You are on page 1of 12

Discuss the idea of culture shock as it relates to the process of cross-cultural adaptation, and discuss the validity of the

concept in contemporary intercultural discourse. Introduction Culture refers to the beliefs, values and norms shared by people who identify themselves in some way as members of a definable group. It has been described by Hofstede (1984: 89) as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or society from those of another. When we move into culturally unfamiliar contexts it is common that we experience challenges to our cultural identity. Because our built-in software of the mind (Hofstede 1984) is not compatible with the new cultural environment, we might be faced with some level of anxiety and emotional disturbance; a phenomenon that is frequently referred to as culture shock in the intercultural discourse. While there is no clear definition of the concept in contemporary literature, it is generally agreed among researchers that culture shock is a disorientating experience of suddenly finding that our perspectives, behaviours and experience are not shared by others. This essay considers the concept of culture shock as it relates to the process of cross-cultural adaptation. In an attempt to provide a theoretical foundation for the discussion, it starts by briefly de-constructing and defining the concept of cross-cultural adaptation. It subsequently moves on to a detailed examination of the culture shock model as it relates to the adaptation process. This examination focuses on how scholars have attempted to define and operationalize the concept and, more specifically, how the culture shock model has evolved in the discourse since it was first introduced in the 1960. In a concluding discussion of culture shock within the context of intercultural studies, it attempts to evaluate the validity of the concept in contemporary discourse. It proposes that, although it has been intuitively appealing (Ward et al 2001:83) to many students of intercultural adaptation, the model has several shortcomings which explain its reduced validity as a theoretical and explanatory tool within contemporary intercultural discourse. It should be noted that culture shock has been studied in many different groups including tourists (Hottola 2004), professionals (Selmer 1999) and, perhaps most notably, international students (Gaw 2000, Xiaoqiong 2008, Zhou et al. 2008). It is, however, beyond the scope of this essay to consider the concept in relation to specific groups; hence, any attempt to undertake a comparative approach has been left out. In a

quest for convenience and consistency the term sojourner, which is frequently used in the literature (Furnham and Bochner 1986, Ward et al. 2001, Gudykunst 2005), is adopted in the discussion, to refer to an individual who travels to another culture to reside for a period of time, but do not intend to reside permanently in the host culture (Gudykunst 2005). The concept of cross-cultural adaptation Every individual who enters a new culture on a long or short term basis must respond to the challenges of finding ways to function in that environment. These challenges might include adjusting to an unfamiliar system of people, norms, conventions and values. The process that makes such functioning possible is often referred to in terms of crosscultural adaptation. The concept implies: /.../the dynamic process by which individuals, upon relocating to new, unfamiliar or changed cultural environments, establish (re-establish) and maintain relatively stable, reciprocal and functional relationships with those environments. (Kim 2001: 31) Studies of cross-cultural adaptation, then, typically engage in psychological and behavioural analysis of sojourners learning process in the new environment. Because encounters with unfamiliar cultural environments often present surprises and uncertainties, the idea that entering a new culture is potentially a confusing and disorientating experience has been at the core of many approaches to studying crosscultural adaptation. As we shall see, studies of culture shock have, at least traditionally, focused almost exclusively on the sojourners negative, psychological reactions to the new environment. Early models of culture shock The term culture shock was first coined and popularised by Kalervo Oberg (1954: 1) who described it as the anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. Oberg (1954) argued that peoples emotional reactions to cultural change respond to four different stages and incorporated a medical metaphor and terminology to describe these. He proposed that the first stage, the honeymoon, is an initial reaction of excitement, fascination and euphoria during which the sojourners

involvement with the host and local traditions is limited and superficial. During the second stage, the crises, the development of culture shock starts taking place as the sojourner gets more involved in the host culture and differences in language, values, concepts and familiar signs and symbols start to create feelings of frustration and anxiety. The third stage, the recovery, is marked by the sojourners gradual adjustment to the host culture; the crisis is slowly beginning to resolve due to deeper involvement in and increased understanding of the new culture. Finally, during the adjustment stage, the sojourner comes to personal understanding of the host culture and is able to cope with the stresses that the cultural differences bring; he/she begins to enjoy the host culture and derive pleasure from relationships with its members. Many researchers followed Obergs pioneering model of describing the phenomenon of culture shock; however, most of these accounts tended to overlap and merely alter already existing terminology. Smalleys model (1963 cited in Neuliep 2006: 386), for example, begins with the fascination stage, followed by hostility, then adjustment, and finally biculturalism, while Kealey (1978 cited in ibid) calls the four stages exploration, frustration, coping and adjustment. Adler (1975 cited in Furnham and Bochner 1986: 130-31) expanded on the concept, by proposing five stages in the development of culture shock. Firstly, there is the initial contact stage, characterized by excitement and euphoria during which the sojourner views the new environment ethnocentrically as he or she is insulated by own culture. This is followed by a stage of disintegration, as there is a growing awareness of differences, marked by a rejection of the new culture. During the next phase, reintegration starts taking place, as the sojourner becomes socially and linguistically capable of negotiating and, subsequently, a sense of autonomy develops, marked by increased sensitivity and understanding of the host culture. Finally, the individual reaches the independence stage, marked by a cherishing of cultural differences and relativism and, most importantly, increased self- and cultural awareness. Although Adlers model shows strong resemblances to earlier conceptualizations, it differs in the sense that the self-actualizing nature of the final transitional step implies that the individual who has reached the final stage should be better prepared future cross-cultural experience (Church 1982). The U-curve hypothesis

A feature that all of the above models of culture shock share, is the description of the process as a U-curve1 of adjustment, depicting the initial optimism in the host culture, the subsequent dip in the level of adjustment, followed by a gradual recovery and, finally, higher adjustment levels. An extension of this model has been provided by Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963 cited in Gaw 2000), who propose a W-curve model of culture shock, consisting of two U-curves, and thus theoretically accounting for the reverse culture shock. The phenomenon is similar in definition to culture shock, except the adjustment process focuses on the sojourners difficulties of re-adapting and readjusting to the home culture after he or she has returned. According to Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963 cited in ibid), the main difference between reverse culture shock and culture shock is the expectations of the sojourners, as it is common to expect to return to an unchanged home as an unchanged individual, which is rarely the case. It should be noted that recent, longitudinal research on sojourners cultural and social adjustment during cross cultural transition, has cast doubt on the utility of the U-curve hypothesis in the discourse. Church (1982; 542) examined a large number of studies on sojourner adjustment over time and found that the U-curve model occurred only in roughly half of these; thus he proposes that the U-curve hypothesis is weak, inconclusive and over-generalised. For example, a report (Ward et al. 1998) on a study of Japanese students in New Zealand displays the complete opposite pattern of adjustment as compared to the U-curve: the degree of depression experienced by students at the first and the twelfth month was significantly higher than at the sixth month. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that even among studies that have supported the U-curve, curves have been dramatically different shape - some are flat, others tall and all are fairly irregular (Furnham and Bochner 1986: 132). As such, it seems clear that the U-curve hypothesis is too vague to be of much use in predicting and understanding sojourner adjustment. While the U-curve indeed offers a convenient common sense heuristic for understanding cross-cultural adaptation (Ward et al. 1998: 83), it can not be considered a universally valid one. Ward et al. (2001) argue that the most significant reason why the U-curve, despite this, has continued to exert such strong influence on the field is the lack of a credible successor. Thus, the authors call for a new model to explain sojourners adjustment over time; however, the field has so
1

The initial idea of the U-curve hypothesis has been attributed to Lysgaard (1955 cited in Church 1982: 542) 4

far not produced a sufficient mass of creditable research findings that consistently support an alternative theory. Significantly more comprehensive and complex is Kims (2001, 2003, 2005) model of cross-cultural adaptation depicting the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic. Rather than a linear, stage model of adaptation (as provided by the U-curve hypothesis), Kims model posits a cyclic and continual draw-back-to-leap representation of adaptation through three stages of adjustment. According to the model, stress, adaptation, and growth are interrelated and never occur in isolation; each occurs because of the others: Strangers respond to each stressful experience by drawing back, which in turn activates adaptive energy to help them reorganize themselves and leap forward. (Kim 2001: 57) As such, the model proposes a spiralling process of various negative and positive emotions, eventually leading to growth and adaptation. Although, Kims model provide a richer and more comprehensive depiction of the processes involved in cross-cultural adaptation, it appears to be lacking the popular appeal of the culture shock model. Culture shock as transition, learning and growth As we have seen, culture shock has received considerable attention as a research topic since the concept was first described by Oberg in the 1960s. It seems, however, that over time most scholars have distanced themselves from the negative view point of culture shock that had previously prevailed. While Oberg described culture shock employing wording such as occupational decease (1954: 1) and, in giving a metaphorical account of the sojourners condition, referring to a fish out of water (ibid: 1), the point of focus has since turned in favour of a more positive stance. Culture chock as it relates to cross-cultural adaptation, it holds, should be considered a normal process of adjustment, through which the sojourner has the potential to gain increased levels of self-understanding and significant personal growth. In order to gain a sound understanding of this alternative approach it is useful to examine the broad theoretical framework that deals with the concept of culture learning. The main thesis of this approach holds that the problems encountered by

sojourners, ultimately leading to culture shock, can be attributed to the distortion or complete absence of environmental and social cues that are familiar to them. The key idea behind the culture learning model, then, is that the major task facing a sojourner is not to adjust to the new culture, but to learn its salient characteristics (Furnham and Bochner 1986: 235). As such, coping difficulties are attributed to a lack of appropriate skills rather than some deficiency in the character of the sojourner, eliminating completely the notion of adjustment with its ethnocentric overtones (ibid: 250). As pointed out by Zhou et al. (2008), the culture learning model leads to practical guidelines for intervention in preparation, orientation and, most notably, behavioural social skills training. Adler (1986) was one of the first researchers to place Obergs view of culture shock as a decease, in direct contrast to the view point of culture shock as cross-cultural learning experience leading to identity development and personal growth. To Adler, culture shock is not a decease for which adaptation is the cure, but is at the very core at the very heart of the cross-cultural learning experience, self-understanding and selfawareness (ibid: 29), and he defines these learning experiences as set of situations or circumstances involving intercultural communication in which the individual, /./, becomes aware of his own growth, learning and change (ibid: 30). More recently, Ward et al. (2001: 51) proposed a definition of culture learning as the process whereby sojourners acquire culturally relevant social knowledge and skills in order to survive and thrive in their new society. At the core of the culture learning approach to theorizing culture shock, is the argument that it is not the sojourners encounter with the foreign culture per se that leads to the greatest shock but rather the confrontation of ones own culture and the realisation of the ways in which the individual is culturebound. As such, culture shock might be more appropriately considered as an identity confusion which is primarily taking place in the Self, as the distress and anxiety is derived from the challenge to the sojourners own cultural frame of reference. Indeed, Zaharna (1989) argues that problems faced by the sojourner in the intercultural adaptation process originate in challenges to self-identities and identity-bound behaviours, internal to the individual, and, therefore, proposes a re-conceptualisation of culture shock as self-shock.

Another interesting viewpoint, which in some ways resembles to the culture learning approach, has been provided by Bennett, J. (1998), who likes to consider culture shock as a subcategory of other transition experiences involving loss and/or change. Any kind of significant changes in our lives, whether involving cultural change or not, can be stressful and disorientating experiences. Thus the author proposes that the transition shock that follows for example divorce, death or any lifestyle related change, is a state of loss and disorientation precipitated by a change in ones familiar environment that requires adjustment; just the same way culture shock may be characterized as transition shock in the context of an unfamiliar cultural frame of reference. Viewed in this light, coping with cross-cultural transition is just one example of readjusting to significant life changes. This viewpoint resembles the culture learning approach, in the sense that it stresses the potential learning experience that is involved in the process of crosscultural adaption. Accordingly, Bennett, J. (1998: 222) holds that it is possible to learn to cope with the symptoms and develop strategies for channelling culture shock into personal growth if we recognize it as a defensive response to the dissonance we feel when our worldview is assaulted. As such, culture shock may be viewed as a defence mechanism in reaction to change, resulting in symptoms of stress and disorientation. Indeed, Berry (2006: 43) proposes that acculturative stress is a term which more accurately describes the experience of culture shock, as all of the symptoms stem from the stress that individuals experience during the acculturation process as arising from difficulties with cultural change. One of the most comprehensive conceptualisations of culture shock to date is the ABC-model (Ward et al. 2001), which addresses three aspects of adaptation: the affective, the behavioural and the cognitive, incorporating how people feel, behave, think and perceive when exposed to second culture influences (ibid: 270). The authors link each of these elements to existing theoretical frameworks within the discourse. The affective component of culture contact closely resembles Obergs initial representation of culture shock. It comprises of stress and coping theories which emphasise the affective and emotional impact that cross cultural contact has on the sojourners psychological well-being. The behaviour component comprises of culture learning theories. As previously discussed, these focus on certain behavioural changes, such as learning a new set of social skills that are necessary for successful adaptation. The cognitive component comprises of a broad range of theoretical frameworks, focusing 7

mainly on social identification (Tajfel 1978) and acculturation attitudes (Berry 1997). Although the ABC model allows for a certain degree of incorporation of the early conceptualizations of culture shock, it is clear that it goes well beyond them in terms of scope and complexity. The three ABC-components together offer a comprehensive model of cultural adaptation, providing a conceptual framework of intercultural contact which treats peoples responses to unfamiliar cultural environments as an active process of dealing with change, as opposed to a negative, passive reaction to a set of noxious circumstances (Ward et al. 2001). Managing culture shock proposed coping strategies When it comes to strategies to better cope with culture shock and manage stress to make for more effective adaptation process, there is a wealth of propositions in the literature. For Bennett, M. (1998) the most important strategy is the increasing of individuals intercultural communication competence, expressed in their recognition of difference and in their choice of communication strategy. In response to the Golden Rule2, Bennett has developed what he calls the Platinum Rule, meaning do unto others as they themselves would have done unto them. This new rule is based on the assumption of differences and is fundamentally suitable for intercultural communication as it assumes the existence of multiple realities, and thus avoids ethnocentrism. The communication strategy for the Platinum Rule is empathy, which is the imaginative intellectual and emotional participation in another persons experience (Bennett, M. 1998: 207); in other words, the ability to see the world through the eyes of others and thus to better understand their thoughts and feelings. One of the most comprehensive models dealing with stress management and coping strategies is the Anxiety and Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory (Gudykunst and Hammer 1988, Gudykunst 2005), which holds that intercultural adaptation fundamentally is a function of uncertainty reduction and reducing/controlling anxiety (Gudykunst and Hammer 1988: 132). The AUM theory states that when we interact with strangers, there will always be a sense of uncertainty and anxiety. More specifically, in a cross-cultural situation, uncertainty and anxiety arise because of cultural differences and a lack of understanding of cultural rules. According to this
2

The Golden Rule has its origin in the Bible and states that one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

theory, the main source of communication breakdowns between people in intercultural encounters is the confusion and anxiety that people experience when they find that the rules that have served to guide their expectations no longer hold. The theory stresses that while a limited amount of anxiety actually is necessary as it produces a motivation to progress in the intercultural interaction, too much can disrupt the communication and produce dysfunctional responses such as culture shock.3 Managing uncertainty and anxiety is, therefore, central to processes affecting strangers adjustment to new cultures (Gudykunst 2005: 420); thus, the theory proposes 47 axioms related to various processes in the stranger-host interaction. Although the AUM theory is popular and frequently cited within the discourse, it has also been criticised for being overly complex as well as espousing a particular Western cultural bias (Sobre-Denton and Hart 2008). Culture shock in contemporary intercultural discourse; some concluding remarks This essay has examined the concept of culture shock as it relates to cross-cultural adaptation with the objective of evaluating its validity within contemporary discourse. Five decades have passed since Oberg presented his hypothesis as an explanation of human cross-cultural adaptation. As we have seen, the framework underlines the emotional U-curve through the stages of euphoria, crises, recovery, and adjustment, with a range of terminological variations to each phase as proposed by various scholars. As shown by our examination of early models of culture shock in comparison with more recent approaches to describing the concept, there has been a shift in how culture shock is conceptualized in the discourse. In contrast with Obergs clinical view of culture shock as a mental and emotional nuisance, the notion of culture shock has been transformed into a dynamic learning experience, during which the sojourner has the potential to achieve significant personal learning and growth. As discussed, the culture learning model is at the forefront of this approach to conceptualising culture shock in contemporary discourse. At the core of this model is the idea that sojourners are proactively responding to and resolving problems stemming from change, rather than being passive victims of trauma. Viewed in this light, culture shock as it relates to cross-cultural adaptation can be an enriching and satisfying experience. In accordance with this increased focus on the broader transition process, stressing the potential for
3

Gudykunst (2005: 422) proposes a minimum and a maximum threshold for uncertainty that are different across cultures and individuals. If our uncertainty is above our maximum thresholds or below our minimum thresholds we can not interact effectively with host nationals or adjust to host cultures.

identity development and personal growth, it seems the culture shock model - which rather emphasises the frustrating or negative aspect of cross-cultural adaptation - has somewhat reduced in value. However, the main reason why the validity of the culture shock model as a theoretical and explanatory tool has been reduced is, as discussed, its significant shortcomings. As we have seen, its simplistic approach to theorising the complex process of cross-cultural adaptation has been appropriately challenged by contemporary theorists, resulting inevitably in a reduction of its status within the discourse. The most criticised aspect of the culture shock model is its proposed connection to the U-curve adjustment hypothesis. While the U-curve historically enjoyed a central position in theory and research on transition and adjustment, it is nowadays generally agreed among theorists that the hypothesis is too inconclusive and over-generalised to be used at all. Not only does the U-curve hypothesis flaw in credibility due to the lack of conclusive support from empirical research, but also due to its failure to offer clarity with regards to timeframes and motives for sojourn; factors that arguably are of crucial significance for appreciating the nature of any adaptation process.

References Adler, P. 1986. Culture shock and the cross-cultural learning experience. IN: Luce, L.F. and Smith, E.C. (eds.) Toward internationalism: readings in cross-cultural communication. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 24-35. Bennett, J.M. 1998. Transition chock: putting culture shock into perspective. IN: Bennett, M.J. (ed.) Basic concepts of intercultural communication: selected readings. Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Press, pp. 215-223.

10

Bennett, M.J. 1998. Overcoming the Golden Rule: sympathy and empathy. IN: Bennett, M.J. (ed.) Basic concepts of intercultural communication: selected readings. Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Press, pp. 191-223. Berry, J.W. 2006. Stress perspectives on acculturation. IN: Sam, D. L. and Berry, J. W. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4357. Berry, J.W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), pp. 5-34. Church, A. T. 1982. Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), pp. 540-572. Furnham, A. and Bochner, S. 1986. Culture Shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London; New York: Routledge. Gaw, K. F. 2000. Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), pp. 83104. Gudykunst, W. B. 2005. An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of strangers intercultural adjustment. IN: Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.) Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 419-457. Gudykunst, W.B. and Hammer, M.R. 1988. Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation. IN: Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds.) Cross-cultural adaptation. Current approaches. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications, pp. 140-149. Hofstede, G. 1994. Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Software of the mind. London: HarperCollinsBusiness. Hottola, P. 2004. Culture confusion. Intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), pp. 447466. Kim, Y. Y. 2005. Adapting to a new culture. An integrative communication theory. IN: Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.) Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 375-400. Kim, Y. Y. 2003. Adapting to an unfamiliar culture. An interdisciplinary overview. IN: Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.) Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 243-257. Kim, Y.Y. 2001. Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications Neuliep, J.M. 2006. Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Oberg, K. 1954. Culture shock. Presentation to the Womens Club of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 3, pp. 1-9.

11

Selmer, J. 1999. Culture shock in China. Adjustment pattern of western expatriate business managers. International Business Review, 8(5-6), pp. 515-534. Sobre-Denton, M D. and Hart, D. 2008. Mind the gap: Application-based analysis of cultural adjustment models. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), pp. 538552. Tajfel, H. 1978. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. IN: Tajfel, H. (ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press, pp. 61-76. Ward, C., Bochner, S. and Furnham, A. 2001. The Psychology of Culture Shock, 2nd ed. Hove: Routledge. Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A. and Kojima, T. 1998. The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relation, 22(3), pp. 277-291. Xiaoqiong, H. 2008. The culture shock that Asian students experience in immersion education. Changing English, 15(1), pp. 101105. Zaharna, R. S. 1989. Self-shock: The double-binding challenge of identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, pp. 501-526. [Online]. Available from: http://www.american.edu/soc/faculty/upload/Self-Shock-The-double-bindingchallenge.pdf [Accessed 30 December 2011]. Zhou, Z., Jundal-Shape, D., Topping, K. and Todman, J. 2008. Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), pp. 6375.

12

You might also like