Is culture like an onion, an iceberg, or some kind of computer software? (2024)

Metaphors for Culture and Intercultural Learning

When talking about intercultural learning (ICL) in AFS, we often say that culture is like an iceberg, with its small part visible from the surface and a significantly larger part hidden underneath. This implies that if one is not aware of the existence of the hidden part, they are very likely to crash and sink. At the Forum on Intercultural Learning and Exchange held in September 2013 in Italy, Milton Bennett raised the question of appropriateness of metaphors we use to talk about culture, challenging the very commonly used iceberg image and showing that in many respects it can be misleading. Firstly, it implies that culture is something static and has clear boundaries, so a student can “learn about” it, which is not really the case, because the idea of ICL is experience and involvement. Perhaps it would make more sense to envision culture as a river — fluid and dynamic. Another issue is whether the danger implied by the iceberg image is something we want to highlight when we try to explain what culture is. Bennett’s remark is a great opportunty for us in AFS to critcally assess the metaphors we use in our presentations, handbooks, trainng material, and even our posters and advertsments.

If we take a closer look at how we talk about ICL, we very soon realise that we constantly and inevitably rely on conceptual metaphors. Metaphors enable us to use concrete, tangible and familiar phenomena in order to talk about more abstract concepts, in this case culture and intercultural learning, which are less tangible and more difficult to grasp. Moreover, the metaphors we use not only help us talk about ICL, but more importantly, enable us to think about it. Without them, we would not be able to have any images and ideas of ICL and how it works.

Thanks to metaphors we are able to say that intercultural learning is a journey, not a destination, and we often ask our students to reflect on their learning path. Sometimes we visualise this path as linear, but when we want to talk about the experiential aspect of learning and refer to David Kolb’s model, we envision the learning process as circular. On the other hand, we envision culture as an iceberg, onion, or some kind of computer software (or as Hofstede put it “mental programme”). Finally, intercultural encounters are also conceptualised metaphorically an image commonly used in AFS is the image of a fish jumping out of its bowl into another one. All these metaphors enable us to uderstand what ICL is and explain it to others in order to raise their awareness of culture and related concepts.

Nevertheless, as pointed out by Lakoff and Johnson, the authors of conceptual metaphor theory, one of the key properties of metaphors is that they highlight some aspects of concepts, but at the same time hide some others. For example, the ONION metaphor highlights that culture consists of different layers and has a core made of values, while the ICEBERG metaphor highlights that many aspects of culture

are not immediately visible. The FISHBOWL metaphor shows that when one leaves their culture they tend to feel like a fish out of water. At the same time these metaphors hide the fact that cultures often have no clear boundaries and are not hom*ogenous, like it is the case with water in a fishbowl. The ICEBERG metaphor warns us against the danger, but does not show how to approach the iceberg and explore the depths. Consequently, this image may make culture seem frightening, as suggested by Bennett. The SOFTWARE metaphor highlights that a person tends to think and behave in certain manner automatically as a member of a culture, but at the same time neglects the interpersonal aspect of the concept of culture, which is essential for people who take part in intercultural exchange.

If we compare these commonly used metaphors, it is obvious that none of them can sucessfully capture everything that we want to tell our students, volunteers and external audiences. We can therefore conclude that there is no one best way to metaphorically express what culture or intercultural learning is. We rather have to be aware that there are different metaphors, highlighting something and hiding something else. If we are aware of this, then we can use metahors more successfully, being careful about when we use which metaphor in order to make our point efficiently and not mislead our audience. Since there is no such thing as a universally applicable metaphor that works in every situation, instead of sticking blindly to one visualisation of culture and ICL, we should explore our options and choose from the variety of metaphors we have at our disposal. Although far from being perfect, they are our very useful and indispensable tool.

The following post is contributed by Dunja Zivanovic who works for AFS Serbia, as a program coordinator and trainer. She is a member of the pool of trainers of the European Federation for Intercultural Learning (EFIL) and Training on Intercultural Learning Advisory Body. She also does research in the field of intercultural learning, mainly focusing on learning outcomes of student mobility. This text originally appeared in the EFILife newsletter.

Originally published at www.afs.org on September 3, 2014.