Working with Representatives of Other Countries - Essay Example

The most difficult part of dealing with people from other cultures in the home and work environments is the language barrier (Whitaker, 2004). You will inevitable meet someone with whom you do not share a common language, and it can be a struggle to talk with this person. Sometimes you have a few words in common with the other person and this makes a big difference. There is only so much that can be expressed without words though. When you are physically present with someone, you can sometimes get your point across without words. There are many different parts in communicating through speaking that do not depend on words. Gestures, facial expressions, pointing, pantomime, and social context all give meaning to what a person is saying. In order to communicate, there needs to be some common ground. Sometimes this is not easy to find. The language barrier problem is amplified a thousand times in the school environment where only ‘online’ communication is required. People that do not share a language have nothing to talk about. When you do not get all of the other social clues, it can become an impossible task to try to understand what is being communicated. Something simple like word usage or syntax can quickly become a major issue. The concepts and ideas represented by words can be dramatically different between cultures. Prevalent and popular ideas from one culture can be completely absent from another culture. Despite the potential hardships, there are significant benefits to working with people from other cultures. You begin to see that the commonly accepted behaviors are rather arbitrary. You discover that there are alternative ways of doing things and that sometimes the other ways of interacting with people are even more fun and interesting. Variety is the spice of life, and there are many different cultures in the world that have been here for a long time. In social and work settings it often happens that one party has a desire or need for a second party to take a specific action. “Obedience” happens when the second party acquiesces to the demand of the first party and does what is asked of them. An obedient child will do what his parent tells him to do or risk being punished. In my opinion, “obedience” has negative connotations in that it implies a lack of choice. It suggests that one party must do the other party’s bidding without question and without hesitation. This brings up ideas of servitude and injustice. In my definition, obedience is more of a bad thing because it seems related to loss of freedom and surrender of one’s freewill. I am sure that there was a time and place when “obedience” was important in a social or work setting. Being obedient to someone could denote a very high level of respect and trust. You love your parents, so you are willing to do exactly as they say because you know they have your best interests at heart. But it is more tactful not to call it obedience. When a manager asks an employee to do something, the employee must obey. But there can be a tactful way to accomplish this transaction. Perhaps the manager could offer some sort of choice. “We need to get this done today, how would you like to do it”. In a different time and in a different place “obedience” was definitely a necessity. But this is a new world with different needs. We can no longer afford to be unquestioning automatons. Perhaps the one place where “obedience” could be valid in my life is within a marriage. A husband and wife must obey each other to a very great degree. The wedding vows include this in some instances, “love, honor, and obey” (see Wedding Vows). I think that it is more acceptable to obey another person when there is a possibility that they may need to obey you sometime as well. When you make a mutual agreement beforehand, it seems more acceptable. If you can choose who to obey, that is even better. A stereotype is simply a cultural pattern of behavior. When any large group of people repeat the same actions, decisions, words, sentiments, and feelings over and over again for a long period of time it creates a structure of sorts. This structure contains the pattern of the stereotypical behavior whether it is good, bad, or repugnant. This is true for every culture and for every large group. The pattern becomes bigger and gains more momentum according to how long it has existed and how many people follow it. The trick to stereotypes is to understand how they work and what they encourage us to do. It can be damaging to us personally when we choose to identify too strongly with a pattern of stereotypical behavior and unavoidable take on its negative aspects (Burgess, 2003). Whenever we live our life according to any particular set of instructions, we are giving away our freewill to decide for ourselves what we will choose to think, say, and do in any given situation. When we are engaging a stereotypical behavior pattern too closely, it is like we are giving away our freewill in favor of taking on the patterned behaviors of the stereotype. It can be damaging to us in that we lose our ability to decide for ourselves what is appropriate in any particular situation and instead choose to obey the cultural dictates of society. Taking on a stereotypical behavior pattern can be damaging to our interactions with other individuals and groups because it limits our ability to see from other perspectives. Almost always, the stereotypical pattern will include holding a negative view of behaviors from other cultures. Stereotypes have the ingrained beliefs that they are the ones who are right, that this is the only correct way of doing something and so every other way is wrong. Stereotypes make us close-minded to all of the other possibilities. They see and interact with the world from a very limited perspective. When we are too attached to our own stereotype, it can be difficult to work with and communicate with people who may be from some other culture. Peer pressure is a means to force a person to conform to a group identity at the expense of the individual’s self-identity. Often times, this phenomenon has negative connotations and may be associated with harmful activities such as gang violence and drug use. But really any large group can exert pressure on a potential member to adapt its standards of behavior and beliefs. Occasionally it is useful for people to have a little pressure in life. It can help people go beyond their limits and achieve their goals. However when we are discussing childhood peer pressure, we are usually talking about something that is best resisted. One of the most effective ways to ensure that our children will not fall prey to peer pressure is to help them develop a strong self-identity (de Guzman, 2007). When a child is filled with positive self-esteem, it is difficult for any group to take that away. It is important for parents and other adults to first learn how to accomplish this goal for themselves. Low self-esteem is endemic in our society and children often inherit this condition from their parents. Therefore, the most important thing that an adult can do for a child is to first develop a great degree of self-confidence for himself. You cannot give something to someone else that you do not possess in the first place. Setting a positive example is another way that we ensure the safety of our children. When we live by the value and belief system that we hope to teach our children, these actions speak much louder than words. Whenever we think and act according to our own deepest truth, we set an example that it is OK for other people to think and act for themselves too. Being a good parent who takes the time to raise a child well is a sacred task. A strong, healthy child that is not diminished by the words and actions of his or her guardians will stand a great chance of avoiding the negative impact of childhood peer pressure. When I was much younger, I was attracted to people who were fun to play with. This has always been a central feature of attraction for me. Other things that were attractive to me in my youth were popularity, beauty, and ability to speak openly. I always liked very intelligent, book-smart people. Perhaps it is true that we are attracted to qualities in other people that remind us of the qualities that we like in ourselves. These qualities that attract us to others can be a strong component of our own personality already, or they can be something that complements our own assets in some way (Shiota &Levenson, 2007). Sometimes I feel attracted to people I admire and I aspire to emulate their skills and talents. When we feel that something is lacking in ourselves, we can be attracted to individuals who possess what we believe we are missing. My view of what is attractive has changed over the years as a result of my experiences interacting and living with different people. There is definitely a practical part of attraction for me now. I am attracted to responsible people who like to avoid drama episodes in life. I am attracted to people who share my beliefs about how the world works. I am attracted to trustworthy people who are reliable. I think that these changes occurred because I learned that there is often a difference between what someone looks like on the surface and who they are at a deeper level. If there is one thing that elicited this change for me it was when I started to find my own voice and started sharing my truth with those around me. There is definitely a different feeling between being with people who can unconditionally accept you and people who do not. When I found that other people could accept the parts of me that are usually hidden, I discovered that I could be attracted to these same hidden qualities in other people. Accepting and revealing my own inner truth was the doorway to accepting the inner truth and beauty of other people. I believe that the theory of “learned aggression” is the most accurate and has the most merit. The other theories do not make complete sense to me and seem to dismiss higher human function as a fantasy. I know that I am an idealist, and the concepts of aggression as an instinct and aggression as a response to external stimuli are somewhat unpalatable to me. I like to think that we have a choice in our behaviors and attitudes. Without a doubt, aggression is connected to our perceptions of the world and what we truly believe about what we are seeing, regardless of our accuracy. We learn to see the world a certain way and then we learn how to act within that perceived environment. The theory that aggression is a learned behavior preserves the sense that humans have freewill and that we choose our actions. Indeed, when we choose to learn a behavior, we are exercising our freewill. We all learn how to be aggressive from watching someone else’s aggression. We take into ourselves these behaviors and use them according to the rules that we learned along with them. It is a complete package, our aggression. We learn how to be aggressive, what stance to take, what words to say, attitudes, actions, and gestures. Also we learn when to use the aggression. We learn which situation is most appropriate in which to use our aggression and then we go for it. I can easily see this in myself. The few times that I have been outwardly aggressive were reminiscent of episodes I witnessed where my parents were aggressive. I have a tendency to complain about the same things my parents would complain about. There is evidence that children learn how to be aggressive from watching television. One study found that 22-34% of young American male violent felons had imitated crime techniques they saw on TV (Kopel, 1995). Altruism is defined in the dictionary as the “unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness”, but in reality it is more than that (see What is Altruism?). The word has the connotation of giving something entirely without receiving anything in return. That someone is altruistic suggests that they are higher in some way than the recipient of the altruism. Their selflessness makes them a good person and seems to absolve them of sin. An altruist is somehow more enlightened and evolved. They are not so base as to really need the money, object, or thing that is being given away. And yet the humble recipient is needy of this gift that they could not procure for themselves otherwise. It is impossible to engage in an act of giving and not benefit by it in some way. We promote our own agendas through our generosity. We get a feeling of satisfaction, we learn something, and we relieve ourselves of the burden of ownership. One day we give away something to someone else, and some other day we receive a gift from another person. We are constantly giving and receiving. With each inhale we receive the gift of oxygen from the trees, and with each exhale we give a gift of carbon dioxide back to the trees. No one in this world is truly independent. No one has achieved their success entirely on their own efforts. We all depend on each other in some way all the time. Here is one common example of perceived altruistic behavior. Someone who volunteers to give blood could be considered an altruist. I personally know a man who gives blood and I know that he believes he is getting something in return for his donation. He tells me that he enjoys the free food that he is offered after giving blood. He enjoys the feeling of being healthy enough to be donating (in contrast to being the sick person who requires the donation in order to survive). He enjoys wearing the pin they give him afterwards that announces to the world how much of his blood he has given away. Mahatma Gandhi was a peacemaker. He had exhibited many specific qualities that lead to his extraordinary peacemaking activities and success. He restored human rights to the Indian people who migrated to South Africa at the turn of the century. It was there that he began his philosophy of Passive Resistance. In later decades he worked to secure India’s independence from Britain through non-violent acts of civil disobedience. He worked tirelessly to gain freedom for his people. There is a lot of credence to the sentiment “one man can make a difference”, but it definitely takes a lot of hard work on his part. One quality that helped Gandhi achieve success was that he did not tolerate injustice. He was unwilling to let things slide when he saw the prejudice taking place all around him. Instead of hiding from it or pretending that it did not exist, he put himself right in the middle of it. He took on a leadership role for his people and guided them to civil unrest. He worked to attain a position where he could take actions that would make a big difference. Gandhi brought change from within the system by becoming an important part of it and bringing the people together as one voice. Gandhi was persistent, constant, and hardworking. He did not let anything stop him. He did not commit acts that he would be liable to regret at some later time. Despite how bad the situation seemed, he continued working until he had achieved his goals. The trappings of success did not seem to be a motivation for him. It was as if his austerity acted like insulation against greed and corruption. He did not let the comforts of life distract him from his mission. I think that Gandhi did not judge some people as more deserving of social freedom and others as less deserving. For Gandhi it seems that he believed everyone was equal regardless of material wealth or possessions. Works Cited Burgess, H. (2003). Stereotypes/Characterization Frames de Guzman, M.R.T. (2007). Friendships, Peer Influence, and Peer Pressure During the Teen Years Kopel, D.B. (1995). Analyzing and Responding to Media Violence… Nanda, B.R. (1989). Mahatma Gandhi-A Pictorial Biography Shiota, M. & Levenson, R. (2007). Birds of a Feather Don’t Always Fly Farthest… “Wedding Vows.” applebride.com. 9 September 2008 “What is Altruism?” altruists.org. 9 September 2008 Whitaker, B. (2004). Language Barrier Read More