Q 1: A cross-cultural communication to be effective must take into consideration looking at the differences between high-context and low-context cultures. Such contexts have differing degrees of decoding meanings and interpreting encountered interactions. As a reportorial of communicative behaviors, varying cultures also conforms to varying communication practices (, ). The most profound difference between these cultures was defined in cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism or the amount of integration among individuals (, 2003). High-context cultures are characterized by collectivism and interdependence that explain strong, cohesive and extended in-groups whereas low-context cultures inhibit distance and loose bonds, thus, individualistic. Communications in individualistic and collectivistic cultures are person-based and group-based, respectively (, 2003, ).
Another aspect to differentiate the two is from covert versus overt perspective. Self-reservation and cautiousness are common among high-context cultures while evident and blatantness are for low-context cultures. Overt communication conflicts happen when people express differences in a straightforward manner as not every one is well-acquainted and somewhat uncomfortable with this process. Others co-exists through denying or disguising communicative differences and expressing it indirectly, also known as covert communication conflict (, 2005, ). Expressing intentions and emphasis is another communicative variable for the two constructs. For high-context communication, senders emphasize how intention or meaning is best conveyed through contextual and non-verbal channels of the verbal message while for low-context cultures, the emphasis is placed at how intention or meaning is best expressed by means of explicit verbal messages (, 1999, ). The process involves kinesics, proxemics and paralanguages or the bodily, proximity and spatial and expressive communications, respectively. People tend to believe based on what they heard and saw through observations of how the message was expressed (, ).
An example of a high-context culture is India. Substantial amount of information necessitates subtle, contextual and non-verbal cues of a message. Indians follow an indirect style of communication and interprets verbal messages through systems of non-verbal delivery (, 2004, ). Indians comply to ‘beat about the bush’ and reading-between-the-line concepts based on the relative low individualism percentage of 42%. In contrast, Germany, a very low-context culture, requires a transfer of information in great detail and very explicitly, to-the-point information. Germans are always perceived as ‘rude and disrespectful’ due to widespread use of e-mails for intra-corporate and day-to-day communications. Numerous conflicts and complaints will only be justified if the message will be viewed from the receiver’s perspective and the manner of sending the message. The wisest thing to do is to not to jump at conclusions about the German sender’s intentions ( and , 1999, ). This spring from the fact that Germans are generally individualistic (65%), directness-driven and intents are usually conveyed through deliberately unconcealed manner.
Q 2: Contextually, Americans and Arabs differ. Thus, their concepts of verbal and non-verbal communications are of great disparity. Americans are generally explicit conversationalists. They exercise open and free communication and send and receive information as quick and clear as possible in a detail-to-detail, linear process. Americans also employ different medias to convey their message to avoid misinterpretations and conflicts. Confrontations, verbose and message-centered conversations are more preferred by the Americans. They also put value on verbal eloquence, discursive and analytic logics and reasons that leads to a sound decision-making as upheld by the Americans (, ).
Arabs are the complete opposite of Americans. Arabs put great emphasis on affective rather than on cognitive domain and on ‘will of Allah’. They tend to accentuate wordiness with exaggeration and metaphors to convey a message in a dramatic light. Though Arabs dismiss the content of the message, they never forget to send message based on honor and respect. Honesty and trust is also important for them as this was revealed through verbal communications. Communication styles are very implicit and formal that are expressed through simple gestures, elaborative greetings and compliments and proxemics. Arabs, once provoked, are inclined at becoming aggressive and irate ().
Clashes between Americans and Arabs are inevitable. “Noise” is evidences and results of differing cultures. Interestingly, United States are one of the most individualistic cultures with 91% while the Arab World has the lowest with 38% (, 2003). From this dimension alone, we can understand the conflicts between the two nationalities. Language, either spoken or written, is another factor. As puts it, language conveys culture but it also separate and perpetuate them (). Thus, conveying messages between two completely different cultures will only prove to be trivial and translating per se can not guarantee congruence. This situation, often than not, directs to conflicts between Arabs and Americans. Varying concepts about paralanguages is also an element of word-war. Arabs are very particular contextual and non-verbal processes while Americans put emphasis on contents and the conversation itself.
A recent incident happened in Rochester when Governor decided to provide illegal immigrants with driver’s license. Though the intent was good, the manner the campaign was communicated is rather unacceptable. The flyers contain images that are offensive to Muslims suggesting that country legislature democrats want to license potential terrorists as it was depicted in the pictures. This has made the Muslim upset believing that linking Arabs and terrorism is a racial profiling. Assemblyman called the process as the lowest form of discourse or communication (). To assess, the campaign has the following elements: governor (sender), Muslims (receiver), campaign (content), flyers (non-verbal communicators), time and of course the message. Unscrupulous images worsen the scenario. The message was not clearly conveyed because of this. The communication style was disgusted by the receiver and received other connotation since it was delivered during election, thus, conflict arises. Notably, Muslims act in collective manner as well as from a demonstrative towards verbal communication noise was clear.
Bibliography
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment