Field Experience #1- Reflection

For this paper, I chose to reflect on option two, where I would interview someone from a

different country than my home country. For this assignment I chose to interview my dad’s

distant cousin, Rogier Snoeks (Roger Snooks). Rogier resides in Weert, Netherlands. It is

centrally located in the country. Rogier, is 36 years-old and turning 37 this coming November.

He recently married a wonderful woman named, Jacqueline, whom he has two children with

(Sophie- 4, and Oliver-2). Rogier, joked with me right away after divulging some about being

newly married. He said, “We do everything backwards here!” This intrigued me enough to ask

him “Why?” which led me to my first interview question- “What kind of culture is experienced

in Holland?”

Neuliep, (2009) describes culture as, “an accumulated pattern of values, beliefs, and

behaviors, shared by an identifiable group of people with a common history and verbal and

nonverbal systems” (p.17). Like Neuliep, I believe in order for culture to prosper, develop and

evolve itself universal traits such as values, beliefs, and behaviors need to exist. Culture is

continuously evolving, and it is because, people are constantly interacting with one another

culture that changes are always taking place. Rogier explained to me that his culture in Holland

is similar and different in many ways to the culture I experience in the United States. One of the

first facts I learned was that Dutch culture is highly individualistic. Individuals place emphasis

on being modest, independent, self-reliant, and relaxed. This relates to the end of my first

paragraph where Rogier told me, “We do everything backwards here!” Rogier, said family is an

extremely important value in Holland. Dutch customs focus on having the family as the

foundation in one’s life. It was also made clear that Dutch families tend to be small, often with

less than two children, “Meghan, in Holland it is okay not to get married right away; there is no
pressure like where you live. It’s important to care about your family, because it’s your heritage.

But, it’s also important to secure an education, job and work hard first” Rogier, stated. This

explains why Rogier told me that getting married before having children isn’t as necessary or

idealistic as it can be in the United States. Another interesting fact I gathered was that Rogier

told me in Dutch culture when you do have a family few women work outside the home. He said

it is important for mothers to be present for their children. I was able to relate to Rogier’s

comments, and explained to him that I value being a stay-at-home mom, but also discussed the

pressures I feel to work and earn income for my family so we are better supported.

Moving on from our discussion with culture, I wanted to ask Rogier about one concept in

particular from chapter two of our textbook, “Doe’s the Dutch culture value being repressive

with one another or more so unrestricted when it comes to communication?” I then explained an

example I gathered from Neuliep’s (2009) power distance scale on pg. 70, I had asked Rogier, in

example, if it was important for children to be obedient to their parents or feel free to openly

disagree? It was then he understood the concept I was trying to reach across, and what I was

asking. I was looking to discuss power distance in the interview, but wanted to word it down to a

more understandable question. Neuliep, (2009) describes power distance as, “the extent to which

less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that

power is distributed unequally” (p. 67). In my interpretation power distance is a way to explain

the differences between groups existing in culture where inequality exists. Power distance can

also vary between cultures, some cultures exhibiting smaller power distance (i.e. New Zealand,

Norway, Germany) and some cultures exhibiting larger power distance (i.e. Mexico, Brazil,

India).
 Rogier explained the following to me, “In Dutch culture, we, are very tolerant of

individual differences. He said that he even teaches his children to keep open minds when

meeting new people, and encourages them to accept everyone for their qualities. Rogier

mentioned that embracing this attitude in his culture is taken everywhere, even in the work place.

He mentioned that where he works, everyone is important. He mentioned that if I were to work

in Weert with him, that I would be considered an important decision maker in the workplace,

valued, and shown respect.

This part of our interview was especially important. I was able to notice some major

differences between our two cultures. This field experience paper really brought several aspects

and concepts we have been learning in a more realistic viewpoint, especially identifying aspects

of Rogier’s culture and concepts of power distance. I found those discussions to be the most

valuable in our interview, because they demonstrated the vast differences between our worlds.
 Works Cited

Neuliep, J. (2009). Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

R. Snoeks (personal communication, September 20, 2010).

 Field Experience Report #2- Reflection

Recently, France has sparked worldwide controversy, as the country has legally banned

Muslin women from wearing burqas or any other type of facial covering. A burqa is a piece of

outwear clothing that masks a females body when out in public. France calls their ban a step

towards cultural preservation. Banning the burqas has stirred opinions everywhere, but especially

that of the Muslim culture:

“In Islamic-majority nations like Turkey and Tajikistan, the law does not require that

women wear a burqa. It is even banned in schools and government buildings. However,

in Islamic theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, women must be covered from head

to toe whenever they go out in public or when there are non-family members in the

house. Consequences for not wearing a burqa in places where it is law include lashings

and other punishments” (Sajja, 2010, para.3).

Individuals, who have opposed the burqa ban, call it an invasion of constitutional rights,

but those in support of the ban call it newfound freedom of femininity for these women to

embrace or even a victory for Muslim women. The French Senate approved the banning last

month. It passed with overwhelming approval, “a vote of 246 to 1, with about 100 abstentions

coming essentially from left-leaning politicians. French people back the ban by a margin of more

than four to one” (CNN, 2010, para.2). The ban doesn’t go into effect till next spring.

The ban on burqas has caused an array of opinions. The main arguments ask whether or

not the banning provokes discrimination or if it attacks diversity in French culture, or if the ban

invades constitutional rights. For the second part of this reflection, I have chosen to analyze this

story through an American cultural perspective as well as Islamic cultural perspective in efforts

to realize answers to the questions above.

American Perspective (In Favor of Burqa Ban):

 Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, individuals may hold stereotypes against the Islamic

and Muslim cultures. An illusory correlation (When we expect two events to be related,

we may incorrectly believe that they are related, even if they are not) may exist that since

extreme Islamic terrorists were behind the attacks, that any middle-eastern individual is

seen in a negative anti-American light. This could cause an individual to favor the burqa

ban, to purge of foreign elements that remind us of the attacks.

American Perspective (Against Burqa Ban):

 Individual may associate the burqa as an identity factor that allows them to categorize

(grouping, sorting, classifying objects, events, or living things into identifiable groups)

Muslim women. What I mean by this is that, if an individual sees an individual wearing a

burqa, they could assume that it is a Muslim woman. The burqa serves as an attributing

characteristic. This could allow an individual to withhold the perspective that banning the

burqa is wrong, as it helps them maintain their category.

Islamic Perspective (In Favor of Burqa Ban):

 Individual may associate the burqa as an item that stereotypes (members of one group

attributing characteristics to members of another group, either carry a positive or negative

evaluation) Muslim women. The attribution that the burqa represents extreme Muslim

culture and consequently the radical nature of extreme Muslims could be a perception in

favor of banning the burqa. The stereotype could also be associated with suppression of

feminine rights.

Islamic Perspective (Against Burqa Ban):

  Individuals may withhold an ethnocentric understanding. This would mean that an

Islamic individual would believe that their ethnic/in-group is the center of everything,

and that all others/out-group are measured in relation to the individual’s in-group.

For example, if an Islamic individual who was against the burqa ban in France valued an

ethnocentric understanding, he/she not wearing the burqa would disobey against cultural

beliefs.

This news story lends itself to be interpreted in many different concepts. I had a difficult time

limiting down my perspectives, and trying to convey them as smooth as possible. The fact that I

am an American lends an advantage to articulating an American culture perspective. One thing

that consistently stuck out in my head was that, the United States is often considered a melting

pot of cultures. Perhaps the “melting pot” environment lends an individual to value self

expression, optimism, high self-esteem, satisfactory in freedom- all things that characterize an

individualistic society. This could explain why an American perspective would be more in favor

of not banning the burqa in France, because if the same thing were to happen in our culture it

would be considered limiting, an unconstitutional. Maybe, even a racist’s move? But, the ban

from an Islamic perspective depends on a few things. After some extending research on this

story, I learned that countries like Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria have banned the wearing of

burqas in places like schools and universities. The burqa which originates from Muslim culture

has often been attached as an outward symbol of religion. For some individuals like extremists or

radicals it could be a loss of culture and/or an ethnocentric understanding.

 Works Cited

CNN, (2010, September 14). French senate approves burqa ban . Retrieved from

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-14/world/france.burqa.ban_1_burqa-overt-religious-

symbols-ban-last-year?_s=PM:WORLD

Sajja, S. (2010, September 13). France's burqa ban creates worldwide controversy. Retrieved

from http://www.gsusignal.com/news/france-s-burqa-ban-creates-worldwide-

controversy-1.2327325
 Field Experience #3- Reflection

For this field experience paper I will be discussing option two: discuss the family roles

and communication patterns in which I grew up with. Reflecting on my childhood, I would

consider it to be fairly ideal. I grew up in Moorhead, Minnesota with two siblings (one older, and

one younger), a stay at home mom (but worked when us kids were school aged) and a working

dad. After reading concepts from chapter 6 & 9, I was able to notice some relations. Once

concept in particular was role relationships, which is described as, “one’s relative position in a

group with an expected set of verbal and nonverbal behaviors. By virtue of our membership in

groups, even family groups, we are expected to behave in certain ways, usually according to

some set of standards or norms established by the group” (Neuliep, p.189). Role relationships in

my family were informal. It didn’t matter if my mom stayed at home while my father worked,

what mattered was that both my mom and dad learned how to parent and support the family in a

“one day at a time” approach. As a new parent myself, exploring the role of mom for myself has

given me opportunity to look back and often think “wow, I was allowed to be a real kid. I was

given that opportunity. And that is exactly what I want to give my son.” As a family everyone

learned their role through experience. What it meant to be a son or daughter in our family meant

that you were a kid, you had to respect the parents, you had to do chores, but you also got to have

fun and hang out with friends.

When I began reflecting about hierarchy and deviations found in roles, I have the perfect

example. What’s interesting about role expectations in my family is my mom’s job. We all

know, women have faced repressing roles in the past, and the challenge to come out on top and

disregard that cookie cutter ideal housewife is ideal for a lot of women today. After my brother,

sister, and I were school aged, my mom was in a position where she had to go back to work in
the late 90’s. She has mentioned this story several times to me, and basically it boils down to

this: my mom wasn’t interested in working in an environment she didn’t enjoy, she wanted to be

in a position where she could develop skills that would carry her through retirement, and she

wanted something where she could stand out. So what did my mom do? She went back to school,

and became an electrician. My mom’s role is unique, as people are often surprised (even to this

day) to learn what she does. To learn that she owns her own business, is an electrical contractor

and master electrician, is defying to some. In the day she is Grace Electric, but at home she was

and is always our mom. My mom’s role in the family was never seen as a conflict, at first

everyone challenged her pursuing this career especially my dad. He often saw her role in an

electrician’s field as vulnerable because she is a woman she would face more expectations than a

man in the field. But, with persistence and determination she proved us all wrong.

Another concept that I found particularly relatable to my family roles and

communicational patterns, was our attitudes towards sex and gender roles. Growing up my

siblings and I knew the difference between masculinity and femininity. We understood the

associations between male and female physically, but with our own experience came to learn

how we identified with each role. Growing up in an individualistic culture, we were taught that it

is okay if an individual violates a cultural role expectation. I believe this has led us to more

flexibly tolerate a violation around us. In my family it was about valuing interdependence, self-

expression, pursuit of individual goals, but also pursuit of family goals. The only member in my

family that is very intolerant of violations is my dad. He makes it very clear when he is in a

position or environment if a gender role is violated. Often he makes slurs or slangs that come

across extremely agitated.

 Another concept that I find relatable is attitudes towards the family. Everyone in my

family felt that it was important to spend time together, share dinner meals nightly, talk to each

other, hang out with friends, and develop a life inside and outside the family. However, the one

family member that stands out, again, is my dad. My dad’s attitude towards the family is

different. He shows he cares about the family by buying cars for my siblings and me, or working

extra weekends at work, or driving us to school. While I do appreciate the extra efforts, my dad

never involved himself in our lives as much as my mom. His attitude was that his involvement

was shown through the materialistic things he gave, rather than emotional. To this day, I have

never built the same kind of relationship with him as I have my mom.
 Works Cited

Neuliep, J. (2009). Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.
 Field Experience #4- Reflection

Throughout this course, I have learned the differences between individuals who exhibit

strong intercultural communication and those who exhibit weak intercultural communication. In

the process of embracing these new concepts I also learned that I am not as competent of an

intercultural communicator as I would like to be. I feel a large part of this stems from the fact

that I shelter myself. What I mean by this is that I hardly every stray from the familiar

environments around me (i.e. home, family members, friends, certain activities, school, work,

etc). I am not an individual who easily embraces meeting new people into my life. However, I

am better when meeting acquaintances or keeping up small talk. I also hesitate from participating

in social events, or large crowd gathering. I guess in a way you could say that I have anxiety

when placed in such situations. There were many concepts throughout chapters 9, 10, and 12 that

suit me both in positive and negative lights. First, I will discuss what positive intercultural

characteristics I do hold.

As an intercultural communicator I am strong when it comes to illustrating, assertiveness.

According to Neuliep, assertiveness is described as, “one’s ability to make requests; actively

disagree; express positive or negative personal rights and feelings; initiate, sustain, and terminate

conversations; and defend oneself without attacking others” (pg.298). I am generally able to

confront people with a cool temperament. Being assertive can come across in a couple of ways.

One time when I was in high school, I was working at this retail store that specifically retailed

women. I had a woman at my counter (I sold fragrances). I believe she was from an eastern

European country. She got upset with me, because I had complimented a piece of jewelry she

was wearing. She called me stupid, and demanded I get a manager to help her. I had no idea what

I had done wrong, but here I was in the middle of a conflict I never intended to set out. I used my
assertive qualities to tell her I was sorry, and expressed I was only trying to extend kindness. She

had kept calling me stupid, so at that point I terminated the conversation.

Another concept I find I am strong with is, responsiveness. Responsiveness is described by

Neuilep as, “one’s ability to be sensitive to the communication of others; be a good listener;

engage in comforting communication of others and recognize the needs and wants of relevant

others” (pg.298). One time when I was in the early stages of college, I was working for a bank in

my home-town. The bank was located next to several residencies that were known to house

foreigners. One day, about twelve Middle Eastern individuals came in to discuss several

overdrawn balances. I felt horrible, because they were struggling to discuss with myself and the

other tellers their problems. I could hardly understand them, but nevertheless it didn’t stop me

from engaging in comforting communication by letting them know we would solve the problem.

While I posses a few positive characteristics, I do have some negative ones.

As an intercultural communicator I am weak when it comes to the uncertainty reduction.

Uncertainty reduction maintains that: “when strangers first meet, their primary goal is to reduce

uncertainty” (Neuliep, pg.319). I can be proactive in interacting with another person from

another culture, but I am offer little in reciprocity. A couple of months ago, my husband and I

invited our friend Cody over for dinner. Unannounced he brought his girlfriend with. This was

the first time I had met her, and you could sense the uncertainty between us. The night went

smoothly for the most part, we conversed and engaged in small talk, but then all of a sudden we

overheard her telling Cody that she wanted to leave. This incident increased so much uncertainty

between us that I felt like I really disliked her. Turns out her father had flown in from London,

and she wanted to spend her time with him. It was all an error in miscommunication and looking

back I empathize with her that day. A while back we had gotten together again, and it turns out
we have more in common, so the uncertainty we had between us was greatly reduced. This

course taught me to embrace uncertainty, and in doing so I gained a great friend.

Another weakness I have at times is facework, “the various ways one might deal with

conflict and face” (Neuliep, pg. 330). I have noticed within myself that I defend the self-face, but

have done so in ill manners at time. When I have been confronted with intercultural conflict I

have concerned myself with avoiding face concerns. I often try to interpret and overanalyze

facial concepts of others in an individualistic viewpoint rather than i.e. a collectivistic.

In order to improve my weaknesses in intercultural communication I feel I could benefit

with the following tactics. The first is if I was more self-reflective. Being more self-reflective

would mean that I would take the time to reflect on my own communication, motivation style,

and assess the areas where I can improve with my intercultural communication. Second,

embracing more intercultural communication situations would open doors and opportunities in

which I could gain experience. Third, demonstrate respect when engaged in intercultural

communication. By doing so, maybe instead of losing intercultural relationships I could gain

more.
 Works Cited

Neuliep, J. (2009). Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.