The Challenges of Reading Cross Culturally
An excerpt adapted from the book Engendering Cosmopolitanism Through the Local by Jacquelyn Chappel (2019).
Since the 1990s, scholars in English have been debating the relative importance of the literary “canon” with some arguing for cultural literacy and others arguing for the importance of representation and cultural relevance. Recent scholarship on World Literature seems to have finally given up on the goal of a common curriculum and turned its attention to the pedagogical concerns of broadening curriculum. This “pedagogical turn” has moved away from the impossible and never-ending task of defining a corpus to focusing on the challenges of doing justice to the foreign texts read in a classroom. Numerous challenges face teachers who want their students to read cross culturally, however. The list below offers a few of the main challenges. While a dearth of translations serve as the first barrier to reading cross culturally, even after a text has been translated, issues of teacher training, the enormous scope of “world literature,” and the challenge of negotiating cultural differences all contribute to difficulties in reading across cultures.
Finding Good Translated Texts. One of the first obstacles teachers face is accessing quality translations of international texts. According to a study by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center in 2015, only 1–2 percent of children’s books in the United States are translated (Short, Day, & Schroeder, 2016). While translations from English into non-English languages proliferate, translations from English continue to outpace translations into English (Damrosch 2003; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2006), a fact which reflects English language’s dominance in the publishing marketplace. Some have pointed out that this dominance of English language texts ironically contributes to provincialism among English language readers (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2006). Whatever the result, the publication of international literature, particularly in translation, constitutes one of the root problems making access to texts difficult if not impossible.
Scope. Ironically, while publishing has been cited as a root problem in teaching World Literature, the vast scope of international literature also makes such an area of study impossible to master. The authoritative Norton’s anthology of World Literature includes six volumes each totaling over a thousand pages (Puchner, 2012). High school compendiums of World Literature too frequently run over a thousand pages (Applebee et al., 2006; Cooper et al., 1996).
Educators have noted the virtual impossibility of any human being gaining expertise in all the literature of the world (Damrosch, 2009; Lawall, 2009; Shankar, 2013). Even if teaching programs were to attempt to arm future English teachers with a grounding in literature from other parts of the world, the full scope of World Literature is simply too great to be covered. How can classroom teachers be expected to be knowledgeable in the traditions of China, India, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, the Middle East, Polynesia, Britain, America, continental Europe, etc. while also having a firm ground in pedagogy? No one knows the world (Shankar, 2014). David Damrosch himself contends, “Who can really know enough to do it well?” (2009, p. 284).
Teacher Training. Closely related to the issue of scope, teachers weaned on a diet of British and American literature often do not have the expertise to teach a truly global literature. The foreign nature of World Literature and ingrained stereotypes of foreign national cultures make even well intentioned students resistant to non-stereotypical images of foreign cultures.
English teachers trained in the American and British tradition often do not have a firm grounding in literature of other cultures (Damrosch, 2003, 2009; Foster, 2009; Lawall, 1994; Robertson, 1974). In the English Journal’s issue on World Literature, published shortly after 9/11, the editor herself noted candidly, “I studied mostly British and American literature along with perhaps a few works by writers from predominantly Western countries,” apologizing for the reality of today’s teachers (Monseau, 2002, p .1). “Most faculty members are likely to be trained in the traditional western canon,” Lawall found, “[and] they are understandably uncomfortable in speaking not only from a vantage point of lesser authority but also with less cultural knowledge” (Lawall, 1994, p. 39). “Everyone was a rookie,” Kerschner freely admits of the World Literature teachers at her school (2002, p. 80). With a lack of exposure to foreign texts in their own education, teachers often do not have a thorough enough grounding in World Literature to teach it confidently.
One educator argues that this presents an opportunity for teachers to make their own curricula (Robertson, 1974). But scholars have noted the limitations of teachers learning along with their students, where instructors unfamiliar with their curricula have the potential to grossly misrepresent cultures and perpetuate stereotypes when they attempt to teach about unfamiliar cultures. In the classroom, Kaomea (2006) observed that teachers unfamiliar with Hawaiian culture unwittingly perpetuated colonial myths. Relying upon the textbooks, which perpetuated untruths about Hawaiian culture, instructors unfamiliar with the cultures reinforced existing stereotypes. Because the stereotypes were all that many of these teachers knew on the subject, the stereotypes were all that were handed down.
The scenario Kaomea describes is mirrored in other classrooms across the country, where instructors unfamiliar with minority cultures unwittingly perpetuate stereotypes. In one elementary school lesson on a children’s book about China, the teacher asked, “Now, boys and girls, look at this picture. What kind of outfit does this man wear? Is it the same as ours?” (Fang, Fu, & Lamme, 2003, p. 291). The teacher attempted to activate the children’s background knowledge about Chinese culture through their prior knowledge. As a result, students were allowed to voice stereotypes without expansion or clarification. However, students were not encouraged to take critical perspectives, and the teacher reinforced the children’s misconceptions. In addition, there was no discussion about the theme of the story, or the values, traditions, or symbols of the Chinese culture; rather, the discussion supported students’ cultural misunderstandings (Fang, Fu, & Lamme, 2003). Spivak agrees with the critique of “learning along with the student” and argues, “We must earn the right to be able to judge what the student brings to the class” (p. 465). It’s not enough to charge uninformed teachers with educating students about cultures that neither is well informed about, she maintains. Teachers must earn the right to be the teacher through their knowledge.
Negotiating Cultural Differences. Educators have noted that both students and teachers reading texts from unfamiliar cultures routinely encounter issues with overcoming established stereotypes, even when the curriculum explicitly seeks to overcome bias and stereotype (Cai, 2003b; Crocco, 2005; Dudley-Marling, 2003; Kaomea, 2006; Loh, 2009). These studies have found that teachers unfamiliar with the cultures they taught unwittingly perpetuated cultural stereotypes (Fang, Fu, & Lamme, 2003; Kaomea, 2006). Some teachers and scholars have even admitted to the racist baggage they bring to reading foreign texts (Nikola-Lisa, 2003). Students sometimes had a hard time believing that the three-dimensional characters written by cultural insiders were authentic (Crocco, 2005; Sung & Meyer, 2011), as their readings were framed by existing stereotypes (Kim, 1976, 1982). Students meanwhile often believed they came to texts with no biases (Loh, 2009), and teachers and students tended to not read in a culturally reflexive manner (Dudley-Marling, 2003; Loh, 2009; Jordan & Purves, 1993). These studies pointed out that bias can occur in the classroom through:
- text selection
- lesson content
- pedagogical approaches
- teacher comments
- student comments
Together, these studies suggest that issues of bias and ingrained stereotypes among teachers and students and in curricula have hampered a good reading of World Literature.
Indeed, educators have found that when students read texts about another culture, they look to confirm their previous understandings. In one example of a lesson on World Literature, pre-service teachers in a Social Studies Education Master’s program read Shabanu, a novel about a young Pakistan girl written by American writer Suzanne Fisher Staples. Because it was recommended on many educational websites, the teacher believed the book portrayed Muslims as three-dimensional characters but was surprised by the divergent responses from the students. Euro-American students in the class disliked the book, saying the central character was too strong-willed to fit their conception of a Muslim girl. Pakistanis in the class, however, argued it should not be used in the classroom because the people teaching the book would have insufficient information on the culture, and the book would add to negative portrayals of Muslims (Crocco, 2005). Students’ perceptions of the book, in other words, depended upon their cultural backgrounds, even at the Master’s level.
Many students meanwhile believe they come to the text without any preconceptions. In a lesson on Ji-li Jiang’s Red Scarf Girl, a young adult novel about the Cultural Revolution in China, for example, one 15-year-old boy in New York state commented, “I don’t think there’s any other special way we read it. It is from another place. We’re just reading it” (Loh, 2009). Idealistic well-intentioned young adults, faced with the challenge of simply reading a book, may not realize the preconceptions they harbor. Indeed, studies have lamented that students do not read in a culturally reflexive manner (Dressel, 2005; Jordan & Purves, 1993). This belief that students do not come to the text with any cultural baggage presents yet another barrier to cross-cultural understanding when reading World Literature.
The truth for many is that even well-intentioned individuals unwittingly harbor racist stereotypes. Nikola-Lisa (2003), educator and author of multicultural texts, admitted the racism he brings to his texts and life. Having grown up white in the South, he prides himself on growing up alongside Chicanos and Blacks, but one day, while on a road trip, he blithely suggested, “Why don’t we sing it this way: Eenie, meenie, miney, moe, catch a nigg . . . nigg . . . nigg . . .” (p. 48). “I have seen the enemy, and it is myself,” Nikola-Lisa writes (p. 48), acknowledging the racist language and attitudes he carries. While Nikola-Lisa remains committed and interested in multiculturalism, he understands his own personal limitations in representing a culture accurately, a burden shared by all teachers of World Literature.
Foreign Tropes, Genres, Styles, Sense of Humor. Another challenge in teaching international literature is that the style and content are foreign. Students unfamiliar with the culture may not be able to relate to the peculiarities of the text or the main character. And the text may not speak to students’ experiences (Short, 2012). In reading the events of a world different from their own, students of World Literature are asked to understand foreign styles and senses of humor. The stock characters are often unfamiliar to students. The settings will be foreign. Indeed, the very genres may be different.
Literature from other parts of the world, some have noted, were not meant to be read by a foreign audience (Allan, 2007). Students of World Literature then are eavesdroppers, listening in on a conversation that is not about them and, further, not meant for them. “The leaps are larger in world literature” (Bingen, 2002, p. 40); as a result, teachers face challenges in engaging students in World Literature.
The question of a text’s foreignness comes into focus when the issue of translation arises. Studying literature in translation is widely regarded as an impediment to appreciating the original text (Rose, 1996; Venuti, 2009). Any culture’s language is steeped in its history and values, with each word suggesting meanings that the receiving culture may very easily miss. Lost in translation, the nuances create a gulf between students and the texts they are meant to engage with. Even a good translation — that is, one that attempts to remain true to the meaning of the original and takes care to evoke the intended tone of the original — may fall flat due the linguistic difference. Kyung-sook Shin’s popular Korean novel, Please Look After Mom, for example, has been translated into English with some success. However, translations of even common everyday items in the text highlight yawning cultural differences and problems with translation. The “simple salted-cabbage dish,” “lunch of rice and scabbard fish stew,” and “fermented-bean-paste stew,” (Shin, 2011, p. 143), meant to evoke nostalgic memories of a mother, would leave American readers in disgust.
Narrow Definitions of Literature. Finally, narrow definitions of what counts as literature represent a final obstacle to internationalizing literature curriculum. In Decolonizing the Mind (1981), Nigerian author and literary theorist wa Thiong‘o pointed out that strict, Western ideas of literature have contributed to the lack of respect for the cultural productions of non-Western cultures, which are sometimes transmitted orally. In his treatise, wa Thiong‘o makes a case for the importance of oral tradition.
Echoing wa Thiong‘o, Shankar, in his introduction to a symposium on World Literature held at the University of Hawai‘i in 2013, critiqued the tendency to study literature in isolation and to privilege the written text above oral tradition or folk literature. Speaking to an audience representing over a dozen nations from around the world, he made a plea to open up narrow understandings of literature in order to better capture the traditions of the world.
[This] symposium poses questions on the very category of literature. It acknowledges that the notion of literature too should be complicated. The idea that literature should or could be studied in isolation from other cultural forms is a delusion. And perhaps worse, given that many cultures around the world find their most sustaining energy in the oral mode. In this context, the privileging of literature and indeed the very definition of it, that is, what counts as literature, appears doubly problematic. Not only is it critically tenable, but it also contributes to a predictable and ultimately violent hierarching of cultures. The symposium could be seen then to pose questions about the erasure of oratures within cultural theory in a symptomatic way as an illustration of other kinds of erasure under the problems attending the privileging of literature.
Western literary tradition, and by extension, World Literature, has systematically excluded and engaged in the erasure of valuable cultural practices, including folk and oral tradition, Shankar points out. The privileging of the written text over oral tradition has led to the dismissal of oral traditions as illegitimate forms of culture. For example, the emphasis on the written text as the only form of legitimate literature have led some to conclude that some Pacific Island cultures have no culture worthy of study, when in fact richly metaphoric Polynesian dance and song have been found to pass down actual geological histories (Dunn, 2001). In order to do justice to the “words of the world,” Shankar suggests opening up the definition of literature and of text. Doing so has the potential to unearth a richer and more realistic vision of cultural traditions and texts that more accurately reflects the literatures of the world.
Many thinkers prior to Shankar and wa Thiong‘o have made a similar observation: in his treatise What is Literature, Jean-Paul Sartre argued that the Western understanding of literature is an ideological construction (1965). Commenting on the same issues of the day, Foucault (1969) asserted that literature is understood differently in different places. In his philosophical investigation of the author, Foucault found that the way in which societies circulate, honor, attribute, and appropriate texts vary by culture. The importance of the author and the manner of distribution, in other words, varies from culture to culture depending on the populace’s relationship to literature; definitions of literature will vary from place to place. In fact, author identity became important only after texts became transgressive and the individuals who wrote them needed to be punished. Together these authors point out that ideas of the author and of literature are constructed within unique cultures and histories. In keeping with this broader definition of literature to include various kinds of texts, World Literature might include not only the Bhagavad Gita but also the films of Bollywood, not only Zen parables but Japanese manga.
Given the numerous challenges facing educators in accessing texts, engaging students, and negotiating cultural differences, it is no wonder World Literature reading lists tend to recycle tried and true texts English language texts of Britain and the US. How can teachers overcome these obstacles to engage their students with international literature?
Jacquelyn Chappel holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction. She teaches in the University of Hawaii system.
References:
Allan, M. (2007). Reading with one eye, speaking with one tongue: On the problem of address in world literature. Comparative Literature Studies, 44 (1–2), 1–19.
Applebee et al. (2006). The Language of Literature: World Literature. Evanston, Illinois: McDougall Littell.
Bingen, M. (2002). From archetype to xenophobia: World literature is the “rite” stuff. English Journal, 91(5), 40–45.
Cai, M. (2003b). Can we fly across cultural gaps on the wings of imagination?: Ethnicity, experience, and cultural authenticity. In D. Fox & K. Short. (Eds.). Stories matter: The complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 167–181). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Cooper et al. (1996). Prentice Hall Literature World Masterpieces Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Crocco, M. (2005). Teaching Shabanu: The challenges of using world literature in the US social studies classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 561–582.
Damrosch, D. (Ed.). (2009). Teaching world literature. New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.
Dressel, J. H. (2005). Personal response and social responsibility: Responses of middle school students to multicultural literature. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(8) 750–64.
Dudley-Marling, C. (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan”: Multicultural literature and the problem of representation. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 3–24). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Dunn, S. (2001). On the convergence of myth and reality: Examples from the Pacific Islands. The Geographical Journal, 167 (2), 125−138.
Fang, Z., Fu, D., & Lamme, L. L. (2003). The trivialization and misuse of multicultural literature: Issues of representation and communication. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 284–303). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Foster, J. (2009). Cultural encounters in global contexts: World literature as a one-semester general education course. In D. Damrosch (Ed.), Teaching world literature (pp. 155–164). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.
Foucault, M. (1969). What is an author? Retrieved from http://www.movementresearch.org/classesworkshops/melt/Foucault_WhatIsAnAuthor.pdf
Jordan, S., & Purves, A. C. (1993). Issues in the responses of students to culturally diverse texts: A preliminary study. New York, NY: National Research Center on Literature Teaching & Learning.
Kaomea, J. (2006). “Nā wāhine mana”: A postcolonial reading of classroom discourse on the imperial rescue of oppressed Hawaiian women. Pedagogy, Culture And Society, 14(3), 329−348.
Kerschner, L. (2002). Teaching world literature: Preparing global citizens. English Journal, 91(5), 76–81.
Kim, E. (1976). A survey of Asian American literature: Social perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, American Literature.
Lawall, S. (2009). The west and the rest: Frames for reading world literature. In David Damrosch (Ed.), Teaching World Literature (pp. 17–33). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association.
Loh, C. E. (2009). Reading the world: Reconceptualizing reading multicultural literature in the English language arts classroom in a global world. Changing English: Studies in culture & education, 16(3), 287–299.
Monseau, V. (2002). From the editor. English Journal, 91(5), 1.
Nikola-Lisa, W. (2003). “Around my table” is not always enough. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 46–49). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2006). Teaching world literature in the primary school: A discussion paper. QCA Reading differences project. Retrieved from http://217.35.77.12/archive/england/papers/education/pdfs/QCA-06-2444_Discussion_paper.pdf
Puchner, M. et al. (2012). The Norton Anthology of World Literature: Volumes A-F. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Robertson, R. T. (1974). A work of global status: A new reading curriculum in English.
Rose, M. G. (1996). The translator and the voice of the other: A case in point. In Carroll, T. (Ed.), No small world: Visions and revisions of world literature (pp. 20–33). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Sartre, J. P. (1965). What is literature? (B. Frenchtman, Trans.) New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Shankar, S. (2013). Introduction to the symposium. Proceedings from Words in the World Symposium. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/29716
Shankar, S. (2014). Professor, University of Hawai‘i English Department. Personal Interview.
Shin, K. S. (2011). Please look after mom. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Short, K. G. (2012). Story as world making. Language Arts, 90(1), 9–17.
Short, K. G., Day, D., & Shroeder, J. (2016). Teaching globally: Reading the world through literature. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
Spivak, G. (2009). Rethinking comparativism. New Literary History, 40(3), 609–626.
Sung, Y. K. & Meyer, R. J. (2011). Rethinking cultural authenticity in global literature: A Korean example. In R. J. Meyer & K. F. Whitmore (Eds.), Reclaiming reading: Teachers, students, and researchers regaining spaces for thinking and action (pp. 163−166). Routledge, Taylor, & Francis Group.
Venuti, L. (2009). Teaching in translation. In D. Damrosch (Ed.), Teaching World Literature. New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.
wa Thiong‘o, N. (1981). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
