Using High-Context Style in a Low-Context Culture - Essay Example

?The consequences of using high-context style in a low-context culture. It has long been appreciated that communication across cultures can bring pitfalls and problems for those who are not well prepared in advance. There is often a very large barrier caused by the fact that people speak different languages, and people usually overcome this barrier by using interpreters, or by learning the language of the other party. This alone does not solve the problem of differing cultures, however, and a major reason for this is that there are differences in the way people communicate which arise from the social conventions that exist in each culture. Many of these are expressed in customs and rituals, but some are deeply embedded in the subconscious, so that people are generally not aware that there are different assumptions and interpretations happening all the time, which can impede communication across cultures. Often these cultural differences only surface when things go wrong, and looking back at the interactions which have taken place, people see that misunderstanding and confusion has crept in to a situation, despite the best efforts of all concerned. It is important, therefore, for research to be conducted which teases out the factors which influence intercultural communication, so that the findings can be applied to real life situations, and communication across cultures can become more comfortable and effective for all participants. This topic has been very extensively explored by theorists of media and culture in the last thirty years, and so the approach taken for this paper is to briefly sketch the state of knowledge on high and low context cultures and what the effects are of using high context style in a low context culture. The theories of E. Hall and G. Hofstede on culture, and Enninger on cross-cultural communication are summarized, with an emphasis on their categorisation of high and low cultural contexts. These theories are situated in their specific historical context of the mid-twentieth century. After this several important developments which have arisen in the intercultural communication field since the mid twentieth century are explored. These include political and economic factors as well as developments in theory. Because of the wide-ranging nature of these questions, and the modest scope of this paper, it is not appropriate to engage in fieldwork, but rather the approach which is used is a meta-analysis of existing research which draws out the main findings of other scholars. As a starting hypothesis it is assumed that there are specific consequences which arise when high context style is used in a low context culture. This basic hypothesis is tested with reference to the classic theories of Hall and Hofstede. A second hypothesis in relation to high and low context communication is that there has been some change in people’s general understanding of cultural difference since the mid twentieth century and that this will affect the way that high and low context interaction takes place in the second decade of the twenty first century. The consequences of high and low context interaction therefore might not be the same now as they would have been even twenty or thirty years ago, and this is an interesting gap in the research which needs to be followed up. This paper seeks to identify any new or emerging consequences of using high context style in a low context culture at the present time. The work of E. Hall (1981) in the anthropological field resulted in his theory of high and low context cultures. One of the main differences between the two cultures, which are presented as opposites, lies in the amount of implicit and explicit communication that goes on. High context cultures, such as Chinese and also French, place a great value on group, family and company identity, and people live their lives in constant awareness of the networks and hierarchies to which they belong. The more familiar two speakers are, the more ambiguous, indefinite and sparse their conversation needs to be. Low context cultures, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, tend to take less account of the level of familiarity of the individuals in a conversation, and make things generally more explicit, so that everyone present has the same information. In these cultures, much more is expressly said, or written down. The first consequence of using high context style in a low context culture is therefore assumed to be a mis-match in mutual expectation of detail, and the likelihood that the low context conversation partner may not understand all of the messages that are intended by the high context style speaker. The high context speaker is likely also to refrain from speaking up, if the environment is perceived contain people who are not part of the immediate and familiar group. An example of this difference can be seen in the way that business people behave in formal meetings. Chinese business people prepare for meetings in advance, and use the face to face time as a consolidation of the relationship which has already been made beforehand, while Americans will use meetings to confront problems, discuss solutions, and plan for the future. A high context (in this case Chinese, for example) response to a potential conflict is to seek informal and private resolution, because the damage to the on-going relationship is seen as the most urgent problem. This approach may well be ineffective in a low context culture, such as a staff meeting in an American led multinational company, because it takes a long time to carry out, and is not transparent to all parties. Low context style speakers are suspicious of unspoken agreements, sensing hidden agendas and potential misunderstandings beneath the surface. Similarly, a high context style Latin-American manager who takes the time to build extensive networks with suppliers and customers may be perceived as duplicitous by low context colleagues who are motivated by results and not by the smooth interaction of members of this extended network. Enninger (1987) discusses one particular instance when intercultural communication can throw up difficulties and that is the situation when gaps, silences or pauses arise in a conversation between people. He identifies these moments, when both people stop talking as “speech segments of high uncertainty” (Enninger, 1987, p. 273) and correctly points out that there is more potential for awkwardness and misunderstanding to arise between speakers from different cultural backgrounds, than between those from the same cultural background, because the speakers automatically seek clarification of the situation in the shared context. Obviously therefore, when one speaker naturally operates in a high context culture, and the other in a low context culture, there may be some difficulty in establishing common ground here, and in consequence also in resolving the cause and function of the silence. In technical linguistic terms Enniger defines the possible meanings of such a silence as “turn planning, turn-relinquishing, hesitation before taking a turn, ratification of the previous turn’s content, disagreement, non-committal, prevarication, embarrassment…” (Enninger, 1987, p. 273) The absence of speech may be missed by an unobservant participant, with consequent loss of meaning, but equally, the parties may both realize that something is amiss but not be able to interpret what it is that is wrong. The fundamental point about turn taking and timing of communication, is that different cultures have different ways of using this feature of language. In some cultures there is a naturally long pause between utterances, but in others, there is a shorter pause. This means that the faster speakers tend to jump in before slower speakers feel it is the appropriate time to speak, resulting in frustration and incomprehension on both sides. This is a feature which Enninger calls “social etiquette” which is learned very early in life, between the ages of one and two, which implies that it is hard to modify such behaviour in later life. (Enninger, 1987, p. 279). It is believed that high-context cultures such as China operate on the basis of widely shared cultural knowledge, and that this means there is not so much need to verbalize as in low context cultures. From a Western, low context, culture this is interpreted as “inscrutability”, whereas the high context Eastern cultures may interpret Western verbal haste and general verbosity as a sign of lacking respect. Both assumptions are incorrect, since the difference are largely due to socialisation in high and low context cultures respectively, and do not signify intent to evade or offend. Indeed there may be in some cases, as in Japanese culture, for example, where silence is much more highly prized and can be used to signify any number of subtle in-group communications which a low context person, by definition also outsider to the group, would have little chance of picking up. In short, therefore, features such as the timing of turn taking and the presence of silences and gaps, are examples of potential hurdles for communication across high and low context cultures. Hofstede analysed different cultures in terms of what he calls “dimensions” and defines these as power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity (Hofstede, 1980) The dimension that most closely relates to Hall’s high and low context styles is that of individualism. The further category of long and short term orientation is also relevant. This more nuanced categorisation allows researchers to study a larger range of differences between cultures. The implications of the category of individualism can have a big impact in the field of classroom teaching, for example. Rao (1996) pinpoints the high context communication style that is common in China, and explains that it derives from the ancient philosophy of Confucius, based on respect for the teacher, rote learning and the gradual acquisition of facts as directed by the teacher. A low context teaching style, as is common in the use of the communicative method in the teaching of English, in contrast, is student centred rather than teacher centred and values individual contributions and experimentation. The consequence of applying the high context style to the low context situation of the communicative English classroom was as follows: “the students judged the methods ridiculous and inappropriate. They refused to sit in a circle and speak English to each other. They did not like inventing conversations or playing communication games. They insisted on attending lectures on intensive reading and grammar and on taking conventional exams.” (Rao, 1996, p. 459) Clearly this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the clash of cultures that comes about in language teaching and the need for students and learners to understand the quite profound effects that high and low context communication and learning styles can have. A number of significant changes in human relations have occurred in the last few decades. Through the effects of globalisation, with increased international travel and communication, and of global political events such the fall of Communism in the former Soviet bloc and the emergence of China into a more open relationship with world markets, the range of international communication opportunities has increased dramatically. Research by Goodykunst and Kim has recently confirmed that the traditional distinction between low context culture and high context culture is still relevant but it may be changing. They define the high-context communication as “indirect, ambiguous and understated with speakers being reserved and sensitive to listeners” (Gudykunst and Kim, 1997, p. 68) while low context communication is defined as “direct, explicit, open, precise and consistent with one’s feelings (Gudykunst and Kim, 1997, p. 68). There are signs that the theories of Hall and Hofstede are in need of updating. A key innovation in the work of Gudykunst and Kim is the preference of the concept of “stranger” to be construed in terms of group membership rather than ethnic origins. This is an important distinction which moves intercultural communication into a more hybrid and flexible arena. High and low context cultures, following this line of thinking, are not fixed to ethnic groups, nor are they applicable to all situations in the same way. In the business field, there are studies emerging which suggest that there is an increasing tendency for high context behaviours, such as for example the practice of Chinese guanxi networking, to adapt to lower context global norms, (Wilson, 2010). It would be interesting to follow this up with research into whether in response low context Western style companies are becoming more accepting of guanxi. In short, then, it seems many speakers appear to be developing the option of using either style, so that in cross-cultural conversations sometimes they might use their own instinctive preference, while at other times they may switch to the opposite style. Intercultural communication is more common than it used to be and this adds another dimension of complexity to high and low context communication. An example of this theory working out in practice may be seen again in the education field, where for example international students may share accommodation with other students from both high and low context cultures. If the students have little previous experience of the opposite culture, then misunderstandings and discomfort are likely at first, but a group dynamic evolves in which both high and low context communication are accepted and understood. The ability to maintain preferred and natural styles as well as to switch to the opposite style is likely to become a new “norm” for this group, and this skill is then carried forward later into further educational contexts and into the workplace. This represents an evolution of intercultural communication that is likely to increase in pace and extent as students and workers from different backgrounds encounter more of these hybrid situations. This effect can be interpreted as a positive and long term outcome of using a high context style (for example a Chinese student’s style) with a low context style (for example as found in a British or American university). The exposure of multiple styles in the one context fosters accommodation and switching all round, with positive impact the quality of relationships and the effectiveness of intercultural communication. On a larger scale, Fan reports a gradual change in the cultural styles of different Chinese speaking regions, and the fact that differing types and amounts of Western influences are reshaping the value system in complex ways (Fan, 2000 p. 7.) Nishimura et al (2008) argue similarly that Finland’s culture is also shifting from a high context culture towards a lower context culture. In conclusion, therefore, it is clear that research from the mid twentieth century has established the major differences between high and low context cultures, and has outlined some of the negative consequences that can occur when these cultures meet. Our first hypothesis is therefore true. The original work of Hall and Hofstede still has some relevance, but that times are changing, and the effect of globalisation has been to reduce the distance between high and low context cultures, so that there is more accommodation, switching and mixing of high and low context behaviours. This means that the consequences initially highlighted as arising from the use of a high context style in a low context culture are gradually becoming less marked. In more recent empirical studies in the fields of Business and Education, there is a greater complexity at work so that it may be more appropriate to view high and low context style as a spectrum from which individuals may choose, with the potential to avoid confusion and create subtle in and out group distinctions that merge elements of both extremes. There is no longer an assumption of ethnic identity and one or other end point, but instead there is a tacit acceptance that people can embrace different styles through free choice, and this factor mitigates the effect of using one style in a the culture of the other style. This means that our second hypothesis is also true, but it may take a few more decades yet to determine how significant these changes are going to be in the longer term. Bibliography Enninger, W. (1987) What interactants do with non-talk across cultures. In K. Knapp, W. Enninger and A. Knapp-Potthoff, (Eds.) Analyzing Intercultural Communication. The Hague: Mouton de Grutyer, pp. 269-302. Fan, Y. (2000) A Classification of Chinese Culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 7 (2), pp. 3-10. Gudykunst, W. and Kim, (1997) Communicating with strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hall, E. (1981) Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday Anchor. Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press Inc. Hansen, C.D. and Lee, Y-T. (Eds. (2009)The Cultural Context of Human Resource Development. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A. and Tella, S. (2008) Communication Style and Cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. In A. Kallioniemi (Ed.) Renovating and developing subject didactics. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 2nd, 2008, Part 2. University of Helsinki, pp. 783-796. Ralston, D., Cunniff, M., Gustafson, D. (1995) Cultural Accommodation: The effect of language on the responses of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26, pp. 714-727. Rao, Z. (1996) Research in the Teaching of English 30 (4), pp. 458-471. Wilson, J. and Brennan, R. (2010) Doing Business in China: is the importance of guanxi diminishing? European Business Review 22 (6), pp. 652-665. Read More