1.1 Introducing Intercultural Communication
What is intercultural communication?
Intercultural communication refers to the process of interacting with people who are different from oneself in fundamental ways related to appearance, language, worldviews, or a number of other categories. For many people this phenomenon is part of their everyday lives, for example, in multilingual, multicultural communities or in culturally diverse families. The majority of human societies deal with multiple cultures and multiple languages. The USA has traditionally been one of the few countries in which it is possible to be successful even if one speaks only one language, English (Nieto, 2010). The USA, however, is shifting demographically in ways that are likely to change dramatically attitudes towards language and culture. By the year 2042, demographers tell us, non-Hispanic whites will be in the minority (Roberts, 2008).
The USA is by no means unique in undergoing this process. The means of communication and transportation available today result in more mixing of cultures than ever before. This coincides with trends in commerce and trade in recent decades which have facilitated growing internationalization in all areas of business and economic activity. This process of globalization is facilitated by social media activities of people around the world. Communicating with others who are physically remote is possible through social networks such as Facebook or through online conversations via Skype or WhatsApp. At the same time, political and economic forces are causing large numbers of people to become asylum-seekers or economic refugees, creating more diverse cities and countries throughout the world. This process can also create conflict, sometimes due to concerns of foreigners taking jobs away or changing the character of a region, and sometimes due to fear arising from willful ignorance and xenophobia – the fear of foreigners.
In fact, globalization is by no means, as often portrayed, a benign process, benefiting humanity universally. While many in developed countries enjoy international travel, increasing prosperity, and safe communities, those in other parts of the world continue to experience severe deprivations (food, water, housing), mass unemployment, and violent communities. The coronavirus pandemic of 2020 has revealed in dramatic form how economic inequality within countries and across the world translates into health care disparities, higher death rates, and human deprivation of all kinds. The adverse living conditions in economically disadvantaged regions, along with unequal access to education and healthcare, are often accompanied by corruption and political powerlessness. This has led to mass migrations and social instability. Within developed countries, there are sharp divisions based on geography, social class, and income. These disparities, along with changes in the global economy, have propelled populist and nationalistic leaders in many parts of the world to power. It remains to be seen whether the economic and social upheavals resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic will reinforce trends towards isolation or will demonstrate the need for countries to work together to solve global problems like pandemics or climate change that ignore national borders.
The need for intercultural communication today
Given the demographical and globalizing trends of recent decades, in today’s world one is likely to have more encounters (online or in person) with people from different cultures. Technological advances have played a major role in bringing people together. The Internet has reached the remotest corners of the world, as has satellite and online entertainment. People are able to see and appreciate differences in culture, way of life, and ways of interpreting the world at the click of a button. We need to be aware, however, of the fact that access to online resources is by no means universal or automatic; in many countries and regions connectivity may be limited by cost, cultural factors, and/or government controls. Another development of recent times that has brought increased contact with those from other cultures is the increasing ease of travel to different parts of the world for both work and
pleasure (for the privileged).
These developments have resulted in an increased need to be interculturally aware and competent, as encounters with cultural “others” is on the rise. From that perspective, there is certainly a personal incentive for being interculturally sensitive. The openness and flexibility needed for successful cross-cultural exchanges offer benefits in personal and professional interactions of all kinds. Becoming knowledgeable about other cultures is also invaluable in gaining deeper insight into one’s own culture. An experience living abroad or in close contact with those from another culture can lead to dramatically changed perspectives on the values and behavior patterns of one’s native country.
There is in addition a practical, utilitarian benefit, as companies are increasingly looking for employees who are flexible, tolerant, and able to work with others different from themselves. In virtually every business today, what happens in other countries can have a serious impact on its operations and viability. Communities and societies benefit as well, as understanding and tolerance reduce animosity and conflict. This is of increasing importance today, as we see a rise in nationalistic movements in many countries, often accompanied by growing calls for political isolation, economic nationalism, and stricter immigration controls. In part, this is a response to the fact that the forces of globalization have resulted in disadvantages for particular local populations in terms of job opportunities and economic well-being. These tendencies have unfortunate byproducts, namely the rise of prejudicial attitudes towards members of minority groups and a closing-off of minds and feelings towards those who act or look different.
It is of particular importance for future leaders to gain insight and empathy into other cultures. National or regional officeholders, heads of political parties, and others in the public eye (entertainers, writers, activists) function as role models. Their views, opinions, and behaviors can have a substantial public influence. Figures like Pope Francis, Malala Yousafzai, or Greta Thunberg have exerted positive influence, respectively, on views of minority rights, educational opportunities for girls, and the need for immediate action on global warming. Unfortunately, we have seen in recent years public figures advocating for ideas and policies which divide and inflame communities, such as white supremacy or rejection of equal rights for LBGTQ individuals. Messages of this kind — of hatred and bigotry— can fall on receptive ears, particularly if an individual or a community has not often encountered individuals different in ethnic background, religious belief, or language:
Many societies are deeply divided: the anger of rural and deindustrialised communities cut adrift by neoliberal globalisation is readily harnessed against the more concrete scapegoat of minorities, particularly if people have little experience with diversity. Against this context, opportunities for everyday mundane connections that allow people to engage beyond the stereotypes can become a crucial means to overcoming division and exclusion (Piller, 2017, p. 203).
Studies have shown that the geographical regions with the lowest number of immigrants or members of a minority tend to have the highest level of negative views of those groups. This is a clear indication that these views are not based on experience or evidence but on uninformed opinions based on slanted media or anecdotal information from friends or family. Piller (2017) provides a hopeful counterexample, namely Sudanese immigrants in a virtually all-white Australian community becoming socially accepted by individuals and community leaders who reach out beyond stereotypes and their in-group bubbles.
Intercultural understanding is essential in gaining an informed and balanced appreciation of media, whether that be television reports focusing on other countries or blog posts from abroad. Today there is a vast amount of information freely available, through media channels and the Internet. Understanding the perspective from which others view the world can be very helpful in becoming informed consumers of news stories and social media. Given the importance of this topic, it will form a thread through many of the discussions in this textbook.
Culture: Central to our lives
Embedded in the term intercultural communication is the word culture. Culture is a slippery concept. In English, it has a number of different uses. Already in the 1950’s, one article cited over 150 definitions of culture (Kluckhohn & Kroeber, 1952), while a more recent study analyzed over 300 definitions (Baldwin et al., 2006). One of those concepts is culture with a capital C, or high culture, namely literature and the arts. When we say in English that someone is cultured, this is the kind of culture we mean, someone with a good education, who perhaps goes on a regular basis to the theater or concerts, and reads books. We won’t be talking much here about that kind of culture. Rather what’s important for intercultural communication is the concept of culture related to the everyday pattern of life. Neuliep defines culture as “an accumulated pattern of values, beliefs, and behaviors, shared by an identifiable group of people with a common history and verbal and nonverbal symbol systems” (2012, p. 19). We will use this as our initial working definition, refining it subsequently to embrace other concepts beyond that of national cultures, implied in this view. In this traditional description of culture, several ideas emerge as being of importance:
- An accumulated pattern of values, beliefs, and behaviors…
Individual cultural identities develop over time, with handed-down concepts and actions being reinforced through repetition in a gradual socialization process. Culture references a number of aspects of normal human existence, from weighty issues such as our worldview and ethical–moral standards to more mundane matters such as how we greet each other or the kinds of food we like to eat.
- …shared by an identifiable group of people…
These cultural norms represent fundamental, default values for individuals identified with that cultural group. That group may be small or large, fixed in a single location or dispersed among different diaspora communities (geographically separated). However, no matter where they may be, they share particular characteristics that make them a distinct group.
- …with a common history…
How important historical memory is to members of a culture may vary. In some cases, as with Native Americans, or for other groups having been displaced or suffered acute social injustice, their history is likely to be well known and to play a significant role in determining cultural values as well as in shaping interactions with other groups. According to Rogers and Steinfatt (1999), “collective cultural consciousness,” the embedded memories of historical events important to a particular cultural group, can act as a kind of “message filter”, affecting significantly communication dynamics (p. 3).
- …and (common) verbal and nonverbal symbol systems.
Language plays an oversized role in social cohesion and is the most important vehicle for transmission of cultural values. Nonverbal communication patterns are also a prominent constituent part of a group’s identity and an easily identifiable marker for group membership. Both systems are based on symbols. Some see the use of symbols as the essence of a culture. For anthropologist Clifford Geertz, culture is a complex set of symbols used to create order and sense in our lives. According to Geertz, cultures “denote an historically transmitted pattern of meaning embodied in symbols” (Geertz, 1973, p. 89). As we saw from the example at the beginning of this chapter, while symbols may sometimes seem arbitrary (i.e., no inherent connection to their meaning), they nevertheless can be powerful, embodying deeply-held values and beliefs.
Culture is not something we are born with, but rather it is learned, starting with our families, then moving on to our school experiences and friends. We often are not aware of the cultural values we embrace, even though many of those values and behaviors determine important aspects of our lives. They may only come to the surface when we encounter people who come from different cultures. In that sense, culture is often described as hidden (Hall, 1966). Culture is not fixed and immutable; culture does not exist in a vacuum, but is influenced by historical, social, political, and economic conditions. Cultural values are constructed from social dynamics in the countries or groups represented. Those values are not necessarily universally embraced.
In everyday life, cultures are often associated with nation-states, as assumed in Neuliep’s definition. This can be traced back to the work of early 19th-century German scholar Wilhelm von Humboldt, who was one of the first to equate nations with cultures (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999). We often hear about French culture or Chinese culture. But within political boundaries, cultures are rarely monolithic. There tend to be many regional differences, as well as differences based on ethnicity, age, profession, social class, and other categories. National cultures change, whether it’s a consequence of catastrophic events such as wars, epidemics, or natural disasters, or simply through contact with a foreign culture. One could point to the spread of U.S. culture, for example, through the popularity of American movies and music, as well as through military interventions. In recent years we’re seen South Korean
popular culture develop a large following outside of Korea. K-pop, as it’s called, has many fans worldwide, some of whom adapt aspects of the K-pop sub-culture such as dress, hair style, or mannerisms (Kim, 2013). The fact is that as individuals we don’t necessarily fit the mold of the national culture in which we were raised. Some scholars speak of culture as something often contested (see Jackson, 2010; Pillar, 2017). Hippies in the 1960’s, for example, saw themselves in opposition to the cultural mainstream of many Western countries, in political views, in dress, and in attitudes towards work and leisure. In the end, culture is personal and fluid.
With these perspectives on culture, we can return to our initial working definition and add some qualifiers. This traditional view of culture implies a static state, not the fluidity described above. A dynamic vision of culture embraces the idea that cultures can be built on the fly, through individuals coming together due to commonalities of one kind or another, possibly even for a short duration of time. Another conventional conception of culture is a common history, but in reality within national cultures there may be groups whose history is quite different from main-stream groups, such as African-Americans in the US. Finally sharing values, behaviors and languages may be true only in a restricted sense. Sub-groups within a national culture (based on ethnicity, age, education, profession, gender, citizenship status, etc.) may exhibit quite different social norms as well as language practices. It is useful to have knowledge of the traditional conception of culture, but at the same time understand new and different perspectives on what “culture” is. That is further explored in the next section.
Culture from the perspective of complexity theory
We live in a world that has become increasingly complex, with a host of problems both global and intractable:
Economic instability, the widening gap between rich and poor, climate change and the environmental crisis, the unstoppable transnational flow of refugees despite increasingly harsh regimes of border control, the threat of terrorist movements, rising geopolitical tensions as the hegemony of the West declines, urban gridlock and conflict in our hyper-diverse cities, the unsustainable costs of health care in times of population ageing, and the unsettling impact of rapid technological change – these are only a few of the large conundrums facing our globalized, interconnected world today (Ang, 2011, p. 779).
One could easily add to this list issues surrounding the Internet, from cyber security to the loss of privacy and addiction to social media. Additionally, there is the constant threat of global pandemics, which are unpredictable, and potentially devastating. These problems are long-term and have a variety of causes. They have repercussions in human lives, both local and global. In recent years, the forces of globalization, mechanization, and mass migration have led to social divisions and political upheaval. Economic uncertainty and resentment towards immigrants have led to the growth of economic nationalism, populism, and isolationism across the globe. Common to these developments are ubiquity and complexity – the problems are interwoven in local and global contexts and evince multiple causes and unpredictable outcomes:
In short, everywhere in the world complexity is staring us in the face; its overwhelming impact – socially, economically, ecologically – is increasingly undeniable and inescapable. That the world is terribly complex is now a vital part of global cultural experience, a structure of feeling which has grown more pervasive in the twenty-first century (Ang, 2011, p. 779).
One way of dealing with this increasingly complex world is to pretend the problems do not exist, to engage in willful ignorance, by, for example, disbelieving scientific evidence. Another option is to ignore what happens beyond one’s neighborhood. Yet in the 21st-century it is virtually impossible in any part of the world to withdraw completely from interconnections and interdependencies which may be global in scale, but often local in effect. That was clearly demonstrated by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. One approach to solving complex problems is to choose short-term or partial measures. The danger in that approach is that it tends to lead to simplistic solutions, that may be popular, but in reality misrepresent both the issue and its complexity, and prove not to be viable longer-term. Complex problems are not solved by single, simple cause-and-effect explanations. There are typically multiple, changing variables at play, so that any problem-solving is likely to be both complicated and provisional. As conditions change, problem-solving approaches must adapt.
The first step is to recognize and accept the complexity of a problem and seek to understand its origins and developmental path. An approach that has gained currency in both natural and social sciences is complexity theory (CT), an ecological approach which stresses nonlinearity, unpredictability, and self-organization in how systems work. An expanded version of chaos theory, complexity theory looks to uncover a system’s beginning (its “initial conditions”) and to trace development as variables and subsystems are added to combine and shape outcomes in ways that are unpredictable. Studies have shown the extent to which language and language learning can be understood as complex systems, given the variability of language use and the multiple factors which affect learning a second language (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). That approach has recently been used as well to analyze the dynamics of informal language learning (Godwin-Jones, 2018). In chapters three and four we will look at that topic in more detail. Another area within intercultural communication that invites a CT analysis is personal identity, a topic we will address in the next chapter.
Viewing culture and intercultural communication from a CT perspective can help us understand that reducing culture to national origin is a simplistic misrepresentation of the dynamics of identity formation today, in which multiple influences – in person, online, and in the media – combine in unique ways that are varied and unforeseeable. Holliday (1999) uses the term “networked individual” to point to the myriad influences on individuals in our time. Culture from this perspective is fluid and dynamic, impacted by diverse, intersecting factors and not reducible to a single point of origin. The complexity of culture can also lead us to realign the typical approach in intercultural communication studies of focusing on similarities or differences. There are too many variables in play for contact between cultures to be understood in such binary terms. It is preferable to imagine instead a sliding scale, with both context and individual affecting interactions. Given that individuals have increasingly complex identities, that means that when individuals come together in conversation, that interaction is characterized by complexity as well.
Communication: A human necessity
Communication occurs in many different contexts, and conversations will have different characteristics depending on who is speaking, where the exchange takes place, and what the purpose of the encounter is. Human conversation is highly contextual and infinitely variable. The linguist Noam Chomsky has made us aware of the fact that virtually every sentence we speak is something brand-new, combining a basic set of elements into endless combinations, a phenomenon known as digital infinity (Chomsky, 2005).
According to the popular conception of human speech, language is used primarily for the transmission of information. This familiar transmission model breaks communication down into a transmitter and a receiver, whose roles may be reversed in the course of a dialogue, but whose purpose in talking is to send a message of some kind. This is a concept derived from early work in electronic communication, such as that done by Bell Labs in the US in the 1040’s and 1950s (see Shannon, 1948). In 1960, Berlo expanded the communication model to include factors such as the purpose and objectives of the message being transmitted, as well as nonverbal communication. His “SMCR” model breaks down communication into the Sender, Message, Channel, and Receiver, each of which is affected by a variety of factors. One of the important modifications in the model is emphasis on the channel’s influence on message transmission. This was later popularized in the phrase, “the medium is the message,“ by Marshall McLuhan (1964), meaning that a message is tightly tied to the means of transmission. This is of particular relevance today, as digital media have provided multiple channels of communication — texting, email, Facebook messaging, tweets, Instagram posts, etc. – all of which have a shaping influence on how a message is received.
In the traditional model of communication, the major emphasis is on the message transmitted and how that process takes place. Yet linguists, from observing and studying actual conversations, have learned that rarely does a conversation have only a semantic purpose, i.e., used to convey meaning. Instead, talking is often a social action, used to maintain relationships and convey feelings and emotions. Sometimes conversations are shaped by social status and function as a way to affirm or contest a hierarchical status quo (see Sorrells, 2013). Humans are social animals and the need to communicate is fundamental to our nature
.
No communication = no community
Throughout history, when societies wanted to severely punish someone for a social transgression, the harshest punishment was excommunication — banishment from the community. In Catholicism this means to cast out someone from the church. In ancient Rome the process was called ostracism, a ritual in which citizens used clay shards (ostraca) to vote for someone to be sent away from the community for 10 years. In modern Amish communities the practice is called shunning. The shunned person is allowed to physically remain in the community but is prohibited from any social interaction with others.
Remland et al, 2014. p. 9
Communication is what builds and maintains communities. Historically, the worst kind of human punishment has been exclusion from a community and enforced verbal isolation (see sidebar). Like culture, we take human communication for granted, and feel its importance only when it is lost.
Another issue with the traditional communication model of sender-receiver is its Western orientation which prioritizes message transmission (and therefore heavier importance placed on the sender) than the relationship among conversants. Non-Western models tend to take into consideration other aspects of the communication process, such as group harmony and asymmetrical power relationships. The Sadharanikaran communication model from India (from Sanskrit meaning universalization or commonality) stresses the importance of the communication parties reaching saharidayata (commonness or oneness) through reciprocal consideration of context, the inclusion of physical/non-verbal factors, and the need of respect for the spiritual dimension in human interactions (Adhikary, 2008). The model “offers an explanation of how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent” (Adhikary, 2008, p. 67). Similarly, an anthropocosmic communication model, based on Confucian principles of the essential unity of self, community, and cosmos, seeks to de-emphasize the individual and recognize humanity’s interconnectedness and interdependence through dialogic negotiation (Yuxin & Xuelai, 2016).
The nature of human speech affects intercultural communication. If talking is essentially a socialization process, holding conversations has the potential to build relationships. But that also means that the language we need for engaging in normal conversation is not simply vocabulary useful for expressing meaning. We need, importantly, to know about the social dimensions of language, i.e. the appropriate way to greet others, how to express gratitude, or what topics are appropriate to introduce in a conversation. Communication is fundamentally cultural. To be effective, conversation partners need to be sensitive to a range of factors beyond verbal communication. That includes nonverbal actions, such as how close to stand to the other person or whether to maintain eye contact (see Hall, 1966).
Those kinds of considerations we need not think about if the conversation is with a person or a group with whom we are familiar (Hall, 1959). When we speak of intercultural communication, we are moving away from that comfort zone, engaging in exchanges with people representing different cultures, that is to say different sets of values, beliefs, and behaviors; a different historical memory; quite possibly a different language (or dialect). The individual may not, in fact, represent the mainstream culture. That type of communication can be very different from encounters with those with whom we share a culture, in which the context is familiar. As a result, intra-cultural conversations tend to be more comfortable and routine. Even so, depending on the situation or context, we may experience conflict or communication apprehension. Speaking in front of a group, for example, can produce anxiety for many people. Conversing with strangers can bring on even more apprehension. This comes in large part from uncertainty. The less we know about the other person’s background and intentions, the more uncertain and apprehensive we may be. We can combat these feelings through approaching encounters in a spirit of openness and discovery. That lessens the likelihood of misunderstanding and conflict.
The cognitive and affective lens through which people construe their experiences and make sense of the world around them. (AACU)
A process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology.
Intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
Wal-Mart is the largest and most successful retailer in the world. It offers low prices through economies of scale, an efficient purchasing and delivery system, and low employee wages. Its home base is in the US, but it operates in countries across the globe. In many of those markets, Wal-Mart has been successful, for example in Great Britain and South America. However, Wal-Mart has been less successful in Japan, Korea, and India. Given the location of those markets, one might be tempted to assign Wal-Mart's lack of success to differences in Asian cultures and in consumer preferences. However, Wal-Mart has been largely successful in China. Moreover, it has not been universally successful in cultures closer to that of the US. Germany provides the clearest example.
There are many differences between Germany and the US, but they share a number of cultural traits including a strong work ethic, a generally individualistic orientation, a fundamentally egalitarian social and political structure, a monochronic time orientation, and a shared linguistic family (Germanic language group within the Indo-European family). However, it was in fact largely cultural issues that led to Wal-Mart's failure in the German market. The stores in Germany were run very much like those in the US, and that was the cause of many of the problems that arose. Here are the most important cultural factors:
Consumers. Wal-Mart stores had smiling "greeters" at their entrances. The company instructed cashiers to smile at customers. Germans do not tend to smile at strangers. German consumers found the personal greetings of the smiling greeters offensive – this kind of informal chatting with strangers is not the norm in Germany. The smiles from the cashiers were interpreted as mocking or flirtatious.
Products. The product line did not match the cultural habits and preferences of German consumers. Meats, for example, were prepackaged; many Germans prefer to have meat cut on demand. Products were in some cases packaged in large quantities. Storage in refrigerators and cupboards in Germany is much more limited than in the US; German consumers tend to buy smaller quantities and shop more often. Local or regional products were not offered. To achieve economies of scale, Wal-Mart tends to carry the same products across all stores. Germans often identify closely with their home region, which often will include specific food and beverage preferences (sausage or beer, for example). German consumers are used to putting purchased items into bags they themselves have brought to the store, and they found Wal-Mart's practice of bagging products for consumers into plastic bags unfamiliar and undesirable.
Employees. It's common practice at Wal-Mart's in the US to have employees engage in group chants before the store opens, designed to build store morale and company loyalty. This practice is not common in Germany, and was perceived negatively by Wal-Mart employees. Because of regional differences and family relationships, most Germans prefer to remain near the area in which they grew up. Wal-Mart expected employees – especially managers – to be willing to relocate based on company needs. In the US, it's not uncommon for someone to seek employment far from one's home base; that's less likely in Germany. The anti-union policy of Wal-Mart also ran up against the German tradition of strong trade unions. It's also the norm in German companies that there be institutionalized employee input into company decision-making. That was not the case at Wal-Mart Germany.
Culture loams large in international business; companies ignore cultural issues at their peril. The example of Wal-Mart in Germany demonstrates that a reliable model in one culture does not necessarily work world-wide. In this chapter we will be looking at issues which arise in intercultural communication in particular environmental and professional contexts. This will include some discussion of issues related to physical space, such as privacy and time orientation. Also discussed will be the role of translation/interpretation. We conclude the chapter with an examination of cross-cultural issues in education and an excursion into driving and car culture across cultures.
The impact of the environment on conversations
The nature of conversations is determined by the conversation partner, the purpose of the encounter, and the context in which it occurs. Germans who went to Wal-Mart were there to buy goods, not to engage in conversations with strangers. Those same Germans may have a quite different attitude towards talking with strangers if they happen to be sitting at the same table with tourists at a local beer garden. How they talk with those tourists will be quite different than a conversation over a beer with friends or co-workers. Where a conversation takes place can have a significant effect in terms of language used. In a beer garden, one may have to speak louder than normal and, because of the mixed clientele, be prepared to speak using a simplified version of one's native tongue or English. The language used will likely be quite different from that at the workplace, more informal, with quite different subjects discussed.
Quiet, isolated environments are likely to lead to different conversation dynamics than a crowded, noisy environment. Environmental psychologist Albert Mehrabian devised a theory in which he emphasizes the varying information rates in different environments (1977). Information rate is the amount of information contained or perceived per a certain unit of time; the more information available to process, the greater the information rate. An environment with a high information, with a high load rate is said to have a high load. Examples would be a busy airport or popular restaurant at lunch time. Environments with a low load might be a library reading room or a Japanese garden. According to Mehrabian, the higher the information load, the higher the anxiety, leading to discomfort and possibly anxiety. Those feelings are exacerbated by the presence of people we don't know, particularly if they are from a different culture. It's likely that most people would avoid whenever possible high load situations. From that perspective, encounters with strangers work best if carefully managed, with small numbers of conversants in a quiet setting.
Some cultures purposely create spaces with low information loads for particular purposes or cultural practices. Japanese gardens are intended to facilitate silent contemplation and meditation (Itoh, 1981). They feature carefully designed landscapes with flowing streams, rock formations, meandering walkways, and well-placed benches or other seating. The impression is one of informal natural beauty. In reality, everything in a Japanese garden is carefully planned out to create impressive views and perspectives. In contrast, the US "backyard" is a setting for socialization and sport. Typically, there will be an extensive lawn, well-maintained, allowing room for outdoor activities. This might be used for informal social gatherings, featuring meats cooked on the grill. The overall impression of an American backyard is of an environment created by man, while that of a Japanese garden is a harmonious blend of natural elements. There will clearly be a different dynamic at work in conversations held in an American backyard compared to a Japanese garden. In fact, a Japanese garden is more an invitation to silence (highly valued in that culture) than to conversation. The different spaces also point to contrasting views of the relationship between man and nature. Western culture tends to want to change and dominate nature. Asian cultures look to harmonize with nature.
Built environments and communication patterns
The design of built environments, such as private homes or office buildings also has a significant effect on communication. The traditional design of Japanese homes points to particular cultural norms and values, as well as typical communication patterns and practices in Japan. Because the Japanese believe in harmony with nature, traditionally Japanese homes are unobtrusively integrated into the landscape. The most important room, the sitting room, typically opens up onto the garden, with wide doors which can be opened to eliminate the barrier between house and garden. Often the garden offers its best views from the multiple open spaces along the outside of the house. One has the impression that the garden and the house flow into one another. The sitting room of a traditional Japanese family home is typically large and can be subdivided using semi-transparent screens called shoji. This allows considerable versatility, with divisions of the rooms easily changed. This modularity carries over to the traditional flooring of Japanese homes. Straw mats called tatami are used for sitting or sleeping. The flexibility in arranging living quarters accommodates the easy sub-division of space to allow for additional members of an extended family. It also enables creation of semi-private space as needed. In that way, it satisfies the need for social space for conversation as well as the possibility of withdrawal into silence and contemplation. Japanese society has changed significantly in recent decades, becoming less homogeneous and less traditional, under Westernizing influences. That has affected housing styles as well. Research has indicated however that the majority of Japanese still favor a traditional style (Ueda, 1998), with elements of traditional design typically incorporated into modern homes and office space whenever possible.
In contrast to the semi-fixed featured space of traditional Japanese homes, houses in Germany tend to favor fixed-featured space in which room divisions are permanent. These distinctions and terms were made by Edward Hall (1966) initially and are often used in descriptions of built environments. Germans tend to divide up space according to its function and to find and maintain an ordered space for all household objects and possessions. Important is that there be clear divisions, with the ability to close doors to all rooms, secure windows with heavy shutters, and surround the garden with tall hedges, fences, or walls. The house design reflects cultural aspects of life in Germany. There tends to be a strong sense of orderliness in German society (reflecting the German saying Ordnung muss sein – order is a must), with a strict adherence to rules. In accordance with that respect for order, Germans expect commitments and promises to be kept. That includes agreements regarding appointments and meet-ups; Germans are punctual and expect others to be as well. That sense of order carries over to personal interactions. Germans seek clarity in relations with others, which is reflected in the careful differentiation of people with whom one uses a formal level of address (the formal you Sie) from those with whom one is informal (du form). In contrast to other cultures which also have formal and informal modes of address (French, Spanish), Germans tend to be more rigid and systematic in their use of those forms. It's not unusual for Germans to maintain the Sie form even with close work colleagues. The desire for clarity tends to lead Germans to use a very direct style of communication, with the reputation of being sometimes overly blunt, leading to charges of insensitivity. Greg Nees, in his cultural study of Germans (2000), draws a connection between the cultural theme of order and the design of space (see sidebar). These two examples illustrate the connection between environments and communication, but they by no means exhaust the options for living environments to be found in human cultures. Another option discussed by Hall is informal space, with no permanent divisions or walls. Informal space plays a major role in the everyday living experiences of people in Africa, parts of the Middle East, and rural areas world-wide, where outdoor space and non-permanent housing becomes an integral and vital aspect of work and family life. Living in a tent or in a communal space clearly can have a major impact on communication.
Close that door! You're in Germany
The mutual influences of clarity and order reinforce one another and help create a strong tendency toward compartmentalization in all areas of their lives, for example, inside their dwellings. The open architecture typical of American houses and apartments in which the front door opens into the living room is not common. Walk into a traditional German home or apartment and you will usually find yourself in a small, closed corridor, or Gang. This corridor provides access to the other rooms of the house or apartment, and the doors to these other rooms will generally be closed. This configuration is considered orderly...Doors remain closed in most German public and office buildings, where a closed door does not mean a private meeting is taking place, but only that the door is closed as German notions of orderliness and clear boundaries dictate(p. 48).
Privacy across cultures
Although human beings are by nature social animals, we all also need time alone. The degree to which people seek and value solitude varies across cultures, as does the means and mechanisms for being alone. Knowing about norms and conventions regarding privacy can be important in encounters with others. The extent to which one's home is considered a private sphere, for example, can vary. In the US, guests invited over for a dinner party are likely to be given a "house tour" and be shown even intimate space such as a master bedroom. Guests will often congregate in the kitchen to converse while the host or hostess is preparing the meal. They are likely to be invited to help themselves to a drink from the family's refrigerator. The dinner party is likely to play out quite differently in other cultures. In the two environments discussed above, in Japan and Germany, guests are likely to see only the main rooms for guest entertaining. They will likely not be invited to roam freely throughout the house, or to use space designed for family use (except for the toilet). Guests are unlikely to socialize in the kitchen, which in both countries is a smaller space than is typical in the US. In both countries, that space is intended for the dedicated use of food preparation, traditionally the domain of the housewife. The kitchen is not viewed in any case as an appropriate location for extended conversation. The informality of communication patterns in the US allows for great flexibility in where casual conversations can take place. In other cultures, more formal rules of etiquette and social interactions will limit the range of options. In Germany in particular, social space and interactions are carefully compartmentalized, with clear distinctions and divisions in place. Separating off one's garden with a hedge or fence, for example, signals that the space is reserved for family use.
Germany and Japan are densely populated countries in which privacy is particularly valued. There are different ways to achieve that privacy. Architectural scholar Jon Lang (1987) identified four types of privacy: a) solitude, in which one is free from observation by others; b) intimacy, or shared privacy; c) anonymity, going unnoticed by others especially in a crowd; and d) reserve, in which one uses psychological means to create imagined isolation. Living in Tokyo (or other large metropolitan areas), office workers on the morning commute are likely to seek "anonymity" in crowded buses or subway cars. Once at the office, they may use "reserve", the only means of achieving privacy in a cubicled office environment. Once back home, the office worker might seek "solitude" in a specifically Japanese cultural way, by retreating into the bathroom. In Japanese houses, the bathroom is separated from the toilet and typically consists of two distinct areas, one for bathing (using a shower and soap) and one for soaking (the tub). The space is kept absolutely clean and made as attractive as possible, with the soaking water often scented with flowers or lemons. It can be a place for private relaxation and meditation.
The toilet offers the worker another opportunity for privacy, a valued commodity in a culture that places high value on social harmony, consensus building, and teamwork, all activities calling for contact with others. The toilet itself points to another key aspect of contemporary Japanese culture, the fascination with gadgets and electronics. Many Japanese toilets are high-tech, with a sophisticated control panel allowing for seat warming, massaging, and cleansing sprays. It may also play sounds and music. Soft music may help in relaxation and contemplation, while louder sounds may mask from others the personal activity occurring. That latter feature demonstrates that even in the search for privacy, Japanese tend to take into consideration those around them. Privacy in such a culture is fleeting, and therefore is all the more sought and cherished.
Naked? "This is Brazil. No one cares"
When I lived in Brazil, I was on the Amazon river...The environment clearly interacted with everyday life. Daily temperatures were usually in the 90s and 100s F. [35-40 C.], with a very high humidity. When you show up at someone’s home, they offer you a shower instead of a drink. You take off your clothes, hop in the shower to cool down (but never after eating, because faz mal [“it harms you”]), then put on the same clothes. One time, I went to the shared shower-shed between the houses in the housing area (a wooden shed with a garden hose hanging down). There was a wood plank missing. I went back and asked my host, “What do you wear to shower here?” He laughed and said, “Nothing, of course!” “But there’s a board missing,” I said. “John,” he replied—“this is Brazil. No one cares.” This leads to the notion that, because of climate and social factors, the notion of modesty was also quite different...Many of my friends thought nothing of using my cologne, my toothpaste., even my toothbrush...Because of crowdedness, especially among the working classes, privacy is conceptualized differently. If I stayed at a friend’s house, I would expect to bring my own hammock and string it across the living room—often with other family members
Baldwin, 2008
Notions of privacy are related to the sense of private ownership, which can also differ markedly across cultures. In the US, with a strong tradition of individualism and private ownership rights, mainstream cultural norms include sharp divisions between one's own possessions and those of others, including in a family environment. In other cultures, there are traditions of sharing and communal ownership, such as in Native American co-cultures. John Baldwin, a US scholar of intercultural communication recounts his personal experiences of privacy and attitudes towards personal possessions while living in Brazil (see sidebar). Brazil has a great variety of living spaces, with immense differences between life in the Amazonian rain forest and in major metropolitan areas like Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo. One of the indigenous tribes are the Mehinaku Indians. They live in communal villages with no privacy. Their huts house families of ten or twelve people. They have no windows or internal walls, and have doors that open unto an open area that is in constant view. The family members sleep in hammocks, suspended from a common house pole. According to anthropologist, Thomas Gregor (1980), "Each individual's whereabouts and activities are generally known to his relatives and often to the community as a whole. A Mehinaku has little chance of staying out of the public eye for any length of time" (p. 67). To be alone, villagers have only one option, to leave the village.
Cultural spaces
There is clearly a connection between the spaces humans inhabit and the cultural practices which take place there. Living in an Amazonian village will dictate behaviors and communication patterns quite different from those in an urban environment such as Paris. Donald Carbaugh (1999) describes the practice of "listening" (silent contemplation and meditation) of the Native American Blackfeet tribe in sacred locations or inspired by certain sky conditions or landscapes. The practice illustrates the Indian sense of connectedness of humans and all of life with nature. Non-Indians are not likely to have the equivalent experiences in the same physical setting (see sidebar). Thus, individuals and groups may experience the same physical space very differently. Paris, for tourists, is a place of wonder and discovery. For inhabitants of the Parisian suburbs (banlieux in French), where many Muslim immigrants live in crime-ridden high-rise apartment buildings, Paris might have a very different meaning, suggesting a life of poverty and hopelessness. For business people, Paris represents a center of commerce and economic opportunity. In recent years, Paris has served as a place for terrorists to engage in brutal attacks for maximum visibility.
Don't eat lunch there – it's sacred
Recent discourse and culture studies have reminded us how intimately cultural worlds and discursive practices indeed are… Without knowing the place, we are unsure how to act. Discourses of place thus suggest cultural actions, yet any one place might suggest multiple cultural discourses. We may think we know something, through a discourse, get this knowing may be somewhat out of its cultural place, as when one ascends a small hill for lunch, only to find later that one's lunch site is a secret burial mound. In retrospect, we find our habitual action and cultural knowledge are somehow out of place.
Carbaugh, 1999, p.251
The example of Paris reminds us of the complexity of modern urban spaces. Villages and rural spaces tend to be monocultural, an environment in which strangers are infrequently encountered and can be ignored (see Rogers & Steinfatt, 1998). With the advent of the industrial age, beginning in 18th century England, there's been a major demographic shift in many countries, as rural inhabitants move to cities to find employment and more opportunities for themselves and their families. In the process, cities have absorbed groups representing a variety of cultural backgrounds. In the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, ethnic or racial neighborhoods were created with inhabitants living largely separated from mainstream communities. These neighborhoods and ghettos were often created through segregation, not through the wishes of the group members. In San Francisco, for example, racial politics isolated Chinese immigrants within Chinatown:
The sense of being physically sealed within the boundaries of Chinatown was impressed on the few immigrants coming into the settlement by frequent stonings which occurred as they came up Washington or Clay Street from the piers. It was perpetuated by attacks of white toughs in the adjacent North Beach area and down- town around Union Square, who amused themselves by beating Chinese who came into these areas (Nee & Nee, 1974, p. 60).
Patterns of discrimination and separation have persisted in the US, with African-Americans, Hispanics, and other cocultures concentrated in particular neighborhoods. That process occurs worldwide. In Europe, Turkish communities occupy particular districts in German cities, as do North Africans in French cities. This dynamic can vary with the particular ethnic group and city. Martin and Nakayama (2010) discuss the concept of "postmodern cultural spaces" in which city neighborhoods and boundaries in many places are becoming more flexible and fluid (see sidebar). This kind of fluidity stands in contrast to the traditional notions of fixed space and time, just as online communities today, too, challenge notions of fixed terrestrial and temporal boundaries. In the process, identities have become more complex, as we navigate discourses in different locations and contexts, both physical and virtual.
Polish-Americans today in Phoenix, Arizona
The ideology of fixed spaces and categories is currently being challenged by postmodernist notions of space and location. Phoenix, for example, which became a city relatively recently, has no Chinatown, or Japantown, or Koreatown, no Irish district, or Polish neighborhood, or Italian area. Instead, people of Polish descent, for example, might live anywhere in the metropolitan area but congregate for special occasions or for specific reasons. On Sundays, the Polish Catholic Mass draws many people from throughout Phoenix. When people want to buy Polish breads and pastries, they can go to the Polish bakery and also speak Polish there. Ethnic identity is only one of several identities that these people negotiate. When they desire recognition and interaction based on their Polish heritage, they can meet that wish. When they seek other forms of identification, they can go to placs where they can be Phoenix Suns fans, or community volunteers, and so on. Ethnic identity is neither the sole factor nor necessarily the most important one at all times in their lives.
Martin and Nakayama (2010), p. 296
The cultural space we experience growing up typically has a marked influence on our personal identities. We all start somewhere and the local and regional characteristics of that locale imprint on us in profound ways. The regional accent or dialect will likely stay with us, even if just as a family or emotional linguistic resource. I never knew a colleague of mine was from Long Island, New York, until I heard him talk to members of his family, when the neutral US East Coast English yielded to a strong Long Island accent. That accent reappeared later when I overheard him in an angry conversation in his office. Our tastes in food and drink may be shaped by our initial home base, as are other values, habits, and preferences. The house or apartment in which we live initially is likely to leave cultural resonances which relate to privacy, orderliness, cleanliness, and personal space orientation. Many of these values relate to socio-economic class – how neatly we want (or can afford to) maintain the house/furniture/garden/car.
The initial cultural space makes a mark but does not define us – as we grow we encounter overlapping cultural spaces which provide different perspectives and subject positions. This will affect the language we use:
A cultural space is not simply a particular location that has culturally constructed meanings. It can also be a metaphorical place from which we communicate. We can speak from a number of social locations, marked on the 'map of society,' that give added meaning to our communication. Thus, we may speak as parents, children, colleagues, siblings, customers, Nebraskans, and a myriad of other 'places.' All of these are cultural spaces (Martin and Nakayama, 2010, p. 287).
Today, the cyberspaces we visit or inhabit provide still another layer of space and discourse.
Car and driving behavior in a cultural context
When we talk about human living spaces today, one of those difficult to ignore is the automobile. Most of us spend large blocks of time driving or riding in the car. Anyone who has done much traveling outside one's home country has likely been struck by the difference in car cultures, driving behaviors, and traffic patterns. In the US and the UK, for example, drivers generally follow traffic rules and drive in an orderly and predictable way. In other countries, such as Nigeria, traffic regulations are largely ignored. In that country, as well as in others in Africa, cars must compete for space on the road with vehicles of all kinds in addition to pedestrians and street hawkers. In India, cows roam freely over roads, including on the Indian equivalent of major, divided highways.
As is the case in schools and businesses, driving behaviors often reflect aspects of national cultures. North American and German drivers, for example, will assume that they have the freedom and the individual right to claim the right-of-way if traffic rules allot it to them. They are likely to be upset if others do not respect that right and go out of turn or cut them off. The pattern of driving behavior in cultures deemed collectivistic is quite different. In China and India, for example, drivers behave in a very different fashion, allowing others to merge or turn, even if that goes counter to the right of way or to traffic regulations. For those used to Western patterns of driving, the seemly chaotic flow and merge of traffic in India may seem inexplicable and dangerous. Yet in India, it is a functional chaos which actually does have informal rules of order. Precedence is given by size of vehicle, with pedestrians yielding to bikes and carts, bikes and carts to cars, cars to buses, and buses to trucks.
It's not just how we drive that may be different, but as well what it is we use our cars for. Europeans in general see cars as a dedicated means of transportation and when driving focus exclusively on that activity, with the goal of getting from A to B as quickly as possible. US Americans, on the other hand, see their cars as extensions of their personal living space and as an appropriate location in which to carry out all kinds of everyday activities, from eating/drinking to dating. In the US, drive-throughs are available for all kinds of activities, from picking up medications at a pharmacy to getting married (in Las Vegas). Edward Hall commented in Hidden Dimensions (1966) on the size of American automobiles, contrasting it with French cars:
The French automobile is designed in response to French needs. Its small size used to be attributed to a lower standard of living and higher costs of materials; and while there can be no doubt but that cost is a factor, it would be naive to assume that it was the major factor. The automobile is just as much an expression of the culture as is the language and, therefore, has its characteristic niche in the cultural biotope. Changes in the car will reflect and be reflected in changes elsewhere. If the French drove American cars, they would be forced to give up many ways of dealing with space which they hold quite dear. The traffic along the Champs-Elysées and around the Arc de Triomphe is a cross between the New Jersey Turnpike on a sunny Sunday afternoon and the Indianapolis Speedway. With American-size autos, it would be mass suicide (p. 145).
Today, globalization has affected the automobile industry, as it has all others. The same kind of cars are sold and driven all over the world, and their national prominence is difficult to determine, as parts typically come from suppliers in multiple countries, with manufacturing plants also spread worldwide.
Time orientation
Cultures use and divide up space in different ways. This is true of time as well. The different perceptions of time, such as the importance of punctuality, can be a source of friction in intercultural encounters. Edward Hall (1959) distinguished between monochronic and polychronic orientations to time. In the former, time is carefully regulated and highly compartmentalized, with schedules and punctuality being stressed. So-called "M-time" (monochronic) oriented individuals prefer to perform one activity at a time and prioritize keeping to a schedule. Tardiness and missed appointments are a source of anxiety. Time is seen as a limited commodity. The needs of people are subservient to the demands of time. Plans are not easily changed. People live by an external clock.
Those growing up in a culture with a monochronic time orientation are likely to see this view of time as natural and universal. In fact, it is culturally determined and learned. In such cultures, like the US or Germany, children are taught early, at home and in school, the importance of time, scheduling, and promptness. In polychronic time oriented cultures, however, the attitudes towards time are very different. Representative cultures include southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. Schedules are less important, and punctuality is not considered an essential virtue. "P-timers" are used to having more than one activity or conversation going on at the same time. Individuals are more tolerant of interruptions and going beyond scheduled time. Time is bent to meet the needs of people, with the attitude that there is always more time. Consequently, plans are fluid. People live by an internal clock. Greater importance is placed on the natural progress of conversations than in keeping to a pre-arranged schedule. Life is lived in the moment, not in relation to a schedule. Because multiple activities and conversations going on simultaneously is an accepted part of P-time culture, space is often designed accordingly, with large common spaces. In M-time cultures, it's more likely that office or government buildings will be constructed with individual private offices. In those smaller spaces, more restricted conversations are likely.
A scattered population whose origin lies is in a smaller geographic area.
Also known as complex dynamic systems; a framework for understanding phenomena that are composed of many variables and subsystems.
The idea that all human languages follow a simple logical principle, according to which a limited set of elements are combined to produce an infinite range of potentially meaningful expressions.
Pertaining to meaning.
The fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or group of persons.
