Reverse Culture Shock

Reverse Culture Shock

 

Reverse culture shock can be defined as the shock of returning home. It is a feeling of alienation and about readjusting and becoming acclimated to what used to be familiar. Reverse shock comes from an idealized notion of home, the expectation of familiarity, or the belief that nothing at home has changed.

Reverse culture shock results from the psychological and psychosomatic consequences of the readjustment process to the primary culture. Gullahon and Gullahon (1963) described the intercultural processes as originating with cross-cultural acculturation and terminating with re-acculturation.  The readjustment to the primary culture is postulated to be more difficult than the culture shock experienced when going abroad. Furthermore, it is considered the most stressful aspect of sojourning (Sussman, 1986).

            There are specific variables that have been associated with the reverse culture shock. Martin (1984) defined three dimensions that contribute to reverse culture shock: background variables, sojourn variables, and re-entry variable. In the sojourn variable, there are five major locations in which to identify and understand the meaning of this dimension: location, identification with host country, mobility and transitional adjustments, familial dynamics, and expectation of reverse culture shock. While re-entry variables consist of length of time since re-entry, age of return, and social support during re-entry. However, background variables refer to the historical antecedent of re-entry of migrants, the cause of re-entry and other factors that involves. Although, some of the sources, background variable are not specifically given an attention for its simplistic and understandable notion.

            Families who returned from cultures whose technologies and values were extremely distinct than the American culture experienced a greater reverse shock than those returned from cultures closely similar to the American culture. Although, location of overseas residence is less significant as predictor of reverse culture shock it can be then considered elemental even less significant. The classical adage, “there is no place like home” implies the importance of the sense of feeling “at home” in the density of reverse culture shock. In addition, Sussman (1986) reported that those individuals who did not adapt successfully abroad experienced less reverse culture shock while those who are adapted more successfully abroad experienced more relentless  re-entry problems. Another problematic in re-entry is the satisfaction with abroad experience and a lack of willingness to reenter the home culture. The cross-cultural stress and mobility are associated with unresolved grief and loss in the missionary persons, as well as deficiencies in intimate capacity for relationships. Some researches indicate that the realistic expectations of the returning missionary prior to re-entry are a positive significant indicator of decreased reverse culture shock and greater adaptation.

            On the other hand, the length of time since re-entry in important in understanding the reverse culture shock as well as the way in which we can reduce such psychological stress. Some studies indicate that re-acculturation is a demanding task that takes a number of years to accomplish. In the study of Stelling (1991), missionary kids for example who had been in the US more than five years suffered less reverse culture shock than those whom had recently re-entered the American culture. Moreover, significant differences were found between those who returned as children and those who returned in their teenaged years. A rapid re-acculturation to a home country is more likely to a young child upon re-entry. Yet what is one of the most important in this variable is the social support during the process of re-entry. This means that the relative abundance or lack of social support upon re-entry is a critical variable in the re-acculturation process. Stringham (1995) noted that “the returness’ perceptions of connectedness with sources of social support are associated with adaptive or maladaptive coping styles.” Hence, social support and adaptation is a major challenge during re-acculturation.  

            Most reverse culture shock stems from the growth participants and changes experienced while abroad. The changes in perspectives are varied relative to the changes of experience in personal and professional goals. There are possible activities in which to minimize the density of reverse cultural shock such as to take programs that cater to the minimization of reverse culture shock like staying in contact with your host family, company and friends and keeping up with events from the host country by reading books, magazines, newspapers and watching television.

            There are number of psychological, social and cultural aspects which are difficult to overcome and oftentimes being unanticipated by reentrants. These obstacles like boredom, depression, isolation and loneliness, alienation, sexual and relationship problems, reverse home sickness, and establishing interpersonal interaction with the people can be cope with effective strategies like taking things slow, find people to talk to, and understand that this is a cross-cultural experience which needs a lot of time and space to consume in order to fully adapt to the home country.

            The period of readjustment and adaptation come too long when one spent more of his life outside his home country. Although, there are various psychological strategies to cope with the situation, yet, one should have the ability to makes things in gradual process. Meaning, there is the need of not being too drastic in readjustment of self to an old culture but trying to re-capture and recollect the old cultural tradition which one leaved for many years. For instance, the ideal examples studies would always underline is students who studied abroad and their re-entry to their home country. Although, one may experience a psychological disorientation when leaving a host country, one should always keep in mind that after time abroad there comes a parallel period of readjustment when returning home. By and large, it is due to your experience living and learning abroad, which likely you have changed some of your behavior and lifestyle and your return to home country may also appear to have changed.

            In some ways, studying and living abroad for a short or long time will help you also recover and readjust yourself in your entry such that what you experience during the initial stage of your living abroad, the experience of culture shock may have provided you with the psychological tools for dealing with the challenges of readjustment in your reentry. Moreover, the ability of one to cope with the consequences of reentry comes from one’s stable psychological make-up.

Since reverse culture shock is a psychological phenomenon, it needs psychological tools to rehearse oneself with the culture of his point of reentry. Oftentimes, the time measured one’s level and capacity to cope with readjustment process. The more a person stayed longer in a foreign land and how deeply a person immersed himself, the more a person gained many changes, while those who short-lived in foreign country gained fewer changes. This means a person who is deeply immersed and spend longer time abroad may have more difficulty to make things go back to a previous notion of normality. Yet, if one is aware of the changes and cultural make-up of the home country, and willing to learn from them, the process of readjustment and adaptation make come fluidly.

            It is not easy to encounter such experience like reverse culture shock. The process of readjustment is based on the individual willingness and determination to go through the process. If one psychological make-up is stable and has the ability to learn from the challenges, most likely one can able to readjust in short a time. Moreover, if one carry out effective psychological tools in the process of readjustment and adaptation, most probably one can able to make a cultural development and smooth adaptation process.

            Reverse culture shock can be overcome in one’s own way. Whatever external tools one can get and use if without any willingness to adapt one cannot be able to make it.

References

Gullahon, J. T., & Gullahon, J. E. (1963). Readjustment problems of Brazilian returnees from graduate study in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 33-47.

 

Huff, L. J. (2001). Parental Attachment, Reverse Culture Shock, Perceived Social Support, and College Adjustment of Missionary Children. Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 29 (3). Rosemead School of Psychology

 

Martin, J. N. (1984). The intercultural reentry Conceptualization and directions for future research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 115-134.

 

Stelling, J. L. (1991). Reverse Culture Shock and Children of Lutheran Missionaries. Unpublished dissertation, International University, San Diego, California.

 

Stringham, E. M. (1993). The Re-acculturation of missionary families: A dynamic theory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 21, 66-73.

 

Sussman, N.M. (1986). Re-entry research and training: Methods and implications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 235-254.

 

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com