Fred Hampton, intercultural hero
While Hampton’s reputation as a civil rights leader in the Black Panther Party speaks for itself, many don’t know about his incredible record in reaching across divisions and forming intercultural alliances to combat poverty, systemic racism, and various other forms of oppression, as was the case with the Rainbow Coalition. This coalition primarily consisted of the panthers, the Young Lords, and the Young patriots, which were a black civil rights org, a Latin-American org, and a white-American org. While these groups had historically espoused very different rhetoric and beliefs, Hampton believed that they were united in their class oppression, and believed that they were much stronger together than apart. Hampton was a largely positive figure in his community, working towards admiral goals until his assassination by the FBI in 1969. Obviously, the FBI did not appreciate his revolutionary rhetoric, nor his clear gift at uniting people with incredibly different backgrounds.
Sorrel’s Response
While many of the theories we’ve read in the past weeks have been very insightful and a helpful starting point for learning more about intercultural communication and learning, I think that this piece by Sorrell’s has the strongest argument for its implementation. While many of the other readings have sought to categorize societies or used criteria to determine certain things about society (“feminine” or “masculine”, collectivist or individualist, etc) this piece does not seek to diagnose societies in any particular way, but rather to individually orient oneself in a way that is beneficial for intercultural communication. It is very much a step by step guide, much more so than any of the other pieces. Sorrell’s outlines exactly how she wants you to navigate through communicating across cultures, utilizing a combination of many of the theories that we read in class to form her specific plan. For example, she references Paulo Freire’s writing in support of the importance of dialogue and critical reflection when discussing her reasoning for why dialogue is such an important step in the progression of the communication. While, on the surface, this model would appear to be quite effective, and certainly accomplishes what it sets out to do (interculturally communicate), I think that its emphasis on individual action could be read as myopic. While it cannot be argued that individual to individual communication is the crux of what Sorrells’ model is trying to achieve, the impact of collective action can never be understated. The actions recommended by Sorrells seem limited to interpersonal situations, when perhaps they should extend wider. For example, trying to understand global conflict through the lens of intercultural communication (especially pertinent now given the conflicts occurring in the MidEast).
Decolonizing Travel
While I agree with almost everything that the reading had to offer, from being mindful about where we stay, how we interact with host communities, and most other aspects, I’d like to push back on one idea that the author discusses. The author claims on page 49 that “ behaviors aren’t inherently weird, wrong, or inferior- they’re just unfamiliar to us”. This is essentially the idea behind the theory of “cultural relativism” or the idea that we mustn’t judge a culture by our own standards, but rather appreciate behaviors and norms in their own cultural contexts. In my opinion, this theory leaves a lot to be desired. I would argue that it can often be a defense for extremely harmful and detrimental cultural practices. One of the examples that is pointed to by the author is a (probably American- Western at least) tourist saying “arranged marriages are so weird!”. At face value, this remark can certainly be offensive. Not all cultures treat/use arranged marriages the same way, and they can be quite safe and fulfilling in some cultures. However, if you argue that a cultural practice can’t be pushed back on just because it is a traditional practice, you can no longer see the issue through a critical lens. Arranged marriages, for example, have historically often benefited patriarchal social structures that remove autonomy from young women. While I agree that generally it is good to evaluate a culture distinct from your own biases (although this is impossible, as Judith Butler put it, “no man sees the world through pristine eyes”) this can be weaponized as a pushback against criticism of blatantly harmful “cultural” practices. This also speaks to a wider trend of the weaponization of language of the marginalized. An example that springs to mind immediately for me is the attempted equation of anti-Zionism to anti-semitism by many in today’s political climate.
