The E-Journal of Intercultural Relations, Summer 1998, Vol. 1(3)   Originally Posted: 7/21/98   Teaching/Training Resource Teaching Reflective Thinking, Cultural Constraints and Cross Cultural Responses

by Jaime S. Wurzel Associate Professor Education, Research Evaluation and Intercultural Studies Salem State College

 

The purpose of this article is to report on the teaching of reflective thinking skills to a cross-cultural class of School of Education students. More specifically, the article will relate the cultural constraints and cross-cultural responses brought to light by the process of instruction and by the reaction of the students to a course on the Holocaust. The course content and materials focused on the historical events before, during and after the systematic genocide of Jews in World War II (1933-1945). The cultural issues which surfaced during the course need to be considered in the teaching of reflective thinking.

The course was taught under the rubric of "Multicultural Education Curriculum Development." The materials, format and methodology were based on Facing History and Ourselves curriculum (Strom & Parsons, 1982). Therefore, before examining the cultural issues raised during the course, it is necessary to briefly describe the philosophy and objectives of both multiculturalism and the curriculum used in the course. As will be seen, both are closely linked by the theme of reflective thinking.

An important premise of multicultural education is that the reduction of interpersonal and intercultural conflict is based primarily on the critical and reflective understanding of self and others in historical, cultural and contemporary contexts. Similarly, better communication with others is not only based on awareness of differences: it encompasses, as well, the internalization of human condition universals. Thus, in addition to learning about cultural differences, it is important to explore what binds us with people who conceive of their realities differently (Wurzel, 1984).

However, the reduction of cultural conflict and the enhancement of intercultural communication is not, simply, the learning of cultural differences and similarities. It necessitates the development of a broader and more expandable style of thinking. It involves the acquisition of a new mind set, that is, a style of mental and emotional consciousness that allows individuals to negotiate, more readily, new formations of reality. It involves the development of individuals who are more susceptible to change and to the acceptance of the inevitability of the conflict that comes with it.

Multiculturalism is the development of humility towards the nature of knowledge. This entails internalizing the historical and contemporary contradictions that are embedded in the human condition. One may say that such a style of thinking and feeling, which is tolerant of the ambiguities of knowledge, will also be more open to variation and equally tolerant of cultural differences. Thus, multiculturalism is the attainment of a reflective style of thinking which encourages the rejection of simple answers and fosters understanding of the significance of any question.

Multiculturalism is the opposite of dogmatism. For, it teaches us to accept as inevitable the contradictions implicit in everything we learn. Thus, a multicultural perspective is one which strives towards learning about ourselves as we attempt to comprehend the realities of others. Through this process we also learn to tolerate the uncertainty of knowledge. Aldous Huxley (1926), upon his return from his first trip around the world, illustrates this point:

So the journey is over and I am back again, richer by much experience and poorer by many exploded convictions, many perished certainties. For convictions and certainties are too often the concomitants of ignorance....I set out on my travels knowing, or thinking I knew, how men should live, be governed, be educated, what they should believe. I had my views on every activity of life. Now, on my return, I find myself without any of these pleasing certainties....The better you understand the significance of any question, the more difficult it becomes to answer it. Those who attach a high importance to their own opinion should stay at home. When one is traveling, convictions are mislaid as easily as spectacles, but unlike spectacles, they are not easily replaced (p. 3).

Multiculturalism is a style of self awareness which involves frequent questioning about the expandable and arbitrary nature of one's own culture. If we are frequently conscious that cultural context influences our thoughts and behaviors and that these, while important to us, are neither static nor absolute entities, we will be more open to accept the fact that others can enrich our experience. Thus to be multicultural is to be aware and able to incorporate and synthesize different systems of cultural knowledge into one's own. Adler (1974) further illustrates this:

Multicultural man is the person who is intellectually and emotionally committed to the fundamental unity of all human beings while at the same time he recognizes, legitimizes, accepts, and appreciates the fundamental differences that lie between people from different cultures. This new kind of man cannot be defined by the languages he speaks, the countries he has visited, or the number of international contacts he has made. Nor is he defined by his profession, his place of residence, or his cognitive sophistication. Instead, multicultural man is recognized by the configuration of his outlooks and world views, by the way he remains open to the outlooks and world views, by the way he remains open to the imminence of experience (p. 23-24).

In summary, the goal of multicultural education is to focus not only on cultural differences but also on human condition universals. However, this must be done in a way that evokes reflection about oneself, others, and the contradictions encompassed in historical and contemporary culture.

The Holocaust, by providing innumerable episodes which defy predictably assumptions of behavior and thought and by illustrating our human vulnerabilities, challenges our notions of what is possible and reinforces our identification with our common humanity.
 

The Facing History Curriculum

The Facing History Curriculum, in its methodology, its presentation and organization of content and material, allows for the applicability of the objectives of multicultural education. While it had originally been conceived for junior high school and high school students, its content can be adapted to higher education. Its main goal is to promote reflective thinking. The authors (Strom & Parsons, 1982, p.13) trace their own philosophy to Hannah Arendt's important question. She asks: "Could the activity of thinking, as such,... be among the conditions that make men abstain from evil-doing or even actually condition them against it?" (1972).

Consequently the curriculum is designed to make students think. They are asked not merely to take what they see and hear, but to make connections, question the information they receive, process it and reflect on their answers. Its pedagogical goals: 

(1) to allow students to move thinking from simple to complex, 

(2) to generate conflict, 

(3) to foster a sense of community in the classroom and 

(4) to help students draw connections to their own lives correspond closely to the aims of promoting a multicultural style of thinking.

The curriculum underlies the significance of the individual in controlling his/her destiny and that of the society at large. Strom and Parsons (1982) illustrate this in their introduction: