Relationships: Norms and Roles

Cultures also vary in the contexts in which verbal and nonverbal systems are used. When we think of making friends with a foreign student or of working with people abroad in business situations, it is important to remember that personal and working relationships are not the same and do not develop the same way in every culture. People in different cultures expect different behaviors from one another in a relationship. One culture's friendly gesture might be considered aggressive or impertinent in another culture, for example, while a gesture of respect or deference might be interpreted as inappropriate reticence or as defiance, de­pending on the cultural context.

Norms,as we discussed in Chapter 7, are established rules of what is accepted and appropriate behavior. Although we often use these rules as if they are absolute or instinctive standards, they are actually culturally developed and transmitted. If you grew up in the United States, for instance, you were probably taught to "speak up" clearly and to look at a person who is speaking to you, and that mumbling and looking away when someone addresses you is disrespectful. These norms would seem natural and logical to you, but not all cultural groups interpret these behaviors as good manners. We have already seen that'people in some cultures drop their voices as an indication of respect and deference. White American police officers patrolling Hispanic neighborhoods have often misinterpreted a similar gesture: Hispanic children are taught to lower their eyes, as a gesture of respect, when a_person in authority addresses them. The police, wliojiadjbeen brought up with opposite norms, interpreted the gesture as sullen and resentful, and reacted accordingly. One study found that Anglo police trained to exhibit typical black nonverbal behavior (for example, slower approach, greater distance between communicators, and less direct eye contact) received more favorable responses from community members than police who had not been trained in this way (Garratt et al., 1981).

"A smile is the same in any language," is a saying that was popular a few years ago and that still shows up occasionally. In fact, though, a smile and related attempts to be friendly are interpreted in cultural contexts. An American student's smile of greeting to a non-Western student might be interpreted as superficial, sexually suggestive, or even rude; the American student, in turn, is likely to interpret the other's failure to return the smile as unfriendly or even hostile (Barna, in Civikly, 1977, pp. 381-382).

Another illustration of how differences in norms might lead to misunderstand­ing is provided in the following account by a Korean student in the United States.

When I call on my American friend, he had been studying his lesson. Then I said, "May I come in?" He said through window, "I am sorry. I have no time because of my study." Then he shut the window. I thought it over and over. I couldn't understand through my cultural background. In our country, if some­one visits other's house, house owner should have welcome visitor whether he likes or not and whether he is busy or not. The next, if the owner is busy, he asks to visitor, "Would you wait for me?" Also, the owner never speaks without opening his door.

Clearly, the Korean student was upset by his friend's behavior, yet the American probably didn't realize that he had insulted him (Barna, in Civikly, 1977, p. 385).

Understanding conflict normsbecomes particularly important when a disagreement seems to be brewing between two people from different cultures. Sillars and Weisberg (1987) identify at least two important variables that distinguish how members of a given culture view interpersonal and family conflicts: (1) expressivity, and (2) privacy and individuality.

Even in this country there is considerable cultural variation in the amount of emphasis placed on expressive communicationabout conflict. Studies have shown that "Native American and Black American males may regard deep personal feelings as too personal to express openly"; that Jews frequently value discussion and analysis so highly that by "mainstream" standards they may seem argumentative; that Irish families in family therapy dealt with conflicts through allusion,sarcasm, and innuendo rather than engage in verbal confrontations. In each instance we see a set of assumptions about what constitutes conflict and how it should be negotiated or resolved—or perhaps ignored.

One reason we cannot apply the expressive norms of mainstream America to other groups is that so many cultures place far less value on individual self-disclosures. Talking about feelings and being open about one's dissatisfactions— even with a member of your family, for example—is not always considered ap­propriate behavior, and many of the suggestions for resolving conflict mentioned in Chapter 4 would be difficult to apply to intercultural contexts. In fact, in many cultures keeping problems to oneself is strongly favored, and a stoic attitude often develops. For example, in working-class families, problems are frequently regarded as "lying outside the family and within the realm of natural economic, social, and biological conditions that are futile for the family to address. Thus [family members] may adopt a passive problem-solving style that emphasizes family cohesion over active problem solving" (p. 159).

The direct expression of conflict is also considered inappropriate in cultures that deemphasize explicit verbal coding of information and pay more attention to subtle cues and indirect messages. In such cultures, discretion and indirectness are the norms for dealing with conflict, and they of course are upheld and understood by members. This is true, as we have seen, of the Chinese and Japanese (Chapter 4). So while we might perceive the indirect treatment of conflict as cowardly, members of another type of culture might view our more confrontational approach as lacking in taste (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988b, p. 160).

Cultural norms about privacy and individualityare equally variable. In the dyadic and familial relationships of mainstream America, a great deal of autonomy is expected—especially among the middle class. Thus during a conflict, advice from friends and others outside the immediate family may be looked upon as an infringement of privacy. They are certainly not expected to intervene. In extended families, however, there is a more public aspect of relationships: "Because ex­tended networks promote communal and traditional norms, there are more def­inite guidelines for resolving conflicts" (p. 161). There are even times when conflicts are settled not through personal communication but through the intervention of a third party. In Japan this is sometimes the case.

According to Sillars and Weisberg's survey of research, emphasis on cooperation, affiliation, and dependence is stressed by such groups as Africans, Native Americans, Asians, West Indians, Japanese, Mexicans, Mormons, and Catholics. Their norms dictate that some conflicts will be minimized or even solved indirectly for the good of the group. For example, in the tribal meetings of Native Americans or native Alaskans, it is expected that the individual will put group goals before personal ones and reach consensus (pp. 160-162). Sillars and Weisberg remind us that sometimes the mainstream American ideal of agreeing to disagree becomes "an impractical and even undesirable goal" (p. 162).

Roles,as we discussed in Chapter 7, are sets of norms that apply to specific groups of people in a society. Roles, too, vary markedly among cultures. Differences in the respective roles of men and women may represent some of the most apparent cultural differences in human relationships: how unmarried couples should behave and whether they should be chaperoned, how men and women should behave toward each other in business situations, what a husband's and wife's responsibilities are to one another and to their respective families.

Researchers from several disciplines acknowledge that dual-culture marriage is different from a marriage in which both partners share a common culture. For example, there are cultural differences in decision-making power and self-disclosure patterns, and there is general agreement that there is less use of self-disclosure among northern Europeans than among people from Mediterranean cultures. "Perhaps," writes Rohrlich, "what is lacking is a set of Johari windows ... which graphically depict the amount of open, blind, hidden and unknown areas of disclosure representative of cultures'(1988, p. 41). The author stresses that to marry someone from another culture is, in effect, marrying that culture. When one spouse fails to communicate interest or assumes that the other is not attached to his or her culture, there may be serious problems. In this view, an awareness of cultural differences must precede the development of appreciation and sensitivity: "The cultural difference is what makes the fabric of the marriage more varied, interesting, and richer" (p. 42).

Many other roles are dictated culturally. For example, the director of a conversant program (a program in which foreign students learning English were matched with native-speaking American students for informal practice in the language) at a major U.S. university routinely cautioned American women students not to meet their male Algerian conversants alone in their homes because their (the Americans') intentions would be misconstrued.

The respective roles of employers and employees also depend on culture. As business organizations become increasingly international, the importance of recognizing and reconciling those differences also increases. Hall and Whyte (1979) describe a situation in which a U.S. parent company decided to train nationals for middle- and upper-level management positions in their Latin American subsidiary and delegated responsibility for the necessary changes to the U.S. executives in the Latin American company.

One executive recognized a major obstacle that had to be overcome: the parent company, in keeping with U.S. culture, tended to value initiative and the assumption of responsibility as management traits, while Latin culture emphasized authority in all aspects of life that resulted in "a built-in hesitancy about speaking up to one's superiors." In order to train his Latin American foremen and supervisors in the skills that would be demanded of them in higher positions, the executive took several measures. First, he organized informal social gatherings that included all levels of management and their spouses, and he mingled freely at these gatherings with all of them. At the same time, he made a point of circulating at the plant, not in a role of inspecting or supervising but to converse casually and joke with his employees. Finally, he began to hold meetings that included three consecutive levels of management. At the top-level meeting, which he attended, he encouraged his subordinates to challenge his statements and to come up with their own original ideas and suggestions. He made it clear that any objections his North American subordinates raised were to be fully explained and supported. Although the Latin Americans were uneasy with this situation, as they recognized that the North Americans who argued with the boss were "encouraged and praised," they began to participate more fully themselves. Gradually, they contributed more and more to the meetings, until they were showing the same kind of management behaviors that the parent company would demand of them as executives.

Beliefs and Values

Even if you've never traveled outside of the United States, you have heard stories about how American politicians and presidents have inadvertently insulted Polish or Latin American audiences when trying to speak to their audiences in .the— unfamiliar languages. Movies and television shows provide a glimpse of many ways of life, including the roles and norms of Hawaiian-American, Asian, Native American, and numerous other cultures. Although the portrayals are not always accurate, they help to give us a sense of some cultural differences.

It is much more difficult to comprehend and accept the values of another culture when they differ from our own. More than any other aspect of the culture taught us from birth, our values seem to be universal absolutes. Values determine what we think is right, good, important, beautiful; we find it difficult to accept that what is right or good is as relative to culture as the word for "book" or "stove," or as the way our food is prepared or our clothes are made. It may be difficult for a Westerner to adjust to the combinations or seasonings of an unfamiliar Middle Eastern or Asian cuisine. It is even more difficult to accept that some cultures eat plants or animals that we do not classify as food, and still more difficult to understand why, in the face of mass starvation in India, cattle wander the streets unrestrained, protected by religious taboos. People of other cultures, meanwhile, may be appalled at Americans' willingness to eat meat, or at the casualness with which we often have meals "on the run," without ceremony.

Misunderstandings arise when people are unaware of cultural differences, or even the possibility of such differences. Barna describes a case in which a Japanese guide met a group of American tourists for a tour of the famous Katsura Imperial Gardens in Kyoto. The Japanese guide began by commenting on how fortunate they were that they had chosen a cloudy day to tour the gardens. The Americans smiled a little at the apparent joke, but they were not pleased at the possibility of being caught in the rain. The guide went on to explain that the season was particularly fortuitous for the tour, because the azalea and rhododendron flowers were finished, and the leaves on the trees had not yet begun to turn to "their" brilliant autumn colors. The Americans laughed louder, but the Japanese guide was astonished at their response. In his culture, "simple, natural settings of rocks, moss, and water," "muted greens," and "misty ethereal landscapes" were preferred to the more colorful landscapes his American guests favored (Barna, in Civikly, 19"⁷?, pp. 384-385). Clearly, it had not occurred to either the Japanese guide or the American tourists that there might be a cultural difference in their standards of beauty.

There are other contrasts between the American and Japanese value systems. For example, in Japan mutual dependence is valued, whereas in the United States we appreciate mutual independence. And while the Japanese value self-depreca­tion—their recognition of group or cultural place is important to them—Ameri­cans value self-assertion. Finally, mutual apology encourages interaction and keeps things running smoothly in Japan, whereas mutual confrontation is used by Americans to stimulate interaction (Gushman and Cahn, 1985).

Views of organizational productivity can differ considerably from one culture to another. A comparison of British, Japanese, and American views reveals that the British and the Americans view attitudes starting at the top of an organization as most important for gains in productivity, whereas the Japanese place greatest value on research and innovation. For the British, internal methods and efficiencies rank second; for the Japanese, better productivity management; while for the Americans, coping with the environment (Miner, 1988, p. 5).

Date: 2016-01-03; view: 516