|
More on
Intercultural Communication
|
|
|
|
I M P R O V
I N G C O M M U N I C A T I O N
How can diplomats improve their intercultural communication? Kishan Rana believes that the key
lies in formal training for diplomats in cross cultural communication. “Cross-cultural skills cannot
be taken for granted, as qualities that diplomats master intuitively.” He writes that in the past the
dominance of Western diplomacy and the fairly homogenous nature of the discourse of
diplomacy made such training largely unnecessary. But the reality today is different: “Today, the
addition of many layers of diversity demands explicit training in this area, but as before, the
practitioner must integrate theory with practical needs, and adapt his learning on the basis of
experience.” However, Rana makes the important point that “to be adept at cultural
understanding is not to adopt the cultural style of others, or abandon one’s own cultural
characteristics. The aim is to reduce the distance from the 'other', and to gain insight.”
Rana further suggests that more directness in communication on the part of
diplomats may reduce the incidence of misunderstanding between cultures: “diversity of cultures and languages
suggests for diplomacy practitioners more directness and less resort to indirect signaling in
dealing with non-homogenous interlocutors.”
(Cross-Cultural
Sensitivity
and "Language,
Signaling
and Diplomacy," Language and Diplomacy, Malta:
DiploProjects,
2001)
Raymond Cohen’s efforts to improve communication between negotiators from different cultures
included the development of a lexicon of negotiating terminology in Middle Eastern languages and English as a guide for conducting or following negotiations in these languages. He writes “Behind the preparation of the lexicon lay the conviction that differences between languages matter deeply. Living and working in two languages, English and Hebrew, I was struck by how each language seemed to manifest a different outlook on the world. Things that could be said easily and elegantly in one tongue lent themselves to laborious expression in the other. Where one called for understatement, the other required hyperbole. Ostensibly slight nuances of tone and nice distinctions evoked quite far-reaching differences of association and meaning.” The lexicon takes a variety of words and concepts related to negotiation, examining them for differences in distinctions drawn, historical associations, contrasting values and differences in emphasis. For more information about Cohen’s lexicon of Middle Eastern negotiation, read his paper
"Language and
Negotiation, a Middle East Lexicon," (Language and
Diplomacy, Malta: DiploProjects, 2001).
Paul Sharp provides advice for negotiators in dealing with American mediators. He notes that most literature on negotiation is written to advise Americans and other Westerners about negotiating with foreigners. However, "for the diplomatic profession...how to talk to Americans is a much larger shared problem than how the Americans talk to everybody else." Sharp points out that many of the problems other nations encounter when dealing with Americans are not cultural at all, but common problems any nation faces when dealing with a richer and more powerful nation. As advice, he suggests the same rules that are given to American diplomats for dealing with others: show respect for other cultures and make necessary adjustments to avoid offence:
On the big question of the relationship between language and the “out there”...I would suggest showing respect for American claims to a privileged access. Respect here can mean several things. As a Briton who has lived in the US for fifteen years and before that was congenitally disposed against even visiting the place, let alone living there, I am happy to concede that, as civilizational models go, they, the Americans, have got a lot of things right and, more importantly, they have got a lot of things right in the judgment of many less privileged than ourselves around the world. ...Taking Americans seriously, however, can also mean simply acknowledging their power and wealth. ("Talking
to Americans: Problems of Language and Diplomacy," Language and Diplomacy, Malta:
DiploProjects, 2001)
Finally, Donnell King suggests some general guidelines for bridging the gap between different cultures:
-
Seek information about the culture. Knowledge is power. Prejudice stems from ignorance…do your homework, don't make assumptions.
-
Be other-oriented. As Dorothy said in the Wizard of Oz, we're not in Kansas anymore. You can no longer rely on the assumptions of your own cultural heritage. This is not to tear down the value of your own culture; it is to make you aware of the richness that is available to you in other viewpoints. This also does not mean to try to be something you are not. It does mean allowing the other to be whomever s/he is rather than who you think that person should be.
-
Ask questions. Be prepared to share information about yourself, and be sensitive in the way you ask (you don't want to be perceived as prying). But open communication helps in reducing the uncertainty that is present in any relationship.
-
Develop mindfulness. This is another way of saying "be aware." Acknowledge that there is a connection between thoughts and deeds, and become aware of your own thinking and assumptions. Be conscious. Be active, not reactive. Be aware of your own self-talk.
-
Develop flexibility.
-
Tolerate ambiguity. Communicating with someone from another culture produces uncertainty, which can be uncomfortable. Learn to tolerate the discomfort until you come out on the other side.
-
Avoid negative judgments. Resist thinking that your culture has all the answers. It has its strengths; so do other
cultures.
|
