Integration of Cultural Ideas

The process of identifying with a cultural perspective is not the same for every person.  Spiro (as cited in D’Andrade & Strauss, 1992) defined the internalization of cultural models according to four distinct levels:

·         1^st level: person is acquainted with cultural norms, but may be indifferent or even reject some norms

·         2^nd level: cultural beliefs are acquired as clichés; people wear the banner, but don’t fully integrate the belief

·         3^rd level: the cultural information becomes part of the person’s belief system in a genuine way

·         4^th level: the cultural system is internalized and salient; the individual holds the ideas with both beliefs and emotions

With the opening day of the baseball season just about a week away, it’s easy to imagine these levels of integration.  Baseball fans engage with their favorite teams on a variety of levels.  Many casual fans may listen for the reporting of score on the local news and occasionally attend a game.  The “die hard” fans, however, follow the team closely and sincerely believe that “this will be the year”.  I would put my grandfather in the second group—the “die hard” fan.  I remember him listening to games on his radio and going to games with his score card in hand.  When he wasn’t watching his favorite professional team, he was on the ball fields in his town supporting local youth and teaching them the love of the game. 

Spiro’s model reminds us that just because a person has an association with a group we cannot assume his or her level of internalization of the cultural models of the group.   Teachers and clinicians may find it valuable to learn some of the cultural values and traditions of the students and clients they are serving, but it’s important not to assume that every person with that group shares the same knowledge or integration of that knowledge. 

Culture and the Developing Child

Our beliefs about child development are shaped by our cultural context.  To illustrate this connection in my courses, I will typically start the discussion with provocative questions about things such as spanking, “family bed”, and cell phone use.   Most of these topics stimulate a polarity of responses and engage the students on an emotional level.  For example, the discussion about spanking often yields comments ranging from, “Well, I was spanked and I turned out fine” to “Spanking is never ok.  It teaches children to be aggressive. My parents never spanked me.”  Through class discussions, we explore how the layers of culture influence our beliefs.  Our parent’s practices impact our sense of what is right or wrong.  Shifting public views and community practices also impact our beliefs. 

Beliefs about what children should do and how adults should be involved are related to culture.   I previously wrote about Lareau’s research (Jan 29 blog entry) which explored the relationship between socio-economic status and child reading practices.  Looking at play is another vehicle for examining family practices.  Gaskins (2008) completed a study at a metropolitan children’s museum to look at the differences in play behaviors in families from different cultural groups.  The study extended previous research which suggested that families will engage in either cultivation of play, acceptance of play, or curtailment of play.  The family’s view of the role of play determines how the adult interacts with the child during play.  Gaskins reminds people who operate places such as children’s museum that settings such as that are based on the concept of cultivation of play whereas the family sees play as important for development and parents will likely take on a more active and supportive role.  Not every family, however, views play in the same manner. 

The work of people like Lareau and Gaskins reminds us that there is not “just one way” to parent a child or support child development.  It’s important to be aware of our own perspective and be cautious about judging the beliefs of others.  For many years, I worked with children and families from many different backgrounds.  Therapeutic or educational goals are often based on dominant cultural perspectives, but it may also be important to consider the perspectives of those we are working with.  What may be seen as resistance could be based on different cultural perspectives.   Opening our awareness of different perspectives can help us guide and support our clients and students in a more responsive manner.

Gaskins, S. (Winter,2008). The cultural meaning of play and learning in children’s museums.  Hand to Hand: Association of Children’s Museums. Retrieved from: http://www.childrensmuseums.org/docs/H2HWin08Play.FINAL.pdf

Finding Comfort in our Cultural Context

Culture provides comfort.  Stenhouse (1967) claims, “In a sense man is always alone, but sharing culture one loneliness calls out to another and is heard and understood, for to live within culture is to be able to understand, albeit in a partial way, the experience of those around us” (p. 13).  Through our shared practices and beliefs we can develop a sense of knowing and belonging. 

I have been working with data from an interview study of first year college students.  All of the students in the study had participated in a summer bridge program.  The students were together for four weeks in the summer before for their freshman year.  They engaged in a variety of workshops, classes, and social events.  Over the four weeks, the students developed a strong sense of closeness and community.  

Across the first year of college, some of the students maintained close relationships with the students they met in the summer program.  Other students moved on to new social groups.  Regardless of day to day friendships, all of the students commented on the feelings that there was a community of people on campus who they knew would always be available to them because of the shared experience.  This appeared to provide a strong sense of comfort for the students as they embarked on all of the transitions of their first year experience. 

I am sure we have all experienced that sense of “coming home” to a group that we feel a sense of knowing.  For many years, I worked as a clinical music therapist.  I was very involved in the professional associations.  I felt very comfortable with the culture of the group. Like many music therapists, I usually worked in settings where I was the only music therapist.  Even when I was in very supportive work environments, no one really knew about music therapy which was so core to defining my sense of self.  I relished opportunities to be with other music therapists at conferences and professional events because I was with people who understood my experience. 

When we come home to a group that has a shared sense of experiences, practices and beliefs we experience the familiarity of a known cultural context. 

 Stenhouse, L. (1967). Culture and education. London: Nelson.

Ecological Influences on Development

As a young clinician, I worked with many children with disabilities in their homes.  Home-based services provided a rich setting for addressing the needs of the child.  One day, I was driving between client visits and listening to an audio lecture given by Dr. Ken Moses.  Dr. Moses is a psychologist who specializes in working with families that have a child with a disability.  My take away message from the lecture was the idea that you’re never working with just the child.  You are working with who that child is as part of a complex family system.  It was a simple message, but one that changed my focus as a clinician and shaped my future research.

My interest in exploring context and culture later led me to the work of Urie Bronfenbrenner.  Bronfenbrenner developed the Ecological Model of Development as a means to examine the multiple systems that influence an individual’s development.  The family is part of the most immediate system that influences the developing child, but that family is further influenced by larger contexts such as community, the parent(s)’ social networks, changes in the family over time, and larger influences of society.  Bronfenbrenner’s work speaks to the idea that all people grow and develop within the influence of many systems and many layers of culture. 

The systems that the family is connected with influence the child.  Is the family connected with a faith community?  The child will be impacted when parents deal with stressors in the work place or unemployment.  As families go through transitions such as divorce, moving or new family members, the child is impacted.  The many layers of influence shape our thinking and responses to new experience.  It is the cultural learning that teachers us how to interact with our current context. 

We are never working with just the child.  We are always working with who that individual is as shaped by her/ his past and current cultural context. 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology. 22. 724-742.