|
More on
Intercultural Communication
|
|
|
|
C A T E G O
R I S I N G C U L T U R E S
Just what are the differences between cultures? Is it useful to look for patterns or categories to
make it easier for us to understand these differences? Kishan Rana, former Indian ambassador
to Germany, points out that categorising cultures offers both advantages and disadvantages.
Looking for categories is a useful tool for analysis and the training of diplomats, and can be used
as initial device in preparing for cross cultural encounters. However, we should beware of creating
and reinforcing stereotypes. Creating categories ignores fact that within any cultural are sub-
groups which may have different traits, and also that individuals within a culture may not follow
the norm. Rigid adherence to categories may lead to false assumptions.
(Cross-Cultural
Sensitivity)
Lewis Categorisation
Richard D. Lewis, author of When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully Across Cultures
(London: Nicholas Brealey, 1993), divides cultural characteristics into three groups: “linear
active”, “multiactive” and “reactive”. He argues that
people of different nations exhibit characte-
ristics from each of these groups to different degrees. For example, some linear active traits are:
introvert, plans ahead methodically, works fixed hours, follows procedure, limited body language;
some multiactive traits are: extrovert, plans grand design but impatient with detail; works any hours, does several things at once, interrupts frequently, interweaves personal and professional; and some reactive traits are: introvert, sees whole picture, plans slowly, subtle body language.
Lewis categorises nations by determining which of the groups their characteristics tend to fall within. The nations with the most linear active traits are the Germans and the Swiss. Typical examples of multiactive nations are Latin Americans, Arabs, Africans, Indians and Pakistanis. Nations showing reactive traits are the Japanese, and to a lesser degree the Chinese.
High Context/Low Context
Raymond Cohen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent
World, revised ed., Washington DC: USIP Press, 1997) offers a system for analysing national negotiating styles in terms of the importance which negotiators attach to the broad cultural context in which they operate. Cultures fall into various places on a continuum from high to low context. Arab culture, for example, is high context as Arab negotiators attach great importance to context, for example history, and make a sharp distinction between the way matters of state should be conducted and matters of commerce. The first is the realm of principle and
morals, and the second, the realm of haggling. Arab negotiators attach high importance to creating bonds of friendship and trust between negotiators, and respect for the honour and dignity of negotiating partners. Less developed, traditional societies tend to give rise to a high context approach.
American society is typical of the low context approach of more developed countries. These cultures view negotiation as an exercise in collective problem solving: knowledge and expertise are applied to find mutually acceptable solutions to problems, and partners expect to adopt a give-and-take approach. Low context cultures subordinate history, personal honour and personal relationships for the purpose of agreement. These cultural differences can lead to serious misunderstandings not only about the topic of negotiations, but about what it actually means to negotiate.
Professor Paul Sharp, head of political science at the University of Minnesota, points out that although Cohen’s approach is useful as a point of departure, it has some weaknesses:
…[the categorisation] misses the extent to which there exist variations within cultures which are themselves brought forth by different contexts…there are times and circumstances in which US negotiations are very high context, even on the proverbial second hand car lot. In Minnesota alone books have been written (and, more importantly, money has been made) providing outsiders with the context they need to make sense of what is, or may be, being communicated in the sparse conversations and non-verbal exchanges which participants in the culture instantly recognise.
In everyday life at least, Americans sometimes negotiate in a low context manner and sometimes they do not. The question to be asked is what kind of contexts give rise to which kinds of approaches to negotiating, and I have already suggested that an analysis of the balance of resources between those involved might be a starting point for an answer to this question. Syrians in their dealings with Americans and Israelis may take a high context approach, but Syrians in their dealings with the Lebanese or the Kurds, one suspects, may take a low context approach.
The second problem with the high context-low context approach resides in its characterisation of what is meant by low context. While Cohen and others are at pains to suggest that the low-context, American approach involves only one way of looking at the world which is not necessarily superior to others, they do tend to accept it on its own terms, namely that it is sparse or thin not only in its presentation but also in fact. By so doing, an opportunity is missed to put the use of language by Americans under the microscope. A closer examination reveals, of course, an implied universe of assumptions about what is important, how the world works, and America's proper place within it, not to mention the place of others. ("Talking
to Americans: Problems of Language and Diplomacy," Language
and Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects, 2001)
Ambiguity
Are there cultural differences in the use of ambiguity? Drazen Pehar,
researcher on language and diplomacy, offers these reflections:
Measured by the use of ambiguities in peace agreements, there is no significant difference between so-called “low-context” and “high-context” cultures. Both low- and high-context cultures use ambiguous language to bridge the gap between negotiating parties. We have Wilson’s 14 Points side by side with the Oslo Accords; Chinese cross-textual ambiguities in the Shanghai Communiqué together with American referential ambiguities in the very same document. We have both the Dayton Accords and the Rambouillet draft agreement drafted by American negotiators. We have the Yalta Declaration drafted jointly by representatives of high- and low-context cultures…In other words, there is no direct and positive correlation between the use of ambiguous provisions, on the one hand, and types, or kinds of culture, on the other. For me, this is good news for diplomacy. Negotiators from different cultures rely on similar means to arrive at the text of an agreement. This means that, at least when it comes to the use of ambiguities, there may be a common diplomatic culture, a common culture of drafting an agreement. In other words, there is no pre-determined cultural barrier to hugely affect one’s attitude towards an ambiguous proposal. ("Use
of Ambiguities in Peace Agreements," Language and
Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects, 2001)
However, Norman Scott, director of diplomatic training programs at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva suggests:
It is possible (even probable) that different languages, emerging from and reflecting distinct cultures, offer varying scope for ambiguity, intended or unintended. Some maintain, for example, that the Chinese are predisposed to underspecification and ambiguity as a culture-conditioned stance in interpersonal communications; while the opposite holds true of United States citizens…
If this is true, differences in the grasp of the language used in negotiations could conceivably confer a distinct advantage on diplomats seeking to introduce ambiguities in negotiated texts in order to serve their own purposes. ("Ambiguity
Versus Precision: The Changing Role of Terminology in Conference
Diplomacy," Language and Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects,
2001)
Other Categorisations
Steven A. Beebe, Susan J. Beebe, and Mark V. Redmond (Interpersonal Communication: Relating to
Others, Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon, 1996) propose several other categories of differences between cultures:
Masculine versus feminine approaches to interaction: masculine cultures value achievement, assertiveness, heroism, and material wealth. Feminine cultures value relationships, caring for the less fortunate, and overall quality of life.
Tolerance of uncertainty versus avoidance of uncertainty: cultures in which people need certainty to feel secure are more likely to have and enforce rigid rules for behavior and develop more elaborate codes of conduct, either formal or informal.
Concentrated versus decentralized power: some cultures value equality and distribution of power more. Others expect a hierarchy and that some people will have more power than others.
Individual versus group achievement: Some cultures put more emphasis on individualism; some place most emphasis on the good of the group.
|
