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
Figuring Foreigners Out and the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture both speak of different dimensions of culture that vary widely and may lead to misunderstandings when these are implicit and not fully understood. Figuring Foreigners Out describes four primary dimensions, or poles on which different cultures are located: individualist-collectivist, monochronic-polychronic, internal-external, direct and indirect communication. While I have heard of individualist-collectivist and direct-indirect communication differences, the other two dimensions were new to me. Monochronic-polychronic describes different perceptions of time; While monochronic suggests that time is limited and must be used efficiently, polychronic views time as a tool of the people and something that can be modified as needed. I completely agree with this distinction, and although I have noticed it before in my own life, I did not know that there were official ways to describe this difference. The Western world, including the US, is often monochronic, particularly noticeable in our capitalist grind culture. India, however, which is both my culture and that of my target language, is far more polychronic. People are often late to meetings and events to the point where it is expected and considered unusual to be on time, and from my own experience, people tend to also be much more relaxed about time than in the US. However, India is also not fully polychronic, and capitalist culture has definitely penetrated countries that used to be more polychronic. Internal-external was also a new categorization I had not previous heard of, and it refers to whether one places the locus of control in the individual or outside, basically meaning fate or self-determined destiny. This was interesting, but less pertinent to my own experiences of my host and target cultures.
Figuring foreigners out is about how no culture is exclusively individualistic or collectivist. Cultures have elements of both, however they tend to sway more one way or the other and gives us a checklist to be able to gauge which way it tends to sway. He also talks about how behavior doesn’t have an inherent meaning but is assigned. He describes how nonverbal behavior can be sorted into three categories; behaviors that are interpreted the same, behavior interpreted differently, and behaviors that have meaning in one but none in another. The concept of time and matter of directness also is different across cultures. I think for the most part I agree with the argument. However, I think the idea that meaning is assigned is debatable. I think some behaviors or meanings are inherent. Hofstede’s reading was about the model he developed to differentiate between cultures. Some of the topics include individualism, power distance index, masculinity, and long term orientation. I think Korean culture probably sides with more collectivism and values indirectness over directness. There is a cultural part that values harmony and I think there is a tendency to shy away from taboo topics. I think this is different from America, the culture I grew up in, which favors more individualism and directness.
The main idea is that cultural differences largely shape communication, social behavior, and values. These frameworks highlight key contrasts, such as individualism versus collectivism and direct versus indirect communication. Hofstede’s model categorizes cultures along dimensions, which help explain why some cultures value hierarchy and tradition while others prioritize equality and adaptability. They offer a starting point for understanding the complexities of cultural diversity.
I agree with the idea that no culture is entirely individualist or collectivist—most cultures exhibit elements of both, though one tends to dominate. For example, while the U.S. is often characterized as individualistic, emphasizing personal achievement and independence, there are also strong communal values in certain contexts, such as family or community support systems. Similarly, collectivist cultures like China prioritize group harmony and interdependence, but individual ambition and self-expression are still present, especially among younger generations. These frameworks help us recognize general patterns, but they should not be used to oversimplify or stereotype entire groups of people.
One limitation of these models is their tendency to generalize and present culture as static. Hofstede’s dimensions oversimplify cultural dynamics by reducing them to fixed categories. Cultures are complex, interconnected systems that evolve over time. For example, globalization, technology, and migration have blurred traditional cultural boundaries, creating hybrid identities and behaviors that defy easy categorization. Similarly, Figuring Foreigners Out risks reinforcing stereotypes by framing cultural differences in binary terms. While it provides useful results, it may overlook the diversity within cultures and the influence of personal experiences on behavior. For instance, not everyone from a collectivist culture will always prioritize group harmony over individual needs, as personal values and situational factors can lead to different choices.
These ideas relate to my experiences with cultural differences between China and the U.S. For example, in China, avoiding direct eye contact with elders is a sign of respect, reflecting the high power distance dimension in Hofstede’s model. In the U.S., maintaining eye contact is often a sign of confidence and engagement. This difference has made me more aware of nonverbal communication and how it can be interpreted differently across cultures. Another concept is the “fatalist vs. activist mindset.” In China, there is often a belief that some things are beyond individual control, which I sometimes adopt when facing failure. However, I also find myself shifting to an activist mindset, believing that effort and persistence can change outcomes, where this mindset is more prevalent.
The readings present two frameworks for understanding cultural differences: the concepts discussed in Figuring Foreigners Out and Hofstede's 6-D model of national culture. Figuring Foreigners Out introduces several key dimensions, including individualism vs. collectivism, monochronic vs. polychronic time, and direct vs. indirect communication. Individualistic cultures prioritize the individual and their needs, while collectivist cultures emphasize group harmony and interdependence. Monochronic cultures view time as a commodity and value efficiency, while polychronic cultures are more flexible with time and prioritize relationships. Direct communication involves explicit language, while indirect communication relies on inference and context. Hofstede's 6-D model, developed through extensive research, provides numerical scores for different countries across six dimensions: Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Long-Term Orientation vs. Normative, Indulgence vs. Restraint, Masculinity vs. Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance. A high score on a dimension indicates a strong preference for that cultural characteristic. For example, a high score on Power Distance indicates a society that accepts inequalities of power, while a low score suggests a society that emphasizes equality. Long-term orientation focuses on a society's approach to tradition and the future, with high scores reflecting a pragmatic, forward-thinking approach, and low scores indicating a preference for maintaining traditions. Indulgence vs. Restraint refers to the extent to which people control their desires, with indulgent cultures allowing for more freedom of expression and restrained cultures emphasizing social norms and control. Both frameworks offer valuable insights into understanding cultural differences. I mostly agree with their assessments, as they are based on extensive research and can be useful tools for understanding and navigating cultural differences. However, I recognize that they are generalizations and may not apply to every individual within a culture. Some of the problematic statements and generalizations include: the idea that "outsiders" can easily be considered "enemies", the concept that some cultures are "lazy" due to differing achievement motivations, and that some cultures are "cynical and pessimistic" based on their level of restraint. These kinds of claims risk oversimplifying complex cultural realities and can lead to negative stereotypes. It is important to view these assessments as tendencies rather than absolute truths. Relating these ideas to my own native culture and a target culture, I can see that the concepts of individualism and direct communication have some relevance to my cultural background while the ideas of collectivism, indirect communication, and a strong group dynamic may be more relevant to my target culture. It is important to remember that these frameworks are not static, and cultural values evolve over time. Additionally, individuals within any culture may vary widely from their cultural norms. Ultimately, cultural sensitivity requires a nuanced understanding and empathy rather than strict adherence to models or generalizations.
Figuring Foreigners Out by Craig Storti is a guide to understanding cultural differences, revealing that many misunderstandings while speaking in the learned language stem from differing values, communication styles, and behaviors. The book highlights the importance of cultural awareness, adaptability, and empathy when interacting with people from different backgrounds. It also introduces the concept of a "cultural framework," which helps individuals analyze their own cultural biases and recognize the impact of cultural conditioning on behavior. Hofstede’s "Dimensions of Culture," categorize national cultures based on six key dimensions: Power Distance, the extent to which less powerful members accept and expect unequal power distribution. Individualism vs. Collectivism, the degree to which people prioritize personal goals over group loyalty. Masculinity vs. Femininity, the emphasis on competition and achievement (masculinity) versus cooperation and quality of life (femininity). Uncertainty Avoidance, how societies deal with ambiguity and uncertainty. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation, whether a culture values perseverance and future rewards or prioritizes traditions and immediate results. Indulgence vs. Restraint, the extent to which societies allow or suppress gratification of desires. While Hofstede’s model provides a useful framework for analyzing cultural differences, it has its limitations. Culture is extremely complex, and national averages overlooks significant regional, generational, or social class differences. Additionally, generalizations can sometimes reinforce stereotypes rather than foster deeper understanding. When considering the perspective of a person from a collectivist culture, such as Korea, Hofstede’s model aligns in some ways- such as the emphasis on hierarchy and group harmony. However, modern Korean society has also become more individualistic, especially among younger generations.
Summary of Figuring Foreigners Out:
This reading explores key concepts that shape cultural understanding, emphasizing how people from different societies think and interact. Some of its main ideas were centered around:
1. Individualism vs. Collectivism: Some cultures (e.g., U.S., Western Europe) emphasize personal independence, while others (e.g., Korea, Japan) focus on group identity and harmony.
2. Monochronic vs. Polychronic Time: Some societies are time-conscious and structured (e.g., Germany), while others are more flexible and relationship-oriented (e.g., Latin America).
3. Direct vs. Indirect Communication: Some cultures value explicit, straightforward communication (e.g., U.S.), while others rely on context and non-verbal cues (e.g., Korea).
4. Cultural Adaptation: The book highlights the importance of understanding cultural frameworks to avoid miscommunication when interacting across cultures.
Summary of Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture:
Hofstede’s model categorizes cultural differences into six dimensions, each measured on a 0 to 100 scale for cross-country comparisons:
1. Power Distance (PDI) – Measures acceptance of hierarchy. High PDI cultures (e.g., Korea) have clear authority structures, while low PDI cultures (e.g., Netherlands) value equality.
2. Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV) – Individualist cultures (e.g., U.S.) prioritize personal goals, while collectivist cultures (e.g., Korea) focus on group loyalty.
3. Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS) – Masculine cultures (e.g., Japan) emphasize achievement and competition, while feminine cultures (e.g., Sweden) value care and cooperation.
4. Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) – High UAI societies (e.g., Greece) prefer structure and clear rules, while low UAI societies (e.g., Denmark) are more open to change.
5. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation (LTO) – Long-term cultures (e.g., China) value perseverance and tradition, while short-term cultures (e.g., U.S.) prioritize quick results.
6. Indulgence vs. Restraint (IvR) – Indulgent cultures (e.g., Brazil) encourage leisure and personal happiness, while restrained cultures (e.g., Russia) value discipline.
Do I Agree with These Assessments?
I would say for the most part yes. Obviously I am not an expert but the measurements and categories make sense (should help with categorizing at a minimum). However, it is also important to note that:
1. Cultures evolve, and younger generations may not align with traditional values (e.g., Korea’s increasing individualism).
2. Not every person within a country fits these categories, making generalizations problematic.
Problematic Statements or Generalizations?
Some of the things I find potentially problematic for the model:
1. Hofstede’s model reduces cultures to fixed numerical scores, which oversimplifies human behavior.
2. Although I think the idea of masculinity vs. femininity is helpful, I know that some people could see this as outdated.
3. Some cultural dimensions assume national uniformity, despite internal diversity (e.g., differences within U.S. regions).
How These Ideas Relate to My Native and Target Culture
My native culture leans towards individualism, low power distance, and direct communication. Korean culture, my target language culture, emphasizes collectivism, hierarchy, and indirect communication. So, understanding these differences should help me navigate social interactions in Korean, particularly in formal settings where hierarchy matters.
Strorti’s Figuring Foreigners Out and the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture both explore cultural differences and how they shape human interactions. Both focus on the patterns and biases that go on across different countries. However, I am most intrigued by the individualistic-collectivist idea. The individualistic-collectivist culture is an interesting idea that I relate with and see across both Asian and American cultures. It says that an individualistic culture focuses on self. This means being independent and self-sufficient, where one takes priority over a group. The collectivist culture focuses on the group, as needs of the group, usually a family, are predominant over individuals. And in the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture, we can see that Asia tends to have a higher collectivist view while America has a higher individualistic view. And this is certainly true in my life as well. I grew up with the collectivist culture, where unity, sufficiency, and harmony was stressed heavily. However, I also see the individualistic view growing up in America as we are taught to be independent and self-sufficient in all aspects of life. I also found the monochronic-polychronic time to be interesting as well. The monochronic view of time is that time is a premium, therefore we must not waste it and use it efficiently. It stresses the importance of using time efficiently and the needs of people are to be adjusted to time. The polychronic view of time is that time is limitless and not quantifiable, therefore it is more of a tool rather than a premium or luxury. Both views I see across various cultures, but can’t say that one is more dominant, but rather varies across families.