Culture Clashes
England and America are two countries divided by a common language.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, British author
Whenever they hear the word culture, most people think of museums, opera, and Shakespeare. Social scientists take a much broader view of the topic, however. In its broadest sense, culture is composed of all the products of human social life—from Van Gogh to gang graffiti, from Verdi to street corner rap, from Shakespeare to newspaper tabloids. Culture consists of the foods we eat, the clothes we wear, the way we smell, the way we talk, what we talk about, how far away from each other we stand when we talk, and more. In this broad sense of the term, to say that people lack culture is to deny their existence, for to be alive and human is to have culture. Thus, it’s not a matter of who has culture and who doesn’t, but a matter of which culture shapes our actions and interpretations.
Interpersonal understanding is hampered by the fact that culture doesn’t always travel well, either in geographic or social space. What is considered ideal in one place often will be scorned in another. Even in the same place, ideas and actions that pass for legitimate at one point in time will almost inevitably eventually fall out of favor. My students always get a kick out of hearing me describe the first white-collar work clothes I bought when I graduated from college in 1972. They consisted of a bright red blazer with very wide lapels, prominent gold buttons, and a mock belt panel along the backside; brightly colored shirts with very wide collars; large, colorful bow ties; brightly colored plaid, pleated, and cuffed elephant-bell pants; and black-and-white buckle shoes. I have to admit, in terms of fashion, the seventies were outrageous by almost any standard. In fact, looking back, it is hard to imagine how I ever found such a costume attractive. But I did, and so did most other young Americans. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that in another quarter of a century we are likely to look back on today’s fashion with similar disbelief.
Although it is one of the most salient products of culture, fashion affects us in insidious ways. When a radical new style of clothing first emerges, most of us are certain that we will never be caught dead in it, and we are able to maintain that illusion for a period of time during which we cast disdaining eyes on those who are crazy enough to actually wear it in public. As the weeks pass and we see movie stars and gradually more and more normal people sporting a particular style, however, we begin to get used to it and eventually begin to think—maybe. It usually isn’t too long after that that we find ourselves doling out our hard-earned cash for something we once knew we would never want. What is most amazing about this, however, is that when we finally make the fashion plunge, we are not doing it just to keep up with the Joneses, we are doing it because we actually have come to like it!
As humans, we have an inescapable and reciprocal relationship to culture: we create it and it constrains and transforms us. As a result of our interactions with each other, we inevitably produce culture in the form of all the things we create as social beings. But once culture is created, it inevitably influences and constrains how we relate to each other. Like it or not, in one way or another, we are all products of the very culture we help create. Thus, in many ways, what is true of our response to fashion is also true of our response to music, food, or any other cultural products, including each other.
Cultures, Subcultures, and Microcultures
Although culture is all around us, it appears to us as a hodgepodge of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, images, and ideas. Nevertheless, it is possible to think of it in a systematic and organized way. For example, social scientists often make the distinction between material culture—including such things as language, music, literature, food, and anything else we can experience with our senses—and nonmaterial culture, which consists largely of shared values and beliefs, and the social expectations we have of each other. Although the notion of culture is most often associated with material culture, it is nonmaterial culture in the form of values, beliefs, preferences, and expectations that influences how we perceive and interpret the actions of each other in everyday social interaction. Moreover, it is those subtle and unnoticed cultural habits and orientations that most often create interpersonal misunderstandings.
Because nonmaterial culture is invisible, it is most often problematic when we cross cultural borders. Difficult as it may be, however, we must adjust our expectations whenever we move from one cultural setting to another. Failure to do so makes mutual understanding difficult if not impossible. The following account by a public servant illustrates how difficult such adjustments can be, even when we anticipate the transition.
As a police officer in the city of Dallas I come into contact with a multitude of various racial, ethnic, and lifestyle groups. One particular instance of interpersonal misunderstanding comes to mind. One evening my partner and I were answering a domestic disturbance call involving a family which had just recently emigrated from Mexico. The language barrier was quickly overcome. However, this case involved the husband having physically assaulted the wife for not having dinner prepared properly upon his return from work. Upon our arrival the grandmother and wife quickly attempted to get us to leave the house. We attributed this to the family having come from a very male dominated society. We explained in Spanish that assault among family members is not tolerated in our society (anymore). They continued vigorously to get us to leave, with the grandmother repeating, “No tengo dinero!” We were incredulous. Being white and black male Americans raised in the United States and having learned Spanish in a university, the grandmother’s statement was an enigma. It was not until a Hispanic officer arrived on the scene and explained that in some areas of Mexico the police expect payment for their services that we understood. Once we explained that no payment was necessary nor would be expected, the wife and grandmother were more than happy for us to cart the assaultive husband off to jail.
Obviously, the two police officers who answered this particular domestic disturbance call found themselves thrust into a different cultural world. Despite the fact that they spoke Spanish and had some insight into the culture of the people with whom they were dealing, their cultural knowledge did not extend far enough to overcome a misunderstanding about interpersonal expectations. Such expectations constitute the basic rules of everyday social life. Whether those rules are formalized as laws or take the form of informal habits and conventions, often referred to as folkways, they are the basis upon which we create most social interaction.
Precisely because everyday patterns of behavior are culture specific, culture serves the function of binding us to those who share our culture and alienating us from those who do not. Those who are part of the same culture will tend to behave in similar ways and have tastes and preferences similar to each other and at the same time different from those of different cultural backgrounds. Americans like baseball and football, Britons like cricket and soccer; Italians prefer wine, Irish prefer beer; Californians drive convertibles, Texans drive Suburbans. The sum of such seemingly trivial differences can often create cultural gulfs that are difficult and sometimes treacherous to traverse.
But wait. Aren’t both Californians and Texans Americans and thus part of the same culture? The answer is both “yes” and “no.” Although all Americans are exposed to the same overall culture, we are also a nation comprised of many subcultures, or cultural enclaves that share many of the basic elements of the larger culture while maintaining their own unique sets of values, beliefs, symbols, and ways of life. As Americans we share a common language and many cultural experiences, such as the World Series, the Republican National Convention, pizza, and Seinfeld. As members of different ethnic, regional, generational, and other subcultures, however, our experiences are incredibly varied. Members of different American subcultures eat different foods, listen to different music, play different games, and often seem to speak different languages—even when they are all speaking English.
Culture exists at an even more intimate level, however. Sociologist Bruce Anderson (1996) uses the term microculture to describe the cultural products of small, intimate groups of friends or family members. Children are fond of creating “clubs” with their own secret languages, symbols, and rituals; twins often develop their own language and methods of communication to which even their parents are not privy; and families create their own cultural habits and traditions, which are rarely shared with others.
Culture, therefore, is something we experience at three levels: the macrocultural, the subcultural, and the microcultural. Because culture exists at different levels, we are often required to interact in a number of different cultural contexts in the course of a single day, and we often find it difficult to reacculturate ourselves when we move from one setting to another. For example, the male construction worker who is exposed to a macho all-male culture during the workday might find it difficult and stressful to suddenly become a sensitive and caring husband and father in the evenings.
By adhering to the rules of one cultural community, we often find ourselves in violation of the expectations of another. Moreover, there seems to be no way of avoiding this problem, for even the most spontaneous and unconscious of our actions is a reflection of learned cultural patterns. Mark Zborowski (1953) notes that such patterns exist even in the way we respond to something as personal as physical pain. Different ethnic groups display different responses to pain, and these responses influence the way individuals are evaluated and treated by medical personnel. Zborowski studied hospitalized patients to whom he referred as “Italian Americans,” “Jewish Americans,” and “Old Americans” (i.e., white, native-born, largely Protestant Americans who did not identify themselves with any foreign group). Before going into the hospital to observe patients, the researchers were told by doctors and hospital personnel that the Italian and Jewish patients seemed to have a lower pain threshold than patients of Old American stock. Citing evidence that all humans have basically the same physiological pain threshold, Zborowski concludes that the differences in the way various groups relate to pain must be the result of cultural influences. Indeed, his observations reveal several important culturally learned differences in the way the three groups reacted to physical pain.
In contrast to the relatively stoic response of the Old Americans, both Italian and Jewish patients complained about pain considerably more frequently and dramatically. But the outward similarity of the responses of the Italians and Jews masked fundamentally different orientations to the experience. Close observation and in-depth interviews revealed that Italian complaints about pain reflected a concern with immediate discomfort and a desire to seek relief. Italian patients readily accepted pain medicine, and once their pain was relieved, their disposition improved and their outlook became generally positive. The complaints of Jewish patients, however, reflected a concern with the symptomatic meaning of the pain. As a result, they were reluctant to accept pain relief, expressing concern about the temporary nature of the relief and possible side effects of drugs. Moreover, the disposition of Jewish patients did not improve substantially once their pain had subsided because they worried that it would recur as long as the underlying condition had not been cured.
Although their actions reflected different orientations to pain, the outward responses of the two groups were very similar as long as they remained hospitalized. Their outward behavior diverged dramatically, however, when they returned home from the hospital. Italian men who had moaned and complained freely in the hospital were reluctant to do so at home, where they were expected to act as the strong and confident head of the household. Jewish males, however, complained less about pain in the hospital than at home, where they were more likely to use their pain to control interpersonal relationships within the family.
In contrast, the comparatively stoic response of hospitalized Anglos reflected a generally positive attitude toward the medical profession and a high degree of confidence in the scientific approach to health care. Such patients tended to view themselves as part of a team consisting of themselves, doctors, nurses, and other medical support personnel. As members of a team, they considered it their responsibility to provide objective and detailed reports of the pain they experienced so that other members of the team could make an accurate diagnosis and prescribe effective treatment. The authors note that in each case, patients were acting in accord with the expectations of their own culture.
This study is important in pointing to the importance of culture in influencing human responses to various stimuli, even those that are predominantly biological in origin. It suggests that services of all sorts, even medical care, could be greatly enhanced if those who provide them understood the cultural origins and meanings of the various responses they observe in their patrons.
The Language of Misunderstanding
David, an American college student, was about to have his first breakfast in London, where he had gone for a five-week summer course on British culture and society. He had spent several hours the night before in a neighborhood pub talking and drinking beer with a group of English and American students. While waiting in line for breakfast the next morning, David saw John, an English student he had met and enjoyed talking with the night before. As they exchanged greetings, David said: “I had a really good time last night!” John replied: “Yeah, me too, but after a while I realized that I was getting really pissed.” David was stunned; he couldn’t imagine what he might have done to irritate his new friend, and he was somewhat confused by John’s seeming lack of concern for something that had apparently angered him the night before. A few minutes later, when David expressed his confusion to one of the staff, he was informed that although the slang term pissed means angry in American English, in England it means that one has had too much to drink. David was much relieved to know that he had not unwittingly insulted his first English friend. That night they both got “pissed.”
If Americans are, in Shaw’s words, “divided” from their English cousins over their common language, they are also divided among themselves in the same way. Although television, movies, and other forms of mass media are gradually homogenizing American English, misunderstandings still occur as a result of regional variations in dialect. For example, a traveler in the rural South who asks a waiter: “What kind of sodas do you have?” might be told: “None, we just have iced tea and soft drinks.”
Although regional dialects occasionally pose communication problems, more serious misunderstandings often occur between those who speak what is often called Standard American English and those who speak one of a variety of ethnic forms of the language. For example, sociolinguist Joyce Penfield (1989) points out that even when speakers of Chicano English and standard English use the same words to express themselves, differences in intonation and cadence can easily cause misunderstandings. According to Penfield, the use of rises and falls in pitch most clearly distinguish Chicano from standard English. In Standard American English, the use of an especially high-pitched voice often denotes a gushy over-politeness, while such pitches are used in Chicano English to highlight or emphasize certain words. It is, therefore, common for Anglos to perceive insincerity in the talk of a Chicano speaker who is simply trying to emphasize a particular segment of a sentence. Another difference is that in standard English, a rising pitch at the end of a declarative sentence denotes a lack of confidence. Such a statement has the effect of a question. However, in Chicano English a similar pattern is often used to stress the importance of the word or words occurring at the end of the statement. Ironically, because of this difference, it will often be the case that the more Chicano English speakers try to be forceful, the more uncertain they are likely to sound to the speaker of standard English.
Many, perhaps most, speakers of Chicano English are bilingual. Because of the widespread acceptance of English as a universal language, however, most speakers of standard English never learn a second language. Because languages and language use are deeply rooted in the overall cultural experiences of groups of people, different languages reflect not just alternative ways of talking but different life experiences. Those who only speak one language, therefore, often are not aware of the fact that ideas and experiences just don’t translate easily from one language to another. Because of this difficulty, talk among bilinguals often involves switching back and forth from one language to the other, depending on the topic of conversation. This can make others uneasy and lead them to jump to paranoid conclusions. Consider the following example provided by an American college student.
When I was a sophomore in college, my roommate was a girl from Mexico City. The first couple of months we got along fine, but near the middle of the semester, we had a falling out. I found it very difficult to hang out in my room with my friends, and it always seemed as though her friends would never leave. They were nice enough people, but it is really difficult to study or do what you want to when other people are always there. The most difficult thing I had to deal with was that they would speak in English until they had something “vital” to share, then they would speak in Spanish. It got to the point where it greatly annoyed me . . .
I have heard similar complaints from numerous American students who have foreign or bilingual friends. These students often feel that their foreign friends use non-English when they want to talk about others in their presence. Although this probably happens occasionally, it is much more common that such switching is related to conversing about culturally specific topics for which English is ill-suited. Some ideas and expressions are very difficult to translate from one language to another.
Most of the cross-cultural language problems I have described so far create misunderstandings because they are so subtle that they allow us to believe we understand things we don’t. However, cross-cultural discourse is often characterized by such utter confusion that no one is lulled into the mistaken belief that he or she understands what is going on. Among the most difficult language problems to overcome are those that arise from differences in the very structure of talk. For example, in England and North America, verbal descriptions of events tend to follow chronological order, such as: “After I left work, I stopped by the grocery store. Then I went home, ate a quick snack, and got ready to go out.” According to linguist Arpita Mishra (1982), however, Indian and other South Asian speakers of English do not arrange the events of their stories in the same linear way. As a result they will sound disjointed and confused to those accustomed to Western English. Discussion of separate events that were part of the same occasion may be separated by lengthy discussions of events that took place at different places and times. The signal that one is referring back to an event that may have been introduced earlier in the narrative, for example, may be no more than the use of the same pitch or tone of voice that was used earlier when referring to the same event. Such subtle shifts are unlikely to be noticed by Westerners, and if they are noticed, their importance and meaning are not likely to be understood.
Many Chinese speakers of English also employ an unfamiliar narrative structure. Linda Wai Ling Young (1982) suggests that unlike English and many European languages, in which sentences tend to have a subject—predicate structure, Chinese and other Southeast Asian languages include many sentences with a topic-comment structure. For example, an English sentence such as My dog ate my homework would be stated in Chinese as Homework, dog ate. The word my is seen as unnecessary, since it would be understood on the basis of the context. According to Young (1982), this topic-comment structure is also used to organize larger chunks of talk. Whole multiple sentence and even multiple paragraph explanations mirror this form. The result of structuring an entire narrative in this way is that considerable time is spent paving the way for what they hope will be an obvious conclusion. The Chinese are concerned that stating one’s thesis or conclusion first, and then providing justification for it, which is the typical Western way, allows listeners to tune out much of what the speaker says, and that is especially likely if they disagree with the main thesis. The Chinese style, therefore, is one of gently leading the listener through the argument, one step at a time. Westerners often grow impatient waiting for the punch line as they are forced to listen to an elaborate buildup without knowing where it is leading. In addition to fearing that the Western thesis-explanation structure risks losing the audience prematurely, the Chinese consider it somewhat presumptuous to ask the listener to accept an idea without adequate justification. Western listeners, on the other hand, often perceive Chinese speakers to be beating around the bush and never getting to the point.
The Silence Is Deafening
Muriel Saville-Troike (1985) relates a tragic story of intercultural misunderstanding that occurred several years ago during a period of tension between Greece and Egypt. As Egyptian pilots approached the Greek island of Cyprus, they radioed their intention to land at an air base on the island. Their request was met with silence by Greek air traffic controllers. To the Greeks, silence meant that they were not granting permission to land. However, the Egyptians interpreted the silence as a form of consent. Because of this misunderstanding regarding the meaning of silence, as the Egyptian plane approached the runway, the Greeks fired upon it and several Egyptians were killed.
As discussed in Chapter 2, humans can communicate as powerfully with silence as they can with language, and as the above example shows, the use and meaning of silence in social interaction varies significantly across cultures. As with other cultural norms, rules regarding who is allowed or expected to remain silent in what situations and for how long are learned during childhood socialization. Saville-Troike (1985) contends that children being raised in societies that emphasize individual achievement, such as the United States, are allowed to talk more and in a greater variety of situations than children being socialized into cultures that emphasize family and group achievement.
Even those who become proficient in a second language often continue to adhere to the norms of their native culture when it comes to the use of silence. Navajo speech patterns display a significantly longer period of silence between the asking of a question and the giving of a response than do English speech patterns. Thus, when Navajo speakers converse in English with native English speakers, they tend to hesitate for what English speakers consider long periods of time before answering questions. The result is that English speakers will often repeat or restate their questions or sometimes answer for the Navajo before the Navajo is ready to respond. In such situations, the Navajo is likely to appear unknowledgeable, uncooperative, or evasive to the English speaker, who in turn is likely to be perceived by the Navajo to be pushy and impolite.
In some cultures the use of silence can have the same meaning as the use of noise in other cultures. Recall from the earlier discussion of cultural adaptations to the sick role that hospitalized Italians were found to be much more vocal in response to pain and discomfort than the Old (Protestant) Americans. This is consistent with the general stereotype of Italians as being a vocal, expressive people. On the basis of fieldwork in northern Italy, anthropologist George Saunders (1985) concludes that in that culture, where emotions are readily and frequently vocalized, silence can be an especially effective form of communication. He uses the term noisy-avoidance style to describe interaction in which minor—often trivial—irritations that are of no real consequence to the actors are expressed loudly and passionately. On the other hand, this style calls for grim and unrelenting silence in the face of real conflict, which tends to be worked out, if at all, behind the scenes by use of mediators. It is easy to see why, in such a cultural setting, silence has ominous implications.
The Italians stand in stark contrast to the Finns, who have elevated silence to a virtue. Lehtonen and Sajavaara (1985) offer the following Finnish proverbs and sayings as evidence:
Listen a lot, speak little.
One word is enough to make a lot of trouble.
One mouth, two ears.
A barking dog does not catch a hare.
A fool speaks a lot, a wise man thinks instead.
Brevity makes a good psalm.
One word is as good as nine. (p. 193)
A well-known joke about one particular Finnish ethnic group is that “two Hame brothers were on their way to work in the morning. One says, ‘It is here that I lost my knife.’ Coming back home in the evening, the other asks, ‘Your knife, did you say?’”
Lehtonen and Sajavaara suggest that due to their quiet demeanor, Finns are often misunderstood by others. Because they are hesitant to jump into conversations and can tolerate long periods of silence, they are often perceived as less attractive and unfriendly. One can imagine the difficulty Italians and Finns must have when they are forced to interact.
Italians and Finns represent extremes; more subtle cultural differences in toleration for and meaning attributed to silence, however, separate members of many different cultures. The Japanese, for example, can be quite animated, yet they are also tolerant of silence in certain situations, such as those requiring serious contemplation. Although regional and ethnic differences exist among Americans, in general we tend to be closer to the Italians. In fact, according to Lehtonen and Sajavaara, Americans often use talk not to transmit information but simply to avoid silence.
Does That Mean Yes or No?: Cultural Differences in the Use of Context
Anthropologist Edward Hall (1966) argues that the meaning of an event is derived from two types of information: information about the event itself and information about the surrounding context of the event. For example, we know to interpret sarcastic comments made in the context of friendly banter differently from those made in the heat of an argument. Although the comment carries a certain meaning, that meaning can be modified by the context of its use. People from different cultures tend to give different weight to event and context information. Those from low-context cultures pay less attention to the information around an event and more to the event itself. Those from high-context cultures, however, are more likely to attend to and use information about the setting and actions surrounding an event in interpreting its meaning.
In low-context cultures, such as the United States, Germany, and England, what you see and hear is what you get. Not so in high-context cultures, such as Japan, Greece, and Saudi Arabia, where the same words or gestures often mean very different things in different social settings. In high-context cultures where people tend to be very sensitive to the social context, communication is often implicit and indirect. Many Eastern cultures, such as that of Japan, place great value on maintaining harmony and saving face. It is often not so much the existence of harmony, but its appearance and the avoidance of embarrassment that are important. Criticisms are veiled to such an extent that many Westerners would fail to recognize them. A friend from graduate school once said about his favorite philosophy professor, who was Korean, “The most critical thing he ever says about the work of a student or colleague is, ‘I don’t really understand the point you are making.’ Since everyone knows how smart he is, they know he really does understand; what he really means is, ‘I think you are wrong.’ So if he ever says he doesn’t understand you, you know you’re in real trouble.”
In contrast, low-context people tend to be explicit and direct in their communication style. Americans, for example, tend to get straight to the point and look directly at the person to whom they are speaking. Being frank, even blunt, is often seen as a sign of honesty. In Japan, however, being frank is likely to be considered rude, and looking directly at another person is often interpreted as a challenge. John Graham and Yoshihiro Sano’s (1984) research on Japanese and American meetings reveals that Americans maintain about three times as much eye contact as Japanese. Thus, when Japanese fail to maintain eye contact it should not be read as an indication that they are trying to hide something. They are simply showing proper respect.
According to Japanese business expert Diana Rowland (1993), because of their concern with saving face, the Japanese often use the word hai (yes) to show respect and assure the other that they are listening. It does not mean, however, that they agree with or even understand what is being said. Likewise, saying “no” directly is considered an affront to the face of the other. Thus, one must read between the lines and interpret the subtle evasions, apologies, euphemisms, and nonverbal gestures that indicate a lack of interest or agreement. According to Rowland (1993, p. 51), “The sound ‘sahh,’ drawn out, or the sucking in of air through the teeth usually means difficulty. A hand on the back of the neck can also indicate a problem.”
Maintaining harmony and showing proper respect for others also manifests itself in extreme modesty and the extensive use of self-effacing expressions. Public expressions of humility, therefore, should not be taken as indicating a lack of confidence. Indeed, overt expressions of confidence are considered rude. Los Angeles Dodgers baseball pitcher Sadeo Nomo provides an excellent example of such humility. In his first year of playing American baseball, the Japanese star was named the National League Rookie of the Year. Upon hearing of the award, rather than commenting on the ability or hard work that had made him a success, his comments were directed at praising America and major league baseball for giving him the opportunity to play here. Ronald Blum (1995) of the Associated Press quotes Nomo as saying, “I proved to people that America has opportunity. This is not only in Japan. If a young talent, a young prospect, would like to get that chance and opportunity, they are welcome to come and should follow me.” Less than a year later he pitched his first no-hitter—something most pitchers never accomplish—and would only comment that the game was a big win for his team, which was in the midst of a heated division championship race. Although this type of humility is sometimes found among American athletes as well, anything less would be considered grossly inappropriate in Japan.
Another difference between high- and low-context people is the amount of information they tend to communicate. High-context people, such as the Japanese, are vigilant collectors of information. They often assume that those around them are equally informed. Thus, filling in details is unnecessary. Low-context people, such as Americans and Germans, however, like to compartmentalize information. They do not assume that the listener knows the context of what is being said. Therefore, detailed explanations with every i dotted and every t crossed are appreciated. For high-context people, however, detailed explanations are likely to be seen as pedantic or condescending, which make them feel bored and/or insulted for being talked down to.
In part, the low-context style of communication that is common in the United States might be a safer and more effective way of communicating in a culturally diverse nation such as ours. However, in culturally homogeneous societies, such as Japan, where shared understandings can usually be assumed, it is not necessary to be explicit. Because an implicit style is likely to be understood only by those who have carefully studied or have been socialized into a particular culture, misunderstandings among people from different high-context cultures are also inevitable. However, because of their appreciation for and sensitivity to social context, high-context people might find it easier to adapt to foreign ways. If so, this might partially explain the success the Japanese have enjoyed in international business.
The Language of Space
Despite our rich languages, humans are not limited to words in our attempts to communicate with one another. The use of space, for example, is one of the most salient forms of visual communication. Like language, however, our use of space varies across cultures, so any particular use of space might mean very different things in different places. Americans are accustomed to commanding a relatively large amount of personal space. As a result, whenever we see two people sitting or standing closer than the standard social distance, we are likely to infer that their relationship is intimate. Such an assumption would be problematic in many other cultures, however, where social space is much closer than it is here.
Anthropologist Edward Hall (1966) has identified three spatial zones that are used in social interaction. In the United States, the personal zone extends from about a foot and a half to four feet from the body. This zone, especially its inner area, is restricted to friends and relatives and is often used to reveal private thoughts and feelings. The social zone is used for more impersonal conversation and extends from about four feet to twelve feet from the body. Others who see a conversation being conducted from that distance assume that nothing personal is being conveyed and that they are permitted to join in if they wish. In offices, the social zone is often protected by furniture which is strategically placed to keep patients, clients, students, or subordinates at a safe distance. Beyond twelve feet is what Hall defines as the public zone. This is the zone used for public speaking. The spatial separation of the speaker from the audience conveys the special status held by the speaker.
Hall points out that these distances are not the same in other cultures. Most noticeably, in Latin America and in most of the Middle East, the social zone is much closer than in the United States. Face-to-face conversations between North Americans and individuals from these cultures are often awkward. The North American, who feels uncomfortable with the closeness of the other, will begin to lean back, then slowly retreat as the other gradually pursues. An Iranian friend once jokingly told me, “We Persians don’t feel we are communicating unless we are close enough to smell the other person.” It is easy to imagine the kinds of misunderstandings that could occur between individuals accustomed to different interaction distances. In such encounters, North Americans and many Europeans are likely to appear unfriendly and distant, while Latin Americans and Middle Easterners are likely to be perceived as pushy or overly intimate. Hoffer and Santos (1977) describe conflict situations that arise between Anglo and Hispanic teenage males as a result of different cultural norms regarding appropriate social distance and touching.
Arguments, fights, and even murders in local bars have started when a Mexican American male begins talking to an Anglo’s date (this may occur even where the Anglo and Mexican American know each other well) and using his own appropriate touch system. The Anglo interprets the touching as sexually aggressive, as an attempt to move in on his date, as an obvious slur on his manhood and reacts, sometimes violently, (p. 328)
As you might guess, cultures that observe relatively limited personal space tend also to be cultures where touching is a common form of communication, and those that allow relatively large parcels of personal space tend to be touch-me-not cultures. Roger Axtell (1991) classifies the following as “touch” societies: Middle Eastern countries; Latin countries; Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal; Russia; and some Asian countries. The following could be considered “touch-me-not” societies: Japan, the United States and Canada, England, Scandinavia and other Northern European countries, Australia, and Estonia. France, China, Ireland, and India fall somewhere between. In cultures where touching is common, slight pushing and shoving is also acceptable in crowded places. I learned that the hard way several years ago when I was almost crushed by a group of little old ladies trying to get onto a bus in Mexico City.
Cultural differences in the way space is organized can also produce misunderstandings. In Latin societies, where many homes are built behind walls, Americans will often feel excluded and unwelcome. In North America, we feel some cultural pressure to become friendly with those whose homes are adjacent to or near our own. Our concept of “neighbor” includes such privileges and obligations as borrowing and loaning, socializing, and offering various forms of assistance when it is needed. Americans who expect the same relationship with neighbors in France, Mexico, or numerous other countries are setting themselves up for disappointment. For example, according to Carroll (1988), the French feel no obligation to socialize with others who by circumstance just happen to be occupying an adjacent space.
The same holds for relationships of much shorter duration. North Americans often feel obliged to strike up conversations with strangers with whom they are only temporarily sharing space, whether it is someone they are seated by on an airplane or someone they are standing in line with at the grocery store. Inasmuch as the French feel no such obligation, such instant rapport among strangers is much less common in that country. Thus, the American who unsuccessfully attempts to establish temporary camaraderie is likely to conclude that the French are unfriendly, whereas the American is likely to be seen by the other as a “typical American”—loud and aggressive.
Physical and verbal contact are not the only ways to invade the other’s private space. Eye contact can be one of the more dramatic forms of territorial encroachment, and here again we find significant cross-cultural variation, with Americans falling somewhere in the middle. Arabs are inclined to establish and maintain strong eye contact, whereas in such countries as Japan, Korea, and Mexico, direct and sustained eye contact is considered rude. Americans, by contrast, are inclined to make direct eye contact, but do not sustain contact for extended periods of time. According to Marjorie Fink Vargas (1986), English and American interactants look at each other more often than do Swedes, but maintain contact for shorter periods.
Given such diversity in the rules of eye contact, it is easy to see how the same behavior could be interpreted as aggressive and intimidating in one culture and shifty and evasive in another. Americans often conclude that the Japanese can’t be trusted because “they won’t look you in the eye,” while Japanese feel that Americans “try to intimidate with their stare.” A Middle Eastern acquaintance used to claim quite frequently that an American woman had given him that “come on baby, here it is, come and get it” look. The Americans who heard these comments assumed that he was just a deluded chauvinist pig. It is perhaps more likely, however, that he was reacting to the vast difference between the typical behavior of American women, who feel free to make fleeting eye contact with strangers, and that of the veiled women in his homeland, who are expected to avoid eye contact with strange men.
Knowing local norms regarding eye contact can help prevent misunderstandings, but may not be enough to protect one from occasional embarrassment. An American woman who is the object of male stares in France or Italy might understand that such behavior is neither unusual nor necessarily frowned upon in those cultures, but such knowledge alone will not insulate her from feeling invaded and/or flattered when it happens. Likewise, knowing that cultural norms prohibit such staring in North America and England may not prevent the French or Italian woman from feeling unappreciated by men from those cultures.
The Language of Time
I just finished reading a series of articles in the March/April, 1997 issue of Utne Reader about the ever-accelerating pace of contemporary life and efforts by various groups and individuals to slow things down to a more healthy and manageable pace. I had intended to read it for days before I finally found the time. Notice the way I phrased that last sentence: “. . . before I finally found the time.” We North Americans, like most of our English and Western European friends, conceive of time as a tangible thing that can be controlled—saved, spent, wasted, invested, lost, or found. The truth is that our sense of time as linear, tangible, and scarce, to a large extent, controls us. Our lives are so precisely scheduled and clock oriented that we have become slaves to our own invention, and invention is just what it is. Our view of time is largely an invention of our Western European cultural tradition. Many cultures scattered across the globe see time quite differently.
One such culture survives in North America. The Hopi, a Native American society in Arizona, has a distinctly non-Western conception of time. According to Edward Hall (1966), the Hopi do not see time as a duration or quantity that can be measured; rather, it is the natural process that takes place while living things live out their lives. Because time is not the same for all things and can be altered only by natural circumstances, it is not controllable in the sense that most Americans imagine it. Hall describes the difficulty faced by government bureaucrats who tried to impose such artificial time control over Hopis involved in construction projects. Because the Hopi could not conceive of there being a fixed period of time in which dams, roads, or houses could be built, they did not see the need to try to conform to government-defined construction schedules.
Another Native American culture with a radically different conception of time is the Navajo. In English, verb conjugations are based on time. Actions are necessarily described in terms of when they take place. The Navajo orientation to time is such that verbs are not conjugated on the basis of time. In fact, the tense of a verb is normally not even specified. As anthropologist Harry Hoijer (1964) points out, detailed descriptions of the motion that produces an action are a more central component of their verb structure. The time when an action takes place, however, is usually not considered important enough to stipulate.
Different conceptions of time are not restricted to small, traditional societies, however. Anyone who has conducted business in Latin America has been confronted with what North Americans see as a distinct lack of urgency. What is considered intolerably late in New York or Chicago is considered on time in Mexico City or Buenos Aires. In general, Southern Europeans are also more relaxed about time than are their neighbors to the north and across the Atlantic. Even in the United States, although formal or business time has been pretty much standardized, as one moves from one region to another and one city to another, it is necessary to acclimate oneself to variations in the use of social time. Among the Mormons of Salt Lake City, it is safer to be early than late to a dinner party, whereas in many other cities a half-hour late is not late at all. The point of recognizing cultural differences in what is considered “on time” is simple. It alerts us to be aware of and try to conform to local customs regarding promptness. It also suggests that we should not be automatically insulted if someone is later than we think appropriate.
The sense of urgency mentioned above, which is so typically American, is related to our sense of time duration. Even those cultures that share with us the belief that time measures duration do not necessarily share a sense of what is a long and what is a short duration. For example, Americans still measure their national history in years, whereas Europeans measure theirs in centuries, and many from Eastern nations can measure theirs in millennia. Thus, the American business executive who mentions long-range planning may have in mind a period of five to ten years, while the notion of long-range planning in Japan might refer to a span of time ten times that long. The same holds true with regard to time units of shorter duration. According to Brislin and colleagues (1986), the working unit of time for Euro-Americans is five minutes, whereas Arabs tend to use the fifteen-minute block. By this informal scale, to be forty-five minutes late for a business appointment in Saudi Arabia is the equivalent of being only fifteen minutes late in America or Europe.
International differences that exist at the cultural level have their analogs at the local subcultural level. A few years ago my wife and I were having tile laid in our house. The contractor with whom we were working recommended someone for the job and we readily agreed to hire him. The old floor had been taken up several days earlier, so after spending the interim walking around on bare dusty concrete, we were somewhat eager to have the job completed. After several delays, the job, which should have taken two days to complete, was begun. Two no-shows, several late arrivals, and five days later the job was finally completed. Although the workmanship was superb, by the time the new floor was installed, the unreliability of the workman had nearly driven us crazy. We were told by the contractor, “That’s just the way those tile guys are. I could find you another one, but it would be the same story.” Even though the tile guy and I are of the same ethnic background, what we were experiencing was a culture clash. For members of many cultures and subcultures, work is something that goes on during certain hours and on certain days. For others, work is a job to be done, a task or tasks to be performed. Whether it gets done today, tomorrow, or next week is not seen as important.
This more relaxed approach to time is part of a more general orientation to time. Hall and Hall (1987) categorize approaches to time as monochronic versus polychronic. In monochronic cultures, time is highly compartmentalized—tasks are performed one at a time and interruptions are not easily tolerated—and schedules are adhered to rigidly. The United States, Germany, Switzerland, and Scandinavia are dominated by a monochronic orientation. In Latin American, Middle Eastern, and to some extent Southern European countries, things are often handled in a polychronic way. In polychronic cultures, time is characterized by multi-tasking, schedule flexibility, and heavy involvement in social interaction. Thus Americans who are accustomed to being the center of the other’s attention when their scheduled time arrives are often frustrated that appointments in polychronic cultures are frequently interrupted, as the individuals with whom they are meeting freely and willingly share their time with others.
The Body Politic: Nonverbal Gestures and Misunderstandings
Humans communicate with virtually every part of their bodies. Although we normally think of communication as being largely verbal, kinesics (body language) expert Ray Birdwhistell (1970) estimates that only 30 to 35 percent of what is communicated in face-to-face interaction is conveyed by words. Regardless of the accuracy of this estimate, it is clear that our facial expressions, hand and arm gestures, posture, use of personal space, and other nonverbal cues provide an abundance of information to the astute observer. Cultural misunderstandings are frequently the result of the fact that not only spoken languages but also gesture and body languages differ across cultures. In an informative and highly readable book on gestures, Roger Axtell (1991) catalogs hundreds of gestures that have different meanings in different cultures. Here, I will only mention those gestures common to the United States that carry different meanings, and are thus most likely to produce misunderstandings if used elsewhere.
Every feature on the head is used to communicate. One of the most common gestures is the shaking of the head to indicate “no” and the nodding of it to indicate “yes.” Although we might tend to imagine this as a universal gesture, it is not. In fact, in Iran, Greece, Turkey, and parts of the former Yugoslavia, it is the opposite. In India, a “yes” can be indicated by a slow rocking of the head from side to side.
THE EYES
According to an Arab saying, “The eyes are the windows to the soul.” People everywhere would probably agree that much is communicated by the eyes. However, as mentioned above, the American tendency to look directly into the eyes of the other as a way of expressing that we have nothing to hide will not be appreciated everywhere, especially in certain Asian cultures, such as Japan, Korea, and Thailand, where looking directly into the eyes of another is considered rude and aggressive. In Taiwan and Hong Kong, excessive blinking of the eyes at someone is considered rude. Although winking is not only a way of flirting but also a common way of acknowledging a shared secret in America, winking the eye is almost always considered impolite in Hong Kong. To close one’s eyes while another is speaking is considered a sign of boredom in the United States. In Japan, however, it can mean the opposite; Japanese often close their eyes as they concentrate on what they are listening to.
THE EARS
We tend to think of the ears as an important instrument for collecting information rather than transmitting it. It is a common practice, however, to cup our ears to signal that we can’t hear and to hold an imaginary telephone to our ear to signal that someone has a phone call. Several years ago, entertainer Carol Burnett was renowned for tugging on her earlobe as a hello signal to family members at the end of her television show. The gesture was popular for a while and is still used by some of her fans. Perhaps the most common American gesture that utilizes the ears is the rotation of a forefinger around the ear to indicate that someone or something is crazy. In Argentina, however, that gesture is used to signal “You have a telephone call.”
Although the nose is used for creating gestures in many societies, Americans have a limited repertoire of nose signals, none of which are likely to be seriously misunderstood elsewhere. Wrinkling the nose may indicate that something smells bad or it can be used as an indication of disgust. On the other hand, one can indicate an appreciation of fresh air or that something smells good by raising one’s head and breathing deeply though the nose. Like most other gestures, however, this one can be used ironically.
THE MOUTH AND CHIN
The lips are made for kissing, or so it would seem. With few cultural exceptions, the kiss is a gesture of affection. Who, where, and when kissing is socially acceptable, however, varies considerably. Kissing the other’s cheeks or the air beside the cheeks is a common form of greeting in Russia, France, Italy, and parts of the Middle East. For those not accustomed to this practice, it is difficult to know when one is expected to kiss and be kissed. Roger Axtell advises that people who are about to give you a greeting kiss or kisses will signal their intention by gently pulling you toward them as you shake hands. Although public kissing is perhaps common in France and tolerated in the United States, in much of the Asian world, it is considered an intimate sexual act and is thus inappropriate when done in public.
In conjunction with other parts of the mouth, the lips allow us to whistle. Although this auditory gesture can have lots of different meanings, depending on the context, one obvious cultural difference is that in Europe whistling is the functional equivalent of booing in America. In recent years, probably largely as a result of viewing international sporting events on television, Americans have begun to use the whistle in this way.
As discussed in Chapter 5, purely physical actions—such as yawning, raising the arms to stretch, shaking the head to relieve neck tension, or simply fidgeting in a chair—can have significant social consequences if interpreted by others as social actions. Failure to repress a belch will cause public embarrassment in the United States, but in China a hearty burp is considered a compliment to the cook if it follows a meal. The physical act of spitting in public is considered crude and impolite in most places. Thus, it can be and is sometimes used to express disgust or disdain. In parts of China, however, public spitting is not condemned because it is considered an act of personal hygiene. Similarly, blowing one’s nose onto the ground is an accepted practice, while blowing into a handkerchief that one then inserts into one’s pocket is considered unclean.
Publicly displaying an open mouth or the teeth within is considered rude in many Asian countries. Thus, public yawning is especially discouraged there, as it is in parts of Europe. Although the tongue should also be kept in the mouth in most parts of the world, according to Roger Axtell, in Tibet sticking out one’s tongue is a form of greeting. Finally, it might be helpful to know that in England the chin is also referred to as “the pecker.” Thus, don’t be too chagrined to hear someone described as “listening intently as he stroked his pecker.”
THE HANDS, ARMS, AND FEET
The hands and arms are often used in conjunction with other body parts in the creation of several of the gestures discussed above. Arms and hands, usually as an accompaniment to verbal descriptions, also can be used to symbolize length, volume, and distance. In some cultures, as with some individuals in our society, the hands and arms seem to be an extension of the mouth. In Italy, for example, considerable hand and arm gesturing is seen as a natural part of discourse. In others, such as in Japan, excessive gesticulating of this sort is considered impolite. It is easy to find subcultural differences in the use of these appendages. Contrast the relative lack of hand gestures by country music singers with the exuberant use of them by rap singers. Of course, the arms, hands, and fingers can be used to express complex ideas. American Sign Language literally allows people to talk without vocalization.
People from virtually all cultures use the hands to express emotions. In the United States affection may be expressed by a gentle hand on the shoulder or pat on the back, romantic involvement by holding hands, approval by the familiar thumbs up, and hostility by various hand gestures, the most obvious and negative being “the finger,” a universally negative gesture that Roger Axtell suggests has been in existence for over 2000 years. When one is traveling abroad, however, it is important to know that these same gestures may have very different meanings elsewhere. The basic differences between touch and touch-me-not cultures were discussed above. In addition, there are numerous culture-specific meanings associated with other uses of the hands. In certain Middle Eastern cultures and in parts of China and Korea, it is not uncommon for male friends to hold hands while walking down the street, a practice that has no sexual connotations whatsoever. The commonly used “thumbs up” gesture, which in the United States signals approval, has strongly negative connotations (more on the order of “up yours”) in Australia, Iran, Russia, Nigeria, Sardinia, Ghana, and various other places.
In a variety of cultures, the left hand is associated with such negative meanings that, when in doubt, one is probably safest to avoid using it altogether. For example, because it is used for bodily hygiene, the left hand is considered unclean in much of the Middle East. Thus one should never use the left hand for eating or for initiating a handshake. In much of the Orient as well as the Middle East, passing food or presenting gifts or even business cards should always be done with the right hand. Using the left for such purposes is likely to be considered gauche. It should be acknowledged, however, that Americans also show a preference for the right hand, which is customarily raised when swearing oaths and covering one’s heart when pledging allegiance to the flag. We also try to avoid “left-handed compliments.”
When communicating with those who do not share our language, there is a natural tendency to use the hands in an attempt to communicate gesturally what we are unable to communicate verbally. As this very brief discussion suggests, however, one must be cautious in the use of such gestures when traveling in other countries. Although it is easy to miscommunicate when struggling with a foreign language, foreign speakers are easily recognized by their accents and slow and awkward speech, and people everywhere tend to be tolerant of errors made by nonnative speakers. Because natives and foreigners cannot always be easily distinguished visually, however, the gestural faux pas is more likely than the verbal one to be misinterpreted as intentionally offensive. Thus the kinds of misunderstandings that result from linguistic mistakes are often more readily excused than those resulting from the misuse of the hands.
Unlike the hands, the feet are rarely used for gesturing. However, it is still possible to send unintended negative messages with the feet. In many Eastern cultures, simply wearing one’s shoes into someone’s home will cause offense. The common American habit of propping one’s feet up on one’s desk would be offensive in such societies as Japan, Thailand, and France. In fact, showing the sole of one’s shoe in any way whatsoever is considered rude in many parts of the Middle and Far East. There are also cultural rules, although somewhat less strict, regarding whether and how to cross one’s legs while sitting and how to position one’s feet while standing.
Conclusion: Same Signs, Different Directions
Each of us is a member of multiple cultural communities. The microcultures of family, friendship, and work groups; the subcultures of the social class, regional, and ethnic groups to which we belong; and the larger culture we call America often confront us with contradictory expectations. In order to adhere to the cultural expectations of one group, we find ourselves inevitably running afoul of the expectations of another. Moreover, by relying on the cultural norms of one group to interpret the actions of someone adhering to the norms of another, we are doomed to misunderstanding.
Cultural misunderstandings are often the result of differences in language use of which we are unaware. The same words and gestures in one cultural group can carry different—even opposite—meanings in another group. Speech cadence, intonation, and verb and sentence structure are all sources of intercultural misunderstandings among people who ostensibly speak the same language. Not only what we say and how we say it, but also what we don’t say carries cultural meaning. Differences in when and how we use silence can communicate or miscommunicate as dramatically as words and can create extreme discomfort and serious misunderstanding among people of different cultures.
In all cultures, how we interpret both talk and silence depends on the situational context. However, some cultures are more sensitive and responsive to the social context in which interaction takes place than are others. In high-context cultures, many of which are found in the eastern and southern hemispheres, communication tends to be more subtle and indirect, whereas in low-context Western cultures, such as the United States and Germany, interaction tends to be more direct and explicit. As a result, members of high-context cultures often see low-context communicators as brash and offensive, whereas those from low-context cultures tend to perceive high-context communicators as evasive and inauthentic.
Although the correlation is far from perfect, there is also a tendency for high- and low-context cultures to use social space in very different ways. In general, high-context cultures are characterized by the use of a smaller amount of personal space between interactants than is found in low-context cultures. As a result, individuals from “touch-me-not” societies are prone to interpret the actions of members of “touch” societies as implying more intimacy than is intended. On the other hand, interactants from “touch-me-not” cultures may seem distant and unfriendly to their counterparts from “touch” societies. The use of space is but one of many forms of nonverbal behavior that differ dramatically from one culture to another. The same use of eye contact, which is interpreted as an indication of interest and support in one culture, will be interpreted as a sign of aggression in another. In fact, virtually every part of the body is capable of sending nonverbal messages, and the meanings of these messages are highly culture-bound.
Finally, the way people orient themselves to time is determined largely by their culture. Individuals from monochrome cultures tend to seek control over time by compartmentalizing tasks and adhering to strict schedules, whereas those from polychrome cultures tend to be more flexible with their use of time, allowing social interactions to dictate the amount of time spent in a particular situation. Interactions among individuals with different orientations to time are often mutually frustrating and rife with misunderstanding. Those who have a polychronic orientation are likely to perceive the monochronic individual as frenetic, impatient, and unfriendly, while being seen by the other as undisciplined and irresponsible. It is easy to see why attempts to do business with members of cultures that have a different approach to time can be frustrating and sometimes futile. Of course, each of these cultural differences can be found to a lesser extent within the same culture. In the United States, for example, differences in the use of social space, time, body language, talk, and silence interfere with successful communication across ethnic, class, gender, and regional subcultures.
These difficulties are exacerbated by the tendency of individuals from all cultures to see differences between other cultures and their own as a reflection of the superiority of their own culture. Whether referring to macroculture, subculture, or microculture, social scientists use the term ethnocentrism to describe an orientation characterized by the belief that one’s own culture is superior to that of others. This orientation discourages one from trying to understand other cultures from the native perspective. It inhibits not only appreciation of but also adaptation to other cultures. It is responsible for the stereotype of the ugly American, the lazy Latin American, and many others. Expecting other people, who come from and live in completely different worlds, to think and act as though they were a part of our world is not only naive, it is unreasonable. This does not mean that when we travel to other cultures, we must “go native” in order to get along, nor does it mean that when we encounter strangers in our own land, we cannot expect some accommodation on their part. It does mean, however, that we must open our minds to the ideas, values, orientations, and lifestyles of other cultures if we are to understand and be understood by those who do not share our own. In an increasingly multicultural world, there is simply no other choice.