Blog #6: The Omnipresence of Culture Shock
#3: We began this unit by discussing assumptions and differences that we carry into our class. In “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” Lutz makes an assumption about his readers (Lutz, “First Contact” 32). He asks us to begin with the assumption that comprehending the performances of the Indigenous participants is “one of the most obvious difficulties.” He explains that this is so because “one must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans.” Here, Lutz is assuming either that his readers belong to the European tradition, or he is assuming that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around. What do you make of this reading? Am I being fair when I point to this assumption? If so, is Lutz being fair when he makes this assumption?
According to Thomas King, “assumptions are a dangerous thing” (183). In this specific context of Lutz’ assumption relating to the supposed difficulty of understanding Indigenous performances, I believe the same notion holds true.
To begin with, I don’t believe that Lutz is assuming that his readers are European. From his claim of “One must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans” (32), he points to BOTH the Indigenous AND the Europeans with a similar distance. It does not seem as if Lutz is thinking about his readers’ ethnicities/backgrounds when making this claim; he is merely advising them to understand Indigenous culture through the eyes of both the Indigenous themselves, and also the Europeans whom they had first contact with. However, Lutz does make wrongful assumptions elsewhere, aligning with King’s sentiment that assumptions have a capability of being dangerous.
Professor Paterson is making a fair assumption on Lutz’ assumption regarding the difficulty of comprehending Indigenous performances, but I would like to tweak it a bit. In my perspective, Lutz is definitely assuming that it is more difficult for ANYONE to understand Indigenous performances, as opposed to the other way around. With his phrasing and his surrounding text in “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance: Encounters on the North American West Coast,” it seems apparent to me that Lutz is not limiting his opinion only to his “European readers” but to all readers, and is making a claim about the general alien and confusing nature of Indigenous performances, to anyone who isn’t Indigenous themselves.
To answer the very last question then, Lutz is not being fair when he makes the assumption surrounding the complexities of non-Indigenous in understanding Indigenous culture, than vice versa. A primary reason why so-called “outsiders” may not understand Indigenous performances is because they are not accustomed to their traditions, customs, and practices. Even if non-Indigenous folks have heard about Indigenous ways of life elsewhere, they will still undergo the same confusion when they physically see such performances occurring in reality. Such a phenomenon is known as culture shock, “a term used to describe what happens to people when they encounter unfamiliar surroundings and conditions” (SFU). There are supposedly five stages of culture shock, from “The Honeymoon Stage” where one is excited for the new experience associated with being immersed in a new environment/culture, to “Re-entry Shock” where one goes back to their original home with a new mindset and thus does not perceive home as it once used to be (SFU).
In Lutz’ assumption, he is ignoring a majority of the stages of culture shock, and is rather fixating on the third phase of “Irritability and Hostility” where “the host culture is confusing or the systems are frustrating… you start to feel that what is different is actually inferior” (SFU). Lutz disregards the adaptation process that newcomers go through, but this is most likely because he is discussing the historical events of the first contacts.
Nevertheless, Lutz’ assumption is unfair and dangerous. Indigenous performances only seem difficult and confusing, because they are unfamiliar to the outsiders experiencing them. The exact same can be said about European rituals. Not only Indigenous peoples, but many others from a variety of cultures around the world have been perplexed by the European way of life, primarily because it was something that they had never seen before.
For example, Jamaica Kincaid, an author from Antigua in “On Seeing England for the First Time” recalls from her childhood how absurd she thought certain British ways of life were, such as wearing felt hats and having heavy breakfasts. However, just because it is unfamiliar, does not mean that it is a difficult phenomenon to understand. This is apparent as Kincaid was part of a colonized region where her family and others alike quickly adopted British lifestyles, even though they did not make practical sense in the context of Antigua (e.g. felt hats in a hot climate is not feasible).
To counteract Lutz’ assumption, I would say that it is equally difficult for an Indigenous person to understand European performances, than a European to understand Indigenous performance, based solely on the reality that there is nothing inherently difficult or confusing about any culture. Rather, it is the shock and confusion that newcomers experience upon first contact, which they can either take as an opportunity to educate themselves more about the culture, or simply react to its alien nature and distance themselves from it.
Lutz discusses how “both Europeans and indigenous peoples situated their contact encounters in mytho-historical frameworks imbued with and coloured by their spiritual beliefs” (32). By assuming that one cultural system is more difficult to understand than the other, despite BOTH of them immersing their experiences with history and spirituality, is pointing to an inferiority-superiority complex between the two. That is where the danger lies.
Since I have talked about the socio-cultural phenomenon of culture shock, I would like to ask my readers one question. If you ever travelled somewhere that was greatly different than your own culture, what was your experience of culture shock and when was it first realized?
Works Cited
“Adjust to a New Culture.” SFU International Student Advising and Programs, https://www.sfu.ca/students/isap/current/adjust-to-a-new-culture/stages-symptoms-culture-shock.html. Accessed 6 February 2019.
Image of Culture Shock Example. Quick Transfer. https://www.qtmoving.com/moving-long-distance-from-winnipeg-dealing-with-culture-shock/. Accessed 6 February 2019.
Kincaid, Jamaica. “On Seeing England for the First Time.” 1991. PDF file. http://www.matermiddlehigh.org/ourpages/auto/2013/9/19/57929882/SB%201_13-%20OnSeeingEngland-Kincaid.pdf
King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs Post-Colonial.” World Literature Written in English, vol. 30, no. 2, 1990, pp. 10-16.
Lutz, John. “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance: Encounters on the North American West Coast.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. 2007. PDF file. http://web.uvic.ca/~jlutz/pdf/Lutz_spiritual.pdf.
I agree with you; while I can definitely see how Lutz’s comment could be interpreted as an assumption that his readers are European, I do not necessarily think this is the case. Lutz writes that “one must enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture” in order to comprehend the Indigenous performances. I think the lesser discussed issue here is TIME. Regardless of the background of Lutz’s readers (Indigenous, European, or other) the culture of the Indigenous people of the Northwest in the `1770’s is one that has faced many obstacles in the last couple centuries. Smallpox wiped out entire Indigenous communities in the area. Residential schools tore apart knowledge and traditions that were to be passed on through generations. Traditional clothing, languages and celebrations were banned. The cultural genocide faced by the Indigenous people of the northwest means that so much knowledge had been lost to today’s generations. How could anybody- Indigenous or not- be expected to fully understand the thoughts of Indigenous people when meeting Europeans for the first time, when for so long, such knowledge was not allowed to be shared?
To answer your question about culture shock- no, my travels for the most part have not exposed me to any major culture shock (perhaps that is the result of living in such an age of globalization, where the same strip mall of chains can be seen almost anywhere in the world?). However, I do sometimes feel a sense of “culture shock” between different generations. Despite the fact that there is nothing “inherently difficult or confusing” about the values and societal norms of different generations, I have found it hard to get people from my parents’ generation (including my parents!) to understand why so many people my age value travelling over home ownership or why (and this a real conversation I had to have) it is inappropriate for a white person to wear black makeup when dressing up as Michael Jackson.
Hi Marianne,
Thank you so much for your comment. I did not even consider the issue of time in this context. I completely agree with you – how can others learn about Indigenous cultures when it was once perceived as taboo and condemned? It will take time to be able to fully understand the culture, but I hope that it happens soon.
I love your comment about globalization! I agree, in that globalizing forces can take away elements of culture shock, and even culture shock entirely, as one has already been exposed to a variety of cultures through its forms of music, food, and so on. I have never heard of the idea between intragenerational culture shock, but this sounds like a very fascinating idea. Perhaps our parents and their generation are adamant in certain ways because that is what their culture at the time of their upbringing has exposed them to!
Hi Simran,
Thanks for the blog. I found the idea behind culture shock very interesting. I traveled to Israel this past summer, while it was not necessarily culture shock, I think the language barrier and how we perceive outsiders versus how they perceive outsiders there became apparent. Over here, we often have the expectation that people visiting Canada learn enough English or French to communicate to get around. For example, when I have a customer at work who doesn’t speak English, they often put in the effort to communicate in English to try and get me to understand. In Israel, since my friend and I lacked Hebrew skills, we found ourselves talking a lot in English and having people not understand us. Native citizens began to put in the effort to communicate with us when it should be the other way around. As visitors, we should have tried to learn more Hebrew to communicate with them rather than have them put in more effort to use English.
I found this interesting in that is probably embedded in Canadian culture. If you don’t speak English and come to Canada, we as citizens often see it as “learn the language so you can communicate with us”. Then it becomes a double standard when we travel elsewhere because we’ll look for people who either speak English or know enough to communicate with us, rather than us trying to learn more of that language to communicate with the citizens there.
Maybe it is just me and my observation from this past summer, have you experienced anything like this?
Cheers,
Kynan
Hi Kynan,
Thank you for sharing your personal story – I find it so interesting! It goes to show how varying societies have underlying cultural expectations that they abide by.
I definitely have in my trips to India! I haven’t been for 10 years, but every time I do go, native Indians always go the extra mile to make sure I’m accommodated. There haven’t been any language barriers as I can speak Hindi and Punjabi and many Indians can speak English, but I’ve noted that they always pay extra attention when trying to communicate. Perhaps this has something to do with our roles as Westerners? Food for thought!
Hi Simran!
I was intrigued with your blog entry, as culture shock is a phenomenon I’ve been interested in for a long time. My immigrant parents have always talked about this concept, citing their first days in Canada as being a huge culture shock to them.
These days, I’m always apprehensive of listening to people regard world issues with a very Eurocentric worldview. Personally, I agree that this way of thinking is dangerous, and the opportunity to become educated about other cultures and perspectives is ever present, but often shunned. How do you think we can draw a healthy balance between what we’re accustomed to, and what we can learn?
Hi Katrina,
Thank you for your comment and for sharing the story about your parents!
I agree with you regarding how Eurocentrism is a dangerous phenomenon that can threaten even our own cultures. I think the best way to create a homeostasis between what is already learned, and what we can further learn, is to be in an environment that supports and encourages such learning, and to be open to step outside of your own worldview! It helps that we live in a multicultural society, but we can all go the extra mile to be active in educating ourselves on other cultures, while remaining true to our own (if that is desired)!
Hey Simran.
Wonderful post. Thank you.
I think it is very interesting that both you and I argued the same point saying “It is Lutz’s intention to state that It is difficult for ANYONE to understand a different cultural practice and religious beliefs rather one group finding it more difficult to understand foreign cultural practices than another group.
What I find very interesting is you said, “Lutz’s assumption is unfair and dangerous, assuming his intention was that he was comparing difficulties of interpretation,” (which I agree with) when I said it that was unfair to assume he was making that distinction at all. In essence, we have argued the same point but they way in which we came to our conclusion varies drastically. You said yes it was unfair to think that. I said No. Our evidence both requires on the same subtle text manipulation.
I think Lutz made a rhetorical choice to speak assuming his audience, who in my opinion, are people generally more familiar with Abrahamic religions, than First Nation’s practices. I don’t believe he was stating that it is more difficult for any particular group to understand the other, as you say, “it is equally difficult for an Indigenous person to understand European performances”, The reason why we doesn’t go into too much on why European settlers acted the way they did, is because he assumes his reader already has religious context.
He spends a good deal of time theorizing how and why First Nation’s people may have acted the way they during first contact by providing us with some religious context, in hopes the reader could understand how First contact happened the way it did. I think our understanding of his implication in the line First Nation’s performance is “one of the most obvious difficulties” (First contact as a Spiritual Performance 32), is unclear.
I took it to mean that the majority of his readers would be unfamiliar with First Nation’s practices, not that it is more difficult for First Nation’s to understand European practices. I think this is a valid concern when sourcing a potential audience of readers and people who will buy a book. Who are you trying to educate in large? What is the purpose of the education?
In my blog I go over population base in Canada for some religious populations. I think if viewed as a rhetorical choice to assume the majority of readers will be familiar with Abrahamic religions, it makes sense to spend time explaining religious and cultural context for First Nation’s practices.
I really like your addition about culture shock and it is not something I had thought about. I think it is a little bit implied through his descriptions of First contact, although I think you are correct in saying he has some major gaps. He does touch on it, subtly, when he quotes letters stating that the First Nation’s people are intelligent and agreeable.
My question is: If we are both in agreement that it is neither more or less difficult for any other group to understand each other’s cultural practices, Is it a lack of effort by the Europeans to understand the meaning and cultural significance of First Nation’s practices that leads to violence (your third phase of culture shock) or is it a clashing of religious beliefs that cause violence, or perhaps a combination of both?
My second question is: Now that First contact over (or is it over?) what do you think prompts feelings of violence and racism toward First Nation’s people today?
I loved reading your post. I enjoyed it a lot.
Hi Sean,
Thank you for your comment! It is great to see parallels as well as differences in our posts – it serves to show varying sides to the same idea. I did not even think about the religion aspect to it, and it sheds light on Lutz’ claim, so thank you for broadening my view on the topic!
To respond to your first question, I am not fully versed or educated of the first contact in this particular context, but based on my knowledge from other first contact situations around the world, I believe it is a combination of both. In my studies of colonial settings, it does seem to be that generally, Europeans had goals that they wanted to stick to, and didn’t feel as if learning about the host culture was significant to achieving such goals. Rather, the host culture’s traditions and customs may have been perceived as a hurdle, thus resulting in violence. Simultaneously, it often happened that religious beliefs clashed and for the colonizers who wished to impose their religious views on the host culture, violence was involved for many who resisted.
As for your second question, from my experience, I believe a lot of violent and racist sentiments towards Indigenous communities is based on stereotypes that are essentially learned generation to generation. There are not many measures that try to teach us otherwise, which is why people who are violent or racist to Indigenous peoples are hellbent in their ways. However, this isn’t just an institutional problem – individuals also have the agency to change their ways, and for those who are racist, I hope that they one day will.
Hi Simran! Thank you for your post! I also picked the same question as you and I also mentioned “culture shock” but I never went fully in depth like you have. I had no idea about the 5 stages, or how important each stage is to fully grasping another culture. Because I have moved around so much I have had to go through the steps rather quickly to fit into my new surroundings and was never able to fully process each difference. It is something that I have carried with be to new places so I am excited to step back and observe before fully adapting into a new culture and place. I came to a different conclusion to yours but it never crossed my mind how dangerous these assumptions are to a superiority- inferiority complex. Thank you for acknowledging and pointing out this trap that is very easy to fall into and how dangerous it can be. Anyways excellent post! Tamara
Hi Tamara,
Thank you so much for your comment – especially for sharing so much about your own life. The process of culture shock can definitely be sped up or even diminished, but as you said, it is a good idea to step back and let yourself fully adapt into a new culture! I hope you are able to experience such an experience (in a positive light of course) in your future travels 🙂