Bannet Model Development Structure

Presentation On
A Development Approach to Training
for intercultural activity
Group Members
Aqib Ali
Umair Iqbal
Anusha Javeed
Hafiz. M.Naveed
Nimra Faiz
Shahrukh Amir

Development Structure
Denial
Defense
Maximization
Acceptance
Integration
Adaption
Ethnocentric stages Ethnorelative stages
Resistance to Openness

Denial
Denial represents the lowest degree of openness to
cultural differences. One is quite simply unaware of
their existence, or else perceives them on a very general
level: this is what results from a physical or social
isolation from such differences.
Parochialism:
Parochialism is the state of mind, whereby
one focuses on small sections of an issue rather than
considering its wider context. More generally, it
consists of being narrow in scope. In that respect,

At this stage, one does not feel threatened by
difference, one is simply unaware that they exist,
or they never reach the point where they
challenge our view of the world.

Defense
This second stage represents a development of
sensitivity as compared to Denial, since it is the
result of a fairly intense perception of differences as
something threatening.
The most common form of Defense is the unfair
criticism of differences.
This unfair disapproval can be linked to race, gender
or any other indicator of difference assumed.

Another form of the Defense stage is the assume of
cultural superiority. Rather than superior a culture,
one simply assumes that one's own culture is at the
top of some evolutionary project. Such a plan
automatically assigns an lower status to those who
are different.
It is a stage of great insecurity in the face of
differences, since they let us quick look the
possibility that our culture is not the only possible
view of the world. At a more advanced stage of
Defense, we consider that the other cultures are quite
simply inferior to ours, on a continuum of which we
are the apogee.

Minimization
This third and last of the ethnocentric stages is the
last attempt to defend the centrality of one's own
world view. It is an effort to bury difference under
the weight of cultural similarities— the intensity of
the experience can be such to lead the individual to
seeks refuge.
Persons at this stage are seeking a peace or comfort
that is impossible to feel in the "Defence" stage. At
this stage, it is assumed that all mankind is ruled by
common basic principles that guide values and
behaviors.

People who adopt this point of view generally
approach intercultural situations with the assurance
that a simple awareness of the fundamental patterns
of human interaction will be sufficient to assure the
success of the communication.
Such a viewpoint is ethnocentric because it
presupposes that the fundamental categories of
behavior are absolute and that these categories are
in fact our own! In this contact, differences are only
variations on a theme common to all cultures.

At this stage, cultural difference is recognized and
tolerated up to a certain point. On the other hand,
these differences are perceived either as being
superficial or as likely to be an obstacle to
communication.
This is clear from the fact that, at this stage, it is
assumed that communication is based on a
common and universal set of rules and principles.
Although more cultural sensitivity is manifest at
this stage than at the preceding stages, it is still not
possible to enter as fully into intercultural
understanding as the people passing through this
stage expect.

Acceptance
Between the stages of Minimization and
Acceptance, there is a change of works that totally
alters people's attitude toward differences. This
passage is characterized by a new way of seeing
cultures as fluid and dynamic, rather than inflexible
and fixed.
The transition is marked by a passage from seeing
differences as things to seeing them as processes.
From an ethnorelativist point of view, people do not
have a behavior, but rather they behave.

This subjective reinterpretation leads away from a
static vision of culture such as defined by Hall. At
this stage, people are also perceived as being, in a
certain way, co-creators [Bergers & Luckman,
1967] of their own reality.
This vision of a cultural reality that is both
consensual and mutable [in movement] provides
the foundation of ethnorelativism, and is
consequently essential for a broader development
of intercultural sensitivity.

It is possible at this stage to imagine other cultural frames
of reference than our own, even though we may not
always understand them in all their complexity.
People who are at the stage of Acceptance seek to explore
differences and no longer perceive them as threatening.
They accept the fact that people can have cultural frames
of reference different from theirs, and they take pleasure
in that fact.
We recognize them from their eager questioning of people
from the other culture, which reflects a real desire to be
informed, and not to confirm prejudices. The stage of
Acceptance marks an openness in the way we see
differences. The key words of this stage are "getting to
know" or "learning."

Adaptation
Accepting cultural differences as not being fixed, as
described above, means we can change our behavior
and our thinking. The ability to temporarily modify
the way we habitually see things is at the heart of
intercultural communication.
In an intercultural context, changing how we process
reality is the sign of a growth in cultural sensitivity.
The commonest form of Adaptation is empathy

As Bennett defines it here, empathy implies a
temporary change of the frame of reference where
we perceive situations as if we were the other
person. When that other person has a vision of the
world somewhat different from ours, the empathy
approaches a change in cultural vision.
Generally, it is partial empathy, one that extends
only to the spheres pertinent to the communication
situation. The empathetic behaviour manifests itself
in actions more appropriate in the target culture than
in our own culture.

In summary, adaptation to differences as a stage in
the development of intercultural sensitivity
translates into a person's ability to act in an
ethnorelative manner. This ability to act outside our
own cultural framework is based on a dynamic vision
of difference [acceptance] and is at the heart of
intercultural communication.
Other forms of adaptive behaviour, such as
assimilation or the pluralism born from lengthy stays
in a foreign culture may appear to be intercultural
sensitivity, but in themselves they reveal a form of
mimicry and lack the developmental basis necessary
for ethnorelativism.

This stage shows a sense of security about the
original culture: we can adapt without feeling
threatened. The key word of this stage is
"understand."

Integration
Integration is the last stage of openness to cultural
difference. It is the sense that underlies Adler's
description [1977] of the multicultural person: that
person "is not simply a person sensitive to several
different cultures.
Rather, it is a person who is constantly in the
process of becoming part of, and yet at the same
time feels himself outside a given cultural context."
This develops only after prolonged periods living in
various locations where the person comes into
contact with significant cultural differences.

An intercultural sensitivity skill relating to this stage
is the ability to evaluate a phenomenon in terms of a
given cultural context. This ability, known as
contextual evaluation, enables us to reconsider
judgments we have suspended at the Acceptance
stage without, however, falling back into
ethnocentrism.
It is in regard to such or such cultural reference
framework that we evaluate actions. The same
action can thus be judged as potentially "good"
[Culture A] or "bad" [Culture B]. In terms of
individual ethics, that implies that actions are
evaluated in relation to a cultural context we have
ourselves established.

At this stage, "the individual integrates a number of
frames of reference into his own way of being. His
system of values is drawn from these different
cultural frameworks, but he does not adopt any of
them in their entirety." The fact of not identifying
absolutely with any other culture may be positive.
This constructive marginality can become a valuable
tool in cultural mediation. At this culminating point
of intercultural sensitivity, which is the Integration
stage, a person lives cultural difference as an
essential and stimulating aspect of life.

Bannet Model Development Structure

Bannet Model Development Structure

More Related Content

Similar to Bannet Model Development Structure (20)

More from Mirzaghalibali (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Bannet Model Development Structure