Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
8 Chapter 8 – Intercultural Communication Challenges and Rewards
Challenges and Rewards of Intercultural Communication
Equal or Equitable?
How many times have you heard, “all things equal,” before someone shares a story where, frankly, not much was equal? This chapter will highlight current issues in our contemporary society. In this final chapter, it is our goal that you will discover the difference between “equity” and “equality” and how this impacts your own personal life. We have discussed theories of communication and intercultural communication competency in past chapters. In this chapter, we hope you will see the practical application of equity, inclusion, and diversity at Rochester Community and Technical College as we link you to real-world applications (links to college policy).
Additionally, the chapter will end by discussing the notions of intercultural sensitivity and civility. As you are well aware, there are times when one can not come to an agreement. Even “agreeing to disagree” can be difficult. The idea of civil discourse ends our conversation together.
Section One Learning Outcomes
Define Equity
Distinguish Equity from Equality
Define Inclusion
Define Diversity
Apply Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity goals to your own life
What is Equity?
Recently, in my classroom, a guest speaker, Ms. Chao Mwatela shared an example that demonstrates the difference between equity and equality. She first established an example of equality: if you have 5 identical slices of pizza and share it with 5 people, you have shared the pizza equally. However, if one of the recipients is a small child who cannot eat the full piece of pizza that the 4 larger grown-ups (who can literally put the slice of pizza in one hand), the child’s and the adults’ bodies will not digest and utilize the food resources equally.
Ms. Mwatela continued with another pizza analogy. She asked us to envision a children’s birthday party. There is enough pizza to fully feed every child “firsts.” Like all great pizza parties, there is pizza still left over, but not enough to equally share the 2nd slice with every child. Therefore, when the kids come back for seconds, there are not enough slices to go around. Chao asked us, “What if some children are actually still hungry and some are not? They are now not equally hungry. Would it be so bad to give second slices of pizza to kids who did not eat a meal yesterday and not give a second piece to the kids who ate yesterday, as well as this morning and afternoon, before coming to the party? Did everyone come, to the table with equal hunger?”
Giving hungry children that extra slice of pizza to help with their nourishment is often referred to as “equity.”
In order to discuss how Equity and Inclusion goals integrate with Intercultural Communication, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the core definitions.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
As a reminder, Communication is most simply defined as “making common” or “sharing and understanding a common message” by many authors and Communication researchers. However, in our globalized society, more barriers exist in what we believe to be “common” messages or interpretations of messages. As noted before, communication messages are verbal (words both oral and written) and nonverbal (everything other than words – such as body both explicit (overtly planned) and implicit (more subtle). Communicators, whether explicitly explaining intercultural communication rules such as Human Resource officers or technical writers, or more implicitly, as you listen to a coworker who is new to the United States discuss your business proposal, understanding key terms in diversity, equity, and inclusion can help to bridge the process of “making common.” Brigitte Mussack (2021) in her online OER textbook, Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication describes how essential technical writers’ roles have become in sharing access to information as they write manuals, short sets of directives, newsletters, and webpage content. Your role as an employee may also require your use of verbal communication to share written or oral formats to diverse groups. Consider Mussack’s (2021) advice and discussion, quoted directly as follows from her creative commons text:
…{C]ommunicators often play the role of explainers by making such crucial things accessible and available to their audience, they must consider how diversity, equity, and inclusion are built into the work that they do. They must also recognize the ways that their work has not aligned with goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and build coalitions and communities that center these goals.
Social justice has increasingly become a central concern to researchers and practitioners of technical communication. Technical communicators are working to consider the role they play in either perpetuating or dismantling problematic systems that suppress certain individuals or groups. The role of technical communicators, one could argue, is to make things accessible. So, technical communicators must recognize when things are inaccessible and come up with a plan to dismantle barriers that audiences face so that they can access the information they need.
Key Takeaway: Making Information Accessible
[C] ommunicators work to explain things to a target audience. One way that technical communicators can increase accessibility is to reflect on who is currently centered or included when they write for an audience. Technical communicators can do this work by asking questions and recognizing that working towards accessibility is an ongoing task. Some important questions for technical communicators to ask of themselves and their team include:
Who is part of this audience, based on a rhetorical analysis of the text?
Who might be excluded, intentionally or unintentionally?
Is any important information being withheld, either intentionally or unintentionally?
As you communicate, consider
…specific considerations as using plain language, collaborating with your user through usability testing and centering your audience, and representing data in an ethical way. Throughout each discussion, and each tactic for equity and inclusion, a guiding principle is to 1) consider the specific rhetorical situation and 2) listen to your audience. Avoid centering yourself–your audience, their needs, and their perspective should guide your choices. Finally, consider who your audience is, and be wary of whom you may be leaving out. Whose voice is not currently being heard? Who does not have access? …One way to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion happens through a focus on (and collaboration with) your specific audience. In order to have a good understanding of your audience–their needs, expectations, context–and how that audience intersects with your document–its purpose, goals, and context–it is essential to understand the rhetorical situation (Mussack, 2021).
Before you continue, do a bit of reflection. How do you define the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion? What do these terms mean, and how might they show up in [your workplace]? What is the relationship between diversity, equity, and inclusion and the important work of considering audience in…communication?
While your communication might not be as micro-focuesd as technical writing, most professionals will create memos, emails, and other more informal professional communication that will require technical writing skills. In their text, Walton, Moore, and Jones (2019) stress the importance of building coalitions towards social justice. They also emphasize the importance of recognizing that social justice is integral to the field: that technical communication professionals and scholars must continually work to recognize the ways in which their work has created barriers to access or worked against, rather than with, marginalized communities. Of course, knowing that technical communication has contributed to inequality is an important part of understanding how, as a technical communicator, your work can contribute instead to social justice. The idea of building coalitions highlights …communication as a collaborative process: writings work together with other writers and with their audience in order to continually do better and increase access and inclusion (Mussack, 2021).
Diversity
“Diversity might be defined as the wide range of lived experiences, of cultures, of abilities, of beliefs, or of behavior; diversity refers to the various ways that individuals and groups move through the world. Linguistic diversity refers to the differences in how groups and individuals use language. Diversity, at its core, means difference, and a goal related to diversity would be to have differences represented in a meaningful way. Another goal would be to value and honor difference and to recognize that audience members are inherently different in how they communicate and approach texts. Technical communicators should seek out diversity in their work. Diversity might also include a range of human differences like age, race, culture, language, occupation, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, education background, etc.” (Mussack, 2021).
An example of a “Diversity Statement” for Rochester Community and Technical College (RCTC) in Rochester, MN follows:
Diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It is understanding that each individual is unique, and our individual differences need to be recognized. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, socio economic status, age, physical/mental ability, religious beliefs, political beliefs or other ideologies.
We believe diversity should be present in all its forms on our campus, within our student body, and amongst the employees of the college. Our diversity should reflect the community that we serve in greater southeastern Minnesota (RCTC, 2021).
Equity
“Equity is a term that is related to equality. However, while equality simply means something like making sure each person is given the same opportunities, equity recognizes that individual differences mean that folks have different needs that must be met in order for them to participate. Equity considers differences and accommodates differences with the goal of equal participation or access” (Mussack, 2021). RCTC’s Equity statement mirrors Mussack’s definition:
Equity represents the goal of our efforts. RCTC recognizes that equity is not the same as equality, and that diverse populations by definition come to the institution with disparate experiences, circumstances, and preparation. As an open access institution, we are then called to ensure that students experience success and achieve their goals, despite how they enter RCTC. (RCTC, 2021).
Inclusion
“Inclusion might be a more familiar or common term, and for the purposes of our text inclusion means that folks feel invited and able to participate. Just like equity, inclusion considers differences and works towards access. Consider what it means to be included in a space, or included in some special knowledge. Inclusion means more than presence; inclusion signals something like participation or agency. Inclusion might mean access to resources, to knowledge, to opportunities, or to physical or virtual spaces. When we consider inclusion, we need to consider how marginalized people are or are not invited to participate” (Mussack, 2021).
Inclusion promotes broad engagement, shared participation and advances authentic sense of belonging through safe, positive and nurturing environments. It is about understanding each other, and moving beyond simple tolerance, to accepting and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual. Inclusion is key to eliminating systemic inequality. Learn more about RCTC’s “Equity and Inclusion” terms here, (RCTC, 2021).
Social justice
Finally, consider the role of a focus on “social justice” in your communication. “Social justice generally refers to the idea that everyone deserves equal and equitable access to things like wealth, political power, information, and opportunities. Social justice takes on the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and puts something into practice in order to work towards achieving these goals” (Mussack, 2021).
“As you continue to reflect on these ideas, keep in mind that diversity, equity, and inclusion require ongoing work and are dependent on context. Just as each new writing situation means you need to analyze a new rhetorical situation, each new writing situation means a new set of concerns related to diversity, equity, and inclusion” (Mussack, 2021).
Why Equity, not Equality?
What is equity? Susan K. Gardner explains equity in the following video.
https://youtu.be/nCS7Rus4_-Y
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation explains equity and equality in the next video.
Deeper Dive – What is Equity and Why do Our Children Deserve it?
Rodney Robinson from TEDx Charlottesville explains equity in terms of education.
From the TEDx Talks Description:
“2019 National Teacher of the Year, Rodney Robinson, uses stories from his years teaching in the Richmond Juvenile Detention Center to show the need for teachers of color. Rodney Robinson is a 19-year teaching veteran. He became a teacher to honor his mother, who struggled to receive an education after being denied an education as a child due to segregation and poverty in rural Virginia. In 2015, Robinson started teaching at Virgie Binford Education Center, a school inside the Richmond Juvenile Detention Center, in an effort to better understand the school-to-prison pipeline. Robinson uses the whole child approach to education to help the students who are most vulnerable. His classroom is a collaborative partnership between himself and his students and is anchored in him providing a civic centered education that promotes social-emotional growth. Robinson uses the knowledge he has gained from his students to develop alternative programs to prevent students from entering the school-to-prison pipeline” (TEDx Talks, 2020).
Videos Explaining Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity
Ritu Bhasin explains the difference between equity, inclusion, and diversity.
https://youtu.be/spBB68Wv7KM
“What is the difference between diversity, inclusion, and equity? Diversity expert Ritu Bhasin discusses these three related but separate concepts and how they effect workplace culture….Ritu Bhasin is an expert on diversity, inclusion, empowerment and leadership and an internationally recognized speaker. Inspired by her own journey to overcome racist childhood bullying, Ritu now teaches globally on how to resist conformity and live, work and lead in an authentic and inclusive way” (Youtube, 2021).
Determine how to use the tool of Intercultural Communication in your own life
Materials in this Section
The following materials on Intercultural Sensitivity are quoted directly (and done so following the Creative Commons regulations) from the organization called Organizing Engagement. In the “about us” section of their online website, they explain: “Organizing Engagement is an online publication dedicated to advancing knowledge, understanding, and practice at the intersection of education organizing, engagement, and equity. Our website collects ideas, models, strategies, policies, and research, and then shares them in the form of introductions, interviews, profiles, and other content” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
The terms organizing, engagement, and equity mean different things to different people, and no single definition can capture the many meanings people have attributed to the terms. In general, one of the best ways to arrive at a meaningful understanding of organizing, engagement, or equity work is to sit down with diverse community members and co-create definitions through dialogue and listening.
To define how the terms are used on Organizing Engagement, the editorial team developed the following framework:
Organizing = Building Power
Engagement = Sharing Power
Equity = Equalizing Power
We want to note, however, that our framework builds on generations of thinking and practice—these are not new ideas—and it is closely modeled after the Power Moves framework for equity and justice developed by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
The Building Power–Sharing Power–Equalizing Power framework guides our editorial team as they make decisions about the resources and voices that will be featured on Organizing Engagement.
For example, if a district establishes a student, parent, or community “advisory committee,” but the committee is not given any decision-making authority, and administrators routinely ignore the advice of members, then the committee would not qualify as an organizing, engagement, or equity strategy—according to our definition—because power is not being built, shared, or equalized. On the other hand, a student, family, or community leadership team that is formally authorized in district policy, given defined leadership roles, authentically involved in school decision-making, and able to publicly criticize or disagree with administrative decisions—without fear of retribution—would meet our definition.
Finally, some readers may ask: But why are we building, sharing, or equalizing power? What’s the end goal?
On Organizing Engagement, we believe that power should be built, shared, and equalized to achieve greater equity in school systems and communities. As one of our interviewees, Cynthia Silva Parker of the Interaction Institute for Social Change, discusses in her forthcoming interview, there are two dimensions of equity: process and outcomes. Equalizing power refers to equity as process—that is, the strategies used to build greater fairness into systems, such as institutional policies, programs, and formal decision-making bodies. The other dimension, equity as outcome, refers to the beneficial results produced by more equitable systems. As Parker says in her interview:
“If we’re talking about race, we could say that equity means being unable to predict outcomes on the basis of race. So right now, if you look at anything we measure in the United States that gives us an idea about wellbeing—whether it’s health, income, wealth, public education, or access to public transit, clean water, or healthy air—well, across all of those indicators, people of color in this country fare worse than white people in the aggregate.
We could say that racial equity will be achieved when reliably predicting worse outcomes for people of color is no longer possible—that when you disaggregate the data about wellbeing, let’s say, it looks exactly like the aggregate numbers. That’s a wonky way of saying that everybody in the country effectively has the same chance at achieving wellbeing, and that wellbeing won’t be determined by race, ethnicity, gender, or other dimensions of identity.”
Originally developed by Milton Bennett in 1986, and updated multiple times since, the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity is one of the more influential models in the fields of intercultural communication, engagement, and equity. Sometimes called the “Bennett Scale,” the model describes the standard ways in which people experience, interpret, and interact across cultural differences, and it proposes a developmental continuum along which people can progress toward a deeper understanding and appreciation of cultural variance, as well as greater social facility when negotiating cross-cultural dissimilarity. Bennett founded the Intercultural Development Research Institute to support related research and practical applications of the model.
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity is based on decades of academic research and on formal observations of cross-cultural dynamics in schools, communities, and organizations. According to Bennett, “As one’s perceptual organization of cultural difference becomes more complex, one’s experience of culture becomes more sophisticated and the potential for exercising competence in intercultural relations increases. By recognizing how cultural difference is being experienced, predictions about the effectiveness of intercultural communication can be made and educational interventions can be tailored to facilitate development along the continuum.”
“The basic mechanism for internalizing (embodying) worldview is perception. Following Piaget, Vygotsky, and other developmentalists, children become more adaptive to their particular circumstances by elaborating perceptual categories of relevant things while leaving irrelevant things either unperceived or only vaguely categorized. For example, pasta is a relevant category for Italian kids, and many of them already know the shapes (e.g., penne or rigatoni) that go with different sauces. Pasta is not very relevant for American kids, and most of them can only use the undifferentiated category of “macaroni.” Writ large, culture provides us with a set of these kind of figure/ground distinctions that allow us to co-construct with our compatriots the unique adaptive processes of our group…. As a result, otherness exists in a broad and vaguely defined perceptual category, like macaroni for pasta. Such a perceptual condition is inadequate for communicating effectively with cultural outsiders, since it lumps together people of different cultures inappropriately and precludes taking their unique perspectives in any meaningful way.”
Milton Bennett, “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity,” International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication
In 2004, Bennett explained his rationale for developing the model: “After years of observing all kinds of people dealing (or not) with cross-cultural situations, I decided to try to make sense of what was happening to them. I wanted to explain why some people seemed to get a lot better at communicating across cultural boundaries while other people didn’t improve at all, and I thought that if I were able to explain why this happened, trainers and educators could do a better job of preparing people for cross-cultural encounters.” In part due to Bennett’s emphasis on the educational applications of the continuum, the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity has been being widely used and adapted by practitioners working in fields as varied as parent and youth engagement, deliberative dialogue, racial equity, and organizational diversity.
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity describes six developmental stages of intercultural sensitivity and communication, beginning with denial (the perception that one’s cultural perspective is the only real, accurate, or valid interpretation of reality) and culminating with integration (the internalization of multicultural awareness and the ability to interact productively across cultural differences).
It is important to note that the stages of intercultural sensitivity described in the model apply to individuals, groups, and organizations (although, as Bennett has noted, different approaches to evaluating or measuring developmental progress are required for different applications).
Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, sometimes called the “Bennett Scale,” describes the standard ways in which people experience, interpret, and interact across cultural differences. Presented as a developmental continuum that progresses from ethnocentric (denial, defensiveness, and minimization) to ethnorelative worldviews (acceptance, adaptation, and integration), the model has been widely used as an educational tool to help people progress toward a deeper understanding of cross-cultural difference. Source: Intercultural Development Research Institute.
The continuum describes two distinct orientations toward cultural difference: ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. In 2004, Bennett explained the development of the terms:
“As people became more interculturally competent it seemed that there was a major change in the quality of their experience, which I called the move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. I used the term ‘ethnocentrism’ to refer to the experience of one’s own culture as ‘central to reality.’ By this I mean that the beliefs and behaviors that people receive in their primary socialization are unquestioned; they are experienced as ‘just the way things are.’ I coined the term ‘ethnorelativism’ to mean the opposite of ethnocentrism—the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors as just one organization of reality among many viable possibilities…. In general, the more ethnocentric orientations can be seen as ways of avoiding cultural difference, either by denying its existence, by raising defenses against it, or by minimizing its importance. The more ethnorelative worldviews are ways of seeking cultural difference, either by accepting its importance, by adapting perspective to take it into account, or by integrating the whole concept into a definition of identity.”
The six developmental stages of intercultural communication and sensitivity:
1.Denial
Denial of cultural difference occurs when people fail to recognize distinctions among cultures or consider them to be irrelevant; when they reject the claim that cultural differences exist or that they can be meaningful and consequential; or when they perceive people from different cultures in simplistic, undifferentiated, and often self-serving ways. For example, people in the denial stage will lump other cultures into vague homogenized categories, such as “foreigner,” “immigrant,” or “Asian,” or they will stereotype, demean, or dehumanize others by assuming that different cultural dispositions must be the result of deficiencies in character, intelligence, physical ability, work ethic, or other innate traits.
Denial may also manifest as a disinterest in or avoidance of other cultures, or in naive statements such as “Do they have toilets in Africa?” In educational settings, the denial stage may manifest in statements such as “Those families just don’t value education” or “If they really cared about their children they would show up to more school events.” In many cases, people at the denial stage are not intentionally trying to denigrate other cultures or groups, but their naiveté may nevertheless be hurtful to others or incline them to support unjust policies. They perceive others as less complex than themselves, and thus they experience them as less human.
2.Defense
Defense against cultural difference occurs when people perceive other cultures in polarized, competitive, zero-sum, or us-against-them terms (e.g., immigrants are taking our jobs, our traditional values are under assault, etc.); when they exalt their own culture over the culture of others (e.g., white nationalism); or when they feel victimized or attacked in discussions about bias, bigotry, or racism (e.g., they withdraw, leave the room, break down in tears, become defensive or hostile, etc.). Defense may also manifest in efforts to deny people from other cultures equal access or opportunity, such as opposition to affirmative-action policies or diversity-hiring initiatives.
In educational settings, the defense stage may manifest as parent protests or community opposition campaigns against racial integration, out-of-district busing, equitable school funding, or detracking (the elimination of academic tracks such as standard, college prep, and honors), or as the expressed fear that greater racial diversity in the student population will inevitably lead to more in-school behavioral problems, drug abuse, and violence.
3.Minimization
Minimization of cultural difference occurs when people assume that their distinct cultural worldview is shared by others, when they perceive their culture’s values as fundamental or universal human values that apply to everyone, or when people obscure, disregard, or neglect the importance of cultural differences (e.g., such as when organizational leaders respond—when confronted with examples of racial, ethnic, or gender bias in the workplace—with statements such as “We try to treat everyone equally” or “I don’t see color”). Minimization may also manifest in arguments that human similarities are more important than cultural differences (thereby implying that cultural differences are unimportant or that they can be ignored), or in claims that “deep down humans are all alike.”
By reframing cultural differences in terms of human sameness, minimization enables people to avoid recognizing their own cultural biases, avoid the effort it would take to learn about other cultures, or avoid undertaking the difficult personal adaptations required to relate to or communicate more respectfully across cultural differences. (The slogan “All Lives Matter,” an antagonistic response to the Black Lives Matter movement, is a quintessential example of minimization.)
In educational settings, examples of the minimization stage might include administrators discouraging black students from forming a black-student group by encouraging them to join an existing student group instead, or responding to incidents of racial bias and bullying among students by discussing the need for “respect” while avoiding direct discussions of racism. Another example would be the so-called “food, flags, and fun” approach to diversity or multicultural education wherein educators celebrate superficial aspects of cultures, but avoid uncomfortable discussions about cultural differences or prejudice.
4.Acceptance
Acceptance of cultural difference occurs when people recognize that different beliefs and values are shaped by culture, that different patterns of behavior exist among cultures, and that other cultures have legitimate and worthwhile perspectives that should be respected and valued. The acceptance stage may also manifest as greater curiosity about or interest in other cultures, and people may start to seek out cross-cultural relationships and social interactions that they might have avoided in the past.
In educational settings, acceptance may manifest in changes to the curriculum, such as teaching students about non-white historical figures or having them reading multicultural literature (rather than literature selected exclusively from the Western canon), or in programs such as LGBTQ+ student organizations that allow students to organize or educate their peers across cultural difference.
Importantly, Bennett notes that acceptance does not require that one prefer, agree with, or endorse the behaviors or values of other cultures; it means that one recognizes and accepts the fact that different cultural worldviews exist, that those worldviews shape human values, beliefs, and behaviors, and that one’s own values, beliefs, and behaviors are in some measure culturally derived and determined.
5.Adaptation
Adaptation to cultural difference occurs when people are able to adopt the perspective of another culture, when they can empathize intellectually and emotionally with the experiences of others, or when they can interact in relaxed, authentic, and appropriate ways with people from different cultures.
The adaptation stage may also manifest when people from different cultural backgrounds can discuss their cultural experiences and perspectives in ways that are conversant in and sensitive to the other culture (Bennett has described this process as “mutual adaptation”), or when organizations embrace inclusive policies and practices that create conditions for respectful and productive cross-cultural interaction and teamwork among employees.
Importantly, Bennett stresses that adaptation is not “assimilation,” which can be defined as the process of abandoning one’s cultural identity to adopt a different cultural identity (most commonly the identity of the dominant culture). In fact, Bennett has written that “adaptation offers an alternative to assimilation. Adaptation involves the extension of your repertoire of beliefs and behavior, not a substitution of one set for another. So you don’t need to lose your primary cultural identity to operate effectively in a different cultural context.”
6.Integration Adaptation to cultural difference
Integration of cultural difference occurs when someone’s identity or sense of self evolves to incorporate the values, beliefs, perspectives, and behaviors of other cultures in appropriate and authentic ways. As Bennett explains, “Integration of cultural difference is the state in which one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews…. people are able to experience themselves as multicultural beings who are constantly choosing the most appropriate cultural context for their behavior.”
The integration stage occurs most commonly among members of non-dominant groups that are living in dominant-group communities, expatriates who live for long periods of time in other countries, and so-called “global nomads” who spend their lives traveling and living in far-flung parts of the world.
In educational settings, integration is most likely to occur in schools that serve culturally diverse students and families, that are staffed with adults whose demographics mirror the diversity of the student and family population, and that teach a multicultural, and possibly even multilingual, curriculum that explicitly represents and integrates the varied cultural experiences and backgrouIntegration of cultural differencends of the community.
Related Concepts
In his larger body of work, Bennett also describes and documents other phenomena that are important to understand how the developmental stages of intercultural sensitivity play out in social contexts, including the following two concepts:
Retreat
In most cases, the developmental progression of intercultural sensitivity is a one-way phenomenon: as people adopt increasingly ethnorelative perspectives, they rarely fall back into ethnocentrism. However, Bennett describes a process he calls “retreat,” which occurs when people move from a higher ethnocentric stage to an earlier stage—most commonly from minimization to defense.
Retreat functions as a kind of “threat response”: when people are confronted with cultural difference, or when they feel criticized or judged for their cultural views, a common reaction is to get defensive or lash out. In predominantly white organizations, for example, the culture and policies of the organization, and the behaviors and comments of the white staff, may function in ways that minimize, or that are openly hostile to, the perspectives of people of color. When people of color then speak out about instances of bias in these settings, organizational leaders may deny that biased behavior exists or they may retaliate against those who spoke out with intimidation, harassment, promotion denials, or firing. In developmental terms, retreat from minimization to defense commonly happens when individuals and groups struggle to accommodate different cultural ideas or expectations because insufficient acceptance has been established.
Reversal
“Reversal” or “defense reversal” occurs when people adopt the view that other cultures are superior to their own culture, such as when members of the dominant culture denigrate their own culture in the effort to secure approval, acceptance, or praise from minority groups. In Toward Multiculturalism: A Reader in Multicultural Education, Bennett offers the following useful description:
“Reversal may masquerade as cultural sensitivity, since it provides a positive experience of a different culture along with seemingly analytical criticisms of one’s own culture. However, the positive experience of the other culture is at an unsophisticated stereotypical level, and the criticism of one’s own culture is usually an internalization of others’ negative stereotypes.”
“Reversal in domestic multicultural relations is an interesting and complicated phenomenon. It appears that some people of the dominant culture take on the cause of non-dominant cultures in stereotypical ways. For instance, in the U.S. a white person of European American ethnicity may become a rabid proponent of African American issues. While it is not necessarily ethnocentric for someone to identify with the plight of historically oppressed people, in this hypothetical case the European American person sees all black people as saintly martyrs and all white people (including herself before the conversion) as brutal oppressors. By changing the poles of the polarized worldview, this person has not changed her essentially unsophisticated experience of cultural difference.”
Acknowledgments
Organizing Engagement thanks Milton Bennett for his contributions to improving this introduction, and the Intercultural Development Research Institute for permission to reproduce images from its website.
Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward Multiculturalism: A Reader in Multicultural Education. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation.
Discussions are Sometimes Less than Civil – What to Do?
Materials in this Section
This section on Civility is also developed by and shared following the Creative Commons regulations) from the organization called Organizing Engagement. (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
Civility
Demonstrating and maintaining respectful behavior toward one another even when we disagree Developed in collaboration with the National Institute for Civil Discourse.
Civility Defined
The principle of civility in organizing, engagement, and equity work refers to social interactions in which participants maintain respect for one another, and demonstrate respectful behavior toward one another, even when they disagree.
The practice of civility can help diverse groups of people develop a deeperdin understanding of one another’s beliefs, values, opinions, and perspectives, which can reduce the likelihood of misunderstang, stereotyping, disputes, and conflict. For example, the intentional practice of “civil discourse” is often used to help people work together to solve a problem, make a decision, execute a project, or resolve a conflict. Civil discourse is also used to expose shared values among individuals and groups with seemingly incompatible beliefs or worldviews.
While civility occurs naturally in informal social interactions, it can also be intentionally learned by individuals, developed in organizational and community settings, or activated in facilitated group discussions. Because the absence of civility is a common source of tensions, conflicts, stereotyping, and other negative behaviors in groups, organizations, and communities—particularly among groups from different socioeconomic, cultural, or racial backgrounds—promoting greater civility is an often-cited goal in organizing, engagement, and equity work.
Discussion: The Challenges and Limitations of Civil Discourse
In some contexts, the practice of civil discourse can unintentionally (or even intentionally) silence certain voices or viewpoints. For example, some leaders may want to avoid overt contentiousness or conflict in their schools, organizations, or communities (perhaps because when everyone appears to be getting along it seems to validate their leadership) and therefore they may see “civil discourse” as a strategy for avoiding problems rather than solving them.
In these cases, an emphasis on “civility” may actually be used to silence legitimate concerns, for example, and the practice of “civil discourse” becomes a new method for controlling or dictating the terms of conversation. When civil discourse is inappropriately used in this way, it can have a particularly pernicious or harmful effect because the term is being applied to a conversation that is antithetical to the goals of civil discourse. Not only will leaders appear hypocritical or deceptive, but participants may feel misled or manipulated, which can then aggravate existing frustrations and undermine confidence in the practice of civility.
Problems can also arise when historically marginalized groups feel they cannot talk about issues such as racism, sexism, or bigotry because their perspective may be seen as “uncivil.” When people of color discuss their experience of prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, for example, other participants may feel they are being attacked and blamed for the behaviors of others. Because honest discussions about race or racism can be perceived as “uncivil” to those who feel uncomfortable or defensive, leaders, organizers, and facilitators may attempt to change the topic, ask people of color to use different language, or otherwise control or shut down the discussion. These silencing maneuvers, however, are antithetical to the practice, purpose, and goals of civil discourse.
In these cases, leaders, organizers, and facilitators will need to recognize the difference between disrespectful behaviors and expressions of legitimate grievance that result from problems such as racial injustice. Creating a space in which people can honestly speak about their experiences—even if those expressions are sometimes accompanied by anger and other emotions that may make some participants uncomfortable—is an essential condition for civil discourse.
Civility is a nuanced concept that can take many different forms in practice. The following descriptions illustrate a few common characteristics of civility:
Humanization: The foundation of all civil interactions is the recognition—both inwardly and outwardly—of the dignity and humanity of others, which entails, for example, empathizing with their experiences, appreciating their contributions, valuing their perspectives, or recognizing the legitimacy of their concerns. →For a related discussion, see the Dignity Principle of organizing, engagement, and equity.
Respect: Expressions of mutual respect exchanged between individuals or groups are essential to the practice of civility. Demonstrations of respect are validating and affirming to others, and they can disarm the behaviors that often escalate into uncivil and disrespectful interactions.
Intentionality: Because civility may not be a natural response in certain social situations—such as when someone makes rude or insulting comments—civility often requires the intentional decision to maintain civil behavior despite the urge to act or respond in less-than-civil ways.
Restraint: Civility often requires restraint—specifically, the ability to control negative emotional reactions, such as defensiveness or anger, or to refrain from uncivil responses, such as combative argumentation, snide remarks, hostile gestures, or contemptuous looks and comments.
Responsibility: In a civil interaction, people take responsibility for their behavior by, for example, recognizing, self-correcting, and apologizing for one’s own inappropriate or disrespectful behavior. In uncivil interactions, people often assign responsibility for their own behavior to others, such as when they claim that disrespectful behavior justifies a disrespectful response or that someone’s comments “caused” their behavior.
Sharing: When participants in a group dialogue, activity, or process share their personal stories, it helps others develop a stronger understanding and appreciation of how those experiences have shaped their values, priorities, or perspectives, particularly when participants come from different racial, cultural, or socioeconomic backgrounds. When people share their experiences, it helps to cultivate empathy among listeners, which makes it harder for others to stereotype, label, dehumanize, or objectify them—all of which are perceptions that can contribute to uncivil behavior.
Kindness: While kindness is not a requirement for civility, acts of kindness—such as outward expressions of caring, concern, or compassion—tend to encourage more civil interactions and defuse uncivil behaviors.
Mutuality: Theexchange of mutual respect among individuals and groups is essential for maintaining civil interactions. If only one party or group is acting with civility in an exchange, collaboration, or partnership, the relative incivility of the other party or group will likely undermine civil relations.
To learn more about how principles can be applied in education organizing, engagement, and equity work, see HOW PRINCIPLES WORK →
Civility Strategies
This section describes a selection of representative civility strategies that may be used in education organizing, engagement, and equity work:
Distinguishing civility from politeness
Framing dialogues and activities to promote civility
Creating environments that encourage civility
Designing for inclusivity
Using structured and facilitated dialogue
Establishing group agreements
Avoiding surprises and setting appropriate expectations
Modeling civil behavior and speech
Integrating opportunities for teamwork and collaboration
1. Distinguishing civility from politeness
Civility and respect are distinct from politeness or niceness. When practicing civil discourse, for example, people are allowed to disagree or express incompatible beliefs or viewpoints, whereas social politeness often entails the avoidance of issues that may call attention to difference or disagreement.
Because the concept of intentional civility is often confused with the social custom of politeness, leaders, organizers, and facilitators should clearly and precisely define civility and discuss how and why it is distinct from politeness. In the practice of civil discourse, open disagreement, passionate expressions, and uncomfortable topics may not be uncivil; in fact, they may be essential to helping participants develop a stronger understanding of one another or expose common values or beliefs that may be obscured by political, ideological, or cultural differences.
Providing descriptions and examples of civil and uncivil behavior can help participants understand which behaviors are expected and encouraged, and which behaviors will not be tolerated or allowed. Clear descriptions and examples can also help participants be more conscious of and reflective about their own behavior and comments. Facilitators might ask, for example, that participants reflect on and discuss their own experiences with civil and uncivil behavior, and then create a list of specific factors that made those experiences feel either civil or uncivil.
Leaders, organizers, and facilitators can explain why civility is important and teach participants specific strategies for maintaining civility in their interactions and conversations. For example, facilitators can explain how civil interactions help people understand and appreciate cultural differences or collaborate more effectively. They can also describe the common emotions that lead to uncivil behaviors and how participants can be more attentive to and mindful of those emotions when they experience them. If a participant becomes emotional when recounting an experience with racial prejudice or injustice, for example, facilitators can support the honest expression of those strong emotions but ask that those emotions not be directed at specific participants.
2. Framing dialogues and activities to promote civility
When framing an event, dialogue, or discussion topic to encourage civil interactions, it can be helpful to avoid “politicized” labels that are associated with cultural polarization, conflicts, or stereotypes, such as liberal/conservative or religious/secular.
Politicized labels not only mask the nuance and complexity of human values, beliefs, and opinions, but persistent political and ideological debates in society condition people to have negative emotional reactions to certain terms and labels. For example, the language that is commonly used by national politicians or the news media, especially contentious terms that are associated with a particular political party or ideological position, may be more likely to trigger divisive behavior in diverse groups.
Framing language such a “building bridges across difference” or “working together to solve community problems” is more likely to create advantageous conditions for civility than language that triggers stereotypes or imports pre-existing anger, frustration, or resentment into an interaction before a conversation has even started. While participants should be allowed to use terms they may identify with, or that they believe best describe their viewpoints and experiences, facilitators can use more neutral language to frame the discussion. When developing promotional messaging, invitations, discussion materials, and other resources for organizing and engagement activities, focusing on local issues that affect the community, rather than on national debates, can also help to create more conducive conditions for civil interactions.
Dialogue leaders and facilitators can discuss the problems of “binary thinking” at the outset of a discussion. Human beliefs, values, and opinions are rarely—if ever—reducible to simple either/or propositions. While people may identify as either “liberal” or “conservative,” for example, they tend to share many values or viewpoints with people who profess different ideological positions. One of the goals of civil discourse is to move participants beyond either/or, good-and-bad, or us-versus-them thinking to help them develop and embrace a fuller and more accurate understanding of other people. In the practice of civil discourse, facilitators often try to establish common ground among participants before transitioning into discussions of difference. For example, facilitators may ask participants what brought them to the dialogue, and then point out that everyone in the group expressed a motivation that showed they are committed to improving their community.
Leaders, organizers, and facilitators can foreground positive goals and outcomes. Goals such as improving collaboration, working together across cultural differences, or solving community problems can create more conducive conditions for civil interactions than using problems or conflicts to frame a discussion. Positive framing helps create a context in which people are more focused on developing solutions than dwelling on problems. That said, positive framing should not be used to suppress legitimate frustration, resentment, anger, or other emotions or expressions that stem from problems such as prejudice, discrimination, or inequity.
→For a related discussion, see the Dialogue Principle of organizing, engagement, and equity
3. Creating environments that encourage civility
In group contexts, leaders, organizers, and facilitators can create environments that feel as welcoming, relaxed, and safe. Because participants may experience discomfort during the practice of civil discourse, for example, facilitators can make physical spaces as inviting, accommodating, and pleasant as circumstances and resources allow.
People are more inclined to act respectfully toward others when they are in their presence, and the intentional use of in-person activities and face-to-face interactions as often as possible can help promote civility. Interactions that are depersonalized or anonymous—such as those that occur on social media or in the commentary sections of local online newspapers and discussion forums—are more likely to be characterized by incivility.
Neutral locations can promote civility, particularly when distrust, tensions, or conflicts are present in a community. Conducive locations for holding a civil dialogue might include libraries, community centers, event halls, and other spaces that are not associated with a particular power structure, cultural group, or political ideology. If a neutral location is not available, organizers can carefully consider the pros and cons of each available option and develop strategies that will help participants feel welcomed or at ease. If participants express concerns about a chosen location, facilitators should be forthcoming about the process they used to select a location and the limitations they faced. Facilitators could then discuss the features of a preferred setting with participants and collaboratively strategize about where future dialogues or events could take place.
Central locations are preferable to those that require some participants to travel longer distances than others, and spaces with windows, natural light, comfortable seating, accessible restrooms, and other amenities can promote the kind of positive psychological or social conditions that are conducive to civil discourse. Providing food and beverages is also helpful: in addition to offering an incentive to show up, people are more likely to have a positive attitude when they are nourished and hydrated. Providing food and drinks can also make it easier for some people to participate, particularly if their participation may require them to miss a meal otherwise.
Classroom-style seating and other room arrangements that discourage face-to-face conversations are typically not conducive to civil interactions. Instead, organizers can arrange seats in circles or u-shapes so that people are not looking at the back of other participant’s heads. Organizers should also avoid features such as elevated stages, microphones, and podiums that are associated with positions of power, authority, and control. In the practice of civil discourse, participants enter the conversation as equals, and therefore symbols of unequal power and authority—particularly in contexts in which power and authority may have been abused—can reinforce problematic power dynamics.
During dialogues and other activities, facilitators can encourage civil interactions by assigning people to small-group discussions that bring together community members with different experiences, perspectives, or cultural backgrounds. In public forums, uncivil behavior tends to occur more frequently when people are assembled in large groups, when they are denied an opportunity to speak or contribute, or when they are seated in auditorium-style room arrangements. Small-groups discussions, particularly “roundtable” discussions in which people are seated in a circle facing one another, create opportunities for more participants to speak up, and the face-to-face interactions tend to elicit more respectful behavior.
4. Designing for inclusivity
Purposeful inclusivity can also be used as a strategy for promoting civility.
For example, people sometimes act out in uncivil ways because they feel that they have been left out of a process (they may even suspect they were left out intentionally) or because their viewpoints or values are not reflected in a decision that affects them or their family. When community members are invited into a decision-making process, their participation not only helps to reduce the negative reactions that come from being excluded, but it creates the context for the kinds of relationship-building dialogues that build mutual respect and encourage civility.
In many cases, however, inclusion on its own is an insufficient engagement strategy—leaders, organizers, and facilitators also need to ensure that a community’s diverse cultural groups and populations are represented in meaningful, authentic, and empowering ways. For example, schools may have parent advisory committees whose recommendations are routinely ignored or overruled by administrators. In this example, the parents have technically been “included” in a decision-making process, but their input is not represented in the outcome. Authentic representation means that stakeholder viewpoints are not only considered, but that they are incorporated and acted on.
5. Using structured and facilitated dialogue
An essential strategy for promoting civility is structured dialogue—or intentional forms of conversation used to improve mutual understanding, appreciation, and respect among individuals and groups, often for the purpose of achieving a specific objective, such as facilitating a productive collaborative process or resolving a conflict.
When people are given opportunities to share and discuss their experiences, perspectives, values, or concerns, and to feel that they have been heard, understood, and appreciated by others, that mutual exchange of personal stories can help to reduce the negative assumptions, stereotyping, and other factors that often contribute to uncivil behavior. When exchanging personal stories, however, time must be used fairly and effectively to promote connection and mutual understanding in a group. For example, facilitators can monitor and manage sharing time to ensure that participants feel they have been given the time they need to fully express themselves or that the amount of time they’ve been given is comparable to other participants.
People may act in uncivil ways because they feel their concerns are being ignored, minimized, or dismissed, and respectful discussions about their concerns can help to defuse the negative emotions that often motivate uncivil behavior. Uncivil behavior may also occur when people are unaccustomed to interacting across cultural differences or inexperienced with certain forms of dialogue or social interaction. In organizing and engagement work, strong facilitation is an essential skill. By guiding participants through a process or discussion, facilitators introduce structure, rules, knowledge, encouragement, and other assets that help participants interact respectfully and productively. And if uncivil behaviors emerge, facilitators can also intervene with reminders, reflections, or insights that can defuse situations that might otherwise escalate into disrespectful interactions.
One of the cornerstones of civil discourse is storytelling. When people are given opportunities to share the personal experiences that shaped their beliefs, values, or viewpoints, these personal stories help people develop a more nuanced and accurate understanding of one another. For example, facilitators can ask participants to share the story of a struggle or challenge they faced, the values they were trying to uphold, and the actions they took or the outcomes that resulted. In civil discourse, personal stories become the gateway to interpersonal understanding and mutual respect because people are learning directly from others about their experiences.
The practice of civil discourse should not feel overly structured or controlled, and facilitators can remain flexible and adapt the agenda as necessary or appropriate. For example, if the conversation requires more time on a given topic, facilitators should avoid abruptly cutting off discussion simply to stay on a predetermined schedule. When important moments arise—such as when two ideologically opposed participants realize they share common values or goals—facilitators can let those moments play out, and even encourage continued discussion if the larger goals of the dialogue or activity are being achieved. If participants are abruptly interrupted when they’re talking, particularly if they are experiencing a vulnerable moment, the interruption may also be seen as “uncivil” behavior. Civil-discourse facilitators should explain their rationale when a change in topic or the discontinuation of a particular exchange are required. Similarly, interruptions should either be done as respectfully as possible or when there is a pause in the discussion. Facilitators may also ask the group if they would like to return to the topic or discussion later on, particularly if group interest is noticeably high.
Civil discourse creates the conditions for mutual understanding between two or more individuals, and understanding requires both expression and listening. Unfortunately, people have often developed unconstructive habits when it comes to both expressing their views or listening to others. For example, people may express their viewpoints combatively or use offensive language (in some cases unintentionally) or they may only listen for weaknesses in another person’s viewpoint that they can then criticize or attack. In civil discourse, however, speakers should share responsibility for being understood, and listeners should share responsibility for understanding.
Civil discourse is an acquired skill that typically requires practice. When listening, participants may be advised to “listen for understanding,” which means that they should listen closely and truly attempt to understand the other person, rather than formulating a response or counterargument while the person is speaking. Facilitators may also advise participants to speak for themselves and not for their group, whether it’s their racial group, profession, or political party. Breaking unconstructive conversational habits can be challenging for some participants, and it typically requires practice. Facilitators can describe these common habits to participants, build speaking and listening practices into activities, and celebrate occasions when old habits are recognized and corrected during practice.
Civil discourse is more likely to be productive and successful when people have enough time to share their experiences, feel heard and acknowledged, and work through difficult topics or disagreements. In addition, if a conversation is abruptly interrupted before people have had an opportunity to speak, work through an emotional reaction, or develop a common understanding with others, they may leave frustrated, upset, or resentful. The amount of time allocated should be based on the particular goals of the discussion, activity, or process. For example, getting people interested in a topic or proposed process may be accomplished in an hour or two, while sharing difficult personal experiences, resolving long-standing conflicts, coming together as a new team, or developing a collaborative plan may require a full day or longer.
When civil behaviors occur in an exchange, facilitators should openly acknowledge those behaviors and encourage them. Just as it’s important for negative behaviors and language to be called out and corrected, positive behaviors should be celebrated and reinforced in small ways throughout a discussion or activity. Facilitators can publicly recognize when participants make good points or positive contributions, and ideally all or most participants should receive positive recognition at some point during a discussion, activity, or process.
Facilitators can remain attentive to potential biases or triggers, such as when people express racial stereotypes or negative group characterizations. To reduce the likelihood that participants will express viewpoints that may trigger other participants, facilitators can ask participants to share their biases or triggers at the outset of a conversation. If participants know what viewpoints or language is likely to cause a negative reaction in others, it increases the likelihood that they will be more mindful of what they say and how they say it.
Being attentive to the emotional states of participants can help facilitators de-escalate negative interactions. If it appears that a participant is about to have a negative emotional reaction, the facilitator can intervene, for example, by asking the group to pause for a moment to reflect on how they’re feeling or by asking emotional participants to take a moment and then explain what they’re feeling. Facilitators can also call for a break and pull emotional participants aside for a private conversation.
→For a related discussion, see the Facilitation Principle of organizing, engagement, and equity
6. Establishing group agreements
For structured events, activities, and dialogues, establishing “group agreements” before a discussion, activity, or process gets underway can help promote civil interactions. Group agreements may also be called “group norms,” “ground rules,” “discussion guidelines,” or other terms.
Group agreements function similar to the rules used in games and sports: participants agree to follow the same set of rules, which help participants understand the terms of an activity or discussion. Group agreements describe the specific behaviors that will be expected of participants, and they help participants understand the terms of the discussion before it begins. Establishing group agreements can significantly improve the quality and productiveness of a discussion or process, while also decreasing the likelihood of misunderstanding or rudeness—particularly when interactions are likely to become contentious, such as when a discussion topic is controversial.
Group agreements perform a few important functions: (1) group agreements establish a foundation of common agreement at the outset of a discussion or activity that participants can build on during subsequent interactions, (2) group agreements explicitly bar certain negative behaviors from an interaction and promote more constructive behaviors, and (3) group agreements allow facilitators and participants to enforce the agreed-upon rules of a dialogue by reminding others of the agreements they made at the outset of the discussion.
Group agreements are typically established in one of three ways: (1) facilitators will propose a set of agreements, usually by incorporating group agreements that have been effective in other contexts, (2) participants co-develop group agreements using a democratic process proposed by facilitators, or (3) facilitators propose a set of group agreements but give participants the opportunity to modify or add to the rules using a democratic process. All three approaches can be effective, and facilitators can choose the approach that best suits the goals of the dialogue or the needs of participants.
In most cases, participants are willing to accept a set of proposed group agreements, particularly if facilitators explain why the agreements are important or mention that they are standard rules that have been widely used in other dialogues. It is important that facilitators explain the rationale for using group agreements and why certain agreements are important for the discussion or activity that follows. When additional group agreements are suggested, it can be helpful if the participants who are proposing them share their rationale.
After participants commit to following the group agreements, facilitators should make sure they remain prominently displayed for the duration of the dialogue or activity. The agreements can be written on poster paper or handouts, or they can be projected on a screen. Visible agreements serve as reminders for participants, and they allow facilitators to reference them more easily when needed. Group agreements also educate participants about the specific characteristics, expectations, and behaviors of civil discourse, and they are particularly valuable when conversations become disrespectful. In these cases, ground rules provide a non-threatening method for naming and correcting negative behaviors that could undermine civil discourse. Without ground rules, participants may be more likely to get defensive or hostile when their behaviors are called out and challenged.
Discussion leaders and facilitators may utilize a variety of facilitative techniques to ensure that people follow group agreements. These techniques can include politely pointing out that an agreement is being broken or directing the group’s attention to the agreed-upon rules if negative behaviors threaten to disrupt a discussion. Facilitators may also need to call out and challenge disrespectful behaviors or harmful language that might intimidate or silence some participants. In addition to calling out transgressions, facilitators may, for example, propose that participants snap their fingers if they believe someone has broken an agreement, or they may ask outspoken leaders to listen more and talk less.
Discussion: Insensitive Group Agreements In some cases, facilitators will propose a group agreement that may be insensitive or counterproductive in certain circumstances. Agreements such as “assume good intentions” or “trust one another” are two examples. While such rules may be well intentioned, participants in some communities and organizations may be unable to assume positive intentions or easily bring trust into a conversation with strangers due to past personal experiences with predjuce, discrimination, injustice, or violence. For example, “assume positive intentions” may not be a productive group agreement if staff members routinely experience workplace bias or discrimination because of their gender, race, or sexuality. When establishing group agreements for civil discourse, facilitators should remain mindful of history, identity, culture, and other factors that may influence how participants experience a dialogue, process, or other activity.
7. Avoiding surprises and setting appropriate expectations
Establishing clear expectations at the outset of an activity, dialogue, or process can help reduce anxiety, frustration, and other emotions that often contribute to uncivil behavior. For example, many people are uncomfortable openly discussing race or racism in a group setting, and emotionally difficult conversations about racial issues can induce a variety of stress responses, such as apprehension, anxiety, defensiveness, irritation, or combativeness.
Make sure people know in advance what they are being invited to participate in, what the purpose or topic of the discussion will be, and how the process will work. When people generate expectations that depart significantly from the actual experience of an event, they are more likely to experience frustration or other negative reactions that make them less open to other participants and less receptive to the experience.
If facilitators describe how the conversation will unfold, and the kinds of emotions people typically experience, it can help participants feel more at ease and more open to the experience. For example, facilitators can describe a time when they personally experienced a negative emotional reaction during a dialogue or they can share other stories that help participants visualize and prepare for the experience they’re about to have.
8. Modeling civil behavior and speech
Modeling is a particularly effective strategy for promoting greater civility in organizing, engagement, and equity contexts. When leaders, organizers, and facilitators demonstrate civility in their actions, attitudes, and speech, it not only helps participants develop a stronger understanding of what civility looks like in practice, but it also “sets the tone” for a given event, activity, or dialogue—that is, civil behavior tends to encourage civil responses in others.
When facilitating civil discourse, it is essential that facilitators demonstrate the respectful behaviors and language they expect of participants. When facilitators intentionally model civil discourse in their language and actions, participants are more likely to understand how civil discourse works in practice and to recognize and value its benefits. For example, positive behaviors can be modeled by facilitators in how they greet and welcome participants, in their posture and facial expressions, in the methods used to call on or include participants, or in the terminology they use.
Modeling civility often requires training and practice. Facilitators need to maintain self-awareness and correct their own behavior when necessary. It is especially important that facilitators continue modeling civil behavior and language even when confronted by anger, disrespect, or other problematic behaviors from participants—though exceptions may need to be made, however, if either the facilitators or participants feel unsafe due to hostile or threatening behavior.
9.Integrating opportunities for teamwork and collaboration
Group collaboration can be one of the most effective ways to build mutual respect, appreciation, trust, and shared understanding—the relational foundation of civil interactions.
When people work together to develop a plan, execute a project, make a decision, or solve a community problem, they are more likely to see others as allies, not opponents. And the sense of accomplishment that participants experience when they complete a project or resolve a conflict can help to alleviate the tensions that often propel uncivil behavior.
Acknowledgments
Organizing Engagement thanks Makayla Meachem, Kip Holley, and Jon Martinez for their contributions to developing and improving this resource, and the National Institute for Civil Discourse for sharing its expertise and insights.
Better understanding Health Equity with Bruce Kao Thao
“Minnesota has some of the greatest health disparities in the country. That’s why the Minnesota Department of Health has made advancing health equity the main focus of its activities and why it is the central challenge for our state – and for the country because those disparities are not unique to Minnesota. If we are to be a healthy and prosperous state and country, everyone has to have the opportunity to thrive. Join Commissioner Ehlinger and his guest Bruce Thao, Director of the Center for Health Equity at MDH” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8gq9Y-uoBQ, 2027).
Chapter 8 Key Terms
Civility is “social interactions in which participants maintain respect for one another, and demonstrate respectful behavior toward one another, even when they disagree” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
Humanization: The foundation of all civil interactions is the recognition—both inwardly and outwardly—of the dignity and humanity of others, which entails, for example, empathizing with their experiences, appreciating their contributions, valuing their perspectives, or recognizing the legitimacy of their concerns. → For a related discussion, see the Dignity Principle of organizing, engagement, and equity.
Respect: Expressions of mutual respect exchanged between individuals or groups are essential to the practice of civility. Demonstrations of respect are validating and affirming to others, and they can disarm the behaviors that often escalate into uncivil and disrespectful interactions.
Intentionality: Because civility may not be a natural response in certain social situations—such as when someone makes rude or insulting comments—civility often requires the intentional decision to maintain civil behavior despite the urge to act or respond in less-than-civil ways.
Restraint: Civility often requires restraint—specifically, the ability to control negative emotional reactions, such as defensiveness or anger, or to refrain from uncivil responses, such as combative argumentation, snide remarks, hostile gestures, or contemptuous looks and comments.
Responsibility: In a civil interaction, people take responsibility for their behavior by, for example, recognizing, self-correcting, and apologizing for one’s own inappropriate or disrespectful behavior. In uncivil interactions, people often assign responsibility for their own behavior to others, such as when they claim that disrespectful behavior justifies a disrespectful response or that someone’s comments “caused” their behavior.
Sharing: When participants in a group dialogue, activity, or process share their personal stories, it helps others develop a stronger understanding and appreciation of how those experiences have shaped their values, priorities, or perspectives, particularly when participants come from different racial, cultural, or socioeconomic backgrounds. When people share their experiences, it helps to cultivate empathy among listeners, which makes it harder for others to stereotype, label, dehumanize, or objectify them—all of which are perceptions that can contribute to uncivil behavior.
Kindness: While kindness is not a requirement for civility, acts of kindness—such as outward expressions of caring, concern, or compassion—tend to encourage more civil interactions and defuse uncivil behaviors.
Mutuality: The exchange of mutual respect among individuals and groups is essential for maintaining civil interactions. If only one party or group is acting with civility in an exchange, collaboration, or partnership, the relative incivility of the other party or group will likely undermine civil relations.
Diversity “encompasses acceptance and respect. It is understanding that each individual is unique, and our individual differences need to be recognized. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, physical/mental ability, religious beliefs, political beliefs or other ideologies” (RCTC, 2021).
Equity “is a term that is related to equality. However, while equality simply means something like making sure each person is given the same opportunities, equity recognizes that individual differences mean that folks have different needs that must be met in order for them to participate. Equity considers differences and accommodates differences with the goal of equal participation or access” (Mussack, 2021).
Inclusion “might be a more familiar or common term, and for the purposes of our text inclusion means that folks feel invited and able to participate. Just like equity, inclusion considers differences and works towards access. CoInclusionnsider what it means to be included in a space, or included in some special knowledge. Inclusion means more than presence; inclusion signals something like participation or agency. Inclusion might mean access to resources, to knowledge, to opportunities, or to physical or virtual spaces. When we consider inclusion, we need to consider how marginalized people are or are not invited to participate” (Mussack, 2021).
Social justice generally refers to the idea that everyone deserves equal and equitable access to things like wealth, political power, information, and opportunities. Social justice takes on the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and puts something into practice in order to work towards achieving these goals” (Mussack, 2021).
Intercultural Sensitivity:
Organizing = Building Power
Engagement = Sharing Power
Equity = Equalizing Power
“Sometimes called the “Bennett Scale,” the Intercultural Sensitivity model describes the standard ways in which people experience, interpret, and interact across cultural differences, and it proposes a developmental continuum along which people can progress toward a deeper understanding and appreciation of cultural variance, as well as greater social facility when negotiating cross-cultural dissimilarity. Bennett founded the Intercultural Development Research Institute to support related research and practical applications of the model” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity describes six developmental stages of intercultural sensitivity and communication, beginning with denial (the perception that one’s cultural perspective is the only real, accurate, or valid interpretation of reality) and culminating with integration (the internalization of multicultural awareness and the ability to interact productively across cultural differences)” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“Denial of cultural difference occurs when people fail to recognize distinctions among cultures or consider them to be irrelevant; when they reject the claim that cultural differences exist or that they can be meaningful and consequential; or when they perceive people from different cultures in simplistic, undifferentiated, and often self-serving ways. For example, people in the denial stage will lump other cultures into vague homogenized categories, such as “foreigner,” “immigrant,” or “Asian,” or they will stereotype, demean, or dehumanize others by assuming that different cultural dispositions must be the result of deficiencies in character, intelligence, physical ability, work ethic, or other innate traits” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“Defense against cultural difference occurs when people perceive other cultures in polarized, competitive, zero-sum, or us-against-them terms (e.g., immigrants are taking our jobs, our traditional values are under assault, etc.); when they exalt their own culture over the culture of others (e.g., white nationalism); or when they feel victimized or attacked in discussions about bias, bigotry, or racism (e.g., they withdraw, leave the room, break down in tears, become defensive or hostile, etc.). Defense may also manifest in efforts to deny people from other cultures equal access or opportunity, such as opposition to affirmative-action policies or diversity-hiring initiatives” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“Minimization of cultural difference occurs when people assume that their distinct cultural worldview is shared by others, when they perceive their culture’s values as fundamental or universal human values that apply to everyone, or when people obscure, disregard, or neglect the importance of cultural differences (e.g., such as when organizational leaders respond—when confronted with examples of racial, ethnic, or gender bias in the workplace—with statements such as “We try to treat everyone equally” or “I don’t see color”). Minimization may also manifest in arguments that human similarities are more important than cultural differences (thereby implying that cultural differences are unimportant or that they can be ignored), or in claims that “deep down humans are all alike” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“Acceptance of cultural difference occurs when people recognize that different beliefs and values are shaped by culture, that different patterns of behavior exist among cultures, and that other cultures have legitimate and worthwhile perspectives that should be respected and valued. The acceptance stage may also manifest as greater curiosity about or interest in other cultures, and people may start to seek out cross-cultural relationships and social interactions that they might have avoided in the past” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“Adaptation to cultural difference occurs when people are able to adopt the perspective of another culture, when they can empathize intellectually and emotionally with the experiences of others, or when they can interact in relaxed, authentic, and appropriate ways with people from different cultures” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
“Integration of cultural difference occurs when someone’s identity or sense of self evolves to incorporate the values, beliefs, perspectives, and behaviors of other cultures in appropriate and authentic ways. As Bennett explains, “Integration of cultural difference is the state in which one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews…. people are able to experience themselves as multicultural beings who are constantly choosing the most appropriate cultural context for their behavior” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
Threat Response: “when people are confronted with cultural differences, or when they feel criticized or judged for their cultural views, a common reaction is to get defensive or lash out” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
Reversal or Defense Reversal is “when people adopt the view that other cultures are superior to their own culture, such as when members of the dominant culture denigrate their own culture in the effort to secure approval, acceptance, or praise from minority groups” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
Attributions
Materials from this chapter are republished from the following Creative Commons materials listed below. We are grateful for their work and willingness to support open education resources free of charge for students.
About organizing engagement. Organizing Engagement. (2020, February 27). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://organizingengagement.org/about/
Civility principle. Organizing Engagement. (2020, February 3). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://organizingengagement.org/principles/civility/
Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Organizing Engagement. (2022, June 9). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://organizingengagement.org/models/developmental-model-of-intercultural-sensitivity/
Diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It is understanding that each individual is unique, and our individual differences need to be recognized. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, socio economic status, age, physical/mental ability, religious beliefs, political beliefs or other ideologies.
"Equity is a term that is related to equality. However, while equality simply means something like making sure each person is given the same opportunities, equity recognizes that individual differences mean that folks have different needs that must be met in order for them to participate. Equity considers differences and accommodates differences with the goal of equal participation or access" (Mussack, 2021).
"Inclusion might be a more familiar or common term, and for the purposes of our text inclusion means that folks feel invited and able to participate. Just like equity, inclusion considers differences and works towards access. Consider what it means to be included in a space, or included in some special knowledge. Inclusion means more than presence; inclusion signals something like participation or agency. Inclusion might mean access to resources, to knowledge, to opportunities, or to physical or virtual spaces. When we consider inclusion, we need to consider how marginalized people are or are not invited to participate" (Mussack, 2021).
Social justice generally refers to the idea that everyone deserves equal and equitable access to things like wealth, political power, information, and opportunities. Social justice takes on the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and puts something into practice in order to work towards achieving these goals" (Mussack, 2021).
"Sometimes called the “Bennett Scale,” the model describes the standard ways in which people experience, interpret, and interact across cultural differences, and it proposes a developmental continuum along which people can progress toward a deeper understanding and appreciation of cultural variance, as well as greater social facility when negotiating cross-cultural dissimilarity. Bennett founded the Intercultural Development Research Institute to support related research and practical applications of the model" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity describes six developmental stages of intercultural sensitivity and communication, beginning with denial (the perception that one’s cultural perspective is the only real, accurate, or valid interpretation of reality) and culminating with integration (the internalization of multicultural awareness and the ability to interact productively across cultural differences)" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"Denial of cultural difference occurs when people fail to recognize distinctions among cultures or consider them to be irrelevant; when they reject the claim that cultural differences exist or that they can be meaningful and consequential; or when they perceive people from different cultures in simplistic, undifferentiated, and often self-serving ways. For example, people in the denial stage will lump other cultures into vague homogenized categories, such as “foreigner,” “immigrant,” or “Asian,” or they will stereotype, demean, or dehumanize others by assuming that different cultural dispositions must be the result of deficiencies in character, intelligence, physical ability, work ethic, or other innate traits" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"Defense against cultural difference occurs when people perceive other cultures in polarized, competitive, zero-sum, or us-against-them terms (e.g., immigrants are taking our jobs, our traditional values are under assault, etc.); when they exalt their own culture over the culture of others (e.g., white nationalism); or when they feel victimized or attacked in discussions about bias, bigotry, or racism (e.g., they withdraw, leave the room, break down in tears, become defensive or hostile, etc.). Defense may also manifest in efforts to deny people from other cultures equal access or opportunity, such as opposition to affirmative-action policies or diversity-hiring initiatives" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"Minimization of cultural difference occurs when people assume that their distinct cultural worldview is shared by others, when they perceive their culture’s values as fundamental or universal human values that apply to everyone, or when people obscure, disregard, or neglect the importance of cultural differences (e.g., such as when organizational leaders respond—when confronted with examples of racial, ethnic, or gender bias in the workplace—with statements such as “We try to treat everyone equally” or “I don’t see color”). Minimization may also manifest in arguments that human similarities are more important than cultural differences (thereby implying that cultural differences are unimportant or that they can be ignored), or in claims that “deep down humans are all alike” (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"Acceptance of cultural difference occurs when people recognize that different beliefs and values are shaped by culture, that different patterns of behavior exist among cultures, and that other cultures have legitimate and worthwhile perspectives that should be respected and valued. The acceptance stage may also manifest as greater curiosity about or interest in other cultures, and people may start to seek out cross-cultural relationships and social interactions that they might have avoided in the past" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"Integration of cultural difference occurs when someone’s identity or sense of self evolves to incorporate the values, beliefs, perspectives, and behaviors of other cultures in appropriate and authentic ways. As Bennett explains, “Integration of cultural difference is the state in which one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews…. people are able to experience themselves as multicultural beings who are constantly choosing the most appropriate cultural context for their behavior" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2022), ethnocentrism is:
"1. the practice of regarding one’s own ethnic, racial, or social group as the center of all things. Just as egocentrism is a sense of self-superiority, so ethnocentrism is the parallel tendency to judge one’s group as superior to other groups.
2. the tendency, often unintentional, to base perceptions and understandings of other groups or cultures on one’s own. Also called ethnocentricity. See also ingroup bias; racism; sociocentrism. —ethnocentricadj. [first described by U.S. sociologist William G. Sumner (1840–1910)]"
"when people are confronted with cultural difference, or when they feel criticized or judged for their cultural views, a common reaction is to get defensive or lash out" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"when people adopt the view that other cultures are superior to their own culture, such as when members of the dominant culture denigrate their own culture in the effort to secure approval, acceptance, or praise from minority groups" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"social interactions in which participants maintain respect for one another, and demonstrate respectful behavior toward one another, even when they disagree" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"the ability to control negative emotional reactions, such as defensiveness or anger, or to refrain from uncivil responses, such as combative argumentation, snide remarks, hostile gestures, or contemptuous looks and comments" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
"The exchange of mutual respect among individuals and groups is essential for maintaining civil interactions" (Organizing Engagement, 2022).
Recently, in my classroom, a guest speaker, Ms. Chao Mwatela shared an example that demonstrates the difference between equity and equality. She first established an example of equality: if you have 5 identical slices of pizza and share it with 5 people, you have shared the pizza equally. However, if one of the recipients is a small child who cannot eat the full piece of pizza that the 4 larger grown-ups (who can literally put the slice of pizza in one hand), the child’s and the adults’ bodies will not digest and utilize the food resources equally.
