Proximity in multicultural classes

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I am a woman, I am 23 years old and I am a French exchange student at The Hague University. I am very interested in interculturality. My mother is Polish and my father is French. My first experience about living in a multicultural environment was last year when I was studying in Scotland, surrounded by a wide range of nationalities. I really like sharing experiences and feelings with people from another culture. But sometimes, some misunderstanding can lead to minsinterpretation and miscommunication. For instance,  proximity between students and teachers is not the same depending of the country. It is by understanding it that we can cope better with it. I find the subject of  “proximity in multicultural classes” particularly interesting because when I was in Scotland, I was really surprised to see that some students were using “Hi + nickname” to greet the teacher. That would be impossible in France. One of my Chinese friend told me that in her country, when you give a homework to a teacher, it is better to use both hands and to avoid eye contact. I find fascinating the way proximity can vary from a culture to another and I think that each of us should learn more about this issue when living in a multicultural environment.

INTRODUCTION
Living in a multicultural environment is not that easy even if Mc Luhan’s expression of “global village” could presume that time and space compression have been totally achieved. Cultural differences remain and they can become important issue when they lead to misunderstanding. The benefits of intercultural communication are “healthier communities, increased commerce, reduced conflicts and personal growth through tolerance” (Neuliep, 2006) but communication is sometimes made more difficult. Power distance, physical contact or etiquette can cause noise in an intercultural context. Intercultural communication has to be motivated, knowledgeable, skilled and sensitive. In this essay, it will be wondered how proximity is experienced within teachers and students in a multicultural class. Several sub-topics will help to answer the problematic: How does a culture influence proximity and power distance? What are the main proximity differences within international students and teachers? What are the main misinterpretations that can occur? How should people deal with proximity to avoid cultural clash? Different issues will be taken into consideration: proximity and power, individualistic and collectivistic cultures, low contact and high contact cultures, proxemics and power distance. This will be the basis of some recommendations on how to become intercultural.

PROXIMITY AND POWER
Proximity is the distance between two points. Applied to intercultural communication, it is one criteria for the classification of nonverbal communication. It occurs through body gestures, touch, space, physical appearance, vocalics, olfactory system and chronemics. These subcodes have different functions such as identification and self-presentation, control of the interaction, relationship of interactants, display of cognitive information, display of effective information and display of deception. When it comes to studying proximity, it is necessary to be aware of different aspects of non verbal communication: paralinguistic clues (how someone looks, gestures or adopts a particular tone of voice), proxemics (the study of spatial distances between speakers in different cultures and situations), haptics (the study of the sense of touch applied to communication), oculesics (the study of eye contact),  olfactifs (the study of body smell) or even silence and turn taking (how the interaction is dealt with). Proximity and power distance are two notions closely linked. Hofstede (quoted in Neuliep, p.76) explains that “power distance” is “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country, expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”. In 1985, Wubbels, Créton have Hooymayers elaborated a “Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior” (see: Appendix, Figure 1). In this model, teaching is described in term of proximity (cooperation or opposition) and influence (dominance or submission). This theoretical framework is a good starting point to analyze power relations within a classroom. But it becomes even more interesting when it comes to a multicultural environment including different kind of people, from individualistic to collectivistic cultures.

INDIVIDUALISTIC AND COLLECTIVISTIC CULTURES
Dimensions of cultural variability and barriers have to be considered since individualist and collective cultures shape people differently. Individualism is “the opposite of collectivism; together they form on of the dimensions of national cultures. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only”. Collectivism “stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1994, p.261). Proximity does not obey global rules. Territoriality, Contact, interpersonal distance, touch, sensory involvement differ from a culture to an other one. Kluckhohn and Strodbeck have theorized value orientations: relations with other people depends on the culture (individualistic or collectivist), the power distance (hierarchical or democratic), they are neutral or convey emotion. High-context communication often corresponds with communitarian settings, while low-context communication often occurs in individualist settings. In high-context cultures, silence is more valued because it means mutual understanding.  Neuliep (2006, p.51) explains the consequences of individualism versus collectivism on a communication level: in the US, it is said that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” while in Japan, “the tallest nail gets hammered down”. Culture-specific face and face maintenance has an impact on negotiation outcomes. In China (collectivistic, interdependent-self, and high-context culture) it is is presumed to manifest other-oriented and mutual face concerns, and remedial strategies, like avoidance and hinting in face-threatening situations. On the opposite, in America (individualistic, independent-self, and low-context culture) it is assumed to show concern for self-face and to enact self-face related remedial strategies like aggression or clarification. Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.78) give an interesting example of the dimension of role expectation depending of the culture. In the USA, there is some degree of hierarchy between students and teachers but not as much as in Asia where students are expected to take notes without challenging what the teacher says. They take the case of an American student in China, asking a question to the teacher who does not answer. If an asiatic teacher avoids  answering a question and advices the student to find the answer in a book, he might look unhelpful and lacking of knowledges from an American point of view. But the teacher may on the other hand perceive the student as a trouble maker because he should not talk during the class.

HIGH CONTACT AND LOW CONTACT CULTURES
Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.253) explain that “close” and “far” mean different things depending of the culture: a high-contact culture will consider more closeness as something positive. People from a low contact culture tend to avoid eye contact. In South Korea it means “I will not attack you”, it is a mark of respect from the student to the teacher. But it can be interpreted as rude, aggressive, disrespectful, or flirtatious, if someone does not maintain eye contact, depending on the culture. Sensory involvement such as smell or touch is preferred by high contact cultures. Mehrabian (1971) defines “immediacy” as “the evaluative dimension of meaning, and it involves judgments of close-far, positive-negative, and good-bad” all these things are used to indicate psychological closeness to others. Immediacy is associated with: close conversational distance, direct body orientation, forward lean, direct gaze, positive facial reinforcers, postural openness, frequent gesturing and touch. The way people interpret a message is a knowledge and this “message about the message” is called metamessage.

PROXEMICS

Space
Proxemics reveals that people handle space differently, depending on the type of culture they come from. If personal space is violated, people from individualistic cultures may react actively while people from collectivist culture may adopt a passive stance. It is crucial for students to understand more about how physical space is dealt with in different cultures if they do not want to experience feelings of exclusion for instance. A Moroccan student in Japan would have to adapt his behavior otherwise he might be labelled as “weird”, “homosexual” or “abuser”. Knowing some proxemics cues is important to increase peoples’ comprehension and expression. Personal space is the space surrounding a person into which intruders may not come. This space is different according to the culture. In a classroom, when personal space is violated, people can react with shift of postures, attempts to move away or defensive gestures. Hall (1959) has defined three types of space: fixed-feature, semi-fixed feature and informal (see: Appendix, Figure 2). The space configuration of the classroom can be described in terms of fixed-feature. The use of the classroom space influences the way students talk, behave, feel and work.

Distance
Hall distinguishes four types of informal distances: public (with unknown people), social-consultative (professional and unofficial social occasions), personal (between friends) and intimate distance (with close relationships). Southern European cultures are known to appreciate relatively close personal space compared to Northern European cultures. Once again, each culture has its body boundaries and the space bubble or body language can be misinterpreted. Axtell (1997, p.40) classifies cultures as follow: “high contact” are touching cultures (Middle East, Latin American, Greece,…), “moderate contact” are middle ground (France, China, Ireland,…) and “low contact” do not touch (Japan, US, England,…). Students and teachers need to be sensitive to these differences since a body gesture can appear personal or intimate depending on the culture of the person.

Territory
Territory refers to any socio-graphical area that someone consistently defends against conspecifics. People tend to protect their territory against. territory invasion. Territoriality (Attman and Chemers, quoted in Gudykunst and Kim, 2003, p.254). Territorial behavior involves control or ownership of a place or object on a temporary or permanent basis. Within the primary, secondary and public territory, the attitude provides identity and status. One can distinguish public territories, home territories, interaction territories (the classroom) and body-territories. Students usually unconsciously choose a territory by sitting all the time at the same place. If someone sits at a place where he usually does not sit, a problem may arise: seating rules are strong enough that they represent social norms and it can be considered deviant to violate them. The territory of the teacher depends of the kind of class and the culture. In the Netherlands, during lectures, the teacher sits in front of students, sometimes on a platform. During seminars, it can happen that the teacher will sit with the students, in a circle. In a classroom or during a meeting, the place where people sit reveals a bit of their function: boss, middleman, side-liner, opponent or outsider. Proxemics give some clues on how much power each person have.

POWER DISTANCE
Power distance refers to the degree of hierarchy and the way organigrams are set-up. Power distance affects verbal and non verbal communication. People from individualistic cultures tend to have a small power distance whereas people from collectivist cultures have a bigger one (see: Appendix, Figure 3). Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.83) show that intimacy of in-group relationships is rated 5.72/10 in United States and 3.34/10 in Japan. In Asia, when people bow round to salute each other, the way they do it gives clues about their social rank. People from high-power distance cultures accept power as part of society and are more submissive like in Mexico or Brazil. On the opposite, the Netherlands, Sweden or Germany are small power distance cultures. Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.77) explain that “the formality of student-teacher relationships in some cultures is summarized aptly by and Egyptian proverb: “whoever teaches me a letter, I should become a slave to him forever”. Depending of the culture, power is distributed differently. For instance, in the Netherlands, there is a two way stream model: both teachers and students can talk and quite often, student sit in circle to make exchanges easier. Even if things are changing, the French model tend to have a teacher, sitting in front of the students, a bit upper and making the lecture. Students can talk but they need to raise their hand and what they have to say must be “more important than silence”. In China, students are not supposed to talk or it could be perceived as something rude, disturbing the class. Students and teachers have to be aware of these aspects in order to live in harmony with each other.

BECOMING INTERCULTURAL
According to Adler (2007, p.84) there are different sources of cross-cultural misinterpretations including subconscious, cultural “blinders”, a lack of cultural self-awareness, projected similarities and parochialism. It has been shown that that students perceive teachers in multicultural classes higher on the “influence” and “proximity” dimensions than students in monocultural classes (Houwen 2006). It is important to understand these mechanisms since an attitude leads to an emotional, cognitive and behavioral response from the other party. In international groups, both students and teachers have to adapt their way of thinking and to shift to an intercultural behavior. Some recommendations can help teachers and students to understand more each other and to improve their relations. According to Bennett, there are different attitudes toward cultural differences: denial, defense, minimization (ethnocentrism), acceptance, adaptation, integration (ethnorelativism). It is important for students and teachers to know their own culture in order to understand how to deal with some issues involving people from other cultures. Different behavior can help to accelerate the process: adaptation, education, getting rid of stereotypes ethnocentrism and prejudices, being mindful,  changing our expectations of strangers, changing in attitude toward the group as a whole, switch code, interpersonal synchronization and to finish personal and social communication. Proximity can be a tool used to well-manage classroom and decrease problems. Joule and Beauvois (2002) explain that teachers who touches their students tend to make them more cooperate. Touching people is even on a wider perspective a good way to obtain things from them. The two researchers did the following experience: they left some money in a phone box, let someone taking it and then said to the person that they forgot some money inside. Without touching the person, 63% gave the money back. When body contact is involved, they were 93% to give it back. Touching increases scholar performances, creates a positive attitude in the class room and reduces the stress of people. Of course, there are some limits: it is socially acceptable to put one hand on the shoulder of a student but more could be seen as inappropriate. In a multicultural, the teacher should move a lot, circulating around the room to make students more engaged and involved. Interactive with and monitoring students is a must. And it provides a good feedback to the teacher who can adapt his or her behavior. Students are more aware of the teacher’s presence and it keeps students more on their task, especially if the route is unpredictable. A sense of order is naturally preferable to an oppressive supervision. Each teacher is free to pick-up his or her favorite posture toward students: the expert and the greens, the guide and the actors, the conductor and the performers or the reader and the clarifier. To sum up, reading, interviewing fellow students, observing, taking parts in role plays can be good opportunities for students to learn more on how to deal with proximity.

CONCLUSION
Living in a multicultural environment requires an adjustable behavior since a communicational conflict can occur when people do not understand each other. This essay have shown how proximity is experiences within teachers and students in a multicultural class by focusing on proximity and power, individualist and collectivist cultures, low contact and high contact cultures, proxemics and power distance. Recommendations and answers to the questions came from the research. It has been shown that culture influences the way people behave and more specifically proximity and power distance. People from high-contact culture will touch each other a lot and people from individualistic culture will dare to challenge power, especially the power of the teacher, since their position does not have any repercussion on the whole community. In places where power distance is small, this behavior is usually acceptable. In a multicultural class, space, distance and territory are not experienced the same way by each actor. Some students might appear cold and uninterested by their lack of eye contact while in fact it means that they show respect to the teacher.  Similarly, depending of the country, greeting a teacher can be very formal or more informal. Culture programs the mind of people but it is important to avoid ethnocentrism in order to live harmoniously. One’s body belongs to oneself so it is important to deal with proximity in a way that people are not hurt. Getting to know each other leads to a better understanding.  It is necessary to become more culturally aware, more sensitive to other cultures and more skillful in intercultural communication. The right balance have to be found, following the norms of respect but avoiding to create an aseptic world. Fighting haptephobia is probably the right things to do to make the classroom an pleasant place to be and to learn.

APPENDIX
Figure 1. The model for interpersonal teacher behavior
Retrieved Apr. 2, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.fed.qut.edu.au/projects/asera/PAPERS/Image1.jpg » http://www.fed.qut.edu.au/projects/asera/PAPERS/Image1.jpg
Figure 2: Diagram of Edward T. Hall’s personal reaction bubbles
Retrieved Apr. 2, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.thuanngo.com/lasalle/images/references/reaction-bubble-by-edward-sm.gi » http://www.thuanngo.com/lasalle/images/references/reaction-bubble-by-edward-sm.gi Figure 3: Individualism and Power-distance
Retrieved Apr. 2, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/3010020301002.png » http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/3010020301002.png

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, N. (1997). International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
Andrieu, B.  (2006). La mobilité de l’enseignant dans la classe : mutation identitaire et mouvements des modèles. Retrieved Apr. 1, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.staps.uhp-nancy.fr/bernard/articlesenligne.htm » http://www.staps.uhp-nancy.fr/bernard/articlesenligne.htm
Arias, I. (1996). Proxemics in the ESL Classroom. Retrieved Apr. 2, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/proxemics.htm » http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/proxemics.htm
Axtell, R. E. (1997). Gestures: The Do’s and Taboos of Body Language Around the World. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Centre for Intercultural Learning. (2008). Attitudes towards cultural difference. A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Canada: Canadian Foreign Service Institute.
Crindal A. et Andrieu B. (2004). Changements de points de vue, de rôles et de posturesdans les nouveaux dispositifs d’enseignement. In 7eBiennale internationale de l’éducation etde la formation, INRP, Lyon
Gudykunst, W., & Kim, Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gunter, P.L., Shores, R.E., & Susan, J.L. (1995). On the move: Using teacher/student proximity to improve students’ behavior.
Hickson, M., III, Stacks, D. W., & Moore, N. (2004). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Hofstede. G. 1994. Cultures and Organizations: Software of mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: HarperCollins.
Houven, R. 2006. Universiteit Utrecht IVLOS: Teacher-student interpersonal behavior in multicultural classes. Retrieved Apr. 1, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.ivlos.uu.nl/project/41635main.html » http://www.ivlos.uu.nl/project/41635main.html
Joule, R and Beauvois, J. (2002). Petit traité de manipulation à l’usage des gens honnêtes gens. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble
Klopf, D. W. (1998). Intercultural encounters. The fundamentals of intercultural communication. Workbook. Englewood, CO: Morton Publishing Company.
Koul, R. B. and Fisher, D. L. (2004). Teacher-student interpersonal behavior and its associations with cultural and gender differences, student attitudes and achievements. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 2004.  HYPERLINK « http://www.waier.org.au/forums/2004/koul.html » http://www.waier.org.au/forums/2004/koul.html
Lampi, A. R., Fenty, N. S., & Beaunae, C. (2005). Making the three Ps easier: Praise, proximity, and precorrection. Beyond Behavior. Retrieved Apr. 1, 2009, from Web site:  HYPERLINK « http://www.ccbd.net/documents/bb/Fall2005vol15no1pp8-12.pdf » http://www.ccbd.net/documents/bb/Fall2005vol15no1pp8-12.pdf
Lewis, R. (1999). When Cultures Collide. Managing successfully across Cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Lustig, M.W, Koester, J (1993), Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures. New York: HarperCollins
Martin J., Nakayama T., (2000). Intercultural Communication in Contexts. California: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Neuliep, J. (2006). Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. Caflifornia: Sage.
Pease, A and B. (2004). The definitive book of body language. New-York: Bantam books.