6.1: Cultural Patterns

Chapter Learning Objectives

1. Explain the relationship between cultural values, deep-structure institutions and cultural patterns.
2. Discuss Edward T. Hall’s Theories.
3. Discuss Hofestede’s Dimensions of National Culture Theory.
4. Discuss Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Value Orientation Theory.

Understanding Cultural Patterns and Deep Structures

Anyone who has had an intercultural encounter or participated in intercultural communication can tell you that they encountered differences between themselves and others. Acknowledging the differences isn’t difficult. Rather, the difficulties come from describing the differences using terms that accurately convey the subtle meanings within cultures. These subtle meanings are rooted in deep-level, cultural value systems.

Value systems are fundamental to understanding how a culture expresses itself. Values are deeply felt and often serve as principles that guide people in their perceptions and behaviors. Using our values, certain ideas are judged to be right or wrong, good or bad, important or not important, desirable or not desirable. Cultural values are learned, mostly subconsciously, and are hidden deep within the language and traditions of the surrounding society. A culture’s deep structure institutions are social organizations that define, create transmit, maintain, and reinforce a culture's most important messages, including collective values. The most lasting and influential of these social organizations are; 1) family (or clans), 2) state (or community), and 3) religion (or worldview). Shared cultural values form the customs, guide the behaviors, and shape the attitudes of its members. For instance, eye contact can convey respect in some cultures, while looking away is more respectful in others.

Given the complexity and variety of cultural value systems, comparing them would be like comparing apples to oranges—or even to mushrooms. To simplify, anthropology, sociology, and communication scholars have developed frameworks known as cultural patterns that allow for comparisons between different cultures' value systems. These cultural patterns describe the values and beliefs typical of a culture's dominant group and can offer insights into cross-cultural communication. There are several different cultural pattern frameworks, also known as cultural taxonomies or typologies. Each provides different insights and has its own merits. The taxonomies selected for this chapter are the ones most commonly seen in the work of intercultural communication scholars.

Considerations When Studying Cultural Patterns

While cultural patterns or taxonomies can offer valuable insights into cross-cultural interactions, it’s essential to avoid broad generalizations and stereotypes by considering the following:

1. People Are More Than Their Culture: Recognize that dominant cultural values may not reflect each individual’s beliefs. A person’s worldview is shaped by multiple factors, such as gender, age, education, income level, and unique personal experiences.
2. Cultural Patterns Evolve Over Time: Values evolve and culture changes over time. For instances, the 2011 anti-government protests known as the Arab spring were partially a result of young people who embraced freedom, independence, and democracy; which clashed with authoritarian values from the dominant elite.
3. Cultural Patterns Can Be Contradictory: In the U.S., the core value of equality coexists with a history of social inequities and violence against minorities. Such contradictions are found in all cultures.

Hall’s High-Low Context Cultures

Anthropologist Edward Hall founded the field of intercultural communication in 1959 with his book The Silent Language. The book was originally intended for the general public, but it sparked academic research in intercultural communication and fueled interest in subjects like nonverbal communication.

High and Low Context

Think about someone you are very close to—a best friend, romantic partner, or sibling. Have there been times when you began a sentence and the other person knew exactly what you were going to say before you said it? For example, in a situation between two sisters, one sister might exclaim, “Get off!” (which is short for “get off my wavelength”). This phenomenon of being on someone’s wavelength is similar to what Hall describes as high context. In high-context communication the meaning is in the people, or more specifically, the relationship between the people as opposed to just the words. When we have to rely on the translation of words to decipher a person’s meaning then this is said to be low-context communication. The American legal system, for example, relies on low-context communication.

While some cultures are low or high context, in general terms, there can also be individual or contextual differences within cultures. In the example above between the two sisters, they are using high-context communication, however, America is considered a low-context culture. Countries such as Germany and Sweden are also low context while Japan and China have high context.

Hall defines intercultural communication as a form of communication that shares information across different cultures and social groups. One framework for approaching intercultural communication is with high-context and low-context cultures, which refer to the value cultures place on indirect and direct communication.

High-Context Cultures

A high-context culture relies on implicit communication and nonverbal cues. In high-context communication, a message cannot be understood without a great deal of background information. Asian, African, Arab, central European, and Latin American cultures are generally considered to be high-context cultures.

High-context cultures often display the following tendencies, according to C.B. Halverson’s book Cultural Context Inventory.

• Association: Relationships build slowly and depend on trust. Productivity depends on relationships and the group process. An individual’s identity is rooted in groups (family, culture, work). Social structure and authority are centralized.
• Interaction: Nonverbal elements such as voice tone, gestures, facial expression, and eye movement are significant. Verbal messages are indirect, and communication is seen as an art form or way of engaging someone. Disagreement is personalized, and a person is sensitive to conflict expressed in someone else’s nonverbal communication.
• Territoriality: Space is communal. People stand close to each other and share the same space.
• Temporality: Everything has its own time, and time is not easily scheduled. Change is slow, and time is a process that belongs to others and nature.
• Learning: Multiple sources of information are used. Thinking proceeds from general to specific. Learning occurs by observing others as they model or demonstrate and then practicing. Groups are preferred, and accuracy is valued.

Low-Context Cultures

A low-context culture relies on explicit communication. In low-context communication, more of the information in a message is spelled out and defined. Cultures with western European roots, such as the United States and Australia, are generally considered to be low-context cultures.

Low-context cultures often display the following tendencies, according to Halverson:

• Association: Relationships begin and end quickly. Productivity depends on procedures and paying attention to the goal. The identity of individuals is rooted in themselves and their accomplishments. Social structure is decentralized.
• Interaction: Nonverbal elements are not significant. Verbal messages are explicit, and communication is seen as a way of exchanging information, ideas and opinions. Disagreement is depersonalized; the focus is on rational (not personal) solutions. An individual can be explicit about another person’s bothersome behavior.
• Territoriality: Space is compartmentalized. Privacy is important, so people stand farther apart.
• Temporality: Events and tasks are scheduled and to be done at particular times. Change is fast, and time is a commodity to be spent or saved. One’s time is one’s own.
• Learning: One source of information is used. Thinking proceeds from specific to general. Learning occurs by following the explicit directions and explanations of others. Individual orientation is preferred, and speed is valued.

Communication Dynamics in High- and Low-Context Cultures

Cultural differences shape every aspect of global communication, says Forbes contributor Carol Kinsey Goman. This helps explain why people in Japan (a high-context culture) prefer face-to-face communication over electronic technology favored by other industrialized countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany (low-context cultures).

High-context cultures also prefer personal bonds and informal agreements over meticulously worded legal documents. They “are looking for meaning and understanding in what is not said — in body language, in silences and pauses, and in relationships and empathy,” Goman says. Meanwhile, low-context cultures “place emphasis on sending and receiving accurate messages directly, and by being precise with spoken or written words,” she explains. U.S. business leaders often fall into a communication trap by disregarding the importance of building and maintaining personal relationships when interacting with people from high-context cultures.

People should also watch for differences within high- and low-context cultures. This classification is an oversimplification, according to A.C. Krizan and others in the book Business Communication. “For example, although American culture is classified as low context, communication among family members tends to be high context,” they write. “Family relationships and members’ high level of shared experiences require fewer words because of mutual understanding.”

On the other hand, communication between two businesspersons from a low-context culture tends to be more specific and direct. Attention focuses more on what is said than relationships. In China or Japan, words receive less attention than relationships, mutual understanding, and nonverbal body language.

Hofstede’s Value Dimensions Theory

Geert Hofstede, sometimes called the father of modern cross-cultural science and thinking, is a social psychologist who focused on a comparison of nations using a statistical analysis of two unique databases. The first and largest database was composed of answers to a survey of IBM employees between the years of 1967 and 1973 from forty different countries, the survey questions focused on attitudes and beliefs. The second database consisted of answers to some of the same questions by Hofstede’s executive students who came from fifteen countries and from a variety of companies and industries. He developed a framework for understanding the systematic differences between nations in these two databases and was one of the first studies that was able to quantify cultural differences. This framework focused on value dimensions. Values, in this case, are broad preferences for one state of affairs over others, and they are mostly unconscious.

Most of us understand that values are our own culture’s or society’s ideas about what is good, bad, acceptable, or unacceptable. Hofstede developed a framework for understanding how these values underlie organizational behavior. Through his database research, he identified six key value dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, & time and indulgence) that analyze and interpret the behaviors, values, and attitudes of a national culture (Hofstede, 1980).

Hofstede's Value Dimensions\(\PageIndex{1}\)

1. Power Distance: This dimension explains the extent to which members who are less powerful in a society accept and also expect that the distribution of power takes place unequally.
2. Uncertainty Avoidance: It is a dimension that describes the extent to which people in society are not at ease with ambiguity and uncertainty.
3. Individualism vs. Collectivism: The focus of this dimension is on the question of whether people have a preference for being left alone to look after themselves or want to remain in a closely knitted network.
4. Masculinity vs. Femininity: Masculinity implies a society’s preference for assertiveness, heroism, achievement and material reward for attaining success. On the contrary, femininity represents a preference for modesty, cooperation, quality of life and caring for the weak.
5. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation: Long-term orientation describes the inclination of a society toward searching for virtue. Short-term orientation pertains to those societies that are strongly inclined toward the establishment of the absolute truth.
6. Indulgence vs. Restraint: This revolves around the degree to which societies can exercise control over their impulses and desires.

Power Distance

Power distance refers to how openly a society or culture accepts or does not accept differences between people, as in hierarchies in the workplace, in politics, and so on. For example, high power distance cultures openly accept that a boss is “higher” and as such deserves a more formal respect and authority. Examples of these cultures include Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines. In Japan or Mexico, the senior person is almost a father figure and is automatically given respect and usually loyalty without questions.

In Southern Europe, Latin America, and much of Asia, power is an integral part of the social equation. People tend to accept relationships of servitude. An individual’s status, age, and seniority command respect—they’re what make it all right for the lower-ranked person to take orders. Subordinates expect to be told what to do and won’t take initiative or speak their minds unless a manager explicitly asks for their opinion.

At the other end of the spectrum are low power distance cultures, in which superiors and subordinates are more likely to see each other as equal in power. Countries found at this end of the spectrum include Austria and Denmark. To be sure, not all cultures view power in the same ways. In Sweden, Norway, and Israel, for example, respect for equality is a warranty of freedom. Subordinates and managers alike often have carte blanche to speak their minds.

Interestingly enough, research indicates that the United States tilts toward low power distance but is more in the middle of the scale than Germany and the United Kingdom. The United States has a culture of promoting participation at the office while maintaining control in the hands of the manager. People in this type of culture tend to be relatively laid-back about status and social standing—but there’s a firm understanding of who has the power. What’s surprising for many people is that countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia actually rank lower on the power distance spectrum than the United States.

In a high power distance culture, you would probably be much less likely to challenge a decision, to provide an alternative, or to give input. If you are working with someone from a high power distance culture, you may need to take extra care to elicit feedback and involve them in the discussion because their cultural framework may preclude their participation. They may have learned that less powerful people must accept decisions without comment, even if they have a concern or know there is a significant problem.

Characteristics of Large Power Distance Cultures\(\PageIndex{1}\)

1. Autocracy in leadership;
2. Authority that is centralized;
3. Paternalistic ways of management;
4. A number of hierarchy levels;
5. The acceptance of the privileges that come with power;
6. A lot of supervisory staff;
7. An expectation of power differences and inequality.
8. Societies that have small power distance possess the following features:
9. Participative or consultative style of management;
10. Decision-making responsibility and authority are decentralized;
11. Flat structure of organizations;
12. Supervisory staff is small in proportion;
13. Questioning the authority and lack of acceptance;
14. An inclination toward egalitarianism;
15. Consciousness of rights.

Uncertainty Avoidance

When we meet each other for the first time, we often use what we have previously learned to understand our current context. We also do this to reduce our uncertainty. People who have high uncertainty avoidance generally prefer to steer clear of conflict and competition. They tend to appreciate very clear instructions. They dislike ambiguity. At the office, sharply defined rules and rituals are used to get tasks completed. Stability and what is known are preferred to instability and the unknown.

Some cultures, such as the U.S. and Britain, are highly tolerant of uncertainty, while others go to great lengths to reduce the element of surprise. Cultures in the Arab world, for example, are high in uncertainty avoidance; they tend to be resistant to change and reluctant to take risks. Whereas a U.S. business negotiator might enthusiastically agree to try a new procedure, the Egyptian counterpart would likely refuse to get involved until all the details are worked out.

Berger and Calabrese (1975) developed uncertainty reduction theory to examine this dynamic aspect of communication. Here are seven axioms of uncertainty:

1. There is a high level of uncertainty at first. As we get to know one another, our verbal communication increases and our uncertainty begins to decrease.
2. Following verbal communication, as nonverbal communication increases, uncertainty will continue to decrease, and we will express more nonverbal displays of affiliation, like nodding one’s head to express agreement.
3. When experiencing high levels of uncertainty, we tend to increase our information-seeking behavior, perhaps asking questions to gain more insight. As our understanding increases, uncertainty decreases, as does the information-seeking behavior.
4. When experiencing high levels of uncertainty, the communication interaction is not as personal or intimate. As uncertainty is reduced, intimacy increases.
5. When experiencing high levels of uncertainty, communication will feature more reciprocity, or displays of respect. As uncertainty decreases, reciprocity may diminish.
6. Differences between people increase uncertainty, while similarities decrease it.
7. Higher levels of uncertainty are associated with a decrease in the indication of liking the other person, while reductions in uncertainty are associated with liking the other person more.
8. In educational settings, people from countries high in uncertainty avoidance expect their teachers to be experts with all of the answers. People from countries low in uncertainty avoidance don’t mind it when a teacher says, “I don’t know.”

Characteristics of Weak vs. Strong Uncertainty Avoidance Cultures\(\PageIndex{1}\)

Weak uncertainty avoidance comes with the following features:

• Undertaking risk;
• Flexibility;
• Tolerance toward differing opinions and behaviors.

Strong uncertainty avoidance is represented by the following aspects:

• Tendency to avoid risk;
• Organizations that have a number of standardized procedures, written rules, and clearly delineated structures;
• Strong requirement for consensus;
• Respect for authority;
• Requirement for predictability highlighting the significance of planning;
• Minimal or no tolerance for deviants;
• Promotions depending upon age or seniority.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualism vs. collectivism anchor opposite ends of a continuum that describes how people define themselves and their relationships with others. Individualism is just what it sounds like. It refers to people’s tendency to take care of themselves and their immediate circle of family and friends, perhaps at the expense of the overall society. In individualistic cultures, what counts most is self-realization. Initiating alone, sweating alone, and achieving alone— not necessarily collective efforts—are what win applause. In individualistic cultures, competition is the fuel of success.

The United States and Northern European societies are often labeled as individualistic. In the United States, individualism is valued and promoted—from its political structure (individual rights and democracy) to entrepreneurial zeal (capitalism). Other examples of high-individualism cultures include Australia and the United Kingdom.

Communication is more direct in individualistic societies but more indirect in collectivistic societies. The U.S. ranks very high in individualism, and South Korea ranks quite low. Japan falls close to the middle.

Characteristics of Individualistic vs. Collectivist Cultures\(\PageIndex{1}\)

Individualistic cultures are characterized by:

• Fostering contractual relationships that revolve around the fundamentals of exchange. These cultures engage in the calculation of profit and loss prior to engagement in a behavior.
• Concentration on self or at the most very near and dear ones, and concern with behavioral relationships as well as own goals, interests, and needs.
• Emphasis on personal enjoyment, fun, and pleasure, over duties and social norms. They are a part of a number of in-groups which hardly have any influence on their lives.
• Self-sufficiency and value independence, and placement of self-interest over collective interest. Confrontation is accepted as an attribute.
• Stress on horizontal relationships (such as the relationship between spouse and spouse) rather than vertical relationships (such as the relationship between parent and child).
• The notion that they hold unique beliefs.

Collectivistic cultures are characterized by:

• Behavior as per social norms that are established for maintenance of social harmony among in-group members;
• Considering the wider collective with regard to implications of their actions;
• Sharing of resources and readiness to give up personal interest keeping in mind the collective interest;
• Favoring some in-groups (such as friends and family);
• Being a part of a few in-groups that have an influence on their lives. Rather than being individualistic, they have an increased inclination toward conformity;
• Increased concern regarding in-group members. They show hostility or indifference toward out-group members;
• Emphasis on harmony and hierarchy within the group;
• Regulation of behavior with the help of group norms.

Masculinity vs. Femininity

When we talk about masculine or feminine cultures, we’re not talking about diversity issues. It’s about how a society views traits that are considered masculine or feminine. Each carries with it a set of cultural expectations and norms for gender behavior and gender roles across life.

Traditionally perceived “masculine” values are assertiveness, materialism, and less concern for others. In masculine-oriented cultures, gender roles are usually crisply defined. Men tend to be more focused on performance, ambition, and material success. They cut tough and independent personas, while women cultivate modesty and quality of life. Cultures in Japan and Latin American are examples of masculine-oriented cultures.

In contrast, feminine cultures are thought to emphasize “feminine” values: concern for all, an emphasis on the quality of life, and an emphasis on relationships. In feminine-oriented cultures, both genders swap roles, with the focus on quality of life, service, and independence. The Scandinavian cultures rank as feminine cultures, as do cultures in Switzerland and New Zealand. The United States is actually more moderate, and its score is ranked in the middle between masculine and feminine classifications. For all these factors, it’s important to remember that cultures don’t necessarily fall neatly into one camp or the other. The range of difference is one aspect of intercultural communication that requires significant attention when a communicator enters a new environment.

Characteristics of Masculine vs. Feminine Cultures \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Masculine cultures possess the following characteristics:

• Clearly distinct gender roles;
• Benevolence has little or no significance;
• Men are expected to be tough and assertive with a concentration on material achievements;
• Much value is associated with mastery of people, nature, job, and the like;
• Sense of humor, intelligence, affection, personality are considered preferred characteristic traits of a boyfriend by the women;
• Understanding, wealth, and health are considered desirable characteristic traits of a husband by the women.

Feminine cultures possess the following characteristics:

• Overlapping of social gender roles;
• Men, as well as women, are expected to be tender, modest, with focus on the quality of life;
• Emphasis on the non-materialistic angles of success;
• The preferred traits in boyfriends and husbands are the same.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

The fifth dimension is long-term orientation, which refers to whether a culture has a long-term or short-term orientation, is based on Confucian dynamism. This dimension was added by Hofstede after the original four you just read about. It resulted in the effort to understand the difference in thinking between the East and the West. Certain values are associated with each orientation. The long-term orientation values persistence, perseverance, thriftiness, and having a sense of shame. These are evident in traditional Eastern cultures. Long-term orientation is often marked by persistence, thrift and frugality, and an order to relationships based on age and status. A sense of shame, both personal and for the family and community, is also observed across generations. What an individual does reflects on the family, and is carried by immediate and extended family members.

The short-term orientation values tradition only to the extent of fulfilling social obligations or providing gifts or favors. While there may be respect for tradition, there is also an emphasis on personal representation and honor, a reflection of identity and integrity. Personal stability and consistency are also valued in a short-term oriented culture, contributing to an overall sense of predictability and familiarity. These cultures are more likely to be focused on the immediate or short-term impact of an issue. Not surprisingly, the United Kingdom and the United States rank low on the long-term orientation.

Characteristics of Long vs. Short Term Orientation Cultures \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Long-term orientation (high Confucian values) reflects the following:

• A futuristic, dynamic mentality;
• Emphasis on a relationship order depending on status, and observance of this order;
• Emphasis on persistence and perseverance;
• Stress on possessing a sense of shame;
• Stress on thrift;
• Positive association with economic growth;
• Inclination toward interrelatedness represented in sensitivity toward social contacts.

Short-term orientation (low Confucian values) is characterized by the following:

• Orientation toward past and present;
• Focus on respect for tradition;
• A comparatively static, more conventional mentality;
• Emphasis on saving face;
• Emphasis on personal steadiness;
• Focus on stability;
• Emphasis on reciprocation of gifts, favors, and greetings;
• Negative association with economic growth.

Indulgence vs. Restraint

The dimension of indulgence vs. restraint focuses on happiness. A society that practices indulgence makes room for the comparatively free gratification of natural and basic human drives pertaining to indulging in fun and enjoying life. The quality of restraint describes a society that holds back the need gratification and tries to control it through stringent social norms. Think pleasure vs. duty.

Indulgence and restraint can also be explained as the degree of freedom that societal norms give to citizens in fulfilling their human desires. Countries with a high indulgence rating allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. These cultures tend to place a higher importance on leisure and tend to act and spend money as they please. Countries with a low indulgence rating have strict social norms. Citizens are more likely to feel powerless as if their experiences are not determined by their own actions, but rather by situations that happen to them. There is often a more visible police force, and maintaining national order is a high priority. Countries in Eastern Europe, including Russia, and some Asian countries have low indulgence ratings, indicating a restrained culture. Often, in these countries, there is a pervading idea that indulgence is somewhat wrong. While much of Western Europe falls in the median, most Anglo-Western nations such as The United States have a high indulgence rating.

Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Value Orientation Theory

The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Value Orientations theory represents one of the earliest efforts to develop a cross-cultural theory of values. According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), every culture faces the same basic survival needs and must answer the same universal questions. It is out of this need that cultural values arise. The basic questions faced by people everywhere fall into five categories and reflect concerns about: 1) human nature, 2) the relationship between human beings and the natural world, 3) time, 4) human activity, and 5) social relations. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck hypothesized three possible responses or orientations to each of the concerns.

Summary of Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Values Orientation Theory

Basic Concerns	Orientation	Orientation	Orientation
Human Nature	Evil	Mixed	Good
Relationship to the natural world	Control	Harmony	Submission
Time	Past	Present	Future
Activity	Being	Becoming	Doing

What is the inherent nature of human beings?

According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, this is a question that all societies ask, and there are generally three different responses. The people in some societies are inclined to believe that people are inherently evil and that the society must exercise strong measures to keep the evil impulses of people in check. On the other hand, other societies are more likely to see human beings as basically good and possessing an inherent tendency towards goodness. Between these two poles are societies that see human beings as possessing the potential to be either good or evil depending upon the influences that surround them. Societies also differ on whether human nature is immutable (unchangeable) or mutable (changeable).

What is the relationship between human beings and the natural world?

Some societies believe nature is a powerful force in the face of which human beings are essentially helpless. We could describe this as “nature over humans.” Other societies are more likely to believe that through intelligence and the application of technology, humans can control nature. In other words, they embrace a “humans over nature” position. Between these two extremes are the societies who believe humans are wise to strive to live in “harmony with nature.”

What is the best way to think about time?

Some societies are rooted in the past, believing that people should learn from history and strive to preserve the traditions of the past. Other societies place more value on the here and now, believing people should live fully in the present. Then there are societies that place the greatest value on the future, believing people should always delay immediate satisfaction while they plan and work hard to make a better future.

What is the proper mode of human activity?

In some societies, “being” is the most valued orientation. Striving for great things is not necessary or important. In other societies, “becoming” is what is most valued. Life is regarded as a process of continual unfolding. Our purpose on earth, the people might say, is to become fully human. Finally, there are societies that are primarily oriented to “doing.” In such societies, people are likely to think of the inactive life as a wasted life. People are more likely to express the view that we are here to work hard and that human worth is measured by the sum of accomplishments.

As Hill (2002) has observed, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck did not consider the theory to be complete. In fact, they originally proposed a sixth value orientation—Space: here, there, or far away, which they could not quite figure out how to investigate at the time. Today, the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck framework is just one among many attempts to study universal human values.

Critique of Cultural Taxonomies

While such distinctions can be useful in describing general cultural traditions and patterns of behavior, they are problematic when applied to individuals. Individual identities in today's world tend to be complex, and constructed from a variety of sources. Individuals may belong to an ethnic group, whose worldview, values, and behavior are quite different from those represented by the mainstream culture. Political boundaries do not define who we are. One might consider in that regard groups that cross political boundaries, such as the Kurds, Romani, or Basques. In fact, in today's world, the coherence of nation-states is increasingly porous, given changing demographics, widespread immigration, and the growth of social media.

Contemporary scholars of intercultural communication urge caution in using these categories, as they tend to "present people's individual behavior as entirely defined and constrained by the culture in which they live so that the stereotype becomes the essence of who they are" (Holliday, 2010, p. 4). Critics like Holliday describe the use of Hofstede's categories as essentialism, that is, assuming that people and things have 'natural' characteristics that are inherent and unchanging. That may translate into defining the essence of individuals in terms of their national origins. If one is from Mexico (a culture designated as large power distance), for example, an essentialist view would be to assume that person will be subservient to the boss, and never question decisions, no matter the context. Inherent in such an assumption is that individuals are unable to adapt to others’ norms of behavior. The term reductionism is used in similar fashion, referring to the tendency to explain an object by reducing it to a different, usually simpler, level. When dealing with people this means that identities are being reduced to a predetermined set of characteristics, associated with ethnic or cultural stereotypes. Defining individual characteristics through associations with national cultures denies individual free will. It assumes that we don't develop unique individual personalities as we grow. Many people living in "feminine-oriented" cultures are ambitious and focused on material success. Entrepreneurs (and others) in China (a "strong uncertainty avoidance" culture) often take risks to make their businesses successful. No matter what kind of culture we live in, we can probably all point to individuals in our culture who have the characteristics of "individualism" and others who tend towards "collectivism".

Holliday and others have pointed out that most of the cultural categories used in intercultural communication were created from a Western perspective and tend to skew according to the values attached to the different labels (Holliday, 1999; Piller, 2017). Individualism, for example, is seen as inherently positive, with attributes attributed to it that are valued in Western cultures, namely initiative, assertiveness, and ambition. Similarly, cultures with a large power distance are seen as undemocratic, hence inferior, and those with high uncertainty avoidance are regarded as adverse to risk-taking and, therefore, inhospitable to creativity and personal initiative. Holliday emphasizes the importance of allowing other cultures to define themselves, advocating a decentered perspective. One should be aware of conventional cultural descriptions, but in encountering someone put them aside to the extent possible and focus on the other as an individual, whose identity may be quite complex, derived from a variety of influences. He emphasizes "bracketing" away the cultural stereotypes, removing a priori assumptions, in order to be able to judge others individually. Of course, this necessitates on the one hand, being aware of one's own preconceptions. On the other hand, it contradicts the basic human tendency of putting unknowns into familiar categories.

Attributions

Adapted from:

Language and culture in context: A primer in intercultural communication by Robert Godwin-Jones. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC

Intercultural Communication for the Community College, by Karen Krumrey-Fulks. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC-SA

Exploring Intercultural Communication by Tom Grothe. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC-SA