Deep Culture: The non-tangible aspects of culture such as ...



THE ICEBERG MODEL OF CULTURE

CULTURE

There are two types of culture in the iceberg model of culture. First one is surface culture, which includes the food, dress, music, visual arts, crafts, dance, literature, language, celebrations, games, etc. Second one is deep culture, which includes concept of time, personal space, nonverbal communications, ideals of childrearing, nature of friendships, concept of self, etc. Invisible aspects of deep culture always influence the visible aspects of surface culture.

There are many other theories or conceptualizations of culture similar to the iceberg concept of culture. For example, Schwartz (1992) suggests a distributive model of culture similar to the iceberg concept of culture. In this model, culture is not an integrated system or a mere aggregation of traits or behaviors but a population of meanings. These meanings have definite material embodiments, but they are always things in the world, rather than mere abstractions. Therefore, human sociocultural systems via individuals “incorporate or appropriate and selectively use the resources of the environment.” (Barkatzky, 1984, p.409) and create culture.

Triandis (1975, as cited in Bennett, 2003) also makes a distinction between subjective culture and material or concrete culture. Subjective culture includes worldviews, perception of environment, stereotypes, role expectations, and norms, whereas material or concrete culture includes the artifacts.

However, it is important to keep in mind that each person is a unique individual who has his/her own unique cultural understandings and beliefs (Rodseth, 1998). In fact, “it is doubtful whether there has ever been any one man who possessed a complete knowledge of the culture of the society in which he lived, and there is no necessity for any individual to try to acquire such comprehensive knowledge” (Linton, 1936, p.84-85).

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

The iceberg concept of culture definitely has applications for bilingual education. For example, Cummins assumes that a person's first and second languages operate through the same central processing system and rely on a Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) or ‘Think Tank’ (Cummins, 1981). Cummins’ theories rely on the iceberg model with the two peaks of the different languages visible above the surface but supported by a common base of integrated thought sources. The two icebergs are separate above the surface. That is, two languages are visibly different in outward conversation. Underneath the surface, however, the two icebergs are fused such that the two languages do not function separately. Both languages operate through the same central processing system (Illinois Resource Center, 2006).

[pic]

Cummins’ Thresholds theory (1984) states that pupils’ academic achievement will be below average until their second language linguistic development reaches a level which can cope with conceptual learning. This theory supports the notion that individuals with high levels of proficiency in both languages experience cognitive advantages in terms of linguistic and cognitive flexibility, while low levels of proficiency in both languages result in cognitive deficits.

Some educational implications from Cummins’ theory are as follows:

1. Bilingualism and multilingualism are possible because people have the capacity to store two or more languages. People can function in two or more languages with relative ease.

2. Speaking, listening, reading or writing in the first or the second language helps the whole cognitive system to develop. However, if children are made to operate in an insufficiently developed second language, the system will not function well. (IRC, 2006).

Also, Alptekin (2002) claims that learning a foreign language is a kind of enculturation, where a child acquires new cultural frames of reference and a new world view. According to him, instructional materials should involve local and international context that are relevant to language learners’ lives so that language learners can make connections between their culture and other people's cultures.

The iceberg model of culture also has some implications for multicultural education. According to Bennett (2003), the more teachers know about the deep aspects of diverse cultures, the better they can interpret student differences that are linked to their culture. Also teachers should encourage students to learn the values and patterns of socialization of diverse cultures, rather than focusing on surface culture characteristics such as food and clothing.

Professionals in multicultural education should also have knowledge about CLD students’ family structures so that they can understand deep culture characteristics such as courtesy, and ideals of childrearing. Observations in CLD students’ homes or neighborhoods can help teachers better understand the social milieu surrounding these children (Bruns & Corso, 1999).

Intercultural Learning Continuum (Allan, 2003):

[pic]

References

Allan, M. (2003). Frontier Crossings: Cultural dissonance, intercultural learning and the

multicultural personality. Journal of Research in International Education, 2(1),

83-110.

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT

Journal, 56(1), 57-64.

Barkatzky, T. (1984). Culture, environment, and the ills of adaptationism. Current Anthropology, 25(4), 399-415.

Bennett, C. I. (2003). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice

(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bruns, D.A. & Corso, R.M. (1999). Working with culturally & linguistically diverse

families, ERIC Digest (ED430172).

Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Ontario: Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education.

Illinois Resource Center (2006). The Needs of English Language Learners: The process

of learning a new language: Comparison of program models, benefits of native language support, role of parents, and overview of teaching strategies and approaches. Retrieved June, 25 2006 from

cwis/cwisdocs/intro-ells.pdf

Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York: D. Appleton-Century.

Rodseth, L. (1998). Distributive models of culture: A sapirian alternative to

essentialism. American Anthropologist, 100(1), 55-69.

Schwartz, T. (1992). Anthropology and Psychology: An unrequited relationship. In T.

Schwartz, G. M. White, and C. A. Lutz (Eds.), New Directions in Psychological Anthropology. ( pp. 324-349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Presentation by: Gokce Tekin and Jennifer Blackburn - CI 597B - Summer '06

Dr. Thomas Yawkey - Penn State University

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download