Is Intercultural Sensitivity the End Goal?

He finishes his process with the idea of “commitment in relativism”, which refers to people choosing the framework in which they will function, even though other frameworks are perfectly viable in other situations for other people. Critics of multiculturalism, according to Bennett, are at Perry’s stage of “dualism.” They consider ethics and morality to be absolute and universal⁴. In dualism, people choose either the worldview espousing the concept of absolute ethics or they accept the relative moral values of different cultures and hence ethical chaos becomes the worldview. In Bennett’s words, “…either you choose the absolutist ethical path that rejects cultural relativism, or you accept cultural relativism and the only alternative it offers to absolutism, moral relativity and situational ethics⁵.”

According to Bennett, interculturalists adopt neither of these worldviews. Rather they adopt the Weltanschauung that cultural relativity can co-exist with strong ethical values. He says that culture and ethics are reconciled by putting them in Perry’s “contextual relativism” and “commitment to relativism,” both of which coincide in view with Parillo’s Dillingham Flaw, which means to come to conclusions regarding a social situation without taking into account the time period, location, and particular persons involved in that situation. Bennett states that ethics and moral conduct must be viewed within these parameters, and that there is no universal morality. There are no universal values. In Perry’s “commitment to relativism,” he wants people to work towards the kind of reality they want in the world, not to accept an extant worldview as permanent.

Bennett has created a chart that he calls Development of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). On this chart, he categorizes the various ethnocentric stages of development as moving initially from Denial towards Defense, followed by Minimization, Acceptance, Adaptation and concluding with Integration.

In response to Bennett’s stages, and in particular his final stage called Integration, with what are people integrating? Suppose through education and consciousness-raising every human being reaches the stage of Integration on Bennett’s intercultural sensitivity chart. But the question again begs to be asked, with what are people integrating? According to Bennett, integration means that each person gains understanding of multiple worldviews while simultaneously forming their own worldview, which becomes an unending process of life.

In one sense, it is necessary to articulate some scale or measuring stick whereby social scientists can determine extents of intercultural sensitivity. This can help in planning programs to elevate people’s sensitivity. It can also help greatly to avoid demonization of any individual or group. For example, we could state that the people of Corbin, Kentucky are all racists. However, by the DMIS and also using Parrillo’s Dillingham Flaw concept, we can say that they are in denial due to their location and the time period. Through education and consciousness-raising, these people can certainly move from the stage of Denial to the stage of Integration. In this sense, the DMIS chart is highly useful. Furthermore, teaching people how to move towards new worldviews is also a useful skill.

Bennett says that his model is based on “cognitive psychology” and “radical constructivism.” These worldviews are typically characteristic of present-day western thought. Hence Bennett’s entire model is a western construct. Radical constructivism refers to a movement in sociology based on the work of the educational scientist Jean Piaget. Its two claims are that (1) “knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject,” and (2) “the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality.⁶” This outlook is a typically western outlook, in that it assumes that there is no underlying reality to be discovered or experienced. From an East Indian viewpoint, however, experience is the process of deepening one’s realization of unified consciousness, in which the knower, the known and knowledge are merged into one. This Eastern worldview would define “Integration” as the assimilation and merging of disparate realities into one pure cosmic consciousness.

Also, Bennett presents a typically western linear view of progress. However, In African cultures, for example, the flow or pathway towards progress or enlightenment is often circular or spiral in nature. This means that after the process of learning, one is back at the beginning but with a new and elevated understanding. This non-Western type of learning cannot be accounted for in Bennett’s DMIS model. Hence its applicability is limited to Western cultures. Even within Western cultures, there are many immigrants who have a psychology that is non-Western and non-linear. In the recently published novel ‘The Inheritance of Loss’ by Kiran Desai, it is argued:

“…multiculturalism, confined to the Western metropolis and academe, doesn’t begin to address the causes of extremism and violence in the modern world. Nor … can economic globalization become a route to prosperity for the downtrodden… Profit could only be harvested in the gap between nations, working one against the other.⁷”

Once again, the DMIS model seems unable to delve into the cycle of humiliation, resentment and rage that afflict people around the world, including immigrants in America. In a New York Times review of Desai’s novel, Orhan Pamuk is mentioned as saying after 9/11 that Western people are “scarcely aware of this overwhelming feeling of humiliation that is experienced by most of the world’s population,” which “neither magical realistic novels that endow poverty and foolishness with charm nor the exoticism of popular travel literature manages to fathom.⁸” Yet, this humiliation and disempowerment is what must be the priority when engaging in any process of intercultural sensitivity and integration.

Other issues can be raised about Bennett’s DMIS, such as the lack of universal ethical values. This ethical relativism or individualism is once again characteristic of Western culture. To say that non-Westerners should simply accept these concepts as part of becoming integrated or interculturally sensitive is a form of mental and cultural colonialism. The primary issue seems to be what we have discussed so far; that is, we need to find ways or construct a model that addresses the lives of people who experience modern life as nothing but a series of humiliations and as nothing but a “continuous affront to their notions of order, dignity and justice.⁹” Any model of intercultural sensitivity should be grounded in the reality of the most neglected and downtrodden people in the world, and not in the reality of upper-middle class Western culture. In the words of Sarkar:

“The evolutionary forces have not stopped. The theatre of action has shifted to the psychic level. Evolution is now expressing its power in the daily struggle of men and women everywhere to attain dignity.”

It is from the womb of this struggle that a real model for intercultural sensitivity can take birth.

Notes:
• ¹Milton J. Bennett, “Intercultural Communication: A Current Perspective,” in Milton Bennett (Ed.) Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings, New York: Intercultural Press, 1998.


• ²Ibid, p. 30.


• ³This would correlate with Parillo’s Dillingham Flaw concept.


• ⁴Milton J. Bennett, “Intercultural Communication.”


• ⁵Ibid.


• ⁶“Radical Constructivism: Knowing Beyond Epistemology,” http://tspace.lilbrary.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/3.8.html.


• ⁷Pankaj Mishra, “Wounded by the West,” New York Times Book Review of The Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai. February 12, 2006.


• ⁸Ibid.


• ⁹Ibid.