The problems of ethno-cultural stereotypes and cross-cultural differences

Ethno-cultural stereotypes. The term “stereotype” (from Greek stereós – hard and týpos – imprint) is now widely used in the modern languages thanks to the American journalist and writer Walter Lippmann. Before his book “The Public Opinion” being released in 1922, the word “stereotype” was used by the print workers only who called in such a way a ready duplicate of the typographical text in the form of metal or rubber plates, or rollers. Lippmann was the first to denote with the help of this term a generalized and simplified image of the social event or phenomenon, usually emotionally coloured and strictly fixed in the language.

A specialist on establishing relations with the foreign society can also face another problem concerning cross-cultural differences. We mean cultural peculiarities revealed in the process of interaction of different countries and people representatives.

Among the most essential cross-cultural differences we distinguish the following ones:

1) language differences;

2) national peculiarities of nonverbal communication.

Language differences. The matter of fact concerns not so much the knowledge of the country-object language (actually, it is an ideal exemplar; nevertheless, both sides usually use the English language, which is foreign for both of them) as the “security”, even despite understanding the language of the foreign society, against those mean jokes the foreign language can play with your message that you address to the foreigners. The international advertising, which is to a large extent related to the IPR, presents us with a whole range of the instructive examples produced because of the negligent attitude towards the language differences.

National peculiarities of nonverbal communication. It is evident that the language differences will come back to haunt us on the way to the cross-cultural understanding. People speak and write, write and speak trying orally as well as in written form to express their thoughts and feelings in the most exact and persuasive way. That is why many people think the words exchange to be the main means of communication. Nevertheless, according to the researchers, our words turn out to be just a drop in the ocean of the information where each of us is sunk into. In the process of communication only 7 % of the core information is transferred via words while 35 % of it is apprehended via the view, facial expression, postures, and gestures, and the last 38 % – via the intonation and voice modulation.

The most important communication channels are as follows:

1) eye contact;

2) facial expression;

3) gesticulation.

Eye contact. Everybody agrees that to catch an eye of your interlocutor is a very important means of communication. In spite of the fact that the expression “the eyes are the mirror of the soul” is a bit trite, it reflects the real state of affairs as before. A look of the interlocutor can betray his mood, his attitude towards the audience, the extent of his attention and so on. The representatives of some cultures feel quite at ease while keeping an eye contact for a long time. In other cases an intent gaze provokes negative reaction of the audience and such a behavior is assessed as a desire for showing the superiority and gripping the attention of the audience, as a display of hostile intentions and, finally, just as an impudence.

Facial expressions. Imagine a Russian or a Ukrainian who tells with a smile about his relative’s illness or death. It would ordinarily seem quite absurd to us. But Elias Erenburg, a Soviet journalist, noted after his trip to China: “In China people are used to smiling when they tell about some dramatic event – it means that they do not want to upset their interlocutor”. In some countries a smile can produce no positive impression at all, it expresses only malice or threat. Certainly, in the Western culture people sometimes smile when they are not really glad and do not wish any good to those their smile is addressed to. Nevertheless, it does not change the basic – positive – meaning of a smile.

Gesticulation. In one of the Shakespearian works, “Titus Andronicus”, there is such a line: “It would be good to compose an alphabet from all the gestures and thus understand all the thoughts”. Nevertheless, our gesticulation can be got hold of the wrong end of the stick by the foreigners. Of course, it is too hard to refuse to use the gestures, even if we are not Italians, in whose culture any act of communication is almost impossible without tumultuous gesticulation. (The hands of the first Italian television anchormen had to be tied under the table.) Nevertheless, while dealing with the representatives of the little-known culture it would be better to control your temper and be more cautious.

Some foreign scholars propose a special term – “cross-cultural literacy” – to name the knowledge of the peculiarities of foreign cultures up to a nicety of communication which can help to avoid awkward moments in the conversation with foreigners. Of course, to reach the top of the “cross-cultural literacy” it takes many years of hard work, full of meetings, negotiations, and acquaintances. Much depends on the personal talents of the observer. Maybe, one of the most important steps to the acquisition of the deep knowledge about foreign cultures is to study some basic characteristics of different peoples and countries represented by the researchers, by Geert Hofstede, the Dutch psychologist in particular. When he worked for the IBM he classified a great number of peoples of our planet according to four keyword parameters. Each of them will be examined below. But, for a start, let’s answer a logical question: “Isn’t a generalized model by Hofstede just one more stereotype very safely hidden behind the complicated scientific terminology?”

Our answer will be negative – no, it is not. Ethnocultural classification by Hofstede didn’t appear spontaneously, just as a result of the unconditioned simplifications produced by the lack of information about other peoples. It has no emotional colouring which is typical for the stereotypes, it doesn’t contain any narrow-minded bigotry and it doesn’t divide peoples into “good” and “bad”. We have a proper generalization of the information collected for many years about real, of vital importance social characteristics of the peoples of the world.

These characteristics are as follows:

1) social distance;

2) individualism (collectivism) of the culture;

3) fear of uncertainty;

4) “manhood” (“womanhood”) of the culture.

Social distance. This characteristic shows the attitude of the society towards the cases of the social, physical, and intellectual inequality of people. In the societies with a large social distance (in Spain, France, Greece, Turkey, the Arab countries, Japan, etc.) a strict hierarchy, a well-defined designation of the social top and lower circles, and a manifestation (at least in small things) of this or that variety of inequality do not cause any sharp protest. In the societies with a lesser extent of the social distance (for example, in the USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand) such manifestations are either obviated or, at least, smoothed, “played down”.

Individualism (collectivism) of the culture. The given characteristic indicates the connection between a man and his social environment and the strength of this very connection. In the individualistic societies (the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Spain) personal contacts between the individuals are rather weak; freedom and self-sufficiency are highly appreciated. In the first place a man takes care of himself and his inner circle (husband / wife, children). There parents can be given much lesser attention. In the collectivist societies (the Arab world, Turkey, Greece, Japan) contacts between the individuals are much closer. In these societies people are born in this or that social group (large family clans, neighborly communities, associations); in the groups like these everybody is expected to take care uppermost of the good of the group and move his private interests to the background.

Fear of uncertainty. This characteristic helps to understand what people’s attitude towards changes and as well as new, still vague situations is produced by this or that culture. The more is the desire for avoiding uncertainty (the Arab countries, Greece, Spain, Turkey), the more painful is the reaction to the changes, innovations, the stronger is the desire for steadiness. In those societies where people are not so afraid of uncertainty (the USA, Great Britain, Canada), constant changes are welcome as they are thought to be a sign of virility and vitality, flexibility and progress.

“Manhood” (“womanhood”) of the culture. In the “male” cultures (the USA, Great Britain, Greece, the Arab countries) traditional “male” values (force, power, victory) prevail. In can be very well exemplified by the example of the USA where even women are filled with the “male” spirit. In the “female” cultures (Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries) less ambitious spirits prevail, a special attention is devoted to the concord in the interpersonal relations.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 931