Let me begin with an apology! My answer is not related to the teaching of English or any other language. It belongs to the academic paradigm of sociology, anthropology and culture. It is politically correct to say that we should not be judgmental. My view is that there are occasions when not to judge is to abdicate moral responsibility. I understand that the imperative to be non-judgmental was  the only decent reaction to the biased judgments of colonial anthropologists who were often civil or military officers with power over the 'natives'. However, it is time we moved forward.

The pendulum has swung so far to the other side that one finds scholars trying to justify the killing of women for honour; forced deprivation of women of the right to go out of their houses or open a bank account. In parts of Pakistan women are not allowed to marry according to their wishes. I even discovered that certain rights which one would otherwise take for granted and are guaranteed by law (even in Pakistan) are denied and one finds a scholarly study explaining it and condoning it with reference to post-modern cultural relativism. Authoritarian regimes can get away with torture and abuse of political opponents in the name of being different from the 'West'-- as if people feel pain differently also.

In my view there are group norms and universal values. The first set of values and norms of behaviour are different but need not be invested with value. Thus, if people use honorifics with names and not the first name only that is no reason to condemn them. Likewise, if they eat with hands not with forks that is no reason to consider them inferior. These are just group norms. But if someone subjects sets of people to obviously painful stimuli or reduces their chances of growth then universal norms may be evoked to condemn this situation. I know people will disagree about universal values and it is difficult to find a solution but certain things are clear and pain and pleasure taken in a wide sense is one criterion. The UN declaration of universal rights is not such a bad point to start from though it might need elaboration and perhaps more nuanced thinking.

Michael:

You can choose those negative aspects that are highlighted in the news or that relate to their immediate environment such as violence or drugs on campus. The latter would better prepare students for the real world and hopefully they can help to make the world a better place to live in.

Many thanks,

Debra

The negative  and  positive  aspects of a culture are in the eyes of the beholders. It is   our job to teach students the respect of other culture. It  the  habit  of   every  group  of  taking  for   granted the superiority   of its  culture but each culture  has  something unique and it's peole are proud of.

Should we ask our students to study negative aspects of another culture?

From epistemological perspective think knowledge & learning should be impartial which should include both positive & negative aspects of a culture.  Through these endeavors, knowledge contribution becomes more balanced & forthcoming.  However, for the negative aspects of the culture (which might subject to different interpretations), we need to seek deeper understanding on why & how such phenomenon occurs & what can we do as researchers to value add for the betterment of mankind.

Impartial we should stay, otherwise isn't it a bit of propaganda?

I think it would be dangerous for the students. Biasness in studies are unacceptable. Let the students to conclude after learning rather than allowing them to learn after giving negative conclusion. It similar to prove your wrong thought as right. I am fully disagree with such  thought. 

Of course, both positive and negative.

- Particularly, each of us can´t decide what´s "Good" and "Bad".

-One is able to learn by sharing both "positive" and "negative" features of each other.

I hope you come to Brazil to show your music!

No doubt about that at all.

An interesting question. What are the 'negative' aspects of a culture and who decides this? :) I like the work of Newton et al. (see link below) who talk about learning about another culture to learn not only about others but also to explore one's own culture and identity.  This includes all aspects of culture (what some may perceive as 'positive' or 'negative') but in an exploratory rather than critical or judgemental way. I also like the way Newton et al. discuss avoiding teaching culture as stereotypes or like a social studies subject.

https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/curriculum/an-introduction-to-the-concept-of-intercultural-communicative-language-teaching-and-learning-a-summary-for-teachers/download-report

The definition of negative and positive can be different from people coming from different cultural backgrounds.So why to call them by the term negative? Why don't you use some milder and more specific term like unhygienic, harmful, dangerous, unjust etc.? The term "negative" is perhaps too judgmental and subjective.

Hi,

The intercultural awareness is not about learning all the cultural aspects of the people we communicate in English. Our fundamental goal should be teaching our students how to observe and being aware of cultural behaviour of the people we communicate with and also being aware of our own cultural features and try to understand our interlocutors. People should not be judgemental about cultures as none of the cultural behaviour is good or bad. Instead, we should try to understand why people behave the way they behave. The fundamental goal of the English language is intercultural communicative competence when we consider the lingua franca aspect of the English language. I have always found  Michael Byram's work very useful  in this area.

I definitely agree with some responses above. To be objective, we, as teachers, should clarify to our students that any culture has positive and negative aspects; however, highlighting the positive sides of other cultures is what we should focus on.  

The main goal of the English language is intercultural communicative competence when we consider the lingua franca aspect of the English language then knowledge & learning should include both positive & negative aspects of a culture.Teacher should not highlight negative aspect of another culture but try to understand why people behave like this. In another words knowledge contribution becomes more balanced.

Moreover, we should avoid prototypes of cultures as they may refer to the specific groups in a culture. In other words, we should inform our students about the presence of sub-cultural groups and individual differences within a group of people. 

My only addition I'd like to make to this conversation is that we need to be quite careful when we begin to judge other cultures on what we would perceive as being "negative" or "positive." When we teach the cultures of others, we should present it as it is and refrain from adding our moral/cultural bias to the conversation. Then, when we facilitate cultural discussion, we can allow students to make their own judgements but by having them ask questions instead of simply positing their disagreements. The last thing that teachers should do is indoctrinate language learners on our perceptions of the "positives" and "negatives" of other cultures.

Let me begin with an apology! My answer is not related to the teaching of English or any other language. It belongs to the academic paradigm of sociology, anthropology and culture. It is politically correct to say that we should not be judgmental. My view is that there are occasions when not to judge is to abdicate moral responsibility. I understand that the imperative to be non-judgmental was  the only decent reaction to the biased judgments of colonial anthropologists who were often civil or military officers with power over the 'natives'. However, it is time we moved forward.

The pendulum has swung so far to the other side that one finds scholars trying to justify the killing of women for honour; forced deprivation of women of the right to go out of their houses or open a bank account. In parts of Pakistan women are not allowed to marry according to their wishes. I even discovered that certain rights which one would otherwise take for granted and are guaranteed by law (even in Pakistan) are denied and one finds a scholarly study explaining it and condoning it with reference to post-modern cultural relativism. Authoritarian regimes can get away with torture and abuse of political opponents in the name of being different from the 'West'-- as if people feel pain differently also.

In my view there are group norms and universal values. The first set of values and norms of behaviour are different but need not be invested with value. Thus, if people use honorifics with names and not the first name only that is no reason to condemn them. Likewise, if they eat with hands not with forks that is no reason to consider them inferior. These are just group norms. But if someone subjects sets of people to obviously painful stimuli or reduces their chances of growth then universal norms may be evoked to condemn this situation. I know people will disagree about universal values and it is difficult to find a solution but certain things are clear and pain and pleasure taken in a wide sense is one criterion. The UN declaration of universal rights is not such a bad point to start from though it might need elaboration and perhaps more nuanced thinking.

@Shazia Aziz: I'm afraid that more specific terms like "unhygienic, harmful, dangerous, and unjust" are in some ways even more prejudicial and judgmental than the general term "negative." In my view, any cultural behavior that may appear to outsiders as "negative," in the sense of aesthetically repulsive or morally repugnant, must be examined in the wider context of the culture in which that practice is considered normative. For example, to Europeans and Americans accustomed to eating individual portions of food, the East Asian and Southeast Asian practice of sharing food from communal dishes may appear "unhygienic" at first, but looked at more closely, we understand that sharing food is deeply important to those cultures as a way of reaffirming family relationships and group solidarity. A child who grows up sharing food has been trained to be more aware of others (I mustn't take that last piece of chicken until I'm sure everyone else has had some) and especially more respectful of older and protective of younger people in the group (I mustn't start eating until Grandmother has picked up her chopsticks; my little nephew isn't getting enough food, I must help him to some more), and so on. Then, looking even closer, we will see that, in all societies that practice food sharing, people have also set up safeguards against poor hygiene: e.g., when dipping into the communal dishes, you either use a separate set of utensils (for wealthier people) or else you invert your chopsticks (for people with fewer resources) in order to avoid contaminating the shared food. Of course, in every society, there are sloppy and lazy people, resulting a mistaken perception of "unhygienic" behavior. However, I do agree that there are certain customs that we cannot but regard as "negative" because they violate a person's basic right to freedom from pain and suffering. But even here, it is important to try to understand how they arose within the wider context of social and cultural history, and how they are regarded by the great majority of people living in the societies where they are practiced.

Humans are never entirely rational or objective even though we try to be, or like to think and pretend that we can be.

Cultures, religions, and languages are historic social constructions, relative and constantly changing.  So, as we do with our maturing children, celebrate all growth and change, kiss a fond goodbye to what was, grasp that we will never stop changing our languages and each other.

Michael, could you give us some examples of what you mean by "the negative aspects of another culture"?

Definitely, a foreign language does not mean a list of words, it would be easy if it were so. Secondly, English and, to a certain extent, other ‘international’ languages (Spanish, French, Russian and German) have a different situation from the so-called ‘national languages:, which are spoken within the boundaries of a given state. Thirdly, and am now trying to answer your question, how do you determine what is positive and what is negative in a culture? The good and the evil, that is the question.

Dear all, I agree with some of the responses here.I would like to know what negative aspects of other cultures mean. From what point of view  a culture has negative aspects? 

We have to lead students to understand cultures, to get cultural awareness.

In teaching languages, curricula must be based on Interculturalism, Multiculturalism ,and Intercultural communication. We are not only English teachers, we are people educators.So, It is important to make our students develop Intercultural competencies if we expect them to deal with a foreign language and culture.

You can read about this in:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002197/219768e.pdf

Best regards

MARTHA MENDEZ

Hey there,

I believe that the biggest issue here is determining what the term “negative aspects of other cultures” really means. This is subjective and therefore ambiguous. Nevertheless, I would do it but students would be required to do research on who views certain cultural aspects negatively and why. I would do something along that line. I hope this helps.

Romero

I didn't get through all the responses yet, so if this has been said I apologize for saying it again, but from a semantic view -

From a general discussion question:  I think calling things negative and positive may be part of the dilemma with this question.  Should you teach things that you see as negative and as positive?  Sure.  Looking at American culture there are lots of things that we as Americans even argue about being negative or positive within our own group.  Teaching about a whole culture is probably best.  If we decide that we don't like something in a different culture that may be different than saying it is a "negative" aspect of the culture.  I can think of several things that I find positive or negative about the culture of my town, state, and country but that my neighbor thinks are just the opposite.  I think there is a difference if you start calling things moral or ethical etc... as many probably agree there is a somewhat universal moral code that man/womankind should live by.  I think it's probably up to the individual goals of the class in particular that the professor should decide what is worth teaching - if in doubt maybe consult with others who teach similar classes... I think it may be too general of a question.  Teaching people about the holocaust is worth while in my opinion so that hopefully it won't be repeated.  However that is generally seen as a pretty negative thing to most people I know.  Teaching about slavery is in the same category.  

Teaching culture from a linguistic perspective: you probably don't have to get into some of the more troublesome moral rights or wrongs in a different culture. I'd think that most of the time just teach them as fact if they are important to the language discussion and move on.  Let the students decide for themselves about the morality of it.  (I think you comment "as we judge them" is probably right on the money... )   

Looking at what we think is "negative" about another culture might help us reflect on things that are "negative" about our own while when studying the "positive" might help us to improve our own.  Trying to understand the whys of what is "right" and "wrong" however might be harder in a language classroom setting.  

Hi!

I have been handling students learning English as a Second Language for years and it has been my practice to make sure that they are equipped with the knowledge on cross-cultural sensitivities and behavior, especially that many of them study abroad after attending 1 semester under me. Thus, as much as possible, I never label another cultural aspect as 'negative' because there is a possibility that the terminology could get lost in translation. That is something I try to avoid because it is a very sensitive topic to start with.

To be on the safe side, discuss about issues that could have a negative impact in the society as a whole and allow the students to analyze the issue and ask them why it is negative in his/her own country. After the student gives the answer, you could supplement it with your own researched (prepared) answer and explain the negative aspect of the situation but again, avoid generalizing that it is a 'negative culture' of one country. We have to put in mind that each country has their own unique tradition and what seems to be negative for the rest of the world might be an important aspect of their culture. And what might be culturally acceptable in for us might be unacceptable for some.

I do hope I was able to give a satisfactory reply. Have a good day~~

I agree with most of the responses mentioned here. I advocate for teaching the cultures of other societies period. Some of the things we may view as negatively may be as a result of the perceptions we hold about other cultures or just the superiority complex we may hold over other social groups. I acknowledge that there are indeed some aspects that can be treated as negative across the board despite social group, but I also believe that there are some things that are "negative" in our eyes but not necessarily negative from a certain standpoint. So it is our duty to teach culture and then explore with your students what may be different from their own culture, rather than what is negative.

I think this is a bit weird to ask, but I think that negative aspects of a culture are relative since beliefs, customs and traditions are very different, and what might be acceptable in a culture might not be tolerable for another one. Usually, those negative aspects come to the surface while dealing with language, so I do not think that we should look at them intently because what we want to promote is tolerance towards any culture in the world. I have not heard of any particular studies dealing with this, but common sense tells me that this is the approach one has to adopt when dealing with such delicate issues. The very fact that you would address this intently in your class might affect learners feelings towards the respective language, and as Krashen would say, modify the affective filter, which in turn, would lead to lesser language absorption!

Thank you everyone for your answers to my question.

I do want to clarify my reference to negative and positive aspects of a culture.

Of course, these evaluations are relative and we should not really pronounce value judgments.  But there WILL be things about another culture that do not align with our own.

For example, Americans are very fond of their kind of democracy, and may see another culture which is autocratic as undesirable.  Meanwhile, other cultures may look at American politics and  see what appear to be crazy people seeking high office.  

Maybe we should not treat these things as positive or negative, but as things that fit or do not fit with our local culture.

The same might be said for foods which local people enjoy, but which seem strange and unpalatable to someone from another culture.

So maybe my REAL question is how we address these things about another culture that diverge from our own and may seem strange to our students?  

Does exploring these differences help motivate our students, or does promoting strong motivation suggest only addressing those cultural elements that are most acceptable as viewed from within our own culture?

@Michael Marek: My instinctive response to reading your latest post is that it might be a mistake to "cherry-pick" among issues to address "only those cultural elements that are most acceptable as viewed from within our own culture."  First of all, this suggests that, in any given classroom setting, there exists a set of behaviors, with associated values, that "we" agree on as being "acceptable"-- an assumption with problematic implications for freedom of thought.  E.g., at what point does this cease to be a matter of general consensus and start becoming a lesson in accommodating the teacher's moral and aesthetic judgments?  Also, isn't the whole point of studying another culture to help us to question our existing notions about what is "acceptable"?

Perhaps it might be better, as Adriana Ghoul has suggested, to allow questions about difference to arise naturally-- because they will!-- instead of deciding beforehand that, as teachers, we should predispose the group to focus intently on certain aspects of difference but studiously avoid looking at others.

The beauty of learning about other cultures is precisely that they _are_ different from our own.  Discovering those differences-- both ones that delight and inspire us (we need to become more like this) and ones that, at least initially, seem alien and strange (I wonder why people would do things this way)-- is the primary reason for studying other cultures, because, in coming to understand how these differences arise, we can gain a better understanding of where our own values, moral and aesthetic, come from, and how very "different" we appear in another's perception.

Michael,

Interestingly, you include political systems in culture. A fair number of people in a fair number of countries would prefer different political systems. Who actually represents the 'culture', those who support the political system or those who oppose it?

Dear Michael,

Culture is an aspect which cannot be separated from a given language in teaching. Inevitably, there'll be differences between the target culture and other cultures. However, labelling cultural artefacts that do not conform to those of the target culture as negative aspects is misleading in my view. Especially considering the socio-linguistic profile of language speakers now, it is easily noticeable that diverse languages and cultures have contact with one another. In such a situation, teaching culture should focus more on raising students' intercultural awareness, which will help students effectively communicate with speakers from diffrent cultures in a variety of contexts. However, considering some aspects of other cultures negative and teaching these aspects to students in an explicit manner may lead students to develop stereotypes about those cultures as well as people who belong to them. We, as language teachers, need to attempt to raise students' familiarity with diversity of languages/cultures, and direct them to appreicate those differences rather than judge according to our own values. We should have a 'difference' approach to culture rather than a 'deficient' one.        

Dear Martha, I share your concerns. Whatever we do in a classroom with other "cultures" we must first understand what culture is and what to say about this or that cultural trait. For example, right now in the news we have Donald Trump, US Presidential candidate for the Republican party. He shows off his racial prejudices, has promised to impose his religious views on every one, etc. But could we say that the US has a racist culture, or a bigot culture? The US was the first modern democratic country in the West, although the share of wealth among the population has become very undemocratic. Should we say that the US has a culture of democracy, or not? 

Which would be the "bad traits" of France or Chile? Don't Western countries share the same culture, more or less? Is Germany still a Nazist country, was it Nazist before Hilter came into power? Does Germany have a "war culture"?

What would we say about South Africa or about Cuba? 

I think that there is a difference between an "anthropological" description of a culture, and its present social state. There is a culture of the everyday and long-standing ways and values. They often clash. 

Maybe it is better to say that, if you go to the Roman forum, you have to watch out for the little purse-snatchers, and never eat at a restaurant that boasts a "menu turistico", and never leave your bags alone at a hotel lobby, etc.

In short, better tell people what they should avoid during travel. There is no way that anyone on a short visit will be able to experience any culture in enough depth as to be able to judge its "good" or "bad" cultural traits. Advise your students to buy a travel guide. The guys who write these guides know exactly what to say to make travel safer, happier and more eventful.

Best regards, Lilliana 

Dear Michael

It is very difficult to realize the borderline between what is considered as "Bad or Good" from the point of view of a foreigner. If you follow the news different countries are trying to make their opponents look as devil or what is called "Bad" based on your description. Look at the US government, or possibly administration, they have always tried to make a monarchy out of the whole world and play the role of the only government who feels responsible for all the affairs in the world. From the other side of the story, there are other governments who claim to be resisting the dictatorship of the western world and are encouraging the others to fight the oppressors. Who is right? who is telling the truth? who is trying to deceive others?

From the point of view of critical discourse, we are leaving in a world of conflicts with every one trying to prove "we" are right.

So, "good or Bad" as inevitable part of every culture as long as it is concerned with daily social life, should be (my feeling) taken for granted caz we are not leaving in an utopia with all the best things around us. Life and leaving in another context and culture requires at least a little knowledge about "good and bad" norms at least to avoid what is considered as "Bad".

Best regards, Alireza 

Alireza,

What do you believe it's the relationship between government and media representation of other countries' politics and behaviour, and cultures?

Hi

culture teaching is a need. However, acculturation depends on wether you advocate integrative motivation or  instrumental. Moreover in your quest you seem judgemental (my apologies) how do you measure culture? What do you think of cultural relativism? 

To be able to communicate properly one should be aware of cultural differences. Some body language items like e.g. holding your thumb upwards might convey different messages in different communities consent in one and insult in another. One should learn about these. 

Awareness raising is needed for learners to at least understand their interlocutors

Tariq is right. One must look at what is DONE to the weak and powerless group members (e.g. children, women, elderly, disabled) in a specific culture and the evils perpetrated on them by evoking 'cultural rites and privileges' rather than justifying their actions under the guise of 'culture'. Another key to judging a 'negative' aspect is how the group treats other cultural groups that live among them.  If 'otherness' is equated with freedom to persecute, enslave, or exterminate, then that culture's attitude is beyond 'negative'- it is sheer evil and immoral by any standards of civil behaviour. We don't need to give examples of such atrocities as these exist around the world, and unfortunately we are all well acquainted with both types of 'negative aspects' (just innocuous words for so much suffering...). In short, YES, these aspects should be discussed with adult students. 

Dear Yvette, I am totally in agreement with you!

Best regards, Lilliana

Thanks very much Lilliana. 

Dear Martin

Sure, I believe the colonial powers and their media kingdom are trying to make the other nations and cultures look as they like.

Look at the example of Iraq and Iran. The superpowers are trying to inject the idea that they are manufacturing mass destruction and atomic weapons. What impression do you think it has on the ordinary people of the world?

Is it something upgrading their (the victim countries) cultures or downgrading?

In short like any other thing in the world, language has its own colonial power and for sure it affects the people who are trying to learn a language and its culture. Isn't it???

Dear Michael,

I do see the rationale behind your questions. As a prospective English Langauge teacher, I do struggle with balancing what I should teach my students in the upcoming future. 

Speaking of learning English as a foreign language, one may consider the importance of the Acculturation Model. In this model, acculturation is be defined as the process by which an individual learns a foreign culture in the process of interlanguage development. Culture in this model includes moral values, behaviors, and language. 

However, whether or not only the bright side of the culture concerned should be taught is the main question. In my point of view, as a teacher, one should consider utilising materials mentioning both the "positive side" or the "negative side" or a particular culture. It is noteworhty that the key is how the materials are presented to the students.

As I recall from one of my lectures in linguistics, the concept of "Framing" is particularly important in shaping others see the world. Frames, as Lakoff suggests, are the mental structures that shape how individuals see the world. At the same time, changing one’s frames changes 1) how people see what is good or bad; 2) what we seek and plan for; 3) how we act. In light of this, as teachers, our role is especially crucial in NOT framing a particular culture with a bad intention. 

Besides, the dilemma lies heavily on the means through which a particular culture is presented to the students. Facts do not speak for themselves, but the narration does. Simply presenting facts to our students would not help them understand the case presented because the "cause and effect" are missing. To let our students understand what happens in culture, teachers need to present the case as if the case is a narrative in which there must be a beginning, a middle and an end. Without a beginning, our students would not be able to rationalise the case presented at the first place; without an ending, our students would not be able to realise the current situation or, perhaps, take actions for betterment. 

These are just my thoughts. I hope that this may help, and I am looking forward to you invaluable feedback! 

Best regards, 

Marcus

It seems to me that from one [Cc]ulture to the other, the boundaries of what is "positive" or "negative" tend to blur. For the sake of openness and to get your learners interested in another language, you should put the positive aspects to the foreground in the first place. But it all depends on the age and the level of your learners. But one shouldn't take bladders for lanterns when learning about the culture of a language and be aware of the dark past (or even present) of the country from which the language comes from. Actually, there is neither a good nor a bad way to teach culture: YOU should decide on the content of your teaching, but be fair enough between positive and negative sides :-)

Dear all, Dear Michael, It would be appropriate to go beyond the topic using:

1.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf

2.http://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework/intercultural-dialogue_en.htm

3.http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf Chapter 8.

Best 

MARTHA M

Definitely, yes. Even if someone is not going on a diplomatic mission, but on a simple campus its better to know every possible aspect of the country. Makes you feel safer and more prepared.

Dear Gábor, with all respect. it is important to clarify that this is a different issue.One thing is to know aspects of the country and another one is to teach negative aspects of a culture. Intercultural and multicultural awareness is a must.

Dear Martha, Pre-warning and preparation of some of the negative aspects of a culture usually helps reduce initial culture shock and also provides coping skills to handle those negative aspect but it must be balanced against the likelihood of being confronted by those negative aspects. This is drawn from the experience of overseas students entering AUSTRALIAN Universities.

Hi, thanks.My perspective is totally different.

Best regards,

MARTHA MENDEZ

An assessment of 'Good' or 'Bad' things in a particular society / culture can never be made by an outsider.

Outsiders are bound to judge by their own value system which might not be relevant to the actual people of a culture that is being judged.

For instance, marrying cousins is a prevalent practice in India. I think anybody from West will view this either as funny or as absurd.

There are too many things that go this way, and I believe judging some other culture is not going to work.

As far as teaching a target language is concerned, a teacher should be able to explain things without much distortion, and should also be able to drive in the minds of the learners that the behaviour of the native speakers of the target language is dependent on the culture, social, political and geographical needs in that environment.

I recall a conversation, when someone asked 'Who killed Aristotle'... a reply given was 'Galileo' and someone else concurred 'prefect'... i am still trying to digest that bits of assertions made...

We should teach and encourage our students to learn the defining features of any culture. The debate may be how do we arrive at these defining features; however I think we should not over polemicize this and the liberal temper should not confuse us here. Not all factors are relevant, not all are defining and not all should be seen as the form and content of a culture but both positives and negatives should make it to the classroom of culture.

What is the essence of cultural education? It is to assist learners know what is right and wrong in our culture using the benchmark of our highly respected values and accepted modern perceptions of living. The whole culture must be taught so that learners are made to appreciate and criticize all its aspects for intelligent academic discussions that would ensure societal progression.

Yes, it is absolutely necessary.

@ S. 澍苍 Ye Laird

RE: "when someone asked 'Who killed Aristotle'... a reply given was 'Galileo' and someone else concurred 'prefect'... i am still trying to digest that bits of assertions made..."

Hi Susan. Yes, Galileo "killed" Aristotle postmortem. Galileo's astronomical observations and conclusions eventually overturned the claims of the Catholic church, which were based on the ideas of both Ptolemy and Aristotle, and resulted in the ascendancy of the Copernican system. So when your interlocutor said "perfect" they were likely appreciating the aptness of the metaphor of killing.

Students should certainly be made aware, at least in broad terms, of the history of science and the clashes of science with dogmatic authoritarian opposition from religion, as in the Galileo affair, or from political opposition, as in Stalin's favoring of Lamarckianism. We need reminders of such "negative history" to make us more aware of and to help us understand the dynamic interplay between science, religion, politics, and culture, and to save us from various "deniers" in the anti-science and anti-intellectual camps.

Feyerabend argued that science has often moved forward through the recovery of redundant ideas, and that is was necessary to keep these in play. Have just been reading his "Democracy, elitism, and scientific method" which contains this passage:

"Even in a fair competition one ideology, partly through accident, partly because greater attention is devoted to it, may assemble successes and overtake its rivals. This does not mean that the beaten rivals are without merit and have ceased to be capable of making a contribution. It only means that thespecial applications made of them so far did not reveal their strong points or that they have temporarily run out of steam. They may return and cause the defeat of their defeaters. The philosophy of atomism is an excellent example. It was introduced (in the West) in antiquity with the purpose of 'saving' macrophenomena such as motion. It was overtaken by the dynamically more sophisticated philosophy of the Aristotelians, returned with the scientific revolution, was pushed back and almost annihilated during the nineteenth century, returned early in the twentieth century and is now again restricted by complementarity. Many facts that first seemed to refute atomism on closer analysis turned out to support it. Or take the idea of the motion of the earth. It arose in antiquity, was then defeated by the powerful arguments of the Aristotelians, regarded as an 'incredibly ridiculous' view by Ptolemy, and yet staged a triumphant comeback in the seventeenth century. What is true of theories is true of methods: knowledge was founded on speculation and logic, then Aristotle introduced a more empirical procedure which was replaced by the mathematical methods of Descartes and Galileo, which in turn were combined with a fairly radical empiricism by the members of the Copenhagen School. The lesson to be drawn from this historical sketch is that a setback for a theory, a point of view, an ideology must not be taken as a reason for eliminating it. The ideas and instruments that are needed to analyse complex facts in terms of one particular theory or research programme may arrive only long after another research programme has assembled impressive successes. A science interested in finding truth must therefore retain all the ideas of mankind for possible use or, to put it differently: the history of ideas is an essential part of scientific method."

Feyerabend, P. K. (1980). Democracy, elitism, and scientific method. Inquiry, 23(1), 3-18. Pages 4-5. doi: 10.1080/00201748008601890

there are some universal cultural values and norms . teaching them is easier and less time consuming because of the commonalities among different cultures. however, language learning is not only universal features and cultures. there are some parameters or diversities among different cultures. irrespective of any prejudice, these negative or positive cultural norms should be instructed to teach language and culture effectively. best

Great contributions!

Gardner would say that it relates to some "sort of intelligence" specific to a particular culture which would be characteristic and essential in finding your way in the world. Some people , due to specific location or conditions, tend to develop one or two intelligences which define their approach to life ... this does not mean that in terms of individuals you cannot find specific types of intelligences more or less developed, but, as a general rule, they will display some sort of cultural traits that make them what they are, and this has to be valued and emphasized when teaching students about culture.

A brilliant query Michael W. Marek . I think both aspects- the positive and the negative- of L2 culture should be considered for then simple reason that learners need to be aware of both.

The question is quite different if attention is on students; should we ask our students...which can make the task rather difficult for them from the pedagogic and socio-cultural points of view; ie how will they first find the negative aspects? and second, how will they confirm negativity with respect to their cultural norms?