The excerpt of Figuring Foreigners Out mentions five different ways of viewing different societies. The first one is Individualism versus Collectivism. Individualistic countries value independence and personal freedom by members of society becoming self-sufficient. Collectivism is, on the other hand, when groups such as the immediate family are the smallest unit of survival. It is important for people to protect each other and interdependence is encouraged. Another way of viewing countries is by nonverbal communication. There are a lot of cultures that have communication through nonverbal means. When studying different cultures, it is important to note that some behaviors exist in both and only one culture. It is also noteworthy to realize that sometimes the same behavior in one culture might not mean the same thing in another. When cultures do not have the same nonverbal behaviors or meanings differ, misunderstandings and confusion arise. The excerpt also goes on to talk about the difference between how time is conceived. In a monochronic society, time is a commodity. People’s needs are changed to the demands of limited time through schedules and deadlines. This creates an efficient, but urgent society. On the other hand, in a polychronic culture, people believe that simultaneous work is natural. People are not rushed by deadlines or do they find themselves to be servants of ticking time. Another perception of cultures is through their understandings of control: is it internal or external? Societies that place belief into the though that control is within an individual are more activist cultures. Individuals are responsible for what happens to them and their success comes from their achievements and hard work. Conversely, external cultures say that because some things are predetermined, there are limits to what one can do. Success is not only an effort but good fortune. These types of societies usually harbor fatalist cultures. Lastly, the reading mentions direct and indirect communication. In cultures with indirect/high context, people like to infer, suggest, and imply while direct/low context cultures tend to be explicit. Indirect cultures use communication to preserve and strengthen relationships with others while the latter is to give and get information.
Geert Hofstede came up with a six-dimensional model to study cultures. One of the ways to compare is the map of individualism (IDV). This lens focuses on the degree of the individual to the collective aspects of culture. Another is the Power Distance Index (PDI), which focuses on the degree of equality/inequality in a country. While a High Power Distance indicates the growth of inequality of power and wealth, a country with a Low Power Distance ranks societies that do not emphasize the wealth and power gaps. The third focus is on masculinity. This dimension measures whether traditional masculinity is reflected in a society’s achievement, control, and power. Low levels of masculinity represent less discrimination between genders while High Masculinity means the country has higher levels of gender differentiation. The next index is the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI). This study of countries focuses on the “level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society” and measures whether a country is tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity or not. Depending on the levels, a society becomes more rule-oriented or risk-taking. The second to last dimension, Long-Term Orientation (LTO), focuses on whether or not a country embraces long-term devotion to traditions and/or “forward-thinking values”. High LTO means the country embraces long-term commitments and traditions while a Low LTO indicates a higher level of change. Last but not least, Geert provides the Indulgence dimension. There is a difference between countries that say indulgence is good and freeing while some emphasize that difficulty (and lack of indulging your impulses) is the “normal state of being”.
It was interesting to read about the different ways to view cultures. As I was reading, I reflected on the two cultures I associate with and am studying: the US and South Korea. I found myself categorizing both societies into the different lenses and found myself agreeing to the studies. However, I do believe that these assessments are based on generalizations and that there are exceptions to each and every culture. Like said in one of the readings, a culture being individualist or reliant on indirect communication does not mean they are 100% individualist or people who suggest instead of explicitly relaying information. Also, I think there are correlations between certain assessments. For example, I would say that a lot of individualist cultures are also externalists while collectivists are also internalists. But this might not always be the case. I believe the US to be an individualist culture while Korea a collectivist society. This does not, however, refute the fact that both societies generally view success to be dependent on one’s effort (America with the whole “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” talk to the belief of “college entrance exams as the determinants of your future success” in Korea). But again, these are broad generalizations of each culture to make it easier to compare their tendencies. As I study the Korean language, I remember how speaking Korean is different from American English because of the difference in cultures. The language and expressions used are shaped by a culture’s tendencies. For instance, while the Korean language deals with clear levels of formality and informality, English requires more explicit behaviors because of their views on the directness of communication. Despite being already aware of the differences between the two cultures, but being able to describe the possible reasoning behind the differences through these devices of UAI, monochronic versus polychronic time, and more is really intriguing.