“Figuring Foreigners Out” talked about culture being on two sides between personal identity (Individualist-Collectivist), nonverbal communication, handling time (Moilochronic-Polychronic), individuals with the world (Internal-External), and communication dynamics (Direct and Indirect Communication). I agree with most statements on what culture can be. I want to add that if taboos and norms have helped shape these statements, would it be possible that these statements would not exist if the norms and taboos we have now were not set? How does it make sense that every time, at the end of the definition and explanation, it says, “As a general rule. though. You should expect to find most individuals on the same side of the divide as their culture as a whole.” Why is it a general rule? Is it because taboos and norms helped shape that? And can it be broken, not just individuals looking at other ways of their culture, but the type of culture itself? Would it be possible for a person to interchange between cultures? Or is it already embedded in them so that they can't? Also, can they later adapt to their own culture? Like the idea of internal and external control. As for the relation between my native culture and the target one, both cultures are polychronic, collectivist, and have indirect communication. Yet living in the US, I have seen monochronic.
You need to be a member of The SDLAP Ning to add comments!
Replies