be diverse social systems, that is, one way or another ordered sets of relationships between people, including such a social system as society. Intercultural communication in this case represents the interaction of two or more systems. Interaction can be carried out in different ways, but one way or another this is a kind of exchange of elements of systems, which can be both individuals and information, knowledge, cultural values and social norms. Unlike E. Hall and D. Trager, who see intercultural communication as a special area of human relations, a number of other researchers mean by this phenomenon the interaction of systems where people are not representatives of cultures, but only their elements.
The theory of cultural relativism (I. Herder, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, W. Sumner, R. Benedict, N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. N. Leontiev, L. N. Gumilyov) insists on the independence and usefulness of each culture, where the success of intercultural communication is linked to sustainability cultural subjects and rejection of the idea of universality of the Western sociocultural system. In other words, in this theory there is a criticism of the process of assimilation as such and at the head intercultural communication The uniqueness of each culture is emphasized. That is, the difference between the norms, cultures, lifestyles of communicating people from different countries should in no way become a stumbling block to the success of this communication. The exchange of cultural practices in this case is more likely a negative than a positive phenomenon.
The study of an individual’s interaction with a foreign environment, his adaptation to it, is also one of the main problems of ethnosociology. Ethnosociologists place special emphasis on the process that occurs with a person in a new group, the stages and phases of change in the human sense of group belonging. Russian researcher S.A. Tatunts in his work “Ethonosociology” examines the problem of interaction between representatives of different cultures, paying special attention to the adaptation of a person who finds himself in an established environment that is alien to him, with its own rules, norms and cultural patterns.
In ethnosociology, the process of finding a representative of one country in another, alien country, the process of his interaction with an alien environment is usually called sociocultural adaptation. Sociocultural adaptation in a different environment occurs in two forms - assimilation and acculturation. In the first case, a person (group) accepts (voluntarily or forcibly) the values and norms of the host ethnic environment. In the new environment, migrants and settlers seem to dissolve. Then neither they nor the host environment perceives them as “strangers” or a “foreign minority.” As the author writes, according to most scientists, complete assimilation and dissolution can only occur in the second or third generation. In another case, their basic ethnocultural characteristics are preserved, but minorities accept the norms and values of the new sociocultural environment and follow them.
Depending on a person’s goals, adaptation can have a different temporary nature: short and long. During short-term adaptation, a person, while maintaining his belonging to his cultural group and making it explicit, masters a new language, establishes contacts and communication. It is believed that such adaptation lasts up to two years, and beyond two years, while staying in a new ethnic environment, it is necessary to show greater involvement and activity.
In the structure of sociocultural adaptation S.A. Tatunts distinguishes three components:
situation, need, ability. A migrant is expected to go through three mandatory stages. The first stage is a device that includes searching and finding housing and work. At the second stage of adaptation, adaptation to the language, natural-ecological environment, confession and public life. The third stage - assimilation is associated with the elimination of the entire complex of uncomfortable aspects through the acquisition
new identity when a former migrant becomes part of the host ethnic environment.
The success of sociocultural adaptation depends on the correct balance of a person’s individual needs and the requirements of the host ethnocultural environment. This balance, in turn, depends on the individual, who must have a high degree of self-control and comply with the generally accepted regulatory requirements of the new environment.
If we transfer the above to the problems we are studying, we can note that, firstly, it is especially acute for young man, who finds himself abroad, may experience problems with language acquisition and complex discomforts due to the loss of “ground under his feet” in the form of familiar social guidelines, norms and rules.
Another researcher, K. Dodd, studying intercultural interaction in the ethnosociological aspect, in turn pays attention to the individual who finds himself in a foreign environment. In the work “Dynamics of Intercultural Communication” the author examines in detail the problem of human interaction with an alien environment.
According to K. Dodd, a person, finding himself in a foreign environment, first of all experiences “culture shock”, in other words, this is a feeling of discomfort, helplessness, a state of disorientation, anxiety due to the loss of familiar symbols and signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. Culture shock is primarily a socio-psychological phenomenon, the causes of which may also be difficulties in initial contact with a new ethnocultural environment, a state of uncertainty, etc.
Dodd identifies three main categories of culture shock symptoms:
psychological (insomnia, constant headaches, upset stomach
etc.);
emotional (irritability, anxiety, homesickness, sometimes turning into paranoia);
communicative (isolation, difficulties in relationships even with loved ones, constant dissatisfaction, frustration).
The period of culture shock for an individual who finds himself in a foreign country undoubtedly impedes intercultural communication. Due to poor health, both physical and mental, a person begins to “close down” and avoid new surroundings. Overcoming this period is one of the main tasks of an emigrant on the path to a normal existence among strangers.
1. Arriving in another, usually prosperous, country, the emigrant experiences joyful excitement. Dodd interprets this state as satisfaction with correctly accepted
decision to move to this beautiful place. The newcomer likes literally everything that surrounds him; he is in a state close to euphoria. Dodd calls this stage the “honeymoon.” Indeed, the duration of such a state can vary depending on the nature of the individual, from a short period of time to a month.
2. The second stage indicates the end of the honeymoon. Faced with many problems, a person begins to realize that the anticipation of happy expectations is just an illusion, embellished by the impressions of the honeymoon and enhanced by the euphoria of the first days of staying in a new place, and begins to realize that he was mistaken in coming here. According to Dodd, this stage is called “everything is terrible.”
3. Overcoming culture shock is the process of so-called adaptation, “getting along” in a new environment, which can take place differently for different individuals and have inherently different results.
K. Dodd tried to consider the interaction process in a more structured way
individual with a new environment for him and identify four possible lines behavior of a person who finds himself in a foreign country.
The first behavior model is “Fligt”: flight, or passive autarky. This is an attempt to avoid direct contact with a foreign culture. Migrants create their own microworld, in which “their own”, fellow tribesmen live and have their own ethnocultural environment. This pattern of behavior is also called “ghetto”. Ghettoization is typical for ethnic minorities who find themselves displaced and refugees, those who live in large industrial capitals and megacities. Thus, there is the Turkish quarter of Kreuzberg in Berlin, the Russian-speaking Brighton Beach in New York, Arab quarters in Paris, and Armenian quarters in Los Angeles. Here they speak a reflective language and observe the customs and traditions of their ethnic group.
The second model is “Fight”: struggle, or aggressive autarky. Migrants actively display ethnocentrism. New reality is perceived inadequately, the new culture is criticized. Migrants try to transfer their ethnic stereotypes and behavior patterns to a new environment.
The third model is “Filter”: separation, or filtration. It manifests itself as a multidirectional strategy: 1) complete rejection of the new culture and firm commitment to one’s own culture; 2) complete perception of the new culture and rejection of the old one.
The fourth model is “Flex”: flexibility, flexibility. The migrant realizes the need to adopt a new cultural code - language, gestures, norms, habits; new ethnic frame. In other words, a person adapts to a new environment, follows its attitudes, norms, etc., but at the same time does not abandon the old, retains the value of the past and, if necessary, can return to the previous way of life.
The first two behavioral strategies are caused by the loss of familiar symbols, signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. They complicate interethnic interaction. By choosing the third model, when a person remains committed to his culture, he identifies himself with his ethnic group, promotes and disseminates his culture, and actually contributes to the dialogization of cultures and overcoming isolationism.
The fourth model of behavior changes a person’s cultural identity, he completely accepts the new and follows the new ethnic frame. This process can manifest itself both at the level of external observable behavior and at the level of social perception: a person develops new attitudes, views, assessments, and values.
The third and fourth models represent a way out of the crisis of interethnic interactions.
An interesting look at the relationship of a foreigner with local residents can be found in the German sociologist R. Stichwe in his work “Abivalence, indifference and the sociology of the alien.” The author reviews social phenomenon“alien” and puts forward his theses regarding his interaction with the environment on different levels. Mentioning the provisions of this work seems appropriate to us, since it gives a look at the problem being studied from the other side, that is, from the position of a society in which foreign individuals are included, and we have the opportunity to better understand the nature of the interaction being studied.
Society’s perception of a stranger, a newly arrived individual, and interaction with him, according to Shtikhve, is quite diverse and complex. The main idea expressed by the author is that the image of a stranger in society can take different forms.
The first such form is characterized by the fact that a stranger, having appeared in a certain place, on the one hand, is someone else, different from a given society according to a number of criteria, such as its social and cultural attitudes, norms of behavior, knowledge and skills. In this sense, he is perceived precisely as a stranger, whom people avoid and keep aside due to the fact that with his differences he brings a certain concern to the established order of a particular group. At the same time, a stranger is a definite innovation and a reason for society to think about its order and course of life. Knowledge, skills, a different perspective on social norms and foundations - something that can serve the group in which he finds himself for development and change. As Stichwe writes, “the stranger embodies rejected or illegitimate possibilities, which through him inevitably return to society.” The alien provides, for example, the possibility of hierarchy, the supreme power of a chief or monarch, which explains why in traditional African societies in the early modern period and in the 19th century. shipwrecked Europeans often became chiefs or monarchs. Or he embodies the possibility of usury, inevitable for economic reasons, which is not compatible with many common value orientations, and is therefore repressed into the figure of someone else. Using examples of this type, it becomes clear that society, in the figure of an alien, creates for itself disturbances that are necessary for its further evolution and are in fact not unexpected. The author makes a reservation that often society itself forms such a figure of an alien in order to justify the changes undertaken in it. That is, the first form of ambivalence in relation to someone else’s can be called “the alien-renegade and the alien-innovator.”
The second form of ambivalence in attitudes towards others is associated with the conflict of institutionalized normative expectations and structural possibilities for their implementation. On one side is the inevitable limitation of resources in almost every society, which forces strategically calculated, hostile treatment of everyone who does not belong to a close family circle or a certain community of people where everyone is somehow interconnected. But this pressure of limited resources is countered by institutionalized motives of reciprocity, widespread in all societies, which introduce help and hospitality towards strangers into the rank of norm. In other words, there is a contradiction in relation to someone else's. On the one hand, he is perceived as an enemy, seeking to absorb and use part of the resources of the society in which he finds himself, be it material goods, cultural values, information or knowledge and skills. On the other hand, a stranger is at the same time a guest who has come from another country, which requires a certain treatment with him in connection with the norms of hospitality, for example, such as the friendliness of local residents, readiness to provide assistance, starting with problems of orientation in a foreign environment and ending physical help. As the author writes, hesitation in the understanding of the “stranger” between the guest and the enemy is clearly related to the conflict of the above-mentioned structural and normative imperatives: limited resources and the obligation of reciprocity. In other words, this form of ambivalence in relation to the alien is “the alien-enemy and the alien-guest.”
Next, the author writes about tendencies towards the alien in modern societies. Along with the mentioned forms of ambivalence in the perception of the alien, a tendency has emerged that society seeks in some way to nullify the very existence of the category of “alien.” Since the existence of a stranger carries with it a certain social tension, it is not surprising that people strive to somehow neutralize this tension in one way or another. The author identifies several such methods.
1. “Invisibility” of someone else. A stranger is perceived as something that has a negative connotation, as a person who poses a threat, but this attitude does not apply to specific people who come from other countries, but rather to “mythical”, as the author puts it, bastards. That is, the category of alien becomes something invisible, discussed among individuals, but at the same time, such an attitude does not manifest itself towards certain and specific people. Their “foreignness” is either ignored or taken for granted.
2. Universalization of strangers. This is the so-called nullification of the category of the alien in the minds of people, as the author puts it - “parting with the alien”, which is carried out in different ways. In other words, the stranger as an integral phenomenon ceases to exist in society.
3. Decomposition of the alien. It lies in the fact that the integral personality of an alien breaks up into separate functional segments, which are much easier to overcome. IN modern society There are more and more short-term interactions, interaction partners therefore remain strangers to each other, the integrity of the personality in all its disturbing aspects recedes behind the act of interaction itself. In this sense, we are dealing with a developing differentiation of personal and impersonal connections. And it is the stranger who is the protagonist of such differentiation. In other words, a person as a single personality ceases to exist, he begins to be perceived in his different hypostases in the corresponding different communities. Personal and impersonal connections precisely determine the nature of the perception of someone else. At the level of personal connections, such as friendship, informal communication, a stranger can act irritatingly on others and increase the feeling of alienation. But, being in society, a foreigner more and more often has to go to the impersonal level of communication, where we're talking about about the social aspects of communication, such as business negotiations, and here if a stranger remains a stranger to someone, then this quality of his becomes expected and normal, ceases to bother and no longer causes the need to somehow process the strangeness.
4. Typification of the alien. This aspect of the loss of meaning of the category of stranger lies in the significance of typifications and categorizations in interaction processes. While connections with close people are based on sympathy and include the individualities of both parties, a stranger is perceived only through typification, through being assigned to some social category. Successful overcoming of the initial uncertainty is clearly assumed here. The alien is no longer a source of uncertainty; it can be more precisely defined by categorical assignment. It was characteristic of the position of the stranger in earlier societies that he was often on one side of distinctions in which a third possibility was not clearly envisaged. Thus, there remained either a rigid assignment to one of the two sides, or for none of the participants a pre-calculated oscillation between both sides. One of these distinctions is related/stranger. Now the so-called third status appears. This category can be described as follows: people belonging to it are neither friends nor enemies, neither relatives nor strangers. The dominant attitude of those around them towards them is indifference. The place of hospitality or hostility is replaced by the figure of indifference as a normal attitude towards almost all other people.
The problems of interaction between an individual and representatives of a society alien to him are considered by G. Simmel in his work “An Excursion about the Alien”. Simmel analyzes the concept of a stranger - a person who finds himself in a group that differs from him according to various criteria. A stranger is a wanderer who comes from outside. He, therefore, is spatially alien, since the group identifies itself with a certain space, and the space, the “soil,” with itself. A stranger, Simmel defines, is not someone who comes today to leave tomorrow. He comes today to stay tomorrow. But while he remains, he continues to be a stranger. The group and the stranger are heterogeneous, but on the whole they form a broader unity in which both sides must be taken into account. In history, the stranger acted as a merchant, and the merchant as a stranger. The outsider is characterized by objectivity because he is not entangled in in-group interests. But because of this he is also free, and therefore suspicious. And often he not only cannot share with the group its likes and dislikes, and therefore seems like a person who wants to destroy the existing order, but actually takes the side of “progress”, against the prevailing customs and traditions.
The key criterion for defining a stranger in Simmel is the “unity of proximity and distance” of the stranger in relation to the group (and at first this criterion is perceived as spatial). Such unity can mean distance, border, mobility, fixity. These concepts help determine the specifics of the interaction of a stranger with a group. The essence of this specificity is the “freedom” of the stranger, the consequences of which for the group and for the stranger himself are what primarily occupies Simmel. To clarify the meaning of this freedom, it is necessary to understand what the mentioned “remoteness” is, a distance that has a very definite starting point - a group, but is not defined either by its final point or by its length. For the group, these last parameters are unimportant in characterizing the stranger; the only important thing is that he moves away from the group and moves away precisely from this particular group; his presence in it is significant only because it allows us to record this process of moving away or returning to this group. The group does not observe or control the stranger throughout the distance, so his alienation is not deprivation or schism. Rather, it is the position of an observer, when there is an object of observation - a group, and when observation constitutes the essence of the relationship between the stranger and the group, the leitmotif, tension and dynamics of this relationship.
The "Stranger" is not definitely associated with any one group, he opposes them all; This relationship is not just non-participation, but a certain structure of the relationship between remoteness and proximity, indifference and involvement, within the framework of which it is conceivable, although reprehensible, “with one’s own charter in someone else’s monastery.” The objectivity and freedom of a stranger also determine the specific nature of intimacy with him: relations with a stranger are abstract, with him one can share only the most common features, those that unite any person with any other. The process of alienation, “alienation,” and transformation into a stranger is shown by Simmel as a process of universalization. The commonality of traits between people, as it spreads over a larger population, alienates them from each other. The more unique the thing that connects them, the closer the connection. The more this commonality extends beyond the boundaries of their relationship, the less close these relationships are. This kind of community is universal and can connect with anyone: the basis of such relationships can be, for example, “universal human values” and, perhaps, the most “universal” of them - money. The universality of the community enhances the element of chance in it; the connecting forces lose their specific, centripetal character.
A. Schutz’s work “Stranger. Essay on Social Psychology". By “stranger” the author understands “an adult individual of our time and our civilization, trying to achieve permanent recognition or, at least, a tolerant attitude towards himself on the part of the group with which he becomes close.” Schütz analyzes how this convergence occurs by comparing the adoption of cultural patterns by a person born into a given group and a person who is an “outsider” to it.
Schutz believes that everyone born or raised in a group accepts a pre-prepared standardized scheme cultural pattern, given to him by his ancestors. This scheme is not questioned and acts as a guide in all situations arising in social world. Knowledge that conforms to a cultural pattern is taken for granted until proven otherwise. This knowledge allows, avoiding undesirable consequences, to achieve in any situation with minimal effort best results. Thus, the function of a cultural pattern is to exclude, to eliminate labor-intensive research, to provide ready-made guidelines.
The fact is that in everyday life a person is only partially interested in the clarity of his knowledge, that is, a complete understanding of the connections between the elements of his world and the general principles that govern these connections. He does not ask himself how, for example, his car works and what laws of physics make it possible to function. A person, Schutz believes, takes for granted that another person will understand his thought if it is expressed in clear language and will respond accordingly; at the same time, he is not at all interested in how it is even possible to explain this “miraculous” event. Moreover, he does not strive for truth at all and does not require certainty: “all he needs is information about probability and an understanding of the chances and risks that the current situation introduces into the future result of his actions.”
Meanwhile, the stranger, due to his personal crisis, does not share the above assumptions. In essence, he becomes a person who has to question almost everything that seems certain to the members of the group with which he becomes close. The cultural pattern of this group does not have authority for him, if only due to the fact that he was not involved in the living historical tradition that formed this pattern. Of course, the outsider knows that the culture of this group has its own special history; Moreover, this story is accessible to him. However, it never became as integral a part of his biography as the history of his native group was for him. For each person, the elements of his way of life are the customs by which his fathers and grandfathers lived. Consequently, writes A. Schutz, a stranger enters another group as a neophyte . At best, he may be ready and able to share with the new group in living and immediate experience a common present and future; however, under all circumstances he remains excluded from the analogous general experience of the past. From the point of view of his host group, he is a man who has no history.
The cultural pattern of the native group still continues to be for the stranger the result of continuous historical development and an element of his biography; and therefore this sample was and remains an unquestioned correlation scheme for his “relatively natural worldview.” Therefore, a stranger naturally begins to interpret the new social environment in terms of habitual thinking.
The discovery that many things in his new environment are very different from what he expected to find them at home is often the first shock to the stranger's belief in the significance of habitual "ordinary thinking." In addition to the fact that the stranger has difficulty accepting cultural patterns, he is faced with the fact that he has no status as a member of a social group to which he would like to join and that he cannot find a starting point for orientation.
For a stranger, the language spoken in a given social group becomes a significant obstacle, a barrier to the assimilation of cultural patterns. As a scheme of interpretation and expression, language does not simply consist of linguistic symbols cataloged in a dictionary and syntactic rules. The former are translatable into other languages, the latter are understandable through their correlation with the corresponding or deviating rules of the unproblematic native language. However, there are a number of other factors:
1. Around every word and every sentence, to use W. James’s term, there are “peripheries” that surround them with an aura of emotional values that themselves remain inexpressible. These “peripheries,” writes Schutz, are like poetry: “they can be set to music, but cannot be translated.”
2. In any language there are words with several meanings, which are also listed in the dictionary. However, in addition to these standardized connotations, each element of speech acquires a special secondary meaning, derived from the context or social environment in which it is used, and also, in addition, a special connotation associated with the specific circumstances of its use.
3. Every language has special terms, jargons and dialects, the use of which is limited to special social groups, and their meaning can also be learned by a stranger. Beyond this, however, each social group, no matter how small, has its own private code, intelligible only to those who have participated in the common past experiences in which it arose.
All of the above specific subtleties are available only to members of the group itself. And they all relate to their scheme of expression. They cannot be taught or learned in the same way as, for example, vocabulary. To freely use a language as a mode of expression, a person must write love letters in that language, must know how to pray in it. Of course, problems with language make it difficult for the “alien” to assimilate norms and cultural patterns.
Applying all this to the cultural pattern of group life as a whole, we can say that the group member grasps at a glance the normal social situations in which he finds himself and immediately catches a ready-made recipe suitable for solving the problem at hand. His actions in these situations show all the signs of familiarity, automaticity and semi-consciousness. This is made possible by the fact that the cultural pattern provides with its recipes typical solutions to typical problems available to typical actors.
However, for the outsider, the pattern of the group with which he becomes close does not guarantee an objective probability of success, but rather a purely subjective probability, which must be tested step by step. That is, he must make sure that the solutions proposed by the new scheme will also lead to the desired result in his position as an outsider or newcomer who has grown up outside the system of this cultural pattern. He must first determine the situation. Therefore, he cannot stop at a rough acquaintance with a new sample; he needs explicit knowledge about its elements, asking not only WHAT, but also WHY.
In other words, the cultural pattern of the group is for the outsider a problem field that needs to be explored. All these facts explain two features of the attitude of an outsider in relation to the group, to which almost all sociologists working on this topic paid attention: objectivity stranger and his dubious loyalty .
The main reason for the outsider's objectivity lies in his experience of the narrowness and limitations of "conventional thinking", which taught him that a person can lose his status, his life guidelines and even his history and that the normal way of life is always much less immutable than it seems. Therefore, the outsider notices the brewing of a crisis that can shake the very foundations of the “relatively natural worldview,” while all these symptoms remain unnoticed by the group members, who rely on the inviolability of their usual way of life.
Very often, accusations of questionable loyalty arise from the surprise of group members that an outsider does not accept the entire cultural pattern as a natural and correct way of life and as the best possible solution to any problem. The stranger is accused of ingratitude because he refuses to accept that the proposed cultural model gives him shelter and protection. However, these people do not understand that a stranger in a state of transition does not perceive this pattern at all as shelter, and even as providing protection: “for him it is a labyrinth in which he has lost all sense of orientation.”
It is important to note that Schutz refrained from studying the process of assimilation itself, focusing on the problem of rapprochement preceding assimilation. The adaptation of a stranger to a group that at first seems strange and unfamiliar to him is a continuous process of exploration of the cultural pattern of that group. If the research process is successful, this pattern and its elements will become self-evident for the beginner, turning into an unproblematic way of life for him. In this case, the stranger will cease to be a stranger.
Another aspect of the process of interaction of an individual with an environment alien to him is considered by A. Schutz in his work “Coming Home”. A “home returner” in this case is defined as a person returning to his home environment permanently after sojourning and interacting with another group.
The installation of a returnee is different from that of a stranger. The one returning home expects to return to an environment that he has always known and, as he thinks, still knows from the inside and which he must simply accept as a given in order to determine the line of his behavior in it. A home, according to Schutz, is a specific way of life, consisting of small and important elements that a person treats with love. Life at home follows a well-organized pattern; it has its own definite ends and well-established means for achieving them, consisting of many traditions, habits, institutions, routines of activity of all kinds, etc.
The person returning home believes that in order to finally restore contact with abandoned group he must only turn to the memories of the past. And since everything happens a little differently, he experiences something similar to shock.
For an individual who has returned to his former environment, life at home is no longer directly accessible. Schütz writes that, even when trying to go home, a person always feels the desire to introduce into the old model something from new goals, from new means of achieving them, from skills and experience acquired abroad. Such an individual, to one degree or another subject to changes in a foreign land or, at least, having acquired a certain amount of new information for him, considering it important and useful, tries, as he believes, to bring benefit in his native environment. But people from his previous environment, due again to the lack of such experience, perceive the information coming from him through the prism that is familiar to them, relating it to their everyday life. Explaining this, the author gives the example of a soldier returning from war. When he returns and talks about his experience as unique, he notices that listeners do not understand its uniqueness and try to find familiar features, bringing it to their pre-formed ideas about soldier's life at the front. There is a gap between the uniqueness and exceptional importance that the absent person attributes to his experiences, and their
pseudotyping by people at home; this is one of the biggest obstacles to the mutual restoration of interrupted “we-relationships”. Unfortunately, Schutz states, one can hardly hope that modes of behavior that have justified themselves in one social system will be just as successful in another.
In general, the concepts considered served as the theoretical and methodological basis for the research we undertook, devoted to the study of the assimilation and reproduction of the Western way of life, sociocultural and institutional norms and rules by Russian youth who studied abroad. In particular, the provisions of the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz, in that part where, within the framework of the general theory of interpretation, the “stranger” and the “returning home” are spoken of, could not be more applicable to the comprehension of our materials.
Culture shock- emotional or physical discomfort, disorientation of an individual caused by entering a different cultural environment, encountering another culture, an unfamiliar place.
The term “culture shock” was introduced into scientific circulation in 1960 by the American researcher Kalervo Oberg. Kalervo Oberg). In his opinion, culture shock is “a consequence of anxiety that appears as a result of the loss of all the usual signs and symbols of social interaction,” in addition, when entering a new culture, a person experiences very unpleasant sensations.
The essence of culture shock is the conflict between old and new cultural norms and orientations, old ones inherent in the individual as a representative of the society he left, and new ones, that is, representing the society he arrived in. Strictly speaking, culture shock is a conflict between two cultures at the level of individual consciousness.
Iceberg concept
Perhaps one of the most famous metaphors for describing “culture shock” is the concept of an iceberg. It implies that culture consists not only of what we see and hear (language, fine arts, literature, architecture, classical music, pop music, dance, cuisine, national costumes, etc.), but also of what lies beyond our initial perception (perception of beauty, ideals of raising children, attitude towards elders, the concept of sin, justice, approaches to solving problems and problems, group work, eye contact, body language, facial expressions, perception of oneself, attitude towards opposite sex, the relationship between the past and the future, time management, communication distance, voice intonation, speed of speech, etc.) The essence of the concept is that culture can be represented in the form of an iceberg, where only a small visible part of the culture is above the surface of the water, and below the edge water is a significant invisible part that does not appear in the field of view, however, has a great influence on our perception of culture as a whole. When encountering an unknown, underwater part of an iceberg (culture), culture shock most often occurs.
American researcher R. Weaver likens culture shock to the meeting of two icebergs: it is “underwater”, at the level of the “non-obvious”, that the main clash of values and mentalities occurs. He argues that when two cultural icebergs collide, that part of cultural perception that was previously unconscious reaches the conscious level, and a person begins to pay more attention to both his own and foreign cultures. An individual is surprised to realize the presence of this hidden system of behavior-controlling norms and values only when he finds himself in a situation of contact with another culture. The result of this is psychological and often physical discomfort - culture shock.
Possible reasons
There are many points of view regarding the causes of culture shock. Thus, researcher K. Furnham, based on the analysis literary sources, identifies eight approaches to the nature and characteristics of this phenomenon, commenting and showing in some cases even their inconsistency:
Basically, a person gets a culture shock when he finds himself in another country, different from the country where he lives, although he may encounter similar sensations in his own country if there is a sudden change in the social environment.
A person experiences a conflict between old and new cultural norms and orientations - the old ones to which he is accustomed and the new ones that characterize a society that is new to him. This is a conflict between two cultures at the level of one’s own consciousness. Culture shock occurs when the familiar psychological factors that helped a person adapt to society disappear, and instead, unknown and incomprehensible ones appear, coming from a different cultural environment.
This experience of a new culture is unpleasant. Within the framework of one’s own culture, a persistent illusion of one’s own vision of the world, way of life, mentality, etc. is created as the only possible and, most importantly, the only acceptable one. The overwhelming majority of people do not recognize themselves as a product of a separate culture, even in those rare cases when they understand that the behavior of representatives of other cultures is actually determined by their culture. Only by going beyond the boundaries of your culture, that is, by meeting with a different worldview, attitude, etc., can you understand the specifics of your public consciousness, see the difference between cultures.
People experience culture shock differently and perceive the severity of its impact differently. It depends on them individual characteristics, the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of cultures. This can be attributed to a number of factors, including climate, clothing, food, language, religion, level of education, material wealth, family structure, customs, etc.
Factors influencing the severity of culture shock
The strength of the manifestation of culture shock and the duration of intercultural adaptation depend on a number of factors that can be divided into two groups: internal (individual) and external (group).
According to researchers, a person's age is a basic and critical element of adaptation to another culture. With age, a person becomes more difficult to integrate into a new cultural system, experiences cultural shock more intensely and for a longer period of time, and is slower to perceive the values and behavior patterns of the new culture.
Also important in the adaptation process is the level of a person’s education: the higher it is, the more successful the adaptation is. This is due to the fact that education expands a person’s internal potential, complicates his perception of the environment, and therefore makes him more tolerant of changes and innovations.
We can talk about a universal list of desirable characteristics of a person who is preparing for life in another culture. Such characteristics include professional competence, high self-esteem, sociability, extroversion, openness to different opinions and points of view, interest in the environment and people, ability to cooperate, internal self-control, courage and perseverance.
The group of internal factors that determine the difficulty of adaptation and the duration of cultural shock includes, among other things, life experience a person, his motivation to move, his experience of being in another culture; having friends among local residents.
The group of external factors includes cultural distance, which refers to the degree of differences between “one’s own” and “foreign” cultures. It is necessary to understand that adaptation is influenced not by the cultural distance itself, but by a person’s idea of it, which depends on many factors: the presence or absence of wars, conflicts in the present and in the past, knowledge of a foreign language and culture, etc.
It is also worth noting a number of external factors that indirectly determine the adaptation process: the conditions of the host country, the friendliness of local residents towards visitors, the willingness to help them, the desire to communicate with them; economic and political stability in the host country; crime rate; the possibility and accessibility of communication with representatives of another culture.
Phases of culture shock
According to T.G. Stefanenko, there are the following stages of culture shock: “honeymoon”, “culture shock itself”, “reconciliation”, “adaptation”.
1. “Honeymoon.” This stage is characterized by enthusiasm, high spirits, and high hopes. During this period, a person perceives the differences between the “old” and “new” culture positively, with great interest.
2. Actually “culture shock”. At the second stage, unusual environment begins to have a negative impact. After some time, a person becomes aware of problems arising with communication (even if his knowledge of the language is good), at work, at school, in a store, at home. Suddenly all the differences become even more noticeable to him. The person realizes that he will have to live with these differences not for a few days, but for months or possibly years. The crisis stage of culture shock begins.
3. "Reconciliation." This stage is characterized by depression slowly giving way to optimism, a feeling of confidence and satisfaction. A person feels more adjusted and integrated into the life of society.
4. "Adaptation". At this stage, the person no longer reacts negatively or positively because he is adapting to the new culture. He's leading again daily life, as before in their homeland. A person begins to understand and appreciate local traditions and customs, even adopts some behavior patterns and feels more relaxed and free in the process of interacting with local residents.
Ways to overcome
According to the American anthropologist F. Bok, there are four ways to resolve the conflict that arises during culture shock.
The first method can be called ghettoization (from the word ghetto). It is carried out in situations when a person finds himself in another society, but tries or is forced (due to ignorance of the language, religion or for some other reasons) to avoid any contact with a foreign culture. In this case, he tries to create his own cultural environment - surrounded by compatriots, fencing off this environment from the influence of a foreign cultural environment.
The second way to resolve cultural conflict is assimilation. In the case of assimilation, the individual, on the contrary, completely abandons his own culture and strives to fully assimilate the cultural norms of another culture necessary for life. Of course, this is not always possible. The reason for failure may be either the individual’s insufficient ability to adapt to a new culture, or the resistance of the cultural environment of which he intends to become a member.
The third way to resolve cultural conflict is intermediate, consisting of cultural exchange and interaction. In order for the exchange to benefit and enrich both sides, openness is needed on both sides, which, unfortunately, is extremely rare in life, especially if the parties are initially unequal. In fact, the results of such interaction are not always obvious at the very beginning. They become visible and significant only after a significant period of time.
The fourth method is partial assimilation, when an individual sacrifices his culture in favor of a foreign cultural environment partially, that is, in one of the spheres of life: for example, at work he is guided by the norms and requirements of another culture, and in the family, in religious life- its norms traditional culture.
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_1.jpg" alt=">Model of culture "Iceberg"">!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_2.jpg" alt=">Superficial culture Above the “surface of the water” Emotional load: Relatively low Direct but near the surface."> Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Непосредственно возле поверхности. Негласные правила Основаны на поведенческих реакциях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая «Глубоко под водой» Неосознаваемые правила (бессознательные) Основаны на ценностях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Глубокая культура «Неглубоко» под водой!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_3.jpg" alt=">“Everyone does it DIFFERENTLY.” Superficial Culture Above “ surface of the water" Emotional load: Relatively low Food"> “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.” Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Еда * Одежда * Музыка * !} fine arts* Theater * Crafts * Dance * Literature * Language * Holiday Celebrations * Games Visual aspects of a culture that are easy to identify, imitate and understand.
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_4.jpg" alt=">Today is the third Thursday of November. (In America) What will you eat ?In the USA"> Сегодня третий четверг ноября. (В Америке) Что вы будете есть? В США в этот день празднуют день Благодарения. В этот день по традиции семьи могут приготовить индейку, ветчину, а могут и не готовить ничего особенного. Даже если вы не празднуете праздник, вы можете пожелать кому-нибудь“Happy Thanksgiving” («Счастливого Дня Благодарения») Культурологический пример Поверхностной культуры “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.”!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_5.jpg" alt=">Thai folk craft Thai dance Architecture of a Buddhist temple in Thailand Examples"> Thai folk craft Thai dance Architecture of a Buddhist temple in Thailand Examples of Surface culture
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_6.jpg" alt=">The concept of “politeness” * Speech models depending on the situation * Concept "time" * Personal"> Понятие «вежливости» * Речевые модели в зависимости от ситуации * Понятие «времени» * Личное пространство* Правила поведения * Мимика * Невербальная коммуникация * Язык тела, жестов * Прикосновения * Визуальный контакт * Способы контролирования эмоций “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?” Элементы культуры труднее заметить, они глубже интегрированы в жизнь и культуру общества. Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. «Неглубоко под водой» Непосредственно возле поверхности Негласные правила Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_7.jpg" alt=">Manifested in the behavioral reactions of culture bearers. In Switzerland: being late for a meeting"> Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. В Швейцарии: опоздать на встречу - это недопустимо. В России: опоздать на встречу - не очень хорошо, но мы так все же поступаем. В Италии: опоздать на пол часа - час - ничего страшного. В Аргентине: опоздать на три часа - это прийти КАК РАЗ вовремя. (Правила поведения) Культурологические примеры уровня «Неглубоко под водой» «Негласные правила» “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?”!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_8.jpg" alt=">"Deep Underwater" Emotional load: Intense Concepts of Modesty * Beauty s *"> «Глубоко под водой» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Понятия Скромности * Красоты * Ухаживания * Отношение к животным * Понятие лидерства * Темп работы * Понятие Еды (отношение к еде) * Отношение к воспитанию детей * Отношение к болезни * Степень социального взаимодействия * Понятие дружбы * Интонация речи * Отношение к взрослым * Понятие чистоты * Отношение к подросткам * Модели принятия групповых решений * Понятие «нормальности» * Предпочтение к Лидерству или Кооперации * Терпимость к физической боли * Понятие «я» * Отношение к прошлому и будущему * Понятие непристойности * Отношение к иждивенцам * Роль в разрешении проблем по вопросам возраста, секса, школы, семьи и т.д. Вещи, о которых мы не говорим и часто делаем неосознанно. Основаны на ценностях данной культуры. Глубокая культура Неосознаваемые правила “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!”!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_9.jpg" alt=">Manifestations of culture are based on its values “You just DON’T do THAT! ” Examples"> Проявления культуры основаны на ее ценностях “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!” Примеры Неосознаваемых правил В Китае: Нельзя дарить девушке цветы (это считается позором для нее, оскорблением ее чести). В России: Нельзя свистеть в доме. Мы сидим «на дорожку». В Финляндии: Нет бездомных собак на улице. Глубокая культура!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_10.jpg" alt=">Discussion Questions... How can we study aspects of another culture that are "deep underneath""> Вопросы для обсуждения… Как мы можем изучать аспекты другой культуры, которые находятся «глубоко под водой»? Как избежать стереотипов при определении поведенческих моделей и ценностей культуры? Будете ли Вы чувствовать себя комфортно, выступая в качестве представителя своей культуры? Кто должен присутствовать, если мы ведем межкультурный диалог? Можно ли по-настоящему понять другую культуру вне своей собственной? Почему (нет)? Приведите примеры каждого уровня «айсберга» из вашей культуры.!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_11.jpg" alt=">Thank you for your attention!">!}
