“Figuring Foreigners Out” and Hofstede’s Dimensions identify the several spectrums that define cultures and help people compare them. They both talk about values that differentiate cultures, like individualism versus collectivism and nonverbal communication (Figuring Foreigners Out). A lot of ideas overlap, like monochronic/polychronic and long-term orientation, but as they both emphasize, there is spectrum and not every culture is one or the other. I think these articles are useful for understanding other cultures, but they can’t be used to understand individual people because the way a society works is not how a single person, or smaller group, works and assuming the way someone will act is harmful. I think this because it kind of fits under the stereotype category, where people over-generalize a belief about a group of people and then act “accordingly.” Although stereotypes are sometimes rooted in a bit of truth, they are harmful when assuming every member is this way. Hofstede’s study assumes cultures are homogenous, which completely erases diversity within the culture, whether in religious, ethnic, or any types of group, because nations are not all the same and are usually, if not always, comprised of several varied groups.
One point I found helpful in “Figuring Foreigners Out” was the point from the nonverbal communication section where there are things that mean something in one culture that can mean the same, different, or have no significance in another. I think this is extremely helpful when learning a language because Turkish may have words for things that don’t exist in English/America. Whether the words are meaningful to the culture or not matters, but not as much as understanding that people in different places have different worldviews and values than Americans. Knowing this will make me more receptive to learning these new words and accepting them into the vocabulary.
I compared Turkey (and Jordan, but that’s for another class!) to America and on the Hofstede spectrum, they are almost completely different. The category numbers are as follows (the notes are taken directly from http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/hofstede.htm ):
Power distance - T: 66 (inequalities between power and wealth have been allowed to grow) A: 40 (de-emphasized difference, although I am not entirely sure I agree with this)
Individualism - T: 37 (collectivist nature) A: 91 (individual rights are paramount)
Masculinity - T: 45 (lower, although not extremely low, importance on differences between genders) A: 62 (emphasizes gender difference)
Uncertainty Avoidance - T: 85 (low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity) A: 46 (lesser concern for ambiguity, but not extremely low)
LTO - T: 46 A: 26 (both change can occur more rapidly because tradition doesn’t impede change)
Indulgence - T: 49 A: 68
I think these rankings are already appearing in my study of Turkish, especially the masculinity category. Whereas in English we differentiate between possession (hers, his) and pronouns in general (she/her, he/him), Turkish often uses “O” for “them.” In other words, it’s fairly gender neutral. Of course, they do have words for man and woman and you can say something belongs to her, but there is not special suffix added on to distinguish. Rather, suffixes are saved for the tone (informal versus formal). While I have yet to see the rest of the dimensions appear, I think it’s important to know what they are to help understand the general culture, which will inherently help with the understanding of the language because “the meanings of a particular language represent the culture of a particular social group” (Fatiha Guessabi, Blurring the line between Language and Culture).
Replies