The Importance of Cultural Interactions in the Globalization Era

Mohsen Ghadami, PhD

Faculty Member at Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abbassali Ghayumi, PhD

Faculty Member at North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Kamran Mohamadkhani, PhD (Corresponding author: k.kamran@srbiau.ac.ir)

Faculty Member at Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Fateme Tohidy Ardahaey

PhD Student in Cultural Management and Planning, Department of Cultural Management and
Planning, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This article deals with the issue of cultural interactions and its importance in the globalization
era. It reviews such concepts as globalization, culture, cultural communication and interaction
and the cultural differences in different ethnics and groups of people as well as some solutions to
come over such cultural differences and probable conflicts. Some theories on cultural
interactions are introduced and at the end, the importance of cultural interaction in globalization
era is discussed.

Keywords: culture, cultural interactions, globalization, cultural adaptation, cultural synergy,

cultural management, global citizen, global citizenship

Introduction

A great amount of attention has been paid to culture in the research which reveals a vast and
growing number of journals, conference presentations, professional associations, divisions within

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800
existing professional associations, online discussion forums, blogs and social networks dedicated
to this topic. In this vast body of research, there is attention to a wide array of topics such as the
digital divide, multicultural education, cultural relevance, internationalization and localization of
educational content and cross-cultural awareness (Aydin and McIsaac 2004; Barta et al. 2003;
Bentley et al. 2004; Debry 2002; Powell 1997) as well as cultural interactions. In addition to
empirical studies in those areas, critiques, analysis, definitions and theories of culture abound as
trends of globalization grow (Gunawardena and LaPointe 2008; Perkins 2008; Subramony 2004;
Thomas et al. 2002).instructional design discipline in recent years, yet there is still a noticeable
absence of attention to culture in some of the major publications of the field (Subramony 2004),
including the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd
edition just published in 2007 (Russell et al. 2013).

Culture influences the way in which individuals see themselves and their environment at every
level of the ecological system (Greene & Lee, 2002). Cultural groups are living organisms with
members exhibiting different levels of identification with their common culture and impacted by
other intersecting identities (Marsiglia and Booth, 2014).

Social work and other helping professions have attempted over time to integrate culture of origin
to the interventions applied with ethnic minorities and other vulnerable communities in the US
and globally (Sue & Arredondo & McDavis, 1992). In an ever changing cultural landscape, there
is a renewed need to examine social work education and the interventions social workers
implement with cultural diverse communities (Marsiglia and Booth, 2014).

Most countries in the world are culturally heterogeneous. According to the recent estimates, in
184 independent countries in the world there are about 600 languages and 500 ethnic groups.
Only a few countries in the world can say that their citizens share the same language and belong
to the same ethno-national group. This diversity poses a series of important questions that may
be subject to dispute. Minorities and the majority are largely confronted in relation to the issues
such as language rights, regional autonomy, political representation, educational programs,
national symbols, choice of anthem or national holidays. Finding a moral and political life
defensive responses to these questions is the biggest challenge that democracies are faced with
today. The endeavor to create liberal-democratic institutions in Eastern Europe and the Third
World are being undermined by nationalistic conflicts. In Western Europe numerous disputes

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800
regarding the rights of immigrants and other cultural minorities question the very assumptions on
which decades of political life is based on. After the end of the Cold War, ethno cultural conflicts
have become the largest source of political violence in the world that do not show a downward
trend.

Modern societies are largely faced by minority groups seeking recognition of their own identity
and adapting to their differences. This is commonly indicated as a challenge of the
multiculturalism. But the term multicultural often covers various forms of cultural pluralism,
each of which represents a challenge of its own. Minorities are incorporated into political
communities in different ways, from conquest and colonization of previously autonomous
societies to voluntary immigration of individuals and families. These differences in the way of
incorporation influence the nature of minority groups and the type of relationship that they want
to establish with the wider society (Petrovski et. al 2011).

This article aims to review the cultural interactions in the era of globalization considering the
cultural differences.

Globalization and culture

In the last fifty years, there have been changes in the lifestyles of even the most conservative
societies. Especially, the free movement of capital fades away national borders, international
financial institutions and business corporations have a direct influence over the lifestyles and
customs of the countries that they entered. Distinctive/specific relationship forms of modernism
have become common/spread all over the world. Thus, not only the world has metaphorically
shrunk to a small village as a result of information technologies and transportation facilities, but
it has also become a place where all relationships have similar forms. Especially, for the last 40
years, the process that spreads and shakes the world is described as globalization. Globalization
is the carrier of values such as democracy, equality, justice and freedom. According to anti-
globalists, the spread of globalization is painful in non-western countries and globalization is in
fact another name for conducting western colonialism (Kaygusuz, 2012).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

Globalization does not only have economic consequences. During this process, many cultures
come into contact with each other and this has caused the spread of cultural conflicts due to the
prejudgments coming from the past. Especially, the problems of refugee people who flee from
war zones have become more serious day by day. Many people who are close to these war zones
consider the countries that caused conflicts as enemies and they feel rage against the people
coming from those places. Therefore, that the world is metaphorically shrinking to the size of a
small village causes disturbance in world cultures. Despite the discourse of cultural diversity, it
is known that societies perceive this diversity as a threat and they are known to have had racial
and religious prejudice. Hence, multiculturalism can be the source of not only living together but
also disintegration and alienation (Kaygusuz, 2012).

In the globalization process, the individual constantly faces with the new stimulants.
Consequently, the individuals who are trying to fit in this transformation process by being on the
move all the time and making adaptations to live under intensive pressure. These individuals
mostly become alienated, (Kaygusuz, 2009) introverted or aggressive. Globalization put pressure
on the individual in terms of migration. When individuals move to new places whether
voluntarily or compulsorily, they have difficulty in adapting to the culture of the places they
move in. This situation increases the intolerance and radical behaviors against other cultures and
cause the individuals commit acts of extreme violence. Many governments carry out
acculturation-based studies and prepare training/education programs for the individuals who
belong to different cultures to get used to living together (Kaygusuz, 2012).

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity states that intercultural dialog and
respect for cultural diversity and tolerance are essential to building world peace. The Declaration
recognizes that globalization, together with rapid advances in information and communication
technologies, presents a threat to cultural diversity but also creates conditions for dialog among
cultures and civilizations. According to the Director General of UNESCO, MrMatsuura (2001),
the Declaration is an outstanding tool for development, capable of humanizing globalization.
Below are some statements from 11 articles of the Declaration.

The importance of culture in interactions

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

Previous studies in the field of cross-cultural research are either based on the assumption that
culture is important in the international context (e.g., Hofstede, 2001), or that it is largely
overruled by other conditions (e.g., Harris and Ogbonna, 1998). With a few exceptions (e.g.,
Gibson et al., forthcoming), relatively little is known about the conditions that influence whether
or not an individual experiences cross-cultural differences in the context of a globalized
environment.

Culture matters because individuals have different values and different preferences with regard
to management and leadership, that are related to their cultural background (see e.g., Hofstede,
2001; House et al., 2004). Cultural assumptions and values describe the nature of relationships
between people and their environment, and amongst people themselves. Given little or no other
information about an individual‟s values and behavior, culture provides a good first impression
of that person (Maznevski and Peterson, 1997). Research has shown that national culture
influences an individual‟s perceptions, behavior and beliefs (Harrison and Huntington, 2000;
Hofstede, 2001; Kirkman et al., 2006).

In contrast, the other approach takes the perspective that culture is largely overruled by other
conditions. This line of research argues that even though culture does influence individual
outcomes, such as perceptions, the statistical significance of this relationship is very weak (e.g.
Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001). Thus, other factors, such as personality, strong leadership, and
uniformity of practices (e.g., Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000) are identified as predictors that
overrule the weak effect of culture.

More recently, this ongoing discussion as to whether culture matters is influenced by a new view
of culture. This new view represents a dynamic view of culture, leading towards the emergence
of a globalized business environment (Bird and Stevens, 2003). Following Hofstede (2001)
culture has been seen as a very stable concept that changes quite slowly.

However, political, economic, and technical changes in the 21st century create cultural changes
across the world. Globalization is leading to significant cultural cross-pollination. Thus, cultures
do not operate as uncorrelated independent variables, even though they are often treated like this
when studying cross-cultural interactions (Bird and Stevens, 2003, p.403). In negotiation
simulations across various countries, Bird (2002) shows that within the world business

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

community an identifiable and homogenous group is emerging that shares a common set of
values, attitudes, norms, and behavior, which overrule the diverse cultural backgrounds of the
individuals involved.

The importance of cultural interaction

A cross-cultural (intercultural) interaction is a reciprocal influence (action) of a person from one

national or organizational culture on another person or people from different national or
organizational culture(s) [Rozkwitalska 2010, chapter 2.1]. Individual and organizational factors
influenced by three levels of mind programming belong to major determinants of human actions
[see Kożusznik 2002, p. 16, Hofstede, Hofstede 2007, pp. 17–18].
The simplest way to envision cross-cultural interaction is in terms of the movement of people
from one culture area to another, but the reality is much more complex (Tartaron, 2012). Cross-
cultural interaction defines the way in which people interact. It recognizes that no population
group or their cultural traditions were pure or original nor that they were isolated from internal or
external change. Rather, it extends beyond simplistic identifications of cultural provenance to
focus on the social practice behind which dynamic and interrelated cultural identities are
continually transformed by the experiences of those involved in culture contact (Brown, 2012).

Cross-cultural interaction can be characterized along several dimensions: (1) the occasions, or
modes, of cross-cultural contact; (2) the instigator(s) of and participants in the contact; (3) the
location of the contact; (4) the material and intellectual products (goods and ideas) moved and
exchanged through the contact; and (5) the ramifications and effects of cross-cultural contact.

The usual modes of contact include exploration, trade, colonization, diplomacy, military action,
and communal activity (such as religious pilgrimage). These categories obviously overlap in
multipurpose travels and interactions (Tartaron, 2012).

Cultural differences and cultural interactions

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

As we move between and across cultures, our interactions take place both at the intersections and
boundaries of cultures. In this scenario, we encounter not just the complexity of cross-cultural
communication but also of cross-functional and cross-social interaction. It is worth noting that
just as the observations of one reality may vary depending upon the observer and observer
context, so the observed reality and actuality of one culture may vary from those of the other
culture, and same may be true of reality and actuality of the social domain (Gill, 2007). There is
also the issue of some “Cultures in Conflict,” yet the question of cultural animosity was ignored
by all speakers (Ptolemaic Egypt, 1988). Old concepts of cultural synthesis or subjugation are
giving way to theories of cultural separation (Samuel 1989).

So the issue here is how to find coherence between different realities and actualities while
recognizing their differences, and in the same vein, how to find a commonality of cultural
experiences while recognizing cultural differences. That is to say how do we pool our shared
cultural experiences (also share our pooled experiences) while recognizing our cultural
differences and sustaining our cultural identities (Gill, 2007).

Here the concept of the „culture of the artificial‟ was introduced (Negrotti 1999). This concept
enables individuals (or groups) from two different cultural spaces to create a third artificial
cultural space (culture of the artificial) in which to meet and share and pool their common
cultural experiences for a common purpose, while recognizing and accepting their cultural
differences as a further resource for cross-cultural learning. We call this process, „valorizing‟ of
cultures, which says that we make best use of our common cultural experiences while
recognizing our different cultural identities. While the concept of symbiosis enables the
interaction in the gaps between actuality and reality, the concept of valorization‟ enables us to
find coherence (commonality) between cross-cultural interactions. It is worth noting that these
concepts also enable learning from actuality–reality gaps and from the cultural differences. In
this sense diversity becomes a tool for cross-cultural understanding and learning. The
implications of this articulation of learning is that any interfacing design process dealing with
actuality gaps and cross-cultural spaces should by definition be a learning process, involving
both the users and designers in the process of design (Gill 2002, 2006).

Different acculturation experiences, for example, may reflect the different pathways and
outcomes resulting from the members interactions with majority culture. A far-reaching

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

acculturation process may lead to a fast assimilation into the host society and to a detachment
from the protective values and norms of the culture of origin. In such cases, interventions can
help participants reconnect to their culture of origin through a process often referred to as
enculturation (Greenfield & Quiroz, 2013). Other individuals can be at the other end of the
spectrum and remain so strongly rooted in their culture of origin that may be placing themselves
in the margins of society and cannot benefit from social mobility. This experience of marginality
results from either structural inequality or from the conscious choice of preserving their culture
of origin within the new environment (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Most immigrant families and
youth, however, tend to develop a bicultural identity, integrating aspects of their culture of origin
with aspects of the host culture. This bicultural identity has been found to be protective against
acculturation stress (Berry, et al., 2006). Failing to integrate these known cultural strengths may
result in ineffective interventions or interventions that do not achieve their full potential
(Marsiglia and Booth, 2014).

Cultural adaptation is also an emerging science that aims at addressing these challenges and
opportunities to enhance the efficacy of interventions by grounding them in the lived experience
of the participants. Engagement in the adaptation process also provides social workers/
researchers with opportunities to build on their cultural strengths and address population-specific
risk factors, in other words, it builds practice and research capacity (Maldonado-Molina, Reyes
& Espinosa-Hernandez, 2006).

Conclusion

The theory of globalization examines the genesis of the global cultural system. Globalization
today is understood as a process of creating a single economic, political and cultural space on
planet Earth. It suggests the fact that global culture is brought by different trends of social and
cultural development, emergence of global patterns of consumption and consumerism, nurturing
cosmopolitan lifestyles, emergence of global sport such as the Olympics, world championships
and other sporting events, global spread of tourism, spread of education on global scale, and
decline in sovereignty of nation states (Petrovski, 2011). Based on the fact that globalization
involves a new awareness of the world as a single space and a place where all people with all

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

kinds of cultural background and differences need to be in contact, the issues of intercultural
communication, intercultural relationships and cultural interactions and the factors improving
them need to be considered highly.

This article aimed to review the most important cultural phenomena through the process of
globalization and highlight the importance of cultural interactions in the era of globalization.

References

Aydin, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). The impact of instructional technology in

Turkey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 105–112.

Barta, J., Jette´, C., & Wiseman, D. (2003). Dancing numbers: Cultural, cognitive, and
technical instructional perspectives on the development of Native American mathematical and
scientific pedagogy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 88–96.

Bentley, J. P. H., Tinney, M. V., & Chia, B. H. (2004). Intercultural internet-based

learning: Know your audience and what it values. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(2), 117–127.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth:
Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55, 303-332.

Brown A. (2012). Cross-Cultural Interaction Theories in Classical Archaeology. Suffolk

County Council Archaeological Service, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, UK.

Debry, D. P. (2002). Analysis of emerging practices in globalizing instructional

materials. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 73–82.

Gill KS (2007) Rethinking the cross-cultural interaction architecture. AI & Soc (2007)
21:639-647, DOI 10.1007/s00146-007-0102-9

Gill KS (2002) The user in the emerging space of the digital provide. In: Proceedings of
the conference on the user‟s models in the advanced society, Venice University IUAV (Venice
University Institute of Architecture), 18–19 November

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

 Gill KS (2006) The dance of the user in the artificial cultural space. In: Negrotti M,
Satofuka F (eds) Yearbook of the artificial. Peter Lang, Bern.

Greene, G. J., & Lee, M. Y. (2002). The social construction of empowerment. In M.

O'Melia & K. Milesy (Ed.), Pathways to empowerment in social work practice. (pp. 175-201)
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Greenfield, P. M. & Quiroz, B. (2013). Context and culture in the socialization and
development of personal achievement values: Comparing Latino immigrant families, European
American families, and elementary school teachers. Journal of Applies Developmental
Psychology, 34, 108-118.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Intercultural communication. In W. B. Gudykunst, & B. Mody

(Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 179–182). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gunawardena, C. N., & LaPointe, D. (2008). Social and cultural diversity in distance
education. In T. Evans, M. Haughey, & D. Murphy (Eds.), International handbook of distance
education (pp. 51–70). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., 2007. Kultury i organizacje. Warszawa: PWE.

Kaygusuz C. (2012). Psychological counselling within the context of globalization and

multiculturalism. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 895 – 902.

Kożusznik, B., 2002. Zachowania człowieka w organizacji. Warszawa: PWE.

Maldonado‐Molina, M. M., Reyes, N. A., & Espinosa‐Hernández, G. (2006).

Prevention research and Latino families: Resources for researchers and practitioners. Family
Relations, 55, 403-414.

Marsiglia F. F. and Booth J. (2014). Cultural Adaptation of Interventions in Real Practice

Settings. Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center (SIRC), School of Social Work - Arizona
State University.

Negrotti M (1999) The theory of the artificial. Intellect Books, Exeter.

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

 Perkins, R. A. (2008). Challenges and questions concerning „„Culturally-Sensitive
Design‟‟. TechTrends, 52(6), 19–21.

Petrovski V. (2011). Multiculturalism, globalization and the implications on education.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 1366–1371.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and
its variants. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 530, 74-96.
Prevention.

Powell, G. (1997). On being a culturally sensitive instructional designer and educator.

Educational Technology, 37(2), 6–14.

“Ptolemaic Egypt: Cultures in Conflict” held December 2–3, 1988 at the Brooklyn
Museum. Lecturers instead emphasized cooperation and cross-influence between cultures. A
direct question posed by this author regarding the validity of the notion of “cultures in conflict”
generated complete disavowal.

Rozkwitalska, M., 2010. Bariery w zarządzaniu międzykulturowym. Perspektywa filii

zagranicznych korporacji transnarodowych (publikacja przyjęta do druku). Warszawa: Oficyna
(Wolters Kluwer Business).

Russell L. R., Kinuthia W. L., Lokey-Vega A., Tsang-Kosma W. and Madathany R.

(2013). Identifying complex cultural interactions in the instructional design process: a case study
of a cross-border, cross-sector training for innovation program. Education Tech Research Dev
(2013) 61:707–732.

Samuel 1989, passim; idem 1983, especially pp. 105–17 ; and Bagnall 1988, pp. 21–27.

Subramony, D. P. (2004). Instructional technologists‟ inattention to issues of cultural

diversity among learners. Educational Technology, 44(4), 19–24.

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling

competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 20, 64-68.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800

 Tartaron T. F. (2012). Cross-Cultural Interaction in the Greek World: Culture Contact
Issues and Theories. Department of Classical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, USA.

Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: A
cultural embrace. TechTrends, 46(2), 40–45.

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483800