Monday, I told the students that we would be doing the reading in class, breaking it up, and having small groups read, discuss, and teach the class about their particular section of the reading. The reading was I, We, and They by Geert Hofstede, and the subject was Collectivist cultures and Individualist cultures, and how these translated into behavior in the home and with the family, at school and in social functions, and at work. I was pretty pleased with what the groups came up with in their understanding, but wasn't to pleased that as they taught their sections, the other groups seemed to fade, fade away into the daydreamy world. To counter this, I asked the students to answer the questions provided in the book. I think next time I will have them answer the questions, slap their names on them, and give them to me for checking at he end of class just to give them that extra little extrinsic motivation that they seemed to need.
We discussed how more collective cultures can be more high context, in which much of what is being communicated already exists in the environments. I was hard-pressed to explain this, so I used the story of my riding in a subway early on in my tenure in Korea and being utterly fascinated with a phone conversation that an older- probably in his 60's- ajjoshi was having over the phone that went like this:
(answers the phone:)
auhhhhh (grunts)
aughhhh
augh augh augh
aughhhh
augh aughhhh
augh augh aughhhhhhh (with final rising intonation to indicate the phone call was finished).
I was in complete awe of how a conversation could go like that. He didn't say one word, but in his grunts was all the meaning the person on the other end needed in order to successfully communicate. I'm assuming the other person was "beneath" them in age and thus didn't warrant any honorifics, or intelligible words for that matter. And that is just it. The context was very high: he was an older man, and the person speaking with him used the proper honorifics and questions. He, on the other hand, just needed to give small verbal grunts, cues to indicate that he heard and understood. And that was it. No need for a lot of details, no need for spelling things out. The meaning was in the relationship.
This is a funny illustration, but it still didn't clearly define it, so I used the example from the book about contracts, at how long and tedious they are back home in the west and how short and simple they seemingly are over here. That's because we need everything spelled out for us through the words in the U.S. We are low-context, high code communicators. We need to know the exact parameters of any given situation and the anomolies and by-laws of any given situation should it occur. In Korea, they are shorter. That's because, if there is a problem or misunderstanding, it will go through the proper channels of the hierarchy to be figured out and changed. If I'm a starting level employee my parameters are defined by the people above me, I'll do what they say. If I don't like it in the end, then I may quit; but to have any decision power at this point in the game is ridiculous.
Another example I used was small talk. In the west, we normally don't feel comfortable sitting in silence, so we've perfected the art of chit chatting. In a really high context society, silence may be often preferred. Why is there any reason to say anything, after all. Most things you need to know are in the environment and in the relationships that you have.
Collectivism and Individualism were discussed in the family settings. In the individualistic societies, we are taught to stand on our feet, we live in nuclear families, and we learn the concept of "I" and "my" at a very young age. I had my own room growing up. I had my own toys. My identity was distinctly different from that of my brothers. In a collective household, a person might live in a crowded house, complete with Grandparents, great-grandparents, possibly some aunts or uncles thrown in, maybe a cousin is there for the summer. In the collective household, there isn't any of the "my" business. It is "our" all the way, and the child thus learns to thing of himself as "we". Think of how this translates into language. Where do I live? My house. I am the father of my children. My parents are my parents. In Korea, everything is our: 우리집 (our house) 우리아들 (our son), and Jina, even though she doesn't share me with anybody else, calls me 우리남편 (our husband)!
In the individualistic home, confrontations do and will occur. And when they do, it usually isn't a disaster. We value working stuff out, having discussions around the dinner table, and even yelling and slamming doors on occassion. Why? Because this is the nature of life. People disagree. It's best, according to our culture, to talk this things through, maybe see the other's point of view, and reach a final decision. Argument can often be beneficial and healthy when we make it to the other side. Arguments between parents and children are not a problem, although the parents usually win. But the kids won't accept the old traditional response of "Because I'm the parent and I said so!" That just won't fly anymore. Parents have to have a more solid argument with reason, logic, and the facts to back it up.
Totally opposite in the collective world. Confrontation, especially with your elders, is disastrous, leads to "losing face", and can often tear families apart. If you disagree with your father or mother, its best to bite your lip, nod, and comply. And if you don't comply, then at least pretend to in their presence. Take this story from the reading as an example:
A dutch missionary was in Indonesia telling a parable from the book of Matthew to the locals. In the parable, Jesus recounts the story of a farmer with two sons. he asks his first son, "Go and work in the vineyard." The first son answers in the affirmative, but then goes off and doesn't work. The father asks the second son the same thing. the second son replies, "No, I won't do it." But later on, he changes his mind, and goes and works in the vineyard. After Jesus tells the parable, he asks his disciples, "Which son did the will of the father?" Of course, the biblical answer would be the second. I think the lesson being that you shouldn't worship with your lips if you're not going to worship with your heart and your actions, and that it is considered better to rebel and then repent than comply with empty words. Anyhow, the Indonesians surprised the missionary by saying that the first son did the will of the father because he answered in the affirmative, thus preserving the authority of the father and the ultimate harmony of the household. That son could later be admonished and forgiven for not doing the work, the Indonesians reasoned, but the second son committed the ultimate, unforgivable act of open rebellion against the father, thus destroying the harmony of the family.
Interesting stuff.
Anyways, we also discussed in class other variations of individual and collective behaviors in the workplace, and at school, which I won't go into here. The journal assignment this weekend will be:
1. Ask your roommate about their family life. Does it resemble a collective family more or a individualistic family? Ask them to give examples and write a paragraph about that. (100 words)
2. Then write about your own family. (100 words)
No comments:
Post a Comment