Due by 5pm on Sunday, February 4: 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
The main ideas in the articles are the structure used to understand cultural differences and their impact on communication, behavior and values. "Figuring out foreigners" emphasizes the importance of understanding and underlying values and assumptions of different cultures to effectively navigate intercultural interactions. The article suggests that cultural difference can cause conflict if not adressed. Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture identifies six dimensions along which cultures can be compared: Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation, and Indulgence vs. Restraint. These dimensions provide insights into how cultures differ in their attitudes towards authority, individualism, gender roles, risk-taking, time orientation, and gratification. While both structures offer valuable insights into cultural dynamics, they might be criticized for oversimplifying complex cultural realities and perpetuating stereotypes. In my opinion, while these frameworks provide a useful starting point for understanding cultural differences, they should be used with caution and supplemented with individualized knowledge and experiences.
"Figuring Foreigners Out" and the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture delve into the impact of cultural dimensions on communication styles, emphasizing factors like individualism-collectivism, and time management.These dimensions help understand cultural nuances, especially in communication categorized as direct or indirect. As for agreement, recognizing these dimensions provides valuable insights into cross-cultural interactions. However, the danger lies in oversimplification or stereotyping. Cultural behaviors are complex and can vary within a society. Generalizations may not capture individual differences.In terms of the Korean language and culture, understanding the collectivist nature and high-context communication is crucial. Korean culture often values indirect communication and places importance on relationships. Language intricacies, politeness levels, and contextual cues are pivotal.
I'm delighted to hear that we bring up again individualistic versus collectivist cultures; last semester I took a social psychology class where we spent a lot of time dissecting the differences between them and how they apply to the real world. I feel like it is relatively easy to understand that Americans tend to be more individualistic, while parts of Asia can be seen as collectivist. Even if you just look at the way they handled covid you can see that while Americans did not care as much, Asian countries were on complete lockdown, ensuring that no one would pass away from COVID-19 even if it is not a direct family member, etc. I do agree with the generalization, although you have to remember that not everyone is like this; just because you come from an Asian country does not mean that you are immediately collectivistic Vice versa. Learning about Korean culture will be somewhat interesting because they do tend to lean collectivistic which is very different from an American approach. Although personally, I do not see myself as extremely one or the other. I also think that the Geert Hofstede Analysis is interesting to say the least, its interesting to see these ideologies placed on a scale in a sense, which again, there is some truth behind the assignment of specific things in a more modern world we know its not a binary relationship there are many forms of individualism vs collectivism.
The main ideas from these articles are that cultural dimensions, such as collectivism-individualism mindsets, Monochronic-Polychronic time management, and Internal-External view of their own destiny, are influential in explaining a culture's way of communicating, often divided into Direct and Indirect communication. As an international student who last semester took a Cross-Cultural Management course, I wholeheartedly agree with these ideas, as almost every day I can see people from different nationalities speak English in a very different way, including myself. No statements in the articles were problematic in my opinion, since these dimensions are normally used as "sophisticated stereotypes" which are a decent first guess of how someone is in respect to some cultural characteristics like communication and time management. In fact, these ideas relate to my target language's culture. For example, in Korean one would say "Our Mother," and not "My Mother," symbolizing the collectivistic mindset present in East Asia, including Korea.
The main idea from the readings is that there are culture influence how people communicate. I agree wtih this idea as an international student. My Enlgish is greatly influenced by Korean culture, which leads me to say more politely communicate with elders. I believe my Korean will also be influenced by American culture by saying "please" at the end of the sentences. I don't have any particular problematic idea as it depends on culture and individual's communication skill.