Читать книгу Ugandan Children's Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL - Stephanie Schaidt - Страница 13

The fact that Fremdverstehen and also intercultural learning remain rather committed to an understanding of culture as a monolithic construct, and that both focus on the ‘self’ and ‘other’ binary, does not match today’s understanding of culture and also not reflect the learners’ experiences as citizens in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. Increased mobility leads to cultural mingling and hybrid societies with hybrid classrooms. Therefore, also in language teaching in recent years, the prefix ‘inter’ has often been supplemented by or changed to the prefix ‘trans’. Various scholars (Alter, 2015; Blell & Doff, 2014; Doff & Schulze-Engler, 2011a; Eckerth & Wendt, 2003b; Eisenmann, 2015; Fäcke, 2006; Flechsig, 2000; Freitag-Hild, 2010a; Matz, Rogge, & Siepmann, 2014) stress the importance of considering concepts of transculturality in foreign language didactics. They declare that an increased interface for common ground and similarities has to be created and discourses of power should be integrated in the EFL classroom. Transcultural learning approaches both intend to look into cultural transgressions on a macro level and to take the individual with its multiple identities more into account.

Although transcultural competence only gained prominence in the foreign language classroom from the 2000s onwards, it has early precursors. Already in the 1990s, Kramsch (1993) suggested a cultural learning approach that entails cultural transgressions. She introduced the concept of the third place “that grows in the interstices between the cultures the learner grew up with and the new cultures he or she is being introduced to” (p. 236). Every foreign language learner has to define this place for her/himself, she explains. It is an in-between space, located within the poles of ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ and it presents a way of thinking beyond dichotomies. Although Kramsch does not explicitly refer to transculturality, her idea of “the culture of the third kind” (p. 13) may be placed in this context. The concept of the third place was taken up and developed further by other scholars (Delanoy, 1999; Hallet, 2002). They suggest that the foreign language classroom itself may be perceived as a “third space” in which different positions are negotiated. Flechsig (2000) stresses the importance of not only focusing on differences in FLT but also taking commonalities into account. He regards complex cultural identities as a foundation and potential for transcultural learning. Based on a fluid concept of culture, one may also see parts of ‘self’ reflected in ‘the other’, he states.

Since the start of the new millennium, the concept of transcultural learning has been developed further. Various contributions, partly contradicting each other, have been made in the field. Eckert and Wendt (2003a) and Fäcke (2006), on the one hand, argue from a (de)constructivist perspective. With reference to Welsch, they look at transculturality as a counter concept to interculturality and distance themselves from hermeneutic approaches to understanding otherness (see also Chapter 2.6). Delanoy (2006, 2008, 2012) and Freitag-Hild (2010a), on the other hand, are of the opinion that the inter- and transcultural approach are compatible and, therefore, propose a dialogue between the two concepts. Delanoy and also Eisenmann (2015) argue that intercultural approaches often already go far beyond the notion of monolithic cultures; a mere replacement of intercultural learning through transcultural learning is thus not meaningful in their view. Eisenmann, thus, suggests an Integrative Model for Cultural Studies which integrates the intercultural and transcultural dimension of learning. Blell and Doff (2014) have developed a similar model (Model of Transcultural Communicative Competence), built on Byram’s model of ICC. They state that a transcultural approach “does not necessarily replace intercultural learning, but certainly transforms it” (ibid., p. 82) and give various propositions for initiating change, adding them as pluses to Byram’s savoirs. Alter (2015, p. 26) locates the inter- and transcultural on a continuum “in which one does not take a hierarchical position over the other” and argues for “an adapted set of methods and activities, as well as underlying principles” (ibid.) for transcultural learning. She is of the opinion that “a distinction of both concepts could add decisively to the discourse of cultural learning” (ibid.).

This versatile argumentation shows that the concept of transcultural learning still lacks precise definitions and clarifications. Though many scholars now consider it as a meaningful development in the field of cultural learning, they understand it in very different ways. They particularly lack consensus concerning the compatibility or delineation of inter- and transcultural theorems:

The discursive triangle of rejection, conceptual refinement and strategic bypassing of the intercultural seems characteristic of current transcultural debates in didactics and pedagogy and is likely to remain in place in the foreseeable future. (Doff & Schulze-Engler, 2011b, p. 10)

Besides this blurriness, transcultural learning and its underlying concept of transculturality also entail other problematic aspects. Volkmann (2015, p. 27) raises various points of criticism. For one, he states that “[p]roponents of transculturality tend to hush up persevering sentiments of cultural difference. Difference and even cultural juxtapositions are still experienced by many individuals not just as the exception, but rather as the norm in cross-cultural encounters”. Here he reflects upon the issues of universalising and romanticising that are frequently criticised in the context of Welsch’s concept of transculturality. Secondly, Volkmann believes the concept addresses an elite and rather excludes the underprivileged. He also questions the positive effects of transculturality such as “diversity, openness, multi-facetted societies and acceptance of the Other” (ibid., p. 28) that many transcultural approaches proclaim. He looks at them as risks in the context of individuality. Furthermore, Volkmann warns that “[t]ransculturality might become part of the discourse of political correctness” (ibid.). When the transcultural is seen as ideologically superior, he argues, it may lead to reluctance to talk about “the ongoing existence of binary or hierarchical structures in thinking with regard to nations and communities” (ibid.).

Volkmann’s concerns are largely addressed at a concept of transculturality that focuses on unifying aspects and that is primarily positive. Transculturality, however, entails both unifying and particularising tendencies (Iljassova-Morger, 2009, p. 40). Furthermore, various postcolonial scholars in the field (Loomba, 1998; Pratt, 1992; see Chapter 2.4) take inequalities and power asymmetries into account and, therefore, offer a more sceptical view on transculturality. It is important that these critical aspects are considered when translating the concept into the EFL context. Implications from anti-racist pedagogy promise to be productive in this context (see Chapter 2.6).

Another concern that Volkmann (2015, p. 28) raises is that “transculturality has not entered the mainstream discourse of EFL in Germany”. Although the manifold developments in the field have to be acknowledged, they have not yet gone far beyond the theoretical level, he argues. In my view, this may also be connected to the fact that there are only very few studies which look into transcultural learning processes empirically and make suggestions for a further development of cultural learning based on their results (Freitag-Hild, 2010a; Fäcke, 2006; see also Chapter 3.2.).