The Hofstede Dimensions of Culture talks of six basic issues the society needs to address in order for the society to become organized. The dimensions are measured among countries and groups of countries around the world. The first dimension is individualism, which relates to a value in an individual’s personal choices and decisions. The other end of the spectrum is collectivism, which promotes the place in society in which an individual resides. There is a sense of interdependency within collectivist cultures. This idea relates to the Figuring Foreigners Out, where the write speaks about the modes in which a culture views the society, how people should live, and how people communicate. The article mentions the individualist versus the collectivist view on personal identity. Both the Hofstede Dimensions and the article, the writers pose that societies contain aspects from both individualist and collectivist ideals. However, it is possible for a society to lean more one way than the other. For example, the Unites States on the Hofstede map shows our society valuing individualism more than collectivism, and I agree. Due to the Constitution, we have the Amendments, which give us certain freedoms, followed by the allowance of us to make our own decisions.
The Hofstede Dimensions of Culture also addresses Power Distance, or the acceptance of a less powerful individual in knowing power is distributed unequally. We may be able to observe that nations under a more central, communistic government, the Power Distance is rather high meaning that people accept there to be a difference in power distribution. In other countries, there is lower power distribution, which could maybe be due to a very socialistic point of view, where every person is treated equally, or may be under a democratic government in which people deny to an extent the idea that power is distributed unequally. In Brazil, the power distance is relatively high, meaning that people accept a hierarchy of power. This relates also to the dimension of collectivism, because people accept their place in society like they accept unequal power distribution.
In the Dimension of Femininity and Masculinity, both the U.S. and Brazil seem to be in between the two extremes. I am not too familiar with the social values of Brazil, but in the U.S. there has been quite the social movement in the past few decades for women’s rights and equality.
In terms of the Figuring Foreigners Out, I enjoyed particularly reading about the nonverbal and direct/indirect communication, because I find communication to be fascinating. In Brazil, the “OK” hand gesture has the same connotation as the middle finger in our culture. Dr. Soloway also mentioned the most recent occurrence in white supremacy groups as well. I also find the direct and indirect communication interesting, because I can think about that on an individual level, as someone is very direct in what they would like to say or passive, in that you have to play a sort of guessing game in order to understand what the person is trying to communicate. I also remember my siblings that both studied abroad in Japan say that the people there were very passive and would never confront any person. I imagine all around the world, the way in which societies communicate differs greatly.
Replies