Culture Shock as a Bioscience Manifestation of being an Outcast in Isaiah

Jim Schnell, Ph.D. is a cultural analyst associated with the Fulbright Scholar Association. He retired from the U.S. Air Force, at the rank of Colonel, with his final 14 years serving as an Assistant Air Force Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China. Schnell is a three-time Fulbright Scholar to Cambodia, Myanmar & Kosovo, has completed three visiting fellowships at the East-West Center (Honolulu) and has taught at Ohio State University, Cleveland State University, University of Cincinnati, Miami University, Beijing Jiaotong University, Fudan University (Shanghai), Royal University of Phnom Penh and Duy Tan University (Vietnam).

The plight of the outcast, the fugitive and the oppressed who are on the run in a strange land appears in Isaiah 16:1-14 with lessons for how such people should be received. This biblical passage from Isaiah offers insight with the plight of immigrational fugitives via association with the lineage of Moab. “Moab’s rulers appeal to Jerusalem to receive their refugees. A symbolic lamb is to be sent” [1]. This is illustrated in the phrase “Do not betray him who escapes.” It reveals a frame of reference for giving counsel, offering shelter and protecting fugitives from harm.

This perspective is taken further via instruction to oppose oppressors and to fight off the aggressors. Truth is offered as a means for protecting the oppressed from the threat of the aggressors. In doing so we see how the plight of immigrants and the concept of a foreigner hold meanings that are commensurate with how such phenomena have continued to be understood throughout the evolution of the centuries. For instance, “Whatever the nature of the disaster it led to the flight of refugees southward in the direction of Edom” [2].

This focus on the idea of a foreigner offers insight with notions and nuance having to do with being threatened in relation to being different. In that sense we are all foreigners at points in our lives. That is, we all have circumstances where we are out of place and we all have circumstances when we can extend help to others who are out of place. This links with oppressors who, in the final analysis, may be understood to be fearful of the unknown. When we are confronted with the unknown it can be a test of faith. “It seems very strange that the request to give asylum to the refugees in Jerusalem is followed by the premise that when the catastrophe is concluded a righteous king will rule and judge in the tent of David” [3]. In this sense we can come to understand those who act in oppressive ways against those who are stigmatized due to their foreign nature. The oppressors can be understood as being weak with faith.

Throughout history since biblical times, we have continually seen people claim scriptural statements to affirm their point of view. We see this with Isaiah 16:3-4 whereby we learn we should offer protection to the fugitive or “hide the outcasts” from oppressive forces. This interpretation was commonly used during slavery to support abolitionist points of view. It also had relevance for forces that supported fugitive slave laws. Those who supported fugitive slave laws approached this conclusion with the view that such support of fugitive slaves had parallels with interracial harmony that alluded to interracial intimacy [4]. Hence, we see how a single scripture can be interpreted in varied and at times contradictory, ways.

This phenomenon serves as reminder that words and phrases do not have inherent meaning but, rather, it is the meaning that the receiver attaches to the phenomenon that carries weight. It is easy to forget this point but we see it time and time again. This can happen in genuine forms where individuals sincerely believe what they are espousing and it can happen when individuals are knowingly conveying bastardized interpretations of such words and phrases. Each society will have means for deciding what point of view is to prevail. In the U.S. we have a “rule of law” concept whereby we trust our court system to arrive at fair conclusions. However, there are other countries that do not have a “rule of law” frame of reference but they instead have a “force of law” situation whereby governmental leadership establishes interpretations involving law and then the law is to be enforced, albeit the law can change in response to government edict. “By the way in which it lays down propositions, assumes postulates, adduces proofs and draws inferences, it illustrates all the laws of logic” [5]. This underscores how the cultural context we are accustomed to will impact the assumptions we live with.

This scripture offers timely insights having to do with non- Americans coming across the southern Texas border of the U.S. There are varied points of view among the American population that can be understood as being on one continuum but on different extremes. That is, we have American citizens who believe we should violently reject the non-Americans who are coming across the border (at one extreme of the continuum) and we have American citizens who believe we should compassionately embrace the non- Americans who are coming across the border (at the other extreme of the continuum). Then there are perspectives between both of these extremes and the language we use is part of this dynamic. I use the phrase “non-Americans” while others might refer to them as “illegals” or “undocumented immigrants.” The parallels with the Isaiah scripture we are focusing on are striking.

In 1860, William and Ellen Craft quoted from Isaiah 16:3 to convey rebuttal to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. It permitted Northerners to capture and return escaped slaves-who could be interpreted as being fugitives. They posited that sending the slaves/ fugitives back was “unscriptural” in relation to the notion that God would hide the “outcasts.” In 1849 James Pennington quoted Isaiah 16:4 in stressing that God is a God of “refuge” to the “covert” and, as such, to the escapees. There can be difference of opinion regarding how those reading in the day of the prophet would have supported or rejected the Moabite refugees regarding their desire to enter Jerusalem as referenced in Isaiah 16:1. However, it can be said a contemporary reading of this situation would reveal there is an overture to those who are defenseless and without refuge. This would apply to domestic, international and any form of global scenarios [6].

Aside from the terrors associated with being an outcast, fugitive or an oppressed person who is on the run in a strange land there would be the contextual matter of simply being in a different culture. That alone would result in disorientation, fear and angst that would certainly exacerbate the challenges associated with being an outcast, fugitive or an oppressed person who is on the run in strange land. Being such a person living in such circumstances as an outcast, fugitive or oppressed person would be primary and finding oneself in a different culture would be secondary (as a contextual matter) but no less potent. It would be a significant blow to a person’s sense of identity and esteem. “What is of interest to the shapers of the material is God’s judgement over all forms of human pride” [7].

A fundamental challenge within this construct would be culture shock. That is, even if the person is making progress with his/her immediate challenges he/she would still be immersed in unfamiliar cultural settings that would minimize any intuitive sense that would be key to functioning as an outcast, fugitive or oppressed person on the run. This would be akin to being blindfolded when functioning in your native cultural context. One is basically trying to operate without a fundamental sense that would be primary.

Isaiah 16:1-14 is focusing on the outcast, fugitive and oppressed person who is on the run in a foreign (to him/her) culture. I have not been an outcast, fugitive or oppressed person who is on the run in a foreign culture but I have experienced the disorientation that comes from seeking to function in a foreign land with foreign (to me) practices. I worked at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China over a 14-year period. China is a very different kind of cultural context than what we have in the U.S. This difference makes it concurrently intriguing, frustrating and exhilarating depending on your point of view. I found my first visit to China to be especially challenging but the more time I spent in-country the more I was able to cultivate (some version of an) intuitive sense.

My first visit to China was in winter-spring, 1987. I had studied Chinese culture and politics for about 15 years prior to that but never set foot in mainland China until then. I was on the faculty at the University of Cincinnati and they sent me to Beijing Jiaotong University (Northern Jiaotong University during my time there). My purpose was to help create an exchange agreement between the University of Cincinnati and the host university. This involved teaching courses, getting familiar with the university setting and doing my best to perpetuate friendly relations on behalf of the University of Cincinnati.

Culture shock typically occurs in a four-stage process that can unfold over varying lengths of time: the honeymoon, crisis, resolution and stabilization stages. The honeymoon stage exists during our initial intrigue with a place, person and/or perspective that is culturally different (but interesting) to us. It is during this stage that we somewhat rejoice in that which is different. The crisis stage occurs when we are confronted with an event or situation that confuses us to the degree that it becomes a significant obstacle. This confusion can typically lead to frustration and anger. The resolution stage begins when we start to develop a means for dealing with the obstacle encountered in the crisis stage. During this period, we develop a resolution mechanism, or approach, that can be used when encountering future obstacles. The stabilization stage is the final period of culture shock when we have resolved the earlier confusion and have achieved a balanced outlook.

The culture shock stages are exemplified in a situation I experienced in the aforenoted visiting professor scenario I was engaged with in China.
A. Honeymoon stage: During the early days of my first visit to China I was elated to be there, was very impressed with the people I met and was especially impressed with the diligence portrayed by my students.
B. Crisis stage: A significant problem arose when I discovered some of my students had plagiarized some of the material, they included in their written reports they turned in for my class. That is, they included material authored by someone else without crediting authorship of the material, thus implying they wrote it. I was disturbed by this because they were fine people and I assumed my reporting the incident would result in their removal from the university.
C. Resolution stage: I did report the incident and learned the situation was not perceived to be a problem in China. In the U.S. we stress individual ownership of many things, including ideas. In this case we would expect ideas of others to be footnoted. In China ideas, in this particular scenario from 1987, were recognized as belonging to the masses (that is, they belong to society) and there was not a stringent need to reference a source as directly as we do in the U.S.
D. Stabilization stage: I bridged the U.S. and Chinese approaches for using the work of another person by telling my students if they come to the U.S., they must directly footnote external sources or they will suffer grave consequences. It was not an issue for me after that.

“Cultural differences represent a major form of diversity in a group. Groups of the future will continue to be increasingly more diverse so information about how cultures differ can help you be a more effective group member” [8]. These changes will not happen overnight but, instead, will unfold consistently over time.

“Unless someone calls attention to a feature of our culture, we don’t think too much about the significant role it plays in shaping our behavior. In addition, we tend to assume that individuals from other cultures share our values, behaviors and communication patterns, but they don’t” [9]. These unique features can be found in varied areas of our daily lives. “Trends in many areas go together to make up the climate of the times . . . four such areas include: 1) patterns of work; 2) relationship styles; 3) attitudes toward selffulfillment; and 4) messages from the mass media” [10]. Changes in our cultural climate can change much like the changes we experience in the meteorological climate.

“People in most, if not all, cultures have a notion about the self, although specific notions of the self vary across cultures. These variations or cultural differences influence person-toperson interactions in sometimes subtle and sometimes dramatic ways, affecting how we conceive of our ‘self,’ the expectations we have for ourselves and others and our behavior” [11]. Although there is significant potential for differences to serve as possible obstacles to interpersonal relations in day-to-day living it can be reassuring to recognize the primary role of individual and, at time, collective orientations. “Even when people with different cultural backgrounds communicate, shared values and experiences are often more significant than the cultural backgrounds they bring to the relationship” [12].

Thus, we can recognize the important role good intentions can play in the communication process. “To a great degree, interacting with strangers (those who are culturally different than yourself) calls for the same ingredients of general communicative competence . . . It’s important to have a wide range of behaviors and to be skillful at choosing and performing the most appropriate ones in a given situation. A genuine concern for others plays an important role” [13]. It is in that spirit that the perspective of this document is conveyed.

There are many patterns of interpersonal interaction to acknowledge when considering cross-cultural communication. One such model involves high-context communication processes and low-context communication processes. In high-context cultures speakers present messages indirectly and let meanings evolve. Much is communicated through paralanguage cues and gesturing. High-context cultures are located mainly in the Asia [14].

Speakers in low-context cultures are more direct when presenting messages. Low-context cultures are found mainly in the United States and European countries. Awareness of these perspectives is based heavily on both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Obviously, there is much room for confusion and incorrect interpretation of intentions. I should highlight that what I am describing are tendencies, they are not absolutes.

Different perceptions of the culture bound areas are not always a matter of differing values. Values can be similar but the expression of these values based on cultural communicative norms can vary significantly. Cross-cultural understanding can become especially difficult because different perceptions of culture bound areas can be a matter of differing values and differing communication processes. Thus, a high degree of tolerance is beneficial.

It is a myth to believe it is enough to treat culturally (or subculturally) different people like they are from your own culture (or subculture). Such a view is too ethnocentric. A basic goal can be to create an environment that meets culturally different people “halfway.” Intentions to establish a clear understanding can serve as a base for clear understanding. The following recommendations, general and specific, can help enhance such intentions.

Generally speaking, awareness of the affective, cognitive and interpersonal domains of cross-cultural interaction can provide a general basis for improved relations. The affective domain involves acceptance and respect of other cultural backgrounds. The cognitive domain emphasizes knowledge and understanding of other cultural backgrounds. The interpersonal domain stresses the development of communication skills for interacting with various cultural backgrounds.

I shared a culture shock scenario earlier because it caused me degrees of stress in relation to my trying to comprehend the best path forward. There was no good path, only a path that was least negative. However, I was not an outcast or a fugitive or an oppressed person who was on the run in a foreign land. It underscores for me how disorienting it would be for me if I were to be an outcast, fugitive or an oppressed person who was also being challenged with culture shock. The culture shock piece would almost be a given for the outcast, fugitive or oppressed person who was on the run in a foreign land. This came to my mind when I first focused on the scriptural reference Isaiah 16:1-14 in this course. I can see where such a challenge could leave a person with problems of a permanent nature.

I am retired from the U.S. military, have worked in a variety of contexts overseas and am familiar with post-traumatic stress disorder-commonly referred to as PTSD. Each person handles stress differently. What causes PTSD in one person will not necessarily cause PTSD in another person. However, I can see where a combination of these variables-being an outcast, fugitive or oppressed person on the run in a foreign culture suffering the stresses of culture shock-could cause symptoms of PTSD. The disorientation resulting from the stress could be destabilizing and leave a person emotionally and/or cognitively afflicted for life.

1. Watts JD, Metzger BM, Hubbard DA, Barker GW, Martin RP, et al. (2005) Word biblical commentary: Isaiah: 1-33. Thomas Nelson Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, p. 298.
2. Blenkinsopp J (2000) Isaiah: 1-39. Anchor bible commentary (YUP), New York, USA, p. 298.
3. Otto K (1974) Isaiah 13-39: A commentary. Westminster Press, Philadelphia, USA, p. 71.
4. Couey JB, Schipper J (2022) Hide the outcasts: Isaiah 16:3-4 and fugitive slave laws. Harvard Theological Review 115(4): 519-537.
5. McKinion S (2004) Isaiah 1-39. Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, USA, p. 129.
6. (2024) This is drawn from the commentary manuscript posted to the HB 730 files section of populi.
7. Seitz C (1993) Isaiah 1-39. John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, p. 140.
8. Adams K, Galanes G (2021) Communicating in groups: Applications and skills. (11^th edn), McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, p. 196.
9. Ibid, p. 197.
10. Knapp ML, Vangelisti AL, Caughlin JP (2014) Interpersonal communication and human relationships. (7^th edn), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, USA, p. 104.
11. Gamble TK, Gamble MW (2022) Contacts: Interpersonal communication in theory, practice and context. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, USA, p. 52.
12. Adler RB, Rosenfeld LB, Proctor RF (2023) Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. (5^th edn), Oxford University Press, UK, p. 32.
13. Ibid, p. 47.
14. Hecht M, Andersen P, Sidney R (1989) The cultural dimensions of nonverbal communication. In: Asante M, Gudykunst W (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA, p. 271.