As a first-generation U.S. citizen with Turkish and Colombian roots, the “Intercultural Praxis” approach resonates with me deeply because it captures the complex, lived experience of navigating multiple cultural frameworks. One aspect of more traditional intercultural models, such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, is the focus on classifying cultures along lines like individualism vs. collectivism and indulgence vs. restraint. For example, the U.S. is often seen as highly individualistic, valuing personal freedom and self-expression, while Turkey and Colombia lean more toward collectivism, emphasizing group harmony and familial ties. Similarly, indulgence and restraint refer to how societies deal with desires and impulses, with the U.S. leaning toward indulgence (encouraging immediate gratification) and Turkey and Colombia often practicing restraint (prioritizing self-control and tradition). While these categories are helpful in understanding broad cultural tendencies, they don’t fully capture the nuanced experience of growing up between these worlds. For instance, I’ve experienced how the individualistic U.S. cultural mindset sometimes clashes with the collectivist expectations of my Turkish and Colombian family, especially when it comes to making decisions about my future. Similarly, indulgence vs. restraint plays out in small but meaningful ways, like differing attitudes toward saving and spending or the balance between work and leisure. The Intercultural Praxis model, in contrast, provides a more dynamic and reflective approach that takes into account not just these cultural differences, but also the power dynamics and histories that shape them. Its emphasis on dialogue and positioning allows for a deeper engagement with my identity—beyond simply being labeled “collectivist” or “restraint-oriented.” It encourages me to think about how these cultural tendencies intersect with issues like immigration and belonging, which models like Hofstede’s don’t fully address. However, the Praxis model might miss the structured clarity that frameworks like Hofstede’s provide. Those clear-cut distinctions can be useful in professional settings where quick, tangible understanding is needed, such as navigating workplace dynamics. Yet, for someone like me, who is constantly negotiating between different cultural worlds, the Praxis model’s focus on reflection, inquiry, and action feels more aligned with my lived reality.
