Youth and Intergenerational Transmission of Cultural Intelligence in Latvia, Spain and Turkey

Introduction

Cultural differences have often been seen as a leading cause of miscommunication and conflicts among members of different social groups (ethnic, racial, religious, able-bodied/disabled, etc.). In a rapidly changing world characterized by diversity, there have been attempts to find solutions for peaceful coexistence and to settle conflicts by examining, reconsidering, and constructing different culture-bound models that might provide deeper insights for understanding behaviours and interpersonal communication (Earley and Ang; Ang and Van Dyne).

The family space is, often, where effective knowledge transfer takes place. For children and young people, sharing information among generations is a common initial “encounter” with aspects of social, emotional, physical, practical, and, among others, cultural intelligence, i.e. “intelligence that reflects adaptation to varying cultural contexts” (Earley and Ang 4). According to Earley and Peterson, cultural adaptation is a capability to absorb, remember, and interpret new information. The construction and processing of experiences obtained in the process of human learning impact further actions in multicultural settings and lead to more effective cross-cultural communication. This ensures avoidance of misunderstandings and conflicts in spite of inherent tendencies to perceive people, events, and processes differently. Thus, cultural intelligence provides a more inclusive perspective. Young people and their families have seemed, in recent times, to have grown more open-minded about embracing views and practices that enhance their cultural interaction and, thus, their cultural intelligence; a careful examination is needed of how that process of socialization takes place on the ground. Individuals may form positive views on cultural intelligence based on positive cross-cultural experience, and this might encourage greater interaction among different cultures and social groups. However, this also carries the risk of reproducing new hierarchies among various cultures and social groups. The article advocates a perspective on cultural intelligence which does not reproduce such exclusive cultural practices.

Mixed family background, knowing several languages, living or spending some time in diverse cultural settings (e.g. cross-cultural experiences during family and business trips, studies abroad), and interaction with representatives of less familiar or unfamiliar cultures (e.g. participation in cultural events and festivities with people from different cultures) may result in greater openness and behaviour flexibility. The article is aimed at exploring in what ways young people’s cultural knowledge and practices are shaped by their families and how the degrees of openness to inter-group communication and young people’s cultural intelligence are developed. It seeks to present a cross-country synthesis of how cultural intelligence of young people are shaped by the intergenerational dynamics of cultural socialization through comparing three country cases, namely Latvia, Spain, and Turkey. The article exposes the analysis of the everyday interactions of young people around their neighbourhoods, through their reported perceptions and modes of participation. It also explores the experience of young people with cultural diversity and considers how their cultural interactions take the form of cultural capital. It offers a valuable perspective on cultural intelligence which may produce more inclusive cultural practices.

Cultural Intelligence and Cultural Diversity

The relatively new concept of cultural intelligence (first coined in 2003 by Earley and Ang), also known as CQ, arises from the richness of cultural diversity and the challenges related to it. It attempts to provide guidelines, not only for avoiding disputes and resolving conflicts at a workplace, but, foremost, for building a productive dialogue and communication across cultures, significant for all members of the society. Cultural intelligence may allow a person to more effectively process new data and adjust to new cultural situations and cultural diversity. When people learn, including in childhood and youth, self-corrective adjustments take place. This learning can be achieved not only by experience, but also through reflecting on cognitive processes and monitoring, planning, interacting, and modifying one’s own and others’ performance (e.g. regulating emotions and behaviour patterns). This is where metacognition or metacognitive cultural intelligence emerges. Metacognition emphasizes the psychological (mental) processes that determine acquisition and comprehension of cultural knowledge. Motivational cultural intelligence “reflects the extent to which an individual values cross-cultural interaction and active use of cultural intelligence,” whereas behavioural cultural intelligence “concerns the ability to use appropriate language and non-language behaviours in cross-cultural interactions” (He et al.). In addition, important aspects of these two dimensions are internal and external influences and other psychological factors such as stress and its management and adaptability and flexibility levels (Ramsey et al.; Nosratabadi et al.).

Being a multi-faceted integral construct and interactional framework, cultural intelligence is an intangible asset – “a competitively advantageous tool” (Dutta and Dutta) or a unique soft skill that must be distinguished from general intelligence (Ott and Michailova; Nosratabadi et al.).

The set of cultural knowledge and cultural skills acquired in the social interaction within families has been termed by Pierre Bourdieu as “cultural capital” (Bourdieu and Passeron 46). In fact, family is one of the key sites for the accumulation and transmission of different forms of capital among generations because of the intense process of socialization (Berger and Luckmann). In this sense, family is traditionally considered a primary agent of socialization and its definition is often affected by aspects of status and class. Recently, families seem to be facing multiple new challenges in building the younger generation’s cultural capital as they are impacted not only by internal factors, but also by transnational external influences and the transformation of neighbourhoods into hybrid environments, with a pluralism of cultural backgrounds, behaviours, and manners. Nevertheless, it still remains one of the most important educational environments as it ensures informal social interactions within the frame of everydayness or consociality where much of learning, including “situated” or “non-verbal” (Hannerz 149), and recognizable bi-directional forms of familial communication take place. A family participates in a consocial mode of life. Thus, taking consociality aspects into consideration may provide a more nuanced comprehension of the process of intergenerational transmission and diverse representations within it, thereby the meanings coming from formal learning environments may be inverted (Deák and Kačāne).

Since the main aim of the article is on the example of three countries to analyse the ways of acquiring youth’s cultural intelligence in a world characterized by cultural diversity (i.e. how individual interactions across cultures take place, how integrating oneself in the culture less known or completely unfamiliar to one’s own takes place), the article’s theoretical framework was narrowed to Earley and Ang. References to cultural knowledge, cultural capital, and Bourdieu have been introduced only with the aim to depict the main differences between cultural intelligence and cultural capital and how they complement each other; therefore, the article begins by stating the importance of increasing the cultural intelligence, continues with providing the definition of cultural intelligence, and then explores the experiences of young people (including also from the perspective of their parents and grandparents) with cultural diversity and cultural interactions as a part of cultural capital. The novelty of the article is providing a more nuanced understanding of “cultural intelligence” and “cultural capital” presented in the Conclusion section.

To be more specific, socialization among older and younger generations is cooperative and collaborative rather than being one-directional (i.e. from an elder to a youngster), thus it mutually affects all the involved parties. This relationality among the generations makes us realize that the transmission of values, beliefs, and skills does not take place smoothly. Negotiation, re-interpretation, and contestation are all important components of these transmissions. Furthermore, intergenerational dynamics are also bound to change. Depending on historic time and space, the cultural and educational content and shared values often undergo various transformations according to the prevailing power relationships in societies. Considering the fact that parenting is also not a fixed social interaction form, it is important to examine how the features of particular generations are socially defined over time and space, and scrutinize the relationship between parents and their children (Wyn and White; Hopkins and Pain; Vanderbeck and Worth; Vanderbeck). In addition, cultural expressions are drawn from their historical contexts and juxtaposed with one another (Han). Thus, the heritage of older generations is just one of many possible cultural acquisitions taken from everyday life. Meanwhile, such a perspective enables us to draw particular attention to the relations and interactions among different generations instead of “compartmentalizing” generations into different literature and research areas (Punch and Vanderbeck 17; Şentürk and Uçarol, Intergenerational Dynamics … 274–276).

In the contemporary world, many factors affect work–life balance and the pressure to continually build economic capital is always increasing. Because of this, the identification and/or lack of socio-cultural capital may become an obstacle in fulfilling the expectations of the younger generation. The embodied form of cultural capital, the same as human capital, presupposes investment and activities that help in facilitating knowledge; therefore, a long process of inculcation and incorporation is demanded for its acquisition (Spiliopoulou et al. 16). Cultural intelligence is therefore a challenge for individuals to develop, but it represents a personal resource and a capacity to adjust to new cross-cultural contexts, to feel comfortable in multicultural environments, and to interact and communicate effectively with people from other cultures on a diversity of issues including those associated with prejudice and bias (race, citizenship, ethnicity, language, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). It requires constant formal and informal multi-layered learning that includes both perception of oneself and one’s own social group, i.e. self-identification, understanding your own culture and identity, and that of the others. According to the aim of the article, its focus is rather narrow, to specify how young people and their families deal with cultural diversity and develop various levels of cultural intelligence; thus, the emphasis of the article in not on national culture and identity, but interactions with different levels of diversity (diversity in the neighbourhood/also related to the linguistic landscape that may differ from that in one’s home space; acquaintance with diversity when traveling and meeting other cultures and religions, etc.). However, it is often through a comparison of one’s own culture with a foreign and unfamiliar one that a person is able to reach an in-depth understanding of unfamiliar phenomena, and to avoid misconceptions and connect with others. Cultural intelligence, although being a distinct construct, is closely related and similar to emotional and social intelligence (Crowne; Nosratabadi et al.). The additional dimension of human capital, i.e. “cosmopolitan” human capital, plays a decisive role here and alongside such intergroup communication types as communication between people from different ethnic and racial groups, from different age groups, etc., includes intercultural communication experience, as well as cross-cultural experience or communication across cultures (Gudykunst vii–viii) and cultural intelligence capabilities. Bringing up multiculturally educated, culturally intelligent, and engaged world citizens has become one of the greatest challenges of recent decades: “As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for the nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognised and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations” (UNESCO).

Methods

The research was conducted as a part of a large-scale international project “Cultural Heritage and Identities of Europe’s Future – CHIEF” (2018–2021) funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 programme, which by employing a multi-method approach explored youth’s cultural identity construction processes in formal, informal, and non-formal educational settings in nine countries – the United Kingdom, Germany, Georgia, Latvia, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain, Turkey, and India (Popov and Deák 338–344).

The research using qualitative methodology presents the partial results conducted in the framework of the research on intergenerational dynamics of cultural socialization in the family on the basis of three project countries – Latvia, Spain (Catalonia), and Turkey. The countries selected for the analysis represent historic, economic, political, geographical, religious, cultural, and social differences, e.g. Spain (since 1986) and Latvia (since 2004) have been the member states of the EU, whereas Turkey (since 1999) has been an EU candidate country; Spain represents Western Europe, Latvia – Northern Europe, Turkey – south-eastern Europe; Latvia and Spain are mainly Christian, while Islam dominates in Turkey, etc.

Semi-structured in-depth interviews containing multi-level substantive, mundane, and abstract questions were conducted between September 2019 and December 2020 with 97 family members representing three generations (young people, parents, grandparents) covering 10 families in Latvia (34 participants), 10 cases in Spain (Catalonia) (25 participants), and 11 family cases in Turkey (38 participants). The interviews were guided by CHIEF’s interview booklet specifically prepared to scrutinize the intergenerational dynamic of cultural socialization. There were seven main theme blocks in the interview: 1) biography/family history; 2) knowledge of local/national/European cultural heritage; 3) lifestyle and cultural participation; 4) intergenerational communication of values, knowledge, and memory; 5) future expectations; 6) intercultural communication/interactions; and 7) socially and politically most pressing issues (for details, see Popov and Şentürk 10–12).

Based on the specificity of the CHIEF project and following country-specific laws and regulations, young people in the age range of 14–25 and their families were sampled in formal and informal education settings during the earlier stages of the fieldwork, i.e. in schools and other education settings; among these, young people with relatively high participation families on our intergenerational research agenda were recruited to obtain differing viewpoints, perspectives, or “multiple realities” (Strauss and Corbin) on openness to inter-group communication. Gender, geographical location, social background, and social and cultural identities were taken into consideration when identifying the young people and their families. The researchers sought to visit the members of the family in their usual social environment such as their households or a place the family members preferred and interview them individually or, in separate cases, together. In the Findings and Results section, when we refer to participants according to their familial generation, such as daughters/sons, parents, and grandparents, these terms are not intended to indicate an age cohort but the family relationships of the participants according to the youth of this family.

Informed consent was signed by each interviewee confirming that their participation was voluntary and that neither the name of the participant nor any other kind of identification would be associated with data after they have been collected and published. CHIEF consortium conforms to EU Directives on data protection (95/46/EC and 2006/24/EC). The authors of the article also follow their National and Institutional ethical conduct guidelines. The interviews lasted between 1 and 3 h. All audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and anonymized. Meanwhile, each researcher wrote detailed fieldwork notes. To decrease bias and increase validity, the semi-structured in-depth interviews were coded by using NVivo and manually; thus, the main categories (codes) were identified and divided into subcategories (subcodes), and later analysed as a meaningful text (in the frame of documented reflections on interview). Determining certain words, themes, and concepts allowed interpreting the meaning from the content of text data (Hsieh and Shannon 1277–1288). This common research agenda of the CHIEF consortium was adapted by each country’s research team. The authors of this article belong to different countries’ research teams, respectively, Latvia, Spain, and Turkey (anonymized).

The field research in Latvia was conducted in a cultural and historical region of Latgale in the south eastern part of the country – primarily in urban (Daugavpils city) and rural (Daugavpils rural municipality), as well as semi-urban (Preiļi town) settings – where ethnic minorities (Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Jews, etc.) and religious minorities (Russian Orthodox Church, Old Believers, etc.) constitute a considerable cross-section of the society. According to the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, the number of ethnic Latvians in Daugavpils constitutes 21% (cf. 48% of ethnic Russians), in Daugavpils rural municipality 35% (cf. 41% of ethnic Russians), and in Preiļi 64% (cf. 30% of ethnic Russians) (Central Statistical Bureau of Republic of Latvia). “Latvianness” and “Latvian Russianness” are complex multi-level and multi-layered phenomena that manifest themselves in socio-cultural context based on peoples’ attitudes, beliefs, and self-identification, as well as their capability to negotiate their local, regional, national, transnational, European, and global identities. The Latvian culture and language had been marginalized for 50 years during the period of Soviet occupation (1940–1941; 1944/5–1991) and was rehabilitated in the end of the 1980s, shortly before independence was restored and the continuity of the State of Latvia declared. The lost socio-linguistic functions of the Latvian language were re-established, again guaranteeing the state language the highest position in the language hierarchy, as well as ensuring minorities an opportunity to preserve and develop their culture and use their languages in certain situations, as expressed in the Language Law of 1989 and its successive amendments and other policy documents, including Satversme – the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Constitutional Assembly). The interviews were mainly done in the official language of Latvia (Latvian); however, in isolated cases, taking into consideration Latvia’s diglossic situation and when engaging with Russian speaking families, especially their older members, the minority (Russian) language was chosen as the language of communication.

In Spain, the research was carried out in three localities (urban, semi-urban, and rural sites) in Catalonia – a Spanish region that is recognized as an autonomous region with a language and culture of its own. The population of Catalonia is 7,619,494, which constitutes 16% of the Spanish population (Statistical Institute of Catalonia) and includes 15% foreigners, to which is added the presence of people (either themselves or their ancestors) who have been born in other parts of Spain. These demographic factors testify to the fact that the Castilian language and the cultures of other Spanish regions are strongly present in Catalonia, apart from the cultures and languages of foreign people (EULP). This diversity has had an impact on the mixed composition that is seen across generations. The majority of the older generation come from different parts of Spain, whereas many representatives of the middle generation are migrants from different parts of the world (Catalan Institute of Statistics). This cultural diversity must be taken into account in our research when focussing on the acquisition of a family culture. At the same time, being such a dynamic society, it should be noted that families are spread out all over Spain, and over other countries and continents. From a historical viewpoint, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of the older generation grew up after the Spanish Civil War and lived through the Franco dictatorship. Thus, they grew up in a social context of repression, a socio-economic context of poverty and limited access to formal education, and with a poor cultural supply. The Catalan language was used mainly in private at that time, prohibited in the formal uses. The parents of today’s young people grew up during the decade that saw the transition to democracy and the last years of the dictatorship in Spain. From the 1980s onwards, the new public institutions, on behalf of the autonomous government of Catalonia, started a new educational system with Catalan as a vehicular language (Ferrer 187) and providing a proficient level in Spanish. At the same time after the first democratic elections and onwards, many agents from the cultural sector focused on preparing the implementation of local cultural policies. This context would lead to the creation of public cultural facilities both in Catalan and Spanish (including adult schools, libraries, local festival halls, etc.) which helped to promote cultural activities among the young in working-class neighbourhoods, where the population was increasing due to internal migration from other parts of Spain (Ulldemolins et al., 49).

The field research in Turkey was conducted in three geographical locations: urban, semi-urban, and rural sites. With its 15 million inhabitants, Istanbul, the largest city in Turkey, hosts around 19% of the entire population of the country. With its diverse population, Istanbul is Turkey’s most cosmopolitan city. The urban and semi-urban sites of our field research are located in two districts of Istanbul: Şişli and Maltepe. The urban site (Şişli) is one of the central areas of the metropolis and is close to many cultural and educational facilities. The semi-urban site (Maltepe) used to be one of the industrial districts of the city and is now a predominant residential area with convenient transportation access (with ferries) to the major locations of the city. The rural site, Yalova, is 93 km away from Istanbul, also with access by ferries. Being relatively remote from Istanbul and other main industrial regions, the cost of living is not as high there. Therefore, it has become a significant attraction point for domestic and foreign migrations, especially from Iraq and Iran (Şentürk and Uçarol, “Cultural Literacy Practices…” 296–297).

Approaching the sites of learning allowed generating biographical narratives that reflect, among others, attitudes to and experiences with diversity and cross-cultural encounters. While analysing our field notes and interviews with young people and their parents and grandparents, each family is considered as a unit including all of its members. Therefore, interview transcriptions and fieldnotes are accessed and evaluated as a totality to obtain in-depth comprehension of each particular family case. At the same time, each interview is coded according to the sub-themes of the interview booklet. Based on these coding and analysis, it was first aimed to evaluate the data of each country separately. These analyses provide valuable and comprehensive cross-country findings on intergenerational dynamics of cultural socialization (see Popov and Şentürk).

For this article, the researchers re-worked their country reports and compared their country cases and findings to understand in what ways young people’s cultural knowledge and practices are shaped by their families and older generation, which thereby revealed the degrees of openness to inter-group communication and the ways young people’s cultural literacy and cultural intelligence are shaped. The article depicts the synthesized findings related to factors affecting the development of cultural intelligence and methods of increasing one’s cultural intelligence (perceptions of and participation in everyday interactions around the neighbourhood; linguistic diversity in the neighbourhood; the experience with cultural diversity; cultural interactions as a cultural capital). Similarities among these aspects were discovered in three countries represented by the authors of the article. This does not preclude a selection of different countries. Throughout the article, we refer to the interviews by anonymizing them according to the fieldwork protocol rules of the project.

Findings and Results

The fieldworks in three countries revealed that in general young people and their families appreciate interacting with other cultures and societies. Indeed, some of them make special efforts to maintain or strengthen such cultural interactions. Others, at first glance, might seem to be indifferent or reserved to other cultures, but they also present various forms of interactions with other cultures. For this reason, it is necessary to scrutinize carefully the way in which young people and their families deal with cultural diversity and develop various levels of cultural intelligence. In the following sections, some fieldwork findings and interview quotations have been used in our unpublished CHIEF project reports written by the same authors (see Zurabishvili and Marmer; Popov and Şentürk).

Conclusion

Rather than discussing cultural interaction, cultural diversity, or tolerance in abstract terms, we used our fieldwork findings in three countries to attempt to understand how all these issues take place on the ground and are reproduced in the everyday lives of individuals. In this regard, by focusing on the intergenerational dynamics it was possible to explore the perspectives and practices of young people within their close social environments. The conducted research allows us to conclude that there is a common trend in three countries: families being important informal educational environments shape young people’s daily interactions and thereby develop their cultural intelligence. Among the factors affecting cultural intelligence are not only differences in the cultural and socio-emotional environment, the general level of family education and cultural literacy, the degree of each family member’s development, the set of family traditions, and the pattern of mutual relations, but also, and most importantly, the role played by the experience. Through experience, young people can broaden their world outlook and redefine their existing beliefs and values. This can occur through direct observation or through the state of being impacted by this examination. This process also enhances young people’s adjustment to culturally diverse environments and encourages effective interactions with people from different cultures.

In all three countries, due to new digital technologies and new organizations encouraging cultural interactions, younger generations are increasingly more likely to establish new platforms and opportunities to obtain experience of other cultures, societies, and places. In general, young people’s efforts to gain such experience and perspective are acknowledged and supported by their parents and grandparents. While young people might have more opportunities for direct experience of cultural diversity along with new channels of cultural interactions, the intergenerational transmission of cultural intelligence enables a comprehensive framework to shape such experiences. Youth experience is shaped by intertwining with the experience of his or her family generations. Nevertheless, not all young groups are able to be a part of these experiences. Moreover, not all places or societies have the ability to be part of these networks. Therefore, it is necessary to pay special attention to the fact that practices and organizations that broaden the experience of intercultural and cross-cultural interaction can reach different segments of societies in the world to different extents.

The findings testify also to the fact that young people and their families have become more appreciative of different forms of cultural interaction and cultural literacy. In this regard, families are especially encouraging their children to learn foreign languages, to experience studying and living abroad, etc., which are activities that would definitely enhance young people’s experience of cultural diversity and develop their cultural intelligence. Nevertheless, occasionally, such experience and accumulation of intercultural and cross-cultural knowledge are considered as a part of a greater investment in the career of young people and presented as a cultural capital. It is important to note that individuals, parents, educational institutions, and other state institutions have been adding more value to different forms of cultural interaction and experience and acknowledge them as a part of a package of individual skills that need to be learnt. However, such instrumental rationality and investment-oriented views provoke two significant problems in real-life situations. First, rather than developing cultural intelligence that embraces various cultures, i.e. raising the awareness of local and global diversity (recognition of and respect for heterogeneity, interconnectedness, understanding of human rights, values, and opinions, development of negotiation and conflict solution skills, and promoting global citizenship), it encourages interaction with particular valued culture(-s), society(-ies), and place(-s), while disregarding others. Second, while the experience of intercultural and cross-cultural interaction has lately been defined as a valuable skill, the cultural policies and practices of education institutions have begun to identify it as an objectified, measurable, and presentable competency. It is more and more often being presented as a line required in a young person’s curriculum vitae.

This allows us to recognize a difference between cultural capital and cultural intelligence, which is of vital importance nowadays, as being aware of the distinction between the two provides one with tools for increasing the intergenerational transmission of cultural intelligence.

Cultural capital manifests itself as a tendency and feature based on separating one social group from another. Cultural intelligence, in turn, develops whenever people acquire intercultural and cross-cultural knowledge and when they make use of it. Cultural intelligence can be used both while interacting with other cultures and its representatives and when people self-identify themselves in relation to the “other”/“foreign”/“different” on a daily level. According to the findings from research, some young people show signs of developing these nuanced perspectives towards intercultural and cross-cultural interaction. For youngsters from the families that do not have the resources to ensure acquiring cultural capital in less accessible cultural markets, this growing interaction with diversity in everyday life (e.g. at their schools, in their neighbourhoods) offers another profound and alternative way to acquire cultural intelligence. Our recommendation is that public policies devoted to enhancing the social acceptance of cultural diversity are primarily oriented towards increasing intergroup contact and fostering intercultural interaction and social cohesion in micro-local communities than building cultural capital through formal education only. In the process of transforming society, cultural intelligence is to be considered a base and premises when working with young people and developing intercultural and interclass policies on cultural diversity.