Yet another example of how intercultural learning is very different from international relations: the goals sought by studying culture can vary significantly.

ICL improves the way we connect to other people.

Learning about other cultures through the concepts and theories of intercultural learning allows people to understand the meaning and context of culture, and then use that knowledge to interact with people from different cultures in a more understanding, cooperative and respectful way. Enthusiasts of theoretical intercultural learning find that particular achievement as an end unto itself and the field’s raison d’être. However, this is not always the goal in mind for people working with the concepts and theories of international relations. Intercultural learning focuses on the interpersonal and individual level, while international relations focuses on the state and organizational level, particularly with emphasis on the concept of cultural soft power.

One of the most studied areas within the field of international relations revolves around how states (not necessarily cultures, see last week’s post) should measure and invest political and economic power. Scholars have an ongoing discussion about different types of influence, such as soft power.  Soft power is the political influence one state can have on other states via perceived attractive qualities. Culture plays a key role in this theory, but can have a very different perspective from the distinct field of intercultural learning.

Culture plays a role in this international relations concept because many

International Relations is more focused on State to State interactions

who study the subject believe that a state’s popular culture, society, history and general way of life can lead to international admiration. It is the hope that increased interest in a national culture will also increase willingness of other states to cooperate with the government of that culture. In terms of international relations, this is one clear goal in mind when some engage in cultural exchange. As you can see, this type of goal greatly contrasts with the goal of a cultural exchange from an intercultural learning perspective.

Cultural exchange in an intercultural learning context has more of a two-way focus. In intercultural learning, the overall goal of exchanging cultural qualities is not to attract a higher level of cooperation with a state or organization. In contrast, the goal of studying culture in an intercultural learning context is to leverage difference and to increase mutual understanding and tolerance to improve interpersonal cooperation.

However, sometimes the two subjects overlap. International political scientist  Milton C. Cummings has described the term cultural diplomacy as “the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding.” This interpretation of soft power has more of an orientation towards intercultural learning.

While soft power in an international relations context can include such aspects of cultural diplomacy, a clear goal has been to use it as a way to increase the influence of the state internationally. In contrast, by increasing intercultural understanding, enthusiasts of intercultural learning have a very different focus, one that is far removed from the use of cultural soft power in international relations. Cultural diplomacy, like most aspects of intercultural learning, is about people-to-people interaction with mutual understanding as the end result. Studying culture in an international relations context does not always have only this goal in mind.

In many ways participants in AFS exchanges regularly engage in this sort of citizen diplomacy. While living abroad, AFSers, whether consciously or not, learn the ideals, practices, and beliefs of their home and host cultures. At the end of the program, the AFSer should have a greater understanding of culture. This is the goal that makes intercultural learning distinct as a field of study and differentiates it from others. It is consequently essential that AFS everywhere employ the unique intercultural learning theories and techniques to ensure that culture learning and adjustment are facilitated properly and with the greatest chance of success.

Paul Edinger is a strategic operations intern for the Intercultural Learning department at AFS International, where he works to facilitate the implementation of ICL strategy throughout the AFS Network. His time at AFS began in April of 2011 with the Development and Branding department and he continues in 2012 as an intern for ICL. Prior to joining AFS he taught English, Spanish and computer literacy courses to Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants to the United States while obtaining his B.A. in International Studies with a concentration in Latin America. He completed minors in Anthropology, Political Science, Latino Studies, and Spanish Language Studies.