Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill-will.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

In Kosinski's (l976) autobiographical novel, The Painted Bird, he fashioned the story around a metaphor that symbolized his experiences in occupied Poland during World War II. As a form of entertainment, a hermit would catch a bird that he had painted in a colorful and bizarre manner. Later he would release the colorful bird and then watch as the bird joined the flock. The painted bird would fly to the flock seeking safety. At first the flock would be fearful of such a different kind of bird, but later something inexplicable would happen and the flock would reel in mid-flight and fly towards the painted bird. First they would try and scare it off, but the painted bird not knowing that it was different, continued to try and join them. The flock’s fear of the painted bird seems to turn to anger and they would attack the alien and peck it to death. The message is clear to me - to be different is dangerous. . Even as a metaphor this tendency is a depressing and overpowering symbol of how those who are seen as different fare in society.

There always seem to be some in society who have been labeled outcasts, because they are different. I have often wondered about this phenomenon and why it is so. One of the aspects about group development that I have noticed is how people in some groups will exclude others. In my work with groups, I have seen people dismiss some people because of some difference or unusual personal aspect. In most cases it is a style or physical difference. When someone is rejected because they are different, I feel grief as I do when I think about the "painted bird." It is the image of pain in the "painted bird" who desperately wants to join the "flock," yet is rejected because it is different - alien. If the "painted bird" could talk, what would it say about its feelings? Imagine the incomprehensibility of one being rejected despite all that one did to be accepted. There must be an incredible feeling of pain in the outcast. Most people at some time during their childhood or as an adult have experienced the bias and prejudice of others who rejected them because they were a new kid in the neighborhood, fat or thin, tall or short, darker or lighter, disabled or wore glasses, had a accent or a different religion. Perhaps the word prejudice seems too hard, yet prejudice, no matter what its intensity, is still prejudice.

Rationale for the Transpersonal Cross-Cultural Approach

The rationale for understanding the cross-cultural issues in group counseling is in part the growing multicultural factor in everyday life and the increasing smaller world brought about by more efficient communication and transportation systems. News reports of ethnic cleansing in the Former Yugoslavia fill the news reports on a daily basis. It brings up an important question about multiculturalism. Do societies that have a variety of ethnic backgrounds experience more ethnic conflict than those that are more homogeneous? Certainly, cultural differences in a counseling group is usually an issue in how the members communicate with each other. Even the omnipresent O.J. Simpson murder case that dominated television news in l994-l995, the race card or the issue of race was an important factor in how the case was prosecuted. North American society cannot close its eyes to the issue of culture, race and language. Finally, in a world where most of the world's people are not Westerners, Caucasian, or Christian, and in a world that is growing smaller is not only enriching, but protective. All people must be aware that society, as a community, has the power to destroy our world through nuclear war and pollution. War has its genesis in society's disrespect for people who are different. People not only have to learn how to control their genocidal responses, but learn how to live in harmony with others and the environment. Everyone has heard the maxim: "If people do not learn the lessons from history, they are doomed to repeat them."

Every small group is really a microcosm of society. This reflects the transpersonal approach in that there is "...non-duality; the recognition that each part (e.g. each person) is fundamentally and ultimately a part of the whole [the cosmos]" (Davis, 2000, p. 4). Regardless of one's language, race or culture, every community is interdependent with another. There is a universalness in how people interact with each other in that the transpersonal approach "seeks to disclose and development the source and deeper nature of our identities, roles, and self-image" (David, 2000, p. 4). Thus when society discriminates, marginalizes, and ostracizes, a person or people because they are different, then everyone suffers.  Society has come a long way in being more accepting of different people, yet it has a long way to go in creating a society that respects diversity. Many cultural conflicts of the past have occurred because different people were pitted against each other. Take, for example, the experiences of the United States and Canada during their founding. Like people, they have reacted differently to similar situations. While both are more similar than different, they have developed differently historically. For example, after Sitting Bull and his warriors wiped out Lt.-Col. George Custer at the battle of the Little Bighorn he fled to Canada. Upon his arrival with 5,000 supporters, he was met by Inspector James Morrow of the North West Mounted Police, who explained that they could stay only if they obeyed the laws of Canada. Sitting Bull remained in Canada for 25 years before returning to the U.S. in 1890 where he was killed at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. This does not mean that Canada has acted more honorably than the United States, only differently. In the United States the relationship between whites and Aboriginials was a war over the land, which the Aboriginials lost. In Canada most Aboriginials were regarded as a labor force, suppliers of fur and consumers. In fact, the Hudson's Bay Company's motto was: "Never shoot your customers" (Newman, l989). The U.S. had 69 Indian wars in the 19th century, while Canada had only a few minor skirmishes. Tragically, Aboriginal people suffered similar fates under both jurisdictions. In the U.S. Aboriginials suffered as a result of conflict, while Aboriginal people in Canada suffered through disease and abuse. But the conflict continues. In February l973 the American Indian Movement challenged the U.S. government by seizing the village of Wounded Knee. Seventy-two days later they surrendered after drawing attention to Sioux grievances. In May l990 Mohawks blockaded the village of Oka, Quebec to draw attention to land claims. After one death of a policeman Aboriginials throughout North America took on greater militancy.

The world is changing very swiftly, where ethnic boundaries are changing. In the past, European cultural groups comprised the vast majority of new immigrants in North America, whereas today Asian groups top the list. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (l990), the Asian population of the U.S. increased by 79.5 %, the Hispanic population increased by 38.7%, and the aboriginal population by 21.6%. It has also been estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Census that by the year 2030 the States of New York, Florida, Texas, and California will have majority populations that are non white. Already most urban areas of the United States are largely comprised of racial minorities. However, what is making a remarkable impact is the large number of immigrants settling in North American cities. This trend can already be seen in urban areas like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and Toronto where half the households are not native-born. The multicultural reality is evident in North American schools where large numbers of students do not come from the "founding" ethnic groups. However, it goes much deeper than accommodating the new multicultural fact, as is emphasized in Leviticus 19: 33-34 ". . . love foreigners who live in your midst as yourselves . . . for you, too, were once foreigners."

The Human Cost of Prejudice 

She didn't like Indians and talked in front of me as if I were deaf. She would tell her visitors that we were only good for two things - working and fucking, if someone could get us to do it. She made jokes about hot bucks and hot squaws and talked like we were animals in a barnyard. (M. Campbell, 1979, p. 108)

The pain and anger in Maria Campbell's retelling of her experiences growing up typifies like nothing else the nature of prejudice. It is defined as ". . . an unfavorable attitude toward an idea or people, which tends to be highly stereotyped, emotionally charged, and not easily changed by contrary information" (Poduska, l980, p. 234). It is not a natural response, but a learned one from societal norms; observations from parents, friends, and neighbors. Not surprisingly, prejudice is not a result of constant negative experience with someone who is different, but through occasional contacts and reinforcers, such as a negative experience in a bar or an ethnic joke. It was the African-American activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton (de Montigny, l972) who differentiated between individual racism and institutional racism. The most obvious forms of individual racism such as segregated schools, bars, and neighborhoods, laws against interracial marriage, and job discrimination have all but disappeared. While laws have rectified many of these overt forms of racism, there are a number of attitudes that are ingrained in society that still reflect prejudice. For example, Allison Laurie's (l978) novel, Imaginary Friends, gives voice to prejudicial habits:  

Every time one of them would talk about jewing down the price of something, or say disparagingly that somebody was smart as a Jew I felt a twitch inside, as if they had pulled on a string tied around my small intestine. Like many WASPS...[they have] little sense of how prejudice feels when you're on the receiving end. (p. 73)  

Institutional racism is reflected in a group or community attitude from habits or unwritten laws that discriminate against others. School curricula, for example, primarily reflect white heritage, ". . .which is the history of Europeans on the North American continent" (de Montigny, l972, p. 101). In the housing codes there are restrictions against ownership, clubs that exclude certain groups, and taboos against interracial sexual encounters. No group of people or government is totally free of racism. It exists in all countries and among all groups, including among white ethnic groups (Serbian and Croatian) and among black ethnic groups (Watutsi and Hutu).

The reason for discriminating against others is not really complex. However, when people are faced with evidence of prejudice they tend to reject it; "I'm not prejudiced against Indians, but most of them just want to live on government assistance." There is of course some cognitive dissonance going on, because it is difficult to admit. It is easy for a society to judge situations in other nations as racist or oppressive, such as Apartheid in South Africa or the practices of the Israeli occupation forces on the West Bank. Some might respond and say "It's their fault that their culture has disintegrated." That is not an uncommon response, but it is a curious one, because it blames the victim for being victimized. Aboriginials are penalized for being culturally different, because of a system that neither allowed them citizenship nor allowed them to practice their language and culture.

As democratic people, it is easy to overlook the glaring evidence of oppression, such as the scape-goating of those of Japanese descent during World War II. The government played into the hands of racists who had for years viewed Orientals as a threat to the West Coast. In 1942 120,000 Japanese-Americans and 22,000 Japanese-Canadians living on the West Coast were forced by their respective governments to evacuate to harsh and isolated areas. At most 75% of these people were either born, raised, or naturalized citizens of the U.S. and Canada. The government admitted that there was not one report or incident of sabotage or anti-government activity on the part of ethnic Japanese to warrant this action. The internment of ethnic Japanese was simply an act of racial segregation. Kitagawa (1985) captures the hurt, anger, and despair eloquently: 

They do not think what it would mean to be ruthlessly, needlessly uprooted from a familiar home ground, from friends, and sent to a labor camp where most likely the decencies will be of the scantiest in spite of what is promised. They think we are cattle to be bred wherever it pleases our ill- wishers. They forget, or else it does not occur to them, that we have the same pride and self- respect as others...who can be hurt beyond repair. In short, they do not consider us as people, but as a nuisance to be rid of at the first opportunity. (p. 181) 

The dehumanization of "enemies" can clearly be observed when examining the emotional demonstrations of Iranians shouting "Down with America, the great Satanist" or the indifference of American leaders to the shooting down of the Iranian passenger airplane in l989. In the Gulf War, American President, George Bush constantly equated the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, with Hitler. It is clear that an "enemy" has to be dehumanized in order to sustain hate. This dehumanization is also evident in the paternalistic and stereotypical manner in which native Americans are viewed by North American society, which by and-large sees them as "less responsible, shiftless, less intelligent and drunkards." Such an image certainly helps to alleviate any guilt we may feel for the condition of our native population and to justify our take over of their land. These rationalizations are really a facade for an attitude that Poduska (l980) says allows a group to ". . . consider improper to cheat or lie to members of one's own race, but quite acceptable when directed towards another race" (p. 235). This exclusiveness of attitude is universal for most ethnic groups who practice discrimination.

In groups a sense of exclusiveness is used to support superiority, for example, "This club is for people of good breeding." Even on a smaller scale research evidence suggests that individuals need to maintain a sense of superiority over others (Higham, l972). Sometimes people refer to this as "group pride," but why does pride hinge on a feeling of superiority? Pride in doing things well or in a feeling of solidarity with one's ethnic group are beneficial, but when it evolves into superiority it is destructive. Perhaps people should remember the wisdom of Proverbs XVI:18; ". . . pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." There also seems to be a relationship between people who have a disposition towards authoritarian and prejudicial attitudes. People who seem to be more prone to prejudice are overly submissive, feel inadequate or are overly suspicious. The philosopher Voltaire said that somehow the infinitely little have a pride infinitely great. While these examples demonstrate how racism is used to deprive foreigners of their human qualities, the process is the same in sexism, ageism, religious bigotry and homophobia. The kind of prejudice experienced by ethnic and racial minorities, intentional or unintentional is the essence of the challenge of an open society. The scope of the issue associated with integrating the culturally different into society is reflected in a recent government report on the attitudes of North Americans, which asserted that 15% of people exhibit blatant racist attitudes, while another 20-25% have racist tendencies (Maclean's, l989). These results are not comforting, but the insidious aspect of racism is the manner in which it is reinforced by society's institutions. In addition people ought to be cognizant of the effect of prejudice on others. Chief Dan George (de Montigny, l972) said: 

Do you know what it is like to have your race belittled...? You don't know for you have never tasted its bitterness...It is like not caring about tomorrow for what does tomorrow matter? It is having a reserve that looks like a junk yard because the beauty in the soul is dead...Why should the soul express an external beauty that does not match it? It is like getting drunk for a few brief moments, an escape from the ugly reality and feeling a sense of importance. It is most of all like awaking next morning to the guilt of betrayal. For the alcohol did not fill the emptiness but only dug it deeper (pp. 162-163).

The Causes of Conflict and Prejudice

There has been a good deal of research examining what creates conflict and gives birth to prejudice.  Is it a part of the human experience?  Are people born feeling prejudice?  Consider that when people compete for scarce resources, they will form groups to help them get ahead. Often, these groups are based on similarities within the group, which become the "in-group."  Those who are different, become the "out-group." Differences could be based on a number of factors including group norms, language, race, religion, or even goals. On a smaller scale, even people who are very similar, but who have different goals become frustrated with others whose goals are different.   However, according to Baron, Kerr and Miller (1992), people become less aggressive, and thus, more cooperative, reducing prejudice,  if goals are mutual. In fact, friendships develop and differences, regardless of color or race, are minimized when goals are mutual.  Generally, people from one group are more generous or over compensate for those in their group, while conversely, under compensate for those from another group.   In other words, people from one cultural group will be more forgiving for those in their group, while being less forgiving for those from another group. For some reason, there is a tendency to exaggerated similarities within group, while exaggerating differences with other groups. People react to each other based on their group membership. Since they do not know the other people, viewing the others as "face less" and interchangeable is common.  It is easy to not see the others in the same light as themselves and differences become exaggerated (e.g., they don't value human life). 

It is human nature to try and simplify the environment, despite the fact that most day to day interactions among people are positive?  A good question. One bias is that one group will "naturally" see themselves as acting responsibly, but see the other group as being irresponsible.  That is, according to Baron, Kerr and Miller (l992) a factor of the human experience.  Also, for whatever reason, there is a tendency to promote negative views about others who are distinct and different.  Thus, the bias is reinforced with each "negative" experience one has.  In the end, one's attitude becomes more rigid, ideological, and becomes part of one's cultural norm.   Which  means, for example, if you have attitudes that are negative towards the police, you will see examples that reinforce this bias more often than if you don't have the bias.  There is also the "reciprocity" rule or the "tit for tat" idea in which if one "wrong" is done, you retaliate, causing a series of behaviors that reinforce one's belief.  Social comparison is also a factor in creating a sense of anger, prejudice, and aggression.  It seems one group is "getting away with something", which creates anger.  The fact is, when all things are equal, people get along.  And finally, if there is a "triggering" event, people react on the basis of emotion and do something that has a chain of events that can last for decades.  Consider the Kosovo situation in which Serbs are fighting Albanians.  Historical "wrongs" were enmeshed within the differing groups attitudes about each other. The Turkish invasion during the 16th century is played out in the 21st century.  People adapted to these attitudes and made them part of their behavior, thus creating another myth that reinforces prejudice.

The Influence of Culture

Culture is a human necessity, a way of life, because it is the way people establish and maintain a relationship with their environment. As people of understanding interact those who are culturally different, they must explore the socialization forces that affect behavior, values, and language. All differences can be seen by being aware of differences as seen in the cultural value preferences between majority (white) and aboriginal groups in Table 10.1:

For example, notice the dichotomy between the two: control and good/bad versus harmony and good. The stress of control over nature produces a feeling of seeing other people in terms of good and bad, which corresponds exactly with how humanity ought to be treated. If they are not good or consistent with societal norms, then they need to be controlled. Taken one step further, people with this attitude also have to control those urges that they feel within themselves. Even in a relatively homogeneous population, there are cultural differences that are easier to be aware of in others than in self. According to many social scientists, culture is both a critical aspect of a person's lifestyle and an essential element of human behavior. While the clothes people wear and the attitudes they voice may reflect the dominant culture they are in, it is their cultural background that shapes their thinking and feelings, such as reflected in the analogy, "blood is thicker than water." There are strong indicators that cultural conditioning reflects how people communicate with others (Pedersen, Draguns, Lonner, & Trimble, l989).

The biological force is the most universal, because no matter who people are or where they are from, they are human beings. Some biological differences include age, shape, size, color, and gender. With the exception of a few cases, these differences are not going to change nor can they be manipulated. In all societies these biological differences have reflected attitudes relating to behavior and how people will interact with others. For example, someone large is viewed as powerful and possibly aggressive; as a result more deference is shown that person. A big and muscular person may be seen as a brute, or a lean and slight person as effeminate, or someone with rough features as unrefined. The cultural norms that dictate reactions to biological differences are infinite, with each group having its own interpretation about the meaning of biological characteristics; for example, plumpness is healthy in some groups.

All cultures are affected psychologically by various influences on the group. People in the group are continuously subjected to pressures to conform to the norms of the group. In this respect the personality to a large extent is formed through these group norms. The family, as a primary socializing agent, is responsible for the basic values that people exhibit. This is particularly true in Asian cultural values of respect for authority, traditions, and learning (Gaw, l982; Vernon, l982). In addition, exposure to significant others, relatives, friends, teachers and peers enhances the repertoire for the inculcation of the social mores and behaviors of the entire culture. This is obvious when a comparison is made between the way people feel, think, and act in different cultures. For example, Sue & Sue (l990) found the following differences in communication styles between Whites and Aboriginials. [It should be noted that this is a generalization and does not affect individual differences among and within groups.]

Whites: Verbal oriented, adherence to time schedules, have long range goals, individual centered, emotional expressiveness, cause and effect oriented, open and intimate, rational and thinking, comfortable with ambiguity, and a clear distinction between physical and mental well-being.

Aboriginal: Action oriented; different time perspective; immediate short range goals; intuitive and nonverbal; satisfy present needs; cooperative and not competitive; comfortable with concrete, tangible and structured approaches; uses folk or supernatural explanations.

Behavior may also be affected by ideology or the characteristic manner of thinking (e.g., assertions, theories, or aims). The ideological foundation of an individual's culture will to a large degree have impact on their behavior. It is from such foundations that people derive religious, social, and political beliefs that direct and govern their behavior. Being born to in a certain culture occasions the display of certain characteristics that are behaviorally right for that culture. In other words, people have a cultural or national way of thinking and seeing the world which is reflected in language, values and beliefs. The ideological differences can be observed in the behavior of group members who come from different ethnic groups. For example, in one recent group, a person who was of Native American decent (Cree) put more emphasis on group responsibility and another member who was of French-Irish decent, was a great believer in individual responsibility .

The ideology of a nation dictates to people certain attitudes, beliefs, and ways of thinking that frame their existence. Their beliefs about life, death, and marriage determine the behavior between others. People tend to respond to their environment in consistent manners that are dictated by the attitudes in their society. Minorities have partially adopted, the ideology of the dominant culture in order to survive, but the adoption may or may never be fully ingrained in their personality. According to Buriel and Vasquez (1982), even after three generations of living in the United States, Mexican-American adolescents modified their basic cultural characteristics in only a few small ways. Yet these minorities are not totally similar to the cultures of their origin. For example, an African-American or Arab-American will have more in common with each other than with people in Nigeria or Iraq. This creates a strain for visible minorities who can feel that they are "neither here nor there." It is also true that some beliefs and values are more affected by gender than cultural differences (e.g., men have more freedom of choice regardless of culture).

Ecological forces refer to how the environment has influenced culture and behavior. Someone born on a isolated island may develop a different view of the world, than someone born on a large continent. Climate, prosperity, and population density, like terrain can also play a role in developing a distinct cultural norm. People born in a highly populated area may have to be more assertive, because that is the only way to survive, while someone born in a non dense area can be more relaxed and quiet.

Language and Class-Bound Variables

As a primary form of communication, language is of great importance to people in groups. Language patterns are reflective of people's culture or subculture (Vontress, 1976). Even when people are speaking the same language there is a great deal of misunderstanding, because of individual differences. Therefore, it becomes easy to understand or imagine why people who do not have the same cultural and linguistic background misunderstand each other. An inaccurate picture of another person's issue formed on verbal responses, or in some cases, what is not said, produces real conflict. There are certain phrases in a language that are either uninterpretable, or if translated literally, do not convey the many dimensions the phrase encompasses.

Some words, phrases or how the word is used have negative meanings, which is acceptable to some from one cultural group, but not others. For example, many high school and professional sports teams have names and logos like the "Braves", "Indians" or "Redskins" and so on. First Nations communities have protested on the basis that it reinforces negative stereotypes, uses their images and icons in a disrespectful manner and trivializes their ethnic background. A recent incident in greater Vancouver created controversy when the Musquem name, Spull'u'kwuks, was proposed. The problem was that authorities felt that the name, meaning "place of bubbling waters" that it could be used in a negative way because there was the potential for rhyming using the "F word" or "sucks" or so on. The response from the Musquem First was "...it was their language...and...it should be celebrated , not made the subject of humor" (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 8, 2000, P. A1).

Even nonverbal gestures are relatively different from culture to culture. Touching of the head is considered an insult by many Buddhists, while for Westerns the touching of the head is a friendly gesture. Native Americans were offended when home crowds at the World Series in Atlanta used a tomahawk gesture to cheer on their baseball team. Eye contact and personal space also differ from culture to culture. In North America people are taught that eye contact communicates closeness and attention, while lack of eye contact communicates dislike, disinterest, or disrespect. Degrees of eye contact might have different implications for different cultures. According to Sue (1981), white middle class people, when speaking to others, look away (eye avoidance) approximately 50% of the time. When Whites listen, however, they make eye contact with the speaker over 80% of the time. But Blacks make more eye contact when speaking and infrequent eye contact when listening. This reinforces the idea that we should be careful when we try to attribute reasons for the amount of eye contact encountered. The amount of eye contact is not necessarily related to aggressiveness, shyness, or inattentiveness but rather it depends on cultural patterns. Each culture seems to develop a sometimes complex way of communicating messages.

Physical distance is another cultural variable that is different in other cultures. In past groups I have noticed that there is a marked difference between some of the Canadian anglophone and francophone members. The francophones touched more in conversation and kissed those they felt close to. Anglophones touch far less and rarely kiss both cheeks in greeting. In my travels in Asia, the differences between Asians and Westerners in regards to distance and touching were polar opposites. For example, when I first went to live in the Philippines, a colleague from the school where I taught took me to a dance. The whole night he held my hand and I danced mostly with other men. In this society, women, like men, danced mostly with each other and held each other’s hands. Heterosexual Westerns tend to be more touching and physically demonstrative with the opposite sex than the same sex.

According to Sue and Sue (l990) socioeconomic factors affect the way people communicate and interact. For example, groups with members from lower economic and educational levels appear to prefer more concrete and structured activities. These people may actually want direct advice or at least, a chance to talk in terms of concreteness and tangibles. In general, those in the lower socioeconomic sphere report that counseling activities are "all talk and no action." In addition, people from different cultures may be unfamiliar with the dynamics of groups, which may be incongruent with what they expected. This inexperience may in turn block their progress in counseling groups.

It is, therefore, essential that leaders of groups be aware of and be able to identify the values of differing group members. Members of the group are projecting their cultural values when they emphasize verbal, behavioral and emotional expressiveness as goals for growth. These characteristics of group process may be quite aversive to people of different cultures. Reluctance to self-disclose does not necessarily mean group members are intentionally preventing feelings, thoughts, and beliefs from being released. Rather, it could be that group members were reared in a culture which places high priority on restraint of expressing feelings and thoughts, particularly to strangers. If members of groups misinterpret the reasons behind the reluctance to self-disclose, the results may be a block of communication, severe anxiety, and extreme discomfort.

Another important culture-bound value is the family relationship. Westerners, as a cultural group, tend to center on personal responsibility, and decisions are made based on the good of the individual. If a personal decision is made by a someone from a culture that emphasizes family involvement in decision making, the family might block attempts to achieve individual goals. An example of this type of belief was stated by one woman I worked with who said: ". . . whenever I disagreed with my mother, it seemed to her that I was questioning her character" (France, Mah, & Harvey, l986, p. 10). In her family, the authority of the parents is paramount and not to be questioned by the child. When she made a decision without consulting anyone, her mother felt hurt and angry. She loved her mother, but felt a desire to assert her individuality and this produced a great deal of conflicting feelings.

Blocks to Cross-Cultural Communication

 I have observed in groups of culturally diverse people, there are a number of stumbling blocks in communication that can occur more frequently than others. To be sensitive and aware of another person's frame of reference is elementary, but it is particularly significant with those of diverse cultural backgrounds. In some ways the following list of stumbling blocks applies to almost any group, but they are especially intense in cross-cultural groups.

Language: Vocabulary, syntax, idioms, slang, and dialects can create problems of understanding. The problem is the tenacity with which people cling to "the" meaning of a word or phrase in the new language, regardless of the connotation or the context.

Nonverbal Areas: People from different cultures employ different nonverbal sensory words. They see, hear, feel, and smell only that which has some meaning or importance for them. They abstract whatever fits into their personal world of recognition, and then they interpret it through the frame of reference of their own culture.

Tendency to Evaluate: Some people from different cultures need to approve or disapprove the statements and actions of others, rather than to try and completely comprehend the thoughts and feelings expressed. This bias prevents the open-minded attention needed to look at the attitudes and behavior patterns from the others' frame of reference. This is heightened when feelings and emotions are deeply involved. Yet this is the time when listening with understanding is most needed. Group members need to examine values that are negatively evaluative towards those who are different.

High Anxiety: This stumbling block is not distinct but underlies and compounds the others. Its presence is very common because of uncertainties present when people function in a foreign language where the normal flow of verbal and nonverbal interaction cannot be sustained. There is a sense of threat by the unknown knowledge, experience, and evaluation of others, thus bringing the potential for scrutiny and rejection by the self. There is the added tension of having to cope with the differing pace, climate, and culture. Self-esteem is often intolerably undermined unless people employ defenses such as withdrawal into their reference group or into themselves, thus screening out or misperceiving stimuli, rationalizing, overcompensating, or showing hostility.

The Cross-Cultural Communication

 The group experience can enhance personal power and improve communication skills. What group members say and do can either promote or reduce their credibility and attractiveness in a group. The style of self-disclosure, their perceived trustworthiness and their motivation for change emphasizes a few of the variables. In this regard, the cultural background of group members is not on how effective they really are, but how their credibility, attractiveness, and trustworthiness are perceived. In a study evaluating the effects of group member’s race on perceived effectiveness in communication, people were affected by the person's race and ethnic background either in a negative or positive way (Lee, Sutton, France & Uhlemann, 1983). Some people may tend to be more indulgent or forgiving to people of other cultural backgrounds (Uhlemann, Lee, & France, l988).

In leadership and helping situations evidence suggests that, for culturally different people, the issue of expertise is raised more often than whether the person has a similar cultural or racial background (Sue & Sue, 1990). This suggests that group members will have to be more sensitive and develop strategies that will attenuate or, perhaps, eliminate this effect, particularly if the effect is negative. In other words, using appropriate communication skills and strategies that are congruent with a person's values is more important than race or ethnic background. There seems to be no particular communication strategy which proves to be more successful with a specific population. Yet the approach used by group members from the majority culture must be consistent with the those from other cultures' life-styles, along with flexibility for individual differences within a culture; not all people with a similar cultural background behave the same. On the other hand, equal treatment in communication may be discriminatory treatment. If group members proceed on the basis that everyone is the same without recognizing differences this may have a negative effect. If all people could be more aware and appreciate their different parts, perhaps they would be more accepting of cultural differences in others. Expansion of alternative ways of behaving comes down to being able to move and use the strengths from each part, for example male and female; Hispanic and French; white and black.

Obviously, group members who are seen as trustworthy will be more influential than those who are not. Self-disclosure by culturally different group members is very much related to the trustworthiness of group members. Perhaps group members may have to prove themselves trustworthy; this task may require more openness. This may not be as easy as it sounds, for some culturally different people may view self-disclosure as a negative and undignified way to behave. The question of whether group members can be successful with those from a different race or culture depends on the following variables: race, religion, kind of issue, group members’ experiences and style, and the degree of ethnic consciousness. In other words, what differences there are between people in groups can be mediated or mitigated. There is no denying, however, that ethnic similarity does increase the probability of identification between group members from other cultural backgrounds.

Sensitizing the Group: The FRANSAUD Model

The broad emphasis of the FRANSAUD sensitivity model is to create awareness, acceptance, and sensitivity to cultural and personal differences (France & Presaud, l991). While the model focuses on the culturally different, it works exceedingly well with other types of differences, such as male - female, heterosexual - homosexual, and so on. The model consists of five phases of interaction and three distinct roles that are shifted in phases two through four. Each of the phases can last from five to ten minutes and can be adjusted depending on the purpose of the training, the level of awareness and the ethnic make-up of the group. There should be three groups composed of two to eight people (Figure 10.2).

Preparation Phase: In this phase the group brainstorms and makes two lists of those differences between the two target ethnic or social groups to whom they wish to become more sensitive. The aim in this phase is for the group to generate as many possible differences that can exacerbate conflict and decrease effective communication. In addition, the brainstorming offers the group a chance to accept and appreciate how differences make each ethnic group unique. For example, if the group explores differences between an ethnic minority of Native Indian extraction and a majority individual of English extraction, the list of differences might include the following: Indian people are oriented towards the land, have strong bonds to the group and use folk or supernatural explanations and those of English decent may be individualistic, espouse liberal values and use concrete and specific language.

Figure 10.2: FRANSAUD Model

	A: referees whose role is to offer feedback, keep the others on task, and keep time;
	B: the minority group who role play the target ethnic group;
	C: the majority group who role play the dominant ethnic group.