08/08/2013
1. Intercultural communication
Intercultural communication is a form of global communication. It is used to describe the wide range of communication problems that naturally appear within an organization made up of individuals from different religious, social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. Intercultural communication is sometimes used synonymously with cross-cultural communication. In this sense it seeks to understand how people from different countries and cultures act, communicate and perceive the world around them. Many people in intercultural business communication argue that culture determines how individuals encode messages, what mediums they choose for transmitting them, and the way messages are interpreted. As a separate notion, it studies situations where people from different cultural backgrounds interact. Aside from language, intercultural communication focuses on social attributes, thought patterns, and the cultures of different groups of people. It also involves understanding the different cultures, languages and customs of people from other countries. Intercultural communication plays a role in social sciences such as anthropology, cultural studies, linguistics, psychology and communication studies. Intercultural communication is also referred to as the base for international businesses. There are several cross-cultural service providers around who can assist with the development of intercultural communication skills. Research is a major part of the development of intercultural communication skills.
Cross Cultural Business Communication
Cross Cultural Business Communication is very helpful in building cultural intelligence through coaching and training in cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural negotiation, multicultural conflict resolution, customer service, business and organizational communication. Cross-cultural understanding is not just for incoming expats. Cross-cultural understanding begins with those responsible for the project and reaches those delivering the service or content. The ability to communicate, negotiate and effectively work with people from other cultures is vital to international business.
Theories
The following types of theories can be distinguished in different strands: focus on effective outcomes, on accommodation or adaption, on identity negotiation and management, on communication networks, on acculturation and adjustment.
Theories focusing on social engineering effective outcomes
• Cultural Convergence
o In a relatively closed social system in which communication among members is unrestricted, the system as a whole will tend to converge over time toward a state of greater cultural uniformity. The system will tend to diverge toward diversity when communication is restricted.
• Communication Accommodation Theory
o This theory focuses on linguistic strategies to decrease or increase communicative distances.
• Intercultural Adaption
o This theory is designed to explain how communicators adapt to each other in "purpose-related encounters", at which cultural factors need to be incorporated. According to intercultural adaptation theory communicative competence is a measure of adaptation which is equated with assimilation. As Gudykunst and Kim (2003) put it, "cross-cultural adaptation process involves a continuous interplay of decultruation and acculturation that brings about change in strangers [immigrant] in the direction of assimilation, the highest degree of adaptation theoretically conceivable" (p. 360). This approach was first theorized at the height of colonialism in Victorian England by Herbert Spencer who applied a notion of adaptation he borrowed from Francis Galton to social adjustment and efficient outcomes in wealth production. Communicative competence is defined as thinking, feeling, and pragmatically behaving in ways defined as appropriate by the dominant mainstream culture. Communication competence is an outcome based measure conceptualized as functional/operational conformity to environmental criteria such as working conditions. Beyond this, adaptation means "the need to conform" to mainstream "objective reality" and "accepted modes of experience" Adaptation theory advocates that immigrants and migrants "deculturize" and "unlearn" themselves and assimilate mainstream host cultural values, beliefs, goals, and modes of behavior so that they may become "fit to live with" . Adaptation is thus postulated as a zero-sum process where the minority person is conceptualized as something like a full finite container so that as some new goal or belief is added or learned something old must be "unlearned." Prominent current promoters of assimilation repeat Spencer's arguments stating that for the sake of the success of the mainstream culture ("effective progress") adaptation/assimilation must be in the direction of the dominant mainstream culture. While Spencer postulated mainstream culture as the dominant ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving, Gudykunst and Kim (2003) define the dominant group as a simple numerical majority ("differential size of the population" Gudykunst and Kim, 2003, . Any tendency by the newcomer to retain their original identity (language, religious faiths, ethnic associations including attention to "ethnic media," beliefs, ways of thinking, et cetera) is defined by Gudykunst and Kim (2003) as operational/functional unfitness (p. 376), mental illness, and communication incompetence, dispositions linked by Spencer and Galton and later Gudykunst and Kim (2003), to inherent personality predispositions and traits such as being close-minded , emotionally immature (p. 381), ethnocentric (p. 376), and lacking cognitive complexity . Conformity pressure has been defined since W. E B. Dubois in 1902 as symbolic violence especially when a minority cannot conform even if they wish to due to inherent properties such as disabilities, race, gender, ethnicity, and so forth. Forced compliance/assimilation based on majority group coercion constitutes what Pierre Bourdieu writing in the 1960s and dealing with issues of intercultural communication and conflict called symbolic violence (in English, Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambrudge and New York: Cambridge Univ Press). As Bourdieu (1977) maintains, the effect of symbolic violence such as host cultural coercion, the catalyst for "positive" cross-cultural adaptation according to Gudykunst and Kim (2003), results in the personal disintegration of the minority person's psyche. If the coercive power is great enough and the self-efficacy and self-esteem of the minority immigrant is destroyed, the effect leads to a mis-recognition of power relations situated in the social matrix of a given field. For example, in the process of reciprocal gift exchange in the Kabyle society of Algeria, where there is asymmetry in wealth between the two parties the better endowed giver "can impose a strict relation of hierarchy and debt upon the receiver." Symbolic violence, therefore, is fundamentally the imposition of categories of thought and perception upon dominated social agents who, once they begin observing and evaluating the world in terms of those categories — and without necessarily being aware of the change in their perspective — then perceive the existing social order as just, thereby perpetuating a social structure favored by and serving the interests of those agents who are already dominant. Symbolic violence is in some senses much more powerful than physical violence in that it is embedded in the very modes of action and structures of cognition of individuals, and imposes the specter of legitimacy of the social order.
• Co-cultural Theory
o In its most general form, co-cultural communication refers to interactions among underrepresented and dominant group members. Co-cultures include but are not limited to people of color, women, people with disabilities, gay men and le****ns, and those in the lower social classes. Co-cultural theory, as developed by Mark P. Orbe, looks at the strategic ways in which co-cultural group members communicate with others. In addition, a co-cultural framework provides an explanation for how different persons communicate based on six factors.
Theories focusing on identity negotiation or management
• Identity Management Theory
• Identity Negotiation
• Cultural Identity Theory
• Double-swing model
Theories focusing on communication networks
• Networks and Out-group Communication Competence
• Intracultural Versus Intercultural Networks
• Networks and Acculturation
Theories focusing on acculturation and adjustment
• Communication Acculturation
o This theory attempts to portray "cross-cultural adaption as a collaborative effort in which a stranger and the receiving environment are engaged in a joint effort."
• Anxiety/Uncertainty Management
o When strangers communicate with hosts, they experience uncertainty and anxiety. Strangers need to manage their uncertainty as well as their anxiety in order to be able to communicate effectively with hosts and then to try to develop accurate predictions and explanations for hosts' behaviors.
• Assimilation, Deviance, and Alienation States
o Assimilation and adaption are not permanent outcomes of the adaption process; rather, they are temporary outcomes of the communication process between hosts and immigrants. "Alienation or assimilation, therefore, of a group or an individual, is an outcome of the relationship between deviant behavior and neglectful communication."
Other Theories
• Meaning of Meaning Theory - "A misunderstanding takes place when people assume a word has a direct connection with its referent. A common past reduces misunderstanding. Definition, metaphor, feedforward, and Basic English are partial linguistic remedies for a lack of shared experience."
• Face Negotiation Theory - "Members of collectivistic, high-context cultures have concerns for mutual face and inclusion that lead them to manage conflict with another person by avoiding, obliging, or compromising. Because of concerns for self-face and autonomy, people from individualistic, low-context cultures manage conflict by dominating or through problem solving"
• Standpoint Theory - Is an individual experiences, knowledge, and communication behaviors are shaped in large part by the social groups to which they belong. Individuals sometimes view things similarly, but other times have very different views in which they see the world. The ways in which they view the world are shaped by the experiences they have and through the social group they identify themselves to be a part of.
• Stranger Theory - At least one of the persons in an intercultural encounter is a stranger. Strangers are a 'hyperaware' of cultural differences and tend to overestimate the effect of cultural identity on the behavior of people in an alien society, while blurring individual distinctions.
• Feminist Genre Theory - Evaluates communication by identifying feminist speakers and reframing their speaking qualities as models for women's liberation.
• Genderless Theory - "Male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication. Masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking. Men's report talk focuses on status and independence. Women's support talk seeks human connection."
• Cultural Critical Studies Theory - The theory states that the mass media impose the dominant ideology on the rest of society, and the connotations of words and images are fragments of ideology that perform an unwitting service for the ruling elite.
• Marxist Theory - Marxism is a theory based on Dialectical Materialism, which aims at explaining class struggle and the basis of social relations through economics.
Intercultural Communication Competence
Intercultural communication is competent when it accomplishes the objectives in a manner that is appropriate to the context and relationship. Intercultural communication thus needs to bridge the dichotomy between appropriateness and effectiveness:
• Appropriateness. Valued rules, norms, and expectations of the relationship are not violated significantly.
• Effectiveness. Valued goals or rewards (relative to costs and alternatives) are accomplished.
Various publications list necessary competencies for intercultural communication. Twelve affective, behavioural and cognitive competencies have been identified:
• Self-awareness. Is conscious about one's self (the way one looks) and about one's reputation elsewhere.
• Appropriateness. Has knowledge of the socially appropriate communicative behaviour.
• Self-confidence. Holds a realistic and positive confidence in own judgements, abilities and powers.
• Effectiveness. Is able to bring about an effect.
• Motivation for success. Has a strong orientation towards pragmatism and useful action.
• Changing perspectives. Tries to understand actions and reactions of others from their point of view.
• Empathy. Shows interest in others and shares emotions.
• Open-mindedness. Is open towards new ideas and experiences; functions effectively with people of other world views.
• Communication ability. Fully appreciates what others are saying and thinks consequentially prior to answering.
• Tolerance. Is free from bigotry and prejudice, accepts and advocates diversity.
• Sensitivity. Is sensitive to the importance of differences and to the point of view of other people.
• Flexibility. Having a type of mental elasticity allowing to be part of and yet apart from another milieu.
2: American Values and Assumptions
The concepts of "values" and "assumptions" are closely related: values are ideas about right and wrong, desirable and undesirable, normal and abnormal; assumptions are postulates, often accepted without much consideration. It's acknowledged that ethicists may define them in a different way, but this is for the purposes of the present discussion. People who are raised in a particular culture learn the same values and assumptions - they are learned from parents, relatives, educators, media, and other members of one's community. This does not mean that every person shares exactly the same values to exactly the same extent, but there is a significant degree of commonality. The author acknowledges that lists o values are arbitrary and may be defined differently by different sources, but presents a list of eight that he feels to be particularly germane to American culture:
Individualism, freedom, competitiveness, and privacy
Equality
Informality
The future, change, and progress
Goodness of humanity
Time
Achievement, action, work, and materialism
Directness and assertiveness.
INDIVIDUALISM, FREEDOM, COMPETITIVENESS, AND PRIVACY
Individualism is perhaps the most vital to understanding American culture. Americans are trained from very early in their lives to consider themselves as individuals, responsible for their own welfare and destiny, rather than as members of any of the collectives in which they may participate. Research in the social sciences indicates American culture is the most individualistic in the world, and that individualism is perhaps the most significant characteristic of the culture. It follows that Americans are disdainful of collectively-minded cultures: a person who is concerned with obligation to family, following tradition, or conforming to the expectations of a group is seen as weak. Such a person is deemed incapable or unwilling to make up their own mind, and it's believed that person would be happier if they could have the opportunity to assert themselves and follow their own individual desires. An example is given of a group of Malaysian students, who struggled terribly with an introductory college class in psychology. Such students had very little exposure to the concepts of Western psychology, and what they were being taught did not correlate to their personal experience. They simply could not relate. Americans consider the ideal person to be individualistic, self-reliant, and independent - and incorrectly assume that people from elsewhere share this value. Such an individual idealizes an environment of freedom, where neither government nor any other external force dictates what he does. People from other cultures consider the individualistic behaviors to be self-centered and lacking in consideration for others. They regard such behavior as immoral. But a foreign visitor who understands that Americans value freedom and independence can identify this as the root of many attitudes and behaviors. Some examples follow:
The people most revered by Americans, their heroes, are individuals who do things differently or better than others - especially when defying convention leads to heightened success.
Americans admire individuals who overcome adverse circumstances such as poverty or a physical handicap. The notion of a disadvantaged person who succeeds is of particular noteworthiness
Many Americans do not display the degree of reverence for parents that people from more family-oriented societies do. The tie between a parent and adult child is comparatively very weak.
Children are expected to reach an "age of independence" and strike out on their own. It is not unusual for children who remain at home beyond college-age to pay parents for room and board, or for elderly parents who move in with grown children to do likewise.
Americans buy huge numbers of self-help and how-to books, and value education as the means to more competently take care of themselves.
Americans develop stronger "people" skills - being outgoing, making a good impression, being well mannered, being adept at conversation, etc. - as they acknowledge the need to work with others and lack a group with formalize rituals for interaction
To pay relatively little attention to the groups (including family) they belong to
To take pride in personal accomplishment
To be competitive with others, instead of cooperative, even to the detriment of interpersonal relations
To be more involved with peers and more comfortable in egalitarian relationships and less comfortable in situations with people of higher or lower status
To define status according to accomplishments rather than relationships or affiliations
To take satisfaction in relationships that seem superficial and short-term
To be ready to "talk business" with minimal getting acquainted
To place great importance on rules, procedures, deadlines, and contracts
To be suspicious of, rather than respectful toward, authority
To seek time to be alone - and moreover, to consider themselves to be essentially alone
To prefer to take care of problems by themselves
Competitiveness is a concept that bears further consideration: individualistic Americans see themselves as being competitive with others, and the notion of competition pervades the culture. It is obvious in the attention given to sports, both professional and even games among children. It's a bit less obvious, but still pervasive, in the way people persistently compare themselves to others and desire to be better than others at virtually everything they do. Another important notion is the conception of the "self" - as a persistent identity that is the same in any environment. In other cultures, the notion of a person is more fluid, and personality changes according to context and situational rules. Privacy is another important derivative of individualism. More so than other cultures, Americans seek to have "private time" to be alone and think things over, to retreat from the presence of others. They do not understand a person who cannot be alone, and regards such people as weak or dependent. This is evident from early childhood: it is most common for children to have their own rooms, even from early childhood, where they can stay by themselves and keep their private possessions. The room, and the things within it, belongs to a single person. It is likewise maintained that people have "private thoughts" to which others are not permitted access - sometimes; knowledge is shared with a selected few individuals "close" to a person, and sometimes not at all. The notion of privacy is evident in professional relationships - the confidentiality that is expected of doctors, lawyers, and psychologists. The attitude toward privacy can be difficult to understand in the face of American indiscretion. A person who will invite a casual acquaintance into their home, speak openly to strangers about sensitive issues that other cultures would jeep confidential, post revealing details about their personal life to Facebook, does not seem concerned with privacy - but there is a specific boundary that is not to be crossed. Defining where each person "draws the line" can be difficult - but once it's crossed, they can become aloof or hostile.
EQUALITY
The notion that "all men are created equal" is an ideal that is generally maintained. Americans believe in some fundamental way that all people are of equal value and that no-one is innately superior to another person. The democratic process and the notion of civil rights are based this belief. Americans are loath to defer to others, and are uncomfortable when treated with deference. They approach social interaction, and expect others to respond, on the basis of equal status. Everyone, no matter how unfortunate, deserves some basic level of respect. Americans are resistant to the notion that there are social classes in America. While they acknowledge differences in the level of wealth, they see no other difference between rich and poor, and are generally pleased by instances in which a wealthy person behaves like a "regular guy." Over the past fifty years, this notion of equal status has been extended to formerly disenfranchised groups, namely women and minorities. The general attitude is that people may be "different, but not inferior." This is not to say that Americans make no distinctions, but such distinctions are acknowledged in relatively subtle ways. The notion of status does remain, however, in power relationships. This is especially evident in the workplace: a person of higher status will sit at the head of a table, speak loudest and longest, interrupt others, initiate physical contact, etc. and individuals of lower status will assume other positions, speak less frequently, etc. to accommodate. Foreigners accustomed to more obvious displays of respect, such as bowing or avoiding eye contact, may incorrectly assume Americans are disrespectful of others or are utterly unaware of differences in status - but it is merely more subtle. Another distinctive belief in social mobility - that status is generally earned and that anyone, through their own effort, can achieve success and move up the "social ladder."
INFORMALITY
The sense of equality leads Americans to be informal in their interactions with other people. Even those who are in subservient roles, such as waiters and store clerks, treat customers in a casual and friendly manner. A servant who is treated in a brusque or disrespectful manner will take offense, which confounds many foreigners who are accustomed to greater deference and servility from individuals in lowly professions. Relationships between doctor and patient, student and teacher, worker and supervisor are likewise marked by an air of seeming informality. Peer relationships are also entirely casual. The example is given of a dinner party: a staffer at a university office invites a mixed group of people to their home for dinner; shows them where to find the food and drinks in her kitchen and says to "make yourself at home," which people generally do, roaming about the place. When discussing the party later, French students remarked such a thing would not be possible in their country: casual acquaintances are not invited to visit a person's home, or given free run of the place, and that people of various standings (students, staff, professors) do not casually intermingle in a social setting. Americans are informal in their speech, dress, and body language. Except when making a formal presentation, Americans use idiomatic speech and slang - and even in a formal presentation, the attitude toward the audience is more causal and interactive. When interacting with others, Americans are at ease - they will slouch in chairs or lean on walls when they converse, rather than maintaining a rigid posture. Americans of any station in life dress informally and causally in public places - even wealthy people will wear jeans or sandals. In fact, a wealthy or powerful person in casual attire is lauded for his egalitarianism - he doesn't hold himself above others. Even U.S. Presidents dress "down" - Bill Clinton was often seen in shorts and a T-shirt while jogging, George Bush was often photographed wearing work clothing on his ranch. (EN: Probably worth noting that this was not accidental and in some cases was even staged - a politician seeks to humanize themselves, as being austere and aloof makes them less "likable" to voters.) The superficial friendliness for which Americans are well known - casual greetings to complete strangers - is likewise an effect of their egalitarian approach toward other people.
THE FUTURE, CHANGE, AND PROGRESS
Americans tend to be forward looking, and are less concerned with history and tradition than other cultures: history doesn't matter - it's the future that counts. They also believe that the future is within their control, or at the very least they have the ability to influence it. Setting goals and working to achieve them is a common practice - and it is typical for a job interview to ask the question, "where do you see yourself in five years?" and to expect the respondent to have a ready answer. This carries with it the premise that the present situation in which anyone finds himself is undesirable, at least in certain aspects, and that change is necessary to effect improvements. Where a person is going is more important, and better, than where they presently are. Precipitating from the assumption of power is the belief that anything in the physical or social environment is subject to human influence and control. Early Americans cleared forests and drained marshes to build a nation; contemporary Americans replant forests and restore wetlands to correct their mistakes. The popularity of fitness, dentistry, and cosmetic surgery are evidence of the desire to control their own persons and amend or improve their physical selves. One cross-cultural trainer suggests, "If you want to be an American, you have to believe you can fix it." This sense of personal empowerment does not exist in many other cultures. Abroad, it is much more common to accept that things "are the way they are" and that it is beyond the capabilities of one person to make a change: the future is in the hands of god, or in the hands of a few powerful individuals who dominate a society, and not subject to the will of common man, whose goal is to accept his circumstances rather than seek to change them. As such, American attitudes on personal power seem naive, arrogant, or even sacrilegious to foreigners. And conversely, Americans regard those who refuse to assume responsibility and take control of their own destiny as being weak or apathetic.
GOODNESS OF HUMANITY
Americans generally assume that human nature is basically good, rather than evil, and that people act with the intention of effective positive and constructive change in future. A handful of examples or precipitating behavior are given:
Americans value training - not just for youth, but at every stage of life. Adults seek to advance in their career or change to a more profitable profession by reading, attending classes, availing themselves of training programs. "Professional development" is a widespread, and the expectation of many employers is that a person will constantly work toward improvement and advancement.
Americans believe in rehabilitation. A person is expected to recover from injury or illness, and those who do exceptionally well (e.g., Lance Armstrong, the American bicyclist who overcame cancer) are lauded as heroes. Along the same lines, the American perspective on criminals is that they can be rehabilitated: a criminal is not an irredeemably evil individual, but someone who has developed bad habits or attitudes that can be corrected.
Active participation in the democratic process is valued, based on the assumption that democratically-elected leaders serve the public and seek to make positive change for all citizens.
Voluntarism is also common. Many foreigners are "awed" by the array of activities to which Americans give their time and dollars in order to effect improvements: wilderness conservation, community service clubs, caring for the poor or elderly, etc.
Self-improvement is common. Aside of educational and training programs for growth, Americans have a strong "do it yourself" attitude and consume instructional literature to enable themselves to be more self-reliant, or to become more adept even at leisure activities.
Knowledge sharing is common. Most social problems, such as drug addiction, domestic abuse, and even diseases, are considered to be from a lack of knowledge. Awareness campaigns to address societal problems are common.
TIME
Americans regard time as a resource that can be used well or poorly, and in general, seek to make productive use of time - specifically, in activities that are expected to contribute to their future condition. Time management is valued, and people are expected to be considerate of other people's time - to be punctual and not "waste peoples' time" with activities that have no appreciable, beneficial outcome. A quote is taken from an anthropologist working with native American groups, who were confounded with the notion of time: that whites were constantly in a hurry to get through what they were doing and on to the next thing, and the saw time as a "devil inside: the white man that seemed to drive them unmercifully. Outside of America (and arguably Europe), this attitude does not exist: time is simply there, and of little importance. As such, foreigners often see Americans as "little machines running around" obsessed with clocks and schedules, always looking to the future and failing to value the present moment. Because time is a resource to be conserved, Americans are constantly seeking efficiency - to complete a task as quickly as possible saves time, which can be used to do other tasks, and the more one does to improve the future, the better the future will be. Many instructional materials, and even magazine articles, are valued for teaching the reader a faster and more efficient way to get something done. As a result, Americans seem curt and superficial in their interactions with others - they are seeking to save time on needless chatter and accomplish the goals of an interaction. This leads to seeking the fastest and most efficient method of communication: a phone call is faster than a face-to-face meeting, an e-mail is faster than a call, and a text message faster still. Many quickly become impatient if the responses aren't immediate, even when there is no apparent urgency. Another example given is the "fast-food" industry, which is entirely a product of the American culture. In many cultures, a meal is a leisurely social gathering, whereas Americans seek to make their dining more efficient - to take in fuel as quickly as possible, often eating alone, and then move on to more important activities. Consumer products are likewise chosen for their efficiency: a serviceable mechanism will quickly be abandoned in favor of a "better" model that accomplishes the same tasks more efficiently.
ACHIEVEMENT, ACTION, WORK, AND MATERIALISM
Precipitating from the value of achievement, Americans focus intently on activities that produce a measurable outcome. Psychologists term this "achievement motivation" and it is a predominate trait in America. The notion of work is not limited to one's profession, but is extended to any task that seeks to accomplish a given outcome In a more general sense, Americans like action and believe they should be "doing something" most of the time - they are not content to be idle, which is often interpreted as impatience, though it stems more from desire to be productively occupied in the moment rather than anticipation of a future activity or event.As such, Americans are often criticized for seeming to be constantly active and unable to relax and enjoy idle moments. Even in recreation, Americans prefer to engage in active pursuits with measurable outcomes rather than being at rest. In terms of profession, a person's occupation is significant: "what do you do?" is second only to "what is your name?" when Americans meet someone. And while Americans are not typically driven by status or prestige, the status of a profession is taken as an outward sign of their capability and the success they have achieved. Professional success is often focused on income rather than the actual accomplishments: in a poll of university students in the US, earning:"a lot of money" was considered to be "very important" to about three-quarters of respondents. Regardless of income level, Americans spend money freely on material goods, and items that most cultures consider luxuries (a refrigerator, television, and the like) are considered necessities to many Americans. AS such, Americans are often criticized for materialism and the concern with acquiring things. But to Americans, the material goods are considered to be rewards for their success and the means to a better future for themselves and their families.
DIRECTNESS AND ASSERTIVENESS
Americans consider themselves to be frank, open, and direct in their dealings with other people - the desire to "lay our cards on the table" and "get to the point" are common expressions that convey the idea that people should be direct and candid with one another. Assertiveness is a cultural value, and some seek to take "assertiveness training" courses to overcome their reluctance to deal with others. However, defining the boundary between asserting and aggressive is difficult, even among different groups of Americans. The level of directness may vary: in any power relationship, superiors are more likely to be direct and blunt than their subordinates. And while gender and racial equality are generally achieved, minorities and women must carefully assess how assertive they can be with a white male. Americans are not taught, as is common in certain other cultures, to mask their emotions or refrain from making negative statements: and as such they speak openly and directly. Even when not speaking, their gestures and expressions are used to communicate their reaction, and this is not generally considered to be improper, though there are limits. However, this is culturally relative: Asians may consider Americans to be overly emotional, Latin Americans and Middle Easterners may consider the same level of expression to be virtually unemotional and cold. However, Americans are often less frank and direct than they realize, and there are topics and situations where they may be reluctant to speak openly. Some examples are:
Any topics they consider to be excessively personal, such as sexuality, or physical attributes such as appearance or body odor
Where they would be in a position to suggest weakness or inadequacy of themselves or others
When they are not well enough acquainted with someone to believe their comments will be taken in a constructive way
When they have a relationship with the other person and sense that a given topic or opinion would cause offense or negative feelings
When they sense that what they have to say has the potential to cause a non-productive conflict
While frankness honesty is the general rule, there are also cultural customs that preclude one or both. One example is when a person prepares a meal for an American, he will be gracious and complimentary even if he did not like their cooking at all. And it's also noted that this varies regionally: a person from New York would be considered brash and offensive in Atlanta, and he might in turn consider the natives to be evasive and dishonest in order to be pleasant. The author gives a few examples of areas in which Americans will deviate from their general practice of openness. One example is that an American would probably be reluctant to tell another person that they "smell bad" because the topic is considered to be too sensitive. Another example is when a someone asks a favor that is inappropriate, such as to borrow money, and the American wishes to decline the request but does not want to be abrupt in their refusal. It's noted that the social awkwardness is compounded when the other individual is from another culture or country, as it plays to American's sense of egalitarianism: to refuse a request to a foreigner or a minority causes them to question whether they would do the same for any other person. In spite of those limitations, Americans are generally more direct and open compared to most other countries (the author names Israel and Australia as tow notable exceptions) and consider honesty to be more important than harmony in personal relationships. And as such, it may seem ironic that Americans react negatively to a person who is excessively assertive in voicing opinions or making demands of others - it is a difficult balance.
Issues in Cross-Cultural Communication
If we look at communication as a process of coding and decoding of messages it is obvious that there are many points in the process where the communication can break down. In particular, successful communication depends crucially on shared culture. When you have communication between people of different cultures, even if they share a common language, things can go wrong. In particular, knowledge of a language does not automatically give you the background knowledge that native speakers assume you share. Differences in culture affect communication in other ways as well. For example, members of certain cultures are much more likely to use indirection than members of certain other cultures. The Japanese are famous for being indirect, while Americans are famous for being direct. Because Americans aren't used to the level of indirection that Japanese use, the completely misunderstand what's being said.
The following helpful chart translating Japanese phrases to American English:
ENGLISH STATEMENT MADE BY JAPANESE PERSON ACTUAL MEANING IN AMERICAN
I see. No.
Ah. No.
Ah-hah. No.
Yes. No.
That is difficult. That is completely impossible.
That is very interesting. That is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
We will study your proposal. We will feed your proposal to a goat.
The use of indirection is part of a more general style of communication known as "high context" communication. Different cultures vary on the degree to which they use high context or low context communication. They also differ on a number of other attributes, as described here. We know from reading the books by Deborah Tannen, and also from the constructivist view of communication, that multiple messages are actually inferred from any communication. For example, if you call me and invite me to dinner at your house, I get the message that you want me to show up, but I also get a message that you like me. Most communications simultaneously includes information about the status of the relationship.
One of the problems with cultural differences is that these underlying messages about the relationship are likely to be misunderstood. For example, the loud, direct style of Americans is often seen by Asians as rude and disrespectful. Yet the Americans are not trying to be rude. Similarly, the Japanese reluctance to say "no" is seen by Americans as shifty and dishonest.
22/11/2018
08/10/2014
07/10/2014