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?
You need to be a member of The SDLAP Ning to add comments!
Replies
As opposed to the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture which seemed to believe their stats are a clear representation of what cultures are like and offered very little wiggle room, figuring foreigners out points out that cultures are not exclusively one way. According to Figuring foreigners out, cultures can be characterized as individualist (pursuit of one's happiness) or collectivist (harmony and interdependence within a group). I agreed with this concept because growing up Mexican-American, I struggle with wanting to pursue my own goals and fulfilling myself yet I also feel the obligation to always be by my family and in a sense, living for them. The author also discussed non-verbal, direct and indirect forms of communication. A concept that I also resonated with is the difference in the value of time. My family and the Mexican community I am part of, tend to purposefully state start times a few hours earlier than the actual “start time” because we take our time arriving to commitments. Contrarily, when I am attending American events, I know I should arrive a few minutes earlier than the start time to make the most of the time. The Hofstede comparison tool between Mexico and South Korea states that we are both pretty collectivist societies but widely differ when it comes to long term orientation with Mexico being “normative” and South Korea being “pragmatic”. I do not agree with a lot of the methodology and claims that the Hofstede Dimensions of culture is making - it seems as though the author is biased and closed minded by its assumptions of countries from their “studies” and their belief that they are true to everyone within the culture.
Assignment%20sept%2017.pdf
Figuring foreigners out discusses aspects of culture and cultural values which include Individualism or collectivism, monochronic or polychronic cultures, internal or external. It also discussed aspects of communication like nonverbal communication and direct vs. indirect communication.
Monochronic culture involves the belief of having limited time and making the most out of it and not wasting it. One should not let circumstances or unforeseen events interfere with plans. Polychronic culture argues that time is limitless and people should not be pressured to meet deadlines, so there are no interruptions and you can do multiple things simultaneously. I personally believe that the United States is a monochronic culture since there is a generalization that Americans live to work instead of work to live which is more of a European view on life. In many mainstream pop songs there are similar ideas of there being only one night and live like there is not tomorrow. John Mulaney made a note of it in his stand up at Radio City joking about how young people always go with the line “we only have tonight.” Whereas Europe has their “siesta” time where in countries they close down in the afternoon. They have a more relaxed view on life and “work to live” and know to value time away from work.
I disagreed with the fact that the text says that communities with mostly indirect communication can have shared experiences whereas communities with direct communication cannot. Even though they are more individualist, it doesn't mean that people cannot share experiences. I also disagree with the fact that the text also says to not read into any actions or lack of action since there will always be individuals who break away from the norm and send other signals through action or an action. The indirect/direct ideas are personal to me since I've always been told that I can be too direct when unnecessary. However, I don't believe that that makes me unable to have shared experiences with others form different backgrounds.
Figuring Foreigners Out defines poles that different cultures gravitate towards: Individualist vs. Collectivist, Monochronic vs. Polychronic, Internal vs. External, and Direct vs. Indirect. Although the idea that cultures can be categorized into such broad categories can be inaccurate and misleading due to differences in individuals, I do think it helps when first trying to understand a completely different culture that one knows nothing about. By knowing the typical communication style, societal dynamic, and even how time is quantified in a culture, it can be easier to grasp an understanding of the culture before researching or experiencing it further. However, the danger here is that these generalizations could become enforced as stereotypes and it may be hard to break out of that mindset.
The Hofstede Dimensions of Culture further expand on these broad generalizations with categories such as Power Distance Index, Masculinity, and Individualism.
Since I am familiar with both my native culture in America and my family’s Korean culture, I can definitely see these ideas in both cultures. Even though cultures are much more complex than the categories in the readings and have deeper context that should be accounted for, I can see how the US has a much higher sense of individualism than Korea does, and America would probably be perceived as higher on the Indulgent scale than Korea.
I think that if people view these categories with a grain of salt and don’t take them out of the culture’s actual context, they can be a helpful learning tool.
Something that I often reflect on is the degree to which a given language reflects the values of a culture. There are certain times in which a false causation has been drawn between lexicon and value-- does the existence of schadenfreude within the German language imply that Germans are more masochistic? No, but 你吃了吗 (have you eaten?) as a greeting in Mandarin does reflect an importance of food as togetherness.
Within Hofstede's analysis, there is a de facto value assessment that can provide a sense of quantitative comparison to linguistic structure. For example, within English, there is both a low score of Power Difference, and an absence of formal/informal register or pronouns. On the other hand, China and Indonesia have higher masculinity scores than countries such as Spain and Portugal, even though Mandarin and Bahasa Indonesia are significantly less gendered than Spanish and Portuguese.
There are some limitations of Hofstede's analysis, namely the delineation by country. In a globalizing world and one in which political boundaries do not reflect cultural boundaries, it can lean overly simplified. There are vast cultural differences between regions, class, Indigenous groups, and generation that could be overlooked by the geographical grouping. I found Figuring Foreigners Out to be a bit more holistic in the sense that it was more a tool for reflection rather than quantification.
As I learn Bahasa Indonesia, I'm reflecting on the cultural difference of power structure, given the deemphasis of status that I grew up with. Building cultural competence alongside my language skills means carefully choosing the register and honorifics I use to address people in order to show them respect. Having that cultural awareness in Indonesian is just as important as, if not more important than having proper grammar or a wide vernacular.
The author of Figuring Foreigners Out explores differences among various cultures, the way people respond to certain situations, and what they get out of it. The author pointed out the relationships between individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures, nonverbal communications, monochronic vs. polychronic approaches to time-being, internal vs. external mindsets, and direct vs. indirect communications. Geert Hofstede Analysis, on the other hand, explored the connections between culture and workforce, economy, and social welfare in particular countries.
I was born and raised in Russia. One of the main stereotypes that I have heard about Russian is that we appear to be very mean, rude, straightforward, and sometimes just “too much”. To be honest, I agree with most of it. Russian culture is definitely leaning toward the direct culture, and the author of Figuring Foreigners Out said that “direct cultures tend to be less collectivist and more individualistic than indirect cultures, with less well-developed ingroups.” (92). I agree with that. I was taught my whole life that there is nobody in the world who will care for me more than I do, there is nobody in the world who will come and do something for me. I was taught that I should always rely just on myself. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing. However, in certain situations it might be beneficial to be a little bit more open-minded, welcoming to other people because that is how we learn and get new experiences by communicating and interacting with others.
According to Geert Hofstede Analysis - “ a High Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. Individuals in these societies may tend to form a larger number of loser relationships”. On the map which was provided by the same research group Russia seems to be in the middle of the worldwide spectrum. In other words, Russian culture is predominantly individualistic with a fair amount of collectivistic characteristics. Moreover, the Country Comparison Tool showed the following numbers for Russia for the 6 dimensions:
93 for power distance, 39 for individualism, 36 for masculinity, 95 for uncertainty avoidance, 81 for long-term orientation, and 20 for indulgence.
The little summary below stated that …
“Russia, scoring 93, is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. This is underlined by the fact that the largest country in the world is extremely centralized: 2/3 of all foreign investments go into Moscow where also 80% of all financial potential is concentrated.”
Honestly, I could not have said it better because it is true that all the resources, “big opportunities”, money, and wealth are located within around 100 miles of Moscow. From my perspective, it is pretty unfair and sad because the rest of the country lives in poverty, and tries to meet their ends with wages times lower than the ones available for people in Moscow. Coming back to my initial point - Russians care for their own welfare and well-being, most of the time they are not even trying to get out of their own bubble and see how the rest of the country lives. Or maybe they try but do not change anything because it will not benefit them.
Figuring foreigners out describes categories used to differentiate between cultures. According to the author, societies can be more geared towards individualism or collectivism. Their perception of time can either be monochronic (time is precious) or polychronic (take your time).
Cultures can also have different views on locus of control. It can either be internal (life is what you make of it) or external (belief of destiny). They can also be separated by direct or indirect communication styles. Inference, suggestion, and implications are hallmarks of an indirect style. These cultures value harmony, saving face, and avoiding confrontation. A direct style is less collectivist, more individualist, and occurs when ingroups are less well-developed. These cultures typically have fewer shared experiences, meaning that things need to be spelled out. For example, in the United States, there are multiple different ethnicities and cultural groups with completely different experiences, make for a more direct style. South Korean is much more homogenous and would therefore have an indirect style.
I was less inclined to agree with the Hofstede readings. As someone that has thrived in diverse environments, I heartily disagree with his statement that "Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster." His comparison categories also seemed slightly less intuitive than those from “Figuring foreigners out.”