Cross-cultural Literacy and Intercultural Competence: Unraveling the nexus from 5 well-informed perspectives

INTRODUCTION: A project promoting cross-cultural learning in the age of globalization

The DIALLS Project, short for Dialogue and Argumentation for Cultural Literacy Learning in Schools, is an innovative initiative aimed at fostering cross-cultural skills and intercultural communication among students. Through the power of literature and the arts, DIALLS brings together classrooms characterised by cultural diversity across multicultural Europe to engage in meaningful dialogue and exchange perspectives on various topics. DIALLS purposes to equip students with the knowledge and skills to become informed, empathetic, and open-minded global citizens.

Reading about this thus brings me to reflect on my most recent article on Intercultural Competence. The DIALLS Project seems to align with the broader initiative to foster Intercultural Competence in EU students. Nevertheless, it employs the term “Cultural Literacy” rather than the widely used “Intercultural Competence” in the EU context.

Given this, I feel compelled to juxtapose CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY and INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE in an article for scrutiny. Are both terms synonymous with each other? Or are they different constructs of which we should be mindful? Most importantly, how do they affect us as language educators?

Revisiting INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE

First things first, let me address the keyword of the day and quote myself from the previous article: “INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE is the ability (underpinned by attitudes, knowledge and skills) to navigate and interact with people from different cultural backgrounds and social groups effectively and appropriately.”

Just note that INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE is also not the only term that is being used widely. Other competing terms which denote similar meanings with slight nuances beyond the ostensible form include: “intercultural communicative competence”, “transcultural communication competence”, “cross-cultural adaptive ability”, “cultural sensitivity”, “cross-cultural awareness”, “global competitive intelligence”, “international communicative competence”, and “cultural intelligence” (Deardorff, 2015; Lantz-Deaton & Golubeva, 2020; Leung, Ang & Tan, 2014; Matveev, 2021).

Beyond that, however, we also see “CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY” existing within literature and getting attention as one of the “emerging 21st Century Competencies”, at least in the context of Singapore if not others. Some of us may wonder: is it another synonym that academics have coined in parallel again?

1. Unpacking “CROSS-CULTURAL” vs “INTERCULTURAL”

Let us unpack the intricacies embedded in the overt prefixes to “cultural” first. Between “cross-” and “inter-”, “cross-” alludes to intersection, links, comparison and contrast, and mixtures; while “inter-” tends to suggest interactions and establishing relationships.

In that sense, “cross-cultural” emphasises the contact between different cultures without overstating the relationships between entities within the contact, while “intercultural” foregrounds the nature and dynamics of engagement within an encounter of people and their entities across cultures. 

I’m hesitant to suggest that academics have deliberately inject nuanced differences into the terms they coined; it’s important to recognise that “cross-cultural” and “intercultural” may still convey similar concepts as used within many peer-reviewed articles. What is definite, though, is that academics are wanting to highlight the cross cultural encounters specifically through both terms.

Notwithstanding such, my personal preference goes to “intercultural” as I would want to bring into salience the transformative potential of these encounters, particularly with the possibility in nurturing relationships between humans.

2. Can Literacy be equivalent to Competence (since we have heard of cross-cultural competence and intercultural literacy)?

If academics did not delineate the difference between “cross-cultural” in relation to “intercultural” in a precise manner, our key insight may lie in examining the contrast between “literacy” and “competence”.

I have earlier established “INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE” as an ability which is a composite set of attitudes, knowledge and skills in handling intercultural encounters effectively and appropriately. Does “literacy” evoke similar semantic representations?

One of the earliest definitions of literacy within a cultural context that is frequently referenced is the one formulated by E.D. Hirsch, where “cultural literacy” was framed as the “world knowledge” or “the network of information that all competent readers possess” (Hirsch, 1988). In other words, it is the requisite core content knowledge to support traditional literacy – reading and writing as we know it to be.

Hirsch’s definition has faced criticism from scholars of cultural literacy, some of whom argue that it is rooted in nationalistic ideals, where one culture serves as the ‘norm’ for comparison and contrast. Others contend that it does not align with the actual realities on the ground (Johnson, 2014; Shliakhovchuk, 2021). Consequently, scholars engaging with the term explicitly distance themselves from the original definition (García Ochoa & McDonald, 2019; García Ochoa, McDonald & Monk, 2016; Maine & Vrikki, 2021; Maine, Cook & Lähdesmäki, 2019).

So, how did these scholars conceptualise literacy within the cultural context? Common conceptions present it as dispositions of openness and respect (Arvizu & Saravia-Shore, 1990), attitudes and skills to recognise and interact with cultural artefacts with the intent to communicate, compare and critique in a collaborative manner (Caball et al., 2013; García Ochoa & McDonald, 2019; García Ochoa, McDonald & Monk, 2016) or to participate in a dynamic social practice involving dialogues contextualised within cultural engagement (Maine & Vrikki, 2021; Maine, Cook & Lähdesmäki, 2019).

In short, literacy in dealing with elements of culture generally lends the metaphor of traditional literacy (reading and writing) and relates to the capacity to decode and encode cultural elements in a preferred manner (e.g. openness, respect, collaborative).

So, if I were to scrutinise the similarities and differences, literacy appears as a standalone component or dimension, or as a synthesis of components or dimensions within a model of INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE. Back to the question: “Can Literacy be equivalent to Competence?”. The simple reductionist answer appears to be ‘no’ for now.

3. CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY as a subset of INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE

Let’s dig in a bit deeper as how CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY can be a subset of INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE, which means that gaining CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY helps in the acquisition of INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE.

At the very core, literacy is a form of readiness. Just as traditional literacy prepares one for the intellectual demands of society, CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY equips an individual with the necessary knowledge and skills to interact effectively in a culturally diverse environment.

Remember that INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE foregrounds interactions with “people from different cultural backgrounds and social groups” as part of the definition? People bring different cultural idiosyncrasies into interactions, and we can never anticipate and rehearse every possible scenario out there where our learners have to engage people from other cultures different from one’s own. 

Having the capacity to decode and encode cultural elements from diverse groups, as implied within CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY, would empower us to accommodate cultural differences, deal with them adaptively, and comprehend the dynamic interplay of multiple cultural elements in a given context.

To be effective in an intercultural encounter is to accomplish the intended objectives of the interaction, such as successful negotiation or conflict resolution. At the same time, achieving these objectives should involve measures which are culturally appropriate (e.g. respecting and valuing the cultural norms of other parties involved in the interaction). In this regard, a high level of CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY invariably assists individuals in adopting effective and culturally appropriate strategies during intercultural dealings.

4. Contextualising the discussion within language education

Back to our roles as language educators. In the current face-off between CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY and INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE, our eyes are of course focused on the larger picture of INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE as language educators. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the development of CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY plays a pivotal role in fostering this overarching ability.

We have established that “the process of learning a second language or foreign language signifies the commitment to building INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE”, especially when our learners are seeking to connect with the speech communities who do not share their first language(s). More than that, we know that language learning extends beyond the learning of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.

How then, can we be more purposeful in the cultivation of growth in CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY in the language classroom? Below are some broad tips that can shape our pedagogy for intercultural learning:

• Strengthening the integration of curricular content related to various cultures (e.g. authentic media and texts of speech communities that use our target language predominantly);
• Curation of language learning experiences (e.g. short immersion trips) that challenges our learners to adapt to unfamiliar phenomena embedded in cultural differences;
• Developing our students’ sensitivity to a variety of cultural elements, both tangible and non-tangible, and refining their skills in deciphering those entities through projects such as a linguistic landscaping project;
• Facilitating personal connections and sharing based on trigger activities that draw heightened awareness to cultural nuances;
• Providing linguistic labelling for abstract concepts related to attitudes, skills and knowledge relevant to cross-cultural literacy thus levelling up their capacity for metacognitive reflection; and
• Invite guest speakers with common or comparable cultural identity as our learners and who model cross-cultural literacy through exemplars to share insights and experiences with our learners.

5. The move to consistency of terms to support language educators from different cultural backgrounds

Although I’m unsure about the level of our personal involvement in academic research, I’ve always found it challenging to navigate the presence of competing terms in academia. To truly comprehend a concept, I make it my commitment to be able to define it accurately and succinctly.

In any case, I want to avoid introducing new terminology for a concept that already has a widely recognised label. Having extraneous academic terms denoting similar constructs would impede rather than facilitate discussions on those topics.

Yet, I do find it very common in encountering competing terms for similar concepts. To be fair, this phenomenon arises due to a myriad of reasons, chiefly among which are the diverse perspectives, interaction of varied disciplinary backgrounds, and the evolving nature of scholarly inquiry. Scholars from different disciplines often bring their unique viewpoints and terminologies to the table when studying similar phenomena, resulting in a profusion of terms for comparable concepts.

That being said, I still look forward to maintaining a good degree of common language used on this website. That is fundamentally why I wanted to do up the glossary of terms, to support fellow language educators in navigating such terms as well as to maintain some consistency as we discussed such issues on the website.

Consistent use of academic terms creates a common language, enabling us to better collaborate and share knowledge. Ideally, if everyone in the field uses the same terms to describe concepts, theories, and practices, it eliminates ambiguity and confusion. This consistency promotes a solid foundation for dialogue, research, and the development of effective teaching strategies. All the more so, when we may be coming from different cultural backgrounds.

As a side note, I do understand that gaining CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY is indeed about navigating decoding and encoding cultural differences effectively, and practitioners could benefit a lot from acquiring interdisciplinary academic literacy. BUT let me also assert that intercultural understanding can only be reached when differences are appreciated within common understanding for unity within diversity – akin to us engaging research as language educators. 

Making a difference in language education, one sip at a time. Support my work with a coffee?

Conclusion: Bridging cultural differences while distilling CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY and INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE

If there is one key message that I hope we take away from this article, is that INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE is much more a relevant term for language learning as an overarching goal of attainment while CROSS-CULTURAL LITERACY is recognised as a critical component that helps our learners achieve the overarching goal.

Language learning, especially that of a second language or foreign language, is itself inherently instrumental in progressing towards competence. To enhance this process, language educators can take a more intentional approach in designing and executing language learning curricula that are purposeful and strategically aligned. Would definitely look forward to hearing success stories from our endeavours in doing so!

Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.