Summary key concepts (video +
book)
Week 1 key terms
› concepts of culture
› contextualisation cues (Gumperz)
› cross-cultural research
› cultural ecology
› environmental determinism/possibilism
› gene-culture co-evolution
› globalisation (sources, perspectives)
› Howell’s theory of competence
› intercultural competence (aspects of)
› Kolb’s cycle
› Gibb’s cycle
› the global village
› the interaction of genes-culture-environment
Concepts of culture
Three theories of culture:
- Relativist versus universalist
- Dynamic versus static
- Shared knowledge versus socially distributed
Relativist versus universalist
Relativist (Franz Boas): we must understand the norms and values of a culture as a system in
itself (so from its own position). They cannot be judged from the norms and values of another
culture.
This position came under attack during the second world war: according to the relativist
perspective, a ‘culture’ like the Nazi regime would only be judgeable and accessible
according to their own norms. Therefore a new movement started:
Universalist: there are aspects of culture that are universal and that are not restrict to one
culture and therefore we may value a culture from these universalism norms. So, the
universalist proposes norms with a universal character.
Dynamic versus static
Dynamic: What counts as culture is brought about through communication: ‘a person can be
a member of multiple collective cultures’ (Mai Ngyuen bladiebla P.76). The culture that is
relevant for this conversation is something that you have to index and indicate at this stage. So
what counts as culture is not something predetermined but is something that has to brought
about by the participants in a particular communication situation.
Static: what counts as culture can be predicted from a person’s background (Dutch people are
like this, Spanish people are like this…etc.)
,Shared knowledge versus socially distributed
Culture as knowledge (by Ward Goodenough): ‘a society’s culture consists of whatever it is
one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and do
so in any role that they accept for any of themselves’. Members of a culture share certain
knowledge of beliefs. A possible problem of this definition: every member of a cultural group
is supposed to have the same knowledge. Triandis: ‘Culture is a set of evolving man-made
elements that have increased the probability of survival, and thus become shared among those
who communicate with each other’ (P. 18). An alternative is….
Socially distributed:
- Culture as socially distributed knowledge
- Culture emerges as people do things together
- Behavior is based on culture and produces culture at the same time
members of the culture don’t have the same knowledge but they are socially distributed
and some members know this, other’s do that and that enables them to collaborate and do
things they couldn’t have done alone. What makes this a culture? Well, they form a social
group that is capable of doing certain things.
Contextualization cues by Gumperz
John Gumperz did a lot of research on communication in UK between Anglo and
Indian/Pakistani immigrant citizens. He introduced the notion of ‘contextualization cues’: an
index that you give to others about how to interpret what you saying. On one level you are
communicating and on the other level you are giving signs about how you want the other to
interpret your sayings. Intonation is used very much as contextualization cue.
Example: Post office. Someone from India comes to the (English) post office and needs a
certain form to fill in. He gets a different form than he wants and says: “No this is the wrong
one”. Gumperz notes that by stressing the word wrong, for English ears this sounds as an
accusation (beschuldiging). Whereas for the Indian speaker he was just asking for a different
form. A British speaker would have said: “This is the wrong one”. Gumperz argues that this
stress difference gives an indication to the other about how to interpret this: as a polite
request or as an accusation. This differentiation in intonation derives from the mothertone of
the Indian speaker who has imported his intonation to the English language.
On the one hand these CC are a dynamic view of culture but Gumperz chose to focus on the
difference in CC’s and resulting misunderstandings: a more static view of culture. Gumperz
focused on the misunderstandings which has become so strong that by the mid 80-ties the
study of ICC was almost equal to studying and explaining misunderstandings.
People who studied ICC found out that there’s much more to ICC than misunderstanding.
They asked attention for identity construction through language: interpersonal relations.
Dynamics of social interaction: when people with different culture backgrounds have to
work together, they establish a new cultural and new ways of collaborating that are unrelated
to their cultural background but are specific for their collaboration.
Cross-cultural research
Cross-cultural communication = Starts from an assumption that there are distinct cultural
groups and each cultural group has their own way of doing things. It compares different
, cultures (Englishmen are direct, Dutchman are less direct). Cross-cultural research probably is
the research in this.
Cultural ecology
- Important tenet (basisprincipe) of cultural ecology: humans are part of the
environment, embedded in earth surface processes, neither “victims” of its force
(determinism), nor an outside force making an impact on it (possibilism).
- Culture is not a “consequence” of nature or a tool to “control” nature, but rather a
strategy to interact with nature.
- Example of cultural ecology: Worshipping of cows in India. The important role of cows in agriculture and
transportation led to the development of a belief that cows were sacred and should not be eaten (good cultural
strategy to not kill cows that where crucial for survival).
- Humans are expected to develop a sustainable and harmonious cultural relationship
with the environment in which they live. This dynamic interaction leads diversity in
culture.
• The impact of environment on cultural diversity is influential, with theories ranging from a
deciding factor (determinism), an influential factor (probabilism), a source of possibilities
(possibilism), to an entity (geheel) that is inseparable from the human species (ecology).
According to the Diagram of Diversity Pathways, environment can take a dynamic role, both
influencing and being subjected to the impact of cultural and human behaviors, depending on
a particular context.
Environmental determinism/possibilism
Environmental determinism = living environment is the major reason why our societies
developed in different ways. Environment undoubtedly influences human societies, likewise,
humans have dramatically changed the environment as well. The interaction between the
environment and humans is so intricate and dynamic that it has triggered the development of
the environmental possibilism theory = human beings are active rather than passive agents,
who see numerous possibilities in nature and actively shape it to suit our need for survival.
Then, probabilism = a mid-way view that sees physical environment not as deterministic but
as the most influential factor.
Gene-culture co-evolution
Genes are the fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. Therefore, the power
transition from genes to culture is not mutually exclusive. Genes turn useful cultural values
into genetic traits, and vice versa. The gene-culture co-evolution theory = while culture
shapes the expression and selection of genes, genes also influence the acceptance and
formation of certain cultural values, it is crucial in understanding human diversity. The
interaction between culture and gene is very dynamic and is better understood as a vicious
circle of cause and effect.
Globalization (sources, perspectives)
How do people theorize globalization? There are three perspectives:
1. Globalism It is a view that says that globalization is inevitable: it will happen no
matter what and it can’t be influenced by human intervention (Mac Donalds).
2. Traditionalism These people see a significant role in the local as opposed to the
global. They believe in nation states and in local actions/activities and think that they
are more important than global actions (Small traditional Greek restaurant).
book)
Week 1 key terms
› concepts of culture
› contextualisation cues (Gumperz)
› cross-cultural research
› cultural ecology
› environmental determinism/possibilism
› gene-culture co-evolution
› globalisation (sources, perspectives)
› Howell’s theory of competence
› intercultural competence (aspects of)
› Kolb’s cycle
› Gibb’s cycle
› the global village
› the interaction of genes-culture-environment
Concepts of culture
Three theories of culture:
- Relativist versus universalist
- Dynamic versus static
- Shared knowledge versus socially distributed
Relativist versus universalist
Relativist (Franz Boas): we must understand the norms and values of a culture as a system in
itself (so from its own position). They cannot be judged from the norms and values of another
culture.
This position came under attack during the second world war: according to the relativist
perspective, a ‘culture’ like the Nazi regime would only be judgeable and accessible
according to their own norms. Therefore a new movement started:
Universalist: there are aspects of culture that are universal and that are not restrict to one
culture and therefore we may value a culture from these universalism norms. So, the
universalist proposes norms with a universal character.
Dynamic versus static
Dynamic: What counts as culture is brought about through communication: ‘a person can be
a member of multiple collective cultures’ (Mai Ngyuen bladiebla P.76). The culture that is
relevant for this conversation is something that you have to index and indicate at this stage. So
what counts as culture is not something predetermined but is something that has to brought
about by the participants in a particular communication situation.
Static: what counts as culture can be predicted from a person’s background (Dutch people are
like this, Spanish people are like this…etc.)
,Shared knowledge versus socially distributed
Culture as knowledge (by Ward Goodenough): ‘a society’s culture consists of whatever it is
one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and do
so in any role that they accept for any of themselves’. Members of a culture share certain
knowledge of beliefs. A possible problem of this definition: every member of a cultural group
is supposed to have the same knowledge. Triandis: ‘Culture is a set of evolving man-made
elements that have increased the probability of survival, and thus become shared among those
who communicate with each other’ (P. 18). An alternative is….
Socially distributed:
- Culture as socially distributed knowledge
- Culture emerges as people do things together
- Behavior is based on culture and produces culture at the same time
members of the culture don’t have the same knowledge but they are socially distributed
and some members know this, other’s do that and that enables them to collaborate and do
things they couldn’t have done alone. What makes this a culture? Well, they form a social
group that is capable of doing certain things.
Contextualization cues by Gumperz
John Gumperz did a lot of research on communication in UK between Anglo and
Indian/Pakistani immigrant citizens. He introduced the notion of ‘contextualization cues’: an
index that you give to others about how to interpret what you saying. On one level you are
communicating and on the other level you are giving signs about how you want the other to
interpret your sayings. Intonation is used very much as contextualization cue.
Example: Post office. Someone from India comes to the (English) post office and needs a
certain form to fill in. He gets a different form than he wants and says: “No this is the wrong
one”. Gumperz notes that by stressing the word wrong, for English ears this sounds as an
accusation (beschuldiging). Whereas for the Indian speaker he was just asking for a different
form. A British speaker would have said: “This is the wrong one”. Gumperz argues that this
stress difference gives an indication to the other about how to interpret this: as a polite
request or as an accusation. This differentiation in intonation derives from the mothertone of
the Indian speaker who has imported his intonation to the English language.
On the one hand these CC are a dynamic view of culture but Gumperz chose to focus on the
difference in CC’s and resulting misunderstandings: a more static view of culture. Gumperz
focused on the misunderstandings which has become so strong that by the mid 80-ties the
study of ICC was almost equal to studying and explaining misunderstandings.
People who studied ICC found out that there’s much more to ICC than misunderstanding.
They asked attention for identity construction through language: interpersonal relations.
Dynamics of social interaction: when people with different culture backgrounds have to
work together, they establish a new cultural and new ways of collaborating that are unrelated
to their cultural background but are specific for their collaboration.
Cross-cultural research
Cross-cultural communication = Starts from an assumption that there are distinct cultural
groups and each cultural group has their own way of doing things. It compares different
, cultures (Englishmen are direct, Dutchman are less direct). Cross-cultural research probably is
the research in this.
Cultural ecology
- Important tenet (basisprincipe) of cultural ecology: humans are part of the
environment, embedded in earth surface processes, neither “victims” of its force
(determinism), nor an outside force making an impact on it (possibilism).
- Culture is not a “consequence” of nature or a tool to “control” nature, but rather a
strategy to interact with nature.
- Example of cultural ecology: Worshipping of cows in India. The important role of cows in agriculture and
transportation led to the development of a belief that cows were sacred and should not be eaten (good cultural
strategy to not kill cows that where crucial for survival).
- Humans are expected to develop a sustainable and harmonious cultural relationship
with the environment in which they live. This dynamic interaction leads diversity in
culture.
• The impact of environment on cultural diversity is influential, with theories ranging from a
deciding factor (determinism), an influential factor (probabilism), a source of possibilities
(possibilism), to an entity (geheel) that is inseparable from the human species (ecology).
According to the Diagram of Diversity Pathways, environment can take a dynamic role, both
influencing and being subjected to the impact of cultural and human behaviors, depending on
a particular context.
Environmental determinism/possibilism
Environmental determinism = living environment is the major reason why our societies
developed in different ways. Environment undoubtedly influences human societies, likewise,
humans have dramatically changed the environment as well. The interaction between the
environment and humans is so intricate and dynamic that it has triggered the development of
the environmental possibilism theory = human beings are active rather than passive agents,
who see numerous possibilities in nature and actively shape it to suit our need for survival.
Then, probabilism = a mid-way view that sees physical environment not as deterministic but
as the most influential factor.
Gene-culture co-evolution
Genes are the fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. Therefore, the power
transition from genes to culture is not mutually exclusive. Genes turn useful cultural values
into genetic traits, and vice versa. The gene-culture co-evolution theory = while culture
shapes the expression and selection of genes, genes also influence the acceptance and
formation of certain cultural values, it is crucial in understanding human diversity. The
interaction between culture and gene is very dynamic and is better understood as a vicious
circle of cause and effect.
Globalization (sources, perspectives)
How do people theorize globalization? There are three perspectives:
1. Globalism It is a view that says that globalization is inevitable: it will happen no
matter what and it can’t be influenced by human intervention (Mac Donalds).
2. Traditionalism These people see a significant role in the local as opposed to the
global. They believe in nation states and in local actions/activities and think that they
are more important than global actions (Small traditional Greek restaurant).
