The myth (& some myths) of teaching American culture

Abstract

In this paper, the author opens by noting how culture influences out
attitudes, emotions, beliefs, and values in pervasive ways. She then
asks how and why myths and generalizations emerge about the
culture of various nation-states, regions, or even specific cocultures
within these nations and regions. The simple answer is we
form generalizations and develop myths to create comprehensible
frameworks of comparison regarding the systems of values and
beliefs held, and the codes of conduct followed by the majority of
the people whose language we teach or study. We seek to create
these frameworks to interconnect the teaching of culture and
language, for usually language is taught as a system in (and of)
itself, with its rules, exceptions, right answers and wrong answers.
If culture is taught, it is usually infused into the language class in
one of four common approaches. The author cites these four
common approaches to teaching culture: (1) the Frankenstein
Approach, (2) the 4-F Approach, (3) the Tour-Guide Approach,
and (4) the “By-The-Way” Approach); she warns of the inherent
risk involved in adopting any or all of these facile approaches, that
risk being the creation and promulgation of cultural generalizations
(even “myths”) that need tempering, and eventually revising.
Referencing myths can make the teaching of culture easier, but it
can create problems when reality enters the scene. As an example,
the author delves into a number of myths promulgated about
Americans university culture; these myths constitute sweeping
generalizations that demand more greater and greater refinement
and “reality checks.” The author ends with noting that “American
culture” is a moving target that needs to be viewed as an evolving
entity that will continue to evolve and change as geopolitical,
national, and regional events surface and cause continuous change
in that moving target, American cultures.