3
Transformation:
Creating Context, Part 2
Joseph McNair
In communicating with people from another culture, we must be aware of the fact that they just like us are making an interpretation of what is being communicated to them and that they will never have the full picture.
The ability to live and function in cultures and subcultures other than our own as if we were natives is an excellent way to describe a subset of MA/C skills known as intercultural competence. This, of course, is a statement of an ideal. It is recognized that as with many of the skills and competencies that make up MA/C, there are degrees of proficiency.
While culture is defined and discussed thoroughly in a later essay, it will be useful to have a simple overview of what culture is, what cultural differences are made of and what the problems and obstacles might be when dealing with people from very different cultural backgrounds. Borrowing from Joyce Millet’s (2003) “cultural saavy” website, here is a succinct overview of culture:
Try to visualize an iceberg. An iceberg is a massive floating body of ice broken away from a glacier. Only about 10 percent of its mass is above the surface of the water. Robert Gibson (1994) uses the iceberg to illustrate how much of culture is really “above the surface” and how much is “below the surface.” His model of the "cultural iceberg" looks like this:
The external or overt part of culture, that which is above the surface, includes behavior, language, customs, traditions music and food, etc. The internal parts of culture, the perceptions, beliefs, values and attitudes, the shared historical experiences form the context of the culture and define it. It is important to have a broad framework or scheme firmly rooted in the internal culture of others in order to understand them. Such a framework focuses attention on their beliefs, values, attitudes, thought patterns and their ways of perceiving reality. When these are known, it is possible to have a deeper understanding of another culture.
Venturing into different cultures without adequate preparation can be just as dangerous as a ship maneuvering icy waters without charts, hoping to be lucky enough to avoid hitting an iceberg. The difference is that the ship will know immediately when it hits an iceberg. Millett, 2003, http://www.culturalsavvy.com/culture.htm
According to Dirk van den Boom (2003), individual intercultural competence is the result of the development of interpersonal skills that arise from the following:
http://efbsrv005.ze.uni-sb.de/AHOI/Lima/Base/Chapter3.htm - 3.3-
Van den Boom asserts that there are two (2) preconditions for individual intercultural competence. These are:
(ibid, adapted from van den Boom, 2003, )
So what is intercultural competence? Van den Bloom provides us a good definition as well:
Intercultural competence is the overall capability of an individual to manage key challenging features of intercultural communication: namely, cultural differences and unfamiliarity, inter-group dynamics, and the tensions and conflicts that can accompany this process. (ibid,http://efbsrv005.ze.uni-sb.de/AHOI/Lima/Base/ Chapter3.htm#3.3)
From this definition, it is fairly clear that good intercultural communication is the basis for intercultural competence. In the following sections we will examine the challenging features of intercultural communication including
We will begin by defining intercultural communication as the
management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning across cultures.
According to Gary Weaver (2000):
The ability to communicate effectively with others is a skill that is…learned experientially. Although mastering another language may be a worthwhile goal, in many cases it is an unrealistic expectation… [Individuals can]…understand the dynamics of intercultural communication and anticipate the breakdown of communications that occurs when we enter another culture….
Any interpersonal communication is apt to lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Even when we speak the same language, breakdowns frequently occur…
Communication with people from completely different cultures…is even more difficult and complicated and almost inevitably breaks down. What messages we pay attention to – verbal or nonverbal messages or both – the meanings we give to these messages and how we send and receive them depends upon our culture. And the kind of response or feedback we give to the messages is shaped by our culture.
When two or more people are together, communication takes place. Even if we don’t say or do anything, we are communicating something. Furthermore, communication is a “system” involving numerous parts and links between those parts. When any part or link breaks down the entire system shuts down – a bit like a string of Christmas tree lights. When one light blows, the whole string no longer works… Weaver, 2000, www.lifelines2000.org/prog_manager/relo/relo_p5.pdf
COMMUNICATION THEORY
The above illustration is a typical model of how communication happens. When two people exchange information, they communicate. This is a two-way process between the sender and the receiver. The sender and receiver use media to share information and give and receive feedback to explain the message. This medium can be as simple as air to transmit the spoken word, hand signals or even smoke signals. An electronic device such as the telephone or computer can encode audio and visual messages into electronic signals. Information may be shared using words, sounds, pictures, numbers, and body language.
The sender encodes a message. This means putting the message into a form that can be transmitted, or a signal. For example a thought may be encoded into a speech sound or a word. The speech sound or word is the signal. The receiver receives the signal and decodes it – translates the signal into a thought, idea or set of ideas that the receiver believes the signal represents or means. The receiver then gives feedback to the sender that is believed to be an appropriate response to the signal.
Weaver continues:
Beginning with the sender and receiver, we don’t send meanings, we send messages. Meanings are already in our heads. If we experience the world in similar ways, our messages will elicit similar or parallel meanings. However, if we grew up in different cultures, our messages could have very different meanings or no meanings whatsoever. The more abstract the message, the greater the variation in meaning across cultures. …
(ibid, 2003, www.lifelines2000.org/prog_manager/relo/relo_p5.pdf
Image taken from
http://sv34.bestsystems.net/daqzk000/public_html/web/html/archive/old/html/output/photo/PN/msc04.jpg
Comedian Dave Barry (1993) shares a humorous account of cultural miscommunications experienced by his wife with a Japanese travel agent:
The Japanese are not big on saying things directly. Another way of putting this: Compared with the Japanese, the average American displays in communication all the subtlety of Harpo [Marx] hitting Zeppo [Marx] with a dead chicken. The Japanese tend to communicate via nuance and euphemism, often leaving important things unsaid; whereas Americans tend to think they're being subtle when they refrain from grabbing the listener by the shirt.
This difference in approach often leads to misunderstandings between the two cultures. One of the biggest problems -- all the guidebooks warn you about this -- is that the Japanese are extremely reluctant to come right out and say "no", a word they generally regard as impolite. My wife, Beth, learned this before we even got to Japan, when she was making airplane and hotel arrangements through a Japanese travel agent. Beth, who is an extremely straight-ahead type of communicator, was having a hell of a time, because she kept having conversations like this:
BETH: . . . and then we want to take a plane from Point A to Point B.
TRAVEL AGENT: I see. You want to take a plane?
BETH: Yes.
TRAVEL AGENT: From Point A?
BETH: Yes.
TRAVEL AGENT: To Point B?
BETH: Yes.
TRAVEL AGENT: Ah.
BETH: Can we do that?
TRAVEL AGENT: Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.
BETH: No, we would prefer to take a plane.
TRAVEL AGENT: Ah-hah. You would prefer to take a plane?
BETH: Yes. A plane.
TRAVEL AGENT: I see. From Point A?
And so it would go, with arrangement after arrangement. Inevitably, by the time Beth got off the phone, she was a raving madwoman. "What is the PROBLEM??" she would shout, causing the dogs to crawl around on their stomachs (in case they had done something wrong). "Why can't these people COMMUNICATE???"
The answer, of course, is that the travel agent was communicating. A person familiar with the Japanese culture would recognize instantly that the agent was virtually screaming, "THERE IS NO PLANE, YOU ZITBRAIN!" To the best of my knowledge, in all the time we traveled around Japan, nobody ever told us we couldn't do anything, although it turned out that there were numerous things we couldn't do. (From “Dave Barry Does Japan.” 1993, in http://www.analytictech.com/mb119/crosscultural_communication.htm
Barry raises in the above anecdote the issue of cultural differences in communication styles. The problem was not just the fact that travel agent had difficulty saying “no” but that Barry’s wife did not understand that the expressions “I see”, “ah” and “ah hah” were polite ways of saying “no.”
Cultures teach people how to think, see, hear, and interpret the world. It is not uncommon for words in a particular language to mean different things to people in different cultures who speak that same language. Think of how much greater the potential for misunderstanding when the languages are different, and translation has to be used to communicate.
Stella Ting-Toomey (1998) describes three ways in which culture interferes with effective intercultural communication and cross-cultural understanding. These are what she calls
Cognitive constraints can best be described as the worldviews or paradigms which filter, organize and incorporate all new information. The following is an example of a cultural cognitive constraint:
I didn’t realize that Sunday O., a taxi driver in Ibadan, Nigeria had never been to the Murtala Muhammad Airport, in Lagos. When I asked him to take me to the airport, I assumed that he was familiar with the facility. When we got to the airport parking lot, we couldn’t pay the five naira fee for parking because the parking lot attendant did not have change. This was not uncommon. I arranged with the attendant to allow us to park while I got change at a nearby buka (street restaurant). I was there to pick up a friend who would be visiting for a few days from the U.S. I told Sunday to park the car, and enter the terminal at gate 2 and wait for me. I got change, paid the attendant, and headed toward gate 2. As I approached the entrance, I saw Sunday standing in front of the electronic doors, his mouth wide open, gaping with astonishment. Curious at his behavior, I didn’t say anything, but elected to watch. A passenger walked toward the doors and they opened automatically. This seemed to add to his astonishment. He seemed to be looking frantically about through the glass doors for something or someone. When another passenger passed through the doors and I thought he was going to have a heart attack. I couldn’t let this go on.
“Sunday” , I said, “What is the matter with you?”
He almost jumped out of his skin when he heard my voice. Seeing me, he regained some of his composure.
“Oga, I no fit entah! Plenty magic dey! I dey fear-o!”
Finally I understood. Sunday had never seen an electronic door. He thought they were opening by magic.
In Sunday’s worldview, magic explained much of the unexplainable and provided a backdrop for all of his new information to be compared to or inserted into.
Behavior constraints refer to cultural rules about proper behavior which affect verbal and nonverbal communication. Is it appropriate to look another person in the eye--or not? Do we just “spit it out” and say what we mean or do we “beat around the bush” and talk around the issue? How close can we stand to others when we talk to them? Can we touch them when we talk to them? These rules of what is appropriate when communicating differ from culture to culture.
What about romance or even marriage? An enormous amount of cultural misunderstanding can occur in cross cultural dating and courtship. Do we approach the objects of our affection directly or do we use approved cultural rituals. What happens when we are approached? Here is an interesting story told by a Peace Corps volunteer in Tunisia:
One evening, very late, there was a knock at my door. It was rapid and continuous.
I yelled, "Shkoon?" (Who is it?)
"Besma," came the reply. "Fisa, fisa." (Hurry up.) I opened the door. "You must come over to my house right now, please."
"What's wrong"
"My mother wants to see you and dinner is waiting." Although it was very late, I was accustomed to these impromptu invitations to meals at the Tounsi household. We walked hurriedly through the narrow streets, in and out of the complicated labyrinth of the medina to her neighborhood.
I was flooded with kisses by Besma's mother, Laila. She seemed especially excited to see me. She held my hand and escorted me through the courtyard into the family living area. The roomful of waiting people stood up to welcome me. I recognized almost everyone in the room as family and cousins. The only person not to greet me was an older gentleman who did not move from his seat but fixed his stare on me from the moment I came in the room. He seemed amused. Besma's mother once again grabbed my hand and led me to the couch. I was seated facing the stranger and the room became very quiet.
Then the stranger started to speak. In perfect English, with a strong Arabic accent, he introduced himself as Uncle Mohammed. He gave me an abbreviated life story. He told me he was educated and that he took a degree in dentistry. He was financially secure and could promise me frequent vacations in Europe and a yearly trip to America to see my family. He explained that he had seen a picture of me, one that I had given to Besma. He knew the moment he saw it that I should be his wife. And did I accept?
Dumbfounded beyond words, I looked around the room. Everyone was perched on the edge of their chairs. I shot Besma a what-have-you-done-to-me look. When I turned to Laila she was frantically nodding yes, yes, yes! I looked back at Mohammed, who was awaiting my favorable reply.
"How old are you?" I asked.
"Forty-six," he replied.
"Wow," was all I could say.
"It's a wonderful opportunity for you," he said. "Really the chance of a lifetime." Then Laila chimed in. "You will be in our family. I am so happy." She was already congratulating me.
"Besma, can I speak with you a moment?" I asked. [The PCV speaks in private with Besma and then returns to the living room, all eyes upon her.]
"I'm sorry I cannot accept your gracious offer," I said. "My family wants me to marry a man from my hometown, someone I have known since my childhood." It was a blatant lie. "He is waiting for my return. I am here because there is so much yet to learn. I want to be ready for marriage and right now I am not. I am too young. But when I am ready it will have to be him I marry."
"I understand," he replied. "Thank you."
PCVTunisia http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/culturematters/Ch5/mymother.html
Emotional constraints refer to the way cultures regulate the display of emotion. Some cultures tolerate and even encourage dramatic displays of emotional expression . People in these cultures yell, cry, exhibit their anger, fear, frustration, and other feelings openly. Other cultures, in contrast, try to keep their emotions hidden, or down played. They try to keep powerful emotions and emotional displays out of their normal communications.
The Togo Fulani of Togo, like many other Fulani groups, believe that it is a sign of weakness to be controlled by fear; thus, they seldom show fear in public. Fulani boys are initiated into manhood in a somewhat unusual manner. Friends who are being initiated beat each other over the chest with their walking sticks. No sign of pain is to be shown, and there should be a willingness to receive more affliction. Some have died in this procedure, but the many that do live proudly show their scars as marks of honor.
The Fulani fear being alone or disliked. They often talk with friends to overcome the feeling of solitude. However, this need for company is concealed in public, as the Fulani tend to hide their feelings. Only through songs do they express such things as love or the need for others. http://www.bethany.com/profiles/p_code4/124.html
All of these differences tend to lead to communication problems. When we are unaware of the potential for such problems, we are even more likely to fall victim to them.
The way human beings express emotions vary from culture to culture. Facial expressions, hand gestures, the way we use time and the way we define personal space are often culturally specific.
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Nonverbal codes are important components in all communication, but especially in communications with people from high context cultures. Daradirek "Gee" Ekachai, (1997) gives an excellent breakdown of the types of nonverbal communication:
Types of nonverbal communication
1. General Appearance and Dress: We make judgments about people based on how attractive we think they are. But standards and judgments regarding attractiveness are subject to cultural variations. Clothing and skin color can also influence how we perceive and communicate with others.
2. Body Movements: All cultures have some system for understanding the meaning of movement. The meanings conveyed via body movements may be different in different cultures.
3. Facial Expressions: People are more likely to interpret facial expressions accurately if they interpret them within the entire communication context. Although facial expressions can be very individualistic and may not convey cultural meanings, the display and intensity of emotion is very culturally based. Some facial expressions are thought to be universal (smiling=joy, happy).
4. Eye contact and gaze: Our interpersonal relationships are affected by how we use our eyes. Culture modifies how much eye contact we may engage in and with whom.
5. Touch: The meaning inferred from touch is influenced by such factors as the mood or state we are in, relationship with the toucher, past history, duration of the touch, location of the touch, whether the touch is active or passive. The duration, frequency and location of touch are largely culturally based.
6. Smell: Culture perceives odors differently and assign them different meaning and importance during interaction.
7. Paralanguage: How something is heard and vocalized vary and hold different meanings in different cultures. There are three categories of vocalizations: vocal characterizers (laughing, crying, yelling, whining, yawning); vocal qualifiers (volume, pitch, rhythm, tone, rate); and vocal segregates (uh-huh, shh, oooh, mmmh).
8. Space and Distance (proxemics): Responses to violations of personal space are based on individual and cultural factors. Space between couples and space between individuals in public settings vary culturally. Seating and furniture arrangements are also influenced by culture and can reflect status, roles, and interpersonal norms.
9. Time: Cultures use and see time in very different ways. How a culture views and uses the past, present, and future gives insight into how its people communicate.
10. Silence: Silence send nonverbal cues during a communication situation. Meaning assigned to silence is contingent on such factors as duration, appropriateness, preceding behavior or activity, and relationship between participants. Like other nonverbal behaviors, our use of and reaction to silence is culturally determined. Many Eastern cultures use silence as a common and preferred form of communication. Some Western cultures see silence as nonfunctional and prefer continuous verbalization during interaction. (Ekachai, 1997, http://www.siu.edu/~ekachai/nonverbal.html)
Can you identify the emotions that these faces display.
Images taken from:
http://www.emotioneric.com/anger.jpg,
http://thelarrypage.tripod.com/sadness .gif,
http://www.wcor-av.co.za/webpics/50.jpg, http://www.student.carleton.edu/a/alterj/grief.jpg,
http://www.home.aone.net.au/redfoot/gump/fear.jpg
http://www.marshallart.com/fun/Disgust.jpeg
http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/realface/surprise.jpg
http://www.swagga.com/gifs/missuniverse.jpg
If you said angry, sad, happy, grief, afraid, disgusted, surprised and sexy you score 100%.
Let us look at a few gestures. Can you guess what this gesture means in Japan?
Image taken from http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/~archer/intro.html
Can you what this gesture means in France?
Image taken from http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/~archer/intro.html
Can you guess what this gesture means in Iran
Image taken from http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/~archer/intro.html
Can you guess what this gesture means in Nigeria and other parts of West Africa:
Image taken from http://www.theconnection.org/content/2002/08/20/rummy.jpg
ANSWERS: The Japanese gesture means " I am angry." The French gesture means "I don't believe you." The Iran gesture is extremely obscene, and means roughly "screw you." Rumsfeld’s gesture in Nigerian culture is also extremely obscene. It means what the extended middle finger means in America times five. (adapted from Archer, Z, 2003, http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/~archer/intro.html
HIGH AND LOW CONTEXT CULTURES
Edward T. Hall (1989) argues that cultures vary in the importance placed on “context” for communication. Context in this instance means the set of circumstances e.g. culturally specific knowledge, customs and traditions which “contain” the communication process. According to hall, context:
… refers to the entire array of stimuli surrounding every communication event - the context - and how much of that stimuli is meaningful (Hall & Hall, 1989, p. 6).
During a communication not only are spoken utterances "transferred", but also the "deeper meaning" (or implicitly stored information) which can not necessarily be derived from the utterances alone. This deeper meaning is what is called context. For example, in some countries, when you greet someone in the morning, you must ask about their health and well-being and that of their family. If you know members of their family, you must ask about them by name. This can consume a considerable amount of time – yet if you do not go through the ritual as prescribed by culture, you give offense and/or brand yourself as an outsider. The typical American greeting, “Hi, how are you doing”, will not suffice. In a simple greeting, such contextual issues as culturally specific behaviors that define you as a member of the culture, that are considered “good form” i.e. politeness, respect etc., that imply social rank all influence the communication process.
Culture tells people what to do, how to do it or what not to do, especially when communicating with others. All of the “do’s” and “don’ts”, all of the culturally specific knowledge that individuals have been exposed to since birth, are embedded in context. If someone attempts to communicate with a person from another culture without this knowledge, without this context, misunderstandings are sure to occur.
The basic distinction between high and low context cultures is the degree in which context -- the history, customs, folkways and traditions which bind a cultural group together -- influence cross-cultural communication.
In high-context cultures, most of the information is contained in the context; the message is not explicit. Messages are conveyed indirectly. Hall describes it in the following manner:
"Any transaction can be characterized as high-, low-, or middle-context. High-context transactions feature pre-programmed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message.
High-context cultures tend to be traditional and collectivist. Most Asian and African countries are good examples of high context cultures.
In low context cultures, messages are conveyed directly. Most of the information must be in the transmitted message. Meaning must be clearly spelled out in messages. In other words, messages are expected to mean what they are said to mean. Low-context cultures are present or future-oriented and individualistic.
Not surprisingly, business has made much progress in training its executives and sales people to avoid cultural miscommunications. Cultural miscommunications cost a lot of money. The following is a scenario, presented by Elaine Winters (2002), that illustrates the kind of miscues that can happen when high and low cultures transact business:
Imagine a business environment; several team members have been gathered from around the world to attend a corporate meeting. At this meeting they are expected to make key decisions that will affect corporate goals and objectives. Included on the new team are people from -
Korea
Malaysia
Singapore
South Africa
Germany
Denmark
Canada
This is the first full face-to-face meeting of the entire team. They are all gathered in the foyer outside the conference room of the Seoul office. Formal introductions are made during this preliminary meeting while the team members breakfast on coffee, tea, and pastries.
After a while, they all move into the conference room. The tables and chairs are arranged facing the front of the room in traditional classroom style. The Canadians, the Germans, and the Danes look unhappy, and with a few disapproving words about this making for poor interaction, begin rearranging the furniture.
The host Koreans look confused but make no comments.
The meeting begins; the agenda is announced; issues are raised, discussed, and decided upon. At the end of the morning session, the Germans comment to the Danes that the Koreans and Malays have not said much. The Canadians and the Danes nod in agreement and shrug.
After lunch, the Korean host and a Malay colleague take the Canadian team leader aside and express very strong reservations about one of the decisions. The Canadian is aghast; the morning meeting has been wasted; the discussion will have to begin again.
"Why didn't you say so during the meeting?" he fairly shouts.
What happened? For the Asians, members of high-context societies, issues,
circumstances and relationships are as important as the work. In this case the business being discussed at the meeting. Interpersonal relationships were not developed well enough in this fledgling team for the objection to an argument to be raised publicly.
Also, team members with higher status in the organization were present. The Asians' cultural orientation insisted that comments be made at a more private (appropriate) time.
The context of where and how comments and opinions are heard was almost more important to them than the comments themselves.
The others, coming from low-context cultures, just wanted to get the job done.
The furniture got rearranged because they were interested in the task and in getting it accomplished as efficiently as possible.
The Asians wanted to spend some time learning about each other and establishing a foundation for relationships. The classroom atmosphere and the brief opportunities for socializing were, in fact, exactly what they needed in this new setting.
[This was] a very expensive mistake. The per diem cost of gathering people from all over the world could easily reach tens of thousands of U.S. dollars. The best that can be hoped for in this kind of a multicultural team situation is an environment that fosters the building of a shared culture-- a context, mutually agreed upon - wherein this "virtual" culture can grow, thrive, and benefit from the cultural richness of individual members.
Winters, Elaine, 2002, http://www.bena.com/ewinters/culiss.html
The table below helps to further illustrate the differences between high context and low context cultures
Major Traits in Low / High Context Communications
High Context
Low Context
Covert Messages
Overt Messages
Internalized Messages
Plainly Coded Messages
Extensive non-verbal codes
Details verbalized
Reactions reserved
Reactions on surface
Distinct In and Out Groups
Flexible In and Out Groups
Strong interpersonal bonds
Weak interpersonal bonds
High commitment
Low commitment
Monochronic Time
Polychronic time
1. In high context cultures covert [hidden] messages are extremely important. High context communication implies that a lot of "unspoken" meaning is transferred during the communication - the information may be implicitly contained in the utterances. In low context cultures the messages are overt, out front. All the information is directly contained in what is said, and there is little or no implied meaning apart from the words that are being said.
2. In high context cultures information is exchanged either in a physical context or internalized in the person. Internalized messages refer to meaning presumed to be part of the individual's internalized beliefs, values and norms. Certain expressions, phrases, images etc., have specific meanings known to members of the culture. In low context cultures, most information is in explicit code. The codes, e.g words, and phrases, are selected to convey meanings that are exactly what the words and phrases mean.
3. In high context cultures, there are extensive non-verbal cues which may accompany the spoken word. These cues which can include general appearance and dress, body movements, facial expressions, eye contact, touch, smell, paralanguage, space and distance, use of time, and silence contain meanings which can alter the spoken communication. In low context cultures, all of the details of the message are expressed verbally.
4. In high context cultures, a great deal of importance is placed on “face” [the value or standing you have in the eyes of others] or “saving face.” Saving face is thus preserving respect from your reference groups. Saving Face is crucial to high-context cultures. Intermediaries are often used in order to avoid actual face-to-face contact and the possibility of "losing face". A reserved demeanor is preferred over open displays of reaction. In low context cultures, “face” is not as important therefore surface displays of reactions are often appropriate.
5. In high context cultures, there are clearly demarcated “in groups” and “out groups.” Members of high context cultures are always aware of the groups to which they belong, and the protocols which must be observed when communicating with someone in a higher or lower status group. Low context cultures have more flexible groupings. As such, in and out group membership does not consciously influence the communication process as in the case in high context cultures.
6. Interpersonal bonds in high context cultures are extremely important. Who one knows is an important factor in establishing the opportunity for communication in the first place. Time must always be spent asking about the family and getting on more friendly terms. Relationships are close and personal. It is important to keep well informed about the people who are important. This extensive background knowledge is automatically brought to bear in giving meanings to communications. Nothing that happens to them can be described as an isolated event; everything is connected to meaningful context. In low context cultures, interpersonal bonds are not as important.
7. In high context cultures, there is high commitment to interpersonal relationships. Family ties are strong and life-long friendships are often the rule not the exception. In low context cultures, there is a relatively low commitment to interpersonal relationships. While family ties can be strong, they don’t seem comparatively as strong as those in high context cultures. The same can be said for friendships and associations. People in low context cultures are accustomed to short term relationships and commitments.
8. In high context cultures, time is open or polychronic. Polychronic time is multi-track circular; it allows many things to happen simultaneously, with no particular end in sight. Polychronic time is open-ended: completing the task or communication is more important than adhering to a schedule. In low context cultures time is closed or monchronic. Monochronic time is one-track linear: people do one thing at a time. Monochronic time is tightly compartmentalized: schedules are almost sacred.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AMONG AMERICANS
The Evaluation and Development Institute (EDI) and R Jerry Adams (1996-2003) have summarized important cultural differences between African Americans, European Americans, Asian Americans Hispanic Americas and Native Americans. A few of these comparisons follow. These are Animation/Emotion, Directness/Indirectness, Eye Contact and Touch. (You are referred to the website for the complete summary.);
Animation/Emotion:
African Americans: Communication seen as authentic is generally passionate and animated. Communication that is presented in a neutral or objective way is seen as less credible, and the motives of the speaker may be questioned. The assumption is that if you believe something, you will advocate for it. Truth is established through argument and debate. "Conversational style is provocative and challenging, and the intensity is focused on the validity of the ideas being discussed" (Kochman 1981 pp. 30-31). Effective teachers of African American students are often found "….displaying emotion to garner student respect" (Delpit, 1995, p. 142). African Americans tend to perceive greater emotional intensity when rating the expressions of others (Matsumoto, 1993).
European Americans: Emotionally expressive communication is not a preferred mode in public communication situations. In fact, European Americans worry that intensely emotional interactions may lead to a loss of self-control, and therefore should be avoided. (Kochman, 1981). What people know is not necessarily expressed in behavior. There is a strong preference to preserve the appearance of cordiality and friendliness, even when strong differences of opinion are present. European Americans prefer to speak about beliefs, opinions, intentions and commitments. The prescribed value of "equality" in U.S. culture commonly leads to a presumption of sameness: people assume that if they feel or think a certain way about a situation, others would feel or think much as they do, if placed in the same or a similar situation (Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981).
Asian Americans: The control of emotional display is highly valued. An overt display of strong emotion could result in a loss of face for both the speaker and the listener.
Hispanic Americans: In public ethnically mixed settings or with unfamiliar persons, Latinos or Hispanics tend to be somewhat low-key. They may often state their points quite directly, but in a relatively quiet and respectful manner. In settings with only Hispanics present, a high level of emotional expression is acceptable. (Olquin, 1995).
Native American:The preferred communication style is restrained, "…in order to not impose one’s energy or emotion on others" (Elliott, 1992). Often Indians will speak dispassionately about something very meaningful and important to them.
Directness/Indirectness
African Americans: Generally directly facing and talking with the person with whom you have an issue or problem is preferred. Someone who won’t face you directly shows his or her claim or problem to be invalid; the assumption is that anyone with a legitimate problem would come to the other person directly. A lack of response to a general accusation or allegation by someone is viewed as an indication of innocence. The internal attitude of an innocent person is "I know they aren’t talking about me, so I don’t have to respond."(Kochman 1981 p.90). Responding to a general accusation shows that the "mark hit home." A direct accusation will usually bring a direct denial and a request to confront the person making the allegation.
European Americans: European Americans tend to speak very directly about certain things. Their general form of communication tends to rely heavily on logic and technical information rather than allusion, metaphor, or other more creative or emotional styles of persuasion. "Good" communication is believed to be linear: the speaker should move through…[sic]… their "points" in a straight, logical line, with an explicitly stated conclusion (Kaplan, 1967; Stewart & Bennett, 1991, p.156).
Asian Americans: No comparison
Hispanic Americans: No comparison
Native American: Indirectness is usually preferable (Locust, 1988). This gives others the chance to refuse a request without directly saying no, or to evade a question that is felt to be too personal or simply a subject the listener does not want to discuss (Darnell, 1988, p. 5). Elders with high status may sometimes be very direct with those younger than themselves. An untrue allegation or accusation will often simply result in no response from an Indian person; to reply is seen as lowering oneself to the level of ignorance or over-emotionality of the other person. It also involves entering the negative energy space of the accuser (Locust, 1988, p. 122) and may be interpreted by other Indians as a sign of guilt, an indicator that the accusation is true. Silence on the part of Indian people is often interpreted by Anglos as indirectness, although the actual meaning may be quite different (Basso, 1970, p. 218).
Eye contact:
African Americans: Tends to be quite direct and prolonged when speaking, less so when listening. This is the opposite of the dominant-culture pattern in which the speaker tends to look away from the listener and the listener looks directly at the speaker. The overall amount of eye contact is not different from dominant-culture patterns; it is when the eye contact occurs that differs (Johnson, 1971, p. 17).
European Americans: The European American convention for eye contact is for the speaker to make intermittent brief contact with the listener, and for the listener to gaze fairly steadily at the speaker. Children are specifically taught to look at the speaker (Kochman, 1981), and will be reprimanded if they do not. Direct eye contact is believed to be a sign of honesty and sincerity (Stewart & Bennett, 1991, p. 99; Johnson, 1971, p. 17; Althen, 1988, pp.143-144).
Asian Americans: Japan and China are overtly hierarchical societies in which it is always important to know one’s status relative to the person one is speaking with, so the proper forms of language and nonverbal communication can be used. Direct eye contact lasting longer than a second or two is avoided, especially with those superior to oneself in the hierarchy or with elders. To behave otherwise would be disrespectful.
Hispanic Americans: Direct eye contact is often viewed as disrespectful. When a person from a Latin culture is being spoken to, …[he or she]… may look away or down as a sign of respect to the person speaking, especially if that person is significantly older than the listener or is in a position of authority over [him or her]… (LaFrance & Mayo, 1976). is acceptable. (Olquin, 1995).
Native American: Direct prolonged eye contact is seen as invasive. It’s avoidance is practiced to "protect the personal autonomy of the interactors" (Darnell, 1988, p. 6). Eye contact is usually fleeting, and the gaze of listener and speaker will often remain around the forehead, mouth, ear or throat area. Direct gaze to an elder or very respected person is seen as especially rude, unless one is in a formal listening/storytelling situation, in which case "…listeners may look at (the speaker) more directly … without violating his or her personal space by eye contact" ( Darnell, 1988, p. 15).
Touch:
African Americans: Among friends, African Americans employ more physical touch than European Americans do (LaFrance & Mayo, 1978, pp. 80-81) and less than that usually seen among people of Latin or Arab cultures. African Americans tend to touch children more often and for greater lengths of time than do European-Americans (Coles, 1971).
European Americans: Most European Americans tend to "employ very little touching in public" (Samovar, Porter, & Jain, p. 175) that is, beyond the expected greeting ritual of the handshake. Lack of touching may be related to cultural values of objectivity, efficiency, and autonomy. European Americans have been described by members of other cultures as touch-avoidant. Compared to the amount of touch that occurs in Latin American, Southern European and Arab cultures, this is certainly true.
Asian Americans: In public settings, touch is often so rare as to be virtually non-existent. In one study which measured from, to whom, and where on the body touch was allowed, "Japanese college students received less touch from mothers and other family members than U.S. Americans received from casual acquaintances" (Barnlund 1975 p. 154).
Hispanic Americans: Latin cultures tend to use touch more than cultures originating in Northern Europe, the U.S., or Canada. Levels of touch between members of the same sex occur far more often in public settings in predominately Hispanic cultures than they do in European American culture, and do not carry the sexual connotation such behavior often has in the U.S (Condon, 1997).
Native American: Touch is usually reserved for friends or intimates; however, many Indians have adopted the European American custom of handshaking, at least outside of traditional settings. The Indian handshake is very light and fleeting, to avoid imposing energy on the other person or receiving energy one does not want. http://www.awesomelibrary.org/multiculturaltoolkit-patterns.html
UNFAMILIARITY, UNCERTAINTY AND ANXIETY
Charles R. Berger and R. J. Calabrese (1975) assert that when two people interact for the first time, they have limited information about each other. In such circumstances, considerable uncertainty exists. High levels of uncertainty lead to increased anxiety.
Intercultural communication is potentially full of unfamiliarity, uncertainty and anxiety. William R. Gudykunst and Y.Y. Kim (1997) argue that when individuals are confronted with cultural differences, they tend to view people from other cultures as strangers. Strangers are unknown people who are members of different groups. Anyone who enters an unknown or unfamiliar environment becomes a stranger. Interacting with people from cultures other than our own tend to involve the high degrees of unfamiliarity. With this unfamiliarity, there is greater uncertainty in initial interaction with strangers than with people who are familiar. In such circumstances not only is uncertainty high but so is anxiety.
According to John Downing and Charles Husband (2002):
Unfamiliarity with the culture and behavior of other people, a concern at getting things wrong, an ambiguity about the real content and meaning of the information flow, and a wish to control the interaction all transpire to generate anxiety. Additionally, this anxiety is likely to interact with existing inter-group stereotypes and sentiments and feed a specific ‘inter-group posture’. http://www.portalcomunicacion.com/forumv/forum1/text/eng/text_d.asp
This “inter-group posture” referred to by Downing and Husband is the result of viewing people from other cultures through a we/they perceptual filter. A perceptual filter
STEREOTYPES
A stereotype is a perceptual filter. A stereotype is a generalization about a person or group of persons often based on few characteristics. We develop stereotypes when we are unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information we would need to make fair judgments about people or situations. In the absence of the "total picture," stereotypes in many cases allow us to "fill in the blanks." If we believe, for example, that all Hispanics are loud, we will look for evidence in our interactions with Hispanics to support this belief. In this way the stereotype selects the information we take in, chooses what aspect of that information we attend to, distorts the information to fit what we believe and chooses what specifics we will remember about the interaction.
Stereotyping reduces ambiguity about what may be expected of other people. Our stereotypes tell us what to expect. They also serve our own sense of superiority by making us feel that our own beliefs, values and attitudes, our own way of looking at the world are “right.”. This inter-group posture is, of course, itself made reasonable and non-problematic by our stereotypes and is what we bring to any intercultural communication. Thus, at the heart of intercultural communicative competence is a reflexive, critical self-awareness of our own cultural baggage and agendas and a commitment to work on them constantly. In the words of Y.Y Kim:
… individuals who hope to carry out effective intercultural interactions must be equipped with a set of abilities to be able to understand and deal with the dynamics of cultural difference, intergroup posture and the inevitable stress experience’ (Kim 1992 : p. 376).
This essay ends with a list of qualities that describe the interculturally competent person.
Attitudinally, the interculturally competent individual:
The knowledge base of the interculturally competent person includes:
The interculturally competent individual should have the following communication skills:
The interculturally competent individual should demonstrate the following skills:
Adapted from Scheitza, A, http://efbsrv005.ze.uni-sb.de/AHOI/Lima/Links/C3L1.htm
In this and the preceding essay, an attempt has been made to create context, to lay out an overview of the array of attitudes and abilities necessary to achieve the kind of personal transformation known as multicultural awareness/consciousness (MA/C). In the next essay, we will examine a few of the conceptual tools that facilitate personal transformation and the realization of MA/C.
Go to Essay 4: TRANSFORMATION: Awareness and Consciousness
REFERENCES
Bennett, Milton J.: Basic concepts of Intercultural Communication. Yarmouthe 1998
Berry, J.W.: Psychology of acculturation. In: Berman, J.J. (ed.): Cross-Cultural
Perspectives. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln 1989, p. 201-234.
Bochner, Stephen: Cultures in Contact. Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction. Oxford et al. 1982
Brislin, Richard W. (ed.): Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology. Newbury Park et al. 1990
Furnham, A./ Bochner, S.: Culture shock. London 1986
Gudykunst , William B. and Kim, Y. Y. Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.) , New York, 1992
Gudykunst, William B , Ting-Toomey, and Nishida, S (Eds.) Communication in personal relationships across cultures, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996
Hall, E.T./ Hall M.R.: Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Yarmouth 1990
Hall, ET , Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1976
WEBSITES
Archer, Z, 2003, http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/~archer/intro.html
Barry,D, 1993,http://www.analytictech.com/mb119/crosscultural_communication.htm
Millett, J.e, 2002, http://www.culturalsavvy.com/culture.htm
PCV,Tunisia, http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/culturematters/Ch5/mymother.html
Togo Fulani, http://www.bethany.com/profiles/p_code4/124.html
Van den Bloom, D. http://efbsrv005.ze.uni-sb.de/AHOI/Lima/Base/Chapter3.htm - 3.3-
Weaver, G., 2000, www.lifelines2000.org/prog_manager/relo/relo_p5.pdf
Winters, Elaine, 2002, http://www.bena.com/ewinters/culiss.html
