Due by 5pm on Sunday, February 2: Discussion Post #2 on the Ning
Summarize some of the main ideas behind Figuring Foreigners Out and the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture. Do you predominantly agree with these assessments? Are there any statements, generalizations, and opinions expressed in the reading that you find problematic? How do these ideas relate both to your own native culture, and the target culture associated with the language you are studying?
Replies
During my time at UR I took an introductory sociology class but not an anthropology class. Although, I wish I had after reading this article as learning about other cultures is so fascinating. The past semester I took a psychology class called the Science of Emotion and we discussed the differences between individualist versus collectivist cultures, especially regarding how individuals interpret and express emotion. I found these cultural differences so interesting and was really glad to read about some more ideological differences between cultures in this article. While the article did a great job of defining individualist and collectivist cultures, a good summary that my psychology professor told us was that in individualist cultures you try to stand out and be expressive but in collectivist cultures it’s better to blend in and not express a lot of emotion in order to save face.
Another big aspect of culture is behavior and any nonverbal communication. While I have always heard about or known that certain hand symbols, gestures, or other behaviors hold different meanings in separate cultures I feel more informed now. Doing exercise 3.7 with the Nonverbal chart also made me realize just how many behaviors vary between cultures. I had no idea pointing the soles of your feet at another person was considered offensive in some cultures. This just really showed me that there are so many nuances and things to learn about other cultures, especially if you want to visit there. While it seems apparent some gestures may have the same or different meanings in certain cultures I had never really thought about some gestures having no meaning in another culture. This case is to me one of the most dangerous.
Before this article I had never really heard about monochronic or polychronic time. This concept seemed very abstract to me as time already is hard to grasp. I feel like this split in thinking about time is probably the hardest for me to understand from another perspective as I am very much a monochronic thinker and live my life that way. I can’t imagine living my life with a polychronic perspective. Interestingly, the quote mentioned Denmark where I studied abroad for one semester. It is true that Danes are very punctual and I learned in my culture class that it is beyond rude to arrive late in Denmark. While my sister studied abroad in Spain and would always tell me about how loose meeting times or plans were. I think this divide in thinking about something as significant as time shows the influence and power of culture.
I am increasingly intrigued by the concept of a locus of control. Fittingly, we just discussed this topic in my clinical neuroscience class. I think because I grew up in America which is more individualistic, I never thought about cultures as an entity having an internal or external locus of control. I think personally I have an internal locus of control when something bad happens where I start to think that I could have personally done something better to achieve what I want. On the other side of that, I tend to have a more external locus of control when something good happens like getting a good grade on an exam. In this case I blame my success on good luck rather than my own actions. To think about an entire culture sharing a locus of control is very interesting to me. For the most part, I think this article did a very good job at explaining and defining both extremes of each concept. I especially liked the exercises following the sections as they made me think from each side’s point of view.
Dr. Geert Hofstede conducted a large and insightful study on cultures that helped to categorize and define some important aspects of culture. These aspects include Power Distance (the degree of equality/inequality between people in a society), Individualism (how much a society promotes individualism or collectivism), Masculinity (how much a society reinforces traditional masculine roles), Uncertainty Avoidance (level of tolerated uncertainty within society), and Long-term Orientation (level of devotion to long-term traditional and forward thinking values). I really like seeing the visual maps from the 6-D model of national culture, especially as I am a 40% visual learner. The maps showed me that while many cultures like my own American culture and Chinese culture may differ in many aspects, there are still similarities, which is slightly seen on the uncertainty avoidance map.
One of my main goals for this semester is to learn about Korean culture but through these articles I am also learning more about my American culture. I also really like the culture comparison website as it was a very great visual tool. Through this I found that America scored 91 on individualism while South Korea scored an 18. I definitely agree that American is an individualist culture where everyone is rooting for themselves over the group and this was easy for me to understand as I grew up in America. I knew from my previously mentioned psychology class that Asian cultures tend to be collectivist and I expected South Korea to be but it was shocking to see how strongly toward the extremes both countries scored. South Korea and American did not really score super similarly on any of the six dimensions. If anything, that shows me that there is a lot I will need to learn about Korean culture that will be quite different than my American culture. I also thought the section on direct and indirect communication was noteworthy as the quote on the side focused on Korea. Korea leans more toward the indirect communication side and one quote from the text said “Koreans believe that to accomplish something while causing unhappiness or discomfort to individuals is to accomplish nothing at all.” That is a bold statement and not one that is shared by many Americans. It also seems perhaps a bit too bold as some unhappiness or discomfort seems inevitable (or maybe that’s just my American perspective making an appearance). Regardless, I really appreciated learning about different cultures and what kinds of differences I should look for in any culture that I may be interested in and especially my own.
Websites I read:
http://freebooks.uvu.edu/NURS3400/index.php/ch11-korean-culture.html
https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/south-korean-culture/south-korean-culture-core-concepts
When reading Figuring Foreigners Out, the authors continuously mentioned how cultures tend to be more one way than the other. When I first read about collectivism and individualism, I was trying to see which one India would be more skewed towards (I was born in India but moved when I was about three years old). I thought it would be more towards collectivism because in the part of India I am from, Fatehpur Rajasthan, everyone seemed to know each other, and family relations were strong. When I looked at Hofstede Insights, I found India to be at a score of 48 for individualist. I thought it would be skewed much lower than this, but apparently the individualist aspect is seen as a result of religion/philosophy - Hinduism. This makes sense because of the beliefs in Hinduism. However, I do wonder how this scale might fall if we were to look at the other major religions and regions in India instead because Hinduism is primarily in North India. Korea on the other hand fell at a score of 18 so it is much more collectivist. From Korean culture and shows, I did find that family and community was important. I think of this also with how formal and informal language is so important in the Korean language.
With the monochronic and polychronic concepts of times, India is indeed more polychronic. However, Korea is actually more monochronic where time is a commodity. I think going to Korea with my mindset that everyone shows up on Indian time would send off the wrong message to my peers. Since, I do want to go to South Korea one day, this is good to keep in mind. Language is so complicated since it’s not just the words associated but also the culture around it.
When I think about external versus internal. Since I’m Hindu, I feel that in the region of India I am from we are more external because of the concept of “karma”. However, in the long-term orientation dimension on Hofstra(which seems to link external versus internal to some degree), India ranked with a score of 51. I didn’t account for the fact that “there is an acceptance that there are many truths and often depends on the seeker.” On the other hand, South Korea was at a score of 100 and is one of the most pragmatic societies. I read that people live their lives guided by virtues and practical good examples. I don’t really know much about religion and how that plays a role in the life of citizens there.
My parents are both from India and are very “Indian”, unlike my brothers and me. When they communicate with us or others, they are big on nonverbal communication. The stereotype that Indians wobble their head is so real in my parents’ case. This is because they don’t like saying no or hearing no and so they use to mean anything from “yes” or “no” as well as, “I don’t know” to “I understand.” However, typically the context of the discussion tells what they are trying to say but sometimes I just take what I want to take from it when I myself am confused. In Korea, I read that eye contact and smiling are gestures of welcoming and friendship. This also ties together with indirect/high context and direct/low context dimensions. I read that Koreans imply and suggest what is meant but you still need to read between the lines. This is so interesting because apparently “indirect communication is likely to appeal to Korean citizens because they tend to value Confucianism which emphasizes harmony and egalitarianism.” Similarly, I found that for Indians “the purpose of communication is to maintain harmony and forge relationships, not to exchange exact information.” However, unlike Koreans, Indians are known to be more verbose and dialogue oriented and therefore are actually lower context and direct. This is kind of conflicting with the indirect communication styles of Indians. Every society is so different which such varying cultural differences. Since there are so many differences and similarities, I keep thinking about how it’s so hard to know a place without having gone there.
Different sites I explored:
https://immi.se/intercultural/nr20/merkin.htm
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/south-korea/
https://people.uwec.edu/degravjr/GEOG-ANTH%20351/Articles/Nishimura...
When reading Figuring Foreigners, one portion of the text that really interested me was the interpretation of behavior across different cultures. The meaning of behaviors is not inherently defined on a global scale. People from different cultures, assign different meanings to the same behaviors. From this categorization, there are three possible outcomes for behavioral interactions. Two cultures could have the same meaning for behavior or two cultures could have different meanings for the same behavior, or one culture may assign no meaning to a specific behavior while the other culture does. It is from the last to outcomes that miscommunication arises and conflicts begin.
In Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, there are five primary dimensions to differentiate cultures are as followed: Power distance Index (PDI), Individualism (DIV), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), Long-Term Orientation (LTO), and Indulgence. From my understanding and in my own terms, PDI follows the concept of equality within a system. DIV follows how an individual is regarded within society (either a part of a collective or actual individual). MAS revolves around the degree of patriarchy and follows gender disparities. UAI follows the countries’ desire/ability to change at an institutional level. LTO follows endurance towards tradition. Indulgence follows an individual’s freedom –in a political and or social sense. After pondering the categorization of such culture dimensions, I would have to agree with Dr. Geert Hofstede’s analysis of cultural differentiation. Each dimension captures fundamental components of society, whether that be religion, government, tradition, and he did so in a broad enough way that all was encompassed. Despite being broad, each dimension can be encompassed or fall within any detailed component of society in a logical sense. However, I must emphasize that my experience and knowledge towards all components of cultures, either towards domestic or international, are limited. I do not believe my opinion is valid nor invalid due to this reasoning, but with the amount of information I have currently about cultures, I would say that this is a fair representation. But, once again, the external validity of my knowledge towards culture cultures is poor, thus I am not 100 percent sure that these dimensions entirely capture culture. If I were more educated in such a realm, I would feel stronger about my claim; however, with the most basics of cultural understanding, I find the truth to be in these dimensions.
I think one of the biggest issues that arise between my own culture and that of the deaf culture is sound. Communication within hearing culture is a primary way to express information (that is if not written down). My culture relies on fluctuations in tones, music, and listening to others to obtain information and elicit emotions. Although body language is an aspect of my own culture’s communication, my culture emphasizes the role of sound as a major source of connection. Deaf culture, on the other hand, does not have sound in their lives in the same way as my own culture. Emphasize on sound is less, if not none. The deaf community focuses heavily on the use of vision to gain information and uses body expressions to express feelings. I am not entirely informed about deaf culture; however, I feel as though many deaf communities are proud, accepting, and loving towards their culture. Nevertheless, hearing communities have a variable to their culture that deaf cultures do not, sound. Because of the difference in emphasis on sound and sight, I believe miscommunication of what is important may vary. In addition, the use of different hearing restoration techniques might even be offensive to deaf individuals as they may take pride in their sight-based language, and by introducing “sound”, vital components of the deaf culture are jeopardized.