Vygotsky theorised that human psychological process are mediated through artefacts such as tools, gestures or language and accumulated over generations. Based on this, Michael Cole went on to argue that culture is to be understood in terms of artefacts. He extends the idea of an artefact to anything which is simultaneously material, in the sense that it exists as a distinct entity, and ideal, in the sense that it’s existence is the product of purposive human behaviour3. For example, consider the typically British gesticulated means of swearing through the raising of the first two fingers. Objectively, an outsider would observe somebody simply making a V-shape figure at the end of an out-stretched arm. It is our culture which instils the subjective association that this gesture is profane. Most other (certainly Western) cultures would consider this to mean the number two. As Gudykunst summarised, “Communication is effective when the person interpreting the message attaches a meaning to the message similar to what was intended by the person transmitting it.”
Innumerable examples of where such cultural differences lie could be mentioned such as the amount of direct eye contact or physical contact which a person finds acceptable, different cultures’ reactions to raised voices, different sense of time, different expectations of personal space etc. ad infinitum. What all of these cultural variations share, apart from serving in inhibit effect cross-cultural communication, is that they all have an objective and a subjective aspect.
According to Stella Ting-Toomey, cultural differences can impede effective communication in three ways. Firstly, ‘cognitive constraints’ can be thought of as a frame of reference, a milieu in which all new information is placed in or compared to in order for it to be assessed.
She goes on to describe ‘behaviour constraints’, which are essentially related to ‘politeness’ and are derived from norms within a culture relating to how people ‘ought to properly conduct themselves’. This covers differences between cultures relating to what is deemed acceptable and includes factors such as the amount of direct eye contact, the amount of physical contact, the amount of personal space, and punctuality.
Finally, ‘emotional constraints’ refer to how different cultures control their display of emotion. For example, many white Americans construe raised voices to signify the start of a fight whereas Italians would be more likely to interpret this as and exciting and engaging conversation between friends. Emotional constraints also extends to the different approaches to dealing with conflict and sensitive or personal issues - whether or not they are addressed directly or settled quietly. For example Spanish are more likely to say exactly what they think and openly seek resolution to conflict whereas those from Eastern cultures may be more inclined to resolve conflict via discrete letter-writing. A popular stereotype in this division is the British ‘stiff upper lip’.
The Dutch researcher, Geert Hofstede undertook interesting work in the field of inter-cultural communication and compared different cultures through examining various dimensions of cultural variability. These include factors such as power distance which is the extent to which less influential members of society are willing to accept the societal imbalance of power, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and individualism.
The concept of individualism is another key difference in many cultures and refers to the extent to which people prioritise their own interests or those of their immediate family in contrast to collectivism whereby people tend to identify with a larger group for pastoral care, in exchange for loyalty to this group.
Another axis on which to measure cultural similarity is the extent to which a culture relies upon communication through the explicit verbal message (low context) or the implied non-verbal or contextual channels (known as high context e.g. pauses, silences, change in voice tone). Consider the North American society whose members are more likely to exhibit conversational patterns using straight talk and non-verbal immediacy compared to the Chinese culture where indirect references, subtleties of body language, posture and culturally rich proverbs play an important role. In the latter case, most of the information communicated resides in the physical context or is internalized in the person – the explicitly ‘coded’ verbal message is relatively dilute in semantics.
If ignorant of these inter-cultural communication hurdles, people are more likely to fall foul of them. As noted by Deborah Tannen, “… the use of indirectness can hardly be understood without the cross-cultural perspective. Many Americans find it self-evident that directness is logical and aligned with power whereas indirectness is akin to dishonesty as well as subservience.” This example succinctly illustrates that when people from different cultures convene and communicate, the myriad of cultural disparities that exist can lead to miscommunication.
Let is now turn to perhaps the widest of gaps between cultures and give attention to extraterrestrial intelligence. Once a theme confined to the annals of science fiction, the possibility of talking with aliens has latterly become more credible. The latest Voyager rockets all carry on them a variety of different media in the hope that alien life may be able to salvage and decipher it and possibly even respond. Many archetypal views of our first encounters with such beings, portray them either as hostile or as long lost friends coming to save the world. These conceptions stem from our own assumptions about the way we communicate, within our own human culture. However, in the absence of any common ground shared between ourselves and any would-be alien, the task of communicating suddenly becomes one fraught with difficulties. It is a fair assumption than an extraterrestrial, like ourselves, would be the product of a unique evolutionary history. Again like ourselves, it is reasonable to deduce that an organism’s level of intelligence and capabilities are not only bounded in the physical, biological realm but also moulded by environmental and selective influences, specific to its planet of origin. However, we have no evidence or reason to believe that extraterrestrials share with us aspects of cognition, perception or behaviour. Due to the nature of evolution and ‘survival of the fittest’ biological traits are passed on to subsequent generations via genes. That which determines the notion of ‘the fittest’ is found in the being’s own environment. Human’s have evolved to become intelligent but other species such as ants have survived equally well with a set of ‘pre-programmed’ responses to their environment.
In such a hypothetical extraterrestrial meeting, the recipient or a message must make a perceptual postulation about the message being composed of a series of distinct symbols. These symbols may convey some sort of negative transfer – i.e. although aspects of the message may seem familiar, this is not at all the case. Numerical figures are associated with subjective cognitive concept they have come to represent and are no longer taken as objective -‘1’ is not a straight vertical line but assimilates the concept of ‘one’. Such negative transfer may delude the recipient into thinking that the message is some form of combinatorial exercise which must be decoded. When efforts to decode the message fail, there is a temptation to make further over-engineered attempts at decipherment which may lead further away from the solution.
The solution to this problem, as indicated by Douglas Raybeck, lies in gestalt reformulation – the need to find a new way of viewing the material and divorcing ourselves from its culturally embedded meaning.
If a dog called Rover (having only monochrome vision) were equipped with the power of speech, then communication with him would demonstrate further complications. Behaviour and observations pertaining to the colour of objects in the environment would completely elude poor Rover since he is no perceptually equipped to deal with this. Even if we were aware of Rover’s inability, then we would still struggle to overcome this problem.
We have seen that cultural differences impede effective communication to a widely varying degree, ranging from not at all to completely. The question remains: how can these difficulties be overcome? Primarily, it is of the most value to at least be aware of the potential pitfalls. Understanding patterns of cultural diversity serves to assist us in processing what it means to be different in ways that are considerate of others, not critical or offensive.
Constructing a shared communicative environment is fundamental in effective communication. Therefore, anything which can facilitate this construction will alleviate some of the difficulties. Leaving aside dealing with aliens, let us take the case of engaging in conversation with other people who can speak the same language, even if this language is not their first. Asking questions and composing suitable responses help common ground develop. This turn-based style of communication is familiar to most cultures and invites comments and helps to navigate the topic of conversation to one which both parties can relate to.
Various means of confirming common ground can also help ease communication. This can be done in all manner of ways including narrowing references down (e.g. the man with the grey hair and moustache), gesticulating (e.g. pointing: this one here or that one there?) and strategically placed pauses, otherwise known as trial references (e.g. I went to that well known European capital…… <interjects> Paris? <replies> Yes, Paris)
So we have seen that cultural differences are capable of completely hampering effective communication. In practice however, intercultural communication occurs everywhere, everyday. This is made possible through practice and education. We all have the ability to improve our intercultural communication skills. Taken from the website of Purdue University , West Lafayette, USA, the following excerpt, written by Marcelle E. Dupraw, is from a set of guidelines aimed at assisting multicultural communication.
- Learn from generalizations about other cultures, but don't use those generalizations to stereotype, "write off," or oversimplify your ideas about another person. The best use of a generalization is to add it to your storehouse of knowledge so that you better understand and appreciate other interesting, multi-faceted human beings.
- Practice, practice, practice. That's the first rule, because it's in the doing that we actually get better at cross-cultural communication.
- Don't assume that there is one right way (yours!) to communicate. Keep questioning your assumptions about the "right way" to communicate. For example, think about your body language; postures that indicate receptivity in one culture might indicate aggressiveness in another.
- Don't assume that breakdowns in communication occur because other people are on the wrong track. Search for ways to make the communication work, rather than searching for who should receive the blame for the breakdown.
- Listen actively and empathetically. Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Especially when another person's perceptions or ideas are very different from your own, you might need to operate at the edge of your own comfort zone.
- Respect others' choices about whether to engage in communication with you. Honor their opinions about what is going on.
- Stop, suspend judgment, and try to look at the situation as an outsider.
- Be prepared for a discussion of the past. Use this as an opportunity to develop an understanding from "the other's" point of view, rather than getting defensive or impatient. Acknowledge historical events that have taken place. Be open to learning more about them. Honest acknowledgment of the mistreatment and oppression that have taken place on the basis of cultural difference is vital for effective communication.
- Awareness of current power imbalances -- and an openness to hearing each other's perceptions of those imbalances -- is also necessary for understanding each other and working together.
- Remember that cultural norms may not apply to the behaviour of any particular individual. We are all shaped by many, many factors -- our ethnic background, our family, our education, our personalities -- and are more complicated than any cultural norm could suggest. Check your interpretations if you are uncertain what is meant.
In conclusion, varying communicative styles reflect others’ far-reaching philosophies and world views which form a basis for their culture. Understanding these styles can only serve to enrich our lives and help us to form a broader picture of what the world has to offer.
References
Avruch, Kevin and Peter Black - Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings: Problems and Prospects (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993) ()
A More Perfect Union Website - Working on Common Cross-cultural Communication Challenges
DuPraw, Marcelle and Axner, Marya – Working on Common Cross-cultural Communication Challenges
Griffen, Em – A First Look at Communication Theory, Intercultural Communication: Key Names and Terms
Gudykunst, William B - Bridging Differences, Effective Intergroup Communication (London: SAGE Publications, Inc. 1998)
Lantieri, Linda and Patti, Janet - Waging Peace in Our Schools (Beacon Press, 1996)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2)
Payne, C - Culture and Communication - A Primer for Instructors (Medicine Hat College Website)
Reybeck, Douglas – Problems in Extraterrestrial Communication (Palo Alto, CA 1992)
Schonbein, William W - Review of Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline by Michael Cole (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996)
Tannen, Deborah - Gender and Discourse (Oxford University Press, 1994)
- You Just Don't Understand, Women and Men in Conversation (New York: Ballantine Books 1990)
Ting-Toomey, S - Communicating Across Cultures (New York: The Guilford Press 1999)
