The Cultural Preparation Process Approach: An Introduction

Contributing Author: Gideon Arulmani.

Culture remains an elusive term to define perhaps because it has numerous meanings and has been viewed from a multiplicity of disciplinary vantage points. Today, there is an increasing trend toward a greater focus on culture-resonant theories of development. Critical appraisal of these approaches raises the concern of the term culture being confounded with proxy categorical variables such as race, ethnicity, language, religion, countries, and continents resulting not just in confusing usage but also oversimplification “…as if these referential groups are monoliths” (Stead, 2004, p. 392). Therefore, it is important to decipher the dynamic between psychological processes and socio-cultural contexts and acknowledge the bi-directionality that exists between the person and culture. The Cultural Preparation Process Model takes an interdisciplinary approach drawing upon constructs from biological anthropology, social and developmental psychology and economics to provide a vantage point from which the practitioner, researcher and policy maker could understand these dynamics.

The Cultural Preparation Process Model (CPPM)

Cultural preparedness is described to be:

The accumulation over time, of the learnings and experiences of a certain group of people, so assimilated and systematised into the group’s ways of engaging with the world that it can be said to exemplify that group and distinguish it from other groups. These ways of engaging rest upon a social cognitive environment typified by an interconnected system of beliefs, values, rituals, social organisation and mores, that have become deeply embedded within the conventions and routines to which a given group is habituated (Arulmani, 2019, p. 197).

The approach rests upon four constructs: cultural learning, enculturation, cultural preparedness equilibrium and acculturation. The interaction between these constructs describes the cultural preparation process model which is outlined below.

 

Cultural Learning

This is a construct adapted from biological anthropology which emerges from the observation that human beings are biologically prepared for culture in ways that other primates are not. This is seen in the cognitive development that underlies the sequential emergence of learning through imitation, instruction, and collaboration (Tomasello, 2000). Here, the cultural context is understood not merely as “…a facilitator or motivator for cognitive development but rather, a unique “ontogenetic niche” (context for development) that actually structures human cognition in fundamental ways.” (Tomasello, 2000, p. 37). 

 

Cultural learning is not the result of genetic mediation nor does it result from a conscious engagement with a formal, pedagogical, instructional framework. It is an unconscious absorption of cultural practices resulting from the child’s immersion in a certain culture. While it is usually one way and not the result of reasoned thinking, cultural learning is undergirded by an intention to learn and a strong identification with the source of learning embedded in the child’s cultural environment (e.g., parents, elders). Here it must be noted that the culturally anchored symbolic artefacts vary from one culture to another. Therefore, what a child in one culture learns could be very different from what a child in another culture learns. More importantly, how a child in one culture learns could be quite the opposite of how a child in a different culture learns. An important observation that Tomasello makes is that individuals acquire the use of cultural practices in a faithful form and this relatively exact learning, “…serves as a kind of ratchet – keeping the practice in place in the social group, perhaps for many generations, until some creative innovation comes along” (Tomasello, 2000, p. 137).

Enculturation

Cultural learning facilitates enculturation, the second important construct within the cultural preparedness framework. This is the process by which a person adapts to and assimilates the culture in which he or she lives and has been enculturated (Grusec & Hastings, 2007). While socialization is the broader construct aimed at “socializing” the individual to conform, enculturation is used here to describe socialization with reference to more specific and circumscribed phenomena. Within the cultural preparedness model, enculturation is depicted as the process by which people learn the obligations of the culture that enfolds them, assimilate the values of that culture, and acquire the behaviors that are suitable and obligatory in that culture—for specific practices. Therefore, for example, while the practice of greeting another person is an aspect of socialization, the manner in which a greeting is communicated is an aspect of enculturation.

Enculturation begins very early:
A Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv8VZVP5csA

Hence, enculturation in this description has greater specificity to particular groups and to particular practices.  From the cultural preparedness viewpoint, attending school for example, might be a commonly socialized aspect of life in many cultures.  However, the purpose of attending school, attending regularly, offering both the boy and girl child equal opportunity to attend school and the manner in which teaching and learning are transacted might all be affected by powerful enculturative influences.  The cultural preparedness approach therefore makes the argument that the forces of enculturation prepare members of a culture to engage with each other, their surroundings, and other communities, and to global trends in a unique and distinctive manner. 

Cultural Preparation Status Equilibrium

The bidirectional and reciprocal workings between cultural learning and enculturation bring the individual/group to a unique state of equilibrium. This is referred to as the individual/group’s cultural preparation status equilibrium. This equilibrium “…reflects an internal stability and the mental and emotional balance that results from the habituation of doing something in a certain way” (Arulmani, 2014, p. 94). It is critical to note here that this equilibrium does not rest upon what may be judged by another culture as being right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. It merely reflects the “…equipoise engendered by how one has been brought up to behave” (Arulmani, 2019, p. 200). This equilibrium would be seen in all aspects of a given culture’s way of life including orientations to teaching and learning, gender and sexuality, food habits, marriage and child rearing.

Acculturation

Enculturation describes a within-group, endogenous dynamic. On the other hand, acculturative forces describe between-group, exogenous processes. Individuals’ and communities’ engagement with the world around take place against the background of global conditions and larger transformations that are beyond their control. These external factors could include changes in social orientations and philosophical discourses, economic transformations, political upheavals, technological advances, new policies or natural disasters. The forces of acculturation can affect the original state of enculturated equilibrium. Consonant acculturative forces would support, enhance and further stabilise the existing cultural preparation status equilibrium, while dissonant acculturative forces disturb the equilibrium.

For example, in India, an enculturated approach to sensitizing children to the sounds in a word is through alliterative sentences. At the same time, it is also known that being able to segment words into their component syllables improves the child’s phonological awareness of words. Based on this evidence from research, we introduced segmentation through a game called the “clapping game” (see below for a link to the video) to sensitise children to the sounds in a word. This is an example of an acculturative influence that impinged upon the prevailing, enculturated method of using alliterative sentences. Regardless of evidence that segmentation is a helpful teaching-learning practice, the acceptance and integration of this technique by practitioners of the traditional system relies heavily on whether it is experienced as consonant or dissonant with the prevailing equilibrium. Therefore, responses to acculturative influences could lie along a continuum from rejecting the influence to retain the original cultural orientation to accommodating and thus allowing the emergence of a new equilibrium.

The Clapping Game

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpYnINDdRaY

The environment that all humans are born into is replete with “…culturally anchored symbolic artefacts represented by traditions, rituals, tools, language, conventions and institutions such as family and religion” (Arulmani, 2019, p. 197). The cultural preparedness model postulates that culture prepares individuals for all life roles (and in the context of the TalkTogether programme of research, roles related to teaching and learning). It calls for intervention development to be a consonant acculturative force that could facilitate individuals’ and communities’ development within the framework of their cultural preparedness equilibrium. Rather than replacing ways of living, teaching and learning, practicing the cultural preparedness approach entails recognising, acknowledging, and working with prevailing cultural practices.

 

Compiled from:

Arulmani, G. (2014). The cultural preparation process model and career development. In G. Arulmani, A. J. Bakshi, F. T. L. Leong & A. G. Watts (Eds.), Handbook of career development: International perspectives (pp. 81-104). New York, USA: Springer International.

Arulmani, G., Kumar, S., Shrestha, S., Viray, M., & Aravind, S. (Advance online publication, 2020). The Cultural Preparedness Perspective of Career Development. In P. J. Robertson, T. Hooley & P. McCash (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Career Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

Arulmani, G. (2014). The cultural preparation process model and career development. In G. Arulmani, A. J. Bakshi, F. T. L. Leong & A. G. Watts (Eds.), Handbook of career development: International perspectives (pp. 81-104). New York, NY: Springer International.

Arulmani, G. (2019). The cultural preparedness framework: Equilibrium and its alteration. In N. Arthur. & M. McMahon. (Eds.), Contemporary theories of career development (pp. 195-208). New York, NY: Routledge.

Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (2007). Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York, USA: Guilford Press.

Stead, G. B. (2004). Culture and career psychology: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 389-406.

Tomasello, M. (2000). Culture and cognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(2), 37-40.