Point:Counterpoint

Ethical Dilemmas in Study Abroad

When Does Appropriate Advice Become Cultural Imperialism?

By Martha Merrill

While I was conducting a seminar on the U.S. system of higher education for university administrators in the former Soviet Union, a man of about 60 asked me, "How many hours a week is an American student in class?" I answered that it depends on a number of factors--whether the student is full-time or part-time, a graduate student or an undergraduate, a science student with a lot of labs or a literature student, etc. I ended by saying that the number of hours a week a student was in class to a large extent depended upon the student's own choices.

The questioner looked at my young interpreter and said, "I don't speak a word of English, but I know you translated that wrong because that can't be what she said!"

The idea of student choice of what to take and when to take it seemed to this man preposterous.

In order to complete a grant application on time, a colleague of mine in Kyrgyzstan needed to use an express mail service. But only two people in his university can authorize spending university money. Both were away, therefore, my colleague couldn't send the documents.

Coming from the U.S., I expect to be able to act fairly independently, and I have a certain disdain for displays of public deference. Some foreigners working in the former USSR think that these attitudes are relics of the Soviet system, not what "the people" want.

But cultures don't change so quickly, and there's nothing "natural" about individualism and taking responsibility--they're learned behaviors. And it's not always only the leaders who like the concentration of authority. Subordinates are sometimes comfortable with not taking responsibility for decisions and with the kind of care-taking that can come from a paternalistic authority.

While the Soviet Union may have been repressive, what preceded it was not democracy. So is it appropriate for a visitor to say, "You should have democracy?" Do those of us who were invited here to work on particular issues--in my case, university reform--have a right to recommend other kinds of cultural change?

These are only some of the questions I have been thinking about as I teach and advise in the former Soviet Union. I often wonder what's appropriate for me to suggest and what isn't. When am I responding appropriately to a request for advice on curriculum reform, and when am I being a kind of cultural imperialist, trying to foist my values on people who have their own way of life?

Are All Values Culturally Relative?

The issues I face may not be so far removed from those encountered by an ESL teacher in Japan, a Peace Corps volunteer in Ethiopia, or an agricultural adviser in India. In very broad terms, the question we all face is whether or not there are ethical absolutes, or are all values culturally relative?

For example, markers of status: Should we accept them, reject them, or decide different situations different ways?

One issue to consider is the source of the status. Is authority based on heredity, such as race, ethnicity, gender, family name? Or, alternatively, on achieved status, such as educational level, position, or wealth? In many Western societies, status by achievement often is taken for granted--that people defer to a Bill Gates or a Donald Trump or a Bill Clinton is not startling to us. (Of course, it's possible to argue that their race and gender assisted them in achieving their wealth and their positions; the line between given status and achieved status is not clear.) Authority based on given attributes certainly exists in the U.S. but is more likely to be questioned here than in some other cultures.

When is deference to hierarchy definitely wrong, even if one's hosts agree with the deference? When is someone simply exercising the traditional authority of his or her role or position, and when is someone abusing power? When will challenging an authority on one issue mark a foreigner as an outsider who doesn't understand the society and thus inhibit his or her ability to build trust and work on other kinds of changes? And when does a visitor have enough knowledge about the culture to know the difference?

"Enough" knowledge also suggests an awareness of what you are setting in motion, beyond an immediate decision. Another American in Kyrgyzstan, an administrator at a new university, by virtue of the deference given to him because of his top administrative role (and the university's desire to be like universities in the West), convinced the university to introduce elective courses. Electives are elements of a system of individual choice, arguably a reasonable step in the process of democratization. But what does a system of electives set into motion?

There has to be a system to allow students to sign up for electives. Electives have to be scheduled when the students who are likely to want them can take them. Transcripts have to be designed and produced. University staff have to think about prerequisites for electives. If elective courses don't run, some professors may not have a full teaching load. What happens to those professors? If sign-up sheets are in a public place, that makes the success of the elective system more likely -- but it also makes it clear to anyone who walks by who is a popular professor. In a society where "face" is very important, not having one's course chosen can be seen as a kind of public shaming.

Did my American colleague understand all this when he advocated implementing electives?

The Meaning of Culture

Cultural change and how it happens, markers of hierarchies and what they mean, understanding what you are setting in motion when you act in another culture, making ethical decisions--these may seem to be a disjointed collection of topics, but they're not. In intercultural communication in general, and particularly in deciding how to act ethically in another culture, everything's related.

Robert Kohls, in his widely read book, Survival Kit for Overseas Living, defines culture as having three characteristics: it's learned, it affects everything a person does, and the elements are integrated--change one thing, and you change another.

What does all this mean for a sojourner? First of all, he or she should recall that no behavior is "natural"--it's all learned, taught by people who were trying to help someone adapt to a culture which existed or exists. In most circumstances (and individuals have to make their own ethical choices of what they feel must not be accepted), it doesn't do any good to say "you're wrong." It makes more sense to look for the reasons why that behavior would have been taught in that culture.

Second, the sojourner should understand that culture is operating all the time--in the classroom, at home, or in the market. No behavior is neutral--even physiological factors like eating and illness have their cultural components.

Third, since the elements of a culture are integrated, a sojourner should think about what he or she is setting in motion by suggesting cultural change. Living in another culture can expand what you see for the rest of your life--but only if you're willing to forget about judging until you've listened, asked, wondered, and reflected.

MARTHA MERRILL is Vice President for Faculty and Curriculum Development at American Univ. in Kyrgyzstan.