So my vacuum chamber is broken and I gave my precursor molecule to someone else to do an experiment with that hasn’t worked yet, and I’m a little short on research I can actually do. I decided to see if I could dig up some more research pertaining to TCKs with the free time. (Don’t tell my advisor! I printed 200 pages on Friday!) I found a lot of stuff that sounds cool. I haven’t read nearly all of it yet, but one paper stood out to me as particularly interesting. I wrote a blog post on it with some more detail, but I was wondering what you guys thought of the thesis and of what I think is a good way to pinpoint how a TCK is different from a CCK.
In the paper (Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000) Multicultural Minds: A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709-720), Hong et al point out that culture has been seen in cross-cultural psychology like a contact lens that influences you all the time. They think seeing culture as a network of knowledge makes better sense, because that makes it natural to describe being part of more than one culture as having two or more culture networks that can kick in. Intuitively, that makes total sense to me. Sometimes something makes me ‘kick in’ to a particular cultural mode. In the paper, they talk about people using one cultural network in one situation and another network in another situation.
I think that we third culture kids have cross-linked cultural networks. Bicultural people and CCKs can switch between two networks, whereas I think we just fuse our cultural networks into one big network and that’s why it’s so frustrating when people we meet don’t understand all of our culture networks. I think that’s what the third culture really is – connecting several cultures into one cultural network. What do you guys think? Makes sense? Did I miss something? Feel free to comment here or on my blog, if you like.
Popularity: 6% [?]




