University of Craiova
Department of Communication, Journalism and Education Science
Center for Scientific Research in
Communication Sciences, Media and Public Opinion
(CCSCMOP)
Social Sciences and Education Research Review
Volume 7, Issue 1, 2020
ISSN 2393–1264
ISSN–L 2392–9863
Director
Professor PhD Habil. Ștefan Vlăduțescu, University of Craiova,
Romania
Chief Editor
Associate Professor PhD Habil. Claudiu Marian Bunăiașu,
University of Craiova, Romania
Deputy Chief Editor
Assistant Professor PhD Xenia Negrea, University of Craiova,
Romania
Editorial Board
Associate Professor PhD Alina Țenescu, University of Craiova, Romania
Assistant Professor PhD Alexandru Constantin Strungă, University of
Craiova, Romania
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND TEACHING EXPERIENCES ON
DISTANCE EDUCATION THROUGH SYNCHRONOUS VIDEO
CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC ............................8
Gökhan ORHAN, Ömer BEYHAN
INFLATION AND GROWTH WITH THE MIU APPROACH AND
THE EQUATION OF EXCHANGE .........................................................45
Wei-Bin ZHANG
CHARACTER BUILDING IN STUDENTS’ DEVIANT BEHAVIOR
AT SMA NEGERI 1 KUTALIMBARU, DELI SERDANG,
INDONESIA.................................................................................................72
Donald Tagino HUTAGAOL, Sismudjito, Hadriana Marhaeni MUNTHE,
Rizabuana ISMAIL, Henry SITORUS
PREVALENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF ALCOHOL USE ON
SCHOOLING AMONG ADOLESCENTS IN GENDER-SPECIFIC
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ONITSHA EDUCATION ZONE,
ANAMBRA STATE ....................................................................................91
Elizabeth Ifeoma ANIEROBI, Kingsley Chinaza NWOSU, Mary Nneka
NWIKPO, Nkechi Uzochukwu OKEKE
ACCREDITATION RANKING IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY (A
CASE STUDY AT IAIN AMBON) ..........................................................109
Mar’atun SHALIHAH, Mohammad H. HOLLE
A ROMANIAN AND ICELANDIC LANGUAGE STUDENT’S
PROFILE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EDUCATION FOR
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP ..............................................................129
Monica TILEA, Oana-Adriana DUȚĂ, Sigríður ÓLAFSDÓTTIR
5
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRATIC
CITIZENSHIP (EDC) COMPETENCES IN THE ICELANDIC AND
ROMANIAN CONTEXT..........................................................................144
Alina S. REȘCEANU, Anh-Dao K. TRAN, Magnús Á.S. MAGNÚSSON
CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
AND INNOVATION COMPETENCES IN THE TRAINING OF
PRIMARY AND PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION TEACHERS ............166
Claudiu Marian BUNĂIAŞU
FROM MULTICULTURALISM TO INTERCULTURATION:
CURRENT SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES ....................................177
Simona RODAT
USING OF THE STUDY ON ENERGY PROFILE IN THE
PREDICTING OF THE SUBSTITUTION REACTION OCCURRING
AT THE CHEMISTRY COURSE...........................................................194
Sergiu CODREANU, Ion ARSENE, Eduard COROPCEANU
MATERIAL, INTENTION AND ORIENTATION OF THE MESSAGE
.....................................................................................................................212
Ștefan VLĂDUȚESCU
RESPONSE TO TWO-MODE OF EXERCISE TRAINING (BRISK
WALKING AND JOGGING) OF UNIVERSITY STAFF HIGHDENSITY LIPOPROTEIN ......................................................................225
Edward Odogbu ODO, Charlse Okey OGU
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION AND ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AS
CORRELATES OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AMONG
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS IN NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNVERSITY
(NAU), AWKA ...........................................................................................242
Elizabeth Ifeoma ANIEROBI, , Gabriel Chidi UNACHUKWU
6
Available online at www.sserr.ro
Social Sciences and Education Research Review
(7) 1 177 - 193 (2020)
ISSN 2393–1264
ISSN–L 2392–9863
FROM MULTICULTURALISM TO
INTERCULTURATION: CURRENT SOCIOLOGICAL
APPROACHES
Simona RODAT
Professor, PhD, Adventus University
simona.rodat@uadventus.ro
Abstract
Due to the dynamism and heterogeneity specific to most societies
nowadays, cultural diversity is a constant of social life. Therefore, different
cultural identities, cultural contacts and exchanges, interculturality, but also
subcultures and countercultures are, in today’s globalized world, features of
contemporary societies, characterized by multiculturalism and social mobility.
Especially as a result of the new waves of migration and fleeing in recent
years, new discussions in the academic field have emerged related to the new
contexts of cultural diversity, multiculturalism, cultural integration, social
inclusion. The cultural impact and the various contrasts between the native
culture of immigrants and the culture of the host societies generated debates
and polemics both in political and scientific sphere. This paper deals with the
current sociological approaches as regards interculturality and the major
cultural processes and phenomena that emerge in a multicultural society. In
177
this respect, a general framework for addressing these issues is delineated, and
notions
such
as
human
and
cultural
diversity,
multiculturalism,
interculturality, acculturation, interculturation, but also concepts of subculture
and counterculture are discussed. The current views and approaches in
sociology are highlighted and the complexity and the difficulties that
epitomise and accompany some cultural processes are pointed out.
Keywords:
diversity,
multiculturalism,
interculturality,
acculturation,
interculturation, subculture, counterculture
Human diversity and its challenges
Human diversity has been acknowledged since ancient times.
However, it was rarely a subject as such in the social and human sciences
(Jucquois 2005). Diversity, as a reality and as a property of beings and things
to exist in multiple and different forms, has over time been framed in
taxonomies that followed the specificities of certain civilizations and epochs,
and often these classifications had the role to clarify the differences and to
justify the existing hierarchies and social order.
Since the first half of the nineteenth century, the scientific approach to
diversity went through several paradigms, from the vision of linear historical
progress that “scientifically”20 justified colonialism, to promoting the idea that
not all human “races” have reached the same stage of development, therefore
the “upper race” (whites) must assume the role of teaching and civilizing the
“inferior races”, and to the deeper reflection that followed the two disasters
created by world wars in the first part of the 20th century.
20
The quotation marks used in this paragraph for references to “races”, including the
justification, considered at that time “scientific”, of different hierarchies, are meant to mark
the distancing of the author of this paper from these ideas.
178
Currently there is no unified approach to diversity in the various sociohuman sciences (Schultze 2009, Wieviorka 1998). However, there is an
agreement that diversity is still the risk factor of potential major conflicts, and
it finds itself in the nucleus of still persistent imbalances in the world, in ethnic
and nationalist claims, totalitarian derivations or various forms of violence in
societies, which leads to the need to create – or refine, where it already exists
– systems of political and citizen regulation based on pluralism. However, this
finding remains at the stage of a rather abstract goal.
Neither at a political nor at a scientific level, concrete answers were
found to the question: which are the mechanisms through which the peaceful
coexistence of groups and communities, whose values, beliefs, desires,
projects and interests are different, would be possible? The stake of these
answers is enormous, given the acute current problems that divide societies
and threaten the existence of entire communities (Jucquois 2005, 214).
Cultural diversity in societies that have received new waves of
immigrants and refugees raises a number of practical and political difficulties.
The problems faced by these societies show that, at least at present, the past
models of the political approach to diversity are no longer working. That is
why it appears currently as necessary to conceive new models, adapted to the
new conditions and functional in the current situation. One should be also
aware about the stringency of finding such solutions. This process proves to
be difficult, given that it implies not only solutions that involve structural
changes, that can be decided at political and administrative level, but also –
above all – solutions that involve socio-cultural changes, that is, at the level
of values, norms, symbolic representations, mentalities, and this is the level at
which changes are the slowest and most difficult in a society.
179
Multiculturalism and cultural identities
At a general level, the term of “multiculturalism” designates the
coexistence in a society of several different cultures, and at a more specific
level the social response to the multitude of concrete problems generated by
the coexistence of populations perceived as – or which consider themselves as
– different (Policar 2005, 451). The first experiences of institutionalizing of
multicultural actions and implementing such policies took place in Canada,
Australia and Sweden (ibid., 450). For example, in Sweden, an immigration
country for Finns and Yugoslavs in the 1970s, the multiculturalist policy
adopted in 1975 was based on three fundamental principles (ibid.): equality
between minority groups and the majority population in terms of living
standards; the freedom to choose between the identity of the own ethnic group
and the Swedish cultural identity; ensuring lucrative labour relations for the
Swedish economy’s productivity. As can be seen in this example, as well as
from the Canadian and Australian experiences, there was an indissoluble link
at the level of politics between cultural particularism and participation in
economic life, which drew M. Wieviorka (1998) to talk about “integrated
multiculturalism”. By using this term, Wieviorka described the phenomenon
through which the social and cultural demands of the minority groups are
interconnected, as are the general economic needs of the host country and its
political and moral values (Wieviorka 1998, 238).
On the other hand, experiences in the USA have determined other
forms
of
policies,
multiculturalism”
which
(ibid.,
Wieviorka
244).
Thus,
characterizes
the
as
“crumbled
institutionalization
of
multiculturalism followed in this country two distinct types of logic: one of a
socio-economic nature, and another of an identitarian nature. The first logic
characterized the so-called affirmative action policy, whose goal was social
equality. In this logic, there have been taken, among others, measures of
positive discrimination, such as quota policies and countervailing measures
180
designed for ethnic minorities and women. And yet – and hence the associated
criticisms and malfunctions – from such policies did not benefit individuals
regarded as disadvantaged or impaired, but abstract collective entities. The
second logic, that of policies of recognition, aimed at the acknowledgment of
cultural differences as an essential expression of human dignity. Such policies
implied obtaining political recognition of rights and privileges based on
ethnicity, but also, at a meta-level, the acquisition of a better social visibility
and a more equitable access to the public space arena (Policar 2005, 451).
Cultural identities are being constructed and reconstructed not only by
learning the norms and internalizing the values within the own group, but,
above all, by comparing with other groups, and the main sociological
mechanism that allows this comparison is the cultural contact (Azzi and Klein
1998, 77). In this context, there are made references to notions such as
“interculturality” and “acculturation”, through which the interaction between
two or more cultures, with all the involved exchanges, combinations, takings
over, but also rejections and conflicts, is designated, as well as the term of
“interculturation”, which is used to indicate the awareness and the recognition
of cultural differences in a society.
Interculturality, acculturation and interculturation
The human cultural diversity in a given society is often referred by
using the concept of interculturality. Originally, this term designated the
multitude of relations between cultures, thus rather involving a static vision
regarding culture. Currently, the term has acquired more complex
connotations, referring to the relations that exist within a society between the
majority and the minority groups in terms of culture (Dietz 2018, 1), thus
including the relations with regard to ethnicity, nationality, religion, language,
customs, rituals etc.
181
In contrast to the references of the concept of multiculturalism or the
alternative notion of “multiculturality”, which highlight the coexistence in a
society of several different cultures, interculturality indicates rather the power
balance that acknowledges who belongs to the majority and who is
“stigmatized” as a minority (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2011). The relations
between the majority-minority constellations are mainly asymmetrical in
respect of political, social and economic power, and they frequently reflect
historically patterns of denying diversity, stigmatizing otherness, or
discriminating particular groups (Dietz 2009).
Until recently, Western societies denied to a greater or lesser extent the
heterogeneity (Blanchet and Francard 2005, 334). Their interculturality or
cultural contact with the so-called “primitive societies” during the
colonization, or with the ethnic immigrant groups, on the occasion of the first
immigration waves, materialized in the form of a rather unilateral
acculturation, in which the relationship between the majority group and the
minority ethnic groups was unequal, and the reduction of the differences was
always in favour of the dominant system (ibid.).
One sense of the complex concept of “acculturation” refers to the
process of learning the norms, values and behaviours expected by the social
and cultural environment that is foreign to someone, individuals and groups
alike. Regarding immigrants and immigration issues, the term of acculturation
can be used to designate the process of learning the norms, values and
behaviours expected by the culture in which the individual/ group immigrated
(Chadraba and O’Keefe 2011, 7). Acculturation means, in this context, what
is socially and culturally expected from the immigrants who want to settle and
stay in the host country, or, in other words, a cultural “adjustment” of
minorities (immigrants) to the majority culture.
Over the time, acculturation has manifested itself as an epiphenomenon
of conquests, colonisations, subjugations and political and economic
182
domination (Geană 1993, 18), often having a forced character. In order to
depict this imposed nature, the term of “assimilation” was used instead of that
of acculturation.
The cultural assimilation, which was the dominant norm in USA until
the second half of the 20th century (Gordon 1964; Farley 1982), was
understood as unilateral process through which the immigrants and their
descendants gave up their culture of origin and fully adopted the culture of the
host country (the American one), with everything involved: language,
traditions, customs, social structure, behaviours. In Europe, on the other hand,
assimilation has become associated as early as the first half of the 20th century
with ethnocentrism, cultural oppression, and even with the use of violent
means to force minorities to conform, culminating with the Nazi methods. As
a reaction to fascism and to extremist slippages of nationalism, to the
oppression and even expulsion of minorities, on the one hand, and as a result
of increasing of the relevance of human rights, as well as of self-esteem and
cultural pride of minorities after World War II, on the other hand,
“assimilation” has become a rejected term, even a taboo (Integration and
Integration Policies 2006, 11). Therefore, the notion of assimilation has now
fallen into disgrace, and the phenomenon to which it refers is politically
repudiated due to the new ethical standards adopted in international relations.
At present, however, another vision prevails: instead of imposing to the
minority groups the cultural hegemony of the dominant collectivity, there is
promoted the recognition of differences, which are valorised as such and
integrated in the interactions of social actors (Blanchet and Francard 2005,
335). This process and this perspective are called, at least in some conceptual
delimitations (e.g. Blanchet and Francard 2005), “interculturation”. In a
similar view, but not explicitly speaking about the recognition of differences,
but about their awareness, C. Clanet (1998, 70) refers to interculturation as the
183
set of processes by which individuals and groups interact when identifying
oneself as being distinct from a cultural point of view.
In practice, interculturation is a complex and complicated process that
involves a series of identitarian challenges. That is why it is difficult, if not
impossible to achieve, because it would need a recognition of the cultural
relativism, i.e. a recognition of own cultural limits, and such an
acknowledgment is hard to find in practice.
As far as the identification of the social actors is concerned,
interculturation involves more than just a mere juxtaposition of ethnic
identities, which would mean an essentialist perspective. It involves rather a
negotiation, within some multiple and varied interactions, of some “affinities
and oppositions, proximities and distances, in order to constitute a new,
identity-bearing reality” (Blanchet and Francard 2005, 335). From this point
of view, interculturation is a challenge, since it involves at least a certain
degree of identity fluidity (Camilleri, et al. 2015) and the willingness to
accommodate, by which the owners of different cultural luggage find a way
to achieve a common form of intercultural regulation (Collès 1994).
Subcultures and countercultures
Nowadays, as a result of the process of globalization and the increasing
mobility of people, societies have become complex and diversified. The
cultural manifoldness has become an omnipresent phenomenon. In this
context, other specific notions are also used to define the surrounding social
reality, such as “subculture” and “counterculture”.
Although apparently the notion of “subculture” seems to describe, in a
pejorative way, something more “second to” the culture, or a hybrid form in
which different styles mix heterogeneously, similar, in many ways, to kitsch,
in fact it is an expression of the great cultural diversity existing in any society.
It marks the identity of different social groups, characterized by norms, values
184
and alternative lifestyles, or different from those of the society as a whole.
Subcultures are part of a society while keeping their specific characteristics
intact.
If we define culture as a way of life, consisting of modes of doing,
being and thinking specific to a particular community, subculture is also a way
of life characteristic to a certain social group, different from that of other
groups. Often, the subculture is understood as a marginal or subordinate
section of the dominant culture. Subcultures are most often characterized
through oppositional elements, frequently manifested by symbolic forms of
resistance (Rădulescu and Ștefănescu 2003, 226).
Thus, subcultures must be firstly related to a “parent” culture, i.e. that
culture they are a subset of, but they should be also analyzed in terms of their
relations to the dominant culture, in other words relating to the overall
disposition of cultural power in the society as a whole (Clarke, et al 1976, 13).
According to D. Hebdige (1979), subcultures can be seen as subversions to
“normality”, bringing together like-minded individuals who feel neglected by
societal standards and allowing them to develop a sense of identity. Given the
nature of criticism to the dominant societal standards they manifest,
subcultures can be often perceived as negative.
The identity of a subculture may be based on its ethnic heritage, may
derive from the economic condition of the group (such as the poor subcultures
of the ghettos), or may be defined by region and history (Goodman 2001, 59).
Subcultures may be also shaped based on factors of a sexual nature (e.g.
different gay subcultures), musical styles (e.g. goth subculture, developed
from the audience of gothic rock, as well as hip hop, punk, rave subcultures
etc.), cinematic preferences (e.g. “Trekkies” as a subculture of Star Trek fans)
or diverse hobbies (e.g. “Bikers” as a subculture of individuals whose primary
interest, actions and activities involve motorcycles), etc. In the art, various
subcultures have also been distinguished throughout the time, as for example
185
Dada/Dadaism and Surrealism movements, who promoted radical aesthetic
practices, such as collage, “dream work”, “ready mades” (Hebdige 2002, 105)
as ways of resistance or protest towards the social establishment and the
mainstream culture. What is specific to many subcultures in the field of art
and music is that, when they occur, they may be considered subcultures in the
sense specified above, appearing as radical and completely different from the
dominant culture, but within a short period of time they can be encompassed
by that, becoming the mainstream taste, as for example through media interest
and commercial exploitation of their new, innovative ideas.
Moreover, subcultures can be defined in relation to the deviation from
the standard values and norms of the society, this being the case, for example,
of subcultures of drug users, but also delinquent and criminal subcultures. The
awareness of the group identity can be determined just by the attitudes
expressed by the authorities or by the public opinion, as is the case with the
subculture of drug users. The preference for drugs makes the individual a
stigmatized person, as a result of the social reaction manifested to drugs in
most contemporary societies. Such stigmatization forces a person to associate
with other individuals defined by the same identity or preferences, and to seek
support or guidance in the norms and values of the respective subculture. In
this way, the association of individuals practicing similar lifestyles determines
the creation of subcultures, which are defined by certain roles and skills,
interests, demands, habits, etc. A negative reaction to a subculture, manifested,
for example, by stigmatizing its members, can paradoxically strengthen their
sense of belonging.
Sociologists view subcultures in two different ways: either as the
product of norms and values that are alternative to those of global culture, or
as the result of marginal or deviant values, norms and lifestyles in relation to
legitimate or conventional ones (Rădulescu and Ștefănescu 2003, 227). Some
subcultures are legitimate (e.g. ethnic and religious subcultures), others are
186
illegitimate or deviant (e.g. criminal subcultures). However, “legitimate” or
not, each subculture has its own perceptions, definitions, significations,
meanings and focal areas of interest. For example, the subculture of young
people has as focal areas of interest leisure, hedonism and nonconformism,
and manifests itself as an important element of solidarity in relation to adults
(ibid.). The attempt to resist the dominant forces of the society has often taken
on musical and dance forms, which are enshrined in subcultures, becoming a
symbol of resiliency (Lull 1992). Many modern musical styles originated in
young people’s subcultures represent an “anathema” to parents, teachers and,
in general, to the existing social rules at a given time (McQuail 1997, 92).
Often, subcultures adopt special ways to stand out, such as spectacular
styles of clothing or hairstyles, or striking and unusual actions. All these
represent significant forms of response and resistance specific to the
subculture the individuals belong to, through specialized subcultural identities
and rituals. Therefore, subcultures function to win, or at least to challenge and
contest the “cultural space” for their members. In this way, they generate and
confirm meaningful ways of both individual al collective identity, as well as a
mode of reference towards the dominant values of the wider cultural and social
order (O’Sullivan, et al 1997, 308).
Furthermore, a subculture has frequently a distinct language. Marked
forms of communication within subcultures confer also a sense of identity,
provide the possibility of more precise communication between members of
the subgroup, and protect this communication from people outside it.
However, the cultural mosaic created by subcultures can be considered a
factor of enrichment of the society (Goodman 2001, 59).
In some cases, the cultural patterns of a particular subgroup are not
only different, but explicitly contrary to the patterns of the rest of society. The
term “counterculture” is often used to designate such phenomena. The
countercultures embody ideas, values, norms and lifestyles that are in direct
187
opposition to those of the larger society (ibid. 60). The “hippie”
counterculture, for example, has challenged and bearded, in the 1960s and
early 1970s, the fundamental American values of individualism, competition
and materialism. This movement was a politicized, largely middle-class,
alternative or “revolutionary” youth subculture that protested, opposed and
fought against the older establishment on both sides of the Atlantic
(O’Sullivan, et al 1997, 66). While countercultures like this can prove
themselves, in the long term, progressive for society, other countercultures,
such as neo-fascist and neo-Nazi movements, the Ku Klux Klan in the United
States or the Muslim fundamentalist groups, who have developed their own
sets of cultural patterns that put them in opposition to the cultures of their own
societies, are essentially deeply destructive to the society as a whole.
Sometimes, as was the case with the “hippie” movement in the United
States of America, counterculture elements are absorbed by the wider cultural
framework, and the distinction between the two is blurred (Goodman 2001).
In most cases, however, the countercultures remain in opposition, sometimes
in conflict, with the larger society.
Currently, many western societies that have received, over time,
immigrants, are facing the phenomenon of criminal countercultures that are
defined by the national or ethnic origin of their members, immigrants or
descendants of the second or third generation of immigrants. Such delinquent
countercultures operate according to the structures and rules of organized
crime and functionate according to the principles of clans and large criminal
mafia families.
Conclusions
At present, cultural diversity characterizes most societies. Cultural
contacts and exchanges, as well as cultural impact in case of the social
restructuration as a result of migration and social mobility, are currently
188
themes often addressed in social sciences. Various approaches and discussions
as regards social and cultural diversity conceptualize this problematic through
terms such as multiculturalism, interculturality, interculturation and so on.
While the concept of multiculturalism, as well as the alternative notion
of multiculturality, emphasize the coexistence in a society of several different
cultures, the term interculturality indicates rather the asymmetrical relations
that exist within a society between the majority and the minority constellations
in terms of culture, as there are, in fact, unequal power relations between them
also from a political, economic and social point of view. To describe the
cultural processes through which ethnic groups of immigrants have passed,
over time, terms such as acculturation and cultural assimilation have been
used, the first with reference to the process of learning the norms, values and
behaviours expected by the new social and cultural environment, and the
second with reference to giving up the culture of origin and fully adopting the
culture of the host country.
However, at present another vision prevails, namely instead of
imposing the cultural hegemony of the dominant collectivity to the minority
groups, there is promoted the recognition of differences, which are valorised
as such and integrated in the interactions of social actors. This phenomenon,
named interculturation, which in practice is complex and complicated,
because presupposes a series of identitarian challenges, involves processes by
which individuals and groups interact when identifying oneself as being
distinct from a cultural point of view. Thus, interculturation requires
interactions and negotiations, but also a certain degree of identity fluidity and
the willingness to achieve a common form of intercultural regulation.
But not only the societies that recently received new waves of
immigrants face cultural challenges. In all societies there exist to a certain
degree cultural manifoldness, subcultures and countercultures. As it has been
stated above, subcultures can shape themselves in a society based on different
189
criteria, such as ethnic heritage, region, history, economic condition, sexual
identities, but also art, music styles or hobbies. Moreover, there exist
subcultures that can be defined in relation to the illegitimate deviation from
the standard values and norms of the society, this being the case of criminal
and delinquent subcultures, and the drug users’ ones.
Whatever the criteria for defining for a subculture, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, and whatever the ways of identifying of their members, all
subcultures are related to a “parent” culture and are considered in terms of
their relations to the dominant culture and the mainstream trends. Subcultures
can be viewed either as the product of values and norms that are alternative to
those of global culture, or as the result of marginal or deviant norms, values,
and lifestyles in relation to the legitimate or conventional ones.
Sometimes, the cultural patterns of some particular subgroups are not
only different, but explicitly contrary to the patterns of the rest of society. In
this case, the term of counterculture is used to describe the phenomenon of
adoption by some groups of ideas, values, norms and lifestyles that are in
direct opposition to those of the larger society. At times some countercultures
may prove revolutionary, or they may contribute to society’s progress and
changing the status quo, but more often countercultures are deeply negative
and destructive to society, as is the case with criminal clans, organized crime,
and the radical, extremist and fundamentalist countercultures.
Beyond the last-mentioned types of countercultures, which are rather
exceptions, the cultural diversity and the broad mosaic created by subcultures
can be considered factors of enrichment within a society.
Bibliography
Azzi, Assaad E. and Olivier Klein. 1998. Psychologie sociale et relations
intergroupes. Paris: Dunod.
190
Blanchet, Phillipe and Michel Francard. 2005. Identități culturale. In Gilles
Ferréol and Guy Jucquois, eds. Dicționarul alterității și al relațiilor
interculturale. Iași: Polirom, 328-339.
Camilleri, Carmel, Joseph Kastersztein, Edmond-Marc Lipansky, Hanna
Malewska-Peyre, Isabelle Taboada-Leonetti, and Ana Vasquez. 2015.
Stratégies identitaires. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France – PUF.
Chadraba, Petr G. and Robert D. O’Keefe. 2011. Human resources:
interculturation as an asset in the global marketplace. Journal of
International Business and Cultural Studies, Vol. 4, January.
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09396.pdf (accessed October 12,
2019).
Clanet,
Claude.
1998.
L’interculturel: Introduction
aux
approches
interculturelles en éducation er en sciences humaines. 2e éd. rev. et
augm. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Clarke, John, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson, and Brian Roberts. 1976.
Subcultures, Cultures and Class. In Stuart Hall and Tony Jefferson,
eds., Resistance Through Rituals. London: Hutchinson.
Collès, Luc. 1994. Littérature comparée et reconnaissance interculturelle.
Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot
Dietz, Gunther. 2009. Multiculturalism, Interculturality and Diversity in
Education: An Anthropological Approach. Münster: Waxmann.
Dietz, Gunther. 2018. Interculturality. In Hilary Callan, ed. The International
Encyclopedia of Anthropology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI:
10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1629.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327455124_Interculturality
(accessed October 11, 2019).
Dietz, Gunther and Laura Selene Mateos Cortés. 2011. Multiculturalism and
Intercultural Education Facing the Anthropology of Education. In
191
Bradley A. Levinson and Mica Pollack, eds. A Companion to the
Anthropology of Education. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 495–516.
Farley, John E. 1982. Majority-Minority Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Ferréol, Gilles and Guy Jucquois, eds. 2005. Dicționarul alterității și al
relațiilor interculturale. Iași: Polirom.
Geană, Gheorghiță. 1993. Aculturație. In Cătălin Zamfir and Lazăr Vlăsceanu,
eds. Dicționar de sociologie. București: Babel, 18.
Goodman, Norman. 2001. Introducere în sociologie. Bucureşti: Lider.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. The Role of Race,
Religion and National Origin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen &
Co. Ltd.
Hebdige, Dick. 2002. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London and New
York: Routledge.
Integration and Integration Policies. 2006. IMISCOE [International
Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion] Network Feasibility
Study.
efms
INTPOL
Team,
University
of
Bamberg.
http://www.efms.unibamberg.de/pdf/INTPOL%20Final%20Paper.pdf (accessed October
4, 2019).
Jucquois, Guy. 2005. Diversitate. In Gilles Ferréol and Guy Jucquois,
eds. Dicționarul alterității și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași: Polirom,
213-221.
Lull, James, ed. 1992. Popular Music and Communication. Second Edition.
London: Sage Publications.
McQuail, Denis. 1997. Audience Analysis. Thousand Oaks, London, New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
192
O’Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, Martin Montgomery, and
John Fiske. 1997. Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural
Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Policar, Alain. 2005. Multiculturalism. In Gilles Ferréol and Guy Jucquois,
eds. Dicționarul alterității și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași: Polirom,
449-458.
Rădulescu, Sorin and Simona Ștefănescu. 2003. Subcultură. In Ilie Bădescu
and Darie Cristea, eds., Dicționar de sociologie rurală: concepte,
teme, teorii. București: Mica Valahie, 226-231.
Schultze, Günther. 2009. Migration steuern – Integration gestalten. In
Einwanderungsgesellschaft Deutschland. Wege zu einer sozialen und
gerechten Zukunft. WISO Diskurs, Expertisen und Dokumentationen
zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik, Tagungsdokumentation des
Gesprächskreises Migration und Integration der Friedrich-EbertStiftung,
September.
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/06661.pdf
(accessed October 10, 2019).
Wieviorka, Michel. 1998. Le multiculturalisme est-il la réponse?. Cahiers
internationaux de sociologie. 105(45): 233-260.
193