Rodd Myers
Novemer 1997
 

A farmer walked into an attorney's office wanting to file for a divorce.
The attorney asked, "May I help you?"
The farmer said, "Yea, I want to get one of those dayvorce's."
The attorney said, "well do you have any grounds?"
The farmer said, "Yea, I got about 140 acres."
The attorney said, " No, you don't understand, do you have a case?"
The farmer said, "No, I don't have a Case, but I have a John Deere."
The attorney said, "No you don't understand, I mean do you have a grudge?"
The farmer said, "Yea I got a grudge, that's where I park my John Deere."
The attorney said, "No sir, I mean do you have a suit?"
The farmer said, "Yes sir, I got a suit. I wear it to church on Sundays."
The exasperated attorney said, "Well sir, does your wife beat you up?"
The farmer said, "No sir, we both get up about 4:30."
Finally, the attorney says, "Okay, let me put it this way.  "WHY DO YOU WANT A DIVORCE?"
And the farmer says, "Well, I can never have a meaningful conversation with her."
Redneck Jokes http://nj5.injersey.com
 

Community development invariably includes interactions between people with various realms of experience.  These differences of experience may be cultural, economic, or social, but in any case they have shaped a community, or a group within a community to view a situation from a particular perspective.  Approaches to problems are central to development and tend to vary according to the people involved, whose thought patterns are intertwined with their culture.  Kluckhohn and Murray (1953 p.53, cited in Gatewood, 1993) have outlined the realms of experience with which people can relate to one another:

Every human is in certain respects:
· like all other humans
· like some other humans
· like no other humans
 

It is the second of these 3 dimensions of human likeness we will explore here.  In the farmer example at the top of this page, we can see that the same word does not carry the same meaning to all people.  Nor does the same concept mean the same thing to all people.  Communication is an obvious step in approaching misunderstanding, but language and culture have a powerful impact on thought patterns (or perhaps it is the other way around; that discussion will have to be put off for now.  We need only realise that thought, culture and language are intensely integrated). Part of the difference in understanding can be explained by ìethnocognitivismî, or ìcultural cognitivismî.  These terms relate to how culture shapes the thought patterns of its members, and vice versa.  We, in light of community development, are not as much concerned with the mechanism of cognition as the process of it.  This is to say, we are interested in how  culture and thought patterns are integrated so we can grasp intercultural cognitive differences, and thereby approaches to situations.

Going a step further, we will explore processes of problem solving, which are rooted in ethnocognitivism.  Problem solving is central to development as development is often a  response to a perceived problem in a community, or a dissatisfaction with a current status quo.  There is always a problem to overcome in community development.  We will look into various approaches to problem solving, and how they might differ over cultures in light of ethnocognitivism.  It is then imperative to investigate practical resolutions to differences in approach to problems and various thought patterns.  How can we, in light of different approaches to problems, create understanding, and come to a resolution?

To what extent do ethnocognitivism and problem-solving impact cross-cultural community development, and how can understanding be created?

Ethnocognitivism Explored

ì...the fact that human cognition is so varied and so sensitive to cultural context that mechanisms by which people actively shape each othersí knowledge and reasoning processes must be investigated.  While directly experienced events constitute a substantial part of the basis for personally constructed knowledge, people also build their knowledge structures on the basis of what they are told by others, orally, in writing, in pictures, and in gestures.î

The above quote is an interesting point of departure for a discussion on ethnocognitivism and the differing way groups of people think across cultures.  This is of particular concern to the field of community development as there are frequent interactions between two or more cultures, and therefore often more than one thought pattern is active.   Ethnocognitivism, or cultural cognition, explores to what extent a culture shapes the way its members think.  This is to say, a particular culture inherently approaches a problem with a particular pattern of thought, using the human brain in a certain way.  Springer and Deutsch (1985, cited in Lieberman, 1991) suggest that ìevery human brain is capable of more than one kind of logical process, but cultures differ with respect to the processes used with various situationsî (p.231).  In the case of two or more cultures interacting, it can be seen that more than one approach to a problem is likely to be evident.

Referring to the aforementioned quote by Law, the impact of oneís culture on their cognition is given great importance.  Through experience and socialisation, an individual forms a window through which s/he views the world.  Law is illustrating the impact of culture on thought.  He does not discount personal experience as having impact, but gives credence to the passing on of knowledge.  When, as often happens in community development,  knowledge is attempted to be ìpassedî (or ìtransferredî) from one culture to another, it can be seen that such a ìtransferî is not as easy as it might be intraculturally.  Knowledge holds meaning; culturally loaded meaning.  When, as in the West, knowledge is considered a tool, a ìdissociation between cognition and sociocultural contextî occurs (Law, 1994).  A tool, such as a hammer, is used only to accomplish something, but is not associated with a particular situation.  It is applied, but not integrated into daily life.  In Western thought, cognition and sociocultural context can be unrelated, but in many other cultures they cannot be. ìThe common dilemma faced by psychology and anthropology is the subject-object dichotomization which can be traced back to the deep-rooted philosophical problem of mind-body dualism and to the Western empiricist epistemologyî suggests Law (1994).  The same can be seen in everyday comparisons between Western traditions and traditions of other cultures.  Be it integrated religion among the Zande (Sudan, Central African Republic and Zaire) where oracles are sought for answers to everyday activities from ones ancestors (Evans-Pritchard, 1976)  compared with Western Judeo-Christian Sunday or Christmas-only church-goers who live their normal lives the rest of the week or year; or in the integration of body and spirit in the case of elaborate scarification among the Frafra of Ghana which links body, spirit, and mind, to a place of belonging among others with similar identifications (Perani & Smith, 1998).  The seemingly abstract becomes a part of everyday life in this cognitive experience, which quite differs from that which a Westerner might perceive in her experience.  Across cultures, fundamental assumptions can change drastically depending on cognitive experience.  These differences have great impact on development.  Communication, perception, and understanding are made difficult.

Language is also integral to thought as each dialect carries its own biases and loaded meanings.  Language ìcan be used creatively and flexibly to communicate nuances and shades of meaning, and it can be used to mislead and dissimulateî (Murphy, 1989, p.33).  Language is one of the most key carriers, shapers, and displayers of cognition.  ìUnfamiliarity with cultural communication differences can lead to misinterpretation, misunderstanding and even unintentional insultî (The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center, 1990).  Language and communication are paramount to ethnocognitivism, especially with respect to community development which is highly communication-dependent in that many people must work together to find a method of obtaining a given goal of perceived betterment.

Ethnocognitivism can be seen to have great significance as, if two groups look at the same situation from different perspectives, they will surely come up with different interpretations, and therefore different approaches to the situation.  We will look at some more examples as we get more specific and discuss problem-solving, which has its roots very much in ethnocognitivism as it deals with how an individual or a group attempts to solve a problem based on their experiences, which shape their thoughts.  In this way, we can see that problem-solving, based on thought, has ethnocognitivism as its root.

Problem-Solving

ìEach culture teaches, trains, and molds those within its system for what it considers the most appropriate methods for problem solving.î

Traditional Western problem-solving methodologies of 1: defining the problem, 2: generating solution options, 3: evaluating solution options, 4: planning for action, and 5: planning for evaluation (Osborn, 1994) are not necessarily appropriate for communities outside the experience for which and in which they were created.  In all cases a problem is a situation for which a solution is sought; the process by which that solution is sought varies greatly in correlation with ethnocogition.  Problem solving is linked closely with ethnocognitivism in that it is a point where ìoneís accumulated past encounters the present while looking to the futureî (Gatewood, 1993).  Experiential interpretation of the past, perception of the present, and desires for the future are all ethnocognitivistic in root, and so too is the process of bringing these points together to solve a problem.

The Kpelle of Liberia are accustomed to working together in their daily chores of farming, building, and other projects.  They practice an intense communalism which dictates they do all things together, as a group.  Problem-solving approaches have been researched among the Kpelle by asking two men to sit on either side of a partition with ten sticks, matching those on the other side of the barrier.  One man was asked to describe a stick to the other, and they were to place them in order based on the descriptions given.  After the exercise had been done once, the men were able to see the orders of one anotherís sticks compared and they were asked to do it again.  In the second trial, similar descriptions were used as in the first and little attempt to describe more fully, or in a different manner was made.  All descriptions were somewhat vague, such as ìone of the sticksî, or ìnot a large oneî.  The researchers concluded that ìthese farmers, through observation of one another, always participate together in tasks and do not need to share the information the other person lacks.  All information is available to all individualsî (Cole, Gay, and Glick, 1969 in Lieberman, 1991, p.230).

Among the Trobriand, there are no ìto beî verbs in the language (Lee, 1950 in Lieberman, 1991).  This makes goal setting or possible solution setting very difficult or impossible.  It is not in the Trobriand cognitive experience to say ìwe will do thisî, or ìwe could do thisî.  This, as in other concrete, non-abstract languages can make problem solving frustrating for parties which interact with such different conceptualisations of a problem, and how solutions come about.

Referring back to Osbornís 5 step Western problem-solving approach, how would these two groups fair?  Step 1: Defining the problem.  The Trobriands might not have difficulty with this; they could, from what we understand, define what their current problem is.  The Kpelle would have more difficulty as they do not feel a need to share information or knowledge with others, but to work with them and use the knowledge they have for them.  In this way, defining the problem might be similar to defining the sticks, where there is no perceived need for expression of the problem in any explicit way.  Step 2: Generating Solution Options.  Trobriands would have more difficulty with this as solution options involve possible answers to the problem, in a brainstorming manner, which means abstract thought, and imagining the future.  Trobriand students have been denied access to several universities based on ìlack of purposefulness and ability to planî (Lee, 1950 in Lieberman, 1991, p.230).  Now that we come to the third step, both these groups have been unable to conform to the Western style of problem-solving and cannot proceed.  Even if they could, steps 4 and 5 involve planning, which is not within Trobriand cognitive experience as defined by the West, and step 3 is evaluating solution options, which, if the Kpelle placed no importance on describing sticks, or sharing knowledge, they will surely have difficulty with (using Western definition).

Community development is, at a fundamental level, problem-solving.  The difficulties of problem-solving from two cultural cognitive experiences can be seen from these examples.  Joe Gomme, a VSO (Voluntary Service Overseas) volunteer, when commenting on his experiences with a water supply programme in Nepal, suggested that ìthe communication of technical information to the technicians created few difficulties.  It was much harder to present ideas and information to the villagers in a form which was relevant and accessibleî (Dawson, 1990, p.15).  Another VSO volunteer expressed that ìthe greatest skills need she felt she had was for communication and cultural understandingî (Dawson, 1990, p.35).  A problem in a community might or might not be easy to identify, but even if it is identified, the solution can be complex to work towards coming from various ethnocognitive approaches.  How, then, can it be possible to work through a problem with various experiences involved?  How can we create understanding?

Practical Resolutions: Creating Understanding

ìThere is a need...to be sensitive to the feelings, the behaviours, and the perceptions of the people before [one] can begin to empathise the problems of organisation.î

Communication is understanding.  Without understanding, there is either no communication, or mis-communication.  Problem-solving is not removed from this.  In order to create understanding between two groups dealing with a problem they may or may not perceive in the same way, and may or may not approach in the same way, we must have communication.  We have seen that problem solving approaches, shaped by ethnocognitive experience, have  great impact on community development which attempts to deal with problems directly.  We can understand how cultural thought patterns can conflict, creating an obsticle to development.  Language, thought, and culture are so tightly integrated that they cannot be separated and all must be addressed in both the community and the outsiders or other communities involved in a development setting.  What steps can we take to create this understanding and to approach a problem in such a way that all parties involved will understand?

The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center (1990) addresses several issues for cross-cultural interaction and understanding which can be adapted to better our understanding of how to reconcile these different approaches to problems.  These issues can be summed up as addressing communication and the recognition of its connotations across cultures.  This includes culturally dependent traditions and mores, language, and perceptions of understanding (e.g. stories, dances, music, role plays etc.).  Language, to be understood with the culture, is a key element to communicating properly including spoken and unspoken language.  An understanding of culture and how to communicate in that culture is paramount.  This not a very provocative approach in modern development, but it must be mentioned.  It is no longer the case that a development agency can see solutions by simply throwing more money at a community.  Problems are much more complex than that.

Problem-solving involves the community as a whole, and must be approached at the level of that community.  Mayfield (1997) suggests that ìtoo often Rural Development Facilitators focus only on the structure and procedures (how to organise, how to make decisions, what will be the responsibilities of the members of the group, etc.) rather than on what the villagers are feelingî (p. 284).  How can this be overcome then?  It has to do with words so often found in development rhetoric: participation, grass-roots, and empathising with the people.  How can two groups, even if they are able to communicate effectively and understand the cultures involved, find a solution to a problem if they do not know the feelings of those the problem affects?  This can be overcome in training development facilitators in empathising with the feelings of the community and taking a ìpeople-firstî approach to development.

In the same light, it is important for an ìoutsiderî, or a member of a group from outside the community, to realise that s/he is the foreigner and has learning to do.  We have seen that many communities in the world have conflicting problem-solving techniques to that of the mainstream West.  This acknowledgement is an important feature of trans-cultural interactions and allows there to be a type of synthesis of understanding; more the outsider adapting to the community than the community to the outsider.  How can this be done?

Mayfield (1997) points out some basic questions for ìcultural dialoguingî.  He suggests that the history of the community be looked into.  This history includes past events and notable leaders, important institutions and their roles, customs and behaviours.  Much of this information is recounted in proverbial form in some communities, another communication technique to grasp.  He also suggests, before attempting to solve any problems with the community, to understand how people earn their livelihood, what resources are available, who is poor, and who is wealthy by the communityís definition, and how the wealthy and poor relate in a social setting.  He points out that it is important to discover the interests of various groups and associations in the community.  Mayfield recognises religion as a key aspect to how a community will make a decision.  There may be several religions in a single community and the needs of the community as a whole must be met.  He advises that an outsider take time in understanding the categories of thought in order to communicate effectively.  Mayfield offers these questions as a means of getting to know the community and suggests they be answered by talking to the community as individuals, families, and small groups.  By pursuing these aspects of a community, a clearer picture of the community may be seen.

The actual form of problem-solving varies with the community.  One community might respond well to small group dialogues, another to story-telling for the entire community.  In any case, we now have some practical questions we can ask in order to gain a better understanding of how a community operates; what some of the ethnocognitive aspects of the culture are, and how the language reflects and builds these.  It is only when these things are grasped that we can begin to understand how to approach problems in a community.
 
 

We have seen that cognitive experience is not uniform across humanity, but in this regard, all people are like some people.  The way a particular group thinks has great ramifications on how they approach problem-solving, which has enormous implications to community development.  We have explored some aspects of what is involved in empathising with the community, and understanding how that community works.  In order to better operate within a community to work through its problems and strive towards finding some solutions to those problems we must take heed to these so a mutual goal of overcoming  some of the identified difficulties in peopleís lives might be attained.
 

References

Dawson, J. (1990).  Using Technical Skills in Community Development: An Analysis of VSOís Experience  (M. Ball, Ed.).  London: VSO/IT Publications.

Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1976).  Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azande.  Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gatewood, J.B. (1993).  Intracultural Variability and Problem-Solving.  http://www. lehigh.edu/jbg1/public/www-data/probsolv.htm

Law, L.-C.  (1994).  Transfer of Learning: Situated cognition perspectives (Research report no. 32).  In http://infix.emp.paed.uni-muenchen.de/1smand1/forschbe/
lit32.html.  München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Lehrstuhl für Empirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie.

Lieberman, D.H. (1991).  Ethnocognitivism and Problem Solving.  In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.) Intercultural Communication: A Reader 6th ed.  Belmont, CA: Wadworth Publishing Company.

Mayfield, J. (1997). One Can Make A Difference: The Challenges and Opportunities of Dealing with World Poverty.  New York: University Press of America.

Murphy, R.F. (1989).  Cultural & Social Anthropology: An Overture.  3rd ed.  Toronto: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Osborn, M. & Osborn, S. (1994). Public Speaking. 3rd ed.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Perani, J. & Smith, F. (1998).  The Visual Arts of Africa: Gender, Power, and Life Cycle Rituals.  Toronto: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Redneck Jokes. http://nj5.injersey.com/~cwang/redneck.html#comm

The Mid-Atlantic Equity Centre (1990).  Cross Cultural Communication.  Chapter III: Culture, Communication and Language & Chapter IV: Using Cross Cultural Communication to Improve Relationships. http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/booklets/ccc/4.html