Volume VIII Number 2 Spring 1999

ON THE BORDER OF CULTURES:

TRANSITIONS, THEORIES AND
TRAINING APPLICATIONS FOR
CULTURALLY MARGINAL INDIVIDUALS

by Chrysoula Econompoulos

The increasing mobility of people on an international level during the twentieth century has thus
far resulted in significant challenges to conceptions of individual and group identity. These identity
challenges will become increasingly salient during the twenty-first century as different cultures
continue to come into contact on an increasing basis through factors such as the expansion of
communication networks worldwide, immigration, overseas job placement, study abroad, and
bicultural marriages. Therefore, differences must be managed with the goal of resolving potential
conflict situations through the promotion of cultural understanding and respect. Before we can
come to understand other cultures, we must first achieve a secure understanding of our own
individual identities in the context of culture. Janet M. Bennetts article titled Cultural
Marginality: Identity Issues in Intercultural Training discusses the particular identity issues
encountered by bi- and multicultural individuals in their experiences living on the borders of two
or more cultures. Her model is useful in that it also provides a framework for the training of
individuals who have encountered this stage of identity development. Cultural marginality poses
significant challenges for the individual. However, once these challenges are overcome, the
culturally marginal individual emerges as a person uniquely equipped to deal with other cultures.

This paper will first provide a description of the historic development of the concept of cultural
marginality. The next section discusses the transition to a positive view of this identity state. Janet
Bennetts development of the ideas of encapsulated and constructive marginality is the key theme
in this section and the primary focus of this paper. These ideas are discussed as extensions of
Milton J. Bennetts developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In order to apply the idea of
cultural marginality to a particular focus group, the particular identity issues faced by children of
immigrant parents -- hereafter referred to as first generation individuals due to their status as the
first generation born in a country different from that of the parents -- will then be described. Jean
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

S. Phinneys summary of developmental models of ethnic identity formation for application to first
generation individuals is incorporated into the fourth section of the paper in contrast to J.
Bennetts concept and to better define the idea of ethnic identity. Next, training methods for
encapsulated and constructive marginals suggested through J. Bennetts work are applied. While
the central focus of this paper deals with the development and applications of cultural marginality,
the discussion of first generation individuals clarifies the usefulness of and necessity for such
cultural identity models. This idea is outlined in the final section of the paper, which describes
certain key characteristics for a successful intercultural communicator.

Historic Origins of the Cultural Marginality Concept

The concept of the marginal man originates with Robert E. Parks work during the 1920s. Park
asserted that interactions between different groups of people and cultures initially took the form
of forceful invasion. However, through the impact of modern-day transportation and
communication infrastructures such as the railroad and especially airplane travel, this migration of
peoples has increased in both frequency and quality. Migration has been both facilitated by the
aforementioned infrastructures and it has assumed the character of peaceful penetration.1 One
undeniable result of these types of migrations, both forceful and peaceful, is the emergence of the
marginal man. As Park states, the marginal man is a man living and sharing in the cultural life and
traditions of two distinct peoples; never quite willing to break, even if he were permitted to do so,
with his past and his traditions and not quite accepted in the new society in which he now sought
to find a place.2

While both Park and Everitt V. Stonequist, Parks student at the Chicago School, had similar
definitions of the marginal man, their views on the effects of marginality on identity were
divergent. According to Park, the culturally marginal individual becomes the individual with the
keener intelligence, the wider horizon, and the more detached and rational viewpoint.3 Thus his
overall view concerning the effects of marginality was positive. In contrast, Stonequist saw the
effects of cultural marginality as predominantly negative. An individual in this condition is a man
poised in psychological uncertainty between two or more social worlds; reflecting in his soul the
discords and harmonies, repulsions and attractions of these worlds, and never quite fitting in with
either culture by which he has been influenced.4

The dominant attitude in mainstream American society towards minority cultural groups was in
accordance with Stonequists assessment of the marginal man as an outsider, lacking a firm sense
of identity and essentially troubled by his cultural composition. This attitude is seen in the
widespread acceptance of the assimilationist model for ethnic groups. Under this model, the
degree to which entrants into a new culture are accepted is determined by the degree to which the
characteristics of the old culture are shed and replaced by those of the dominant mainstream
culture present in society. For example, historically in the United States there was primarily a
one-way flow from the Old to the New World. As immigrant children entered the public
2
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

education system, they gave up the culture of the Old World including its languages, class
assumptions, perceptions, and ways of dealing with the social and physical environment.5 Often,
the old culture was viewed as a hindrance to successful adaptation in the New World, and
therefore would be disposed of under the context of the assimilationist model. For a society
operating under this sort of model, culturally marginal individuals -- immigrants, in this case --
were viewed in a similar negative light because they often had not incorporated the status quo
culture present in the United States into their lives. However, more recent studies in the field of
intercultural communications, sociology and psychology indicate a transition away from the more
negative view ascribed by Stonequist and Park towards the marginal man.

Transition to a Positive Conception of Cultural Marginality

Milton J. Bennetts Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

According to Milton J. Bennett, cross-cultural contact is not by nature a peaceful process.

However, dealing with other cultures violently in a world of unimagined interdependence is not
just immoral or unprofitable -- it is self-destructive.6 Therefore, in order to facilitate intercultural
sensitivity, M. Bennetts model suggests a progression from ethnocentric stages of development
to ethnorelative stages. In the ethnocentric stage, the particular culture of the individual is
perceived as dominant and central to the reality of all other cultures. In the ethnorelative stage,
the individual in relation to one another within a particular cultural context understands cultures.
Under ethnorelative stages of development, different cultures are neither good nor bad, just
different.

The assumption underlying this particular model is that as a person progresses through the
successive stages of ethnocentrism and advances to ethnorelativism, the individual gains a greater
awareness of his or her own and other cultures, as well as the skills needed to communicate
effectively on an intercultural basis. Due to the marginal individuals exposure and incorporation
into two or more cultures, he or she combines the knowledge and insight of the insider with the
critical attitude of the outsider.7 It is important to note that M. Bennetts model is not conceived
with regard to a one-way progression and therefore implies the possibility of regression.
Nevertheless, the optimum stage in this developmental continuum is the stage of constructive
marginality. At this point, the constructive marginal individual has arrived at a dual status of being
both inside participant and outside observer. Janet Bennetts work further expands on this idea as
it adds the concept of encapsulated marginality.

Janet M. Bennetts Conception of Cultural Marginality

It is important to note the growing trend towards a positive view of the marginal man. M. Bennett
states that much effort has been expended in seeking an alternative to the term marginality to
3
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

describe someone who operates outside of normal cultural boundaries. [The] effort seems to be to
avoid the connotations of marginality that indicate an unhealthy outsider status.8 Similarly, Janet
Bennett attempts to move away from a negative connotation of the term marginality. She
utilizes the term to indicate a cultural lifestyle at the edges where two or more cultures meet. The
thrust of this positive formulation of marginality compensates for previous views of this status as
somehow negative.9 By defining the particular characteristics of marginals, J. Bennett sets up the
basis for the strategies, which she recommends to intercultural trainers in structuring programs
created for cultural marginals.

While Parks initial study10 focuses on marginality as a result of human migration patterns, J.
Bennett, in agreement with Milton M. Goldberg, expands the concept of marginality to
encompass a broader population. According to Goldberg, marginality results from extensive
contact with another culture via migration, education, marriage, or when an individual from birth
is initiated into two or more historic traditions, languages, political loyalties, moral codes, or
religions.11 Similarly, J. Bennett identifies the following groups of marginal persons in her article:
immigrants and refugees; global nomads; individuals in bicultural marriages and their children;
long-term adult sojourners in another culture; and members of traditionally termed minority
groups such as gays, lesbians, and ethnic and racial groups.12 However, it is interesting to note
that first generation individuals are not specifically cited by Bennett in her outline of culturally
marginal groups.

J. Bennett describes two potential responses, which the aforementioned groups may have to living
on the borders of two or more cultures. These responses include encapsulated and constructive
marginality. In both cases, the marginal individual experiences a sense of internal culture shock in
response to the recognition of conflicts between two cultural voices competing for attention
within oneself.13 However:

When a person responds to this internal dialogue with a compromised ability to

establish boundaries and make judgments, we can say that the individual is
encapsulated....[This individual] is buffeted by conflicting cultural loyalties
and unable to construct a unified identity. In contrast, by maintaining control of
choice and the construction of boundaries, a person may become a
constructive marginal. [This individual] is a person who is able to construct
context intentionally and consciously for the purpose of creating his or her own
identity.14

In other words, while the encapsulated marginal has been initiated into two or more cultures, he
or she has difficulty shifting between the different frames of reference provided by each culture
due to conflicting cultural cues and loyalties that have not been successfully resolved. Conversely,
a constructive marginal, who has achieved a more secure sense of identity with reference to the
different cultures which are incorporated into his or her lifestyle, moves with greater ease between
multiple cultural contexts. In both of these cases, identity as defined by culture is critical to the
4
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

successful development of the individual.

First Generation Individuals and Cultural Identity Formation

Specifically regarding first generation individuals, ethnic identity can be best understood within
the context of cultural marginality as defined by J. Bennett. Several studies have further examined
the impact of ethnic identity on the first generation individual. According to Tajfel, ethnic identity
is defined as an individuals self-concept which drives from their membership in their ethnic
group together with the value and emotional significance of that membership.15 Specifically for
first generation individuals, there are unique characteristics and cultural experiences surrounding
their ethnic identity development in a bicultural environment. According to Stonequist, the
children of the immigrant are in a distinctive social situation. As native-born residents they are
identified with the land of their birth and its institutions, but as children of immigrants they
inevitably absorb much of the culture carried over from the old country.16 The duality imposed
by cultural marginality for this group is evident in this statement.

Oftentimes, the first language learned by first generation individuals is the native language of the
parents. Similarly, the predominant traditions and culture carried out in the home environment are
those of the country from which the parents have originated. These factors combine to provide a
home environment, which perpetuates the mother culture in the children throughout their
development. However, as the child enters into the American school system and begins to
establish friendships with children of the dominant culture existent outside the home, the child
begins to incorporate mainstream values into his or her cultural frame of reference. Henceforth,
the first generation individual must deal with balancing the tension between loyalties and affinities
to the parents culture and those of the mainstream culture. At home, the first generation
individual operates under the context of the native culture while outside the home, that person
must adopt the cultural framework of the mainstream society. According to Cees Boekestijn, the
dilemma between identity maintenance and assimilation manifests itself vividly in studies of these
individuals."17 Stonequist supports this assertion in his assessment that the tension in the mind of
the second generation [migrant] is more pervasive and profound than appears on the surface.
[This is because] he is bound to his parents by the usual family sentiment. But his loyalty to them
clashes with his loyalty to his friends and to the American culture which they symbolize.18

The greater the difference between the culture of the parents and the culture of mainstream
society, the more intense the stress and tension that arises from these cultural clashes in the mind
of the first generation individual. For example, this might be especially true of a first generation
individual with a collectivist home culture who operates in a predominantly individualistic society
like that which exists in the U.S. Collectivist cultures emphasize the importance of the group as
opposed to the importance of the individual. As commonly observed in collectivism, the in-group
-- whether extended family, clan, or organization -- protects the interests of its members, but in
5
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

turn expects their permanent loyalty.19 As a collectivist culture is tightly integrated in this
manner, it is often difficult for a marginal first generation individual in the U.S. to reconcile the
differences between his home culture and the dominantly individualistic one existent in greater
society. This reconciliation becomes important in the marginals ability to effectively switch
between cultural frames of reference with minimum levels of stress and identity conflict.

Developmental Models of Ethnic Identity Formation

The Meaning and Influence of Ethnic Identity for First Generation Individuals

In discussing the salience of ethnic identity, it is important to note the key role that the passage of
time plays in determining the salience of issues associated with this identity formation. Since
immigrant parents and their first generation offspring are the closest to the culture of origin,
ethnic identity is particularly salient for these members in contrast to second, third and subsequent
generations. Jean Phinney states:

Studies of generational differences in ethnic identity have shown a fairly

consistent decline in ethnic group identification in later generations descended
from immigrants (Constantinou & Harvey 1985; Fathi 1972). Ethnic identity was
found to be similarly weaker among those who arrived at a younger age and had
lived longer in the new country (Garcia & Lega, 1979; Rogler et al. 1980) and
among those with more education (Rogler et al. 1980).20

As indicated by this statement, assimilation into the mainstream culture does tend to increase with
the progress of time, but the experience of marginality is still relevant for several reasons. First,
each individual has a unique set of experiences that cannot always be generalized accurately under
statements such as these. For example, while a first generation individual might have a high level
of education, ethnic identity may still remain a key component to that individuals identity. As
Phinney effectively summarizes, there is limited value in attempting to describe ethnic groups
objectively in generalizations assumed to apply to all members of the group due to individual
differences in assimilation patterns.21 Secondly, the resolution of negative marginality issues is
potentially even more important today with the growing trend towards ethnic self-awareness and
pride resurgent since the 1960s.

In contrast to the assimilationist model, this trend is evidenced through the growing acceptance of
a pluralist model of diversity in the United States. The pluralist model asserts a reciprocal
relationship between the dominant mainstream American culture and the multiple ethnicities that
contribute to the diversity of American society. The goal in this model is a value for cultural
differences and an emphasis on the use of these differences to create an environment in which all
members can achieve their highest potential. In effect, cultural pluralism advocates using the best
elements of each culture and creatively combining these diverse elements to arrive at an optimum
6
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

end result. In terms of first generation individuals -- as well as other cultural marginals, their
unique bicultural background and their status as both an observer and participant of multiple
cultures is an important tool in helping to achieve the goals of an increasing pluralist society. In
order to become the most effective participant in this process, cultural marginals must learn to
utilize both of the cultural frames of reference into which they were born and thereby bring a
unique perspective to the overall situation.

Alternative Models of Ethnic Identity Formation: The Three Stages

To better understand cultural marginality, it is useful to analyze the stages of ethnic identity
formation in adolescents. Janet Bennett poses one method of analyzing different stages of
development for marginal individuals. An examination of other models highlights strengths and
weaknesses of each perspective. While both Martin and Janet Bennetts approaches can be
applied to all types of cultural marginals, Jean S. Phinneys approach provides a more focused
summary of the common stages of ethnic identity development. This summary is therefore useful
in exploring the particular situation of first generation individuals, which is typically characterized
by a strong ethnic identification. According to Phinney:

Ethnic or racial identity formation depends on a process of exploration . . . . This

process leads ideally to the development of a secure, positive sense of ones
identity as a member of an ethnic or racial group, together with an acceptance of
other groups. By exploring their own and others ethnicity, students can gain
insight into the implications of ethnicity in a diverse society.22

Similar to both J. and M. Bennett, a positive view of marginality is posed in this statement. In
contrast to J. Bennett, however, Phinneys studies regarding ethnic identity formation tend to
focus on adolescents during the process of identity formation. This focus is based on the view that
ones biculturality is particularly important during middle and late adolescence, when identity
issues, including ethnic identity, are highly salient.23

In Phinneys explanation of three stages of ethnic identity formation, this emphasis on the
adolescent is evident. These three stages include the diffusion/foreclosure stage; the moratorium
stage; and the achieved identity stage. The diffusion/foreclosure identity stage is divided into two
sub-stages which both indicate that ethnic identity is not yet salient to the adolescent. In
foreclosure, adolescents assume the values, traditions and attitudes of their particular ethnic
group without questioning the origins of these cultural attributes. While the adolescent may begin
to notice differences with peers acculturated under mainstream culture, multicultural individuals
such as first generation groups are in a stage of foreclosure because they have not yet begun to
examine issues of ethnic difference for themselves. Similarly, the diffusion stage is also
characterized by the absence of questioning ones own ethnicity. In foreclosure, the adolescent is
aware of his ethnic origins. However, diffusion is characterized by an overall lack of awareness of
7
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

personal ethnicity. Both stages have been grouped into one in Phinneys analysis because they are
characterized by an overall lack of critical thinking on matters of ethnicity.

Adolescents or adults who progress to the next stage of ethnic identity formation, or the
moratorium stage, enter into a period of exploration of culture. In this stage, individuals attempt
to gain greater knowledge of their particular culture in order to help resolve questions about
themselves and their people. In a sense, it is a stage of relative immersion into the culture that was
present in the home and is comparable to the encapsulated marginality posed by J. Bennett. If that
home culture was especially strong, as is usually the case with immigrant families, this immersion
might be especially complex because differences with mainstream culture are especially
pronounced.

Finally, the achieved identity stage is the optimum stage of ethnic identity formation in this model.
In this stage, the adolescent has resolved the questions which were characteristic of the
moratorium stage. Consequently, an achieved identity indicates evidence of exploration,
accompanied by a clear, secure understanding and acceptance of ones own ethnicity.24 In this
manner, it is similar to the resolution of identity that is achieved by constructive marginality. Since
the identity crisis which accompanies marginality is resolved during these similar stages --achieved
identity and constructive marginality, the marginal individual can now better address other aspects
of his or her life, incorporating a bicultural perspective.

While this developmental model described by Phinney implies a linear progression of ethnic
identity formation, it is important to note that these stages are not necessarily sequential and
perhaps may not even be experienced by all people with a different ethnic background from that
of mainstream society.25 This is similar to Milton Bennetts developmental model that also allows
for the possibility of regression. However, this particular model summarized by Phinney cannot be
applied to all types of cultural marginals. It has particular value for immigrants and first generation
individuals whose ethnic background often plays a stronger role in relationships with members of
mainstream culture. However, conclusions drawn by this model may be more limited for adult
sojourners who often do not begin to incorporate another culture into their lifestyles until after
adolescence through an assignment overseas, for example. In such cases where ethnicity is not a
salient issue, M. and J. Bennetts concepts of cultural marginality are more useful. Their concepts
go beyond ethnic identity to include a wider variety of groups such as global nomads.
Furthermore, while the model that Phinney describes is justified primarily by studies conducted on
adolescents during key stages of identity formation, it gives little attention to identity issues that
might arise following adolescence. Both Milton and Janet Bennetts models, however, are more
applicable to a wider age range.

Training of Cultural Marginals

Janet Bennett provides a useful set of goals and suggestions for training programs to help cultural
8
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

marginals better integrate their multicultural experience into an asset for their use in everyday life.
While the discussion of this paper thus far has surrounded the definitions of cultural marginality,
ethnic identity, and development of ethnic identity especially in first generation individuals, J.
Bennetts discussion on training the culturally marginal individual provides a framework for
overcoming the particular difficulties encountered in the marginal experience.

The Encapsulated Marginal: Paths Towards Development

The encapsulated marginal incorporates two different cultural patterns into his or her lifestyle but
is unable to control shifts between these two cultural frames of reference. One of the problems
typical for encapsulated marginals is that they perceive themselves as so unique they may be
incapable of envisioning a peer group with whom they can relate.26 This uniqueness, which stems
from an inability to resolve the interplay of multiple cultural identities, results in an increased
sense of alienation and isolation from others in mainstream society. Due to this identity crisis
which is compounded by the lack of a support system, the encapsulated marginal cannot move
beyond to the stage of constructive marginality.

J. Bennett applies the Perry Scheme of intellectual and ethical development as a framework to
help move encapsulated marginals towards this next stage. According to this scheme, the initial
stage encountered by encapsulated marginals is a stage of dualism where decisions are dictated
by authority figures and have a right or wrong quality to them.27 Bennett asserts that individuals
who experience marginality do not view decisions in such a decisively black and white manner,
but rather, they are more involved in a stage of multiplicity where decisions are increasingly
unclear. This is because encapsulated marginals are yet unable to shift cultural frames of reference
effectively and are therefore being pulled in two often contradictory directions in all the actions
which they take. This phenomenon is the source of the feeling of uniqueness and alienation
previously described. However, the stage of contextual relativism allows encapsulated marginals
to get beyond this confusing point through a recognition of the inevitability of ambiguity and of
their own responsibility to think autonomously, based on an assessment of the context.28 As a
result, it becomes easier for the marginal to shift between cultural frames of reference because he
or she better understands the context of the situation and can therefore apply the appropriate
cultural frame to that situation. Mastery of the final stage, commitment in relativism, marks a
move towards constructive marginality. In this developmental stage, the marginal views choice as
an accepted responsibility and respects alternative opinions in the context of ones own
commitments.29

The Constructive Marginal: Paths Towards Development

As the constructive marginal has moved beyond the issues surrounding identity and the ambiguity
of decisionmaking, that individual encounters the next challenge. According to J. Bennett, the
constructive marginal also experiences disintegration as a function of cultural shifts, but in that
9
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

process has become fully conscious of self-differentiation and the need to assume personal
responsibility for choosing and construction value sets.30 As a result, the achievement of self-
reflectiveness is the goal. Furthermore, the continued ability and commitment to maintain effective
shifting frames of reference is emphasized and seen as a positive goal because it eliminates over-
reliance on one particular culture. In contrast to the encapsulated marginal, the constructive
marginal recognizes that one is never not at home in the world31 because he has learned to apply
these shifting frames of reference effectively given the context of the situation. As such,
knowledge for the constructive marginal is gained from the context of the situation and from the
benefit of being a simultaneous participant and observer of cultures. This dual role equips the
constructive marginal with a more objective position as he or she is less subject to the biases
inherent when functioning in the framework of just one culture. As supported by Stonequist, the
marginal man may become an acute and able critic. This is because he combines the knowledge
and insight of the insider with the critical attitude of the observer.32 The commitment to
relativism coupled with this keen observational skill are the goals for further development of the
constructive marginal.

Application of Sanfords Challenge and Response Developmental Model

J. Bennetts approach towards training both encapsulated and constructive marginals is based on
Nevitt Sanfords concept of challenge and response in the development of the individual. In this
approach, Sanford asserts that people change and learn by encountering new situations in which
they are not already equipped with preexisting coping mechanisms. As a result, they are forced to
invent new methods of assessing and reacting to these situations in order to reduce tension and
free their attention for other things.33 When the challenge presented has been overcome, a new
coping mechanism thus is incorporated into the knowledge of the individual. However, it is
important to maintain a balance between the level of the challenge and the ability of the
individuals response mechanisms. According to Sanford:

In order to keep the individual mentally healthy and at the same time develop
him, an institution should present only challenges which are at once disturbing
enough to force him to find new responses and not so disturbing as to cause him
to fall back on primitive responses that have served him in the past.34

Janet Bennett modifies this concept of challenge and response in her approach to training
culturally marginal individuals. Instead, she discusses this concept in terms of challenge and
support. This terminology emphasizes the necessity of trainers to provide the optimum level of
support for the participant to be stimulated enough for the learning process to occur. At the same
time, the trainer must ensure that the challenge level is not so difficult that the participant becomes
overwhelmed and responds by shutting off all coping and learning mechanisms.

Encapsulated Marginal Training: Applying Supports and Challenges

10
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

The supports which Bennett suggests for the training of encapsulated marginals stem from the
deficiencies which this group has in effectively changing their cultural frame of reference.
Therefore, appropriate rewards for demonstrated ability in shifting frames must be established.
Additionally, since most encapsulated marginals have a rich set of experiences in two or more
cultures, incorporating an educational context helps to [reinforce] the connections between their
own real life events and academic knowledge.35 Finally, establishing a peer group of other
cultural marginals is important in helping to ease and eventually eliminate the sense of alienation
particular to this group of individuals.

In order to facilitate growth through learning, J. Bennett establishes several key challenges that
should be incorporated into an effective training program for encapsulated marginals. The primary
challenge facing this group is learning to think critically when presented with the often conflicting
knowledge of their multicultural experiences. In effect, this means training the encapsulated
marginal to make choices in terms of the appropriate cultural frame of reference to apply in a
given situation. Furthermore, the encapsulated marginal must address and resolve the identity
question of Who am I? Finally, the individual should practice the skill of boundary contraction
and expansion. This challenge helps the encapsulated marginal to master the ability to change
cultural frames of reference effectively.36

Constructive Marginal Training: Applying Supports and Challenges

The supports and challenges which J. Bennett proposes for this particular group have the ultimate
goal of preventing regression from an already achieved stage of constructive marginality. The
specific supports which Bennett recommends include providing role models who exemplify the
ability to maintain a constructive multicultural identity. These role models give constructive
marginals the reassurance that they need when faced with the possibility of regression into
encapsulated marginality. A second support method encourages group learning activities with
other constructive marginals. Whereas encapsulated marginals must focus on introspective
activities in order to resolve any remaining identity questions, constructive marginals have already
moved beyond this introspection stage and require a peer group that allows them to express
common experiences and maintain the assurance that they are not alone in their complex cultural
identity.

This helps promote the third support mechanism of validating experience and knowledge which J.
Bennett proposes.37 According to J. Bennett, the primary challenge to provide for constructive
marginals is that they learn to think in a context defined and assessed by their construction of
reality.38 Ultimately, the constructive marginal should create an identity uniquely his or her own
that draws from the multiple cultural contexts under which that individual has developed. This
requires a commitment to values from each cultural perspective. Finally, the constructive marginal
can be further challenged by establishing situations where synthetic thinking skills are applied to
cultural issues that call for reflective judgment.39 The supports and challenges established here
11
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

help the constructive marginal to maintain the ability to shift cultural frames of reference.

Intercultural Effectiveness: The Benefits of Cultural Marginality

As implied by Stonequist in the early conceptions of the marginal man, this individual plays a key
role as an intermediary acting to link cultures. He conceives of the marginal man as a mediator of
cultural change when he states that, the life histories of marginal men offer the most significant
material for the analysis of the cultural process as it springs from the contacts of social groups.
And it is in the mind of the marginal man that the inner significance and the driving motives of
such cultural change are most luminously revealed.40 This role is of critical importance in the
context of an increasingly interconnected global environment and workplace.

Many interculturalists outline the key ingredients for intercultural communication effectiveness. In
doing so, they attempt to provide a framework of attainable skills needed to succeed in an
increasingly interconnected society and work environment. For example, Bochner is quoted in a
study by Jolene Koester and Margaret Olebe for his description of the ideal intercultural
communicator. This individual is a mediating man who exhibits a belief in the common unity of
mankind, cultural relativism of values, cognitive flexibility, membership in internationalsocial
networks, and supra-national reference groups.41 The characteristics described here closely
parallel the descriptions established throughout this paper that defines the culturally marginal man.

The increasing necessity of such bicultural and multicultural competence is stressed in a study
conducted by Teresa LaFramboise, Hardin L. K. Coleman and Jennifer Gerton.42 Based on a
review of literature that deals with the psychological impact of being bicultural, this group
identifies certain key skills that are necessary to achieve when living in two or more cultural
frames of reference. These skills are already a part of the characteristics of the culturally marginal
individual. The benefits of cultural marginality can be seen by comparing what this particular
literature review assesses as important for bicultural competence with the characteristics of
marginality in first generation individuals. First, knowledge of cultural beliefs and values is
important in promoting cultural understanding rather than conflict. A first generation individual
who has embarked on the path towards attaining a constructive form of marginality demonstrates
a mastery of this sort of cultural knowledge through his or her ability to shift cultural frames of
reference appropriately given a particular situation. Similarly, an effective intercultural
communicator must possess positive attitudes towards both groups of cultures with which he or
she might be dealing. According to this review, without positive attitudes toward both groups,
an individual will be limited in his or her ability to feel good about interacting with a group that is
the target of negative feelings.43 A first generation individual who has attained constructive
marginality has resolved the ethnic identity issues that have impacted him or her throughout
developmental stages. In other words, these individuals appreciate the value of both cultures to
which they belong. In accordance with the pluralist model, these individuals can also pick out
positive qualities in each culture and apply them creatively to attain an optimum result. This is
12
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

also useful in intercultural competence.

The authors of this review also stress the importance of communicator ability. This refers to an
individuals effectiveness in communicating ideas and feelings to members of a given culture, both
verbally and nonverbally.44 This ability includes language competency. As described, the first
language spoken in the home of a first generation individual is often the native language of the
parents. The first generation individual therefore often becomes bilingual as the mainstream
language is also learned at school. In learning different languages in two different cultural
environments, a mastery of multiple sets of nonverbal communication skills often results as well.
This native knowledge of two communication systems sets the first generation individual apart
from other types of cultural marginals and also decreases the stress that one of these individuals
might feel if assigned to an overseas position for a company. In this sense and with respect to the
other skills identified by this study, first generation individuals provide a solid example of the
benefits of cultural marginality in both the interpersonal level and in the working environment.

Conclusions

The effect of international communication and modern transportation infrastructures during the
twentieth century has eliminated the once large barrier of geographic distance that existed
between individuals, cultures and nation-states. As noted by Milton Bennett, we must adapt
higher levels of intercultural sensitivity in cross-cultural exchanges if we want to avoid conflict
and self-destructive tendencies; however, specific skills are necessary in the attainment of a certain
level of intercultural sensitivity. The culturally marginal person is a model for incorporation of
these skills due to the multicultural fluency which he or she has obtained as a result of living on
the edge of two or more cultures. First generation individuals are used as a particular example of
cultural marginals throughout this paper to provide a clearer picture of the particular experiences,
implications, and benefits of cultural marginality.

While cultural marginals were initially viewed negatively in light of the particular identity crises,
which they experienced, and due to their perceived status as outsiders in terms of mainstream
culture, a transition has occurred recently towards a more positive view of these individuals.
Cultural marginals, as described by both Milton J. Bennett and Janet M. Bennett, have attained
certain characteristics that are vital to intercultural communication effectiveness. It is true that
these individuals must resolve certain identity issues by moving from the stage of encapsulated
marginality to that of constructive marginality. However, once these individuals have successfully
resolved the identity issues posed by marginality through training approaches such as the support
and challenge model recommended by Janet Bennett, constructive marginals can be especially
effective in todays more global work environment. Their flexibility, tolerance of diversity, critical
outlook, and self-reflectiveness are increasingly important skills for the interconnected
environment of the twenty-first century.
13
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

Chrysoula Economopoulos is a Master of Arts candidate in International Communication at the School of

International Service at American University. She plans to complete here degree program in May 1999,
with a focus on the implications of culture in media transmission. Her regional focus is the European
Union. Undergraduate studies were conducted at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, with a
Bachelor of Arts degree in French and Political Science received May 1995.

References

1. Robert E. Park, Human Migration and the Marginal Man, American Journal of Sociology 5 (1928): 886.

2. Ibid. 892.

3. Robert E. Park, Race and Culture, (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950), 375-376.

4. Everitt V. Stonequist, The Marginal Man: A Study of Personality and Culture Conflict, (New York: Russell & Russell,
1937), 8.

5. Gary R. Weaver, Facing the Cultural Crisis in Child Care, in Culture, Communication and Conflict: Readings in
Intercultural Relations, (Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, 1996): 364.

6. Milton J. Bennett, Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, Education for the
Intercultural Experience, (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1993): 21.

7. Stonequist, The Marginal Man, 155.

8. M. Bennett, Towards Ethnorelativism, 63.

9. Janet M. Bennett, Cultural Marginality: Identity Issues in Intercultural Training, in Education for the Intercultural
Experience, (Yarmouth, ME: Intecultural Press, Inc., 1993): 113.

10. Park, Human Migration and the Marginal Man.

11. Milton M. Goldbert, A Qualification of the Marginal Man Theory, American Sociological Review 6 (1941): 52.

12. J. Bennett, Cultural Marginality, 110.

13. Ibid. 112.

14. Ibid. 113.

14
 Essay 2: On the Border of Cultures: Transitions, Theories and Training Applications for Culturally Marginal Individuals

15. Gabriel Horenczyk and Mordecai Nisan, The Actualization Balance of Ethnic Identity, Journal of Personality
Psychology 70, no. 4 (1996): 837.

16. Stonequist, The Marginal Man, 99.

17. Cees Boekestijn, Intercultural Migration and the Development of Personal Identity: The Dilemma Between Identity
Maintenance and Cultural Adaptation, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12 (1988): 94.

18. Stonequist, The Marginal Man, 99.

19. Geert Hofstede, The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept, in Culture, Communication and Conflict:
Readings in Intercultural Relations, (Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, 1996): 133.

20. Jean S. Phinney, Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: A Review of Research, Psychological Bulletin 108 (1990):
509.

21. Jean S. Phinney, Understanding Ethnic Diversity: The Role of Ethnic Identity, American Behavioral Scientist 40, no.
2 (1996): 143.

22. Ibid. 143.

23. Jean S. Phinney and Linda L. Alipuria, At the Interface of Cultures: Multiethnic/Multiracial High School and College
Students, The Journal of Social Psychology 136, no. 2 (1996): 140.

24. Jean S. Phinney, Stages of Ethnic Identity Development in Minority Group Adolescents, Journal of Early Adolescence
9, no. 1-2 (1989): 38.

25. Phinney, Understanding Ethnic Diversity, 145.

26. J. Bennett, Cultural Marginality, 115.

27. Ibid. 116

28. Ibid. 117

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid. 118.

32. Stonequist, The Marginal Man, 155.

33. Nevitt Sanford, Self and Society: Social Change and Individual Development, (New York: Atherton Press, 1966), 44.

34. Ibid. 45.

35. J. Bennett, Cultural Marginality, 125.

15
Swords & Ploughshares: A Journal of International Relations

36. Ibid. 125-127.

37. Ibid. 128.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid. 129.

40. Stonequist, The Marginal Man, 222.

41. Jolene Koester and Margaret Olebe, The Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12 (1988): 234.

42. Teresa LaFramboise, Hardin L.K. Coleman and Jennifer Gerton, Psychological Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence and
Theory, Psychological Bulletin 114 (1993): 395-412.

43. Ibid. 404.

44. Ibid. 405.

16