CHAPTER FOUR1

Chapter 4

Foundations of Culture: If I Only Learned One Thing about Culture, What Should it Be?

Chapter Objectives: After this chapter, you should be able to:

Explain the difference between Emic and Etic approaches to understanding culture

Reflect an understanding of primary dimensions of culture—high and low-context, Hofstede’s

dimensions and Confucian work dynamism, and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s “value orientations

Differentiate between norms, rules, values, beliefs, mores, taboos, and laws

Describe how one might gain an “emic” understanding of a culture

List some strengths and limitations to each approach to understanding culture.

Francis was traveling as part of a group of adults to tour China. The leader of their group, Raymond,

was the designated leader of the group and the liaison with the Chinese agency that was hosting the

tour as part of an exchange with the group’s company. The Chinese agency had planned a trip outside of

Beijing to a nearby city, where there were many temples of different religions. However, Francis and her

husband really wanted to stay in Beijing to see the famous Beijing Opera, which was not on the group’s

itinerary. They were even willing to pay for their own hotel. They went directly to the Chinese agency

representative expressing their desire to stay in Beijing. When the representative did not object, they

took this as his approval. The liaison then went to the representative directly, asking him to explain

“American style”—that is, directly—if it was really okay for the women to stay in Beijing. The

representative paused and chose his word carefully. “Our agency has already bought the train, hotel,

and show tickets in the temple city. It is inconvenient that the women stay here. But we do not forbid

them.” Raymond expressed to the Francis the inappropriateness of approaching the Chinese

representative directly that it was not advisable to stay in Beijing.

CHAPTER FOUR2

“Does the agency forbid us from staying here?” As Francis and her husband did not perceive a

real problem with staying in Beijing, that is what they chose to do, inadvertently creating some tensions

with the Chinese sponsoring agency.

Admittedly, part of one’s effectiveness in a culture or in an intercultural situation depends upon

aspects of the individual and of the person or culture with whom the individual is interacting (something

we will say more about in Ch. 11). At the same time, a careful understanding of culture might help the

various participants in this interaction. While there are many aspects of “culture,” as we defined in Ch.

3, at its heart are values, beliefs, and worldviews. These form the deep structure of a culture, and, while

cultures do change—the deep structural aspects tend to be slower to change. While it is important to

understand aspects of verbal and nonverbal communication, organizational etiquette, and tips for

cultural transitions, all things we will discuss in other chapters, if there is one thing that will most help us

understand other cultures, it will be an understanding of the culture’s values and world view, for these

form the foundation upon which all other elements of communication and society are built.

CHAPTER FOUR3

Laying the Foundation: What Lies Beneath (All Other Aspects of Culture)?

Many trainers have described culture as an “iceberg,” as witnessed by the many examples of the

Iceberg Model of culture on the Internet. Figure 4.1 provides just one such representation. The idea of

the metaphor is that what one sees on the surface of culture are things such as literature, music, food,

dance, art, and architecture. In fact, often in cultural celebrations, these are the things we represent—a

cultural diversity fair might include music from different ethnic or cultural groups, food, and so on. But

there is an invisible part of culture that includes things such as how we raise our children, how we make

a logical argument, how and to whom we show status, and what the pace of life is. These are hidden

from view, and because of that, we often assume them to be natural, rather than cultural. In reality, if

culture impacts our relationship or communication, it is much more likely to be over things such as the

rules for when to express emotion or what constitutes modesty, rather than whether one of us likes

post-punk music and the other cool jazz. Because they are hidden, we are likely to judge one another

more negatively when the other person violates these aspects. To use a different metaphor, these

hidden aspects, especially the deep structure of beliefs, values, norms, and world view, are a

foundation. Geert Hofstede (1997), a Dutch organizational psychologist, notes that not only things such

as classroom and workplace interaction, but even governmental and economic systems, can be

understood by looking at the deep structure of culture.

Figure 4.1 about here

Figure 4.1: The Iceberg Model of culture [Or similar image]

Cultural writers provide several terms to understand the different aspects of the “mind” of a

culture. These pertain to what is important in a culture, expectations for behavior, and so on. Perhaps

values are the root of all of these aspects of culture. A value is an idea or priority that someone holds to

CHAPTER FOUR4

be important. It is a type of a belief in that a person (or culture) holds a particular thing, idea, or activity

to be important, and which serves as a guide for behavior. Rokeach (1973) notes that values are

enduring—that is, they do not change easily; and they influence behavior. Thus, even if surface features

of a culture change, values will be more likely not to change, or to change much more slowly, like the

deep currents of the ocean that sit beneath the changing surface waves. We will speak here more of

cultural values, as these are things, typically abstract concepts, that a cultural group as a whole holds as

important (keep in mind from Chapter 3 that while we sometimes use national examples here, we

realize that there are co-cultures within any nation that may hold different values). Often, we can

express values with single words or phrases, such as honesty, freedom, success, or family.

Related to values are our other beliefs. These refer, more generally, to assumptions that

someone has about the nature of something. Some have suggested that a belief is a cognition (thought)

about the connection between two or more concepts. For example, if you believe that the Earth is

round, then your belief is a thought that connects the notion of the Earth with the notion of Roundness.

If you believe that China had printed periodicals and books before 900 C.E. and a moveable type press

by 1100, several hundred years before the Gutenberg Press, you would have a thought about printing

presses, China, and time periods. In this sense, we would not call Islam, Buddhism, or Judaism “beliefs,”

but rather belief systems. Each is a set of assumptions or cognitions about things such as the purpose of

humans, the nature of deity, the relative position of humans to nature and the rest of the cosmos. In

this sense, these beliefs compose a very specific type of cultural construct that we will call world view.

Our values, beliefs, and world views link to other constructs, such as attitudes. Attitudes are our

disposition to relate to things, actions, or people in certain ways (for example, we like or dislike riding

roller coasters).

Insert Text box 4.1 about here:

CHAPTER FOUR5

What do you think?

Think about two cultures or co-cultures of which you are a member. For example, if you are a typical college-age student, you might be a member of a late adolescent or young adult culture, but also of a particular national, ethnic, or other culture (e.g., Korean; Latino/a, Deaf). What are some ways in which values, world view, beliefs, and attitudes of these two groups are similar or different? What do you do when the values and beliefs of the groups you belong to collide?

We can see how these relate to each other by considering the cultural notion of beauty.

Cultures have different notions of what is beautiful (beliefs). For example, one culture may value

multiple lip plates (Mursi women of Ethiopia, Kayopo men of the Amazon) or body painting (Australian

Aborigines), another detailed and extensive tattoos. We can see that even within a culture, both what is

considered beautiful in terms weight, amount and location of body piercings, hair styles, and clothing

changes through time in a given culture. We have associations (beliefs) about what tattoos mean and

what types of people wear them, such that in the United States, they have become very common. A

belief that tattoos are “cool” indicates a predisposition either to like or admire them or even to get one

(attitude). Even if we consider tattoos to be stylish or a particular body shape to be attractive, we may

not adopt that style if it is not important to us. Sometimes, due to advertising and other aspects of

culture, beauty might become overall more important in a culture (value).

Figure 4.2 about here

Figure 4.2: The Tattoo Test

Other types of cultural cognitions involve behavior more directly. Rules refer to prescriptions for

behavior—that is, cultural beliefs about which behaviors are appropriate in certain situations. These

refer to things that we can or cannot, should or should not do. For example, in U.S. culture, there is an

increasing expectation that instructors should provide guidance for students for the exams but that they

CHAPTER FOUR6

must show up regularly to class. They should not ramble without a point during their lectures. But if they

do any of these, they might be weird or out of place, but not necessarily bad people. Gudykunst and Kim

(2003) make a distinction between rules and norms, noting that norms are expectations for behavior

with a moral component. If someone violates a norm, the person is seen as a bad or immoral person.

Thus, if a teacher made sexual advances toward a student or lied to give one student privilege over

another in grading, the teacher would be seen violating a norm. If the norm is very strong, with negative

social results for violating it, it becomes a more or, even so strong people do not normally even mention

it, a taboo. Finally, if a government legalizes what one can or cannot do in terms of behavior, it becomes

a law. Of course, rules, norms, mores and laws are also linked to values, beliefs, and world views.

Because values and world views seem to be the bedrock upon which norms and rules, and, in turn,

communicative behavior, are built, we will devote the rest of this chapter to more detailed

consideration of these two building blocks of culture.

Understanding Cultural Values: What’s Really Important (to a Culture)?

Researchers have tried in different ways to understand values in cultures around the world.

Shalom Schwartz and his colleagues (1992), for example, researched values in 25 different countries,

deriving a list of 11 values that they see represented in some way in all cultures. Thus, they call these

universal values. They include self-direction (independent thought and action); stimulation (activity,

variety); hedonism (pleasure); achievement (success, prestige); power (social status); security (safety,

stability); conformity (restraint of action); tradition (passed-on behaviors); spirituality (personal meaning

in life); benevolence (positive interaction with and influence on others); and universalism

(understanding and appreciating all people). While Schwartz contends that these same values exist in all

cultures, he suggests that each culture will place higher priority on some over others.

Other scholars have used a similar approach, applying a value framework of pre-determined

values to see how these differ in different culture. Milton Rokeach (1973) developed one such system.

CHAPTER FOUR7

He determined two lists of values. Terminal values represent the end-states or desired outcomes of

action for individuals. These include things such as a comfortable life, salvation, true friendship,

freedom, pleasure, mature love, and self-respect. Instrumental values are those characteristics, traits,

or “modes of conduct” (p. 7) that people in a culture hold to be important for reaching societal goals—

the “means” to the end. They include things such as being polite, cheerful, honest, or courageous.

Rokeach argues that values do not list in isolation, but work together with other values in “value

systems.” He has created lists of terminal and instrumental values, each list having 18 items, with study

participants rank ordering them from first in importance to last. Researchers have used this framework

extensively, for example, suggesting that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can predict which values

international students at a British university will most likely hold (Furnham & Alibhai, 1985), or

proposing historical and geographic differences that explain both similarities and differences between

German and American values (Reynolds, 1984).

In terms of this last study, for example, Barbara Reynolds (1984) found that both Germans and

Americans value true friendship and democracy, but, in 1984, Germans were more concerned with a

world at peace than Americans were (terminal values), which she attributed to Germany’s closeness to

her neighbors, with whom she had history of conflict. In terms of instrumental values, Germans were

valued broadmindedness, honesty, responsibility, and independence. The last three were important to

the Americans, but they ranked ambition as 4th, whereas it was near the bottom of the list for Germans.

One possible limitation of the approach is that words may have different nuances, even if translated. For

example, in some cultures, someone who is “ambitious” is grasping and greedy, whereas in U.S. culture

the person has initiative and is a “go-getter.” Both Germans and Americans may value democracy and

true friendship, but it is likely that these concepts have quite different meanings in the two cultures.

Insert Text box 4.2 about here:

CHAPTER FOUR8

Test Yourself

Take the Rokeach Value Survey below. Specifically, for each type of value, rank order the values from 1 (highest) to 18 (lowest). Then, take your top two or three and think more, writing down what each of these mean to you. How might other people’s meanings (within your culture) be similar to or different from your own meanings? Which of these values might receive influence from the cultures or identity groups to which you belong—that is, how do you think your own values (and meanings) are similar to or different from the values (and meanings) of the groups to which you belong. You might conduct comparisons by sex, age group, or nationality, or compare your own answers with study findings that you locate on the Internet (from Rokeach, 1973, p. 28)

Terminal Values (desirable life outcomes) Instrumental Values (desirable ways to act)___ A comfortable life ___ Ambitious___ An exciting life ___ Broadminded___ A sense of accomplishment ___ Capable___ A world at peace ___ Cheerful___ A world of beauty ___ Clean___ Equality ___ Courageous___ Family security ___ Forgiving___ Freedom ___ Helpful___ Happiness ___ Honest___ Inner harmony ___ Imaginative___ Mature love ___ Independent___ National security ___ Intellectual___ Pleasure ___ Logical___ Salvation ___ Loving___ Self-respect ___ Obedient___ Social recognition ___ Polite___ True friendship ___ Responsible___ Wisdom ___ Self-controlled

High and Low Context Cultures

Many authors in intercultural communication have adopted value frameworks from a small

number of authors in order to understand cultural differences. . In a way, each value presented here can

answer a specific question about cultures. One of the most frequently cited frameworks comes from one

of the pioneer authors in intercultural communication, Edward T. Hall (1997): High and low context. This

framework answers the question, “Where does meaning lie?” In a high-context message, “Most of the

CHAPTER FOUR9

information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded,

explicit, transmitted part of a message” (p. 47). Low-context messages embed meaning in the actual

words—that is, the words of a message can be taken more at their cultural value. With these definitions

in mind, we can understand high context cultures to be cultures in which meaning is more often implicit,

that is, inside of the communicators, because they know what to expect based on the circumstance and

on role and status relationships. Low context cultures tend to place more meaning in the “explicit code,”

that is, in the words themselves. As an example, South Korean culture has the concept of nunch’i

(Robinson, 2000), in which a host must anticipate the needs of the guest. This reflects a notion common

to many high-context cultures, in which the guest need not (or should not) voice a request for

something (“Hey, can I get a drink of water?”) because this would tell the host that she or he had not

met the guests needs. So also, in Brazil and other cultures, an invitation—especially a more costly

invitation (like staying for dinner) may not be a real invitation at all, but offered only in politeness. Thus,

one should refuse such requests, again out of politeness, even if one is hungry. If the host insists, then

the invitation is real. In other cultures, one does not express “I love you” with words, for to do so is

actually to place a distance between the communicators.

While, again, authors and trainers often speak of low- and high-context cultures, we should

instead see cultures on a continuum from very low to very high context cultures (Figure 4.3). The lower

the context, the more direct one might expect messages to be, even down to including direct, rather

than implied, criticism. The higher the context, the more meaning will be hidden in nonverbal behavior,

often with high(er) context individuals and communicators being more in tune with nonverbal behavior.

Further, to go back to the notion of Hall (1997), messages, not just cultures, can be high-context. In

some cases, whole organizations or families can be higher context. One of the authors got a high school

internship as a disk jockey. His trainer pointed to the records (in the days of vinyl), the microphones, and

the commercial tapes, and said “You’re on!”—one was just supposed to know what to do based on the

CHAPTER FOUR10

situation. Gudykunst and Nishida (1986) note that often those in high context cultures expect to

understand someone with different sorts of information than low-context cultures; thus, someone from

a high-context culture might be more likely to ask about your family, university, or home town (your

“context”), where someone from a low-context culture might ask about your personal opinions.

Insert Text box 4.3 about here:

What do You Think?

Some training organizations, like Banducci Consulting (Figure 4.3) use high and low-context to describe female-male communication differences in the workplace. In your culture, do you feel that females and males differ in the “context” of their communication, based on Figure 4.3? Why or why not?

Figure 4.3 about here

Figure 4.3: High and Low Context Cultures

Hofstede’s Axes

Perhaps one of the sets of values most used in intercultural communication research, as well as

other areas, such as international management, is the four-fold set of value dimensions developed by

Geert Hofstede (1980), an organizational psychologist from The Netherlands. Hofstede defines a value

as a “broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (p. 19). In 1980, he published a now-

classic work in which he studied employees working from 1967 to 1973 for a large multi-national

corporation he called HERMES (actually IBM corporation), collecting initially over 117,000 surveys from

66 nations. Through Hofstede’s survey study, he developed four value dimensions, with each country

receiving a score on each dimension (scores are available at his website, 2009).

The first dimension, power distance, refers to “social inequality, including the relationship with

authority” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 13). Essentially, as power distance increases, people in a culture—

CHAPTER FOUR11

including those of lower status—are more likely to think that it is acceptable that people of different

social status (however that is determined) be treated differently (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). As an

example of this concept, one of the authors went to South Korea with another professor, an academic

advisor, and seven students. The South Korean faculty member serving as a liaison always introduced

the eldest professor, the youngest professor (your author), the advisor, and then the students, in that

order. Finally, your author asked, “Why do you always introduce Dr. Kazoleas first?” Because, the

advisor explained, he is older. Your author said, “Yes, but only by one year.” “In South Korea,” explained

the liaison, “one year is one year.” Many languages, like French or German, have formal and informal

forms of “you”’ Korean has several levels of language, each appropriate for different status

relationships, with “honorific” verbs for sleeping and eating for people of very high status.

Hofstede (2001) defines the second dimension, masculinity/femininity, simply as “related to

the division of emotional rules between men and women” (p. 29). This plays out both in the goals of

individuals at work, with masculine cultures privileging directness, efficiency, competition, and goal

(outcome) orientation, and feminine cultures, service, cooperation, and a process orientation (for

example, saving the face of the other in interaction). So, in a more masculine culture, one might expect

more direct conflict and direct addressing of problems or wishes, as directness is more efficient; but in

feminine cultures, depending on the importance or cost of the decision, one might actually lose the deal

or not get one’s way as long as they are able to preserve “face” and relationship in the interaction.

Further, as Hofstede puts it, cultures higher in masculinity “live in order to work” where in more

feminine cultures, people are likely to “work in order to live. But also, in feminine cultures, there is less

sex differentiation in tasks—a role fluidity in which men and women share more tasks. In masculine

cultures, roles are more rigid, with men and women doing separate tasks.

Insert Text box 4.4 about here:

CHAPTER FOUR12

Hot Links

Visit Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (ITEM International) website: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. Describe a culture that you have visited (or your own), or do a comparison in terms of the five dimensions. Give evidence for how you place the culture(s) on each dimension (that is, don’t just describe the dimensions—give communication or other behaviors that support your point). After you are done, go back to Hofstede’s website and see how his research places them! (You can compare two specific cultures at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php). Do you agree or disagree with his classification? Why or why not?

The third dimension, uncertainty avoidance, pertains to the overall desire for structure and

predictability in a country. In a country with higher uncertainty avoidance, people will distrust things or

people that violate expectations—what is strange is seen as bad. Often, they will have religions with

more strict rules, clear expectations and social repercussions for those who violate the expectations.

Countries with lower avoidance of uncertainty, such as Scandinavian countries, are often more flexible

in terms of violation of expectations. Strangers might be more welcome, and what is different might

actually be seen as what is good. These might play out in the classroom in that, in a lower UA culture, a

teacher is more likely to say “I don’t know,” parents may seek opinions from parents, and classroom

learning may be open-ended. In higher UA cultures or situations, students will want more structured

learning. Teachers and students may see “Truth” as absolute. And children may report lower belief in

their ability to accomplish tasks in dependent (self-efficacy, Hofstede, 2001).

The last dimension, individualism-collectivism, refers to the links between the person and her

or his social network. In a more collective society, the person will rely more upon social networks, such

as extended family or workplace, to set goals. Decisions will be made with the group in mind. For

example, many individuals from India may feel a strong obligation not only to nuclear family, but to the

success of nieces and nephews, even donating family funds to the education of these individuals. In the

more individualistic cultures, people will make decisions based upon personal interest and

advancement. The “family” is more considered to be the nuclear family, and one might see other family

CHAPTER FOUR13

members—that is, extended family, as responsible for their own advancement. In terms of

organizations, a more individualistic culture will probably have more people who change jobs frequently,

in terms of how the change addresses personal or nuclear family goals, as opposed to the long-term

employment (Germany) or even traditional life-time employment (Japan) of other countries. Figure 4.4

illustrates where Hofstede’s research located several cultures on two of his dimensions.

Figure 4.4 about here

Figure 4.4: Some cultures on Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance Dimensions

This last dimension has received the most attention among the axes. In fact, this dimension,

alone, has been a primary focus for University of Illinois cross-cultural psychologist, Harry Triandis.

Triandis and his colleagues (Kim et al., 1994) suggest that the fundamental assumption of individualism

is reason, and this plays out in values such as self-fulfillment, uniqueness, assertiveness, autonomy, and

freedom of choice. The core value of collectivism is relatedness, and it is associated with values of

nurturance, compliance, self-cultivation (rather than fulfillment), interdependence, and sharing a sense

of common fate with others. Triandis (1994) describes the main traits of those who are other-centered

(allocentric) versus self-centered (ideocentric). Allocentrics are focused on in-group ideals, including

“security, obedience, duty, in-group harmony, hierarchy, [and] personalized relationships” whereas

ideocentrics value individual goals such as “pleasure, achievement, competition, freedom, autonomy,

[and] fair exchange” (p. 47). Elsewhere, Triandis (1995) delineates I/C further, to note that either

individualistic or collectivistic cultures (or individuals) might value status more (“vertical” I/C) or value

equality more (“horizontal” I/C), similar to combining Hofstede’s power distance dimension with I/C. But

the dimension is also important because it has grown to be conventional wisdom that this is the most

important dimension of the set in predicting cultural difference (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). In fact, several

of the conventional theories of intercultural communication that we will mention in this book use

CHAPTER FOUR14

individualism/collectivism (for example, Ting-Toomey’s theory of intercultural conflict negotiation, Ch.

12; Kim’s theory of conversational constraints, Ch. 7) as a key aspect of understanding different ways

cross- and intercultural communication take place. Many theorists and authors in communication cite

the dimensions, with some form of the dimensions appearing in most new intercultural textbooks.

Hofstede (1980), himself, emphasized two important caveats, which will become important

soon, as we come back to review this line of work. First, like low and high context, cultures range in a

continuum on any single dimension. If we consider Figure 4.x, we will see that Japan is on the collective

side of the average for all countries, but is much more individualistic than many other collectivistic

nations. Second, Hofstede suggested that within any given score, the score he gives to the nation is an

average score. When we speak of cultural differences, say, between China and Australia, we should

recognize that many Chinese will score more “individualistic” than Australians, and many Australians will

be more “collectivistic” than Chinese. Hofstede’s website (2009) allows you to plug in scores from two

nations to compare them on his four dimensions.

Hofstede (1997) notes how the values he describes may impact a variety of things, from family

to education to national economic and political structures. His 1997 book includes a full chapter on each

dimension. For example, he lists implications of power distance on “general norm[s], family, school, and

workplace” (p. 37) and “politics and ideas” (p. 43). In a higher power-distance culture, students are more

likely to see teachers as experts; there will be clear hierarchy with deference to superiors in

organizations; managers and status elites will expect preferential treatment—and the lower status

individuals will feel that this is just and right; governments will more likely be autocratic (e.g.,

dictatorships, strong central government); the middle class will be smaller. In low power distance

cultures, parents and children are more likely to interact like equals (e.g., no “yes, ma’am” or “yes, sir”);

bosses will work together with employees to set goals; democracy and majority vote will be common in

organizations and society; people will expect equal rights and treatment of everyone.

CHAPTER FOUR15

Critiquing Hofstede’s Axes: Hofstede’s value dimensions have received much critical attention in

and outside of the communication discipline. Cheryl Nakata (2009) calls this framework “the dominant

cultural paradigm in business studies” (p. 3), with Hofstede among the top-three authors cited in

international business. One review of business articles suggests that there are thousands of studies

motivated by or using the framework. The framework lists among its strengths the vast database of

participants from now over 100 countries and cultures (Hofstede, 2009), the statistical strength of the

measure, the simplicity of the framework (Nakata, 2009), and the ability we have, with participants from

different cultures taking the same measure, to compare cultures on a specific set of dimensions. Thus,

the tool has been a favorite among those who do organizational training.

At the same time, authors in international business and communication are reevaluating the use

of these dimensions on a number of issues (for a summary, see Courtright et al., 2011). Some of the

criticisms are based on the fact that when we speak of cultures we often do not apply the dimensions

correctly. For example, we speak of Thailand as a “collectivistic” culture and Germany as

“individualistic,” when, as Hofstede (1980) noted, we should see cultures on a continuum from more

individualistic to more collectivistic. Second, as communicators, it is easy for us to assume that just

because someone is from a particular culture, she or he will match the value of that culture—for

example, just because Patanapong is Thai, we automatically assume he will reflect the Hofstedian score

for Thailand, when there may be individual influences or contexts that change his overall adjustment.

But, again, we must note that Hofstede only intended the scores to be overall descriptions of cultures.

They are, after all, cultural dimensions, not descriptions of individuals.

Several authors have raised criticisms beyond the simple misapplication of the original

dimensions. In international business, Nakata (2009), summarizing the work of authors contributing to

her book critiquing Hofstede, lists several theoretical challenges that require going “beyond” Hofstede

and other simple classification schemes. First, our assumptions about macrocultural areas (such as the

CHAPTER FOUR16

“Middle East” or “Northern Europe”) might mislead us in assumptions about a culture’s individualism, or

the level of individualism practiced within a specific context of life (say, organizational life as opposed to

family life). For example, Hofstede’s (2009) data would lead us to assume most Sub-Saharan African

nations are collectivistic and high power distance. However, one study of managers among the Nnewi

people of Nigeria suggests that participants felt that Nnewi entrepreneurs needed honesty, confidence,

and “individual self help”—that is, individualism (Madichie, Nkamnebe, & Idemobi, 2008, p. 292).

Second, organizational culture (and we will say national culture in general) is more complex than

Hofstede treats it. Multinationalism leads to increasingly fluid boundaries between cultures, with many

subgroups in each culture. This suggests that any strict application of a Hofstede score to a culture will

hide the many co-cultural differences within that culture. Evidence suggests, for example, that younger

participants from the United Arab Emirates are more individualistic than older UAE nationals, though

they still value the Islamic work ethic and the use of wasta, or interpersonal connection, in the

workplace (Whiteoak, Crawford, & Mapstone, 2006). Qin Zhang (2007) discusses that Chinese families

are evolving and are now just as focused on expressive conversation as American families.

Third, Nakata (2009) argues that we need a dynamic view of culture, in and of itself. She

suggests that Hofstede “maintained that culture undergoes barely perceptible change” (p. 13). As

evidence of this, if we compare Hofstede’s original scores for placing cultures in his 1980 book with his

2009 website, we see no changes in the scores in 30 years. Nakata and her colleagues argue that

cultures develop and evolve over time, even if underlying values are slower to change. Finally, Nakata

suggests that we need to look at culture from different methodological windows (e.g., surveys as well as

open-ended data collection, ethnography).

From these criticisms, we can summarize three new directions of value research: First, scholars

seek simply to add dimensions to the original four. For example, Michael Bond and his colleagues with

the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) introduced Confucian Work Dynamism which involves respect

CHAPTER FOUR17

for tradition, thrift, persistence, and personal steadiness—in essence, a long-term pragmatism with a

value on education and hard work. On Hofstede’s (2009) website, where he now calls this dimension

Long Term Orientation, China and other East Asian cultures score high on this dimension, where many

Western cultures score quite low. This is especially surprising, in that the United States, which some

authors state places practicality—or pragmatism—among its highest values, leading to a focus in

“achievement, action, work, and materialism” (Alten, 2003), actually score quite low on a longer-term

pragmatism, suggesting that these cultures, while also being practical, focus on short-term solutions, or

even “quick fixes.”

A second approach is to recognize that the values were originally meant to apply to cultures and

not to individuals. Thus, Min-Sum Kim (2005) compares self-construal, a psychological notion of how

strongly one sees oneself independent from others or connected to others (independent and

interdependent self-construals, respectively) to individualism-collectivism. This echoes what scholars

and teachers have long said—that individuals are not cultures. Thus, just because Socorro is from

Guatemala, the country with the lowest individualism score on Hofstede’s (2009) website, this does not

mean she, herself, will reflect collective values. In fact, if she has an “independent” self-construal, she

might make quite independent choices.

A third approach to the critiques is to complicate the dimensions. All scholars have always said

that all dimensions exist in all cultures. But intercultural scholars are trying more and more to avoid the

sort of generalization that says “Sri Lanka is collectivistic, The Netherlands is individualistic.” Perhaps,

instead, different co-cultures within a given nation, like France, are more individualistic, and other co-

cultures are more collectivistic. These can be ethnic groups, rural versus urban groups, age cohorts, and

so on. Or perhaps cultures (including organizations like churches or companies, co-cultures, etc.) have

the values existing a sort of tension (called a “dialectic”), in which the cultures and individuals within

them are constantly negotiation tensions between role flexibility and role fluidity, between need for

CHAPTER FOUR18

structure and need for flexibility, and so on. A final, fourth, solution, to which we will turn in just a

moment, is not to use the dimensions at all. We will return to this option shortly.

Other dimensions and frameworks. Before we move on to approaches that abandon this sort of

framework, we should note that there are, in fact, other frameworks that authors have used to

characterize cultures. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) outline two other major approaches. One of these

comes from anthropology—the value orientations of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1973). The focus of this

list seems to deal more both with world view—our specific beliefs and values about the connections

between humans and the elements (one another, nature, time) and with general value orientations

(activity), so we will treat this dimension below. Another key framework that authors have applied to

intercultural and cross-cultural communication is from sociologist Talcott Parsons (1951). Parsons

argued, like most, that individual behavior is distinct from culture, but that “Culture patterns may

become internalized as part of the actor’s orientation system” (p. 47). He introduced several value

patterns that people may, consciously or unconsciously, follow (as individuals or as cultural

preferences). These appear in Figure 4.5. Once again, these add more understanding to what we see in

Hofstede. For example, in Hofstede’s (2009) dimensions we can learn that Hungary, Jamaica, Costa Rica,

and the United Kingdom might all have similar power distance scores. But Parson’s dimension of

achievement/ascription will let us know that in some of those cultures, one might earn that status

through hard work, making status more changeable; but other cultures might simply ascribe (or give)

status to someone based on family name or background. The instrumental-expressive orientation is

similar to (or the same as) the idea of activity versus being: Instrumental individuals or cultures focus on

outcomes, especially measurable outcomes, with values such as efficiency. Expressive cultures focus on

the flow of interaction, enjoying the moment.

Figure 4.5 about here

Figure 4.5: Parson’s Value Orientations

CHAPTER FOUR19

Two examples serve to illustrate how we might see these values in everyday interaction. First,

one of our students, describing a frustration with cross-cultural travel, once complained, “In Costa Rica,

it took us forever to get our meal and have service. We must have been there for two hours!” The

instructor replied, “Don’t you want to spend two hours with people who are special to you?” In the

expressive or “being” culture, the purpose of the meal is not to eat—it is to spend time together. For

this reason, some have suggested that the fast food restaurants at EuroDisney simply did not work out—

the French did not want a quick meal, but a long sit-down meal. (So also, in such cultures, the function

of drinking alcohol is more often to facilitate social interaction than to “get wasted,” as it is in some

Western college cultures). We can see a second example in the little-known Disney film, Iron & Silk (Sun,

1990). Mark Salzman, a young man who has gone to China to teach English and learn kung fu, takes a

listen from his Chinese tutor, Teacher Hei. She informs him that in China, a host always offers the guest

food and a drink, out of politeness. And the guest always denies it—out of politeness. So the host gives

them the food anyway. Whereas in some Western cultures, directness suggests that if someone offers

you a drink, you simply accept or decline, in China and other cultures, there is an offerdecline

insistresist, and even double insist before there is a final response the offer. The simple

offerresponse pattern is efficient, but the more extended pattern values face and the dignity of the

parties in the interaction. We will say more about this sort of facework in Chapter 7.

Cultural (Emic) Approaches

We noted above that some authors choose not to use frameworks like Hofstede’s dimensions,

or even E.T. Hall’s high- and low-context, to describe cultures. They are concerned that such approaches

may hide the nuances and unique elements of each culture with frameworks that were developed by

scholars outside of those cultures. Instead, these authors seek to explain communication behaviors in

CHAPTER FOUR20

specific cultures. Clifford Geertz (1973), for example, argues for an “interpretive theory” of culture (p. 3),

in which anthropologists travel to cultures and provide rich, or “thick” descriptions of single cultures.

The various aspects of a culture—sacred symbols, values, the notions of morality and aesthetics

(“ethos”), and, of course, the use of symbols, are all intertwined in “webs of meaning” which the

researcher unravels. The explanations are not meant to predict anyone’s behavior, though the norms,

world views, and values guide behavior in that cultural members tend, usually, to follow them.

Robert Bellah and his colleagues (1996) conduct such an analysis of the United States from a

sociological perspective. Based on five years of research in four different projects and multiple

interviews with over 200 people across the United States, the authors provide a book-length

investigation of individualism in the United States as it relates to American culture. They see everything

from governmental systems to romantic feelings and behavior, from the personal desire to “find

oneself” to the joining of multiple special interest organizations—few of which have any real impact on

the individuals’ life, all infused with individualism. This underlying value, they argue, is leading to some

crises in contemporary culture, such as the “failure of community” (p. xxiii, a theme echoed by Robert

Putnam in his analysis, Bowling Alone, 2000), and a decline of public involvement and trust, a decline in

family values and civility. In sum, increasing individualism, they argue, is leading to a decline in social

capital, which refers to a sense of involvement in one’s community, including social organization, trust,

networks, a sense of citizenship, and norms. We saw above that Hofstede (1980) listed the United States

as the most individualistic of the nations studied. Bellah et al. (1996), in the preface to their revision of

their original 1985 study, state boldly: “The consequences of radical individualism are more strikingly

evident today than they were even a decade ago” (p. xi), leading, they contend, to increased alienation

from others and a growing loss of “civic membership” in America.

In Communication, specifically, many cultural studies find their origin in a research method

called ethnography. This method involves detailed observing, usually involving interaction with people,

CHAPTER FOUR21

to understand their lives. Gerry Philipsen and others applied this approach specifically to

communication, calling it ethnography of communication. Philipsen and his colleagues (Philipsen,

Coutu, & Covarrubias, 2005) outline a theoretical perspective that relies on this approach, Speech Codes

Theory. In this theory, a speech code is the system of symbols, meanings, assumptions, and norms for

communication adopted by a group of people. That group of people, a speech community, is rarely as

big as a nation, but is likely a specific group of people, such as a Harley Davidson motorcycle gang,

parents at a Tae Kwon Do studio, or theatre majors at a particular university. The theory is “grounded in

the observation of communication conduct in particular times and places (p. 56). The theory has a

number of propositions, or statements about what it believes to be true. For example, in any speech

community, there are multiple speech codes available. So for example, you might use one code (variety

of speech, norms for speaking, and so on), with your friends on the basketball or volleyball court, and

quite a different code with your instructors. The codes tell us how to act as a “real” member of the

community and also who has status and who does not. The codes guide our behavior, but they do not

cause us to behave a certain way. Most importantly, the theory argues that each speech community has

a way of communicating that is distinct. So, the theory does not seek to make generationalizations or

predictions about how people will communicate. Rather, it provides a framework for analysis that allows

us to “interpret” and gain an understanding of specific types of communication behavior.

Insert Text box 4.5 about here:

What do You Think?

A Jewish Passover Seder will have its own set of rules (participants, norms, act sequence, and so on), and these will even change from one Jewish speech community to another (Figure 4.6). But even our everyday meals have rituals, often unspoken. Watch the dinner table conversation with your family or friends. See if you determine a specific genre of behavior (like retelling the day’s events, bragging rituals, joke sequences). How might the aspects of the SPEAKING framework make sense of your “speech code”? Is your code unique, or does it borrow from larger cultural codes?

CHAPTER FOUR22

Figure 4.6 about here

Figure 4.6: Parson’s Value Orientations

Studies using ethnography in general, or specifically, “ethnography of communication”

demonstrate the diversity of cultures people have analyzed. For example, Donal Carbaugh (2005), in his

book Cultures in Conversation, presents summaries of his analysis of specific behaviors in different

cultures, such as the use of small talk and “friendliness” behaviors in America and Sweden, the use of

silence and the reluctance to be a polished speaker among Blackfoot Indians, and the negative

responses of a public television audience in Russia to Phil Donohue attempting to get them to talk about

the assumed problem of teen sex and pregnancy. David Poveda and Beatriz Martín (2004) studied

stories told by two small groups of Roma (Gypsy, or Gitano) children in Spain, analyzing the

communicative gaps between these children, educated first in their home, and the teachers of the

Spanish schools they began to attend.

Cultural researchers use methods beyond ethnography to understand specific cultures as well.

Stephen Croucher (2009) did in-depth interviews with 42 Muslims in France to understand their

perceptions and experiences regarding cultural adjustment and assimilation. And Mark Ward, Sr., after

attending 250 worship services in 17 U.S. states, analyzed forms of speech in Fundamentalist Christian

churches in the United States. Rona Halualani and Jolanta Drzewiecka (2008) study Polish and Hawaiian

diasporic groups. A Diaspora is a large group of people that have spread outside of their country or

territory of origin, usually maintaining some notion of identity to the homeland. Based on 300 interviews

and narratives from Hawaiians compared to an understanding of Polish people living abroad, study the

tensions of identity, such as “sameness” and “unity” with the culture of origin and issues of descent,

faced by these groups.

World View

CHAPTER FOUR23

All of what we have said so far regarding values can be applied to any of our other areas of

interest in the foundations of culture—norms, beliefs, and worldview. As much of our remaining

chapters will focus on norms of verbal and nonverbal behavior in different contexts, we will focus on

only one other area in this chapter, and that is the notion of world view. As we said above, this is a

specific set of beliefs about the relationship of humans to one another and to greater elements in the

cosmos. Geertz (1973) calls the world view of a people “their picture of the way things in sheer actuality

are, their concept of nature, of self, of society. It contains their most comprehensive ideas of order” (p.

127). As we noted above, Geertz sees all aspects of culture interrelated. Thus, as he studies the people

of Bali, an island in the Pacific, he notes that world view plays out in Balinese notions of time, in the

complex set of names, nicknames, family, and status names people have for one another, and in

ceremony, such as the Balinese cockfight, in which men, through their roosters, enact a particular notion

of what it means to be a “man” in Bali. That is, world view is connected to communication and ritual,

and each of these, to our notions of “personhood” and how we enact the different types of identities

that we hold.

Also as we noted regarding values, just as some scholars will look in-depth at a single culture,

such as Geertz, others provide etic frameworks that we can use to compare cultures. Florence

Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1973), writing in the area of psychological anthropology, published an

analysis of five communities within a 40-mile area in the southwestern United States—a Mormon

community, a Texas homestead, a Spanish-American village, and two Native American villages—showing

how they differed on several dimensions of a framework that Kluckhohn had developed. Many authors

have reproduced this framework, and, while people often refer to it as dealing with “value orientations,”

it really pertains more to world view. The authors suggest that “there is a limited number of common

human problems for which all peoples at all times must find some solution” (p. 10). Value orientations

combine cognitive (thought), affective (feelings) and directive (behavioral) elements to direct human

CHAPTER FOUR24

behavior, not in a strictly instinctive sense, like geese or warthogs. But the values guide us beyond our

mere choice, especially since we may often not be aware of them or be able to articulate them.

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck pose five basic questions that humans are trying to answer:

(1) What is the character of innate human nature?

(2) What is the relation of man to nature (and supernature)?

(3) What is the temporal focus of human life?

(4) What is the modality of human activity?

(5) What is the modality of man’s relationship to other men? (p. 11)

They pose a framework of different orientations in response to these (Figure 4.7), with the clarification

that all value orientations exist in all cultures, but that each culture will rank order them differently.

Time here does not allow us a full exploration of these, but we can see how they might distinguish

cultures in terms of world view in a couple of the dimensions. Some do seem more like values, such as

the relational orientation, which includes individualism and two forms of collectivism—lineal, in which

the collective might be a tribe or extended family (many African cultures), and collateral, in which the

important group would be a work-group (Japan).

Figure 4.7 about here

Figure 4.7: Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s Value Orientations

We especially see world view in three of the dimensions, though it is related to all of them. In

terms of humans relation to deity (or “supernature,” God, the elements), some cultures privilege the

idea that we are subject to nature, a sort of fatalism that suggests that humans are at the whims of the

gods (“The Devil made me do it!”). In some Latin American cultures, a common saying is “Así soy yo”—

that’s just how I am. Traditionally, a common view was that nature would just “take over” when men

and women were alone, which led to very strict supervision of young dating couples. In Brazil, when

CHAPTER FOUR25

young men wanted to talk with young women, they often had to do so through the bars on the front

windows, leading to a courtship expression called comendo grade (eating grate). Other cultures see

humans more in control of nature—they seed the clouds to make it rain and seek to analyze and even

control the human genome. And other cultures tend to seek harmony with nature, seeing themselves

working together with the elements: We eat the buffalo, but then when we die, we feed the grass that

feeds the buffalo. Related to our view of the relationship between humans and the supernatural is are

views of human nature—are humans evil, good, or a combination of the two?—and of our activity

orientation. This last one merits a bit more attention, as it so often distinguishes cultures. The doing

orientation reflects a culture where the focus is on activity that is often measurable in external

accomplishments, characteristic of United States culture, where there seems to be a flurry of activity,

with even things like eating (“fast food”) geared towards moving us to the next activity. The being

orientation is characterized more by spontaneous expression and living for the impulses of the moment.

This represents, perhaps, cultures where “hanging out” or just spending time together, for the sake of

the time and not for some observable purpose, are important. In such a culture, as many Latin American

cultures, the person or relationship you are with may be more important than the schedule on a clock.

And the being-in-becoming focus seems to blend the other two—there is a goal, but it is not

measureable, as through receiving more awards or status or money, but instead is internal. It is the

development of the whole person, such as achieved through some forms of Eastern meditation.

It is easy, at first, to want to classify cultures. The United States values a future, individualistic

focus, with measurable accomplishments (doing). These relate to the values of progress, pragmatism,

and a view of nature that sees it as something to meet human needs (mastery over nature). Indian

culture is framed as being more fatalistic, with the traditional caste system, with a view that humans are

subject to the divine; Native American tribes are seen as living in harmony with nature. But each of

these can border on cultural stereotypes. A closer analysis of any culture, as Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck

CHAPTER FOUR26

(1973) themselves said, will reveal elements of all of the dimensions, though there may be preferences

for some. Thus, a deeper understanding of the fabric of Indian culture would, no doubt, reveal themes

of fatalism, but with complicated threads of the person impacting her or his own destiny. We should

also note that this is only one framework and that other dimensions or aspects are possible. For

example, Carley Dodd (1998), for example, speaks of guilt cultures, in which people are motivated by a

sense of remorse when they do bad behaviors, based on a sense of personal responsibility more

common in individualistic cultures. On the other hand, in shame cultures, people are motivated by a

sense of social obligation, and are more likely to act in a way to protect the honor or “face” of their

group than out of a sense of personal responsibility. Dodd also distinguishes between spirit(ual)

cultures, in which there is a sense of presence of the spiritual or divine in everyday life, and secular

cultures, in which life problems and solutions are seen in terms of science and human ideas. Often,

these do not correspond to religious attendance. For example, in many Spanish-speaking South

American cultures, if one is planning for the future, one might say, “Si Dios quiere”—if God wills, similar

to the “In sh’Allah” of Arabic-speaking cultures. But in the United States, where church attendance is

actually much higher, people often relegate God to certain spheres of life, but do not perceive the divine

in the day-to-day workings of life or nature. And still other cultures, such as much of Europe, has

entered what some have called a post-Christian age, in which atheism is as likely or more likely than

spiritual faith.

Insert Text box 4.6 about here:

Taking it to the Streets

We can safely say that all world views and value systems have both strengths and limitations—things that help us progress as a society and things that work against healthy society. Sometimes, even good values, taken to an extreme, can impede progress, community, or other aspects of a culture. With your friends or in a group of classmates, engage in a discussion that considers both the strengths and limitations of the values and/or worldview of your culture (national, organizational, university, co-

CHAPTER FOUR27

culture, etc.). What changes could be made in your culture to help it meet multiple goals that are beneficial for the citizens of the culture. What are some concrete things you as a group or individual could do toward bringing about these changes?

Summary

This chapter has been about what we consider to be the deepest foundations of culture—

values, beliefs, and world view. These constitute the bedrock upon which behavioral rules and norms—

expectations for appropriate behavior in situations, sometimes with implications for morality—are built.

Norms and rules, in turn, guide our verbal, nonverbal, and mediated behavior. It is certainly good to

learn the etiquette when we travel to other cultures, and there are many good sources that present this

sort of information (see suggested readings). But if we know the underlying structure of a culture—the

part that usually lies beneath the surface in the iceberg model of culture, then the rest of the parts of

culture may make more sense, and we may be able to act appropriately even in those areas where we

do not yet know the specific rules and norms.

In this chapter, we have covered key terms regarding the mental frameworks that form the basis

upon which cultural and intercultural communication are built. These include values, beliefs, worldview,

norms, and rules. We have seen that there are different approaches to understanding these in

communication research and training. One approach is to develop a single set of terms that can apply to

all cultures, such as Hofstede’s dimensions or E.T. Hall’s notion of high and low context cultures. Of the

various dimensions, we find that the one that scholars most often rely on is individualism-collectivism.

Other scholars believe that any use of such frameworks may force us to think of cultures in terms that

scholars have created and instead seek to understand each culture from within, in the terms of the

people of that culture. Ethnography of communication is one approach that takes this view. Each

approach has strengths and limitations. The first allows us for cross-cultural comparisons, as long as we

are aware of the limitations of such framework. The second allows us to understand cultural behavior in

CHAPTER FOUR28

terms of unique cultural histories and contexts. Use of either approach, of course, could lead us to think

of cultures a monolithic and stagnant. As we turn our attention to communication, we must keep in

mind that any geographic space has a variety of cultures and co-cultures sharing that space, often with

fluid and overlapping boundaries, and that cultures are constant changing through ongoing

communication, politics, social, and even geographic and climactic forces. An understanding both of the

underlying structure of culture and of its ability to change should help us to be better intercultural

communicators.

Glossary Terms

Value: An idea or priority that someone holds to be important; a type of a belief in that a person (or culture) holds a particular thing, idea, or activity to be important, and which serves as a guide for behavior

Cultural Value: Things, typically abstract concepts, that a cultural group as a whole holds as important

Belief: An assumption that someone has about the nature of something; a cognition (thought) about the connection between two or more concepts

World View: A set of assumptions or cognitions about things such as the purpose of humans, the nature of deity, the relative position of humans to nature and the rest of the cosmos.

Attitude: A disposition to relate to things, actions, or people in certain ways

Rule: a prescription for behavior—that is, cultural beliefs about which behaviors are appropriate in certain situations

Norm: an expectation for behavior with a moral component

More: a very strong norm, with negative social results for violating it

Taboo: a norm so strong that cultural members may not even talk about it

Law: a norm or rule that has been codified—that is, made formal by a government, with punishments established for violation

Universal values: A set of values that some research suggests exist in all cultures to some degree

CHAPTER FOUR29

Terminal values: The end-states or desired outcomes of action for individuals

Instrumental values: those characteristics, traits, or “modes of conduct” that people in a culture hold to be important for reaching societal goals

High Context Cultures: Cultures in which meaning is more often implicit, that is, inside of the communicators, because they know what to expect based on the circumstance and on role and status relationships

Low Context Cultures: Cultures that place more meaning in the “explicit code,” that is, in the words themselves

Individualism/Collectivism: A culture’s orientation toward the self in relation to others; the degree to which a culture values individual (or nuclear family) goals and belonging, or adherence to the needs and goals of larger in-groups

Power Distance: A cultural orientation that describes the degree to which social inequality is accepted in a culture, especially if those in the lower status groups accept that inequality as just and natural.

Masculinity/Femininity: A cultural orientation that describes how the culture orients towards rules of men and women, including how rigid or flexible gender roles are and whether the culture is more direct and goal oriented or relational and face-saving.

Uncertainty Avoidance: A cultural orientation that describes the degree to which a culture accepts or dislikes uncertain and ambiguous situations; its orientation to clarity of structure

Confucian Work Dynamism: A cultural orientation based in Confucian philosophy that values respect for tradition, thrift, persistence, and personal steadiness—that is, a long-term pragmatism

Self-Construal: A psychological notion of how strongly one sees oneself independent from others or connected to others

Social Capital: a concept referring to investment in community, including social organization, trust, networks, a sense of citizenship, and norms.

Ethnography of Communication: A method of research and writing that involves detailed observing, usually involving interaction with people, to understand the lives of a group of people

Speech Codes Theory: A theory of communication that considers the uniqueness of the speech codes in each community, treating each culture as unique, rather than looking for a set of values, meanings, or variables that apply across all cultures

Speech Code: The system of symbols, meanings, assumptions, and norms for communication adopted by a group of people

CHAPTER FOUR30

Speech Community: In speech codes theory, a group of people that shares a common speech code; rarely understood to be as large as a nation, might be a co-culture within a nation (e.g., a gang culture) or a speech community that cuts across national borders

Diaspora: A large group of people that have spread outside of their country or territory of origin, usually maintaining some notion of identity to the homeland

Guilt Culture: A culture in which people are more likely to be motivated by a sense of remorse when they do bad behaviors, based on a sense of personal responsibility

Shame Culture: A culture in which people are motivated more by a sense of social obligation, and are more likely to act in a way to protect the honor or “face” of their group

Spiritual Culture: A culture in which there is more of a sense of presence of the spiritual or divine in everyday life

Secular Culture: A culture in which life problems and solutions are seen in terms of science and human ideas

Discussion Questions

What do you think are the disadvantages and advantages of each of the two approaches to understanding cultural communication, emic and emic?

Martin, Nakayama, & Flores (2002), suggest that change and stability exist in all cultures in tension with each other. Think of your own culture: What are some things that you see changing, and what are some things that seem to stay the same? Are the things that remain the same on the top or the bottom of the “iceberg” model of culture? Think of how the things that change more or less quickly in a culture relate to each other.

As we note in this chapter, some scholars claim that there is a decline of “civility” and social capital in America. If you are in an American classroom, discuss whether you agree or disagree with this notion. If you are not in an American classroom, think of a particular cultural value or ritual that seems to be in transition, and discuss why you think that it is or is not changing—and whether such change is beneficial (or not) to your culture.

What seem to be the dominant concepts of world view in your culture? Don’t just answer in terms of overall religious belief, but with a deeper discussion of what you think underlying views of reality, knowledge, or the purpose of life are in your culture.

Are there different cultural groups within your community? If so, discuss how these groups might be alike and different in terms of some of the concepts in this chapter.

Action Points

CHAPTER FOUR31

Find a current political issue in a country besides your own. For example, at the writing of this chapter, people are wondering whether Julian Assange should be allowed to keep a website called “Wikileaks,” leaking information from government documents, and Spain is contemplating banning smoking in bars and restaurants. Discuss this issue with your class or with friends, talking about the underlying value, more/normative, or worldview of the culture as these relate to the issue.

Go online and view the 20-minute video, “The Story of Stuff” (http://www.storyofstuff.com/). Think about your own use of goods and resources. How does this use reflect or contradict your own culture’s values. How does your usage impact people in other cultures for good or bad? What changes could you make in your life to use less “stuff”? Also, what are your agreements or disagreements with the idea in the video?

The International Youth Foundation (http://www.iyfnet.org/) describes stories of young people—teens and young adults changing their world in different ways. Go to the “success stories” link: http://www.iyfnet.org/success-stories, and locate a particular success story to read. If you journal, write about what the young person has done: What is the location of social change? What cultural values or world view aspects might help or get in the way of the young person’s efforts (you may have to do additional Internet research to know more about the culture? How might such an effort translate t your own community, if someone wanted to do something similar?

For More Information

Morrison, T., Conaway, W. A., & Borden, G. A. (1994). Kiss, bow, or shake hands: How to do business in sixty countries. Holbrook, MA: B. Adams.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural communication and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89-118.

Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A. (2002). A dialectical approach to intercultural communication. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication: Experiences and contexts (pp. 3-13). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Althen, G., & Bennett, J. (2011). American ways: A cultural guide to the United States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

References (Chapter 4)

CHAPTER FOUR32

Althen, G. with A. R. Doran & S. J. Szmania. (2003). American ways: A guide for foreigners in the United States (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultutral Press.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1996). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and commitment in American life (updated ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164. DOI: 10.1177/0022002187018002002

Courtright, J. L., Wolfe, R., & Baldwin, J. R. (2011): Intercultural typologies and public relations research: A critique of Hofstede's dimensions. In N. Bardhan, Public Relations in Global and Cultural Contexts (pp. xx-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Croucher, S. M. (2009). Looking beyond the hijab. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.

Dodd, C. H. (1998). Dynamics of intercultural communication (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). Value differences in foreign students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 365-375.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). The influence of cultural variability on perceptions of communication behavior associated with relational terms. Human Communication Research, 13, 147-166.

Hall, E. T. (1997). Context and meaning. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (8th ed., pp. 45-54). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Halualani, R. T., & Drzewiecka, J. (2008). Deploying „descent“: The politics of diasporic belonging and intercultural communication. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 31, 59-90.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: The software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2009). Cultural Dimensions. ITIM International. Available at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. Retrieved on March 28, 2011.

CHAPTER FOUR33

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433. DOI: 10.1177/0022002184015004003

Kim, M. S. (2005).

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kâğitçibaşi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and implications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1973). Variations in value orientations (2nd ed? Xyz). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Madichie, N. O., Nkamnebe, A. D., & Idemobi, E. I. (2008). Cultural determinants of enterpreneurial emergence in a typical Sub-Sahahara African context. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 2, 285-299. DOI:

Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A. (2002). A dialectical approach to intercultural communication. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication: Experiences and contexts (pp. 3-13). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Nakata, C. (2009). Going beyond Hofstede: Why we need to and how. In C. Nakata (Ed). Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for global marketing and management (pp. 3-15). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Philipsen, G., Coutu, L. M., & Covarrubias, P. (2005). Speech codes theory: Restatement, revisions, and response to criticisms. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 55-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Poveda, D., & Martín, B. (2004). Looking for cultural congruence in the education of gitano children. Language in Education, 18, 413-434.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Reynolds, B., K. (1984). A cross-cultural study of values of Germans and Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 269-278.

Robinson, J. (2000). Communication in Korea: Playing things by Eye. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 74-81). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Schwartz et al. (1992).

Sun, S. (1990). Iron & Silk.

Triandis, H. C. (1994).Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kâğitçibaşi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 41-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CHAPTER FOUR34

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Ward, M., Sr. (2010). “I was saved at an early age”: An ethnography of fundamentalist speech and cultural performance. Journal of Communication and Religion, 33, 108-144.

Whiteoak, J. W., Crawford, N. G., & Mapstone, R. H. (2006). Differences of gender and generational differences in work values and attitudes in an Arab culture. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48(1), 77-91.

Zhang, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and conflict styles in Chinese parent-child relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55, 113-128.

Image credits:

Figure 4.1: http://sandylearningblog.wordpress.com/category/human-resources/

Figure 4.2: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/20924352.html

Figure 4.3: http://www.genderwork.com/services/organizationaldev.html

Figure 4.4: based on Hofstede, 1980

Figure 4.5: based on Parsons, 1951,

Figure 4.6: http://www.bangitout.com/photosb/?level=picture&id=2723

Figure 4.7: Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1973.

CHAPTER FOUR35

Chapter 4: Foundations: Images

Figure 4-1: The Iceberg Model of Culture

Caption: The Iceberg model of culture shows that much of our culture—and that of others—is beyond our awareness.

CHAPTER FOUR36

Credit: http://sandylearningblog.wordpress.com/category/human-resources/ [Or similar image]

CHAPTER FOUR37

Figure 4-2: The Celebrity Tattoo Test

Caption: Tattoos reveal both personal beliefs and values as well as cultural norms—and celebrity tattoo tests also says something about a culture’s focus on celebrity and notions of body adornment

Credit: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/20924352.html

CHAPTER FOUR38

Figure 4-3: High and Low Context Cultures

Caption: Many training companies, like Banducci Consulting, teach about differences between high and low context cultures, applying them even to male and female communication.

Credit: http://www.genderwork.com/services/organizationaldev.html

CHAPTER FOUR39

Figure 4-4: Hofstede’s Dimensions

Caption: A Comparison of some countries on Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance Dimensions

Credit: based on Hofstede (1980)

CHAPTER FOUR40

Figure 4-5: Parson’s Pattern Variables

Pattern Variable What it’s aboutAffectivity ßAffect Neutrality Decision-Making: Whether a culture values intuitive

(emotional, affective) decisions or logical, rational decisions. Ex: Man orders a vegetarian meal, not because he has logically decided it is the best choice (affect neutral), but it just “feels right.” (affective)

Universalism ßParticularism Rules: Whether a culture applies the same rules to all people equally or holds different sets of expectations and rules for people in different (status) categories. Ex: If man feels that he should treat the server differently because of her social status, his orientation is “particularistic.”

Diffuseness ßSpecificity Roles: Whether a culture values treating people more holistically, that is, as whole persons, or in specific roles. Ex: If many believes personal and professional roles overlap, or, as in the Mexican notion of “respecto,” he should treat the server as a “whole person” and not just a “role,” his orientation is “diffuse.”

Ascription ßAchievement How one has status: Whether a culture assigns status based on some pre-determined category (such as name of family, profession) or by one’s own accomplishments. Ex: If the server respects the status of the patron because of

CHAPTER FOUR41

his family name, it is “ascription” (and status is less mobile), but if it is because he “earned it,” that is an achievement orientation.

Instrumental ßExpressive Purpose of Activity (including Communication): Whether one engages in behavior (including communication) in order to achieve some end-state (goal-driven, I), or for its own sake. Ex: If the server and patron chat just to enjoy the conversation, instead of being task focused, they might have an “expressive” orientation.

Caption: Parson’s Pattern variables would apply to any communication, such as in a restaurant

Credit: Derived from Parsons (1951). Image can be any sort of image, though I like “Sims” look!

Figure 4.6: Rules of Communication—Passover Seder

CHAPTER FOUR42

Caption: What might be some of the rules of communication at a Jewish Passover Seder

Credit: http://www.bangitout.com/photosb/?level=picture&id=2723

Figure 4-7: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Value Orientations

Orientation Postulated Range of VariationsHuman Nature Evil Neutral / Good + Evil GoodHuman-(Super)Nature Subjugation to nature Harmony with nature Mastery over natureTime Past Present FutureActivity Being Being-in-becoming DoingRelational LIneality Collaterality Individualism

Caption: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Value Orientations

Credit: Based on Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1973