THE
CONCEPT OF CROSS-CULTURAL EDUCATION IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SYSTEMS
YUZHANIN
Maxim Aleksandrovich - the candidate of sociological
sciences(Ph.D.), the senior lecturer of chair of sociology, psychology and
social management of the Moscow aviation institute (National research
university). e-mail: udod2002@yandex.ru
YUZHANINA
Natalia Sergeevna - the candidate of philosophical
sciences(Ph.D.), the senior lecturer of chair «Psychology, sociology, the state
and municipal management» the Moscow state university of railway communication, e-mail: poslitva@yandex.ru.
Having
entered the XXI-st century, Russia as well as all world society, continues to
face set of the most serious social calls, problems and contradictions. The
special place among them firmly is
occupied with ethnic problems. It is already obvious that ambitious
ideological projects of adepts of Marxism and transnationalism to the full will
not be performed in the present, in the
foreseeable future. Instead of
the prompt construction uniform world communistic (world civil) a society
deprived of any national-state or ethnic borders, free from any interethnic
(intercultural) estrangement, obvious or latent oppositions and conflicts, from
ethnicity as that, we observe absolutely other tendencies. For last decades on
a global scale, at many millions people new splash in ethnic identity was
showed, aspirations of the various people to keep the originality were
designated, to underline own ethnocultural uniqueness. It is considered that
the given phenomenon has mentioned the population of set of the countries on
all continents, societies of various type and a level of development - from
traditional to postindustrial. Initially it even has received the name of
"ethnic paradox» present as showed a practical combination, apparently,
incompatible tendencies:
1.
globalization, progressing unification of material and spiritual culture,
development of personal individualism.
2.
ethnocultural fragmentarization, localization and growth of ethnic
consciousness of people.
Today's
social scientists are already inclined to operate with the term «the ethnic
Renaissance», mainly considering this phenomenon as one of the main trends of
the present stage of development of mankind. Its other distinctive feature
becomes (generated by globalization) it is permanent increasing migratory
activity of representatives of various cultures and the people, naturally
leading to mass increase of interethnic (intercultural) contacts. According to
the United Nations data, in the beginning of the XXI-st century more than 200
million various categories of migrants - immigrants, refugees, lived foreign
workers, businessmen, students and many other groups out of limits of the
country of the origin, continuously contacted to representatives of other
ethnic cultures. Thus it is expected that in future the given indicator only
will increase.
It is easy
to understand that as inevitable result of display of the above-named social
phenomena prompt actualization of a problematics of interethnic dialogue and
interaction, coexistence in one is social-territorial space various ethnic
groups - objectively distinguishable among themselves, specific
cultural-communicative and is social-psychological communities . Considering
polyethnic character of all present states ( nations), in our opinion, it would
be quite logical to recognise universal necessity compromise mutual relations
of various ethnogroups within the limits of the uniform society, equal respect
and accepting of their cultural originality, parity realization of the rights
and legal interests. At the same time, real experience of interethnic
interactions in the modern world mainly does not give grounds for optimism.
Displays of ethnocentrism and xenophobia,
discrimination on an ethnic sign, interethnic intensity and open
conflicts, unfortunately, remain significant attribute of the today's reality.
Only throughout last decades of two third from social-group conflicts occurring
in the world, according to the Stockholm international institute of studying of
problems of the world, had interethnic character. The set of ethnosocial
contradictions became more active now and on the post-Soviet territory enduring
the period of painful economic, political and ideological transformations.
Quite
naturally there is a question: what it is necessary to do? From scientific
community the valuable aid can be given through social-humanitarian exploration allowing not only to discover essential trends and
features of interethnic communications,
but also to offer optimum methods of the organisation of constructive dialogue
of representatives of various cultures and people of the Earth. Professional
cooperation of sociologists, psychologists, social anthropologists, culturologists, lawyers, etc. in this case
is capable to provide creative application of theoretical knowledge to real
practice of the organisation of interethnic (intercultural) interactions. In particular, we concentrate on the development and practical using of
applied concepts and methods of preparation of individuals and groups to
long-term contacts between representatives of different ethnoses and cultures. Certainly, first of all similar
concepts are intended for various categories of the migrants enduring complex
process sociocultural adaptation in
other-ethnic environment. They tend to
facilitate the process of inculturation of migrants in
another sociocultural area and to
stimulate the choice of constructive behavioural
strategy of adaptation as them, optimum
both for migrants, and for the accepting ethnosocial majority. At the same time
quite effective can be macrosocial
application of the named concepts and methods within the limits of a concrete
polyethnic society and states.
Becoming elements of ideology,
promoting comprehension by people of cultural complexity of their own nation,
such conceptual paradigms are capable to designate ways to achieve the mutual –
enriching dialogue between various
ethnic groups and their consolidation in united society. Certainly, for
achievement of the similar purposes not
only efforts of scientific community are necessary, but also active
participation of the basic social institutes, which have required
material and organizational resources and are capable to implement
considered concepts and methods in existing political practice .
Speaking
about methodological bases of development and realization of modern conceptual
models of optimization of interethnic dialogue, it is necessary to allocate at
least two fundamental principles. The first of them consists in acknowledgement
of an equivalence and the equal importance of all ethnic cultures existing in
the world. Each of them differs in
unique originality, reflecting specific existence conditions of corresponding ethnos
(ethnocultural community). Such approach, however, should not deny availability
in a polyethnic state of basic
(dominating) culture as rod element of system integration and socio-historical
development of the nation.
Another
methodological thesis presumes that all
the difficulties and problems occurring
with people facing other ethnicultures
should be regarded not as pathological symptoms, but as a consequence of lack of certain knowledge
and behavioural skills. Thereby, it is necessary to organize the
so-called cross-cultural education of individuals and groups,
which focuses on gaining by students
knowledge and skills . referring
to other cultures customs, values, communications methods, rules and stereotypes
of behaviour without rupture
with native culture .
There is a
well- known hypothesis that people who
have mastered attributes more than one culture, posses the expanded psychoemotional comfort and
active intellectual development in comparison with monocultural individuals.
Besides it, during series of experiments it is proved that children placed in
sated, difficult and changeable social environment much better cope with many intellectual and cognitive tasks, than
their contemporaries who have grown in monotonous and sensorically
limited environment . Researching of bilingual children has revealed
considerably bigger cognitive activity in comparison with monolingual
children. At last, there is an assumption of communication between
ethnocentrism and monolinguality. In that case effective cross-country-cultural
education is capable to bring the considerable contribution to overcoming of
ethnic prejudices, intolerance and xenophobia.
As a whole,
the majority of modern researchers are inclined to consider that possessing
necessary knowledge, skills and experience of participation in intercultural
contacts of the person and group of people acquire much bigger capabilities and
possibilities of overcoming of vital problems. Speech thus goes about essential
increase of adaptive potential of similar social subjects. English social
psychologist S.Bochner in general considered
individuals who had mastered attributes of many cultures, to be the
future prototype of all mankind as in connection with increase of intensity
cross-country-cultural of contacts our world is continuously "compressing".
Strategically
significant purpose of cross-cultural education of migrants becomes their internalization of so-called «communicative
competence» in other-ethnic
environment. It means the development by adaptans a new cultural code, the access to the saved up fund
of cultural-historical experience of other-ethnic communities. It allows
migrants to be guided freely in the new environment, successfully to co-operate
with representatives of the ethnocultural majority and to select optimum and
acceptable (for themselves and others) models of social activity. For the achievement of named purpose is rather difficult and
multidimensional process, within the limits of the general concept of cross-cultural
education more concrete educational
models, curriculum and methods are developed to allow the
constructive interethnic dialogue.
Differentiation of the named models can
be made by following indicators:
• by a training method - didactic or empirical;
• by the content of education -
common cultural or cultural-specific;
• according
to the sphere in which it is expected to reach the basic results, - cognitive,
emotional or practically behavioural.
According to the named criteria, the range of the basic
educational programs (and
corresponding methods of training) of preparation of subjects for intercultural
(interethnic) interaction includes education, orientation, instructing and
trainings, techniques of increasing intercultural sensibility. In the given
context it is also necessary not to
forget about the academic
courses (including ethnosociology, ethnopsychology, sociology of culture,
intercultural communications, etc.) Scientific and publicity works, lectures
and presentations on a problem of ethnicity
etc. As a whole, the cumulative social-humanitarian contribution of the
concept of cross-cultural education in
optimization of interactions between representatives of various cultures and
ethnosis can appear rather essential on
interpersonal , intergroup and on macrosocial levels. But in no event valuable
conceptual projects and works should not remain the "internal"
property of only one scientific community. Only their practical realization is
capable to give to interethnic communication of the XXI-st century
the constructive characteristics so necessary both in polyethnic Russia, and beyond its limits.
Bibliography
2. Бек У.
Что такое
глобализация?: Пер. с нем. - М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2001.
3. Глобализация: Многостороннее измерение. / Под ред. В.А.
Михайлова. – М., 2004.
4. Дилеммы
глобализации: социумы и цивилизации, иллюзии и риски. /Под. ред. Т.Т. Тимофеева.
– М., 2002.
5. Ерасов Б.С. О статусе культурно-цивилизационных
исследований. Россия — Запад — Восток. // Цивилизации и культуры. - М., 1994.
6. Многоликая глобализация и культурное разнообразие
в современном мире. /Под ред. П. Бергера, С. Хантингтона. – М., 2004.
7. Россия (СССР) в локальных войнах
и военных конфликтах второй половины 20 в. - М., 2000.
8. Феномен глобализации в контексте
диалога культур. / Под. ред. И. Лисеева, Р. Сейфуллаева,
А. Гезалова. – М.: Канон+РООИ "Реабилитация", 2010.
9.
Hangtinton S. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. -
N.Y., 1996.
10. Touraine Alain: La fin des
sociétés, Paris, 2013.
11. Albert
R.D. The intercultural sensitizer or culture assimilator: A cognitive approach.
//Handbook of intercultural training. – Vol. 2. – N.Y., 2003.
12.
Amin S. Economic Globalism and
Political Universalism:
Conflicting Issues // Journal of World-Systems Research, VI, 3, N. Y.
Fall/Winter 2000.
13.
Berry J.W., Sam D.L. Acculturation and adaptation. //Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology. – Vol. 3: Social behavior
and applications. – Boston, 1997.
14.
Bhawuk D.P.S., Brislin R.W. Cross-cultural training: A review.
//Applied psychology: An international review. –
2000. – Vol. 49.
Bochner
S. The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. //Cultures
in contact. –
Oxford, 2002.
15. Bock Ph.
K. Rethinking psychological anthropology. Continuity and change in the study of
human action. – N.Y., 1988.
16.
Cushner K. Assessing the impact of a culture-general assimilator.
//International journal of intercultural relations. –
1989. – Vol. 49.
17. Demystifying multiculturalism. Cover
Story. Chavez L.,
Brimelow P., etc. //www.
findarticles. com
18.
Dodd C. The dynamics of intercultural communication. – N.Y., 2001.
19.
Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. White Paper
on International Development. London, 2001.
20. Hangtinton S. The Clash of Civilization and the
Remaking of World Order. - N.Y., 2004.