Introduction
Given the discursive implications of Globalization, there can be only a few doubts as to the fact that one’s ability to act as an effective cross-cultural communicator does positively relate to the measure of his or her existential competitiveness. Therefore, it is indeed fully justified, on the part of just about anyone, to apply a continual effort into increasing the measure of its intercultural competence – especially if the concerned person resides in the West, where the policy of multiculturalism has been enjoying the officially endorsed status for a few decades now. In this paper, I will outline some of the major takeaways that I was able to draw from the course and expound on what can be deemed their discursive significance.
Theoretical/Conceptual Takeaways
The fact that the cultural differences between people continue to have a the strong effect of the realities of contemporary living has been objectively predetermined. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated regarding the existence of both biological (neurological) and social determinants to such differences, which appear to exert a strong influence on each other. For example, it has been noted since a long time ago that there is much inconsistency between what is commonly regarded as ‘Western mentality’, on the one hand, and the ‘Oriental’ (Asian) one, on the other. In this respect, we can refer to the tendency of most Westerners (Whites) to indulge in object-oriented reasoning, which presupposes the dialectical nature of the relationship between causes and effects.
As Hall aptly observed, “We in the West value… ‘logic’- a linear system of reasoning that has been with us since Socrates. Western man sees his system of logic as synonymous with the truth. For him, it is the only road to reality”.1 Most Asians, on the other hand, prefer the context-oriented (or ‘holistic’) way of reflecting upon the surrounding reality and their place in it, which presupposes one’s objectification within the social environment. This explains the actual rationale behind Hofstede’s conceptualization of culture, which presupposes that there are a number of qualitative dimensions to it, such as the ones concerned with masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance vs. risk-taking, and individualism vs. collectivism.
Apparently, it is quite inappropriate to refer to culture as merely the ethnographic extrapolation of people’s commitment to celebrating their existential uniqueness while assuming that there is nothing truly challenging about trying to eliminate ethnocultural barriers between people. The reason for this is that the above-stated presupposes that culture is best discussed as the socially observable sublimation of the affiliated individual’s unconscious anxieties, which in turn are reflective of the workings of the so-called ‘limbic system’ inside his or her brain. What this means is that the cultural differences between different groups of people should be discussed in close conjunction with what used to be the neurologically relevant external circumstances, within the context of how these peoples continued to remain on the path of evolutionary development.
For example, the earlier mentioned specifics of ‘Western mentality’ have to do with the fact that since the dawn of age until comparatively recently, Europe accounted for the most densely populated part of the world. This resulted in creating the situation that for an ordinary European to be able to enjoy the benefits of being socially integrated, he or she had to apply an even stronger effort into suppressing its instinctual/animalistic (and consequently anti-social) desires. In its turn, this facilitated the evolutionary enlargement of the frontal lobe part of the neocortex (which does abstract/associative thinking) in the affiliated people’s brains – hence, establishing the objective preconditions for this part of the world to remain on the leading edge of the ongoing socio-cultural and technological progress through the last few centuries. This partially explains why the notion of ‘culture’ is commonly deemed synonymous with the notion of ‘civilization’. Apparently, the former notion cannot be discussed outside of the ideological provisions of the currently dominant socio-political discourse, which for the duration of centuries, remained explicitly Eurocentric.2
When it comes to practicing cross-cultural communication, one must take into account the evolutionary predetermined qualitative specifics of how different people across the world tend to indulge in cognition. To illustrate the validity of this suggestion, we can refer to the fact that, as practice indicates, many instances of misunderstanding between two persons who speak different languages are not solely concerned with these individuals’ lack of linguistic proficiency in either of the languages in question. Rather, the mentioned misunderstanding takes place, because while indulging in the verbal exchange with each other and while believing that during the process they refer to essentially the same subject matter, people have in mind different things.
For example, when presented with the task to exclude the unrelated word out of the wordy sequence ‘bread, butter, meat, pizza, knife’, many people unaccustomed to the Western (object-oriented) way of reasoning are likely to experience much difficulty addressing it. The fact that the words ‘bread, butter, meat, and pizza’ could be classified denoting ‘food’, on one hand, and the word ‘knife’ is best categorized in terms of an ‘instrument’, on another, may never occur to them. The reason for this has to do with the fact that holistically-minded people would be prompted to seek contextual sense in the concerned worldly sequence, which means that in their eyes there is indeed very little difference between a knife and bread, for example, as both words are equally capable of invoking the notion of ‘usefulness’. This is exactly the reason why many social initiatives for facilitating cross-cultural understanding between the representatives of different ethnocultural groups in the West proved utterly ineffective3 – despite having been well-intentioned, these initiatives never ceased remaining innately Eurocentric.
Connections/Extensions Takeaway
There can be only a few doubts about the fact that cross-cultural communication does have a strong effect on the essence of my life experiences, in general, and the vector of my intellectual development, in particular. In this respect, taking the course came in as a valuable asset for me. The course’s key takeaway is that while taking it, I was able to increase the level of my intercultural competence – something that helps me to socialize with people from different ethnocultural backgrounds with apparent ease. The main indications that this is indeed the case can be outlined as follows:
As compared to what it used to be the case before I signed up for the course, I am now much more capable of communicating rationale-based messages to the representatives of the ‘high context’ (‘holistic’) cultures. The reason for this is that I now understand the societal and biological factors that have played an important role in forming the sense of self-identity in these people, as well as the essence of cognitive predispositions in them.
I realized the importance of taking advantage of the non-verbal means of communication, within the discursive framework of intercultural exchange. Having been introduced to the paralinguistic theory of Amy Cuddy came in rather handy in this respect.4 As a result, I am now more than capable of communicating even some comparatively complex messages to those people who do not speak English. My newly acquired competence, in this regard, does have much practical value. This especially appears to be the case when I find myself needing to venture into one of the city’s ethnic ‘ghettos’.
I am now capable of recognizing what should be deemed the most esteemed aspects of just about any foreign culture. The main guiding principle here is quite simple – to be appreciated by foreigners, a particular ethnocultural extrapolation must have a certain universal appeal to it. Pizza exemplifies the validity of this suggestion perfectly well – it only took about hundred years for this exclusively Italian ethnic food to become extremely popular across the world. This points out to the fact that, contrary to what many sociologists assume to be the case, there is no good reason to assess the significance of a particular culture in terms of a ‘thing it itself’, while disregarding what accounted for this culture’s contribution towards defining the realities of a contemporary living in the West (and the rest of the world).
Personal/Interpersonal Takeaways
I am most comfortable with the object-focused mode of cognitive reasoning, which is reflective of the specifics of my ethnocultural background. This particular takeaway relates to what has been said in the initial part of this paper. Even though the neighborhood where I currently reside became multicultural long time ago, I continue to rely instinctively on my sense of ‘cause-effect’ logic while communicating with people from different ethnocultural backgrounds. Despite the fact that such a tendency, on my part, did prove circumstantially appropriate on a number of different occasions, it also resulted in bringing about a few cases of misunderstanding between myself and some foreign-born individuals that I was trying to talk to.
For example, one time I asked this Japanese learner of English (in the online chat-room) to describe a car on the photo that was presented to him while expecting that the person will mention the car’s actual name and some of its technical specifications. The answer that I received was rather unexpected – “This is a beautifully colored red car. It allows passengers to enjoy a comfortable ride. Because of the car’s front-design, it appears to be smiling”. This is the typical example of the ‘high context’ cognitive reasoning, associated with the workings of one’s ‘Oriental’ psyche – something that once again proves that culture is so much more about thinking than about wearing folk costumes and consuming ethnic food. In the future, I will apply an additional effort into making sure that while indulging in cross-cultural communication, I may never overlook this fact.
During the course, I came to conclude that for cross-cultural communication to be effective, it must be observant of what account for the ‘archetypal’ values of whatever happened to be the interacting cultures. This suggestion refers to the ‘iceberg’ model of culture, which presupposes that the discursive roots of just about any culture are hidden deep in the realm of the affiliated people’s ‘collective unconscious’ (Jungian term). In its turn, the deepest level of ‘collective unconscious’ is defined by the workings of the earlier mentioned ‘limbic system’ (or paleocortex), which causes just about any person to be ultimately concerned with the matters of food, sex, and domination – regardless of whether he or she realizes it consciously or not. What it means is that an effective cross-cultural communicator should strive to go beyond culture, while regarding its foreign-based and culturally dissimilar conversational partner as yet another ‘hairless ape’ and willing to appeal directly to his or her basic instincts. This is exactly the reason why, as practice indicates, when two (or more) individuals who speak different languages try to communicate with each other, they eventually resort to the use of excessive gesticulation – most commonly with respect to the subject matters that are concerned with sex, food, or domination in one way or another. Hence, the main principle of effective intercultural communication (as how I perceive it) – simplicity.
Conclusion
In light of what has been said earlier, there appears to be a certain phenomenological quality to the very concept of cross-cultural communication. After all, as practice shows, it often does prove rather impossible for the involved parties to reach a mutual understanding. At the same time, however, there is nothing truly challenging about it – the lastly outlined takeaway confirms the soundness of this suggestion. Therefore, it will only be logical to conclude this paper by suggesting that the concept’s paradigmatic provisions will continue to remain the legitimate subjects of sociological inquiry into the future. I believe that this conclusion correlates well with the paper’s initial thesis.
Bibliography
Cuddy, Amy. “Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are” The Blog, 2013. Web.
Fadiman, Anne. The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997.
Hall, Edward. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1976.
Weaver, Gary. Intercultural Relations: Communication, Identity and Conflict. London: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013.
Footnotes
- Edward Hall. Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor/Doubleday,1976), 9.
- Gary Weaver, Intercultural Relations: Communication, Identity, and Conflict (London: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013), 42.
- Anne Fadiman, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997), 172.
- Amy Cuddy, “Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are” The Blog, 2013, Web.