BEYOND CONFLICT: CULTURE, SELF, AND

INTERCULTURAL LEARNING AMONG

IRANIANS IN THE U.S.
DIANE M, Ht2FFMAh
ABSTRACT. Based on ethnographic research on the culrural adaptation of&an&
an immigrants and exiles in California, this paper considers the role of the self i n
intercultural ~eurning, and suggests that the ~~ationship between the setf and
culture be considered a significant factor in the ways individuals learn- other
cultures. Among the30professional and 24 adolescent lraaians interviewed, there
were two primary modes of relating self to culture that seemed linked to two
possible levels of intercultural learning: One involving behavioral-level learning
that did not entail changes in the subjective sense of inner self: and the other
involving a deeper Ievel transformation of behavior linked with subjectively expe-
rienced changes in the realms of value, meaning, and identity constituting the
inner se/$ Though cultural conflicts between Iranians and Americans were signif-
icant, for the majority of Iranians the process of cultural adjustment was not
experienced as a source of culturalshock, conflict, or confusion, but as a learning
experience in which the self played a primary role as mediator for cultural learn-
ing. The paper proposes that the dominant research orientation of the interczdtur-
al$eld, chamcterizable by a concern with cufture differences and culture convict,
has often obscured co~s~demtion for the dimensions of cultural learning that
transcend the experience of conflict.
CONFLICT AND SELF IN INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH
The role of self in intercultural adjustment has long been a concern of
intercultural research. Most commonly operationalized in terms of iden-
tity, self-esteem, or self-concept, (Bagley & Young, 1988), the notion
of self has been viewed within a framework emphasizing the dimensions
of cultural conflict experienced in the process of interacting with another
culture. Indeed, the notion that the self experiences cultural conflict as an
inevitable response to the existence of cultural differences is one of the
fu~dament~ assumptions of the intercultur~ field. This conflict view of
self is reflected in the well-known concept of culture shock, in approaches
to the study of intercultural communication that emphasize the role of
This article is based on a paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Congress of the
International Society for Intercultural Education, Raining, and Research, Denver, Colora-
do, May 1988.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Dr. Diane M. Hoffman, 32 Larkin Street,
Huntington Station, NY 11746.
27.5
276
D. M. Hoffman
power and controi in the intercultural interpersonal relationship (see Gu-
dykunst & Kim, 1984; Singer, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1985), and in the
emphasis in intercultural training on behavioraf management as a pri-
mary means of reducing intercultur~ conflicts. In all of these areas, self
is seen as an arena for cross-cultural conflict, with cultural adaptation
defined primarily in terms of how well one can manage cultural conflicts
successfully so as to preserve self-concept and a sense of high self-
esteem.
In fact, most intercultural research has not gone beyond this rather
limited consideration of self because of practical methodologicai difficul-
ties. The notion of self as a complex, whole, encompassing behavioral as
well as affective and affiliative components, represents a much more
fuzzy concept that in fact cannot be studied very effectively except
through the use of more qu~itative methods. According to Ting-Toomey
(1984), such methods have much potential yet are not often used because
of the length of time and the foreign language facility they require.
Another reason for lack of a more complex view of self in intercultural
research is that most often self is viewed deterministically, as a bound
entity that cannot escape the dictates of culture. It thus acts as a barrier
to effective intercultural understanding and communization, and as a
primary source of conflict in intercultural relations. According to this
view, self is determined by culture and is basically inseparable from it. In
the words of Gudykunst 6t Kim (1984),
Culture programs us to define what is real, what is true, what is right, what is
beautiful, what is good. . . . We are programmed. . . . We all have a tendency
toward ethnocentrism as a result of our very inseparable relationship to our
culture. (p. 2553
Gudykunst and Kim assume that what participants in an intercultural
interaction desire is to acquire a . . . sense of control (p. 212). Given
this assumption, it becomes very difficult to consider a conceptually
richer and less determined view of self in intercultural relations, or to
focus on self as an entity independent of culture that may affect the
processes and outcomes of intercultural learning.
Another implication of this strong cultural determinism for intercul-
tural research concerns the conceptualization of culture learning. What
does-or should-it consist of? To date, most discussions of culture
learning in the intercultural literature have focused solely on the behav-
ioral aspects of adaptation, explicitly denigrating the importance of val-
ues, norms, or identity constructs in the learning process:
Culture learning does not imply that a person must undergo a basic shift in values
and conform to a new set of norms. Culture learning makes a distinction between
skills and values, between performance and compliance. (Furnham & Bochner,
1986, p. 250)
Culture, Self; and Intercultural Learning 277
Furnham and Bochner go on to conclude that what intercultural research
and training should focus on are the skills that make a difference;
values are not what really matters.
Indeed, the distinction between values and behavior or performance is
important, yet the question remains, can behavioral change alone be
considered true culture learning? Is not culture something more than
behavior? Or are there perhaps variations or levels in culture learning so
that one may consider behavioral adaptation as one possible form of
learning, yet view it in a more complete context of meaning, value, identi-
ty, and self -all of which ultimately interact during the intercultural
adaptive process? As suggested in the work of the anthropologist Kimball
(1972), adaptation on a behavioral level may only be a superficial index of
cultural learning. Thus, studies of intercultural learning need to consider
the entire complex of an individuals responses to the new environment,
not just those easily classified as behavioral; self is one such domain
that needs exploration.
Recent conceptualizations of the self in anthropology and psychology
have in fact moved away from the cultural determinism and behavioralis-
tic emphasis of earlier years toward a more complex view in which the
relation between self and culture is a critical area for inquiry. An impor-
tant feature of this emerging view of self is its distinct ontological status.
Self is more than the sum of its parts; it entails, but remains independent
of, such dimensions as personality, role, self-concept, self-esteem, etc.
(Marsella, DeVos, & Hsu, 1985). It has thus come to be viewed as a
significant dynamic force in its own right, shaping the way the individual
experiences the world, and not merely acting as the passive recipient of
environmentally determined form and content. It can, moreover, assume
a multiplicity of forms in its interaction with the social and cultural
environment; it is neither as fixed nor as bounded as earlier concep-
tualizations would have it (Sampson, 1985; Markus & Wurf, 1987).
A second area of interest in contemporary anthropological theorizing
about the nature of self concerns its cross-cultural variability. Although
the existence of cultural variations in self-structure has long been recog-
nized, theorists have yet to develop a set of unified concepts to describe
these variations. The recognition of cultural variability has also raised
anew important issues concerning relativism and universalism in regard
to self (see Rosaldo, 1984; Spiro, 1984). This debate aside, when viewed
from an intercultural learning perspective, the notion that self varies
across cultures would appear to have important implications for an un-
derstanding of culture acquisition and learning. As pointed out by
Barnlund (1975) in his study of Japanese and American patterns of com-
munication, differences in the way Japanese and American selves are
constructed have significant effects on intercultural communication. If it
is the case, as Johnson (1985) suggests, that communication is the pri-
278 L? M. Eioffman
mary means through which self is manifested and constructed, research
ought to look more closely at how self is both communicated and con-
structed in intercultural contexts, how self is related to culture, and how
this relationship may influence the cross-cultural learning process.
Though the development of concepts to explain variations in the nature
of the self-culture relationship is yet in its infancy, descriptions of how
self varies across cultures have been numerous. Many observers have
noted that the Western predilection for positing an individuated, uni-
tary, autonomous self contrasts sharply with other perspectives in which
self is unindividuated and socially contextuahzed, inclusive, and diffuse
(Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Marsella, f985). Western notions of self have
also tended to emphasize the need for control, supposing a self that is
continuously in conflict with its natural and social environment in its
attempts to achieve autonomy and individuation. As Rosaldo (1984),
Sampson (1985), and others have recognized, there exists little cross-
cultural basis for assuming that this is a universal pattern, for in numer-
ous cultures it is not themes of conflict but those of harmony and balance
that characterize the relationship between self, other, and social order.
Thus, we cannot suppose that notions of control and conflict, so prev-
alent in many Western intercultural researchers accounts of cross-cultur-
al experience, adequately characterize the intercultural learning experi-
ence of persons from non-Western cultures. Indeed, as pointed out by
Asante & Vora (1983), a focus on questions of conflict, control, and
power reflects a Western approach to the study of intercultural interac-
tions that may in fact lack cross-cultural validity. The Westerners preoc-
cupation with conflict and power may not be shared by all cultures, and
to take an approach to research in which these notions are either explicitly
or implicitly the focus may be misleading. Such a concern with conflict
can and often does obscure consideration of equally and perhaps more
salient dimensions in the intercultural learning experience, particularly
that of self. There is thus a critical need in intercultural research to move
beyond the assumptions of cultural conflict and cultural determinism in
conceptualizing intercuiturai interactions and the learning that may result
from them.
In examining how immigrant and exiled Iranians have adapted cultural-
ly to the United States, this study suggests that we must look at the very
relationship between self and culture as the key to understanding the
kinds of cultural learning that occur during the intercultural experience.
In particular, the study focuses on how self as it is experienced and
defined in Iranian culture affects the cross-cultural learning process. The
ultimate aim of this analysis is to generate concepts relevant to the under-
standing of intercultural learning that might have the potential to move
us beyond the conflict paradigm in intercultural research, Self may be a
primary factor in intercultural learning not so much because it acts as an
Culture, SelJ and I ntercultural Learning 279
arena for the experience of cultural conflict, but because of the way it
mediates the cross-cultural learning process.
Background: I ranians in the US.
It would be impossible to present an in-depth view of the situation of
Iranians in the United States (nor, for that matter, a thorough description
of Iranian culture) within this article; however, in order to provide some
context for the analysis, some general background comments are in order.
Iranians constitute a significant yet relatively unrecognized cultural mi-
nority group in the U.S. According to Lorenz and Wertime (1980), Irani-
ans are the least understood and least well-known of any U.S. ethnic
minority, despite the fact that the Los Angeles area alone-according to
one estimate (Moslehi, 1984)-may have as many as 300,000 Iranians.
The current number is likely to be much larger, although no reliable
estimates are available. There are significant numbers of Iranians in other
U.S. urban areas as well; but perhaps one half of the estimated one
million Iranians in the U.S. reside in California. In the late 1970s Iranians
constituted the largest single group of foreign students on U.S. campuses.
The majority of Iranians currently residing in the U.S. arrived during the
late 1970s and the period of the subsequent Hostage Crisis of the early
1980s.
The paucity of research on Iranians in the U.S. makes it difficult to
draw any conclusions about the nature of this community. However,
recent studies on the demographics of Iranians in the Los Angeles area
have indicated that on the whole these Iranians tend to have middle to
high socioeconomic backgrounds, high educational attainment, and pro-
fessional-level occupational status (Sabagh & Bozorgmehr, 1987). They
are, however, an ethnically, religiously, and politically heterogeneous
group, including Jews, Assyrians, Armenians, Bahais, Zoroastrians,
Kurds, and Shia Muslims. Association with co-religionists and with
those of like political persuasion appears to be the norm; there thus
appears to be a high level of social fragmentation and organizational
instability among Iranians (Moslehi, 1984), with little overt evidence of
strong community cohesion that spans religious and ethnic categories.
Yet, there is evidence that since the period of the large scale immigra-
tion of Iranians to the States, social and cultural cohesion among Irani-
ans is growing. Gilanshah (1986) notes the emergence of a dual communi-
ty among Iranians in the Twin Cities Minnesota area; Ansari (1977)
considers aspects of community development among professional Irani-
ans in the U.S. Moslehi (1984) provides ample evidence for the impor-
tance of an emerging organizational consciousness among Iranians that
may indicate both a need for and a desire to create a sense of cultural
connectedness. Since the Iranian revolution, use of the Persian language
(Farsi) among Iranians has acquired new significance as a marker of
cultural group identity. Community events such as popular and classical
music concerts, art exhibitions, and collective celebrations of Iranian
holidays have helped to promote a sense of shared cultural awareness.
Iranian media (television, radio, community publications such as tele-
phone directories) and cultural organizations have also contributed to
this growing sense of cultural group identification.
Given the heterogeneity of the Iranian population and the extreme
social and cultural discontinuity occasioned by the Iranian revolution, it
is in fact difficult to speak of Iranian culture in a way that adequately
accounts for the evolutionary process it seems to be undergoing. More-
over, when considering the case of Iranians in the U.S., one cannot ignore
the effects of somewhat negative cultural images and attitudes on the part
of the host society, images that have been formed largely in response to
media coverage of events in Iran and of Iranian-American political inter-
actions. These factors, and others as well, have had a significant effect on
the status of the Iranian community in the U.S. It remains to be seen how
Iranian culture and community will evolve as a result of this exile
experience.
However, despite the uncertainty of the cuhural and social situation of
many immigrant and exile Iranians in recent years, it is possible to sup-
pose there are certain dimensions of cultural identity that remain charac-
teristic of those individuals who define themselves as Iranian- whether
this subjective definition derives from a sense of shared cultural past, or
from a present sense of the exigencies of survival as a cultural minority in
the U.S. Those threads of cultural identity that appear to be most signifi-
cant for the present analysis concern the nature of the Iranian self.
Self in Iranian Culture
Observers of Iranian culture have often noted that a fundamental Ira-
nian cultural theme is the contrast between two realms of experience,
described as the internal (baten) and the external (zaher). (Bateson,
Clinton, Kassargian, Safavi, & Soraya, 1977; Beeman, f976, 1986; Good,
Del-Vecchio Good, 1985). According to Beeman (1986), this opposition
pervades Iranian thinking and governs many other aspects of Iranian
social life. It is particularly evident in the Iranian conceptualization of
the self, according to these authors. This self is frequently thought of as
having two levels: an inner core self, considered to be pure, morally
valued, free in expression and genuine, and a social self, or the proper
public face that must be put on during interaction with the outside
world. According to Good, and Del-Vecchio Good, the core self houses
a persons true feelings and constitutes an individuals true personality,
Culture, Se!& and rnter~lt~ral Learning 281
while the social self, bound as it is to interact with a world considered
corrupt and evil, must necessarily disguise those inner proclivities in ways
that are socially expedient (1985, p. 385). Thus, there is no presumed
correspondence between social self and inner self; the public self can and
often does act in ways that may not exactly match inner truths and
desires, without leading the individual to a negative experience of conflict
or dissonance. As J. Bauer (1985) has noted in a discussion of Iranian
women, Moral identities can be independent of socially located decision
making (p. 127).
It should be noted, however, that this picture of a somewhat dichoto-
mous self-though recognized as the norm-co-exists with a very differ-
ent ideal. Ideally, a person should strive to express the inner self, to act
according to the inner person whose thoughts and feelings are inevitably
good. Yet, it is also recognized that this state of harmony is very difficult
to achieve; in order to function effectively in the world, one has to adapt
ones social face in an expedient manner. The individual who does act
solely according to the dictates of the inner heart is praised; yet he or she
is also recognized as not being the norm. Most people are not able to
disregard completely the exigencies of social form, and are hence obligat-
ed to deal with at least some degree of difference between the expressions
of the social self and the truth of the inner core self.
Thus self in Iranian culture is conceptualized as a duality. The distinc-
tion between social self and inner self, far from being unique to Iranian
culture, also appears in other cultures. Descriptions of the Japanese self,
for example, have clear parallels with the self as described in Iranian
culture. Doi (1973) posits a clear distinction between omote and ura
(front and back) in the Japanese self. Lebra (1987) also notes that
The Japanese do divide self into the outer part and the inner part. . . .
It is the inner self that provides a fixed core for self-identity and subjec-
tivity, and forms a potential basis of autonomy resistant to the ever-
insatiable demands from the social world (p. IO). *
That there can exist at some level an inner core self that remains some-
how apart from external behavioral adaptations raises questions as to the
effects that such a self might have on cross-cultural learning. We need to
ask, what forms of intercultural learning might result? How might the
IOf course in Western cultures also there have been discussions of levels of self, and
distinctions have been drawn between social selves and ideal selves. It is recognized that
individuals manipulate their personas to suit given situations: this probably happens univer-
saily. Yet, the main point is that in Iranian culture as in Japanese (and perhaps other
cultures) the conceptualization of self as having an inner and an outer part is well-
recognized and culturally elaborated; there exist specific cultural terms or references to the
phenomenon that pervade cultural consciousness. U.S. culture does not generally elaborate
upon the social-inner self dichotomy to the same extent; although it exists, it is not a key
theme in the conceptuaii~tion of self as it is in Iran, for example.
282 D. M. Hoffman
outcomes and processes of learning differ, depending on the ways self is
constructed in particular cultures? These questions provide the focus for
this discussion.
Methodobgy of the Study
The analysis presented here is based on two years of ethnographic
research among Iranian exiles and immigrants in California. The domi-
nant methodological perspective of the research was derived from inter-
pretive anthropology, using the analytical technique of thick descrip-
tion (Geertz, 1973), which attempts to uncover complex and layered
meaning in the constructions of social and cultural life. The aim of the
research was thus not to test hypotheses or to collect statistically represen-
tative data about Iranians, but to generate concepts that could be useful
for future research on the adaptation of Iranians or other cultural
minorities.
A portion of the data for this study derives from extensive participant
observation in the social and cultural life of Iranian communities in the
San Francisco Bay area and Los Angdes, and from in-depth interviews
with individuals. The researcher attended Iranian community events such
as popular and classical music concerts, art exhibitions, informal social
events, and dinners in Iranian homes, Farsi classes, classical literature
recitation, and study circies, (bowled), and meetings of various Iranian
cultural and professional organizations. Access to the Iranian community
was facilitated by the fact that the author had about eight years experi-
ence among Iranians in the U.S., including a network of Iranian acquain-
tances and knowledge of Farsi. Since Iranians have a well-recognized
mistrust of any person defined as an outsider (even, as Beeman [I9863
notes, mistrusting those they associate with daily), it was essential to
establish close and trusted acquaintances in the community in order to
get beyond the stage of mere superficial social interaction. Access to
organization meetings, visits to Iranian homes, and attendance at social
and cultural events, for example, would not have been possible without
personal invitation. Given the political and cultural sensitivities of Irani-
ans residing in the U.S., utmost care was taken to avoid questions con-
cerning political or ethno-religious issues, and to protect the anonymity
of interviewees.
Much of the data for this analysis was obtained from observations and
interviews with two groups of Iranians. The first group consisted of adult
professionals residing in the San Francisco Bay area, most of whom were
members of an Iranian professional society. Thirty formal interviews with
15 male and I5 female professionals were conducted. Each interview
lasted approximately one and a half hours, and was conducted using an
interview protocol (Informal interviews were also conducted throughout
Culture, Se& and Intercultural Learning 283
the research.) In addition, interview and critical incident data were col-
lected for three case studies of individuals whom the researcher had the
opportunity to interview extensively over periods ranging from two weeks
to six months. Since most interviewees had extensive experience in the
U.S. and were fluent in English, interviews were conducted in English,
although preliminaries were usually conducted in Farsi to establish better
rapport. Interviews were not taped, as interviewees were understandably
uncomfortable with the idea; rather, notes were taken that included ver-
batim comments. In cases of informal interviews, notes were taken as
soon as possible after the conversation, or in some cases in front of the
speaker if it was convenient. Notes were reviewed periodically, and key
themes or concept categories were abstracted. These themes were then
further refined, combined, or altered in a process of continuous compari-
son with incoming data.
The interviewees were volunteers who were asked by the researcher if
they would be willing to be interviewed for the study. In all cases these
were individuals who were personally known to the researcher and with
whom the researcher had had at least some previous informal social
contact, often through participation in Iranian social events. As noted
previously, it would have been extremely difficult to find willing inter-
viewees or to get beyond anything but a superficial verbal exchange with-
out first having established a basis for a personal (rather than researcher-
informant) relationship. The necessary personal familiarity thus limited
the number of Iranians who could be successfully interviewed, although
an effort was made to interview Iranians who had as widely varying
backgrounds as possible, based on current occupation, educational histo-
ry, time spent in the U.S., and marital status.
Those persons interviewed had been in the United States for periods
ranging from four years to ten or more years. Most were Muslim, though
they did not consider themselves religious. All were fluent in English, had
attended universities or colleges either in the U.S. or Europe, and were
employed professionally in local industries or businesses. They thus ap-
peared to be a rather highly educated and economically successful group,
and there is some evidence that more recently arrived Iranian exiles have
not quite reached such high levels of educational and occupational attain-
ment, despite their overall (when compared with other immigrant groups)
high levels of achievement (Sabagh & Bozorgmehr, 1987).
The second major group of interviewees consisted of Iranian students
attending a public high school in Los Angeles. Located in a predominant-
ly middle-class residential neighborhood, the school had approximately
2000 students. Of this number, about 200 were Iranians. (The exact num-
ber of Iranians was not known because the school did not count Iranian
as a separate ethnic category in its enrollment statistics.) Non-Caucasian
ethnic groups constituted a significant minority presence, with Asian,
284 D. M. Hoffman
Black, and Hispanic students together making up about 50% of the
school population. In fact, the school prided itself on its multiculturai
character, and on the general academic excellence of its program.
There appeared to be more Jews among the Iranians at this school than
among the professional group; this may reflect a higher proportion of
Iranian religious minorities in the Los Angeles area than in other areas of
the country. In addition, there were three subgroups among Iranians
based on their academic status and level of achievement at the school:
Those students enrolled primarily in English as a Second Language (ESL)
classes and remedial classes; those students enrolled in the regular track,
and those enroiled in the Advanced Placement track. Students in ESL
classes had been in the US. for the shortest periods of time (ranging from
three months to three years in the case of some students); other students
had been in the U.S. for six years or more.
During a period of one and a half months, the researcher attended
school every day from eight in the morning until three in the afternoon,
observing classes, conversing with students during breaks and lunch peri-
ods, interviewing teachers, administrators, and students, attending extra-
curricular club meetings in which Iranians were involved, talking with
students after school, and visiting some students families at home. A
total of 46 formal interviews were conducted, each of which lasted some
50 minutes. Of the 46, 22 were teachers or administrative personnel (10
females and 12 males, including 2 Iranian faculty members, one female
and one male), and 24 were students (15 female and 9 males).
Interviews were conducted only after the researcher had been at the
school for about three weeks. This waiting period was essential in order
to establish a certain level of trust among the students (especially to
dismiss suspicions that the researcher was an administrator sent to spy
on the Iranians, or an immigration officer). It also provided a clearer
picture of the various social subgroups of Iranians and of the factors (sex,
religion, academic placement) that were significant in delineating these
subgroups. Interviewees were then selected to reflect both Jewish and
Muslim male and female students from the ESL, regular, and advanced
placement tracks. However, as reflected in the total number of male and
female students interviewed, it was much easier to interview females than
males. In some cases, students recommended friends as possible inter-
view subjects; teachers and administrators also recommended particular
individuals who might be wihing to be interviewed.
Given the limited and admittedly self-selected nature of the sample
of interviewees, it would be difficult to claim that the persons interviewed
were in any way representative of the majority of Iranians currently resid-
ing in the U.S. Furthermore, given the lack of knowledge that currently
exists about the Iranian community in general in the U.S., we have no real
way of determining what is or is not representative of Iranians. Further
descriptive and exploratory research is needed before we may move the
level of controlled hypothesis testing and verifiable generalization.
Thus, in this article, the data and ideas presented should not be taken
as a definitive or in any way a comprehensive view of Iranian adaptation
process. Moreover, due to the nature of the data collected, it would be
impossible to present more than a tiny sample in this article; the quota-
tions used to illustrate certain points are necessarily brief remarks extract-
ed from often detailed comments provided by interviewees. They thus
reflect only a small part, not the totality, of evidence upon which the
ideas in the article have been based.
Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Iranians: General Themes
One of the most important characteristics of Iranian adaptation as
reflected in the great majority (but not all) of interviewees comments was
the subjective sense of having been successful in adjusting to life in the
U.S. These Iranians viewed their adaptation as an occasion for positive
learning and self-enhancement. This perspective differs radically from
the typical notion in intercultural research that cross-cultural adaptation
is fraught with anxiety, conflict, disorientation, and generally negative
feelings of low self-esteem. Instead of focusing on cultural differences
and conflicts, a major theme in the discourse of interviewees and in
Iranian community media and organizations was learning. For Iranians,
adjustment to the United States meant engagement in a positive process
of learning another culture. Yet this learning-as so often described in
literature on ethnic minority adaptation or intercultural experience-did
not in general occasion identity conflict or a sense of loss of self-concept
or self-esteem. On the contrary, interviewees tended to speak of their
experience in positive terms, emphasizing how they used their cross-cul-
tural experience to learn and to improve themselves:
Interviewer-Why have you been so successful in adapting to the U.S.?
Interviews-Learnjng. I really paid attention.
-I adapted easily because I was more eager to learn.
-When Im with Americans Id rather talk about something I can
learn from.
Interviewer- Why do you attend the professional society meetings?
Interviewee- Learning. Thats definitely my main reason for going.
Moreover, this learning had positive effects for the individual, both in
terms of facilitating adaptation to U.S. culture, and in terms of self-
growth or self-development:
-Sometimes you do feel like youre in between the two cultures. But its a benefit,
not a disadvantage. You can do more, see more, understand more. Its worth it.
Its very positive.
-1 do have dual characteristics. [But] I can feel as comfortable with American
culture as with Iranian.
286 D. M. Hoffman
-1 have picked some things from American culture and Iranian culture. What
you see is the result of the two. I dont know which is better. My definition of
life is self-improvement, self-development. I am one individual and a single
culture, a mixture of the two. Its great, its the best of the two.
A second theme in this adaptation process was that learning for Irani-
ans was a selective process: it meant, not wholesale learning of everything
the U.S. had to offer, but an eclectic engagement with those aspects of
U.S. culture that were viewed as positive. This cultural eclecticism is
evident in the remarks of many interviewees:
-Im trying to choose the best from both cultures.
-Im trying to get rid of the bad things characteristic of Iranians and keep the
good, and to learn the good things in American culture and avoid the bad.
-Most of the [uneducated] Iranians who come to the United States learn the bad
aspects of American culture most easily; to learn the good aspects requires
much study and learning. But thats what educated Iranians want.
--I dont like the pure version of either [culture]. I like a combination of both. I
can adjust the mixture. . . .
The role played by conscious cultural critique and evaluation of cross-
cultural experience in this selective learning process was significant. Both
students and professionals viewed their own as well as American culture
with a critical eye and used these evaluations as a basis for their selective
adopting and retaining of valued cultural characteristics.
This cultural eclecticism is an extremely powerful adaptive strategy in
that it encourages situationally adaptive flexibility without engendering a
sense of loss of self or threat to cultural identity. Its strength also
derives from the subjective sense that one is making positive choices in
the adaptation process, rather than being simply a passive recipient of the
new culture. What was particularly important was that this selective
learning did not affect Iranians sense of cultural identity: even though
they had learned aspects of American culture, this learning did not
become integrated with cultural self-definition. Rather, identity as an
Iranian remained intact, no matter how much the individual felt he or she
had adapted to U.S. culture:
-Ive adapted to the U.S. more than any of the Iranians, yet I never
try to say Im not Iranian. I will definitely be Iranian always.
-1 learned to be a lot more open with feelings in the U.S., to talk
more about things that bothered me. Im a lot less shy and more
aggressive, at least at work.
Interviewer-Was it hard for you to become more assertive?
Interviewee-Well, its just a social style you have to build . . . Its part of being
professional. Its like a uniform you have to wear. You learn those
ways at work and you just follow them. . . . I havent really
changed in my self, though.
-Im still very different from Americans. Im still Persian. 1 will be till
the end. Im gonna keep my culture. I wont change.
Culture, Seij and I~ter~u~tu~l Learning 287
-I don? ever want to be American. I dont fee1 a bit American, not a
bit.
-Im still Iranian and I want to be. I feel more Persian than Ameri-
can. I love being Persian.2
Though Iranians felt they were quite successful in learning American
culture and adapting to it, they did not feel that they were in any sense
becoming a part of the American system, or losing their identity as
Iranians. Iranians themselves were not the only ones who felt so; Ameri-
can teachers and administrators who had the opportunity to work with
Iranians also agreed that Iranians, though adapting extremely well, were
not becoming a part of American culture:
-Iranians seem to want to learn a lot about American culture. But theyre not
going to be a part of it. They seem very removed from it. I dont see them trying
to be Americanized. I havent seen any outright defiance, but theres not total
acceptance either.
-Iranians adapt. But they will never be a part of American culture. Its coping,
thats all.
Most often, our views of cross-cultural adaptation of cultural minority
groups suppose that adaptation entails becoming a part of the new
cultural system. The process is viewed in a somewhat linear fashion: the
old cultural ways gradually lose ground and are replaced by the new; in
the process, individuals lose their sense of belonging to the old culture
and gradually begin to consider themselves members of the new. This is
especially true in cases where there is high occupational integration and
relative economic success. However, in the case of Iranians, this model
fails to account for the high levels of behavioral and instrumental integra-
tion of Iranians that are not accompanied by feelings of real participation
in the American system, or by a sense of becoming American. Even
though nearly all interviewees spoke about how they had changed as a
result of living in the U.S., even mentioning (as one professional did) such
deep personality changes as becoming more aggressive and more open
with feelings, this learning did not appear to cross over into the inner
self, or to affect an individuals sense of cultural identity. The things that
were learned, the changes that were made-all appeared to be occurring
on a level that was somewhat removed from the inner self. For those
Iranians who felt that they had adapted successfully to American life,
behavioral adjustment was key; but it did not entail any fundamental
change in self. As one person summed it up, When in America, behave
as the Americans do. Another focussed on Iranian adaptive success as a
30 much for our typical idea that cultural minorities suffer from low self-esteem and
cultural inferiority. Our characterizations of strangers as struggling through acculturation
with . . . negative self-images, low self-esteem, feelings of alienation. . (Gudykunst
& Kim, 1984, p. 213) reflect more the assumptions of a conflict paradigm than they do the
realities of intercultural experience.
288 D. M. Hoffman
function of behavioraf learning: Iranians in the U.S., for example, CL . . .
intend to copy the American way, even in friendship- they always try to
be on time, to be more of the type of person you see at work.
From one point of view, there is nothing unusual or surprising in this
focus on be~avio~l adaptation; nor is it especially remarkable that Irani-
ans have maintained their sense of cultural identity. After all, one would
not expect Americans abroad to behave any differently. There is, however,
a subtle difference. One rarely sees adaptation and integration-to the
point of making basic changes in personality-without some sense of
inner change among Americans. The extent to which Iranians had at
least on the surface appeared to adopt American cultural ways would
according to the American idiom of self, mean at least some subjective
sense of becoming a part of the system, or of experiencing a change in
self. An American abroad who had changed as much as some of these
Iranians as a result of his or her cross-cultural experience would most
certainly sense that his or her cultural identity had been affected, Indeed,
it is a basic assumption among Americans that minority adaptation en-
tails changes in cultural self-identity.3 The extent to which Iranians af-
firmed that they had not experienced this change despite their adaptation
can be interpreted at least on one level as a tacit recognition of the fact
that such an expectation does exist in American culture.
Instruments and behavioral integ~tjon with American society, com-
bined with lack of cultural identification, thus seemed to be a basic theme
in Iranian adaptation. This was also found by Barati-Marnani (1981),
who explored assimilation among Iranians in southern California. He
found that Iranians living in Los Angeles and San Diego experienced high
levels of structural assimilation, but low levels of cultural and identifica-
tion assimilation. Of all types of assimilation examined, Iranians most
disapproved of identification with the host society, and they reported this
form of assimilation the least.
We turn now to consideration of the factors that appear to have affect-
ed Iranian adaptation to the United States. As much research on ac-
culturation has pointed out, characteristics of the minority group (such as
education, level of English proficiency, length of residence) and the host
culture (e.g., opportunities to interact with host-culture natives, degree or
rigidity of demands for conformity) play a significant role in the adapta-
tion process ~Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Taft, 1977). B~ati-~arnani
(1981) investigated the effect of a number of variables on the assimilation
of Iranians, including educational background, age at entry into the
US., length of residence, religion, income, and English proficiency. It
3See Iater section on learnability in American culture.
Culture, Self and I ntercultural Learning 289
was found that no significant correlation existed between length of resi-
dence in the U.S. and total assimilation, nor between English proficiency
and assimilation. Those with higher educational levels were also less
likely to experience ~si~lation.
One factor that does appear to play a role in Iranian adaptation is the
individuals acceptance of the unlikelihood of returning to Iran in the
near future. Though nearly all Iranians felt strong attachment to Iran and
to an ideal of return, most also recognized that, given the situation in
Iran, such return is highly unlikely. They therefore based their adaptation
on a desire and a need to make the best of it in the U.S. The Iran many
left behind no longer exists, and any ideals of return must be tempered
with the reality of the changes Iran has undergone. As one Iranian put it,
the dont unpack your suitcases attitude is simply not conducive to
adaptation. The maintenance of an ideal of return along with an accep-
tance of the fact that return is unlikely may in part be responsible for the
particular pattern of behavioral and situational adjustment of Iranians,
without development of any deeper sense of identification with American
culture. The ideal of an Iranian self, like the ideal of return, is held
simultaneously with acceptance of the necessity to adapt ones behavior
to the exigencies of the world in which one lives.
A related influence on Iranian adaptation was the form that culture
learning took among this group. Among both professionals and students,
it appeared that culture learning could occur on distinct levels that had
different impacts on the self. The first level was what could be called
survival learning. This type of learning focused on the acquisition of
detailed knowledge about U.S. society and culture, including behavioral
norms, to better facihtate integration with the host society. This type of
learning was most in evidence in the various channels for learning or
education that were established in the Iranian community: Iranian media
and organizations. The theme of learning was significant in a number of
Iranian radio programs, for example. One Iranian radio broadcaster said,
in an interview, We have so much to learn from each other, Iranians and
Americans. We have to do something to encourage these exchanges.
Thats why I have this program. I want Iranians to learn. His program
featured speakers discussing various topics concerning both Iranian and
American culture, as well as more generally informative talks on modern
medical science or philosophy. The focus on education was also evident in
the Iranian professional organization to which many of those interviewed
for the study belonged: indeed the primary stated purpose of the organi-
zation was to foster education so that Iranians could lead productive lives
in the U.S. Monthly talks at the meeting dealt with such explicitly sur-
vival oriented topics as tax deferred annuities and life protection insur-
ance, or the Dos and Donts of starting your own company. However,
these were not the only sort of topics addressed; in addition, talks also
focused cm aspects of Iranian cultural heritage (such as Iranian arcbae-
ology or Iranian Miniature painting) and topics that might best be
classified as meta-cultural, or geared toward learning for the sake of
learning, or for m~mbersbip in a world scientific intellectual community.
The latter category was exemplified in the Iranian professional society
talks on fifth generation computers, or cancer.
These three categories of information were also reflected in Iranian
community media such as the community telephone directories. These
directories were far more than mere telephone directories, however; they
were compendia of cultural information~ The first category, again, was
the explicit adaptive information~ such as lists of local agencies,
schools, or places to visit, or indications of where to go for help with
various types of problems. The second type of information was that
related to Iranian cultural heritage, such as lists of traditional Iranian
names, or detailed geographical reformation about Iran. The third cate-
gory was reflected in sections of the directories devoted, for example, to
lists of world inventions, along with dates, names, and nationality of the
inventor; to definitions of basic world political and religious philoso-
phies; and to a complete statement of the International Bill of Human
Rights. The latter category reflects a concern for learning that goes be-
yond the mere basic survivat level learning or adaptive learning to
embrace goals that are more metacult~ral and world community
focused.
Evidence from the community such as the above, along with the de-
tailed statements made by individuals about the importance of learning
to their adaptation to the United States, would seem to indicate that there
exist degrees of involvement in learning culture, from that sort of learn-
ing best conceptualized as instrumental - focused on facilitating adapta-
tion through learning about culture and learning the appropriate skills
necessary for survival-to a deeper sort of learning best conceptualized
as self-impacting, in that its aim is the expansion of the self to include
alternative modes of cultural definition and transformation of identity as
a result of cross-cultural experience. This second form of learning goes
beyond the instrumental focus of the first; it can involve the learner ins
much deeper way in the process of acquiring the deep meaning and value
system of another culture or cultures.
Among Iranians, the instrumental type of learning appeared to be
more common: it was reflected ia the very conscious eclectic adoption of
behaviors thought to be advantageous to success in U.S. society, particu-
larly in the domain of career or academic success. This learning, as
described by interviewees, did not engender any sense of cultural self-
transformation or any negative experience of conflict or alienation. Rath-
er, it was experienced as a very positive engagement with the new culture.
Moreover, this sort of instrumental adaptive learning appears to have
Culture, Self; and I ntercultural Learning 291
been facilitated by the dual nature of the Iranian self as described earlier:
a high degree of awareness or consciousness of the social self, and a
recognized responsibility to shape that self in ways consonant with the
demands of social circumstance. Since this social self functions on a
level that is somewhat independent of the inner self, external level trans-
formations such as the acquisition of new behaviors do not penetrate to
that inner core. Because of this relative independence of the two levels of
self, many Iranians experienced little identity conflict or disorientation
while engaged in this sort of learning. Thus, no matter how much an
individual appeared to have adopted American patterns-even to the
point of changing personality to fit perceived American personality
types4 - these changes were not experienced as changes in self.
I ndividual Variation in Adaptive Response
Although the majority of Iranians felt they had adjusted successfully
to life in the U.S., there were others for whom the experience was less
than positive. One group consisted of those who found themselves aliena-
ted from U.S. culture completely, while attempting to retain a firm and
pure Iranian identity; the second consisted of those who found them-
selves alienated from Iranian culture, or who lacked any identification
with one particular culture. In this second group there was a sense of
having transcended cultural identity, of having lost a firm sense of cultur-
al belonging. Although both groups of persons saw themselves as aliena-
ted, what they were alienated from was different, as were their general
levels of satisfaction with their experience and, especially, whether or not
they saw their experience as contributing to inner growth. Neither group
relied upon the eclectic adaptive strategy described earlier.
Persons who felt alienated in the negative sense experienced conflict,
anxiety, and disorientation while in the U.S. These persons felt an intense
conflict between preserving their Iranian identity and adjusting to Ameri-
can lifestyles and values-a very different response from that of the
eclectics for whom adopting American lifestyles occasioned no conflict
at all with their sense of being Iranian. These persons felt obligated to
reject most, if not all, American cultural values and behavior. The self
was felt to be threatened by the encroaching influences of American
culture, resulting in an active attempt to resist behavioral and social
adjustments. As one professional woman said,
Iranians often praised some aspects of American personality and said they tried to
incorporate these aspects into their own personalities. One said, There are lots of things
about Americans that 1 like- they are straightforward, independent. They have an achiever-
type personality. Its a good type of personality to have.
D. M. Hoffman
I dont think Im adapting at all to American culture. In fact, the longer I stay
here, the more alienated I feel. Now Im even more Iranian than I was when I first
came here. All my experiences have made me feel closer to Iran and Iranian
culture. . . .
In America, I get hurt all the time. People are just not sensitive to
each other. Sometimes I have to close my ears, tune it out, in order to avoid being
hurt. . . . I would really love to return to Iran, but right now I just cant. I have to
figure out a way to stay in America but not to become like that [i.e., like Ameri-
cans]. The best thing here is that you do have the freedom to choose, you can
choose to remain Iranian. But its so difficult. . . .
This woman has clearly responded to American culture in a fashion
different from the eclectics. Unlike them, she has not been able to inte-
grate certain aspects of American cultural behavior with her Iranian
self, and yet manage to retain that self. Any compromise with American
culture, on the contrary, posed a threat to her Iranian self-identity. The
experience was one of conflict between the idealized pure version of an
Iranian self and the encroaching influences of the surrounding culture.
Culture learning was not just a uniform that one could put on in certain
situations; rather, adopting American behavior and social interaction
patterns had to be actively resisted, or else such changes would affect the
inner self and result in loss of self-identity as an Iranian. For this woman,
the inner self was experienced as much more permeable to the transfor-
mations of the social self.
A second form of alienation was found in those individuals who had
attempted to disavow any Iranian identity, often by immersing themselves
totally in American culture. This second type of alienation was character-
ized by a sense that one had gone beyond the need for a firm sense of
cultural self-definition. One Iranian described himself as a man without
a country, claiming he was estranged from family and friends in Iran by
his own choice. Since coming to the U.S. many years ago, he had had
almost no close contact with other expatriot Iranians. He prided himself
on being taken for any number of different nationalities, and viewed his
task in life to be to open up lines of communication between people. To
this end, he said he wanted to mix thoroughly with American culture.
Other Iranians at the place this person worked complained to him, Why
dont you act Iranian?
This persons attempt to eliminate any vestiges of an Iranian sense of
self by total immersion in a new culture represents a more positive experi-
ence of alienation than that described above. The loss of self involved
here is experienced as positive in that it has the potential to contribute to
a culturally transcendent self. Self can become any culture; it is not
bound to the culture of its origin. Cultural identity is thus infinitely
transmutable, and cross-cultural experience is not a threat to the self but
an opportunity for growth.
Yet, this attempt to get beyond culture seemed to carry with it other
burdens of loss of a more personal nature. One sensed an isolation, an
Cuiture, SeiJ ; and I ntercultural Learning 293
unfulfilled need for belonging. Indeed, this Iranian described himself as
being alone, totally without anyone. The potential for positive growth,
though present, was tempered by a failure to find a fixed cultural point of
reference upon which one could rely for meaning and structure in the
process of self-transformation.
The Self-Culture Relation
How can we account for these varieties of adaptive response, particu-
larly in the light of a concern for the impact of self on cross-cultural
learning? Those Iranians who were able to engage in eclectic learning
seemed to do so in a way that enabled them to adapt their behavior (and
even aspects of personality) to the perceived demands of circumstance
without any subjective experience of self involvement. Their response
was very different from those Iranians who either felt that their Iranian
cultural self was threatened by any sort of adaptation to the U.S., or who
attempted to absorb U.S. culture to such a degree that self could be-
come metacultural, or susceptible to a variety of cultural self-definitions.
The difference between these two groups appears to be related to two
possible modes of relation between self and culture.
The majority of Iranians -those who could selectively acquire certain
aspects of American culture without experiencing impact on the self-
may have what could be called a culture as being mode of self-culture
relation. In this mode, there is a clear separation between the social self
and its behavior and the inner self that is the realm or locus of cultural
self-definition. This separation reflects the dichotomous self as concep-
tualized in Iranian culture. It allows the individual to adopt alternative
cultural patterns without experiencing any inner conflict or sense of
change.
The second form of self-culture relation might be called the culture as
action mode. In this mode there is much less separation between social
behavior and the realm of the inner self and cultural identity. Culture is in
fact what one does, rather than what one is. It is greatly affected by ones
external adaptations and social interactions; thus, the acquisition of new
behavior, attitudes, or beliefs may in fact be more closely tied to a subjec-
tive sense of self-transformation-either in the negative sense of a loss
of self, or in a positive sense of self-growth or movement toward poly-
cuftural identity. According to this mode, the inner self is much more
susceptible to re-definition according to changing circumstance, and con-
sistency between social behavior and the inner realm of value, affect, and
identity is experienced as far more significant and necessary.
These two modes appear to be well illustrated by the cases explored in
this study. In a culturally adaptive situation, an individual whose primary
mode of self-culture relation is culture as being will be less likely to
294
D. M. Hoffman
experience inner identity change as a result of adaptation to the new
culture. This appeared to be the case with many of those Iranians who
engaged in selective learning of American cultural patterns. In contrast, a
person whose primary mode of self-culture relation is culture as action
will be more likely to experience changes in social behavior and interac-
tion during the process of adaptation as linked to transformations of the
inner self. This appeared to be the experience of those Iranians who felt
threatened by the encroaching influence of U.S. culture, or who felt
they had experienced a transformation of cultural self toward a state of
polyculturality as a result of their cultural learning.
Cultural Learnability
Patterns of Iranian adaptation demonstrate the need to consider not
only the nature of the self-culture relation during the intercultural learn-
ing process, but also the assumptions governing different cultural sys-
tems views of how other cultures can and should react in acculturative
situations. In the case of the Iranians, it appears that certain American
cultural assumptions regarding the nature of minority acculturation were
not, in most cases, borne out; these assumptions reflected what might be
called an American orientation to cultural adaptation based on the cul-
ture as action mode of self-culture relation. These ideas are expressed in
the words of one faculty member interviewed for the study:
There should be no difference between foreign and American kids. The school
policy is this: As long as a student is here, he or she is American, with the same
privileges and the same responsibilities. . . . We expect [the Iranians] to be like
Americans. Some resent that, but in the end they all give in.
This statement assumes that Iranians must become Americans in the
deepest sense: that is, they must come to share in the privileges and
responsibilities- the underlying values-of participation in the Ameri-
can system. It is based on the assumption that members of different
cultural minority groups can and should acquire American culture at the
deep level of cultural self-definition in the process of adjusting socially
and occupationally to American life. It thus reflects a conviction that
cultural self-identity- that inner core-can and must change as a result
of behavioral participation in the American system: this is in fact the
major notion underlying the culture as action mode of self-culture
relation.
It may be that this mode of conceptualizing the relationship of self to
culture underlies what could be called American faith in the learnabil-
ity of American culture-a faith that is, perhaps, without parallel any-
where else in the world. Other cultures, for example, hold exactly the
opposite view: they do not believe it is possible for foreigners to acquire
their culture (and, in extreme cases, language) in any deep way, no matter
Culture, SeIJ and Intercultural Learning 295
how much they might try. Nor do they believe that such a process of
culture learning is desirable. (Japan is a notable case in point; Iranians
hold to a more moderate view.) Such cultures view themselves as un-
learnable by outsiders-and this view conditions their reactions to for-
eigners in their midst, just as the American faith in learnability underlies
much of the melting pot ideology and the more modern pluralism-
where superficial cultural differences are idealized, yet only in the context
of what are still very strong expectations that foreigners living in the U.S.
will at the deep level of core self become and remain American. In the
end, this faith in learnability is traceable to a culture as action mode of
conceptualizing self in relation to culture, where identities are easily
transmutable once appropriate behavioral changes have been made.
This study has suggested that we consider the nature of the self-culture
relation and the apparent differences in the locus of intercultural learning
as critical factors in the intercultural learning process. To describe cross-
cultural learning and adaptation without reference to the crucial role
played by the self in learning would be to ignore the voices of those who,
in the process of learning, describe their experience in terms of self, and
point out its role in the intercultural experience. These voices need to be
listened to more closely, for they provide keys to understanding that may
otherwise be ignored.
I mplications
The implications of the notions developed here for the field of intercul-
tural training and research fall into both the theoretical and the practical
categories. For practitioners-trainers and educators in the intercultural
field whose focus is on social skills training, there may be variations in
behavioral flexibility related to the extent to which self becomes involved
in social interaction. It may be the case that individuals who experience
the culture-as-being mode of relating self to culture may in fact be more
proficient in situationally adapting behavior than those whose adapta-
tions are more tied to subjective assessments of self-relevance. (Indeed,
this suggests that it may be more difficult to train Americans than other
cultural groups in this sort of behavioral flexibility, since it is less easy for
them to separate behavior from inner sense of self, role, personality, or
identity.)
Yet, the study also suggests that an overall focus on behavioral manage-
ment as the key to successful intercultural adaptation can result in only
superficial culture learning. The intercultural field has a responsibility, in
a sense, to go beyond this level and to move toward developing approach-
es that can encourage deeper levels of adaptation and learning. Certainly
appropriate behaviors can be taught, and knowing how to perform them
is desirable. However, this is only the beginning-not the endpoint -of
296 D. M. ~offrnffn
the intercultural relationship. If our relations with strangers are reduced
to behavioral management sessions, we in fact have made a poor con-
tribution to the achievement of intercultural understanding. The goal of
intercultural training should be not only to teach individuals to make
correct cross-cultural attributions, for example, but to teach them how to
learn culture by systematic exploration of the factors-such as those
described above-that influence the relationship of the self to culture.
This approach would in fact move us away from conceptualizing the
intercultural learning proces in the first place as training-a term that
connotes a rather behavioralistic stimulus-response sort of learning -
toward a more natural, field-based education that involves the self at the
deepest level. An individu~ only learns, in fact, that which is experienced
as self-relevant. Thus, in order to learn a different culture, he or she must
experience a loss of self-relevance in his or her own culture, and a deeper,
more self-satisfying participation in another cultural mode of experienc-
ing the world.
As intercultural educators, our primary task should be to share our
profound disbelief-despite what some researchers have to say- that we
are to a great extent locked into our cultures. For, as this discussion has
shown, it is not so much the forms or content of culture that determine
our response to other cultures, but the way in which we relate to cul-
tures- both our own and those of others. If this fundamental way of
relating can be changed, then that is what our research and education
should focus on. We need to move away from an exclusive focus on
deterministic models of self in cross-cultural adaptation, toward models
that focus upon the linkages between the individual and culture. We need
a greater focus in our research on understanding how people learn to
expand their repertoire of self- how they can transcend conflicts and
learn from sharing with others.
The experience of Iranians in the U.S. has much to teach us about the
role of learning and about the possible ways in which intercultural learn-
ing can contribute to the self. Rather than view the process of cross-
cultural adaptation as replete with negatives, we ought to consider how it
has the potential to lead to greater understanding, both interpersonal and
intercultural.
REFERENCES
ANSARI, M. (1977). A community in process: The first generation of the Iranian
professional middle-class immigrants in the United States. International Re-
view of Modern Sociology, 7, 85-101.
ASANTE, M. K., & VORA, E. (1983). Toward muitiple philosophical approach-
es. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current
perspecfives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cuiture, Serf; and ZntercuItura~ Learning 297
BAGLEY, C., & YOUNG, L. (1988). Evaluation of color and ethnicity in young
children in Jamaica, Ghana, England, and Canada. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 12, 45-60.
BARATI-MARNANI, A. (1981). Assimilation of Iranian immigrants in southern
California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International
University, San Diego.
BARNLUND, D. C. (1975). Publicandprivateself in Japan and the US.. Tokyo:
Simul Press.
BATESON, M. C., CLINTON, J. W., KASSARGIAN, J. B. M., SAFAVI, H.,
& SORAYA, M. (1977). Safa-yi batin: A study of the inter~lations of a
set of Iranian ideal character types. In L. C. Brown & N. Itzkowitz (Eds.),
Psychological dimensions of near Eastern studies. Princeton: The Darwin
Press.
BAUER, J. (1985). Sexuality and the moral construction of women in an Islamic
society. Anthropological Quarterly, 58, 120-129.
BEEMAN, W. 0. (1976). What is Iranian national character? A sociolinguistic
approach. Iranian Studies, 9(l), 22-48.
BEEMAN, W. 0. (1986). Language, status, and power in Iran. Bloomington:
Indiana University.
DOI, T. (1973). Omote and ura: Concepts derived from the Japanese two-fold
structure of consciousness. Journaf of Nervous and Mental D&orders, 157,
258-261.
FURNHAM, A., & BOCHNER, S. (1986). Culture shock. London: Methuen &
Company.
GEERTZ, C. (1973). The interpretation of ctdtures. New York: Basic Books.
GILANSHAH, F. (1986). Iranians in the twin cities. Journal of the Institute of
Minority Muslim Affairs, 7, 117- 123.
GOOD, B. J., & DEL-VECCHIO GOOD, M. J. (1985). The interpretation of
Iranian depressive illness and dysphoric affect. In A. Kleineman & B. Good
(Eds.), Culture and depression. Berkeley: University of California Press.
GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An
approach to intercultural communication. New York: Random House.
JOHNSON, F. (1985). The western concept of self. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos,
& F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Cufture and selfi Asian and western perspectives.
London: I&stock.
KIMBALL, S. T. (1972). Learning a new culture. In S. T. Kimball & J. B. Watson
(Eds.), Crossing cultural boundaries. San Francisco: Chandler.
LEBRA, T. S. (1987, November). SeZf in Japanese culture. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Anthropological Society, Chicago, Illinois.
LORENZ, J. H., & WERTIME, W. T. (1980). Iranians. In S. Thernstrom (Ed.),
Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
MARKUS, II., & WURF, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psycho-
logical perspective. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review
of Psychology, 38,299-337.
MARSELLA, A. J. (1985). Cuiture, self, and mental disorder. In A. J. Marsella,
G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self.- Asian and western perspec-
tives. London: Tavistock.
298 D. M. Hoffman
MARSELLA, A. J., DEVOS, G & HSU, F. L. K. (Eds.) (1985). Culture and selfi
Asian and western perspectives. London: Tavistock.
MOSLEHI, S. (1984). Iranian-e-burun marzi v@ nemoune-ye Los Ang&&n
(iranians abroad: The case of Los Angeles]. Los Angeles: Ketab Corporation.
ROSALDO, M. Z. (1984). Toward an anthropology of self and feeling. fn R. A.
Shweder & R. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, seK and emo-
tion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
SABAGH, G. & BOZORGMEHR, M. (1987). Are the characteristics of exiles
different from immigrants? The case of Iranians in Los Angeles. Sociology and
Social Research, 71(Z), 77-84.
SAMPSON, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Toward a revised
concept of person and social order. American Psychologist, 40, 1203- 12 11.
SHWEDER, R, A. & BOURNE, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person
vary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory:
Essays on mind, selA and emotion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University.
SINGER, M. R. (1987). Intercultural communjcation: A perceptual upproach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
SPIRO, M. (1984). Some reflections on cultural determinism and relativism with
special reference to emotion and reason. In R. S. Shweder & R. Levine (Eds.),
Culture theory: Essays on mind, serf; and emotion. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University.
TAFT, R. (I977), Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in
e~ss-culturuipsychofogy (vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
TING-HOMEY, S. (1984). Qualitative research: An overview. In W. B. Gudy-
kunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communization research.
International and intercultural communication annual, 8, Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
TING-HOMEY, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B.
Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture
and organizational process. International and inrercultural communications
annual, 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS
East% sur une recherche ethnographique qui concerne
l'adaptation cufturelle des immigrants et dea exiles
Iraniens en Californie,
cette etude consid&re le role
du moi dans l'apprentissaqe interculturelle, et propose
que la relation entre fe moi et la culture soit
consider&e comme un facteur significatif dane la
manike d'apprendre d'autrea cultures. Parmi lee 30
profeesionnels et les 24 jeunes d*Xran qui ont &tl
interview&, il y avait deux ntaniares de base entre la
relation du moi et La culture, ce qui aemble lier B
deux niveaux possiblee d'apprentissaqe intercultureller
un qui coneerne le niveau de comportement
d'apprentissage qui ne semble pas d'avoir des liens de
changemente dana le sens subjectif du moi interieur; et
l'autre, qui concerne une transformation de
Culture, Se/J and Intercultural Learning 299
comportement li6e a un niveau de transformation plus
profond, avec des changemente subjectivement
experiment& sur le plan des valeurs, signification, et
identite qui font le moi interieur.
Malgre le fait que des conflite culture16 entre
Iraniens et Americains soient importante, pour la
majorite des Iraniens le procede d'integration
culturelle n'btait pas reseenti comme une source d'un
choc culturel, de conflit ou de confusion, mais comme
une experience d'apprentissage dans lequel le moi joue
un role primair comme mediateur d'apprentiasage
culturel.
Cette etude propose que la recherche d'orientation
dominante dans le cadre interculturel (characteris par
un souci pour les differences culturelles et pour lea
conflits culturele) a souvent une consideration obscure
pour les dimensions d'apprentiesage culture1 qui
travereent l'experience du conflit.
(author-supplied abstract)
Con base a la investigaci6n etnogrdfica sobre la
adaptaci6n cultural de 10s immigrantee y exiliados
iraniee reeidentee en California, esta t&is eetudia el
papel de'el y6 en aprender la intercultura y indica que
la relaci6n entre'el y6 y la cultura se considera coma
un factor importante para cada
10s metodos para aprenderla.
individuo en adoptar
Entre 10s 30 profeeionalee
y 24 adolecentea iraniee entrevistados habia dos
aspectos primarios de relacionar'el y6 a la cultura que
parecian ligados a dos posiblee nivelee en aprender la
intercultura; el uno es el aprender a nivel de conducta
que no ocasiona el cambio al sentido sujectivo de'el yo
internb; y'el y6 es la transformaci6n de conducta a un
nivel m&s avanzado ligada a 10s cambios experimentados
con sujetividad en la eefera de valor, sentido, y
identidad constituida en 'el yo intern6.
A peear de que 10s conflictos culturales entre
iranies y americanoe fueron considerables, la mayoria
de 10s iranies no se ha experimentado una fuente de
choque, conflicto, o confusi6n culturales en el proceso
de adaptaci6n cultural, sino una experiencia de
aprender que'el y6 deeempefiaba un papel primario coma
mediador para aprender la cultura.
La t6sis propone que la orientaci6n dominante para
la inveeticaci6n de1 sector intercultural caractericada
por una consideracidn de las diferencias culturales
10s conflictos culturalee se ha obscurecido a menudo
y
consideraciones por las dimensiones de aprender la
cultura que trasciende la experiencia de conflicto.
(author-supplied abstract)