Isn't it a fake attitude ? isnt it counterfeit discourse and emotion? Isn't it a counterfeit interaction for the sake of harmony and solidarity?

Interacting with people from different nationalities necessities the highest levels of intercultural intelligence and competence. Although I believe that is quite necessary to have this level of preparation, this does not mean that we lose our identity and beliefs during the interaction with them. Some pose this question that exposures to other cultures, regardless of culture shock, have negative impact on our identify.

What I truly believe is that our attempt to harmonize our behavior according to the norms of others cultures shows our cultural intelligence. I keep insisting on the concept of cultural intelligence and do not accept this view that this harmonization is fake. Also, our readiness to establish this harmony is related to, in a broader sense, our high level of emotional intelligence

It is called coping strategies. Social and cross-cultural psychologists have done quite a deal of research on it. I would recommend John Berry's works, for example:

Berry, J. W. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology : research and applications. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation : advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17-38). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Thank you very much for your enlightening ideas Ivo, Jae , Javad.

This is a highly complex issue. I think it needs sensitivity and social intelligence of a high order. It would not at all be appropriate, for instance, to offend the community you are interacting with. if this requires certain sartorial, linguistic and culinary adjustments it is not 'faking' but simply being intelligent and sensitive. Thus, one need not consume pork in a mosque washed down by beer, if one is studying Islamic seminaries. Similarly, one need not eat beef with relish in a temple if one wants to understand the norms of Hindu priests. However, there is no need to support or commend norms of behaviour which are not compatible with one's values or, indeed, with a universal morality. Thus, while a woman may dress modestly if she is researching honour killings in Pakistani Sindh or Indian Rajasthan, she need not pretend that she agrees with such killings.

Actually the situation itself suggests what is most likely to be the balanced approach. The references given above are very useful and I have nothing to add to them. I have noticed in my own research in Pakistan, however, that if one does not dress too outrageously, does not show off one's learning or wealth and is friendly and polite people do start opening up. One does not have to lie but one also need not start holding forth on the merits of one's own beliefs while looking down upon everyone else as fools. I need not add that this is easier said than done!

Thanks Tariq, for your fascinating thoughts, certainly easier said than done ! one man's meat is the other man's sinister poison , but as you properly mentioned discretion, tactfulness, politeness, affability and flexibility are  part of parcel of cultural interactions.  ..

Thanks Tariq, for your fascinating thoughts, certainly easier said than done ! one man's meat is the other man's sinister poison , but as you properly mentioned discretion, tactfulness, politeness, affability and flexibility are  part of parcel of cultural interactions.  ..

I think, I seriously believe, and I hope it is not a matter of philosophy, of high level studies but a matter of good sense and respect. It is simply the case when someone is guest in a house, or on a yard first it must respect the rules of that place not to impose her rules. On the other side the host, should respect -the customs of the guests. the limits are at the border where nobody not disturb the rules of the other side. In own intimacy should act the custom that could affect the order of the place, or even injure the others feelings.

So firstly RESPECT afterword shoud come the theories...

thanks Ada for explicitly and clearly expressing your view of the indispensability of respect .  

Some great content here thank you, I think that to understand integration we must understand it as a term as it can be quite loaded with connotations of a melting pot thesis. But if you understand integration as I do: The ability to participate fully in economic, social, cultural and political activities while maintaining ones cultural identity. Then we can make progress and work on our harmonization strategies to take advantages of the opportunities inherent in getting to know other cultures, way of life and schools of thought. Of course respect and rules are important to harmonize the social reality but such rules must be dynamic and not rigid in order to react to the ever changing social dynamic of a globalized world. 

Dear Jack,

You are right, I refere mostly to the end (rules must be dynamic and not rigid in order to react to the ever changing social dynamic of a globalized world) but never, to become so flexible as to violate feelings of the others, the good sense etc.

It's a good question. I think that one way or another, we'll always fall into the trap of stereotyping at some point. Culture is such a wide and fluid concept, particularly if we are inserted in a contemporary cosmopolitan context, which will encapsulate influences from various different cultures from different times at once. Individuals belonging to a specific cultural context will have their own diverse opinions on what is authentic, or genuine, and what is not. How long does something need to be going on for until it's considered a tradition? And by sticking to what is traditional in search of that authenticity, are we not running the risk of trapping the Other to his or her Otherness?