Navigating Cultural Fluidity: Self, Stereotypes, and Cross-Border Understanding
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10
Identity and culture are both fluid, evolving constructs shaped by global interaction. Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson emphasizes the Self as dynamic, while cultures shift through collective human behavior. Misaligned assumptions, epistemic colonialism, and stereotypes—whether East-to-West or West-to-East—risk reducing individuals to types rather than respecting their individuality. Translation tools bridge language but often fail at nuance, idioms, and cultural subtext, creating further misunderstandings. In intercultural settings, respect, openness, and sensitivity are essential, particularly regarding communication, cognition, and conduct. Withdrawal from harmful exchanges is valid self-care. Ultimately, cultivating empathy and dialogue fosters dignity, cooperation, and resilience in a globalized era.
An important lesson, reinforced through repetition, due to its pervasive fluidity, is the notion of cultures interacting with the Self. As Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson shows, the Self as a construct is fluid and dynamic. Cultures, being made of collectives of people, are fluid in quantity and in statistical dynamics, too. Therefore, the Self and Culture are active naturalistic constructs; both individual identity and cultural norms evolve dynamically.
As international boundaries and borders fluctuate in the era of mass communication and travel, everyone must be internationally oriented and globally minded. We are all in the same boat with anthropogenic climate change, for example. Cross-border cooperation is essential in climate response. Evolution overwhelmingly suggests that we are all part of the same species. Some in what is called the West may not be aware of what some in what is called the East may assume about them. Perception gaps are fundamental. In them, stereotypes often travel asymmetrically.
These assumptions are emotional soft spots. Intercultural mistakes and enmity can erode relations. Therefore, let us cover some of those soft spots, so you do not become a type in the mind of the other person as an Other rather than remain an individual: A fill-in for the worst stereotypes about the West, or the East, if the other case emerges. Stereotype threat is a common risk.
Immaturity can reign here if not reined in, even amongst adults. One soft spot is in cognitive styles: How we know. A core claim or emphasis is the view of epistemic colonialism, as seen from what is perceived as “the West.” The types of methodologies. How things are verified. The platforms that are promoted. The people promoted on those platforms. The people are also barred from those platforms.
When working in these contexts, these cognitive rule sets are crucial. Different disciplines work on distinct skills, mental models, and timelines. Universes of epistemic discourse differ. This occurs with cultural interjection into the disciplines: do not inquire within a closed frame; ask questions in an open frame, remain calm and respectful; and, if they fail to ask enough questions to form a robust opinion, then that is on them. Same for you. Open-ended, non-judgmental inquiry is important in dialogue.
When coming to another country, region, or hemisphere, the professional standards in a single discipline tend to be the same. The cultural frame of a discipline’s utility function can differ. Discussions across disciplines and cultures multiply the problems in discussion and hinder mutual comprehension, which serves as a basis for empathy. Misaligned assumptions are an obstacle; structured dialogue can mitigate this.
So, the epistemic core of the problem between someone who sees humanity divided into East and West, rather than as one species or ‘family,’ is an epistemic perception of a Western country extended everywhere. You do not have to believe this. This will be imputed. People impute group membership, even as individuals resist it.
Another context is communication, or how we speak and how we listen. It becomes complicated in the era of algorithms or large language models capable of nearly instantaneously translating text for you. The benchmark of communication between cultural interlocutors is lower. The gripe is a lack of linguistic or cultural duty of care.
Please speak to a person where they are at, rather than where you want them to be. This one takes more mindfulness and practice. However, a basic LLM or Google Translate can break the boundaries and increase the sharing of mutual meaning. At the same time, these tools miss idioms, politeness, and cultural subtext.
Some of what they see as the East interacting with someone they perceive as being from the West will be sensitive to the silent interactions involved in the cultural and linguistic duty of care. A sensitivity to the interpretation, pace, and register is not separate from the translation of meaning. They are part of conveying meaning. High-context cultures rely more on pacing and indirectness.
Another facet is the behaviour in the culture. In a more openly social culture with the elements of communication more silent than ‘loud,’ a focus on what you see acted out and left unsaid becomes more important than direct translations. LLMs and algorithms often remain limited or ineffective in this context, frequently leading to the most intercultural failures. This leans from conduct into the consequences. Machine translation accuracy drops with contextual meaning.
In any tourism, travel, or professional context abroad, locals generally bear the brunt of the dangers. Outsiders reap prestige, to them. Whether or not this is true, this is the sentiment. Therefore, sensitivity should be based on the principles of mutual respect and accountability: Share the risk and share the credit.
Cross-cultural contexts, if the individual interlocutor on either end is reduced to a stereotype, calm and respect can dissipate as fog from a sunny morning if the stereotyping checks in. After a sufficient amount of time in the morning, the stereotype will overtake the perception of the individual as an individual, as we all want to be treated as, and then move into treating an individual as a type. Stereotype persistence and outgroup homogenization are real.
You should have a sense of mutual dignity for the individual doing so and yourself, as well as maintaining a sense of self-respect: Respectfully recuse yourself. You do not have to take part in your own emotional abuse. If you do not have the basis for this mutual respect, then it is reasonable to do so. You are responsible only for yourself. Withdrawal is a valid protective response. Self-care is ethically sound.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 