Dimensions of Interculturality and Gender Sensitization in

Contemporary World
Introduction

A meaningful encounter between cultures takes place only in an intercultural space which
resides in the self-reflexive dimension of all cultural encounters. The intercultural occurs in the
space between two or more distinct cultures that encounter each other, an area where meaning is
translated and difference is negotiated. The intercultural is ultimately a relation of difference. It
occurs in the space where people with distinct ways of interpreting the world reciprocally negotiate
their otherness. It engages a wide spectrum of groups with discrete sub-cultures, identities, social
positions and rules of operation from associations and professions to communities, ethnicities and
nations with varying levels of involvement and uneven degrees of internal coherence. The
intercultural does not need a meeting in the same physical space; people may come into contact
with ideas, and things that originate in a culture that is not in direct proximity to them. It can be
argued that interculturality may take place when people come into contact with cultural otherness.
The responses to this realization may be defensive, adaptive or co-existential but whatever form
they assume, intercultural relationships are one of the most dynamic forces driving historical
change.
‘Cultural Diversity’ has emerged as a key concern at the turn of the new century. Yet the
meanings attached to this ‘catch-all’ term are as varied as they are shifting. Some see cultural
diversity as inherently positive, insofar as it points to a sharing of the wealth embodied in each of
the world’s cultures and, accordingly, to the links uniting us all in processes of exchange and
dialogue. For others, cultural differences are what cause us to lose sight of our common humanity
and are therefore at the root of numerous conflicts. This second diagnosis is today all the more
plausible since globalization has increased the points of interaction and friction between cultures,
giving rise to identity-linked tensions, withdrawals and claims, particularly of a religious nature,
which can become potential sources of dispute. The objective of the present work is to understand
and evaluate the dimensions of Interculturality and the find out some possible methods of effective
promotion of gender sensitivity in the contemporary society, economy and public spheres of life.
Gender Sensitivity in Contemporary World
The discussion concerning concepts sex as well as gender was opened in the 1960’s with the
concept ‘sex roles’. The concept sex was referred to the existence of human beings determined by
biological and physical aspects. The biological sex was deemed to be the foundation on which the
development of the social gender was anchored. So, by gender, we mean the roles and behavioural
patterns adopted by an individual, as well as the whole formed by social roles, norms and
expectations. A ‘gender role’, again, is the sum of cultural expectations and norms, imposed on an
individual’s personality and behaviour according to his or her biological sex (Lahelma 1992).1 Later
on, in the postmodern feminist discourse, this classification has been considered problematic
because it is categorical and contains the presupposition about biology as out of range of person´s
experiences and construction processes (Anttonen 1997).2
‘Gender stereotypes’ refer to established, permanent and usually simplistic assumptions and
expectations on female and male characteristics and the duties of the two genders in society.
Through stereotypes, our everyday processing of information is more easily manageable, as they
direct and binds our thoughts, often without us realising this, thus limiting our choices in many
daily situations. ‘Sexism’ refers to practices and prejudices based on stereotypes which lead to the
other gender being treated as inferior (Apola & Kangas 1996).3

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

1
 Gender relations encompass the notion of men and women being opposites, in terms of not
only biological differences, but also psychological characteristics and activities. In other words, the
genders are perceived and defined as the opposites of each other. The related opposites are, for
example, rational/emotional, strong/weak, independent/dependent, objective/subjective,
mathematical/linguistic, etc (Lahelma 1992).4
The concepts ‘gender system’ and ‘gender contract’ have been formulated to bring to the
fore the covert structures and processes related to the relationship between genders in the society.
The most salient feature of the Western gender system is the division of labour between men and
women. The gender contract refers to the historical development of the gender relations and the
segregation of social life into public and private spheres. According to this cultural system, men
carry the responsibility of public activities, that is, the productive activities of society, while
women’s tasks are within the private sphere, reproductive: rearing and looking after children
(Liljeström 1986).5
The ‘contract’ regulating the gender-based division of labour also means that work within
the public sphere is valued by being paid, whereas work done outside this sphere is unpaid. Even in
the public sphere, women’s work is at the lower end of the hierarchical scale; therefore, sectors
dominated by women are lower-paid than those dominated by men. In addition to the horizontal
division of labour, the segregation has been vertical (Hirdman 1990).6
Gender-sensitive activity or counselling emphasises processes increasing the awareness of
the social order of gender. Gender-sensitive orientation or counselling means occupational
counselling that identifies and acknowledges gendered structures and processes in society, as well
as how they affect men and women’s lives. The point of departure is the idea that gendered
processes are integrally linked to an individual’s wellbeing. This is why these questions are
explored within their socio-cultural context and there is an active search for ways of unravelling the
injustice evolved in gendered practices and experiences of them. Gender-sensitive orientation
programme or counselling, thus, also emphasises the male point of view and men’s opportunities to
become aware of how their thinking and actions may be governed by stereotypes, which can be
regarded as a kind of strait jacket (Juutilainen 2003).7
Gender-sensitive counselling aims at improving clients’ ability to take action in questions
related to their choices in life. On the one hand, counselling aims at improving an individuals’
mental balance, on the other, facilitating their ability to act in and influence the culture, society or
community to which they belong. In this connection, the term ‘empowerment’ is often mentioned,
referring to the process through which people can live in a better balance with their environment
and make use of their opportunities in a goal-oriented manner. What is central in gender-sensitive
orientation programme is awareness and creation of new meanings. In terms of guidance and
orientation programme in schools, this translates into the pupils’/ students’ abilities to make
meaningful choices of school subject and plan their life (Juutilainen 2005).8
However, what does gender-sensitivity mean in terms of occupational skills and activities?
First, it means that the gender researcher or activist has a theoretical knowledge of gender
socialisation, the gender system and equality legislation and understands that the world is, in many
ways, a different place for men and women and is able to consider this when meeting clients. The
gender researcher or activist can also identify language use that categorises genders and uses
language that respects diversity. A gender researcher or activist capable of critical assessment
continuously aims at reviewing his or her own gender-related beliefs and assumptions and questions
his or her own interpretations. He or she also takes into consideration how his or her own actions
affect the counselling process and other occupational interaction. This also means that the gender

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

2
researcher or activist is able to identify and pinpoint gendered structures and processes prevailing in
society and educational and workplaces, in particular. Only from such a basis can a counsellor
encourage individuals to engage in a critical evaluation process, in which they analyse their own
actions and underlying assumptions.
Gender Diversity in Contemporary World

Fig 1: Gender Diversity in Contemporary World

According to present scientific understanding individuals are usually aware of their sexual
orientation between middle childhood and early adolescence. They do not have to participate in
sexual activity to be aware of these emotional, romantic, and physical attractions. Homosexual
women also referred to as lesbians, homosexual men also referred to as gays and bisexuals of both
genders may have very different experiences of discovering and accepting their sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation refers to a person’s emotional and sexual attraction to a particular sex i.e. male or
female. Sexual orientation is typically divided into four categories: heterosexuality, the attraction to
individuals of the opposite sex; homosexuality, the attraction to individuals of one’s own sex,
bisexuality, the attraction to individuals of either sex or asexuality, no attraction to either sex.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals may also be referred to informally as ‘straight’ and ‘gay’,
respectively.
Alfred Kinsey was among the first to conceptualize sexuality as a continuum rather than a
strict dichotomy of gay or straight. To classify this continuum of heterosexuality and
homosexuality, Kinsey created a six-point rating scale that ranges from exclusively heterosexual to
exclusively homosexual. In his 1948 work Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey writes,
‘Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to
be divided into sheep and goats …The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its
aspects’ (Kinsey 1948).9
Later scholarship by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick expanded on Kinsey’s notions. She coined the
term ‘homosocial’ to oppose ‘homosexual,’ describing nonsexual same-sex relations. Sedgwick

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

3
recognized that in North American culture, males are subject to a clear divide between the two sides
of this continuum, whereas females enjoy more fluidity. This can be illustrated by the way women
in Canada can express homo-social feelings nonsexual regard for people of the same sex through
hugging, handholding, and physical closeness. In contrast, Canadian males refrain from these
expressions since they violate the hetero-normative expectation. While women experience a
‘flexible-norming of variations’ of behaviour that spans the ‘heterosocial-homosocial’ spectrum,
male behaviour is subject to strong social sanction if it veers into homo-social territory because of
societal homophobia (Sedgwick 1993).10
There is no scientific consensus regarding the exact reasons why an individual holds a
heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation. There has been research conducted to study the
possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation.
Dimensions of Interculturality as a conceptual framework

Multicultural

Cross-cultural

Intercultural

Fig 2: Conceptual framework of Multicultural, Cross-cultural & Intercultural

If we consider the differences among the words ‘multicultural’, ‘cross-cultural’ and

‘intercultural’ they all might be under the same roof but they describe entirely different rooms. The
differences in the meanings have to do with the perspectives we take when interacting with people
from other cultures.
‘Multicultural’ refers to a society that contains several cultural or ethnic groups. People live
alongside one another, but each cultural group does not necessarily have engaging interactions with
each other. For example, in a multicultural neighbourhood people may frequent ethnic grocery
stores and restaurants without really interacting with their neighbours from other countries.

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

4
 ‘Cross-cultural’ deals with the comparison of different cultures. In cross-cultural
communication, differences are understood and acknowledged, and can bring about individual
change, but not collective transformations. In cross-cultural societies, one culture is often
considered as ‘the norm’ and all other cultures are compared or contrasted to the dominant culture.
‘Intercultural’ describes communities in which there is a deep understanding and respect for all
cultures. Intercultural communication focuses on the mutual exchange of ideas and cultural norms
and the development of deep relationships. In an intercultural society, no one is left unchanged
because everyone learns from one another and grows together.
‘Dialogue’ is considered as a rational conversation between two or more persons. The word is
derived from the Greek dialogos, which in turn comes from dialegethai is to converse. Dialegethai
comes from dia through, across and legein is to speak. Today the meaning of this concept is
perceived by social scientists as a method, process and social attitude. The method describes
patterns of inter-human communication conducted for the sake of mutual understanding,
rapprochement and finally-cooperation. Dictionary of Catholic Social Science describes the word
dialogue as conversation aimed at mutual confrontation and understanding of views, and as
cooperation in the search for true protection of general human values and work for justice and peace
(Doron 2004).11
Dialogue distinguishes itself from debate because it involves a form of listening that is beyond
position or profession. Dialogue is described as a process of exchanging information where
participants leave the dialogue with a deeper knowledge level and wider frame of reference than
when they approached it. It involves the creation of an expandable context. Dialogue is successful
to the extent that all parties to it are permanently stretched beyond their opening views.
Furthermore, dialogue distinguishes itself from debate because negotiation is a discussion in which
the participants try to strike a deal or reach an agreement of some kind. In other words, negotiation
is the art of give and take. In contrast with the art of negotiation and debate, a dialogue may request
from its participants to see each other not as an abstract being, but as a particular individual and the
process as one of accepting the other.
It is clear that intercultural dialogue does not exclusively deal with social and political issues. It
also considers the importance of dialogue in the relationship between religion and science due to the
diverse religious conflicts around the world caused by a lack of knowledge of the other’s culture. In
other words there is a lack of a worldview. It is important to appreciate a worldview because it
serves four important functions for the people of a culture. First and foremost, a worldview
performs an explanatory function for the members of a culture; it provides explanations on how and
why things got to be as they are and why they will continue to be that way. Second, a worldview
performs a psychological reinforcement. A worldview provides ways for people to gain
reinforcement for their beliefs in times of anxiety and crisis. This reinforcement may take the form
of rituals in which the people participate, or of individual activities that reinforce basic beliefs.
Third, a worldview performs an integrating function, systemizing and ordering people’s perceptions
of reality into an overall design. Finally, a worldview provides an adaptation function for members
of a culture (Cheikh 1983).12
It is also relevant to consider the concept of culture in order to understand one of the two
elements of the so-called by word ‘intercultural’. By definition, culture is always embodied in a
specific community in the way its members feel, think and act; that is, in the way they understand
themselves and the world, realize their happiness, express their moral, aesthetic, religious and
political values, and establish particular relations as individuals and groups in every sphere of
practical living.

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

5
 Once we have defined the constitutive elements of the concept, we may proceed towards the
definition of ‘intercultural dialogue’. At the European Commission in Brussels in March 2002,
Member of the European Parliament José María Gil-Robles considered intercultural dialogue as a
tautological expression, because culture essentially is interchange and dialogue. The productive
humus of mutual enrichment allows us to live and grow in different cultural manifestations when
they do not occur in the fatidic temptation of locking ourselves in (Gil-Robles 2002).13
At the same gathering and in the context of the tense relations between globalization and
solidarity, intercultural dialogue was also perceived as a path to conviviality and multiculturalism in
which cultures influence each other without destroying themselves or entering into clashes or
conflicts. One of the major challenges of the future is to devise dialogues between cultures able to
balance unity and solidarity with tolerance and diversity. Between the universalistic (euphoric)
rhetoric of the Western culture model and the post-modern discourse of cultural relativism, there is
indeed a growing recognition that some forms of open dialogue between peoples and cultures can
be appropriate worldwide.
Intercultural dialogue becomes a necessity not only for overcoming conflicts but also for
rethinking and responding to global challenges faced by humanity. United Nations Secretary-
General Kofi Annan has given the following significance to intercultural dialogue, ‘Without this
dialogue taking place every day among all nations – within and between civilizations, cultures and
groups – no peace can be lasting and no prosperity can be secure’. Outlining the value of dialogue
between civilizations launched by the United Nations, he stressed that, ‘it helps us draw on the
deeper, ancient roots of cultures and civilizations to find what unites us across all boundaries, and
[…] perhaps most important […] helps us to discern the role of culture and civilization in
contemporary conflicts and so to distinguish propaganda and false history from the real cause of
war.’14
Some scholars propose as a condition for the encounter of a ‘genuine’ intercultural dialogue ‘the
actuality of culture’. To be meaningful, intercultural dialogue should reach the intelligentsia as well
as the masses. This is based on the assumption that culture exists in the hearts and souls of the
masses. It has been said that intercultural dialogues have been taking place between scholars,
officials of non-government organizations, and social, religious, and political leaders. Generally
these dialogues revolve around the following topics: discussion of the meaning, possibility, or
impossibility of dialogue, the analysis of cases of dialogues, the clarification of issues related to
dialogue, and finally the role intercultural dialogue plays in reducing international violence and
promoting economic development.
‘National Identity’ is not a fixed quantity- it represents an historical construction and identity
that may appear seamless is in fact the product of multiple interactions to be found in all national
contexts. The essential challenge, therefore, would be to propose a coherent vision of cultural
diversity and thereby to clarify how, far from being a threat; it can become beneficial to the action
of the international community. It may be argued here that due to the affective nature of the process,
intercultural dialogue should be not only intellectual or cognitive knowledge but also sympathetic
understanding affective knowledge/appreciation of the other. An essential element of this
understanding is praxis: action. In addition, it is the creation of social attitudes conducive to the
understanding, appreciation, and respect of other cultures. Dialogue, in this sense, is a rational
conversation between two parties in an atmosphere of freedom, respect, equality, trust, and
commitment to truth.

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

6
Conclusion
To conclude it may be argued that to study the intercultural is to study the differences and
the difference is not a product of the present. Assumptions and beliefs that have achieved the status
of ‘taken-for-grantedness’ are the outcome of history. They have been instituted by past experiences
of peoples or groups. One of the most important arguments for the study of interculturality is that it
carries substantial intellectual rewards. Perhaps the greatest of them is that it generates new
knowledge. It does so because an encounter between different cultures as well as an encounter
between the scholar and the object of study located in a distinct culture sets off a phenomenon akin
to an act of magic that transforms the stage for all actors.
In recent years, the concept of liminality could regularly be found in geographical literature
and anthropology which may be applicable to the present work more appropriately. This concept
was introduced in 1909 by the ethnologist Arnold van Gennep in his work Les rites de Passage,
where it referred to a state of ‘in between-ness’ during such rites (Gennep 1960). 15 More precisely,
it denoted a category in between ‘normal’ social categories, which brought about connotations of
sacredness, empowerment and comradeship but also of death and darkness. Obviously because of
the imaginative power of this, the concept was introduced in other disciplines, one of which was
human geography. However, as a result, and even more as a result of the concept surviving the
paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism – a shift that implicated that categories lost their
meaning and should be approached more critically – the original meaning of the concept has come
to shift and weave. A systematic understanding of this highly complex process calls for
interdisciplinary approaches but scholars are often constrained by conventionalized conceptual
languages of their discipline and by the incommensurability of frameworks of knowledge.
References

Poulami Aich Mukherjee

7
1
E. Lahelma, Differentiation of the Gender in the Curriculum of the Comprehensive Education,
Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1992, pp. 6-7.
2
A. Anttonen, Feminism and Social Policy, Tampere: University Press, 1997, pp. 52-53.
3
S. Aapola & I. Kangas, School Smart? Observations on how Young Women Cope With Sexism in
Educational Institutions in Women’s Studies International Forum 19, Finland, 1996, pp.409-417.
4
E. Lahelma, Differentiation of the Gender in the Curriculum of the Comprehensive Education,
Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1992, p.18.
5
R. Liljeström, System of Gender and Women’s Work in L. Rantalaiho (ed.) Men’s Science, Women’s
Job, Tampere: Yliopistopaino, 1986, pp. 84-108.
6
Y. Hirdman, Genussystemet Teoksessa Demokrati och makt i Sverige. SOU 1990:44.
Maktutredningens huvudrapport, 1990, pp.73-76.
7
P.K. Juutilainen, Counselling for Life or Gender? A study of Counselling Discussion’s Structure as a
Process, Kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja 92, Joensuun: Yliopistopaino, 2003.
8
P. K.Juutilainen, Introduction to Gender-sensitive Guidance in E. Leinonen (Ed.) Equal Practices in
Education, Guidance and Working Life, Women-IT-project, University of Oulu. Iisalmi: Kajaani
University Consortium, 2005, pp. 23-26.
9
Alfred C. Kinsey et al, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, London: W.B. Saunders Co. Ltd., 1948.
10
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire, Columbia:
Columbia University Press, 1993.
11
Doron Aviva, The Role of Intercultural Studies in the enlarged Europe, Keynote speech given by
Aviva Doron at the Adult Education in a United Europe-Abundance-Diversity-Experience conference,
Toruń, 21 – 23 October 2004.
12
Anta Diop Cheikh, A Method Of Approaching Intercultural Relations, in Introduction To
Intercultural Studies, Outline Of Project For Elucidating And Promoting Communication Between
Cultures, 1976-1980, UNESCO,1983.
13
José María Gil-Robles, Discous d’ouverture of Intercultural Dialogue for the European Commission
held in Brussels, 20 and 21 March 2002.
14
https://www.un.org/press/en/2004/sgsm9195.doc.htm.
15
A Van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (trans. M.B. Vizedom & G.L. Caffee), London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1960.
END