Introduction

In this essay, I will analyse my critical incident through the main concepts of Culture of
Learning. The main purpose of my work is to highlight the fact that the different models
created by the scholars cannot fit all the individuals. They can be useful framework and a
good start to be better communicative people but they do not cover all the possibilities. I will
mainly use two key concepts: Cultural Shock – U-cuve (Oberg, 1960, Ward et al, 2001) and
the Acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980). I deliberately chose to not work on other concepts
as the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity DMIS (Bennet, 1998) or “Otherisation”
(Bennet 1998) even if they can be related to my incident. I will then explain how none of the
models completely fit my own experience as there is no specific example of my own
situation, because I am culturally unique.

Critical incident context

More than a simple situation, my critical incident is beforehand a behaviour I adopted since I
started to study at the University of Manchester. French, with Portuguese and Kabyle
ethnicities, I had to question my identity since a child. I also travelled a lot and worked and
lived in different countries for a time. Thus, I got used to distance myself from my national
identity as I considered it only as “the place I was born to” more than my real home. I often
avoided French company abroad and tried to hide the signs of my national identity. I
considered myself as a “world citizen” instead of a simple French woman. This changed when
I started to study the Master Degree Intercultural Communication. While the “reading week”
was coming closer and because of all the instructions given by our teachers for the essays, I
started to, constantly, think about how it was when I was studying in France. From simple
thoughts it became an obsession. Each time I would hear or see something different from the
time I studied a Master Degree in France, I would compare both academic systems: rules,
norms, volume of writing, quotes, references. I would always start to think “in France it is…”.
This change in my behaviour disturbed me, it felt abnormal as it was my first time trying to
find safety in a side of myself I always avoided. My affective response was first to panic. I
saw all the differences between both system and rejected it because I didn’t expect the rules to
be that different. According to the DMIS, I was in the first steps of “ethnocentrism” (Bennet,
1992). I didn’t expect these differences because I was seeing the rules with a “French” lens.
The fact is, I never once though that the French system was better and more valuated. The fact
that I was comparing both system was my way of going back to safety and to try to
understand the new “cultural codes”. I needed to be aware of their similarities and differences,
to understand how I could adapt and work on myself. Like people being afraid of the dark
because they cannot see. I had the same mechanism. My background was my light and for a
time I was in a dark environment. I then understood that I had to overcome the codes, filter,
references that became a habit for me and had to adapt in my new “cultural groups”. I had to
stop holding on my own cultures and be more open-minded.

Cultural learning

Cultural learning can be seen under different points of view. The culture learning process
takes place our whole life. First through enculturation, during childhood, time when be build
who we are, and then through acculturation (adulthood experiences and socialisation). We
always have to face new situation, environment and even our own culture backgrounds are not
static. They constantly change with the interaction with other cultures. My incident is part of
it. I had my childhood in France. Studied in France. Many of my cultural groups are based in
France. Coming to study in Manchester is all new for me. I have to adapt to new norms. These
norms also have different scales; Holliday calls it “small cultures” (. The first scale is the fact
that the British system is basically different than the French one. The second one is central to
the University of Manchester that might have its specific norms at some point. The third one
is specific to my MA and the last one specific to each of my teachers. I thus have to adapt to
all of these scales if I ever want to succeed. From this context, I can start seeing my incident
trough the cultural shock.

The U-cuve: short time sojourner

“When an individual enters a strange culture, all or most of these (words, gestures, facial
expressions, customs and norms) familiar cues are removed … a series of props have been
knocked from under you, followed by a feeling of frustration and anxiety. … First they reject
the environment which causes discomfort” (Oberg, 1960, p142). Just from this definition I
can clearly see that my critical incident’ affective reaction can be seen as a symptom of a
cultural shock. I have lost my familiar cues in this context and started to lose my confidence.
It impacted my well-being. But the concept of Cultural shock is often associated to the
U-curve figure. The different phases are called: Honeymoon, crisis, recovery and adjustment.
Moreover, I am facing different issues when trying to fit my incident in this model. First, the
U-curve model is effective for the full length of period concerned. I have been studying in
Manchester for a month among a year. I thus have the four steps in only one month.
Honeymoon phase would be my excitement when starting class. Crisis phase would be when I
panicked and felt lost (my affection response). Recovery phase would be when I understood
why I panicked for: spontaneous stimuli to the unknown and when I understood that I had to
be more flexible (cognitive response). Finally, adjustment phase would be when I took action
to overcome this insecure situation, depending on the different scales of expectations. These
four states can happen again and again; Each time because we face something different or
because either our cognitive, affective or behaviour sense are affected by something new.
Finally, even if incident matches some “criteria” of the cultural shock and the U-cuve, this
model isn’t perfect. In one day I could have different emotions and my “cultural shock” is
specific to that context and not the fact that I moved abroad. If I did not have to study in
Manchester but had to work, would I have experienced the same feelings? I am not sure.

Acculturation strategies

When the Cultural Shock is considered as an outcome, Acculturation is considered as a

process (Berry, 2001). “Acculturation is the dual process of cultural and psychological change
that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual
members” (Berry, 2005, p699). Before talking about the different strategies developed by
Berry I can see through his definition of Acculturation that my incident would not completely
fit in that description. “Cultural and psychological change” appeared by the knowledge of
different norms and by the impact on my mental health. However, I do not fit the “contact
between two or more cultural group” part. I might be considered as part of the group of
“French people studying in Manchester’ but I do not have any contact with them and even if I
did, we would learn different things, have different background so our group identity is more
complex than just being “French”. Thus I am not part of a “group” myself and identify myself
as just an individual. “Acculturation is a process of cultural and psychological changes that
involve various forms of mutual accommodation” (Ibid, 699). In this sentence there is also
two issues if I relate my incident. First, there is this idea of “negotiation” between the two
groups (ibid, 698). I am losing this negotiation in my case. I have to follow the new rules. I
cannot negotiate the academic rules of my new environment. That lead me to the second
problem of my situation: they cannot be any negotiation because as an individual I am facing
an academic instance. It is not the same level of action and interaction. I am not facing
individuals part of a different cultural group but a structure and that is a different level. I can
still negotiate my identity by my style of writing essay or by my own ideas and interpretation
but I can negotiate the norms. Therefore, if I take the four strategies developed:
Marginalisation, Separation, Assimilation and Integration (Berry, 1980) I can already reject
some that does not fit in my case. I do not fit in the Assimilation and Separation strategies
because there is neither a negotiation between the two parts or I neither can impose my own
rules. I could have been in the Marginalisation when I panicked and rejected for a short time
the new codes but it was not a permanent feeling. The last strategy, Integration, could work in
my case. I have to forget my home country rules for this very specific situation (essay
writing) and understand the new academic norms. Finally, I would like to use the term of
“acculturative stress” (Berry, 2005, P708) instead of cultural shock. Psychological stress
developed through an Intercultural encounter. I faced new cultural codes I have to adapt to
and it impacted my well-being because I am in a learning process.

Conclusion

Finally, I chose these only two models to explain that even in the Intercultural literature and
the researches to understand the impact, outcomes, process of Intercultural encounters the
positions are diverse. One scholar would create a model, based on empiric results, surveys,
observation but this model would still be created under someone lens. Creating a model
generates generalisations. Intercultural encounter or transcultural encounters (Baker, 2009)
are complex as are the individual’s identities and we cannot predict the outcomes. There can
be a common response depending on our groups but because we are also all individuals and
unique, a small change in the system can change everything.
Because of these two models I understood that I was facing a loss of my own previous
academic marks. I first behaved roughly to this “conflict”. Because of these model I
understood the process I was in and that I could face it with time, knowledge and flexibility.
I believe these models are useful if we need to know how and where to look at when we face
a cultural problem, but they should not be taken as examples as there will always be
variations.
Count of words: 1792