What negative consequences could result if parents followed Bem’s suggestion to raise androgynous boys and girls, psychology homework help


• Write two discussion questions per article. Questions must be typed and submitted to Blackboard
by the beginning of class time on the day that the relevant article is to be discussed (see syllabus). • As you read each article, take notes. Underline important points and jot down ideas or questions
that come to mind while reading it; this will help you write discussion questions more easily. • Discussion questions should neither be too specific (“What does the fourth word on p. 27 mean?”)
nor too general (“Was this a good article? Why or why not?”). Try to strike a balance between the
specific and general. Try to ask thought-provoking questions that make connections to other areas
of study and other realms of life—what you saw on the news, read in the paper or a magazine, etc. • Be sure to point the reader to the specific content of the article that your question addresses.
• Avoid questions with “yes/no” or “either/or” answers; good discussion questions are open-ended.
Also avoid leading questions. See below for examples of good discussion questions.  Example Discussion Questions 1. What negative consequences could result if parents followed Bem’s suggestion to raise androgynous
boys and girls? How might peers respond to boys with stereotypically feminine characteristics and girls
with stereotypically masculine characteristics? What are the positive consequences of raising
androgynous boys and girls? Where does one draw the line between a healthy de-emphasis on gender
and a healthy acknowledgment of gender in raising children? 2. Josephs, Markus, and Tafarodi argue that individuation (distinguishing the self from others on the
basis of talents or accomplishments) does not serve as a significant source of esteem for American
women (because of gender-role socialization). How accurately does their argument describe women in
the U.S.? Explain your response. How do women in the U.S. compare, in terms of how individualistic
they are, to men and women in Asian cultures? How does the pressure that women feel in our society to
be appropriately “feminine” interact with the individualistic norms that all Americans experience?6_kim_2008.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
What negative consequences could result if parents followed Bem’s suggestion to raise androgynous boys and girls, psychology homework help
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 359–368
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being§
Young Yun Kim *
Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, 610 Elm Avenue, Norman, OK 73072, USA
Intercultural communication
Stress–adaptation–growth dynamic
Intercultural personhood
This theoretical essay makes a case for ‘‘intercultural personhood’’ as a viable model for
human development in today’s increasingly integrated world. Critiquing the largely static,
monolithic, and value-laden perspective on cultural identity prevalent in social science
literature, the author emphasizes the complex and evolving nature of identity. The term,
intercultural identity, is employed as a counterpoint to, and as an extension of, cultural
identity, and as a concept that represents the phenomenon of identity adaptation and
transformation beyond the perimeters of the conventional, categorical conception of
cultural identity. The stress–adaptation–growth dynamic in the author’s integrative
theory of cross-cultural adaptation provides a systemic account for the identity
development process as the interplay of acculturation and deculturation. The author
argues that, through prolonged and cumulative intercultural communication experiences,
individuals around the world can, and do, undergo a gradual process of intercultural
evolution. The emerging intercultural personhood is characterized by two interrelated key
patterns in self-other orientation: individuation and universalization. Empirical evidence
for this theoretical argument is offered through some of the pertinent research findings as
well as case illustrations based on publicly available personal testimonials and biographic
ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
We live in a world of ‘‘simultaneous events and overall awareness’’ (McLuhan, 1962, p. 40). In the dizzying interface of
national, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious traditions, the once clear definitions of ‘‘us and them’’ are being blurred.
The tightly knit system of communication and transportation has brought differing cultures, nationalities, races, religions,
and linguistic communities closer than ever before in a web of interdependence and a common fate. The business-as-usual
ways of doing things are fast losing their relevance, as culture in its ‘‘pure’’ form has become more a nostalgic concept than a
reality. Individuals are challenged to face one another’s various differences and search for human similarities, so as to be able
to move beyond their customary imagination in search of creative solutions to problems. In Toffler’s (1980) words, we find
ourselves ‘‘[facing] a quantum leap forward. [We face] the deepest social upheaval and creative restructuring of all time.
Without clearly recognizing it, we are engaged in building a remarkable new civilization from the ground up’’ (p. 44).
Ours is also a world of clashing traditions and collective identities. The very forces that diminish physical boundaries
exacerbate ethnic and national rivalries, rendering alarming daily news headlines and a deeply unsettling political
Some of the ideas discussed in this paper with respect to intercultural identity development and intercultural personhood have been presented
elsewhere (Kim, 2006b). In writing the present theoretical essay, the author has sought to refine her ideas and arguments further and to apply them to the
broader context of globalization.
* Tel.: +1 405 360 9681; fax: +1 405 325 7625.
E-mail address: youngkim@ou.edu.
0147-1767/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 359–368
landscape. To many people around the world, the seemingly innocent banner of some kind of group identity is now a
compelling sore spot galvanizing them into us-against-them posturing. Some of the most passionate domestic and
international conflicts headlining the daily media involve differing identities, particularly along tribal, racial, and religious
lines. From long-festering prejudices, discriminations, and hatreds to the more recent acts of violent rage and terror, people
in all corners of the world are witnessing so many angry words, hurt, and destruction. The relatively simple civic consensus in
the vision of a diverse yet peaceful and democratic society is being challenged by one that upholds a particular group identity
in place of the larger identity of national and world citizenry. Often absent in the identity polemics are the main ideals of
multiculturalism itself, that is, people with different roots can coexist, that they can learn from each other, and that they can,
and should, look across and beyond the frontiers of traditional group boundaries with minimum prejudice or illusion, and
learn to strive for a society and a world that celebrates diversity side by side with unifying cohesion.
Pragmatic concerns such as these underpin, and signify, the central aim of this theoretical essay, that is, to describe,
explain, and make a case for intercultural personhood as a constructive way of being a member of our increasingly integrated
communities, both local and global. This is a way of relating to oneself and others that is built on a dynamic, adaptive, and
transformative identity conception—one that conjoins and integrates, rather than separates and divides. This alternative
model of identity is built on an open systems meta-theoretical perspective of a human being as a complex and evolving
entity (Bertalanffy, 1956; Jantsch, 1980). It includes a vital component of an outlook on humanity that is not locked in a
provincial interest of one’s ascribed group membership, but one in which the individual sees himself or herself to be a part of
a larger whole that includes other groups, as well.
The term ‘‘cultural identity’’ is employed here broadly as a generic term that is interchangeable with other terms
commonly used in both international and domestic contexts such as national, ethnic, ethnolinguistic, and racial identity, or
more generic concepts such as social identity and group identity. In this sense, the present use of the term, culture, is
inclusive of common ethnic, linguistic, racial, and historical backgrounds. Correspondingly, intercultural identity is
employed inclusively and exchangeably with interethnic, interracial, and intergroup identity.
2. Literature review: pluralism and cultural identity
From the early years of the 20th century (e.g., Simmel, 1908/1950; Stonequist, 1937), and particularly for the past several
decades, the notion of identity, in general, and cultural identity, in particular, have occupied a central place in social science
research, most extensively in the United States. Systematic investigations of cultural identity can be traced back to
psychologist Erikson’s (1950) theoretical framework. Erikson described the process of identity development as one in which
the two identities—of the individual (or the personal) and of the group (or the social collective)—are merged into one. Erikson
thus placed cultural identity at the core of the individual and yet also in the core of his or her ‘‘common culture.’’
Erikson’s identity conception has since been echoed in subsequent academic writings, but in a way that is increasingly
idealized. For De Vos (1990), for example, cultural identity is rooted in ‘‘the emotionally profound self-awareness of
parentage and a concomitant mythology of discrete origin,’’ (p. 14) and provides ‘‘a sense of common origin, as well as
common beliefs and values, or common values’’ and serves as the basis of ‘‘self-defining in-groups’’ (p. 204). For Yinger
(1986), ethnic attachment is a ‘‘genuine culture’’ that forms the person’s ‘‘basic identity’’ and offers ‘‘a sense of historical
continuity and embeddedness and a larger existence in a collectivity of one’s group’’ (p. 21). Roosens (1989) saw cultural
identity as the psychosocial driving force of individual and collective ethnic self-affirmation’’ (p. 15). Giordano (1974)
likewise saw it essentially as a psychological foundation offering the individual a ‘‘ground on which to stand’’ that ‘‘no one
can take away’’ (p. 16).
2.1. The pluralistic turn
Idealized conceptions of cultural identity such as the ones sampled above parallel, and mirror, the ideological shift toward
greater pluralism and multiculturalism in the United States and elsewhere, beginning with the ‘‘new ethnicity’’ movement
prompted by the civil rights movement in the 1960s in the United States. In their early work, Glazer and Moynihan (1963)
concluded a sociological analysis by stating that ethnicity pervades all spheres of life among ethnic minorities: ‘‘The point
about the melting pot is that it did not happen’’ (p. 290). Novak (1971), in The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics, argued against
assimilation and advocates ‘‘equal ethnicity for all.’’ He described the feelings of alienation held by one large ethnic group,
Poles, who had been drawn to ‘‘ethnic power’’ movements in the competition for jobs, respect, and attention.
The pluralistic turn in academic conceptions of cultural identity has capitalized on the inherent and profound dilemma,
that is, a contradiction arising from the inevitable gap between the assimilationist emphasis on transcending group
categories and the reality of everyday life in which group categories continue to constrain ethnic minorities. In this
movement, the primacy of individual identity has been challenged by contrary claims of group identity and the associated
attempts to elevate group distinctiveness over a larger, national identity. It, thereby, has replaced the traditional ‘‘meltingpot’’ metaphor with newer ones such as ‘‘mosaic,’’ ‘‘quilt,’’ and ‘‘salad bowl.’’ In Pettigrew’s (1988) words, ‘‘To many, talk of
mosaics and quilts to emphasize the autonomous nature of identity and its relationships among cultural identities is both an
attempt to describe the way America is headed and an effort to hurry it along’’ (p. 19).
Underlying the pluralistic, group-based construction of personhood and society is the presumption of collective interests
as a concern to the individual, above and beyond their implications for personal self-interest. Cultural identity, in effect, is
Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 359–368
deemed an extension of the self; it entails ‘‘a shift towards the perception of self as an interchangeable exemplar of some
social category and away from the perception of self as a unique person’’ (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987, p.
2.2. Research as advocacy: ‘‘Whose Side Are You On?’’
Along with the pluralistic turn in the United States and now around the world, we have seen an increasing trend of
departure in research addressing issues of cultural identity from the traditional normative-representational stance of valueneutrality to the stance of social advocacy and other forms of activism. This politicization of research is reflected in the
increased number of traditional social scientists who are committed to the social causes of diversity and justice and who find
the principally value-neutral stance of the traditional normal science approach less than satisfying (cf. Hammersley, 1995;
Thornton, 1996). Academic arguments are made, for example, for a redistribution of power and resources to overcome
inequalities in group status (e.g., Hacker, 1992) and for a greater diversity of the university curriculum by replacing it with
one ‘‘that would focus on the achievements of marginalized peoples’’ (Traub, 1998, p. 25). Pressure is felt by many traditional
researchers who find the field too politicized, so much so that a given theory, along with the credibility of the theorist,
appears to be dismissed by some based on the implied question, ‘‘Whose side are you on?’’
The shift in emphasis from value-neutral theory to value-driven activism has been fueled by the rise of radically
relativistic worldviews underpinning ‘‘postmodern’’ schools such as ‘‘critical theory,’’ ‘‘cultural studies,’’ and ‘‘muted group
and standpoint theory,’’ among others. They have been mounting vigorous arguments to gear research directly to
‘‘emancipatory’’ political goals of eliminating ‘‘White racism’’ at home and countering Western/American ‘‘imperialism’’
abroad. Tsuda (1986), for instance, criticized the Western cultural domination as the genesis of ‘‘distorted intercultural
communication’’ around the world. Tsuda argued that the dominance of English language embodies the dominance of
Western ideology, which imposed an overt restriction on non-Western peoples’ freedom of expression and damages their
identity. Similarly, Young (1996) presented his criticism of Western ‘‘cultural imperialism’’ by depicting today’s global
reality as one of power asymmetry between communicators rooted in ‘‘oppressive’’ and ‘‘imperialistic’’ Western cultural–
institutional systems.
3. Problematics in pluralistic conceptions
A close examination of the contemporary pluralistic academic writings on issues of cultural identity and intercultural
relations, such as the ones cited above, reveals at least two main problematics: positivity bias and oversimplification. These
two themes are identified based on the implicit or explicitly stated common assumptions that often fail to reflect the reality
of identity experiences at the level of individuals.
3.1. Positivity bias
A positivity bias is reflected in the unconditional moral imperative commonly seen in various academic conceptions of
cultural identity. Pluralistically inclined social scientists in general, and postmodern-critical scholars in particular, have been
largely silent about the ‘‘dark side’’ of cultural identity—the tendencies of collective self-glorification and denigration of
other groups. An insufficient amount of attention has been given to the fact that too strict an adherence to an cultural identity
can raise even separatist sentiments, fear and distrust of other groups, and even the dangers of violence, cruelty, and political
humiliation (Levy, 2000). Intended or not, some critical writings suggest a sense of ‘‘cultural identity at any cost.’’ Cultural
identity is not only to be recognized, respected, and preserved, but also to be a means to combat unjust practices of an
outgroup, real or imagined. Implicit in such a claim is the notion that cultural groups are deemed inherently equal in their
original states, but that their original natures are seen as being distorted and corrupted in the process of interaction with
others in society and through the development of sociocultural institutions (Tsuda, 1986, pp. 62–63). As such, equality is
defined less in terms of fairness of rules as in the procedural equality in the sense of classical liberalism, and more in terms of
group status equality, at least in terms of the inherent moral rights of all groups expressed in the ‘‘pride’’ and ‘‘dignity’’ of a
Positive values assigned to cultural identity clearly reflect the desire to offer an intellectual voice to the traditionally
subordinated or oppressed people. They collectively offer a philosophical thesis urging readers to fight for change in the
unjust status quo. At the same time, the positivity bias becomes problematic when it is applied selectively. There is a lack of
evenhandedness and realism results in the conspicuous silence among pluralistically inclined social researchers in the face
of human sufferings and systematic injustices instigated within non-Western countries. Relatedly, unconditional positive
moral values assigned to cultural identity fails to acknowledge one of the basic tenets of intergroup theories such as the
social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). That is, individuals identify with a group in a manner that is self-serving. The
way people experience cultural identity is essentially not a rational but an emotionally driven experience. When it comes to
our relationships to an outgroup in competition or conflict, we are less than likely to be fair and objective, and more likely to
be irrational and defensive, favoring our ingroup and discriminating against the outgroup that threatens our ingroup.
The positivity bias with respect to cultural identity is suggested in the approval in October 2005 by all members of the
UNESCO, except the United States, of the convention on the ‘‘protection and promotion’’ of cultural diversity. The drafters
Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 359–368
worried that globalization represented a challenge for cultural diversity, namely, in view of risks of imbalance between rich
and poor countries. The fear is that the values and images of Western mass culture, like some invasive weed, are threatening
to choke out the world’s native flora, so to speak. Yet, as Kwame Anthony Appiah (2006), the Ghana-born professor of
philosophy at Princeton University, points out, this UNESCO convention offers a misplaced moral judgment.
What’s really important, then, cultures or people?. . .many globalization’s cultural critics are aiming at the wrong
targets. . .Human variety matters. . .because people are entitled to options. . .If we want to preserve a wide range of
human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, we can’t enforce diversity by
trapping people within differences they long to escape. . .Cultural consumers are not dupes. They can adopt products to
suit their own needs, and they can decide for themselves what they do and do not approve of. (Appiah, 2006, pp. 32–35)
3.2. Oversimplification
The positivity bias in the common conceptions of cultural identity, and the selective applications thereof, is inseparably
linked to the tendency in many pluralistic academic writings to portray cultural identity as an ‘‘all-or-none’’ or ‘‘either-or’’
entity that belongs exclusively to a particular category of people. A person is often viewed to belong to one, and only one,
particular ethnic group. The monolithic and static conception of cultural identity is often reflected in statements that inflate
uniformity among the individuals who are associated with a particular group category. Some researchers have tended to
lump together all individuals ascribed to a particular group and portray them as though they are a homogeneous group with
identical characteristics. In Two Nations, for example, Hacker (1992) described the contemporary Black as someone who was
marginal, separate, and victimized in the White world, despite the many contrary statistics presented in the book.
The categorical characterizations belie the complexities in the way cultural identity plays out in the grass-roots reality,
particularly in the United States. Revealing the continuing transcendence of group categories, the United States has seen a
significant increase in the percentage of Americans who approve of marriage between blacks and whites from 25% in 1972 to
61% in 1995 (USA Today, August 8, 1995, p. A11). In terms of actual inter-marriages, the number has escalated roughly from
310,000 in the 1960s to more than 1.1 million in the 1990s. In 2005, more than 7% of America’s 59 million married cou …
Purchase answer to see full

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP