Language, Culture, and Knowledge and Their Impact on Contemporary Management - Coursework Example

Language, Culture, and Knowledge Language, culture, and knowledge are the three foundations of any culture and society. Without these three components culture, society, and individuals will not survive. Hence it is essential to examine these three components, especially how they are interrelated to one another, how they work to preserve the very foundations of society to ensure that it continue to function effectively and efficiently. This essay discusses these three components, as well as their impact on contemporary management. Importance of Language in Society Language is an ever-present part of societies, and we should thoroughly explore the importance of language in our society if we want to gain an accurate understanding or appreciation of the social change mechanisms which we observe working all around us. Basically, language is an indispensable element of human communication and is a vital component of all forms of society and culture. It is an open and multifaceted structure that enables change, adaptation, and progress (Agha, 2007). It can be conveyed or passed on in a number of ways—verbally and non-verbally. Language is important to culture and society, with human beings making use of it not only to communicate or express themselves, but also to relate to a specific cultural or social group (Agha, 2007). Language is a medium of expression and enables an individual to take part in community or societal affairs. It may be used as an instrument to build and sustain a democratic society. It is also vital as shared human achievements and continuing expressions of human innovation and creativity. This is supported by the rationale of UNESCO for language conservation that the world’s languages embody a remarkable fortune and array of human ingenuity (Agha, 2007). They comprise and convey the overall traditions and wisdom cultivated over time through rituals and heritage passed on through native languages. In essence, our culture and society are preserved or continue to exist because of language. I have heard the programme of UNESCO and strongly agree to their efforts to preserve the world’s languages because, as already mentioned, language is the vessel and the medium of traditions that uphold culture and society. Furthermore, language can create opportunities, facilitate social mobility, and endow power. Some scholars compellingly claim that in several aspects, language is power. A society’s linguistic status generally reveals its power structure, since language is a potent mechanism of social control. In my experience, it is true that those speakers of minority languages have a tendency to be less empowered in a political sense (Agha, 2007). However, based on my experience, this is not only true politically, but also in business. It seems that those speakers of the official national language have more bargaining powers than those who are not. Hence language has the capacity to unite or divide people. In management, language is one of the most challenging aspects that managers have to deal with. In summary, language is important to society because it is a medium of communication, a source of identity, a vessel and medium of traditions and customs that helps preserve cultures, a source of power and privileges, and an instrument of social unity. The Homogenization of Knowledge The massive amount of accessible information in a variety of societies and on the World Wide Web facilitates homogenisation of knowledge, or making knowledge uniform or ‘homogenous’. The concept of homogenisation, as stated in global studies, implies a potential consequence of globalisation. It points to a powerful force that eliminates diversity which tends to lead to similarity and homogeneity. Homogenisation of knowledge is defined as the universalization and standardisation of knowledge into its distinctive form (Pilhofer, 2011). We are all linked to different sources of knowledge such as people, television, books, the Internet, and so on, to be informed and apply it to different facets of their life and finally improve their quality of life. The introduction of a huge number of products and services of everyday use and innovative ways of making them more helpful and productive has merely been conceivable because of detailed, comprehensive knowledge and awareness of the issue surrounding them. Over time our knowledge increased, which resulted in the Industrial Revolution to the present Information Technology Revolution (Pilhofer, 2011). Nowadays, cultural, technological, and scientific knowledge is transmitted globally. The level to which homogenised knowledge was also present in the past is still an unresolved issue and, furthermore, an issue that is vital for making sense of the current mechanisms of globalisation. From the very beginning, the homogenisation of knowledge has been a mechanism with its own forces at work, impeding considerably other mechanisms of intercultural communication (Holden, 2002). Knowledge is unceasing and an infinite process of human ingenuity. Knowledge has constantly served an important function in the development of economic and political systems across the globe. Individuals with a high-level of expertise or knowledge are constantly sought-after and marketable in the industrial sector to create and offer the optimal goods and services to simplify our lives (Holden, 2002). One perfect illustration of homogenisation of knowledge is the management consultant. Researchers show that in post-merger integration, consultants fulfil a vital function in homogenisation, namely, the mechanisms by which the merging companies jointly mould collective ideas and knowledge of how to carry out the newly merged venture. Based on my experience, the general role of management consultants is largely centred on their tasks in the homogenisation methods. In these homogenisation processes, consultants are granted substantial ‘expert’ authority. Consequently, their presumed knowledge in specific areas allows consultants to facilitate homogenisation in post-merger or acquisition. The Language of Religion One essential question has to be discussed in this section—why are classical languages, like Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit, limited to their own religions? The sole answer to this question rests in the reality that these languages are seen as functionally evident, that is, they are the languages of early sacred writings of their equivalent religions and they have constantly been distinctive symbols of their equivalent religions. Hence, their connection with the corresponding religions was seen as virtually select (Omoniyi and Fishman, 2006). On the contrary, the new languages have not been functionally evident for they arrived at a much later period and their connection to a specific religion was somewhat less evident. Hence, in the medieval era, they were used for the translations of the Bible and the Qur’an. This explains why in present-day South Asia, the classical languages are referred to when symbolising the identity of pan-South Asians and their respective religions (Omoniyi & Fishman, 2006). On the contrary, regional languages are functionally evident in relation to the regional identity. Hence, new languages are employed to signify social or religious identities. This fact evidently reveals that a language with a greater functional clarity has more capacity to perform that role in comparison to the language with lesser functional clarity (Foucault, 2013). Furthermore, the language with greater functional clarity has a less tendency to transfer to or cross the boundary of other religions. The concept of functional clarity is applied in this perspective as an instrument to assess the comparative capacity of a language to convey or communicate a specific identity. Functional clarity can be correctly defined in the following way— if a language is the sole language employed to carry out a specific role in a given area, then that language can be stated to have functional clarity (Foucault, 2013). On the contrary, if the similar role is carried out by two or more languages, the included languages are viewed to be unclear or indecisive in relation to the function. In the same way, regional languages are practically always spoken at home thus exhibit functional clarity in that area (Omoniyi & Fishman, 2006). I believe and agree that the unchanging relationship between the language and its function gives transparency to the language. The level of its functional clarity of a language to convey a specific identity can be viewed as a determining factor of the use of a language in the religious setting. I chose to discuss the concept of functional clarity to clearly demonstrate the use of language in religion. Religion will obviously cease to function without language, but functional clarity of a language is still important. The concept of functional clarity is straightforward—the more focused the language is, the higher the level of functional clarity and the greater the tendency to remain in a given religion. Therefore, in religion, language diversity is not a favourable thing. The Effect of Culture on Religion This section discusses the impact of culture, particularly popular culture, on religious organisations. The work entitled Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman (2005) presents a good illustration of a cultural impact that is both widespread and still mostly taken for granted. Postman claims that Western culture has transformed from a print-dependent period to the Television Age, and that the transformation has factually transformed the way we think and the substance and essence of human culture. Postman argues that print-dominated period, by the core aspects of its method of communication, inspired organised, critical, sound, logical interaction with propositional substance (Postman, 2005). He argues that the television transfers us to a picture- or image-oriented culture that shows outbursts of images, disjointed instead of orderly, stressing sentiment and sense instead of logic. Postman dedicates a whole book to the effect of popular culture on religion, claiming that religion on television is shown merely as amusement, not due to shortage in televangelists but due to the character of the medium itself—all that is shown on TV becomes amusement (Postman, 2005). Moreover, because the television’s ubiquity has influenced the beliefs of the whole culture, even though a religious ritual is not on TV, it is obliged to match entertainment criteria. When religion is shown as amusement, does the core nature and substance of religion adjust? As claimed by Postman (2005), “The danger is not that religion has become the content of television shows, but that television shows may become the content of religion” (p. 124). When religious organisations implement “the strategies and techniques of modern marketing” (Postman, 2005: 124) from the corporate dimension, and “the audience becomes a market and the gospel is transformed into a product,” (Postman, 2005: 124) must religious individuals see these effects as productive or favourable adjustment or a dangerous change? Of the many connections between culture and religion, the effect of culture on religion has been the most taken for granted. Based on what I have heard from my colleagues, religion has really adapted to the new information technology era by exploiting the Internet and other new technologies to invite followers and converts. I think that religion, being a social institution, is undoubtedly susceptible to the cultural forces surrounding it. Cross-Cultural Management Dimensions Cross-cultural management requires dealing with or handling work groups in ways that takes into consideration cultural differences and diversities, inclinations and practices of consumers within a global setting. Numerous companies have to become skilled at adjusting or modifying their strategies and processes so as to compete on a stage wherein physical or geographical boundaries no longer matter. There are two dimensions of cross-cultural management—horizontal and vertical. The eight cultural components, namely, (1) technology, (2) economic institution, (3) social institution, (4) political institution, (5) language and communication, (6) reproduction and socialisation, (7) ideology, and (8) religious institutions, collectively comprise what is referred to as culture’s horizontal dimension (Holden, 2002). It is called ‘horizontal’ because these eight cultural components are demonstrated at a similar level, and due to the fact that they are of the same value to cultural knowledge. Each component could be demonstrated in a variety of ways and merged in a variety of ways (Primecz et al., 2011). For example, based on my experience, natural resources may be used through manufacturing, and the product could be disseminated through a structure economy or free market. However, not all observations are crucial for cultural understanding. Several, particularly the directly ‘observable’ cultural attributes, could merely be an expression, or indication, or sign, of the more basic cultural attributes, like values and attitudes. Simultaneously they could, and normally do, have value for the understanding of culture within themselves. It hence vital to discuss a structure of observations, specifically, a vertical dimension of culture, where in a more profound movement from the ‘directly observable signs’ to the ‘central legitimating ideals’ and the ‘central viewpoint of life’ will produce a continually more profound idea of the culture under consideration (Primecz et al., 2011). It has been useful for me to experience and deal with several distinct components of culture in our organisation, even though I do understand that such structure is rooted in a personal evaluation. Some of these components I am talking about are the following: the basic ideals of life; the largely recognised values; the prevailing norms, attitudes, and moralities; the internal, as well as external, systems that are hard to observe; and the degree of directly observable signs. Through the vertical and horizontal cultural dimensions, or instead by making an effort to understand and define the specific components and stages of the two cultural dimensions, the management will be capable of acquiring an overall picture of a specific culture at a specific time. What sort of information must be taken in such an examination, and which components and stages may be pertinent, will rely both on the focus of the cultural examination and the available resources. Hence, the cultural dimensions discussed here is a nonconcrete cultural framework which should be made more concrete with regard to actual examination (Holden, 2002). Expectations could be flawed because they are rooted in knowledge and beliefs that do not related to a given situation. Such expectations lie somewhat often in the concept of culture that has been presented in the literature of international management. For instance, in our organisation we hold this stereotype that Asians are collectivists, while Westerners are individualistic. We have learned from international management books that culture can be assessed, and that it has observable influences on human behaviour. This huge amount of work on cross-cultural management dimension has explained and demonstrated the impact of culture on management. We, for instance, use Hofstede’s findings about national differences to inform our diversity management policies and practices. In essence, cultural dimension schemas are intended to identify and demonstrate national cultural differences as a whole (Primecz et al., 2011); yet, they cannot sufficiently clarify or envisage what takes place when individuals from different cultural backgrounds actually encounter and interrelate with each other. Reflective Conclusion Language, knowledge, and culture are three of the major components of society. Without these three, society, as well as individuals, will cease to exist. These three components work together to preserve the most basic and fundamental aspects of society, like traditions and customer. However, with the advent and continuous growth of globalisation, the interaction between these three major components has been thrown into a complicated loop. Knowledge is increasingly becoming homogenised, as well as religion and culture. Nevertheless, the specificity of a language can defend the potential or further demise of the original culture and religion, as brought about by globalisation. The discussion about functional clarity shows how language shields religion from the possibility of crossing over. Management is one of the fields most affected by these shifts in the interplay between language, knowledge, and culture. Managers are more obliged to learn from international management literature because of the increasing diversity within organisations. Diversity management techniques have become popular because of this emergent phenomenon. This increasing diversity in language, knowledge, and culture has been felt in our organisation, and we are constantly seeking ways to address these diversities in order to promote organisational growth. References Agha, A (2007) Language and Social Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, M (2013) Religion and Culture. London: Routledge. Holden, N (2002) Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge Management Perspective. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Omoniyi, T & Fishman, J (2006) Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Pilhofer, K (2011) Cultural Knowledge— A Critical Perspective on the Concept as a Foundation for Respect for Cultural Differences. Berlin, Germany: Diplomica Verlag. Postman, N (2005) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin. Primecz, H et al (2011) Cross-Cultural Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More