Communication Encounter: Dora Ellison and Augustina Riverton
4. Specifically, if you had to write out a script for your conversation with Nashota, what would you say to her?
But, at a recent training workshop, you were called out as being naïve. Glen, the seminar leader, was discussing the importance of working with diverse customers. He advocated for employees to understand various cultural differences with clients and to educate themselves to avoid embarrassment and loss of business. At one point in the workshop, you stated: “I think it’s important to understand our clients, because diversity is one of the most important issues in sales.”
It was a rather innocent-sounding comment, but one of the workshop participants – Nashota – yelled out: “What do you know about diversity? Try living in a poor community. Try having a job and losing it because you’re not the right skin color. Try even for one minute to imagine what it’s like to speak a language where people make fun of you!”. What do you do?
What do you say, if anything, in response?
1. If you used the categorical imperative as your ethical system, how
Power distribution relates to power distance, or the degree to which the less powerful expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Those citizens from countries such as Malaysia, Panama, Mexico, and Singapore tend to possess a large degree of power distance. What this means is that, in these countries, there is a tendency to revere and respect those in power.
People tend to accept the clear dichotomy between the powerful and the powerless and deference is paid to those, for instance, who have higher income and advanced education. Let’s look at one country in particular to give you a better understanding of power distance: India.
India has a rich history rooted in what is called the caste system.
Stephen Knapp (2016) explains four castes, or classifications of social standing: Brahmanas (priests and intellectuals), Kshatriyas (military and governmental administrators), Vaishyas (bankers and farmers), and the Shudras (laborers and musicians). Knapp contends that this caste system does nothing but oppress those of lower social standing and renders it “useless”
(p.7), despite some scholars who believe that the system is beginning to change significantly over the past few years (Farek, Jalki, Pathan, & Shah, 2017).
Those cultures that believe that power distribution should be done equitably regardless of age, sex, or status, for instance, are those that are low in power distance. The United States, Israel, Denmark, and Austria are countries that advocate the 1970s John Lennon song, “Power to the People”.
Many of these cultures also believe that one can attain power, regardless of background. For instance, there are several cases of powerful people who are products of economically challenging backgrounds, including Oprah Winfrey, Ralph Lauren, Jim Carrey, and Jennifer Lopez.
Masculinity-Femininity
The extent to which a culture represents masculine or feminine traits is the masculinity-femininity dimension, the fourth component of Hofstede’s system. Countries such as Italy, Venezuela, and Japan are considered masculine because they tend to value aggressiveness, competition, achievement, and materialism, all masculine traits. Further, the notion of success is prominent in masculine cultures and success is usually defined as
“the best” or “the winner.” In masculine cultures, the division of labor is generally sex-based, meaning women and men are assigned various tasks based on their sex and not their qualities.
The countries Thailand, the Netherlands, and Finland are all viewed as feminine cultures because they emphasize equality and caring for others.
Unlike masculine societies, those feminine cultures define success as “the quality of one’s life.” Standing out in the crowd is not embraced. In cultures that are higher in femininity, you would find both women and men as cooperative.
Before we close our discussion of this dimension, an important caveat is needed. The feminine-masculine dimension may be the least applicable to Western cultures. Millennials, in particular, are now identified as the
“gender-fluid generation” (Marsh, 2016), prompting social media sites such as Facebook to offer customized gender identities.
Long- and Short-Term Orientation
To understand this fifth and final dimension of national culture – long-term orientation (LTO) and short-term orientation (STO) – think about how societies tend to view the future. Some are more disposed to focusing on the
future, enthusiastic about the possibility of change. These are considered long-term orientation cultures. LTO countries such as Poland, Canada, and Germany support change and persistence and the social relationships in these countries tend to be organized by status. Hofstede believes that people from LTO cultures usually make quick money judgments, such as decisions related to purchasing luxury items or investing in the stock market. Personal adaptability is very important in LTO societies.
Those counties that emphasize the present and the past and still support tradition are termed short-term orientation cultures. Asian countries, in particular (e.g., China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea), are viewed as STO societies. Greetings and favors are reciprocated by STO cultures and typically, these countries view societal change with resistance. In addition, leisure time is important in these cultures as is the protection of one’s “face”
to avoid embarrassment or shame (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Hofstede’s Dimensions of Cultures
Dimension Example
Uncertainty Avoidance High Uncertainty: Avoidance cultures like Japan desire predictability.
Low Uncertainty: Avoidance cultures like England have no problem with change.
Distribution of Power High Power Distance: Cultures like India show respect for status and allow only a few to have power.
Low Power Distance: Cultures like the USA believe that power should be equally
distributed among citizens.
Femininity-Masculinity Cultures high in Femininity like Denmark value nurturing care, quality of life, and cooperation.
Cultures high in Masculinity like Italy value material success, aggressiveness, and
competition.
Individualism- Collectivism
Cultures that value Individualism like Australia value the individual’s accomplishments and place individual goals above group goals.
Cultures that value Collectivism like Chile value the group over the individual.
Long-term-Short-term Orientation
Cultures with a Long-term Orientation like Canada are those that focus on the future.
Cultures with a Short-term Orientation like South Korea focus on the past and tradition.
These five dimensions may seem rather narrow or limiting to you as you consider the diversity that pervades most cultures today. Still, this system is an important foundation to consider as we try to understand the cultural variability that exists across the globe.
Challenges and Barriers to Intercultural Communication
Handling difference with people who are similar to you can be tough; it can be even more challenging with people who look, speak, or behave differently from you. It’s important for us to realize not all of our cultural encounters result in effective communication. In fact, because of the various fields of experiences (such as those of Dora and Augustina in our opening), intercultural misunderstanding is likely to occur. Building bridges between and among diverse individuals is essential to meaning. To avoid an uncomfortable or conflictual cultural encounter, take some time to understand the challenges and barriers to cultural understanding and communication. In this section, we identify five of the most common: ethnocentrism, stereotyping, anxiety and uncertainty, the assumption of similarity, and prejudice.
Connections: Culture and the Listening Process
Culture is an area that affects and influences every topic in communication. That’s why we discuss it early in the book, and revisit the topic quite frequently throughout. Consider, then, the interplay between culture and the listening process. We already know culture can affect how we listen. Now think about the following situation in which Caroline and Gabe find themselves:
As a newcomer to the USA, 21-year-old Gabe Gutierrez was accustomed to being misunderstood. English is not his primary language and other than those who had Spanish fluency, very
few people understood his pronunciation or took the time to … except for Caroline. While Gabe was in line asking the sales clerk at a convenience store for lottery tickets, Caroline could not help but note how rude the clerk was: “You should know English if you’re going to be in this country!” the 50-something- year-old worker shouted to Gabe. Gabe clearly was having a hard time coming up with the right wording until Caroline
interrupted. Caroline proceeded to tell the salesman to have more patience, and to remember that at one time in history, his family probably did not know English when they immigrated to the USA. She turned to Gabe and asked him to slowly pronounce what he wanted, including the number of tickets and the type.
She repeated back his words so not to misunderstand. She was quite patient. Even though a line was forming behind them, Caroline ignored their presence. Taking time to understand the message so she could relate it to the clerk was more important.
Discuss how the listening process and culture are illustrated in this story. Identify the essence of the communication problem and explain how culture either helped or hindered. Does it make a difference what Caroline’s cultural background is? Why or why not? In the future, how might Gabe approach the convenience store clerk? Should the onus of clarity fall upon Gabe? The clerk? A passerby? All of them?
Should immigrants to the USA only speak English because that’s the main language of the country?
Ethnocentrism
Over a century ago, sociologist William Sumner (1906) proposed that group members tend to put themselves above others in the group. Although his conclusion was soon rejected by other scholars, his original thinking remains central to intercultural communication. When we place our own beliefs above others, when we believe that the cultural group to which we belong is somehow superior to others, and/or if we view ourselves as morally above others, then we are engaged in ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism derives from the Greek words ethnos (nation) and kentron (center). When we combine these terms, “nation at the center” becomes the newly formed combination.
When we are ethnocentric, we fail to think about the views and life experiences of others and we are not open to their ideas or customs.
Ethnocentrism can have lasting and sometimes devastating results on relationships and upon meaning-making in our conversations. It’s probably clear to many of you that ethnocentric tendencies can occur if, for example, you traveled to another country and openly criticized that country for not being similar to your own country (“Hey, guys don’t hold hands,” or
“Bowing to someone seems weird to me,” or “Why doesn’t this country have food like we do?”). These sorts of claims suggest that in some way that particular culture does not measure up to the level that an ethnocentric individual may find appropriate.
Let’s think about a central issue that you may not have considered before. It’s a common practice around the USA and the globe to refer to those living in the United States as Americans. And yet, the term can be considered ethnocentric in that the USA is just one part of the Americas – there is also South America and Central America, not to mention the other North American countries of Mexico and Canada. While this issue may appear harmless, not everyone agrees. For instance, Karena Martinez-Carter (2013)
contends that when the term American is used to describe those living in the USA, it reinforces an “imperialistic tendency” (p. 15). In her travels to such countries as Argentina, Martinez-Carter concludes that using the term is not only ethnocentric, but also problematic as expecting people to speak English around the world. As far back as the late 1940s, writers (Mencken, 1947) have been lamenting about the arrogance of calling those from the US Americans and ignoring the global implication of the term. So, although we don’t expect everyone to stop using the word American, as an informed communicator you should be aware that its usage can be troubling to some.
And, we do not employ the term in our text.
Being ethnocentric can affect perceptions of your credibility and impact your job effectiveness. Think about Theo Forrester, a 25-year-old sales expert who just joined Innov8Now. During a business trip to Beijing, China, Theo was invited to dinner with several of his colleagues living in China. During the dinner, Theo spoke to his Chinese work colleagues about some creative ways to save Innov8Now a lot of money. At one point, Theo said: “I’ve spent almost two days explaining this to you all, but I haven’t heard anything about whether or not you’re ready to go with my ideas. It’s like I wasn’t even explaining things.” If Theo had investigated the nuances of doing business with his Chinese counterparts, he would have learned that US businesspeople are results-driven. In addition, they prefer action to talk. Yet, in China, mulling over the ideas and discussing them with others is important. Clearly, Theo was operating with an ethnographic lens because he was inappropriately applying US conversational norms to another culture.
Stereotyping
Walter Lippman (1946) coined the word stereotype, which he called a
“picture in our head” (p. 3). Today, stereotyping is, in a broad sense, the process of conjuring up a fixed mental image of a particular group of people and communicating with a single person as representative of that group.
Although some stereotypes may be viewed as positive (e.g. all Asians are high academic achievers), they inhibit communication because they stop us from interacting with our conversational partner as a unique individual.
Stereotypes are usually problematic because they are often untrue. For instance, if you believe that older citizens are inept, then think about a conversation with 86-year-old Warren Buffet, who served as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, the company that owns Geico and Dairy Queen.
Further, imagine someone who believes that women cannot be effective leaders. Then, imagine introducing that person to Facebook’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg. The 2016 Orlando, Florida nightclub massacre prompted a vocal outcry about Middle Eastern men. Although he was a US citizen, the shooting by a man named Omar provoked numerous assumptions that he had to be Middle Eastern and a terrorist. Such erroneous stereotypes are common following such terrible tragedies (Goren & Neter, 2016).
Stereotypes are found in nearly all professions, including entertainment (“They all get Botox!”), politics (“They’re all dishonest!”), journalism (“The Media are too liberal!”), law (“Crooked and money-hungry lawyers!”), sports (“Another dumb jock!”), medicine (“Doctors don’t listen to their patients!”), among many others. While many of these claims can be applied to some, they cannot and should not be applied to everyone. There are, for instance, smart sports heroes, honest politicians, and physicians who spend a great deal of time listening to their patients. It becomes problematic in our relationships
with others if we communicate with people as if they are members of a group, rather than as if they are individuals.
Anxiety and Uncertainty
A third obstacle preventing cultural understanding relates to our own abilities. At times, our anxiety and uncertainty surrounding intercultural interactions may restrict our effectiveness. Imagine, for example, Lana, a 35- year-old suburban mom, who has only had close relationships with white people throughout her lifetime. Do you believe that she would be anxious and uncertain if she walked into work one day and found out that her new boss was Latinx? Would her supervisor’s cultural identity make a difference?
Should it? Would Lana rely upon a stereotype to communicate with her new boss? What role, if any, would her past play in her current situation? These and many other questions influence the extent to which Lana will be effective on the job.
Lana’s challenge is not unique. Because there are few formal cultural rules in place for communicating with people with different backgrounds, many people rely upon stereotypes or simply behave awkwardly. If we are members of an in-group (a group to which a person feels he or she belongs), we may be more comfortable with another; if we are members of an out- group (a group to which a person feels he or she does not belong), then we feel anxious and uncertain as Lana does.
Our affiliation with a cultural group is related to the connections we feel we have to that group. Let’s say that Jamal and Will, a couple in their 40s who were recently married, decided to invite their friend, Cara, a devout Christian, to their holiday party. Although Cara, Jamal’s longtime friend, believes that the Bible does not sanction same-sex marriage, she is Jamal’s
friend and feels in-group affiliation. Now, suppose that Jamal and Will were introduced to Cara’s husband, Kenny, who believes that the marriage between the men is not only immoral, but also against the Bible’s tenets.
Kenny would likely view the couple as an out-group because, unlike his wife, he doesn’t have a long-term friendship that helps him feel a sense of belonging and connection to the couple. Being a member of either an in- group or out-group can influence our comfort with communicating with diverse people.
The Assumption of Similarity
Many of you may be thinking that one sure way to secure intercultural understanding is by homing in on the similarities between people. After all, you might think, when we focus on what we have in common, we can achieve meaning in a much more efficient way. Overall, this thinking sounds fine in theory, but in practice, assuming similarity may also result in rejecting difference. Indeed, a lesbian mom from Texas may be quite dissimilar from a lesbian mom living in Boston. And, it’s true that a lesbian mom living in Dallas may be quite dissimilar from a lesbian mom living in Houston!
Assuming similarity across cultures is also problematic as you consider how others view the USA. Reddit, an entertainment and news social media platform, asked the following question to those living outside of the United States: “What aspect of the (US) culture strikes you as the strangest?” The answers below may be surprising to you if you’re from the USA:
**“Obsessed with being the ‘best’ country in the world”
**“Cheerleaders – getting young women to dress up in short skirts to dance around and cheer on young men strikes me as odd.”
**“Being able to buy anything you want at Walmart – you [can] buy 24 rolls of toilet paper and a 12-gauge shot gun in the same store.”
Again, while those born in the USA may take these things for granted and accept them as part of what it means to live in the USA, it’s useful to realize that those from other cultures find them strange. While we can work toward common ground and develop some similarities, it’s best not to assume that we’re all just alike at the outset of interpersonal exchanges.
Prejudice
At the heart of prejudice is a loathing or vitriol toward a particular group. In a very real sense, prejudice exists in nearly all aspects of all societies (Croucher, 2017). In fact, prejudice – the fifth obstacle to intercultural understanding – can be traced all the way back to Babylonia and Egypt where hatred of Jewish people was commonplace. Stephen Eric Bronner (2014) points out that prejudice did not stop during early Greek and Roman times. It continues today. He identifies the seemingly “decent people” (p. 13) who had little or no problem accepting segregated armed forces, baseball leagues, and public establishments.
The word “prejudice” comes from the Latin roots prae (in advance) and judicium (judgment); therefore, when we are prejudiced, we are making judgments of people in advance of meeting them. In many cases, those who are not in the dominant cultural group (e.g., white, male, educated) are the targets of prejudice. Many people believe that they are not prejudiced, but their words and behaviors suggest otherwise. For example, think about Howie when he said, “I’m not racist, but … ” Many wonder what could possibly justify completing the rest of that claim. Or, what about Charlotte who says “I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” but then goes ahead and