papa's love
Outline of Presentation The text is divided into two parts. The first part is "The nature of Intercultural understanding" In this part, two questions are posed: 1. Is intercultural Understanding Possible and Desirable? 2. Can We Understand What We Have Not Experienced? The second part is "The Tension between Assimilation and Preservation of One's Cultural Identity." Four Examples are being listed out. In answering the first question, there are several points I generated out from the context. 1. Understanding others doesn't imply that we become identical with them. e.g. The ethnologist who understands members of a foreign culture does not need to become one of them. To study causation or curability psychopathy we don't have to become like this: [video] 2. Due to egocentrism and ethnocentrism, we cease to understand others whenever we feel that it could threaten our stereotypes and prejudices. 3. There is a distinction between understanding a foreign culture and being accepted by it. Those who understand a foreign culture might be rejected by it. 4. Infeasibility of Understanding pro: The gulf between cultures is regarded as unbridgeable. Another culture can never be fully understood. con: All understanding is limited. In answering the second question -- "Can We Understand What We Have Not Experienced?" The author points out that Understanding means we become aware of what is different.