Intercultural Communication Explained + a Case Study

 ''Culture is the accumulation of evolved behaviours and interactions within an aggregate. It is the knowledge through which a group of people understand experience and produce behaviours.''

Outline

·        Preface

·        Components of culture (Per levels/structures)

·         Surface-level culture

·         Intermediate-level culture

·         Deep-level culture

·        Cultural Dimensions

·         Femininity and masculinity

·         Low and high-power distance

·         Individualism and collectivism

·         Uncertainty Avoidance Index

·         High and Low Context

·         Chronic index

·         Face negotiation theory

·        Intercultural Flexibility

·         First Content Component: Knowledge

·         Second Content Component:  Attitude

·         Third Content Component: Skills

·         First Intercultural Criterium: Appropriateness

·         Second Intercultural Criterium: Effectiveness

·         Third Intercultural Criterium: Adaptability

·         Stages of intercultural flexibility

·        Intercultural Analysis

·         Assumed Case

·         Analysis

·        Conclusion

·        Bibliography

Preface

   Culture is the accumulation of evolved behaviours and interactions within an aggregate. It is the knowledge through which a group of people understand experience and produce behaviours (Spradley & Phillips, 1972). Similar to what Biersdest (1960) said, stating that culture is a complex whole that includes everything we think and we do and have as members of society. Culture in short has got various definitions, yet what all of these definitions can agree on is its vital role in shaping the thoughts and lifestyles of individuals. Thus, to hold communication with others functioning differently due to their culture, it is initial to possess certain knowledge about intercultural communication. As the latter facilitates the deduction of reasons lying behind each human social group’s thoughts and behaviours and broadens one’s knowledge in that sense. This essay is devoted to exposing the components of culture, its dimensions, and intercultural flexibility.

Components of culture (Per levels/structures)

  In parallel with its complexity, culture contains several structures and levels. Buhler (2007) in his study of culture’s surface and deep structure distinguishes deep structure from surface structure based on a linguistics paradigm. Hence, he sees that as in generative grammar, culture’s surface structure has got to do with empirically observed parts, meaning, parts that are observable with no studies and deep interpretations. On the other hand, the deep structure is considered by Buhler as a theoretical construct. In other words, it is a structure to be deduced from different cultural contexts. While Buhler’s study about cultural structures seems to be a bit ambiguous, Ting-Toomey (2005) states three main cultural levels, each with its clear significance.

Surface-level culture

  The surface cultural level is that of culture’s popular features. This level refers to the connotation expressed by a certain culture, which means things that might appear while physically observing that culture’s individuals or by the image they might promote about themselves through various media.  These are food, literature, music, and holidays. They are exposed elements that every observer can get, yet they rely on other levels of culture that go deeper into its very roots. For example, it is widely known that Western culture as a whole celebrates Halloween, while its roots and related elements are known only to those who are well observing, and probably, studying that culture.

Intermediate-level culture

  The intermediate cultural level or the shallow culture contains fully the system through which a culture operates. And, of course, this level is not observed on the surface, it is rather unspoken, symbolic and is based on interaction with members of that culture. Initially, each culture attaches a meaning to every physical or oral gesture.  Each degree of distance between individuals within a culture can reveal their relationship. Same as, idioms and ways of expressing oneself tell us what a person from that culture is trying to say, etc. Overall, shallow culture lies in time conception, the use of idioms, personal space, eye contact, and so on.

Deep-level culture

  The deep cultural level is that on which values, traditions and beliefs lay. This level does affect significantly the previously mentioned levels, as each element of those varies in accordance with those people’s traditions, beliefs, and how they perceive the world around them. Items in this level can be categorised into two parts. The first contains traditions shared within a culture that might be rituals, ceremonies and narrative myths etc.  These serve as a unity or group solidarity reinforcement tool. On the other bank, there comes culturally shared beliefs, which can be referred to as religion. The latter is the lens through which reality is to be seen, and by which world views, existence’ nature and purpose are shaped. Additionally, most of the cultural environments are but a mere reflection of their history. To illustrate, cultures are identified through their history, not only that, but they also act upon it.

Cultural Dimensions

  Cultural dimensions are the framework that shapes the societal structure of any given culture. This term was mainly coined by Hofstede (1984) as a result of a study which he carried out between 1967 and 1973 when he founded IBM’s personal research department. Hofstede has surveyed 117 000 IBM employees, deducing differences between their values and how they can be explained.  Those explanatory factors are what he named ‘’Cultural Dimensions’’.

Femininity and masculinity

  These two are dimensions that one of them can feature this culture or the other. They are summed up as follows:

	Masculinity Examples: USA, China,               KSA…	Femininity Examples:  Sweden, Norway, Denmark…
Societal and professional norms	Materials and gains are prioritised. High paid job	Relationships and life quality are what matter. Jobs with lesser hours.
Family	Traditional family structure, with named roles for each gender.	Modern family structure, based on merged roles.
Religion	Religious rituals are initially done and governed by men.	Religious rituals are commonly governed and done In public by both genders.

 

Low and high-power distance

  This dimension sums up power relations within a culture. It can reveal to which extent members of a culture accept class differences or domination. High power distance cultures attach one’s mission in that society to its place in the pyramid. More importantly, each individual is to be treated or interacted with according to his position. An example of high a high-distance culture is generally the Arab culture, with only some tribal exceptions. While for low power distance, the example can be given by Scandinavia.

Individualism and collectivism

  Individualism and collectivism are two different parameters that show the degree of interpersonal connections within a culture. Individualistic cultures pay attention to one’s time and personal borders as well as privacy. Whereas, collectivistic societies tend to focus on creating harmony between their members. People in that society are supposed to be serving it as a whole, in return they are going to be served again directly or indirectly. It is also worth noting that cultures with high femininity ratios seem to be mostly collectivistic.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index

  The rates of this dimension are associated with how structured and clear members of a certain culture are. Cultures marked with high uncertainty avoidance appear to base their lives and relationships on structured plans, in which ambiguity has no place. On the other hand, cultures possessing low uncertainty avoidance are to be less structured and seemingly unclear in terms of how their future will look like. This is not only in terms of individuals, in fact, it is broader affecting the general view of people towards the world.  Meanwhile, it can be also vice versa, their view of the world can determine their ratio of uncertainty avoidance. To illustrate, Arab countries supported by their religion tend to believe that a big part of their fate is decided, and hence they do not emphasise on constructing specific plans for their future. Whilst, individuals in the USA are observed to focus on what should they do to have their future clarified. 

High and Low Context

  Low and high contexts are apparently two distinguished systems in terms of communication within a given culture. High-context cultures are to rely more on implicit communication and interpretation of each other. They are able to fulfil their purposes of communication through idiomatic expressions, indirect syntaxial structures, and heavy use of nonverbal signs etc.  In low-context cultures, communication is based on clarity and point-directed utterances. An example can be given from the Anglo-Saxon culture which lies to a high extent on clarity and explicitness. In contrast, the Arab culture from its very roots (considering Arab linguistic history) seems to lay more on implicitness and indirect meanings. 

Chronic index

  This dimension can be a potential production of the accumulation of all the previously mentioned dimensions. That is since each dimension marking a specific culture determines how members of that culture consider time. Collectivistic, feminine, and low uncertainty reduction societies for example tend to give less importance to time. As for them, relations are of high value, even if schedules were not respected. Also, in a view based on low uncertainty avoidance, time is not that important, as long as members of that culture are not possessing any precise future plans.

Face negotiation theory

  Notably, this isn’t one of the Hofstede cultural dimensions, it was rather a dimension proposed by the Japanese professor, Ting-Toomey. It is about how conflict is dealt with in each culture, the idea which can be translated to faces conflicts, means the conflict between one and the other’s identity since the face is what represents it. Cultural differences produce different reactions to how one can save his/her face. For collectivistic, individuals can avoid conflict as to maintain the collectivistic face, as they are not focusing on themselves but on the interests of the society. On the other hand, collectivistic societies are mostly immediately reactionary when their face is threatened during a conflict because what matters to them is themselves as individuals, each with a face to save. Based on these two types of face-saving there comes the following styles:

• ·       Avoiding: A collectivistic reaction that might dismiss the individual’s face for the sake of the public.
• ·            Obliging: A collectivistic action of giving up during the face threatening.
• ·            Domination: Carrying out individual decisions through controlling.
• ·            Compromising: An individualistic deed that aims to come to a win-win solution.
• ·          Integrating: In contrast to what it seems to be, it is an individualistic approach which involves working together to reach a beneficial solution for both parties.

Intercultural Flexibility

    Intercultural flexibility is that quality which allows us to understand others from different cultures and contextualise their behaviours and attitudes in the right placement. Intercultural flexibility is to nullify ethnocentric views and to bring about cultural tolerance. The thing is achieved through three content components and three criteria. Intercultural flexibility, consequently, passes through four stages.

First Content Component: Knowledge

   Knowledge is a major intercultural content component, as it is the basis on which other information about intercultural communication lies. It involves educating oneself about other cultures and how to understand the way they see the world and others. It might include reading various informative materials, as well as being exposed to formal seminars. All of this, get the person to end up knowing the pillars of each culture.

Second Content Component:  Attitude

    Attitude is the practical part of knowledge that is shaped through the development of one’s mindset which results in cultural openness. This component may include two layers―cognitive and affective layers. The first one refers to the readiness to learn about the other culture and quit ethnocentrism. While the other is about having emotionally shared feelings with people from other cultures and to adapt with others’ emotional perspectives. 

Third Content Component: Skills

   Skills in the intercultural context signify to which extent a person is competent to apply her/his/their knowledge in cases in which the use of intercultural communication is needed. Skills in this sense have to do with the behavioural layer since people’s behaviours with others, from different cultures, vary following the intercultural skills they have. Namely, interaction is the basic feature on which successful flexible Intercultural communication depends. These are some useful interaction skills:

• ·        Value clarification skills: A psychosocial process in which one is able to extract the reasons behind another person’s behaviours (Kulish & Chi, 2014).
• ·      Mindful tracking skills: The ability to use cognitive data collection ability to effect and thereafter interpret information from other’s signs.
• ·        Attentive listening: Paying high attention to everything being done and said by members of other cultures.
• ·           Intercultural conflict management: The quality of being able to find appropriate solutions to cultural conflicts between people from different cultures.

First Intercultural Criterium: Appropriateness

    Appropriateness is the extent to which cultural behaviours match the expectations of the culture’s insiders. This concept is highly differing from one culture to another, on the view towards what is to be appropriate and what is not. A person from an external culture might see eating with mere hands in the Moroccan culture as inappropriate, while for a Moroccan person, it is. Communicators are considered successful when having a perception related to appropriateness. For efficient intercultural communication, this criterium should be adjusted. In other words, outsiders are to be able to know when behaviours are appropriate to this or that culture.

Second Intercultural Criterium: Effectiveness

  Effectiveness is the common understanding of meaning and objects to which they are attached in a certain culture. This works through encoding and decoding. Encoding refers to the utterance producer when he attaches a specific purpose to each expression, he/she/they say, whilst decoding is when the hearer receives the purpose meant by the speaker’s utterance.  

Third Intercultural Criterium: Adaptability

   Adaptability is the essence of intercultural communication. To have a mutual understanding and fair interpretation of members from other cultures, it is necessary to have our interaction purposes and behaviours modified according to what the intercultural communication case might require. Initially, our perspective should be like a compass, wherever you move, the pointer moves and adapts to it.

Stages of intercultural flexibility

  We might have our awareness raised concerning intercultural communication, yet, we should be aware that reaching full awareness and application passes through multiple stages. Namely, there are four stages to be looked at. First, the unconscious incompetence stage. In this stage one doesn´t know that they/he/she doesn’t know. He has no idea about his lack of knowledge about intercultural communication. Second, comes conscious incompetence, which is about knowing what one doesn’t know, and thus she takes the decision to educate herself. Thirdly, we face the conscious competent, which means one acting according to her knowledge and knowing so. Whilst the last stage, unconscious competence, involves acting upon acquired knowledge but not even feeling that it was under use.

Intercultural Analysis

Assumed Case

Luke is a British guy, talking in the next paragraph about his visit to Morocco:

·       Morocco is marked by its cultural richness, yet, it remains one of the weirdest places I have ever visited. The first thing I noticed when staying at my Moroccan friend’s house is his full submission to his uncle’s orders as if he is a kind of ancient servant, as well as his avoidance of any kind of conflict with him even when he is clearly wrong. Food also was another story, it was disgusting to see my friend’s mother, uncle, and father using their mere hands to eat. Not only my friend’s family was weird, but my friend himself was seemingly not to be relied on. When asking him before coming to Morocco about his vacation plans that he prepared for us, he kept replying that he has plans ready for everything. But when reaching Morocco, it was surprising that he had nothing organised and was still asking his family members about various locations. Nonetheless, what made it really worse is his carelessness about time being passed with his family friends, and sometimes with people he never knew.

Analysis

 Luke seems to be interculturally on the unconscious incompetence stage for several reasons. He overall lacked knowledge about intercultural components and criteria, and rather kept seeing Morocco, while wearing his own culture’s glasses. His initiative notice about his Moroccan friend’s uncle domination was interpreted as slavery, due to Luke’s ignorance about the power distance cultural dimension, through which we shall find out that in some cultures each member of the society has its place known and treated by others upon it. Continuously, Luke’s claim of his friend’s conflict avoidance was related to a face-saving method within a collectivistic society which reveals care about the family’s face. This British guy relied only on his cultural appropriateness view, not paying attention to how appropriateness in an eating manner might differ from his culture to the Moroccan culture. Luke kept his ethnocentric view, having the variation of uncertainty reduction dimension untaken into consideration. This was while not getting to know that the Moroccan culture is of a low uncertainty reduction, and thus, its members do not take plans as accurate structured guides. Finally, the chronic index of the Moroccan culture has passed unknown to Luke, when seeing his friend’s spent time with people from his same culture as an anarchy in time.

Conclusion

 In conclusion, broadening our horizons within intercultural communication will solve issues that we never expect to have a solution. This approach through its diversified dimensions of knowledge nullifies one´s subjective view of others. Hence, mutual respect between different cultures is what will be resulted from learning more about intercultural communication. We are all humans, and our deepest purposes in life are the same, what we are to know is how each of us seeks to achieve them.

Bibliography

Cañado, M. L. P. (2008). Interview with Stella Ting-Toomey. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470802167826

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Spradley, J. P., & Phillips, M. (1972). Culture and Stress: A Quantitative Analysis. American Anthropologist, 74(3), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1972.74.3.02a00190

Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). 8. Communicating across Cultures. In University of Toronto Press eBooks (pp. 135–157). https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442625006-012

Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2021). Understanding Intercultural Communication. Retrieved from http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB01513704

Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.

Hans Buhler (1993) Surface and deep structures: an essay on cultural unity and diversity, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Journal, 14:1-2, 60-69, DOI: 10.1080/13602009308716278

Redlich, A. D., Kulish, R., & Steadman, H. J. (2011, April 4). Comparing True and False Confessions Among Persons With Serious Mental Illness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0022918