''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.''
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). This is 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 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. 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 incorporates things that might appear while physically observing that culture’s individuals or by the image they might promote about themselves through various media. Such is food, literature, music, and holidays.
Those are exposed elements that every observer can get, yet they rely
on other levels of culture that goes 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. It is the 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 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 hand, there comes culturally shared
beliefs, which can be referred to as religion. The latter is the lens through
which reality is seen, and by which world views existence’s nature and
purpose. 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. Highly-paid jobs. |
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 her/his 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, we may encounter the example of 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, 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, from a religious perspective, tend to believe that a significant part of their fate is decided, and hence
they do not emphasise constructing specific plans for their future. On the other hand,
individuals in the USA are observed to focus on what should they do to have a fathomable future.
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 others. 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. For them, relations are of
high value, even if schedules were not respected. In a vision based on low
uncertainty avoidance, time is not that important, as long as members of that
culture do not possess 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 adressed 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 societies, individuals can avoid conflict to maintain the
collectivistic face, as they are not focusing on themselves but on the
interests of the society. On the other hand, individualistic 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 the quality that 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. This 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 cultures and quit ethnocentrism. 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
others' 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 very normal. 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 s/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. This is more or less an embodiment for 'when in Rome do what the Romans do'.
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, we find the unconscious incompetence stage. In this stage one doesn´t know that s/he doesn’t know. S/he has no idea about her/his lack of knowledge about intercultural communication.
Second, there 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. As for 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 lad, talking in the following 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 slave, 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 the 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 initial notice about his Moroccan friend’s uncle domination was interpreted as slavery, due to Luke’s ignorance of 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 lad relied only on his cultural appropriateness view, not paying attention to how appropriateness in eating manners might differ from his culture to the Moroccan culture. Luke retained 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 gone unknown to Luke, when seeing his friend’s spent time with people from his same culture as lack of punctuality.
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.
References
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
Good stuff broski
ReplyDelete