Corso di Pedagogia

Corso di Pedagogia interculturale

interculturale
Prof.ssa Anna Granata

Prof.ssa Annaranata

Infanzie, culture, contesti

Cari studenti e studentesse,

in questa dispensa trovate due documenti di

approfondimento sul tema della diversità culturale e
della partecipazione attiva al contesto culturale da parte
del bambino.

In particolare i seguenti testi:

- Ogay T., Edelmann O. “Taking culture seriously:
implications for intercultural education and
training”, in European Journal of teacher
education, 2016, pp. 1-13
- Rogoff B., “Lo sviluppo come partecipazione
dinamica ad attività culturali” in Rogoff B. (2004),
La natura culturale dello sviluppo, Cortina, Milano
pp. 35-50

Buona lettura e buono studio!

Milano, 29 febbraio 2024

 European Journal of Teacher Education

ISSN: 0261-9768 (Print) 1469-5928 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

‘Taking culture seriously’: implications for

intercultural education and training

Tania Ogay & Doris Edelmann

To cite this article: Tania Ogay & Doris Edelmann (2016): ‘Taking culture seriously’: implications
for intercultural education and training, European Journal of Teacher Education, DOI:
10.1080/02619768.2016.1157160

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1157160

Published online: 10 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cete20

Download by: [88.149.235.16] Date: 31 March 2016, At: 08:09

 European Journal of Teacher Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1157160

‘Taking culture seriously’: implications for intercultural

education and training
Tania Ogaya and Doris Edelmannb
a
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; bInstitute of Education
and Society, University of Teacher Education, St.-Gallen, Switzerland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Albeit indispensable to understanding human action, the concept Received 22 January 2016
of culture has suffered from excessive enthusiasm in the fields of Accepted 18 February 2016
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

intercultural education as well as in intercultural teacher training, KEYWORDS

leading too often to culturalist stances. These excesses of intercultural Intercultural education;
education and training as well as their contradictory message teacher education; culture;
(between praising and minimising – even ignoring – culture and cultural differences
cultural differences) have led some scholars to advocate for the
abandonment of the concept of culture altogether. Rather than this
radical and counterproductive approach, we propose a heuristic tool:
the dialectical square of cultural difference, as well as three metaphors
of culture, that should help teacher educators to foster a dynamic
and complex understanding of culture and cultural difference among
pre- and in-service teachers.

1. Introduction
Social sciences aim to understand human behaviour. However, they often fail to view it in
its context: culture. Segall, Lonner, and Berry (1998) compare mainstream psychology to the
fish that cannot notice the importance of water before it is out of the pond: ‘Any context for
human behaviour that is so all-encompassing as culture is for the developing individual is
likely to be ignored, or if noticed, to be taken for granted’ (1101). Cross-cultural psychologists
like Segall et al. (1990) were precursors in advocating that ‘all social scientists, psychologists
especially, take culture seriously into account when attempting to understand behaviour’
(Segall, Lonner, and Berry 1998; 1101). Failing to do so results in ethnocentric theories, which
present context-specific observations as universally valid. Not surprisingly, unrecognised eth-
nocentrism also affects educational sciences (Akkari and Dasen 2004). The awareness about
the cultural situatedness of educational processes, as evidenced by Bruner, is still meagre:
Culture, then, though itself man-made, both forms and makes possible the workings of a distinc-
tively human mind. On this view, learning and thinking are always situated in a cultural setting
and always dependent upon the utilization of cultural resources. (1996, 4)

CONTACT Tania Ogay [email protected]

© 2016 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
 2 T. Ogay and D. Edelmann

The issue of culture has been introduced into educational sciences largely by intercultural
education (in Europe, see e.g. Allemann-Ghionda and Deloitte Consulting 2008; Allemann-
Ghionda 2011; Mecheril 2010; Rey-von Allmen 2011) and multicultural education (at first in
the US and then in other parts of the world, see e.g. Banks and McGee Banks 2004; Banks
2009). However, the focus of attention has been placed above all on the ‘cultures’ brought to
school by pupils with a migrant or minority background. Yet, taking into account the cultural
dimension in education implies more than attending to the individual cultural differences: it
requires an understanding of the cultural embeddedness of education itself, as for example
awareness of how much educators’ conceptions of normality are culturally related (Leutwyler,
Steinger, and Sieber 2009).
After a first period where intercultural education resembled more a social movement
(Dietz 2009), it nowadays enjoys a solid institutional recognition – at least in the Western
countries – even if the implementation of policies reveals less satisfactory (Allemann-Ghionda
and Deloitte Consulting 2008). On the European level for example, the European Ministers
of Education issued a ‘Declaration on intercultural education in the new European context’
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

(Council of Europe 2003). On the international level, UNESCO (2006) has issued guidelines
for intercultural education consisting of three principles considered to transcend regional
and national differences. As a result, teachers are expected to demonstrate intercultural com-
petence (Portera 2014), and intercultural training is part of most initial as well as continuing
teacher education curricula (OECD 2010). However, according to this report, policies and
practices for the intercultural training of teachers vary greatly and lack conceptual clarity:
‘[…] cultural diversity and difference are conceptualised in various ways and the application
of educational approaches – irrespective of being labelled multicultural or intercultural –
varies depending on national and local school contexts as well as individual teacher prac-
tices’ (56). The report also points the lack of rigorous evaluations about the effectiveness
of teacher intercultural training programmes. Quite worryingly, an online consultation of
teachers revealed that 66% of the respondents felt that they were ill-prepared to address
diversity in the classroom, while almost all reported that diversity issues had been covered
in their training.
In our view, a major cause of the lack of efficiency of intercultural training in teacher
education is its unclear message, resulting from a lack of common understanding of what
‘taking culture seriously’ (in reference to Segall et al. 1998) means in the field of education.
The foundation of this challenging issue is the enduring difficulty to capture the complexity
of the concept of culture. As a consequence, intercultural training programmes risk to offer
contradictory messages, advocating for colour-blindness and basket-making at the same
time (in reference to the title of an article by Cochran-Smith [1995] reporting on a teacher
training programme in the United States). It is not a surprise then that practitioners such as
teachers hesitate between praising and minimising – or even ignoring – culture and cultural
differences (Edelmann 2007, 2009; Ogay 2000).
It is our ambition in this article to present a concept of culture that provides the oppor-
tunity for intercultural education to take culture seriously, but in a reasonable way. Hereby,
we intend to offer an alternative to the abandonment of the concept of culture called for
by other scholars, in anthropology (Abu-Lughod 1991) as well as in intercultural education
(Abdallah-Pretceille 2006; Pretceille 2012). We first describe culture as an essential but also
misleading concept, often misused. Then we present a dialectical understanding of inter-
culturality that we developed, which gives experts and practitioners a model to question
 European Journal of Teacher Education  3

their position towards cultural difference. Finally, we suggest three metaphors of culture
that favour a reasonable understanding of culture, allowing one to take culture seriously
but without exaggerating its importance.

2. Culture: essential, and misleading

Culture is an indispensable concept: as Cuche (1996) stated, it makes it possible to conceive
humanity in its diversity: human groups are different not because of genetic differences, as
racist theories contend, but because they live in different environments to which they have
to adapt. Therefore, human groups develop worldviews and ways of doing things, which are
shared by the members of the same group, and which may differ from what other groups
have developed. Culture is to be understood as an everyday, socially symbolic practice. It is
a way to understand how individuals in their specific social conditions of life symbolically
acquire their own lifestyle and attribute a unique meaning to their own life. There is culture
in any practice (see Mecheril 2010, 96).
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

Although a central concept of anthropology, ‘culture’ remains extremely difficult to define

and quite different understandings are encountered. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) iden-
tified at least 160 definitions, and some 50 years later, Baldwin et al. (2006) found another
313. If we had to choose only one, we would use the following definition by Camilleri (1989),
which addresses most of the themes in definitions of culture (structure, function, process,
product and group membership) identified by Baldwin et al. (2006), and is therefore in our
view useful to refer to in training:
Culture is the ensemble, more or less linked, of the most persistent and shared acquired mean-
ings that members of a group, by virtue of their affiliation with the group, are led to attribute
most commonly to the stimuli coming from the environment and from themselves, inducing,
with respect to these stimuli, attitudes, representations, and socially valued behaviours of which
they attempt to assure the reproduction by non-genetic means.1 (Camilleri 1989, 27)
The ‘shared acquired meanings’ that constitute culture are references that make it possible for
a community of individuals to live together in a given ecological context. As formulated by
the eco-cultural theoretical framework (Berry 1971), culture results from an effort of a group
of humans to adapt to their ecological context. Culture is therefore dynamic and not static
because it would then no longer be able to fulfil its adaptive function. Ting-Toomey (1999)
isolates four more functions of culture, showing how indispensable the concept of culture is
in order to understand human relations and behaviour. First, by providing individuals with a
frame of reference (e.g. values and norms that define how a ‘good’ person is supposed to act),
culture enables individuals to define and maintain their identities. Secondly, shared culture
fosters a feeling of inclusion into a group, which satisfies the human need of belonging
and enables one to feel secure and accepted. At the same time, to identify oneself with a
group reveals differences in relation to the other groups: culture also serves to regulate the
borders between groups and orients the perceptions of in- and out-groups. Thirdly and as
a consequence, if culture comforts the individual in his or her identity, it also limits his or
her perspective and nourishes ethnocentric attitudes and behaviours. The fourth function
of culture mentioned by Ting-Toomey is communication: culture gives form to communi-
cation, prescribing how to communicate (the linguistic code to use, what to say to whom,
when and how). Culture provides a guide for realising interaction with people of the same
cultural group as well as of other groups. The link between culture and communication also
 4 T. Ogay and D. Edelmann

goes in the other direction: it is through communication that culture is transmitted and
continually reinterpreted.
Unfortunately, the concept of culture, albeit indispensable, is frequently misunderstood
and misused. Efforts to ‘take culture seriously’ too often end up in an exaggeration of the
importance of culture: when confronted with the universalistic stance which ignores cul-
ture, interculturalists are at risk of overreacting by way of a culturalist discourse, explaining
everything in terms of cultural differences, reducing individuals to ‘their culture’ (as if belong-
ing to a culture were self-evident, just as for some, belonging to a race would be). This is
what Camilleri (1990) refers to as the sacralisation of cultures, which he considers the major
pitfall of interculturalism : when culture is thought of as approaching the level of sacred, it
fixes individuals in their immutable differences (hetero-attributed but also self-attributed).
This overemphasis of culture may serve to hide power issues, with dominant but also dom-
inated groups making use of the cultural argument, imposing a cultural definition of the
situation, in order to maintain or gain power (Sarangi 1994; Wagener 2014). Gorski (2006)
even denounces multicultural education programmes which are focused on the culture of
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

the Other rather than on the struggle for social justice of being complicit with conservatism.
To avoid culturalisation, Camilleri stresses the necessity of promoting a reflexive attitude that
enables attachment to one’s cultural system without being bound to it and to maintain a
position of ‘emersion rather than immersion’ (17). In his final paragraph, Camilleri captures
the intricacies of interculturality:
There is a dialectical movement to work out in order to maintain the field of intercultural research
and practice: assure the respect of cultures but in the context of a complex of attitudes author-
izing their ability to go beyond themselves. Provide partners with the necessary equipment to
see their culture as legitimate and to access the fundamental feeling of being recognized and
at the same time the liberty to take position, without making themselves guilty relative to the
systems that surround them. All of this in order to eventually elaborate their individual cultural
formula. This is one of the ways in which intercultural groups can become a matrix of intercultural
creativity. (Camilleri 1990, 17)2
Of course, numerous scholars before us have criticised what Dervin (2011) calls a ‘solid’
understanding of culture. Some have even recommended the abandonment of the con-
cept of culture all together (Abdallah-Pretceille 2006; Abu-Lughod 1991). If we share these
critiques, however, we cannot follow the recommendation to renounce the concept of cul-
ture. We rather think that a misused concept should not be abandoned but re-defined and
defended against inadequate uses. In our view, it is through the dialectical understanding
of culture and interculturality, sketched out by Camilleri in the quoted citation above, that
such excesses can be prevented.

3. A dialectical understanding of culture and interculturality

Being confronted with cultural diversity implies experiencing dialectical tensions: between
sameness and difference, equality and diversity, universalism and relativism, continuity and
change, openness and closeness (Demorgon 2005, 2015; Martin and Nakayama 1999). Public
policies such as multiculturalism and civic integration (Banting and Kymlicka 2013) reflect
these tensions and are often thought to be incompatible. But tensions should not be thought
of as contradictions to be resolved: the two competing elements of each pair are in a pos-
itive and constructive tension: a dialectic, or a ‘dialogic’, according to the term preferred by
 European Journal of Teacher Education  5

Figure 1. Dialectical square of cultural difference. Source: Edelmann 2007; adapted by Ogay and Edelmann
2011.
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

Morin (1990, 99): ‘The dialogic principle makes it possible to maintain duality in the heart of
unity. It associates two terms that are at the same time complementary and antagonistic’.3
Such dialectical tensions are characteristic of postmodernity, described by Lyotard (1984).
He shows the growing variation of cultural orientations, lifestyles and worldviews. The post-
modern age calls for the renunciation of a claim for a unique truth and instead leads to a
permanent confrontation between a diversity of perspectives, value systems and lifestyles.
Lyotard evaluates this as a positive development because postmodernity opens up a new
space for ways of life and attitudes, provided that we are able to renounce the search for
unity and clarity and the idea that contradictions can and should be eliminated.
For a proficient approach to cultural diversity, this means that it is neither about the
foundation of unity nor the elimination of irresolvable contradictions of various types of
discourses, but rather about developing skills and opportunities for navigating between the
perception of sameness and difference. The important condition for this is, however, that
teachers understand the inner logic of different types of discourses as well as their temporally
limited validity and know how to integrate them accordingly into their professional activities
(Gogolin and Krüger-Potratz 2006). In summary, it can be stated that in dealing with cultural
diversity, the confrontation with the contradictions between emphasis and non-emphasis
of difference decisively shapes pedagogical activities. A reflexive approach to this ‘dialectic
of difference’ is therefore a key element of educational professionalism in the transnational
social space (Edelmann 2007). The dialectical square of cultural difference, inspired by the
dialectical square of values by Helwig (1967) and Schulz von Thun (1997), illustrates the
different and contradictory positions in the face of cultural difference (Figure 1).
The logic of the dialectical square of values by Helwig (1967) and Schulz von Thun (1997)
is characterised by four premises: (a) a value orientation can unfold constructively only if
it lies in a state of sustained tension with a positive counterpart (in the graphic, the upper
horizontal connecting line); (b) an over-emphasis on a value leads to its exaggeration (in
the graphic, the vertical connecting lines); (c) the lower horizontal line connecting the two
devaluing exaggerations characterises the way ‘which we take when we want to avoid worth-
lessness, but do not have the strength to work our way up to the required stress level of
the upper plus value’ and hence ‘flee from worthlessness in one direction to worthlessness
in another’4 (see Helwig 1967); (d) the diagonal connecting lines are developmental lines
 6 T. Ogay and D. Edelmann

to follow for example in training sessions, leading from the exaggeration of a single value
towards the positive dialectical tension between the two positive – even if opposing – values.
Applied to cultural difference, the dialectical square of values posits that confrontation
with cultural difference fosters a tension between the value of equality – recognising the
equal worth and dignity of all humans – and the value of diversity – praising cultural differ-
ences as enrichment. Equality and diversity, the two central values of intercultural education
(UNESCO 2006), both have their darker sides (Payet et al. 2011): too much of the value of
equality alone, emphasising sameness only, results in indifference to cultural differences
as well as to differences of social status and power, which leads to assimilationism and
colour-blindness (Hachfeld et al. 2015; Lewis 2001). Teachers often adhere to this position
of indifference to cultural difference (Allard 2006; Mahon 2006), and are proud to claim that
they do not see any differences between their students and that they treat them absolutely
in the same manner. In so doing, these teachers fail to see that they are not only negating
students’ identities, but also that they are depriving themselves of the means to really under-
stand their students as social beings. These teachers then contribute to the reproduction
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

of social inequities, as has been denounced by Bourdieu (1966) in his critique of the appar-
ently enlightened slogan of ‘indifference to difference’. As stated by Allard (2006), ‘treating
everyone the same may not mean treating everyone fairly, since in many ways such notions
of “sameness” negate material and/or embodied differences’ (326). However, diversity, the
value that intercultural education has promoted in order to counter the universalist view of
education, also has its darker side: too much of the value of diversity alone leads to cultural-
isation, or sacralisation of cultures (Camilleri 1990) as mentioned earlier. As stated by Dietz,
diversity has been transformed ‘from an analytic category to an imperative (…), turning to
an ideology which politically and even legally promotes the perception of certain traits and
features (…).’ (2007, 9). Considering the value of diversity alone leads to a solid conception
of culture, which is then taken too seriously, returning to the words of Dervin (2011) and
Segall, Lonner, and Berry (1998).
The idea that interculturality elicits a tension between the values of equality and diver-
sity is of course not new (see in particular Allard 2006). But by revealing the underground
layer of this tension, showing where the exaggeration of equality or diversity alone leads
to, the dialectical square of cultural difference opens the way to a better understanding of
the challenges of interculturality. Exaggerations, or ‘caricatures’ (Kymlicka 2012, 1), only lead
to sterile debates. With the dialectical square of cultural difference in mind, professionals
such as teachers, as well as teacher educators, may then realise that their own hesitations
between equality and diversity are not problematic, and that a skilled handling of cultural
difference does not mean pursuing equality or diversity, but both of them, even if these
values are in opposition and involve apparently contradictory pedagogical actions. They
might then appreciate the importance of the nuances in Camilleri’s definition of culture:
‘more or less linked’, ‘most persistent’, ‘most commonly’, which indicate that if it is possible to
identify something such as culture, its borders are moving: what appears to be different may
also be considered as similar (Brewer 1991). In particular, the dialectical square of cultural
difference helps teachers to consider critically colour-blindness and its principle of equal-
ity of treatment to which they frequently adhere. They become aware that indifference to
difference results in the reproduction of social inequities and understand why they should
rather strive for equality of the outcomes attained by their students. This latter principle of
justice in education (Crahay 2000) implies nothing else than the positive dialectical tension
 European Journal of Teacher Education  7

between equality and diversity: the aim of equality as an outcome can be achieved only
by taking into account the diversity between individuals and social groups. This is what
differentiated pedagogy (Kahn 2010) is all about.
If teachers, social workers or health professionals are often reported to minimise cul-
tural differences (Altshuler, Sussman, and Kachur 2003; DeJaeghere and Cao 2009; Mahon
2006), their intercultural trainers are at risk for culturalisation (like in the ‘Teaching the Other’
approach described by Gorski in his analysis of US multicultural teacher education pro-
grammes, 2009). How to avoid the traps of culturalisation when teaching about culture? In
the following section, we present three metaphors for the concept of culture that we have
found useful to foster a complex and dynamic understanding of culture which makes it
possible to take culture seriously without making it solid or sacred.

4. Three metaphors for a reasonable and dynamic understanding of culture

and interculturality
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

4.1. Culture is like language

In her study of the development of intercultural competence through intercultural
exchange programmes between teenagers from the French-and German-speaking regions
of Switzerland, Ogay (2000) observed the reluctance of participants to talk about cultural
differences, whereas these students at the same time declared to participate in an intercul-
tural exchange. They were rightly concerned about the risk of culturalisation, which would
threaten the unity of the federal state of Switzerland. The metaphor of culture as language,
proposed by Barmeyer (2007) could have reassured them: stating that two groups speak
different languages is usually considered as benign, as should be the observation that two
groups refer to different cultural repertoires. Like language, culture is a shared repertoire
that each individual of the group interprets in his or her own way. Referring to a common
language/culture does not mean that all locutors are going to perform it in the same way
and, least of all, that they would say or think the same things (Barmeyer 2007). Different
languages/cultures are more or less close, more or less similar/different. They vary in space
and time. If languages and cultures, as shared repertoires of signification, have similar func-
tioning they are also deeply interrelated: individuals who speak the same language (or, more
precisely, refer to the same linguistic code) develop shared cultural understandings, which
differentiate them from other groups. On the other hand, individuals who share common
cultural references develop a common language or variety of a language (as in groups of
adolescents, or in professional groups), which strengthens their internal cohesion and their
differentiation from other groups. This metaphor of culture as language can in our view
de-dramatise the idea of cultural difference, inherent to the idea of cultural diversity.

4.2. Culture is like the air we breathe

In the intercultural communication and training field, culture is often represented as an
iceberg (see e.g. Ting-Toomey 1999), in order to illustrate that the visible, observable, part
of culture (artefacts) is much smaller than the invisible part (assumptions, norms, values).
But this metaphor is misleading: it contributes to the idea that culture is solid, and that there
would be isolated cultures (‘a culture’ being then equated with ‘a cultural group’), separated
 8 T. Ogay and D. Edelmann

by clear limits and more or less distant from one another. The metaphor of the atoll would
be more appropriate in order to take into account the more profound layer: universal human
needs. But even if in our view the atoll should replace the iceberg, this metaphor still solidifies
and isolates culture, failing to capture its complexity.
As we have seen in the introduction, Segall, Lonner, and Berry (1998) prefer to compare
culture with water for a fish: essential for its life, but generally unnoticed until the fish is
taken out of water. Culture can then be seen as the air we breathe: it is everywhere in our
environment but invisible, we notice it only when we miss it. The metaphor can be devel-
oped further: there is air on the whole surface of the Earth and all humans (not only them, of
course) can breathe it, but its quality varies (humidity, scents, oxygen, presence of pollution,
etc.). We have to move into an unfamiliar context to become aware of the quality of the air
we breathe, unless there is a sudden change in our environment (a storm, a fire) which makes
the change in the air quality perceptible.
Variations of the air on the surface of the Earth are gradual; they of course do not follow
the lines of national borders, and there are no clear limits between the different qualities
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

of air which change progressively. However, if cultures can be understood as open-ended

and overlapping systems (Mason 2008), variations between cultures have a stronger link
to political borders than air has: frontiers delimit territories in which institutions (school in
particular for our concern) are active, contributing to the (trans)formation and transmission
of the cultural repertoire shared by the individuals living in this territory. Therefore, two
individuals may live quite close to one another, breathing a similar air, but have different
cultural references as they are part of two different socio-political contexts that are related
to territory. We are also reminded of Barth (1969) who shows that it is on the frontiers, on
the contact zones, that differences are maintained and performed: geographical closeness
does not imply cultural sameness.
The metaphor of culture as air also helps to visualise the different levels of culture: air
varies on the vertical dimension as well as on the horizontal dimension, and there are mul-
tiple layers ranging from microclimates to larger climatic zones. The same for cultures: an
individual refers to different layers of culture to give meaning to his or her experience, from
the smaller scale (the neighbourhood he or she lives in) to the larger ones (national, con-
tinental). Should we then regard any social group we belong to as contributing to these
multiple layers of culture? If we consider that a social group develops a specific culture in
the sense of shared meanings which differentiate it from other social groups, any situation
implying various social groups should then be considered as ‘intercultural’. The question is
complex and has given rise to subtle theoretical debates (see in particular Frame 2013), the
metaphor of culture as air may prove a useful heuristic tool for comprehension. Like air on
the surface of the Earth, culture is thus multi-layered, and each individual is embedded in
his or her specific combination of layers. To make it more complicated, the salience of the
different layers of culture impregnating the individual varies according to social contexts, and
also through the lifespan. Therefore, no individual can be said to ‘have a culture’, by which
it is generally meant a national culture: the cultural references that inspire an individual’s
thinking and action are always multiple and combine the different layers of culture he or
she relates to, from the very specific to the broader ones. If no individual ‘has a culture’, every
individual refers to a unique combination of cultural references, which he or she interprets
in his or her unique way.
 European Journal of Teacher Education  9

Representing culture as multi-layered may be considered to be similar to the principle

of intersectionality, introduced into intercultural education mainly by German scholars
(Krüger-Potratz 2005; Prengel 2007). Intersectionality addresses the multiple identities of
the individual, who does not belong to one social group only (a national culture in the
culturalist view), but to many at the same time: gender, generations, social classes, ability,
religion, etc. Differences intersect, making each individual unique, but also creating simi-
larities between individuals who may be members of the same group on one dimension,
but to different groups on another dimension (what is known as crossed categorisation
in social psychology, see Crisp and Hewstone 2007). In our view, however, culture cannot
be considered as one dimension among others (and then often reduced to a single layer,
generally the national layer). Being for example a middle-aged protestant female academic
is embedded in a specific cultural context, in other contexts these social memberships and
identities would have different cultural meanings. Therefore, we consider culture to be the
general frame in which the other dimensions of difference between individuals find their
meaning. Differences between genders, generations, etc. are interpreted within a cultural
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

frame of reference. Some social groups and individuals comprising a society adhere fully to
this cultural frame of reference, and others more reluctantly. Of course, a common cultural
frame of reference does not prevent individuals from referring also to other cultures as a
function of their personal and familial history, notably in the case of migration. Thus, when
individuals leave their cultural context for another one, they bring to it an ensemble of
cultural meanings, among which notably a way of organising relationships between men
and women (a theme that appears often in intercultural situations reported by teachers).
The way of conceiving relations between men and women is precisely one of the meanings
produced by culture; it is culturally situated and cannot be interpreted without cultural
contextualisation.

4.3. Culture is like a non-newtonian fluid

When dealing with metaphors for the concept of culture, it is helpful to return to physics
and the different states of matter: culture has been compared with water, a fluid, we have
compared it with air, a gas, and Dervin (2011) has denounced a solid conception of culture,
which is found for example in the iceberg metaphor. Dervin, inspired by another thinker of
postmodernity, Bauman (2005), proposes the replacement of the solid conception of culture
with a liquid understanding. But are liquid and gas the only possible alternatives to the solid
state of matter? Isn’t the change from a solid understanding of culture to a liquid or gaseous
one nothing else than an overcompensation, an excessive backlash from culturalisation to
indifference, as reflected in the dialectical square of cultural difference? Instead of replacing
the solid conception of culture with a liquid one, we suggest a further metaphor which illus-
trates the dialectic of culture. It is neither solid, nor liquid: culture is both at the same time,
or more precisely it quickly changes from one state to the other. The metaphor of culture
as air has allowed important insights into the complexity of the concept. But another one
is needed in order to account for the dynamic of culture. We here tentatively propose the
metaphor of culture as a non-newtonian fluid: these special types of fluid become almost
solid (their viscosity increases) when a force (like movement, or sound waves) is applied
onto them; when the force disappears, the fluid turns back to a liquid state. Culture is usually
liquid, (or gaseous like air), permeating everything in the context, but remaining unnoticed.
 10 T. Ogay and D. Edelmann

But when there is pressure (for example through identification/differentiation issues as a

result of intercultural contact), culture becomes solid and perceptible, and differences are
perceived and performed. Coming back to the definition of culture by Camilleri (1989),
when there is pressure, links between the shared meanings tighten, the group affiliation
becomes salient and the attributions are more subject to intergroup bias (Gallois, Ogay,
and Giles 2005). The aim of intercultural education and training might then be to foster the
understanding that culture should not be dismissed when liquid, nor taken too seriously
when solidified by pressure.

5. Conclusion
The way for a reasonable understanding of culture and cultural difference is narrow and it is
easy to fall into the traps of culturalisation and indifference. Teaching about culture in teacher
training is for sure a challenging task; the concept is particularly complex, and pre-service
as well as in-service teachers are not necessarily interested in the theoretical debates about
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

it. Intercultural training sessions which present culture as an important dimension to take
into account, and then criticise it at length are confusing and unconvincing. The metaphors
of culture (as language, air and non-newtonian fluid) are helpful to foster an understanding
of culture as indispensable yet at the same time unseizable. The dialectical square of cultural
difference helps to put words on the contradictions and tensions experienced in intercultural
situations. It helps to understand how short-sighted either-or choices are and to accept the
dialectical tension between equality and diversity. The dialectical square is also directly useful
for teacher educators: to assess students’ needs, to design a training programme that will lead
students through the developmental lines towards the positive dialectical tension, and also
to stay alert to the pitfall of a culturalist training in response to colour-blind students. We are
convinced that the dialectical square of cultural difference as well as the three metaphors
of culture developed in this article contributes to a dynamic and complex understanding
of culture and cultural diversity in education.

Notes
1. 
Our translation.
2. 
Our translation.
3. 
Our translation.
4. 
Our translation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Tania Ogay is a professor for Anthropology of education at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland,
at the Department of Educational Sciences, where she teaches in particular intercultural education
and intercultural communication. Her scientific interests lie in intercultural communication processes
in educational contexts; she is currently conducting an ethnographic research on the building of the
relation between school and families in a context of cultural diversity.
 European Journal of Teacher Education  11

Doris Edelmann, Prof. Dr Phil., is the director of the Institute of ‘Education and Society’ at the University
of Teacher Education in St. Gallen, Switzerland where she teaches in particular in the field of diver-
sity-education and relation between school and families. Her areas of research are social changes
and its impacts on educational processes and institutions (e.g. diversity and equity). She is currently
conducting a research-project about teacher students with a migration background.

References
Abdallah-Pretceille, M. 2006. “Interculturalism as a Paradigm for Thinking about Diversity.” Intercultural
Education 17 (5): 475–483.
Abu-Lughod, I. 1991. “Writing against Culture.” In Recapturing Anthopology: Working in the Present,
edited by G. Fox, 137–162. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Akkari, A., and P. R. Dasen. 2004. “De l’ethnocentrisme de la pédagogie et ses remèdes.” In Pédagogies
et pédagogues du sud, edited by A. J. Akkari and P. R. Dasen, 7–21. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Allard, A. C. 2006. “A Bit of a Chameleon Act’: A Case Study of One Teacher’s Understanding of Diversity.”
European Journal of Teacher Education 29 (3): 319–340.
Allemann-Ghionda, C. 2011. “Orte und Worte der Diversität – gestern und heute.” In Orte der Diversität.
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

Formate, Arrangements und Inszenierungen, edited by C. Allemann-Ghionda, W.-D. Bukow, 15–34.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.
Allemann-Ghionda, C., and Deloitte Consulting. 2008. Intercultural Education in Schools. Brussels:
European Parliament.
Altshuler, L., N. Sussman, and E. Kachur. 2003. “Assessing Changes in Intercultural Sensitivity among
Physician Trainees Using the Intercultural Development Inventory.” International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 27: 387–401.
Baldwin, J. R., S. L. Faulkner, M. L. Hecht, and S. L. Lindsley. 2006. Redefining Culture: Perspectives across
the Disciplines. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. 2009. The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York: Routledge.
Banks, J. A., and C. A. McGee Banks, eds. 2004. Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. 2nd
ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banting, K., and W. Kymlicka. 2013. “Is There Really a Retreat from Multiculturalism Policies? New
Evidence from the Multiculturalism Policy Index.” Comparative European Politics 11 (5): 577–598.
Barmeyer, C. 2007. Intercultural management and learning styles. Students and leaders in France, Germany
and Quebec [Management interculturel et styles d’apprentissage. Etudiants et dirigeants en France, en
Allemagne et au Québec]. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
Barth, F., ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen,
London: Universitetsforlaget, Allen and Unwin.
Bauman, Z. 2005. “Education in Liquid Modernity.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies
27: 303–317.
Berry, J. W. 1971. “Ecological and Cultural Factors in Spatial Perceptual Development.” Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement 3: 324–336.
Bourdieu, P. 1966. “The conservative school. Social inequity at school and in culture.” [L’école
conservatrice. L’inégalité sociale devant l’école et devant la culture.] Revue Française de Sociologie
7: 325–347.
Brewer, M. B. 1991. “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time.” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 475–482.
Bruner, J. S. 1996. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Camilleri, C. 1989. “Culture and cultural identity: a concept of the field in becoming.” [La culture et
l’identité culturelle: champ notionnel en devenir.] In Shocks of cultures: Concepts and Pratical Stakes
of the Intercultural Field.]Chocs de Cultures: Concepts et Enjeux Pratiques de L’interculturel, edited by
C. Camilleri and M. Cohen-Emerique, 21–73. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Camilleri, C. 1990. “The Conditions of the Intercultural,” [Les Conditions de L’interculturel.] Intercultures
9: 11–17.
 12 T. Ogay and D. Edelmann

Cochran-Smith, M. 1995. “Color Blindness and Basket Making Are Not the Answers: Confronting the
Dilemmas of Race, Culture, and Language Diversity in Teacher Education.” American Educational
Research Journal 32 (3): 493–522.
Council of Europe. 2003. Declaration by the European Ministers of Education on Intercultural Education
in the New European Context. Strasbourg: Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education.
Crahay, M. 2000. Can School Be Fair and Efficient? [L'école peut-elle être juste et efficace?] Bruxelles: De
Boeck.
Crisp, R. J., and M. Hewstone. 2007. Multiple Social Categorization: Processes, Models and Applications.
Hove: Psychology Press.
Cuche, D. 1996. The Notion of Culture in Social Sciences. [ La Notion de culture dans les sciences sociales].
Paris: La Découverte.
DeJaeghere, Joan G., et Yi Cao. 2009. « Developing U.S. teachers’ intercultural competence: Does
professional development matter? » International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (5): 437–47.
Demorgon, J. 2005. Critics of the Intercultural: The Horizon of Sociology[Critique de l’interculturel: l’horizon
de la sociologie.]. Paris: Economica-Anthropos.
Demorgon, J. 2015. Complexité des cultures et de l’interculturel. Contre les pensées uniques. 5e édition
revue et augmentée. Paris: Anthropos.
Dervin, F. 2011. “A Plea for Change in Research on Intercultural Discourses: A ‘Liquid’ Approach to the
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

Study of the Acculturation of Chinese Students.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6 (1): 37–52.
Dietz, G. 2007. “Keyword: Cultural Diversity.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 10 (1): 7–30.
Dietz, G. 2009. Multiculturalism, Interculturality and Diversity in Education: An Anthropological Approach.
Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Edelmann, D. 2007. Pedagogical Professionalism in the Transnational Space. A Qualitative Study of How
Teachers Manage Migration Related Diversity in The Classroom. [Pädagogische Professionalität im
transnationalen sozialen Raum. Eine qualitative Studie über den Umgang von Lehrpersonen mit der
migrationsbedingten Herterogenität ihrer Schulklassen]. Zürich: LIT.
Edelmann, D. 2009. “Concepts of Cultural Differenz in Initial and Continuing Education of Teachers -
under Special Consideration of the Situation in Switzerland.” [Konzepte kultureller Differenz in der
Aus- und Weiterbildung von Lehrpersonen – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Situation in
der Schweiz]. In Concepts about Cultural Difference [Konzepte kultureller Differenz], edited by A.
Moosmüller, 121–136. Münster: Waxmann.
Frame, A. 2013. Communication et interculturalité. Cultures et interactions interpersonnelles. Paris: Hermès-
Lavoisier.
Gallois, C., T. Ogay, and H. Giles. 2005. “Communication Accommodation Theory: A Look Back and a
Look Ahead.” In Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, edited by W. B. Gudykunst, 121–148.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gogolin, I., and M. Krüger-Potratz. 2006. Introduction to Intercultural Pedagogy. [Einführung in die
Interkulturelle Pädagogik]. Opladen: Budrich.
Gorski, P. C. 2006. “Complicity with Conservatism: The De‐Politicizing of Multicultural and Intercultural
Education.” Intercultural Education 17 (2): 163–177.
Gorski, P. C. 2009. “What We’re Teaching Teachers: An Analysis of Multicultural Teacher Education
Coursework Syllabi.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 309–318.
Hachfeld, A., A. Hahn, S. Schroeder, Y. Anders, and M. Kunter. 2015. “Should Teachers Be Colorblind?
How Multicultural and Egalitarian Beliefs Differentially Relate to Aspects of Teachers’ Professional
Competence for Teaching in Diverse Classrooms.” Teaching and Teacher Education 48: 44–55.
Helwig, P. 1967. Characterology. [Charakterologie]. Freiburg: Herder.
Kahn, S. 2010. Differentiated Teaching [Pédagogie différenciée]. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Kroeber, A. L., and C. K. Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concept and Definitions. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Krüger-Potratz, M. 2005. Intercultural Education: An Introduction [ Interkulturelle Bildung: eine Einführung].
Münster: Waxman.
Kymlicka, W. 2012. Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future. Washington, DC: Migration Policy
Institute.
Leutwyler, B., E. Steinger, and P. Sieber. 2009. “Thinking about Normality: A Phase Model. How
Teachers Differentially Think About Cultural Diversity at School and in Teaching” [Stufenmodell
 European Journal of Teacher Education  13

der Normalitätsreflexionen. Wie Lehrpersonen kulturelle Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht

unterschiedlich reflektieren]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften 31 (3): 565–583.
Lewis, A. E. 2001. “There is No "Race" in the Schoolyard: Color-Blind Ideology in an (Almost) All-White
School.” American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 781–811.
Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Mahon, J. 2006. “Under the Invisibility Cloak? Teacher Understanding of Cultural Difference.” Intercultural
Education 17 (4): 391–405.
Martin, J. N., and T. K. Nakayama. 1999. “Thinking Dialectically about Culture and Communication.”
Communication Theory 9: 1–25.
Mason, M., ed. 2008. Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mecheril, P. 2010. “The Order of the Educational Sciences Discourse in the Migration Society” [Die
Ordnung des erziehungswissenschaftlichen Diskurses in der Migrationsgesellschaft]. In Migration
Pedagogy [Migrationspädagogik], edited by P. Mecheril, M. Castro do Mar Varela, I. Dirim, A. Kalpaka
and C. Melter, 54–76. Weinheim: Beltz.
Morin, E. 1990. Introduction to Complex Thinking [Introduction à La Pensée Complexe]. Paris: ESF.
OECD. 2010. Educating Teachers for Diversity. Meeting the Challenge. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Downloaded by [88.149.235.16] at 08:09 31 March 2016

Ogay, T. 2000. From Intercultural Competence to The Intercultural Dynamics. Intercultural

Communication Theories Tested in The Context of a Youth Exchange Program Between French- and
German-speaking Switzerland [De la compétence à la dynamique interculturelles. Des théories de la
communication interculturelle à l’épreuve d’un échange de jeunes entre Suisse romande et alémanique].
Berne: Peter Lang.
Ogay, T., and D. Edelmann. 2011. “Figuring Interculturality in Professional Training: The Unavoidable
Dialectics of Difference”[Penser l’interculturalité dans la formation des professionnels: l’incontournable
dialectique de la différence]. In Anthropologies of Interculturality [Anthropologies de l’interculturalité],
edited by A. Lavanchy, F. Dervin and A. Gajardo, 47–71. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Payet, J.-P., M. Sanchez-Mazas, F.-E. Giuliani, and R. Fernandez. 2011. “Teachers Actions between Control
and Uncertainties. Towards a Typology of Teachers Stances in Relating with Others” [L’agir scolaire
entre régulations et incertitudes. Vers une typologie des postures enseignantes de la relation à
autrui]. Education et sociétés 27 (1): 23–37.
Portera, A. 2014. “Intercultural Competence in Education, Counselling and Psychotherapy.” Intercultural
Education 25 (2): 157–174.
Prengel, A. 2007. “Schools and Transgressive Worlds in Limbo. Approaches for Research and Training”
[Im Schwebezustand: Schulen Und Transgressive Lebenswelten. Ansätze in Forschung Und Lehre].
Revue suisse Des Sciences de l’éducation 29 (3): 363–378.
Pretceille, M. A. 2012. “What Anthropology for which education?" [Quelle Anthropologie Pour Quel
Enseignement ?] In Anthropology, Interculturality and Language Learning-Teaching : How Compatible
Are The [Anthropologies, Interculturalité et Enseignement-Apprentissage Des Langues : Quelle(S)
Compatibilité(S)?] ? edited by F. Dervin and B. Fracchiolla, 19–34. Transversales. Berne: P. Lang.
Rey-von Allmen, M. 2011. “The Intercultural Perspective and Its Development through Cooperation
with the Council of Europe.” In Multicultural Education. Enhancing Global Interconnectedness, edited
by C. A. Grant and A. Portera, 33–48. New York: Routledge.
Sarangi, S. 1994. “Intercultural or Not? Beyond Celebration of Cultural Differences in Miscommunication
Analysis.” Pragmatics 4 (3): 409–427.
Schulz von Thun, F. 1997. Talking Together 2. Styles, Values and Personal Development [Miteinander Reden
2. Stile, Werte und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung]. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Segall, M. H., P. R. Dasen, J. W. Berry, and Y. H. Poortinga. 1990. Human Behavior in Global Perspective. an
Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York: Pergamon Press.
Segall, M. H., W. J. Lonner, and J. W. Berry. 1998. “Cross-Cultural Psychology as a Scholarly Discipline:
On the Flowering of Culture in Behavioral Research.” American Psychologist 53 (10): 1101–1110.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communicating across Cultures. New York: Guilford.
UNESCO. 2006. UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Wagener, A. 2014. “The concept of culture: an absolute necessity in humanities?” [Le concept de culture:
une nécessité absolue en sciences humaines?]. Signes, Discours et sociétés no. 12 (1). http://www.
revue-signes.info/document.php?id=3294. ISSN 1308-8378.