The Culture Shock phenomenon – Symptoms, ‘Cures’ and Implications

• Introduction
  
• Cultural shock in the global village
  
• Effects of culture shock
  
• Coping strategies
  
• Cultural learning
  
• Conclusion
  
• References
  

Introduction

Historical records tell us that interaction with other cultures is not a new phenomenon. Yet few would dispute the fact that this interaction has reached unprecedented heights in recent decades. Those of us in the education profession have witnessed an ever-increasing number of overseas students in our classes. Tourism operators would attest to the swelling numbers of overseas tourists. Government officials spend considerable time dealing with new residency issues. Multinational companies send employees around the globe in their never-ending quest for the ‘mighty dollar’. The list could go on. The world has definitely become ‘smaller’.

Cultural shock in the global village

Marshall McLuhan used the term global village to refer to the ability of the mass media to bring events from all corners of the globe to our own lounge rooms (cited in Lustig & Koester, 1993). This concept has been extended to one of globalisation – i.e. time-space compression means that intercultural contact is ever-present and immediate. Boundaries (especially of time and space) are shrinking. But what of cultural boundaries? Certainly, in terms of physical accessibility, cultural boundaries are shrinking. But whilst globalisation has removed some of the mystique, indeed shock, of other cultures, the process of adjusting to life in another culture can never be eliminated. Time and space are probably the only two constants across all cultures. All other aspects of life remain culturally unique. If culture is seen as ‘the way we do things around here’ (Thai student cited in O’Sullivan, 1994, p.2), then it is clear that whilst globalisation can remove the shock out of culture shock, it can never remove the culture.

Whilst the experiences associated with culture shock are not new, the term itself is less than half a century old. An anthropologist ,Oberg, has been credited with coining the term in 1960. He defined it thus:

Culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing all our

familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues include the thousand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations of daily life…All of us depend for our peace of mind and our efficacy on hundreds of these cues, most of which we are not consciously aware…

(cited in Furnham, 1993, p. 95)

As early as 1897 Durkheim referred to the concept of anomie to describe feelings of social uncertainty or dissatisfaction (cited in Brown, 1987). Clearly the feelings of disorientation associated with living in another culture have persisted over time.

In fact as the term culture shock itself suggests, most definitions are negatively oriented. According to Brown (1987), ‘…culture shock refers to phenomena ranging from mild irritability to deep psychological panic and crisis’ (p. 128). Ellis (1986) suggests that the second language learner suffering from culture shock experiences ‘…disorientation, stress, fear, etc. as a result of differences between his or her own culture and that of the target language community…’ (p. 252). At perhaps its most negative, culture shock has been likened to schizophrenia where ‘…social encounters become inherently threatening, and defence mechanisms are employed to reduce the trauma’ (Clarke, 1976 cited in Brown, 1987, p.130). Such perspectives, spawned from sociological and psychological bases and with their emphasis on emotional responses, undoubtedly raise fear in those about to undertake an overseas position. Clearly, intense emotional and mental energy is expended in intercultural interactions in order to prevent communication breakdown. Taken in isolation, these intercultural interactions might not seem so significant, but when so many demands are made over a short period of time, it eventually leads to overload (Brislin, Cushner, Cherrie & Yong, 1986). Yet, as with most things behavioural, attitude can be incredibly powerful in minimising adverse effects. I believe that by perceiving culture shock as an opportunity for personal growth, the negative connotations implied by most of the definitions, can be minimised. Similarly, what is largely perceived from an emotional perspective can be ‘turned around’ to be viewed from an intellectual perspective. It doesn’t take away the experience, it just changes it. In this vein, Adler (1975) prefers to view culture shock as ‘…a continuum of experience’, during which self-development and personal growth may occur (cited in Ballard, 1981, p.3).

Effects of culture shock

The increase in intercultural communication over recent decades has been matched by an increase in the research of such. Numerous studies attest to the existence and effects of culture shock, although the focus has varied from language to physical symptoms to emotional reactions to role ambiguity (Adler, 1975; Guthrie, 1975; Ball-Rokeach, 1973; Bock, 1970; Brynes 1966; & Smalley 1963 cited in Furnham, 1993). In Australia, Ballard (1981) has become especially well known for research pertaining to the difficulties facing overseas students. More recently, research has focussed upon training/skills programs that might help minimise the adverse effects of culture shock (O’Sullivan,1994; Furnham 1993; Bochner 1986; Brislin et al.,1986). The pattern of research then, validates the existence of culture shock and acknowledges its pivotal role in intercultural communication.

Culture shock is usually described as occurring in a number of stages. These stages are characterised by either a ‘U’ shape or ‘W’ shape, depending upon the number of stages included. Schnell (1996) describes four stages: the honeymoon, crisis, resolution and stabilisation. Brown (1987) prefers to describe this entire process as acculturation, with the second stage being classified as culture shock. Whatever the number of stages included or the shape assigned, a similar pattern emerges. This pattern moves from positive experiences to negative experiences, then back to positive. It must be pointed out, however, that while this is the ‘normal’ pattern, there is a danger in generalising. Some people, for example, may never progress past the first stage of negative experiences. The first stage is generally one of euphoria, where the new culture is seen as exciting and exotic. Sometimes this stage is referred to as the ‘honeymoon stage’. This is the top of the ‘U’ shape. Understandably, few people have difficulty with this stage.

The second stage is generally one of greatest difficulty. This is when the ‘honeymoon’ is over and the differences in culture start to bring frustrations, stress, anxiety and even regret. Feelings of disorientation, sadness and homelessness are often felt. People begin to struggle with their true identity which seems to have been obscured or lost in the immersion in this new culture. This is the bottom of the ‘U’ shape.

The third stage (sometimes broken into two distinct parts) is typified by mixed emotions. It is during this stage that crises (particularly in self-identity) characteristically occur. Such crises usually result in greater self-awareness. During this stage adjustments begin to occur. After some resolution to the crisis the new culture is no longer viewed as a threat. Greater cultural awareness and understanding begin to emerge. This stage reaches its peak at the top of the ‘U’ shape, where people begin to see themselves and others as cultural beings. This is basically the ‘uphill run’ stage.Some see the culture shock pattern as repeating itself and thus forming a ‘W’ shape rather than a ‘U’ shape. This occurs where people, upon re-entering their own culture, experience similar symptoms of disorientation and stress and finally re-adjust. My friend, recently returned from living overseas, described how it felt ‘comfortable and familiar’ , but somehow ‘not quite right’ living in his old surroundings.

Perhaps the single most important understanding to emerge from this discussion of culture shock is that we can’t ‘fast forward’ through the stages, that even to wish to do so is denying yourself an invaluable ‘growth’ experience. Understanding what is happening to us, why it is happening to us and trusting in the outcome must be an empowering experience. People need support and acknowledgment of their feelings, not judgment. ‘Failure’ to adjust to living in another culture is costly, certainly emotionally and physically for those involved. However, financial cost is increasingly becoming a concern, especially as more and more companies spend great amounts of money financing overseas assignments. It is this, perhaps more than anything else, that has prompted a recent focus on preventive measures.

Coping strategies

A number of strategies have been forwarded in an attempt to minimise the effects of culture shock. Such strategies include: information giving, cultural self-awareness, learning by doing (or experiential training), isomorphic attribution, and social skills training (Furnham, 1993; Brislin et al., 1986; Bochner, 1986).

Information giving is basically what the title implies – information (usually facts) about the new culture is transferred from one source to another. This might be in the form of a lecture, film etc. Whilst on the surface this might seem like an effective strategy (relatively cheap, efficient, consistent, up-to-date), anyone with any insight into the learning process knows that just because someone tells you something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you have learnt it. The implications involve not only theoretical understandings about the process of learning per se, but also preferred learning styles. Kinesthetic learners, for example, learn by doing. In particular, Furnham (1993) suggests that the information shared is often too general, tends to ‘emphasise the exotic’ and ‘ignore the mundane but more commonly occurring happenings, such as how to hail a taxi…’and gives the false impression that a culture can be learned in a few lessons (pp.97-98).

The technique of cultural self-awareness basically involves information giving as well as opportunities to compare and contrast different cultures. Discussion is a format often used during such training. The aim here is clearly to heighten people’s awareness of their own cultural values as well as others’. Brislin et al. (1986) see this as an opportunity to ‘stimulate an expansion of people’s thinking’ (p.22).

Learning by doing, or experiential training, could be seen as an extension of the first two techniques. It allows people to put into practice the information they have received during other sessions. This might involve real or simulated situations. Role playing is frequently employed. Furnham (1993) suggests that, whilst this technique has obvious advantages, few companies are willing to expend the ‘massive resources’ necessary for such a program (p.99).

Attribution training has its basis in the notion that ‘much misunderstanding stems from differing perceptions, or attributions, of the same event’ (Brislin et al. 1986, p.22). In attribution training people learn that by attempting to view a situation through the eyes of the host culture, less misunderstanding will occur. The aim is for isomporphic attributions to occur i.e. that both cultural participants will offer the same reason for another’s behaviour. This type of training often involves a cultural assimilator - a ‘manual’ of case studies where participants are asked to select from a range of attributions for each event (Furnham, 1993). Given that such case studies are not of the ‘exotic’ type, attribution training clearly has great merit in helping to reduce cultural misunderstandings.

Social skills training (SST) is purported to be the most effective strategy of all in helping to minimise the effects of culture shock (Furnham, 1993; Bochner, 1986). It is based on the assumption that people living in foreign cultures do not possess the necessary social skills for effective participation in that culture. SST then, sets out to identify which skills need honing, establish situations where such skills might be practiced and observed and then provide feedback. It might include role-play, role-modelling and videotaping. There are obvious advantages to such an approach: it is flexible and therefore able to meet individual needs; it focusses on everyday, practical problems; and its focus is on interpersonal skills, rather than some personal deficiency in a person’s character which other strategies often imply (Bochner, 1986). Having said this, there are also obvious disadvantages. As with experiential training, SST must involve massive resource use. It must be remembered that choice of training technique will not only be made according to acknowledged effectiveness. Other criteria, of a more expedient nature, are undoubtedly taken into consideration.

Just as there are a number of training strategies which might be employed to minimise the effects of culture shock, there are a number of personal coping strategies as well. Personal coping strategies fall basically into three categories. First, people might chose isolation or stay just within their own expatriate group and thus limit their contact with the new culture to the bare minimum. Second, people might ‘go native’. This essentially means that they completely submerge themselves in the new culture. In between these two extremes is the third coping strategy where people adapt and modify their behaviour (including cultural value judgments) for the duration of the intercultural experience (Ballard, 1981). Many variables will interact to determine which of these coping strategies each individual will choose, but clearly the third strategy will provide an opportunity for genuine cultural learning to take place, whilst minimising the possible effects of reverse culture shock.

Cultural learning

Indeed, cultural learning is a preferred term, according to Bochner (1986). This term implies that an intercultural experience is a learning process, in particular a social skills learning process, unlike cultural adjustment. The term adjustment, which emphasises ‘…intra-psychic determinants of behaviour stigmatises those experiencing difficulties “adjusting”(Bochner, 1986, p.347). Also, the term adjustment can be seen as ethnocentric as it implies cultural superiority. Often adjustment means a form of cultural erosion such as assimilation. Furthermore, decades of sociological and psychological research suggests that people, as social beings, prefer to be with like-minded others. An intercultural experience then, is about more than simply adjusting to something new, it is definitely about learning something new (Bochner, 1986).

With so much written about culture shock, why does it continue to be such an ever-pervading phenomenon? If we can read about it, understand it, even have suggestions about minimising its impact, why can’t we eradicate it? Why isn’t there a vaccination for it? Brown (1987) offers an effective answer: ‘…a person’s world view, self-identity, and systems of thinking, acting, feeling, and communicating can be disrupted by a change from one culture to another’ (p. 128). The experience of culture shock shakes one’s very foundations of being. All that we know and hold true is challenged. Values are challenged. This is especially true where the differences between cultures are particularly pronounced. These differences might include a wide range of things. For example, protocols for giving and receiving gifts, queuing and interacting with the opposite sex. It must be very disarming to discover that the skills that made you ‘successful’ in your own culture are actually the cause of your undoing in another.

Adjusting to or learning about a new culture essentially means developing a new set of cognitive constructs (Furnham, 1993). Developing a new set of cognitive constructs can be a very enlightening experience as people learn to see themselves as a cultural beings and in doing so become more observers than participants in their own culture as well as the new culture (Ballard, 1981). ‘Paradoxically, the more one is capable of experiencing new and different dimensions of human diversity, the more one learns of oneself’ (Adler, 1975 cited in Furnham, 1993, p.97). In fact, Ballard (1981) suggests that for long-term adjustment to take place there might need to be ‘an identity crisis’ (p.3). Often such identity crises come at unexpected times and appear to be relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. Yet, these are times when the deepest fibres of people’s cultural being are ‘violated without warning’ (Ballard, 1981, p.5). She relates a story of a Nigerian boy who underwent profound cultural changes. These changes included moving to live with a British family in England and holidaying with relatives in the U.S.A. It wasn’t until his younger sister was blowing out the candles on her birthday cake that a crisis point arose. He packed his bags and demanded to return to Nigeria. The reason was that he was no longer the centre of attention and this unexpectedly challenged his identity in terms of his culturally ingrained role of superiority (Ballard, 1981, pp.4-5).

Inability to use language can also challenge self-identity. Since reading for this paper I have become acutely aware of how much ‘who I am’ is inherently linked to what I say. My personal and professional relationships are profoundly built upon verbal language. I am beginning to understand how difficult it is going to be to forge new relationships in a society where I don’t speak the dominant language. The implications of this discussion for the ESL classroom are most apparent. At any given moment there are likely to be students who are undergoing profound emotional, intellectual and physical challenges in their attempt to adjust to the L2 culture. Second language learning is essentially second culture learning (Brown, 1987). Miller (1997) suggests that ‘our sense of identity hinges so firmly on our use of language, that the self seems obliterated when we are unable to voice it’ (p.2). I find this particularly interesting because one of my friends living and working overseas claims not to have felt any degree of culture shock whatsoever. I’m convinced that it is more to do with her fluency in the language. She doesn’t feel ‘cut off’. In all social encounters she feels comfortable and confident and thus this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle – this allows her insights into, and understandings of, the cultural norms not accessible to people without the language.

Conclusion

Culture shock is clearly a phenomenon that affects people in different ways and in varying degrees. If viewed as a growth process the negativity associated with culture shock can surely be minimised. Knowing something intellectually and knowing it emotionally are two very different things. Nonetheless, ‘the key to dealing successfully with culture shock rests with being able to recognise the stages of culture shock as they are being experienced. Once the shock in “culture shock” is understood, it can be changed from a frustrating experience to a learning experience’ (Schnell, 1996, p.1).

References

Ballard, B. (1981). Some considerations of culture shock as a crisis in personal Identity. Goulcae Journal of Education, 2 (1), 3-10.

Bochner, S. (1986). Coping with unfamiliar cultures: adjustment or culture learning? Australian Journal of Psychology, 38 (3), 347-358.

Brislin, R.W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C. & Yong, M. (1986). Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Furnham, A. (1993). Communicating in foreign lands: the cause, consequences, and cures of culture shock. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 6 (1), 91-109.

Lustig, M.W. & Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal Communication across cultures. New York: HarperCollins.

Miller, J. (1997). Language, membership and social identity. http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/97pap/MILLJ043.html

O’Sullivan, K. (1994). Understanding ways: Communicating between cultures. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.

Schnell, J. (1996). Understanding the shock in “culture shock”. Position paper. Source ED 398 616.