Cultural Differences - Essay Example

Course: Essay Title: Student Name and ID: Tutor’s name: Difference between high context culture and low context culture: The high context culture is a group or societies that use more of non-verbal elements such as facial expression, tone of the voice, eye movement and gestures in their conservation, while the low context culture is a group or societies that use less of non-verbal elements such as facial expression, tone of the voice, eye movement and gestures in their conservation. In high context culture non-verbal elements play a great role in their conversation, while in the low context culture the spoken or the verbal message plays a great role in their conversation. The message or the information is more in the words than the in the nonverbal elements. In high context culture the verbal or the unspoken words are implicit, that is the context of the conversation is more important than the spoken words while in low context culture the spoken or the verbal message is the spoken message is explicit that is the context of the message is less important compared to the words (Zaharna, 2001). In high context culture the spoken words or message is indirect that is the communicator talks around the point of the message and elaborates it, while in the low context culture the verbal or spoken message is direct that is the communicator gives the message or spelt it out as exactly as it is. In high context culture the communication is seen as an art that is a way of engaging someone, while in the low context culture the communication is viewed as a way of exchanging ideas, information and opinions. In the high context culture the disagreement is personalized that is a person is more sensitive to the conflict expressed in another’s nonverbal communication. Therefore the conflict must be resolved before any work can continue or must be evaded because threatens the individual , while in the low context culture the disagreement is depersonalized that is an individual withdraws from the conflict with an individual and gets on with the job. The attention is paid on the sensible solutions, not the personal ones. In high context culture relationships majorly depend on the trust, which develop slowly and are stable. A person is able to distinguish between people from the inside and the people from the outside of his or her own circle, while in the low context culture, the relationships begin and quickly. Many people may be in a person’s circle since the circles boundary is not well defined. In high context culture the way thing s are done majorly depends on the relationships between or with the people and the attention given to group process, while in low context culture things are done by following the laid procedures while paying a lot of attention to the objective or the goal of the task at hand. In high context culture a person’s identity is entrenched in groups such as the family, work and culture, while in the low context culture a person’s identity is entrenched in oneself and the accomplishments of the individual. In high context culture power or authority and social structure is greatly centralized that is the responsibility is at the top. The person at the top of the authority command works for the greater good of the entire group or the society, while in the low context culture authority and social structure is highly decentralized that is the responsibility is not highly concentrated at the top, it goes further down. In high context culture the available space is communal that it is shared by everyone in the community. People stand in close proximity to each other and share the available space in the society, while in the low context culture the available space is compartmentalized and owned by an individual that is the privacy is very important, so the people are far apart from each other. In high context culture change takes place in a very slow manner that is things are heavily rooted in the past, they are very slow to change and they are very stable, while in the low context culture the change takes place very fast that is a person can make change and be able to see the results of the change almost immediately. In high context culture time is a process and it belongs to other people and the to the nature, while in the low context culture time is a commodity to be saved or spent wisely that is a person’s time belongs to the individual. The reasons behind cultural misunderstandings In Anxiety or Uncertainty Management Theory, Gudykunst describes effective communication as process of exchanging information and generating meaning rather than result. Meaning of the information cannot be transferred, only the information that can be transferred. When people from different cultures interact or communicate, they are faced with a certain degree of uncertainty and anxiety because they are very much aware of the existence of cultural differences between them. Therefore they are not sure of how to behave in front of the strangers and they do not feel secure. Uncertainty is doubt or the inability to predict the outcome of our behavior when we encounter a stranger while anxiety is the feelings of being uneasy, worried, tense or anxious about what might happen. Mindfulness is the way in which a particular individual or group of people can reduce their uncertainty and anxiety level when they meet a stranger to optimum levels and be able to communicate effectively (Littlejohn, 1983). People will always tend to regulate the way they talk and the topic they choose to discuss with the strangers because they are not sure if they talk or discuss about a certain topic will offend the other person or not. For instance, a person from America interact with a person from Japan, a person from America may feel uncertain of what to discuss with the person because, they are not sure if what they say will annoy the other person or whatever the person say will end up a shaming him in the end. But when the uncertainty and anxiety between the people who are interacting is reduced or eliminated, people are able to communicate freely and the interaction is made more conducive or effective. Also when people meet strangers they are filled with anxiety of how to behave and how to talk and respond to the other person. They feel uneasy when they interact because they are not sure whether whatever they say will be tolerated by the other person. They are also not sure whether whatever they will discuss with the other person will make them feel offended. Therefore, they tend to regulate how they behave and whatever they say in front the other person so as not make them feel uneasy or worried about their character or behavior. Also when people meet strangers, they tend to be very mindful of what they say and watch their actions very much while in the presence of the stranger as opposed to when they speak or talk with a person who they are familiar with. Being mindful makes the individual or the person to majorly focus keenly on what they say and how they interact with the strangers. This because, when one is mindful of his or her own behavior, he or she will not in any way affects the feelings of the other person. So they will try to control their level of uncertainty and anxiety so as to be able to engage the other person in a conversation properly (Zaharna, 2001). When uncertainty and anxiety level are so high they affect the effective communication between people since people may develop stress and leave the interaction. Also when the uncertainty and anxiety level of interaction are low the people may be bored and may not continue with the communication or the interaction or may be very careless with their words and not put into consideration the cultural differences between themselves. Therefore the uncertainty and anxiety level of interaction are supposed to at a minimum level, but should not so high so that the people do not feel uncomfortable. The wider the gap between the various cultures of certain individuals, the greater or the higher the levels of uncertainty and anxiety that all the people involved will tend to experience. A person behavior and the way people understand the message. In Communication Accommodation Theory, Giles and his colleagues explain how people adjust or change their behavior in communications in accordance to the actions of others. In this theory communication is perceived as either convergent or divergent. Convergence can be defined as a situation whereby an individual adjust to another person communicative behaviors in regards to a wide range of dialectal prosodic nonverbal elements such as phonological variant, gaze, speech rate, smiling, phenomenal and utterance length among others. Divergence is used to refer or describe the way in which people emphasize speech and nonverbal differences between themselves and the people they communicate with (Zaharna, 2001). In convergence people tends to adapt to other people actions of communication, they tend to pause while speaking with people of different cultures as opposed to when they speak to people from the same culture. People from different cultures will interact differently given the situation they are in or the nature of communication. For instance, if there is American-Japanese interaction convergence will occur. Such that, American will converge with the Japanese while they are communicating by producing more back channels in their conversation with the Japanese as opposed to when the American communicated with other Americans. Also the Japanese will converge in the communication by using more of the backchannels while communicating with fellow Japanese as opposed to when they communicate with the Americans. Also people from the black community will tend to adapt their communicative behavior very much to the way the people from the white community communicate and will develop so much of the behavior when speaking to the people from different community as opposed to when they speak to their colleagues from the same community. In divergence people will tend to change their behavior of communication when talking to people from a different level or status. Giles termed these as either upward or crossover divergence. Giles and his colleagues associated this to stereotypes, where one group of people may be presumed not to speak a certain language very well while another group is presumed to speak the same language well. For instance, people from the black community may be presumed to sound nonstandard while speaking English while the people from the other communities maybe presumed to sound more standard. Also when a male speaker believes that he is talking to an attractive lady over the phone, he is believed to speak well and in a better tone as opposed to when he believes that he is speaking to an unattractive lady. And when a person speaks to a person from a well off or from a status that is regarded to be higher than the person he or she will speak well in a well-articulated manner as opposed to when he or she speaks to a person from a lower level than that he or she is in. People will understand the message from the speaker of the message depending on how the speaker have adapted to the communicative behavior. If the speaker has adapted to the communicative behavior in a convergence manner the people will understand the message in a different manner as compared to when the speaker who has adapted to the communicative behavior in a divergent manner. Giles and his colleagues argued that people only converge in communication to where they believe others want them to be, but also is some unspecific conditions that they believe others would like or expects them to be. Therefore people will converge or diverge in their relationship depending on how they are perceived by other people or how they perceive other people. For instance if a particular individual is working in a the media industry such news anchor people will expect the person to be able to be very well informed about the language the person uses and also be in a position to pronounce or speak the said language articulately. Therefore, the person will try as much as possible to portray that he or she is in apposition to speak the language articulately and also show that he or she has the required or have enough knowledge about the language. The different styles in communication between cultures In Expectation Violations Theory, Burgoon and her colleagues look at how the individuals respond to the message communication of others, either negatively or positively. It also focusses on the nonverbal communication of other people. This theory increases our understanding of how expectations impact the conversational distance between the various groups of people. The theory reveals exactly what it takes place in the minds of the speaker and how the speaker monitors the nonverbal behavior during the conversation between the two parties (Littlejohn, 1983). Communication takes place during the exchange of information opinions and ideas. This communication can be either verbal or nonverbal communication. Various individuals have predetermined notions or expectations of how others people who they interact with should act or behave. When the other people violate the expectations of another person, either negatively or positively, the individuals will respond in particular ways. The expectancy violation theory focuses on the way the individuals react the communication of other people. The communication of the message is ether reinforced in a positive way such as eye contact, agreeing, smiling among others or in a negative manner such as frowning, disagreeing, creating a physical distance among others. Through our interaction with others and our culture we learn those things that we consider to be appropriate and suitable in the society. A bigger part of how we react to a certain encounter that is positive or negative is majorly based on possession of appealing personal attributes, physical attractiveness, familiarity, task expertise and knowledge, giving positive or negative feedback, socioeconomic status and status equality with the perceiver or the person looking at the behavior. Certain behaviors can be displayed by different people and be interpreted in different ways by various or the same group of people. For instance, if a high reward person that is physically attractive individual invades a personal space that particular behavior may be viewed or interpreted as being friendly or friendliness and this behavior will be tolerated. However, if a low reward person that is physically unattractive individual invades a personal space that particular behavior may be viewed or interpreted as aggressive in nature and will not be welcomed or tolerated (Littlejohn, 1983). People in a particular society will be attracted to the behaviors that goes hand in hand with what is considered right or correct in the society and they will therefore respond positively to the behavior. For instance, if a particular person exhibits a behavior that is in accordance with the culture of the people such as greeting the elders with respect or standing up when an elder person gets in the room, the person will be regarded as being respectful as opposed to when the person failed to show these behaviors while in the society. Therefore, the society will be pleased with the behavior and will respond in a positive manner to the behavior. Therefore, the behaviors that do not violate the pre-convinced notions of a particular person or the society will be viewed positively and will be tolerated by the given person or the society as opposed to the behaviors that violate the pre-convinced notions of the individual or a given society which will be viewed negatively and will not be tolerated by the person or the society. Also a particular behavior may be viewed differently depending on the person who is doing or exhibiting the said behavior. Role played by the ethnomethodology. Cultural discourse analysis is a theory and also a methodology for the study of communication. This theory looks at the communication as a socially situated exercise which contains a rich sematic network of presumed or ignored knowledge. As a theory, cultural discourse analysis looks at the communication as decisive of social life and which has meaning in the culture. As a methodology, it is established upon five major distinctive modes of analysis. These are: The theoretical mode: In this mode the analyst looks at how a person hears about culture in discourse and how a particular person understands, theoretically the basic communication sensations of concerns. The analyst is able to understand the communication theoretically and the sensations of the communication in the society (Carbaugh, 2007). The descriptive mode: In this mode, the analyst is able to focus on the communication in the real world or on the actual conversation between people. The analyst is able to do this by analyzing already prerecorded materials. These recordings of sensation instances on a piece of paper or on a disc help to make the basic materials of concern to a communication study to be available and known to others. The interpretive mode: This mode focuses on the meanings that are active in a certain communication practice. This mode interprets the cultural practices, the values that are involved when one does a particular thing and it also identifies the principles of cultural beliefs. The mode also focuses on the meaning of moments of silence in various social interactions and the meaning that goes with these silences. The interpretation of silence varies from one cultural context to another (Carbaugh, 2007). The comparative mode: In this mode, the analyst identifies what is common or similar in communication practices. For instance, the form of greetings that are exchanged during or through forms of common or mutual recognition, but they are conducted in a very different manner. Also, the analyst focuses on the intercultural interactions, which help in exploring the specific sensation which are similar across the communication practices in the various different societies, and which majorly helps to establish what is culturally unique in each of them (Carbaugh, 2007). The critical mode: In this mode, the analyst engages deeply in interpretive and descriptive analyses as a specific way of attaining a great perspective on the significance, salience or applicability of critical cultural analysis. The analyst is able to develop a deep understanding of the sensation of concern, from the understanding of those engaged in the communication, before the evaluation of the communication. This theory enables the analyst to give careful attention to the problem of concern and the research questions. It also enables the speaker or the analyst to be able to reflect upon how well he or she understands the discourse and broad phenomenal theoretically. The cultural discourse analysis also enables the analyst to focus on the descriptive explorations of sensations of concern. The analyst is also able to give meaningful interpretations to the sensations which are important to the participants in the communication, comparative assessments of such sensation across various discourses or communities and if it is at all necessary and also it gives a critical appraisal to the analyst. The effect of language barrier in the communication evolution The language to some extent acts as barrier to the evolution of communication in the early stages of the communication between the Americans and the Japanese. But after sometime the group or the societies find things that they share in common or those things that they believe in together. When a particular group of people use some commonality or certain beliefs as a mechanism to assist them to explain what it means to be a member or part of that group then these people are referred to as a group. Symbolic Convergence Theory is defined as theory that relates to the communication. It focuses on how group communication evolves and the dynamism of this communication.it assist people to forecast the way things might happen based on how people have been able to communicate there before. “Symbolic” used to refer to the verbal or spoken and nonverbal messages while “convergence” is used to refer to the shared understanding and the significance. When the groups achieve the symbolic convergence, they get a sense of communal based on common undertakings and experiences (Carbaugh, 2007). Therefore, when people from different cultural backgrounds such as the American and the Japanese interact with each other, they are able to develop some fantasy themes which make it possible for communication evolution to takes place. This shows that language barrier does not affect the communication evolution to take place between them. According to this theory it states that the group members share certain fantasies, which form the basis for members’ sense making. The shared fantasies helps the group members to create a social reality that shows who is a member or part of the group and who is not. Fantasies sharing increases cohesiveness of the group as members are able to develop a common interpretation of their encounters. The fantasies are developed based on the environment that surrounds the group. The symbolism in this theory makes people to be able to take notice of the verbal message and the nonverbal message in the communication, hence making it possible for the people to share the information, opinions and ideas. The convergence in the theory enables the people to understand the meaning of the information being shared or sent across between the various parties. Therefore, language barrier does not necessarily limit, hinder or affect the communication between the people participating in the communication. The Americans are from the low context culture while the Japanese are from the high context culture. Therefore, the people from the high context culture pay a lot of attention to the nonverbal elements of communication such as facial expression, tone of the voice, eye movement and gestures in their conservation while the people from the low context culture, pay a lot of attention to the meaning of the communication. Hence the people from Japan will focus on the nonverbal elements such as facial expression, tone of the voice, eye movement and gestures in the conservation, while the people from America will focus on the meaning and understanding of the message in the communication (Littlejohn, 1983). Language barrier will therefore, not affect the communication evolution between the Americans and the Japanese give the above factors that their conversation will majorly be based on the fantasy themes and the focus on the verbal and nonverbal message of the communication and also the meaning that is derived from the message. References Zaharna, R.S. (2001). An in-awareness approach to international public relations Public Relations Review, 27, pp. 135-148. Littlejohn, S. W. (1983). Theories of human communication (2nd Ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co Yamada, M. (2010) English as a multicultural language: implications from a Study of Japan's junior high schools' English language textbooks Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(5), 491-506. International Journal of Communication (19328036) 2012, Vol. 6, p144-165. 22p. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 36, No. 3, November 2007, pp. 167–182 Carbaugh, D. (2007). A cultural discourse theory of emotion Paper presented at the Eastern Communication Association, Providence, Rhode Island Read More

In high context culture power or authority and social structure is greatly centralized that is the responsibility is at the top. The person at the top of the authority command works for the greater good of the entire group or the society, while in the low context culture authority and social structure is highly decentralized that is the responsibility is not highly concentrated at the top, it goes further down. In high context culture the available space is communal that it is shared by everyone in the community.

People stand in close proximity to each other and share the available space in the society, while in the low context culture the available space is compartmentalized and owned by an individual that is the privacy is very important, so the people are far apart from each other. In high context culture change takes place in a very slow manner that is things are heavily rooted in the past, they are very slow to change and they are very stable, while in the low context culture the change takes place very fast that is a person can make change and be able to see the results of the change almost immediately.

In high context culture time is a process and it belongs to other people and the to the nature, while in the low context culture time is a commodity to be saved or spent wisely that is a person’s time belongs to the individual. The reasons behind cultural misunderstandings In Anxiety or Uncertainty Management Theory, Gudykunst describes effective communication as process of exchanging information and generating meaning rather than result. Meaning of the information cannot be transferred, only the information that can be transferred.

When people from different cultures interact or communicate, they are faced with a certain degree of uncertainty and anxiety because they are very much aware of the existence of cultural differences between them. Therefore they are not sure of how to behave in front of the strangers and they do not feel secure. Uncertainty is doubt or the inability to predict the outcome of our behavior when we encounter a stranger while anxiety is the feelings of being uneasy, worried, tense or anxious about what might happen.

Mindfulness is the way in which a particular individual or group of people can reduce their uncertainty and anxiety level when they meet a stranger to optimum levels and be able to communicate effectively (Littlejohn, 1983). People will always tend to regulate the way they talk and the topic they choose to discuss with the strangers because they are not sure if they talk or discuss about a certain topic will offend the other person or not. For instance, a person from America interact with a person from Japan, a person from America may feel uncertain of what to discuss with the person because, they are not sure if what they say will annoy the other person or whatever the person say will end up a shaming him in the end.

But when the uncertainty and anxiety between the people who are interacting is reduced or eliminated, people are able to communicate freely and the interaction is made more conducive or effective. Also when people meet strangers they are filled with anxiety of how to behave and how to talk and respond to the other person. They feel uneasy when they interact because they are not sure whether whatever they say will be tolerated by the other person. They are also not sure whether whatever they will discuss with the other person will make them feel offended.

Therefore, they tend to regulate how they behave and whatever they say in front the other person so as not make them feel uneasy or worried about their character or behavior. Also when people meet strangers, they tend to be very mindful of what they say and watch their actions very much while in the presence of the stranger as opposed to when they speak or talk with a person who they are familiar with. Being mindful makes the individual or the person to majorly focus keenly on what they say and how they interact with the strangers.

Read More