© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. MODULE TWO DIALOGUE ACROSS DIFFERENCES

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. THREE PARADIGMS FOR MANAGING DIVERSITY I. III. Learning & Effectiveness II. Access & Legitimacy I. Discrimination & Fairness

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. GOALS OF MODULE II To increase understanding of the experience of those different from ourselves. To learn to use dialogue as a skill to improve communication across lines of difference. To find ways to include various perspectives in our deliberations and decisions.

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. DOMINANT/SUBORDINATE GROUP DYNAMICS DOMINANT GROUPSSUBORDINATE GROUPS See themselves as individualsAre aware of their ‘groupness’ Benefit from an environment structured according to their norms, leading them to see subordinated groups as substandard Must assimilate to dominant group in order to advance. See subordinate members as a part of a group or carry negative judgments about them. Know more about dominant groups than they do about selves Have the power to limit access to resources and/or behavioral options to non-group members Have curtailed access to resources Have advantages they did not earn by deeds, but merely by virtue of some identity attribute Work extra hard for the same status or advantages enjoyed by the dominant group Are unconscious of their privilege and how it is embedded within the norms and structures of society Are often painfully conscious of their lack of privilege and the unfriendly norms to which they have to conform Do not understand subordinate group realities Often adopt the norms and realities of the dominant group in order to advance/survive

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. DIALOGUE SKILLS

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. ICEBERG Behavior and Appearance Assumptions, Beliefs, Biases, Hopes & Dreams, Feelings, History (personal and collective), Wounds, Cultural WorldView

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. HIGH CONTEXT vs. LOW CONTEXT CULTURES [1][1] *’Face’ refers to honor. Thus one loses ‘face’ if one is embarrassed, humiliated, disrespected, or otherwise dishonored in front of others. It is important not only to save one’s own ‘face’ but also to insure that one is not the cause of another losing ‘face.’ Thus a person in this type of culture would never do anything that might embarrass another or make them feel bad (e.g., might not say ‘no’ to a request because it might make the asker feel bad). [1][1] *’Face’ refers to honor. Thus one loses ‘face’ if one is embarrassed, humiliated, disrespected, or otherwise dishonored in front of others. It is important not only to save one’s own ‘face’ but also to insure that one is not the cause of another losing ‘face.’ Thus a person in this type of culture would never do anything that might embarrass another or make them feel bad (e.g., might not say ‘no’ to a request because it might make the asker feel bad). Low-Context/’Doing’ CulturesHigh-Context, ‘Being’ Cultures Focus is on individualFocus is on group (family or clan) Emphasizes getting the job doneEmphasizes quality of relationships Sees time as linearSees time as cyclical Speaks in rational, declarative modeSpeaks in stories, metaphors Is present and future orientedSees past as essential part of present/future Is merit-basedIs shame-based[1] (saving ‘face’*)[1] Sees nature as something to controlSees nature as essential part of life ‘I’ identified‘We’ identified Values individual wants and needsValues group wants and needs Speaks directly, ask for what you wantSpeaks indirectly, doesn’t refer to self Is rewarded for accomplishmentsIs rewarded for alignment with group norms Serves personal needs firstServes group needs first [1][1] *’Face’ refers to honor. Thus one loses ‘face’ if one is embarrassed, humiliated, disrespected, or otherwise dishonored in front of others. It is important not only to save one’s own ‘face’ but also to insure that one is not the cause of another losing ‘face.’ Thus a person in this type of culture would never do anything that might embarrass another or make them feel bad (e.g., might not say ‘no’ to a request because it might make the asker feel bad).

© 2004, CARE USA. All rights reserved. LADDER ANALYTIC 1. Observable Data 2. Interpretation 3. Conclusion