Who Knew We Were So Different

The whole idea of Peace Corps reflects a deeply ingrained American ideology: things can always be improved upon. The optimism that most Americans have that “if you put your mind it to and don’t take no for an answer” is not a universal concept and may in fact be frowned upon in some societies.

Any American living abroad must remember: it’s not innately harmful to push boundaries, but it’s maximally important to find out why things are done the way they are. In some instances, your actions might alienate co-works, locals/nationals or create cultural barriers that harm either your work or social relationships.

The ideas that follow were presented to me in the amazing PC resource on cultural differences, a book called Culture Matters: the Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Workbook.

The idea of Personal vs Social Obligation:

The book sets up a scenario: You are a passenger in the car with a close friend when suddenly your friend hits a pedestrian. The man is not badly hurt, only bruised. Your friend’s lawyer tells you that although the medical situation does not call for severe action, the friend was driving 35 mph in a 20 mph zone. However, if you testify in court that he was driving 20 mph, he will suffer no serious consequences. WOULD YOU TESTIFY THAT YOUR FRIEND WAS DRIVING 20 MPH?

96% of Americans said they would NOT testify in favor of their friend.

34% of Venezuelans said they NOT testify in favor of their friend.

Why the difference? At first glance, one might say that Venezuelans are not as honest as Americans, but in reality, this is jumping to conclusions and imposing American morality on non-Americans. Another explanation exists: in terms of cultural attitudes, Americans tend to be universalists while Venezuelans tend to be particularists.

Universalism: certain absolutes apply across the board; right is right, regardless of circumstances; whenever possible one should apply the same rules to everyone; to be fair is treat your mother (an in-group member) and a stranger exactly the same; life isn’t necessarily fair but we can make it more fair by treating everyone as equally as possible.

Particularism: one must take into account the circumstances (the person in trouble is your friend); how one behaves in a given situations depends on the circumstances; there are no absolutes because you never know who you’re dealing with; you treat in-group members the best you can and let the rest of the world take care of itself—their group is responsible for protecting them; exceptions can always be made; no one expects life to be fair.

Universalists	Particularists
Desire consistency	Friends expect preferential treatment
Justice is blind	Deals made on basis of personal relationships
Principals aren’t compromised	People hire friends and family
Objectivity is the rule	Subjectivity is the rule
Logic of the head is important	Friends always trusted (no business with strangers)
The law is the law	Exception is the rule, no absolutes exist

Some examples:

1. (U): I would not expect my neighbor, the policewoman, to jeopardize her job and not give me a ticket.

(P): I would be very hurt if my neighbor, a policewoman, gave me a speeding ticket.

2. (U): In general, people can be trusted.

(P): My family, friends and closest associates are absolutely trusted, everyone else is suspect.

3. (U): In society, we should help those who are neediest.

(P): In society, we should help those neediest of those of depend on us.

4. (U): Contracts help friends stay friends.

(P): Contracts are not necessary between friends

Styles of Communication—Indirect vs Direct:

Indirect/High Context: context refers to the amount of innate and unspoken understanding a person is expected to bring into a conversation. In high context societies, like Thailand, where society is largely homogenous and collectivist, people know what to expect of the person with whom they are conversing based on relational status, background and pervious similar encounters. This consciousness and basic understanding of other individuals in society translates into communication that requires far less literal verbal communication. Because the society is collectivist rather than individualist, everyone knows exactly what everyone else knows and therefore being explicit and direct is not necessary. People make their intentions and desires clear by manipulating the conversation or surrounding situation. The goal of communication is to maintain harmony and save face.

Direct/Low Context: heterogeneous and individualist societies, such as the US, have developed a more direct communication style due to the low context that each person brings into interactions (not much contextual information can be gathered and little background information is known). In light of the emphasis placed on independence, self-reliance and less emotional transparency, individuals can neither manipulate the context nor make assumptions about other individuals. Lack of widespread societal rituals and the high volume of diversity precludes indirect communication: not doing something or not saying something means almost nothing due to the high levels of variation amongst individuals. Therefore, words are both used and interpreted literally with the main goal of communication being to exchange information.

Characteristics and Behaviors of Indirect communicators compared to Direct:

Indirect	Direct
People “small talk” before getting to business	Business first, then small talk
Small talk is very important to build and strengthen relationships for indirect communicators, however, in direct cultures, a meeting is called to conduct business.
Use of understatement is frequent/people tell you what you want to hear	People think it’s best to tell it like it is
“yes” means I hear you	“yes” means yes
People are reluctant to say no	It is Ok to disagree with the boss/co-workers
If indirect communicators say yes, it carries less meaning and one must use context clues to decipher the person’s actual response.
People are already up to date at a meeting	People need to be brought up to date
In collectivists (indirect) cultures, people know their co-workers exceptionally well, in low context cultures, people must be brought up to speed on their co-worker’s progress and thoughts.
The rank/status of the messenger as important s the message	The message is what counts, not who the messenger is

Examples of how indirect communication can manifest:

You “explain” something to your co-workers who nod in agreement but say nothing. Later you find out they disagree and don’t want to follow your plan. When approached they agree once more that they like your plan.

Your boss keeps saying he will get back to you about your proposal. (sounds familiar to me!)

Decoding Indirectness or Practicing Indirectness:

What they said:	What they meant:
Do you think that’s a good idea? Are there other ideas? I like this part of your idea.	I don’t think that’s such a good idea.
This is a very interesting view point.	I don’t agree. We need to talk more about this first. You’re wrong.
I think those figures might be old. I have a different set of figures. Let’s go over these together.	Those figures are not accurate.

Interesting, no?

Of course in some families, this is the accepted norm, but the majority of Americans are direct communicators and may come across either a bit hard-headed or blunt (in a negative sense) to those who come from high-context/indirect societies.