Intercultural cooperation - Intercultural communication

Contents

  Preface  3

Intercultural  Cooperation - G. Hofstede  4

  Definition of Culture  4

  Cultural Relativisms  5

  Four Dimensions  7

  Theoretical Foundations of Intercultural Communication - M. Bennett  9

  Paradigms  9

  Principles  10

  The Five Frameworks  10

  Experience of Difference  11

  Discussion  13

  Conclusion  14

  Literature References List  15

Table of  Figures  16

  List of Abbreviations  16

2

Preface

“The globalization of markets and information networks has made consumption patterns and culture more uniform. Two developments are seemingly moving toward the opposite directions: an increasing uniformity of every-day culture on the one hand, and a drive to retain elements of individual cultures, on the other.” (University Witten/Herdecke, International society for Diversity Management (IDM), 2006). The IDM claims that social and organizational change is accelerating exponentially. There is a constantly search of identities through experience the differences. “Global cultures” in contemporary societies are constantly being challenged to meet this demand. Recognition and respect are requested to meet this differences. To face these requirements the following paper will discuss the meaning of intercultural competence. To underline the development of intercultural research the author will discuss the findings of Hofstede. Second the discussion will lead to the more contemporary aspects of intercultural competence such as Milton Bennett. In his theories about

communication he points out the core set for global leadership in cross cultural contact. This chapter will focus especially on intercultural communication. The conclusion will lead the reader to future aspects of diversity management. “The world is full of confrontations between people, groups and nations who think, feel, and act differently (Hofstede, 1991, p.3).” Following the news and the establishing conflicts with the Arabian world and the West, his statement is still actual. Already in 1991 he postulates the demand of cooperation for solution of common problems like ecological, economical, military, hygienic, and meteorological developments which do not stop at national or regional borders (ibid.).

3

Intercultural Cooperation - G. Hofstede

Geert Hofstede started studying cultural differences in the early 1960. 1980 he published a book about differences of nations. His findings resulted from data collected on a research project on IBM employees. In 1991 he published the a version of his study responding to the critics, that he was just differentiating in national distinctions. Not only reformulating the title he added a chapter about “organisational culture differences “ and “practical implications”. “Organisational culture differences “ are the product of research project in collaboration with IRIC (Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation) in the period from 1985 - 1987 (Hofstede, 1991, Preface).

Definition of Culture

Hofstede realises that the definition of culture is blurt and is often not clear. To give the term culture a more discriminatory power, he divides between ‘culture one’ and ‘culture two’. ‘Culture two’ mainly used by the Anthropologists are patterns of thinking, feeling, acting and include as well ordinary and menial things (greeting, eating, showing or not showing feelings ….). He characterizes it as collective phenomena and cites the French Sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, who resembles this concept as “habitus” (ibid.). He describes `Culture one’ as the refinement of the mind or civilisation like education, art, and literature. To be even more selective he defines human nature which represents the universal level in one `s mental software and is inherited in contrast to culture which is learned. He states personality as a unique set of mental programs which is modified by collective influence on one hand and on the other by unique personal experience (ibid).

Figure 1: Hofstede; Three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming

4

Bennet defines culture “[…] as a learned and shared behaviour of a community of interacting people. The behaviour is based on values, the way we assign “good” and “bad” to concepts in our culture.” For him culture stands close to the value orientation system.

Cultural Relativisms

Hofstede discusses cultural values and claims (p.7) “[…] there is no scientific standard for considering one group as intrinsically superior or inferior to another.” Underlining his statement he cites a French Anthropologist, Claude Levi Strauss “Cultural relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for judging the activities of another culture as ‘low’ or ‘noble’. However, every culture should apply such judgement to its own activities, because its members are actors as well as observers.” Jörg Schroth, University Bielefeld, states four postulations in Ethic Relativism 1. that moral is cultural relative and has its norms just within one culture, 2. universal principals for moral are not existing, 3. the principles of moral have equal rights. There is no possibility to judge values of moral principles, 4. it doesn’t make sense to judge with the moral principles of one culture the other culture (2003, p.761). Schroth emphasises his statements with a quotation of John Cook “Relativism teaches us to measure the morality of a person `s actions by their conformity to local mores. What the mores themselves happen to be in given case is of course irrelevant. For relativist’s contention this means that we cannot make any moral assessment of mores themselves: they are all on a par with one another (in Schroth 2003, p. 762). ” Schroth points out it doesn’t make sense to asked whether it is right to drive on the left side of the road. Milton Bennett (2006) in contrast states the constructivist paradigm (definition p. 9). After defining the assumptions of values he visualises milestones for to manifest cultural differences. With four terms: symbols, heroes, rituals, values he thinks to cover the whole concept. Illustrating this terms like the skins of an onion he is representing the importance of the manifestations. The deepest manifestations in culture are the values, mostly remaining unconscious and the most superficial are the symbols (Fig. 2)

5