Karen+Interpretivism

I tried to think of beliefs that are cultural in nature. Child rearing was the first to come to mind. As stated by Hatch and Yanow, a human social science " requires understanding how groups and individuals within them, develop, express, and communicate meaning, something that objective, unmediated observations (if that were even possible) cannot yield (p.66)". The examples in an article, a resource of the Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, support exactly that. The article speaks specifically to perceptions of child abuse and neglect and the difficulty in making judgements of what is right or wrong based on our own cultural backgrounds. The link is to the CASA site. [] Conventional wisdom might lead one to believe that child abuse and neglect would be easily identified regardless of cultural boundaries. As one begins to explore the considerable variation in child rearing beliefs and behaviors cross-culturally, however, it becomes clear that there is not a universal standard for child rearing, nor for child abuse and neglect. This presents a dilemma. If we fail to allow for a cultural perspective in defining child abuse and neglect, we find ourselves in the position in which our own set of cultural beliefs and practices are presumed to be preferable, and in fact superior, to another. At the same time, we cannot take the stance of accepting inhumane treatment of children in the name of cultural sensitivity.
 * Child Rearing**
 * [[image:http://www.casanet.org/images/spacer-blk.gif width="615" height="4"]] ||
 * [[image:http://www.casanet.org/_a/banner-home.gif width="28" height="14" caption="Go Home" link="http://www.casanet.org/index.htm"]] ||
 * [[image:http://www.casanet.org/_a/banner-resource-07.gif width="243" height="49"]] ||  || [[image:http://www.casanet.org/_a/banner-resource-09.gif width="61" height="49" caption="Home" link="http://www.casanet.org/index.htm"]] ||
 * [[image:http://www.casanet.org/images/circle-go-back.gif width="56" height="23" link="http://www.casanet.org/program-management/diversity/cultural-child.htm#"]] ||
 * **CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON CHILD REARING**
 * Excerpt:** The National CASA Volunteer Training Curriculum, Unit 3 Cultural Awareness
 * Author****:** National CASA

Culture, no matter whose it is, is never an excuse for hurting children, and virtually all cultures have as a value that children may not be damaged. In every culture, members of the community have a responsibility to intervene when children are being hurt -- that's clear. However, what behavior we label as abusive or neglectful, how we go about intervening, how we understand the causes of problems, and what we do to help alleviate the stresses, have much to do with our understanding of the family's culture and what is normal or acceptable within that culture.

Western cultures consider, for example, the harsh initiation rites that occur in other parts of the world as abusive. During such rites, pre-adolescent boys may undergo genital operations, facial scaring, beatings, and hazing by older members of the group. Sharp reeds are used to induce bleeding of the tongue, nostrils, or urethra. They sometimes are deprived of food or forced to vomit by inverting long canes down their throats.

At the same time, many Western child rearing practices would be viewed as equally abusive or neglectful by these same groups. Practices such as isolating children in beds or rooms of their own at night, making children wait for food when they are hungry, forcing young children to sit in a classroom all day, or allowing infants to "cry themselves out" would seem bizarre, exotic, and damaging as their behaviors seem to us.

Misinterpretation of physical trauma frequently results in inappropriate intervention by authorities. Consider the following case:

It was reported to Child Protective Services that a mother had cut the faces of her two young sons with a razor blade and rubbed charcoal into the lacerations. The boys were removed from her care and placed into foster care. She was prosecuted for child abuse. However, the mother was a member of an East African tribe that traditionally practices facial scaring. Her actions were simply an attempt to assert the cultural identity of her children. Without such markings, her boys would be unable to participate as adults in their culture. A failure to assure one's children of such scars would thus be viewed as neglectful or abusive within the cultural context of her tribe.

Another example often misunderstood is the Vietnamese practice of "coin rubbing" in which heated metal coins are pressed forcefully on the child's body leaving bruises. This practice is a traditional curing technique that is believed to reduce fevers, chills, and headaches. While bruises are indeed inflicted, in this context it can hardly be defined as child abuse.


 * From these examples, we can see that it is difficult to compare diverse practices taken out of their cultural contexts.** How would we explain to the East African mother or the Vietnamese that their traditions are abusive while orthodontic work, for example, in our culture is not only acceptable but often desirable? All these practices inflict pain on the child. However, viewed within their cultural contexts, they are practices aimed at benefiting the child by making him or her physically acceptable to other members of the culture. ||

When doing a Google search I came across an interesting business, Cultural Perspectives. This consulting business provides maketing assistance when doing business worldwide but specially in non-English speaking countries. The site also refers to respecting protocol and cultural beliefs in those markets. Interesting concept for a business - to provide cultural consultation. Hatch and Yanow's assertion that " socal 'reality' may be construed differently by different people: the social world we inhabit and experience is potentially a world of multiple realities, multiple interpretations (p.67)" supports the premise of this organization. The world as a marketplace would need to attend to those realities and interpretations. []
 * Cultural Perspectives**

Educators in Campus Ministry programs are relationship artists as opposed to technicians. On the axes, a faith program would be on the interpretivist side. Campus Ministry programs help students understand the world through individual experiences. As individuals in a diverse student population, students are making meaning based on their own experience. As stated on the website, "No student, staff member, or visitor should be able to get far in the building without being **//invited//**, by some clearly evident medium, to be attentive to the presence and call of God. " The culture of faith drives the program and service is a significant element in the program. Students are asked to make sense of the needs of others around them, which they do "in the context of the event or experience, informed by prior knowledge (Hatch and Yanow, p. 67)." []
 * Pius XI High School Campus Ministry**

Interpretivism