Cultural Continuums -Group 1 Paper

1、Cultural Continuums -Group 1 PaperR.S. ZAHARNA Home Classes Professionals Research Resources* Back to International PR syllabus.Zaharna - Cultural Continuumsnotes & working draft 1/29/2000Overview: Cultural ContinuumsR.S. Zaharna, Ed.D.There are several ways in which scholars have distinguished cult

2、ures. This section brie?y reviews theoretical frameworks useful in highlighting the salient differences among cultures. Because of ethnocentricism, we may tend to view our way versus the other way - or, one side of the continuum versus the other side of the continuum. A more helpful approach is to t

3、hink of cultural differences as variations spread out across a continuum. One may view the cultural variations of a cultural continuums in much the same way as one would view the different colors within a spectrum. Just as we tend to have favorite colors, we tend to have cultural preferences within

4、a cultural continuum that we favor.I should note that although America is rapidly becoming a more multicultural society, the cultural features highlighted here characterized the dominant cultural pattern of American cultural history and are still quite prominent in the American media (a major force

5、in shaping the new members of American society). Table 3: Cultural Continuums provides an overview of the different ways of looking at cultures.High-context & Low-contextPerhaps the most well-known cultural continuum is Halls (1976) discussion of high-context and low-context cultures. Hall views mea

6、ning and context as inextricably bound up with each other (1982, p. 18). The difference between high and low context cultures depends on how much meaning is found in the context versus in the code. You can think of code as the message. You can think of context as setting or circumstance, including t

7、he people, in which the message appeared.Low-context cultures, such as the American culture, tend to place more meaning in the language code and very little meaning in the context. For this reason, communication tends to be speci?c, explicit, and analytical (Ting-Toomey, 1985). In analyzing messages

8、, low-context cultures tend to focus on what was said and give literal meaning to each word. For this reason, the words - or what was said - can take on a power of their own. Chen & Starosta pointed out that low-context cultures tend to use a direct verbal-expression style in which the situation con

9、text is not emphasized, important information is usually carried in explicit verbal messages, people tend to directly express their opinions and intend to persuade others to accept their viewpoints, and self-expression, verbal ?uency, and eloquent speech are valued (1998, p. 50). In high-context cul

10、tures, meaning is embedded more in the context rather than the code. In this case, what was said cannot be understood by the words alone - one has to look at who said it, when they said it, where they said it, how they said it, the circumstances in which they said it, to whom they said it, etc. Each

11、 variable will help de?ne the meaning of what was said.In speaking of high-context cultures, Hall states, most of the information is either in the physical contextor internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message (1982, p.18). Thus the listen

12、er must understand the contextual cues in order to grasp the full meaning of the message. As Hall says:People raised in high-context systems expect more from others than do the participants in low-context systems. When talking about something that they have on their minds, a high-context individual

13、will expect his interlocutor to know whats bothering him, so that he doesnt have to be speci?c. The result is that he will talk around and around the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing it properly - this keystone - is the role of his interlocutor. (1976,

14、 p. 98)In other words, in high-context exchanges, much of the burden of meaning appears to fall on the listener. In low context cultures, the burden appears to fall on the speaker to accurately and thoroughly convey the meaning in her spoken or written message.Polychronic & MonochronicEdward Hall al

15、so introduced the concept of monochronic and polychronic cultures. The concept of chronemics is a nonverbal behavior that speaks to how people use time to communicate. Lateness, for example, can communicate messages of power (waiting in the doctors of?ce), attraction (arriving early for that ?rst da

16、te), or identity (being fashionably late). Chronemics, like all other nonverbal behavior is culturally based. Different cultures have different rules governing the use and meaning of time. Halls distinction between monochronic and polychronic cultures highlight the different ends of the cultural spe

17、ctrums of how cultures view time.Monochronic cultures such as the dominant American culture tend to view time as linear (spread out across time, spanning across generations, the time line or time frame). Being punctual, scheduling, planning tasks to match time frames are valued behaviors. Time is vi

18、ewed as a commodity (time is money) that can be bought (buying time), spent (spending time) or wasted (wasting time). Thus, although time is technically an abstract phenomena, in the monochronic view it becomes a concrete reality. Woe to he who has lost time. One of the most outstanding features of

19、monochronic cultures is that because time is so concrete and segmented, only one thing can be done at a time. To try to do many things at one time is chaos, that is, negative.Polychronic cultures tend to view time as nonlinear. There can be a circular or cyclical quality to time (what goes around, c

20、omes around, life is a circle). Punctuality and scheduling is done but rarely with the religious fervor found in monochronic cultures. Schedules are not etched in stone but rather penciled inas a matter of cultural habit instead of personal habit. People from polychronic cultures, as the term poly s

21、uggests, ?nd little dif?culty doing many things at one time. Because time is not linear or segmented, matching speci?c activities with speci?c time frames is not done. Times and activities are?uid.Collectivism & IndividualismPsychologist and intercultural scholar, Harry Triandis (1986) at the Univer

22、sity of Illinois, has written extensively about individuals de?ne themselves in terms of their social grouping. He has discussed these differences in terms of collectivist and individualist cultures. For an excellent summary see Triandis, Brislin & Hui (1988).Individualist cultures are de?ned as tho

23、se in which the goals of the individual are valued over any particular group or collective. In individualist cultures, a person tends to look primarily after his own interests or that of his immediate nuclear family. Personal accomplishments are important and individuals will take advantage of oppor

24、tunities for advancement even if it means sacri?cing personal relations. Relationships tend to be short-term and transitory. As a result, contracts are an important means forde?ning and binding relationship.Collectivist cultures are de?ned as those which the collective goals are valued over the indi

25、vidual goals. As Triandis & Hui stated about people from collectivist cultures, individuals pay primary attention to the needs of their group and will sacri?ce opportunities for personal gain because such sacri?ce is tied to their sense of self as a member of the larger collective. In other words, w

26、hat is good for the collective is good for the self; the individuals esteem is tied to the collectives esteem. The distinction between in-groups and out-groups is clearly de?ned. In collectivist cultures, a person is assumed to belong to one or more tight in-groups. The in-group protects the interes

27、ts of its members collectively. Loyalty to the in-group is primary. Long term relationships based on trust are also very important.Indirect & DirectScholars have also distinguished cultures in terms of direct versus indirect communication styles. Levine (1985) said that the American cultural prefere

28、nce is for clear and direct communication as evidenced by their many common expressions: Say what your mean, Dont beat around the bush, Get to the point (p.29). Levines description of indirect or ambiguous communication further underscore the differences: Indirect verbal communication is designed to

29、 be affectively neutral. It aims for the precise representation of fact, technique, or expectation. Direct communication works to strip language of its expressive overtones and suggestive allusions. Ambiguous communication, by contrast, can provide a superb means for conveying affect. By alluding to

30、 shared experiences and sentiments verbal associations can express and evoke a wealth of affective responses. (1985, p. 32)Thus where direct communication strives for emotional neutrality or objectivity. In contrast, ambiguous communication deliberately uses language to evoke an emotional response.

31、Additionally, whereas nonlinear stresses openness, ambiguous styles would be more likely to conceal or bury the message. Similarly, direct stresses speci?c factual and even technical aspects of a message that the ambiguous style would omit.Linear & Non-linearSimilar to the oral/literate framework, s

32、cholar (Dodd, 1982; Lee, 1950) suggest linear versuscon?gurational (non-linear) thought framework. The American culture would be more representative a linear thought framework, and the Arab culture more con?gurational or non-linear. According to Dodd, the linear orientation has transformed auditory

33、and oral communication into visual communication by means of written symbols, organized into linear thought patterns (1982, p. 163). The linear cultural pattern stresses beginnings and ends of events, unitary themes, is object oriented rather than people or event-oriented, and is empirical in its us

34、e of evidence.Nonlinear cultures, says Dodd are characterized by the simultaneous bombardment and processing of a variety of stimuli so that people would think in images, not just words (1982,p. 162). The non-linear thought framework normally has multiple themes, is expressed in oral terms and heigh

35、tened by nonverbal communication. Time orientation is less important than people and events, and time is not segmented.Oral versus LiterateAnthropologists have long posited the distinctions between oral versus literate dominant societies. The print or literate dominant society relies more on the fac

36、tual accuracy of a message than its emotional resonance (Ong, 1980). This may relate to the historical purpose of the written word - to record, preserve, and transmit (see, Stock, 1983). Literate societies also favor evidence, reasoning, and analysis over the less rational, more intuitive approach (

37、Denny, 1991). This contrasts to the logic of oral cultures, where a single anecdote can constitute adequate evidence for a conclusion and a speci?c person or act can embody the beliefs and ideals of the entire community (Gold, 1988).Whereas literate cultures may place a higher premium on accuracy an

38、d precision than on symbolism, in the oral cultures the weights are reversed. In oral cultures there appears to be greater involvement on the part of the audience, and this in turn, affects the importance of style and devices that enhance audience rapport.Citing Cicero, Gold (1988) highlights numero

39、us features of the oral tradition, including repetition as a means for keeping attention as well as making the speech agreeable to the ear (p. 160). In terms of message comprehension, Henle (1962) noted that auditors will go to considerable lengths to make sense of an oral message (p. 371). Thus lis

40、teners play a valuable part in constructing meaning within an oral exchange. As Gold states, the audience cooperates with the speaker by trying to understand the meaning or gist rather than the actual content (1988, p. 170). Thus, the audience is quite active.With heightened listener involvement, th

41、e aesthetics of style and audience relations may supersede the informational aspects of a message. An oral message may be valued more for its affective power than its cognitive merits. Tannen (1982) noted the interpersonal involvement between speaker and audience, as speakers strive for a more emoti

42、onal and participatory responses from their audience. Clearly with style overriding substance, aural ornaments such as formulas, humor, exaggeration, parallelism, phonological elaboration, special vocabulary, puns, metaphor, and hedges are critical (Feldman, 1991; Gold, 1988). REFERENCESChen, G. & S

43、tarosta, W. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Condon, J. & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Daniels, N. (1975). The cultural barrier: Problems in the exchange of ideas. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universi

44、ty Press.Denny, J. (1991). Rational thought in oral culture and literate decontextualization. In D. Olson & & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and Orality. NY: Cambridge University Press.Dodd, C. (1992). Dynamics of intercultural communication. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown.Feldman, C. (1991). Oral metalanguage

45、. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality. NY: Cambridge University Press.Gold, E. (1988). Ronald Reagan and the oral tradition. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 159-176.Hall, E.T. (1982). Context and meaning. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader.

46、Belmont: Wadsworth.Hall, E.T. (1976). B eyond culture. NY: Doubleday.Henle, M. (1962). On the relations between logic and thinking. Psychological Review, 69, 366-378.Kluckhohn, F. (1953). Dominant and variant value orientations, in C. Kluckhohn & H. Murray (eds.), Personality in nature, society, and

47、 culture. NY: Alfred Knopf, pp. 342-357.Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, R. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, Il: Row Peterson.Lee, D. (1977). Lineal and nonlineal codi?cation of reality, in P. Kollock & J. OBrien (eds.), The production of reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine-Forge Press, p

48、p. 101-111. (Reprint from Psychosomatic Medicine, 12 (2), pp. 89-97, 1950).Levine, D. (1985). The ?ight from ambiguity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the U.S. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory. Beverly

49、Hills, CA: Sage.Ong, W. (1980). Literacy and orality in our times. Journal of Communication, 30, 197-204.Stewart, E. (1972). American cultural patterns. Chicago: Intercultural Press.Stock, B. (1983). The implications of literacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Tannen, D. (1982). Introduction.

50、 In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of con?ict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture and organizational processes. Beverly Hills: Sage. Triandis

51、, H. (1986). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology, in C. Bagley & G. Verma (eds.), Personality, cognition, and values. NY: Macmillan, pp. 57-89.Triandis, H., Brislin, R. & Hui, C. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269-289.Table 3: Cultural Continuums - T