The Global Context After some years, in the wake of advances in cultural anthropological, bio- cultural and ethnographic

studies, the European discussion broadened to include global issues like the world's bio-cultural diversity and even the survival of mankind. In the context of doubts about the future of the global community in the long run, arguments have been brought forward to improve the quality of cross-cultural communication. The fear is that our civilisation might come to grief if we do not succeed in learning to communicate more successfully. Young and others look for a way out of our growing predicament by developing a common 'tongue'. As Young has it: There is, perhaps, no more important topic in the social sciences than the study of intercultural communication. Understanding between members of different cultures was always important, but it has never been as important as it is now. it is a matter of the survival of our species. While we are clearly more involved in each other's lives than ever before, we appear no less deeply involved in brutal rejection of each other. While more people from mo re cultures are communicating and cooperating across differences, as many, it seems, are killing and maiming each other in the name of cultural and religious identity. The dilemma of the global age is that we are profoundly divided by race, culture and belief and we have yet to find a tongue in which we can speak our humanity to each other. (Young, 1996, p.2) Young is worried about the narrow definition presently in use of communicative competence. It seems to force non-Native Speakers (NNS) learning a foreign language to adapt to the host culture and criticise it at their peril. The 'tongue' Young speaks about in the quotation above is clearly not 'a language' like a global lingua franca. What he means is many languages, used in a spirit of cooperation, of negotiation of meaning, of a global knowledge about cultural diversity and of respect for differences. In this sense, mastery of languages as carriers of cultural identity in all its diversity opens new perspectives and could thus well contribute to world peace. Therefore, pessimists of global or European co-operation, who argue that cultural differences are the ultimate stumbling blocks on our road to a better world, are entirely wrong. In this respect, language teachers, for too long fed on too meagre a diet in their education, need to be offered an exciting field of study in addition to their traditional professional curriculum. This field of study targets intercultural communication. The term 'intercultural' is, in itself, normative and carries values, as opposed to 'cross-cultural' which is neutral. Interculturality has

moral-ethical dimensions for it incorporates respect for what is different. It requires knowledge (of cultural factors), insight (into what constitutes cultural identity), readiness (towards opening up to cultural differences) and skills (in negotiating 'common territory' and identifying and bridging gaps). The study of intercultural communication, naturally, unites all teachers of foreign languages and should, as such, form part of a (European and even global) teacher education curriculum. It is the area where all foreign language (L2) teachers find common ground. They all face the task of preparing their learners for the ordinary details of everyday communication across cultural borders. Grammatical or lexical correctness, important though it is, may not be the decisive factor in communicative success. Neither may a satisfactory control of language functions, however essential it may be. Even a basic generalised knowledge of the foreign language culture may not be a guarantee of success, as it may lead to or enhance existing stereotypes (Steele and Suozzo, 1994). Of much greater value in deciding communicative success, over and above these competences, is the ability to create 'common ground' in an interaction, in the awareness that what is being attempted is complex and uncertain.

The significance of context in communication Communication problems in input dialogues [in traditional foreign language textbooks] at best concern only grammar and lexicon. Helping learners to avoid linguistic interference is considered much more important than helping them to identify and negotiate meaning interference. (Dams et al., 1998: 116) The aim of all communication by means of language is to exchange messages. These messages may be ritual, offer information, express emotions, establish or maintain relationships, convince or persuade our interlocutor, or discuss the interaction itself. Decisive for the success of the interaction, in all these types, is the overlap between the two (or more) interactants' reading of the context in which they communicate. Such a context needs to be established first. As Dell Hymes reminds us: 'The key to understanding language in context is to start not with the language but with the context' (Hymes, 1972: 6). If even friendly speakers who share their mother tongue and culture need language to re- establish their relationship after an absence, much more so will speakers of different languages who meet for the first time. They normally feel the need to negotiate a context before they 'get down to business' of whatever kind. This 'negotiation of context' process is fraught with problems and requires insight into the nature of culture, a willingness to establish real contact and, therefore,

context, and the linguistic and pragmatic skills to do so. Let us consider an example taken from real life and witnessed by the present author. The following dialogue took place on a plane between Milan and Paris carrying home a number of participants in an international conference. Seated in an aisle seat the present author saw two persons he remembered seeing at the conference approaching the seats in front of him. One of them, as appeared in their interaction, is an elderly French academic, and the other a much younger Dutch educationalist with fluent English. The two have seen each other at the conference but not spoken to each other (information given afterwards by the Dutchman on the flight from Paris to Amsterdam). They both stop and the following dialogue emerges: A is the young Dutchman, B the elderly French academic. A: Hi! Erm... have you seat B or the window seat? B: Bonjour, eum... Ah, ... I have to er.. look. Er .. the window seat. (They install themselves) A: What a coincidence that we should sit next to each other! B: Yes, eum .. a coincidence. A: What did you think of the conference? B: Well erm .. it was all right. A: I was quite surprised, you know, by the efficiency of the organisation. I had expected something a bit more erm .. how shall I put it erm .. a bit more erm .. well chaotic is too strong a word but erm ... B: I eum .. do not understand what you want to say ... A: Well, you know, there is this European joke about Europe being sheer Hell if all the cooks come from Britain, all the erm.. civil servants from Germany, all the policemen from France.. B: I do not like .. such jokes... A: Well, anyway, it ends with that everything there is organised by the Italians... B: That are all stereotypes. Excuse me eum .. A: I talked to other participants and some said the Italians are very careful when they organise something and do you think the French share with the Italians that you want to organise well, you leave nothing to chance, want to make sure... erm..? B: Well you have .. eum .. need of some chance if you organise eum .. something big like this congress. Tant de choses peuvent ... A: [I don't understand, B: [Oh excusez moi .. A: ... no no not the French but you said you need chance... B: You see, eum .. my English is . A: No, I think you misunderstood, 'leaving to chance' means not to take risks .. B: You must excuse me, I cannot follow ... (searches in his bag for something) A: Well, I see you have other things to do ......
3

(taken from Willems, 1996, based on notes taken during the conversation) What the Dutchman is obviously insufficiently doing here in the eyes of the Frenchman is observing cultural rules in attempting to create a context. He apparently thinks that having attended the same conference provides enough common ground between his fellow-passenger and himself to take things from there. He is clearly unaware that elderly French academics, as a rule, do not appreciate having their private sphere invaded so directly by younger colleagues, certainly not in a language that is not their own. Respect for seniority, on the whole, is natural in French culture. The Dutch egalitarian culture with its small power distance is difficult to accept for a Frenchman. Our young educationalist might have started the conversation by asking his fellow traveller if he spoke English. He might have proceeded by inquiring if communication was at all appreciated, or been more sensitive to the negative signals emitted by the Frenchman. The language for the management of such conversation is notoriously difficult to master in a foreign language (Pouw, 1990). Much strategic manoeuvering might, however, solve, or prevent, many problems. He obviously lacks the sensitiveness referred to above, even though his command of English leaves little to be desired. The Frenchman, in his turn, might have been a little less disconcerted had he known about Dutch directness in making conversation. The results of such encounters are easy to guess. The Dutchman later, on the plane from Paris to Amsterdam, communicated a sense of frustration and impatience with 'these chauvinistic and unapproachable French' and, no doubt, the Frenchman, if he had any stereotypes about the Dutch, had his worst feelings confirmed. Clearly, such encounters are not conducive to European harmony, or the growth of European, or global, citizenship. As suggested above, here lies an important task for foreign language teaching. An example of written interaction that is more in line with the insights on which this study is built, is the following. At a conference in Amsterdam a Dutch applied linguist conducted a workshop on cross-cultural communication. In the evening a French colleague phoned him to ask for an interview. She had been unable to attend his workshop but had heard from one of her colleagues that it had been concerned with issues very close to her heart. The interview took place in English. The French lady appeared to have lived in the United States for a long time. At the end of the interview it appeared that the applied linguist could 'get by' in French as well. He was asked to send some of his material to the French lady, now living in Paris. He did so and, in addressing his contact in the letter, he realised that in his mind he was on first name terms with her. Still, writing in French made him hesitate, aware as he was of

possible differences in how the lady and himself had 'read' the context. So he started with: 'Chre madame, chre Nadine', and in his first line put the problem up for discussion. Was it all right if he addressed her by her first name? The reply came with a grateful recognition of his sensitiveness, and that in time it would be fine if they addressed each other by their first names, but that until they had got to know each other better she preferred 'Chre Madame'! As they did not meet in person after this first encounter, they still head their letters in the, at least to the Dutch, and many English and Americans, rather distant and formal way employed in their first written communication. The negotiation avoided a possible clash, although there is some frustration on the part of the Dutchman. Frustration, however, is the lesser evil if we compare it to the blockade that might have resulted from a blunt insistence on, to the French, unacceptable familiarity. Towards intercultural language teacher education It is entirely within the spirit of the Council of Europe's overall approach to the learning and teaching of languages for communication that teachers should be encouraged, educated and trained to act, not as retailers of packaged materials and methods they have not chosen and do not understand in any depth, but as empirical investigators of this teaching/learning process in which they and the learners are engaged. (Trim, 1987: 6) it has become the custom to teach foreign languages in secondary schools as if pupils were to become tourists and holidaymakers in the foreign country. They have the language needed for survival in such situations and are given some 'useful' but rather superficial information about the country in question. This however has no effect on their view of their own identity and that of others; they are implicitly invited to remain firmly anchored in their own values and culture. (Byram, 1992: 11) These quotations point the way in our discussion of new directions in language teacher education. Teachers will have to be educated to be real professionals, who do not slavishly follow what others have designed for them, but are able to anticipate their learners' needs and professionally cater for them.

Culture The best introduction to intercultural (foreign) language teaching starts with a discussion of what culture is and on which points cultures generally differ. Culture in an attractive modern definition is: 'the collective mental programming which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another' (Hofstede, 1991: 16). He considers the human mind a computer which needs programming before it can start doing what it is

supposed to do. Once programmed, it is very difficult to change. If a new programme (culture) is installed on top of another, there will be clashes. Unlearning something is much more difficult than learning something for the first time. Previously we have called culture 'logic' in the sense of : 'the presupposed knowledge in the conduct of everyday life' (Holland and Quinn, 1991: 1). It takes a lot of effort to acquire another sort of logic, or even open up to other 'logics'. Even what we call a 'lie', so Holland and Quinn (op. cit.) tell us, appears to have different social effects in different cultures. Hofstede's global IBM research project, the HERMES/IBM survey among 116,000 IBM employees in 70 countries (Hofstede, 1980/1984) corroborates older sociological theory as to four major factors on which cultures may differ. Hofstede distinguishes: power relationships between people; the masculine (assertive) or feminine (caring) orientation of society; the orientation (collective or individual) of its members towards society; and, the handling of conflict and uncertainty (Hofstede, 1991). The communicative problems caused by differing cultural orientation between the participants become apparent, for instance, if we take the role played by the first factor: 'power distance'. We saw, for instance, how the French academic in our earlier dialogue, used to being treated with reverence, loathed the way he was accosted by the Dutchman. Also the third factor (collective vs individualistic orientation of society) may cause communicative havoc when negotiating context. Collectively organised societies have what Hall (1976) calls a 'high context' culture. This means there is relatively little need of exchanging information, as most of it is 'given' by the setting, or presupposed in the partner's knowledge. 'Low context' (more individualistically organised) cultures need an explicit code to formulate information to a much larger extent. Negotiation of what is meant by what is said between representatives of such cultures is inevitable here. Drawing up business contracts between Japan (collectively organised) and theUSA (individualisticallyorganised) is, therefore, not easy. Lastly, an example may suffice to illustrate the pitfalls inherent in the factor: dealing with uncertainty. Asked how they would solve continuous misunderstanding and irritation between the production-manager and the salesmanager in a business which threatens to become bankrupt, rather large groups of French, English and German student answered remarkably differently. The Germans suggested clearing up the rules, the French would turn to the director and tell him to bring the two employees to heel ( power distance). The English found the solution in bringing the two managers together and have them 'sort themselves out', if necessary by joining a course on corporate solidarity.

Hofstede offers enlightening tables showing where cultures tend to overlap or are fundamentally different on these four factors. These tables could play a useful role in the education of student teachers of languages. It is possible, if we define culture as 'social knowledge in the widest sense of the term', (Riley, 1989: 488) to distinguish three types of knowledge, which may help further in coming to grips with the essence of the concept culture. Riley offers three types: 'know that', 'know of' and 'know how'. Of these three the first and the last are largely accommodated by Hofstede's definition. 'Know that' embodies what people hold true, for instance their political and religious philosophies, their idea of how to manage a concern or school, and of what education, hunting, or history etc. is. It is relatively stable and permanent background knowledge. The third, 'know how', covers skills and competences: how to act appropriately (use the telephone, buy things in a shop, propose marriage, etc.) and how to speak (greet, thank, tell a story, address a superior, etc.). The second 'know of' refers to rather ephemeral knowledge. It is the knowledge of what is currently topical in a society. Without it, understanding headlines in newspapers may be very difficult, even if the words used are all familiar. Riley has interesting suggestions as to the use of cartoons in intercultural language education. As these carry essential cultural information about the society in which they are published they may successfully be used as teaching materials (Riley, 1989). Culture and communication have been defined and re-defined repeatedly, as they are concepts that are intimately linked with what is intrinsically human. Indeed, from an anthropological point of view, culture became consolidated with all of its variables when man first appeared and established interpersonal relationships with the different individuals forming separate communities, thus allowing for intercultural communication. Language has always been considered, from the time of the Tower of Babel, as one of the obstacles to intercultural communication, but in our world of globalization and telecommunications, this idea may be challenged by the spread of 1 supra-English. Recently representatives of the European Union admitted that 70% of the original texts used in the European Union are in English and that with the additions of Eastern European countries leading to 20 working languages in the European Union, English was going to become a pivot language for interpretation, used as a relay between other languages and the main language in most committee meetings. The first conclusion seems to 1 II International Congress of the Iberian Association of Studies on Translating and Interpreting held in Madrid , Spain. February 9-11, 2005.

be that everyone or most people speaking the same language, in this case English, will help communication. But is this true? Is there not more to communication than just surface language? In any case, as Baumgratz-Gangl (1998) states, the teaching and learning of foreign languages should take into consideration the specifics of organizational and subject cultures. Linguists have studied what is called deep meaning and other aspects of pragmatics to understand what is really needed for people to communicate. Even European diplomats have realized the problems, as evidenced in an informal guide, mentioned in an article in The Economist (September 4th, 2004) designed to help the Dutch understand what the English really mean when they say things like with the greatest respect (an icy put-down) or Ill bear it in mind (meaning I plan to do nothing about it). As Cerroni-Long (1998) is convinced, two decades of research in the United States shows that multicultural education gets crucially shaped by culture-specific factors, catalyzed by the historical circumstances defining citizenship and diversity in each national context. All these underlying meanings referred to above are definitely understood through what we call culture. As the world becomes more integrated, bridging the gap in cultural conflicts through real communication is increasingly important to people in all realms of society. Culture, however, is not easy to understand. It has been noted that it is more often a source of conflict than of synergy and, as Hofstede (2005;1) comments, cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster. For all these reasons, Baumgratz (1990) remarks that what is needed is a mapping out of relevant cultural dimensions of a social communication situation involving individuals or groups of different national and/or cultural origin and different forms of socialization who meet at a certain point in their lives in order to realize or contribute towards the achievement of certain general social, institutional, organizational, group and personal aims. Simulation and gaming is the strategy proposed for any learning process or understanding of reality which requires knowing more about other cultures and improving communication.

Classifications of culture Kroeber and Kluckholm (1952) in their Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions listed 154 different definitions, most, if not all, of which could be considered valid, depending on the field of science where it was being used. For our purposes in the study of multilingual communication, we will start with the definition given more recently (2000) by Spencer-Oatey: Culture is a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs, behavioural conventions and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each members behaviour and each members interpretations of the meaning of other peoples behaviour. (p. 4) Spencer-Oatey (2000) represents the different layers of depth, ranging from inner core assumptions and values, through outer core attitudes, beliefs and social conventions, to surface-level behavioural manifestations, in the following graph:

artifacts and products systems and institutions beliefs, attitudes and conventions basic assumptions and values

rituals and behaviour

Figure 1. Manifestations of culture at differing layers of depth. Adapted from SpencerOatey (2000:5)based on Hofstede (1991) and Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner (1997).

The question at this point is how this awareness of what culture entails can improve communication between different groups. As Bond et al. (2000) explain: Conceptualizing our physical and social environment in terms of categories... is useful, because it enables us to make more informed plans about future behaviour [communication] (p. 61). Negative overgeneralizations and value judgements which lead to stereotypes and prejudices, unopen to change and modification are not what we are talking about. We are talking about assumptions concerning what to expect in cross- cultural communication which can help to create a more receptive atmosphere for understanding. As Gudykunst states: Understanding communication in any culture . . . requires culture-general information (i.e. where the culture falls on the various dimensions of cultural variability) and culture-specific information (i.e. the specific cultural constructs associated with the dimension of cultural variability). (pp. 285-6) Consequently, we will now look at the way different authors have tried to classify cultures. The two authors most-cited in this field are Hall (1976) and Hofstede (1980). Hall proposed the difference between what he called high context and low context cultures. In communication in the low-context society, there must be explicit reference to the topic being conveyed. Nationalities used as examples include the Swiss-Germans, the Germans and the Scandinavians. At this point we should mention the fact that nations do not always coincide with culture. We need only think of the Belgians, China, many African countries or even Germany to see this. In Halls high context communication, much of the information is found in the physical context or is internalized in the person himself. Examples given include Japan, many Arab countries and even Latin American countries. Implicature is important here, as meaning is conveyed through hints, understood signals and background knowledge. In the Hofstede Project in 1980, a stratified sample was used of 100,000 IBM employees in 40 (later expanded to include 70) nations on a questionnaire with 32 items concerning personal goals. Hofstede, a Dutch sociologist, then found a culture score on each item with an average of each nation and through factor analysis found four major dimensions. These dimensions were: 1. Power Distance. This refers to the acceptance by the less powerful members of the society of the idea that power differences are a natural part of their society. Cultures with a low score would not accept this inequality as

10

easily. An example of the way a reprimand from a superior is given and received would illustrate this difference. 2. Individualism/Collectivism. This is the dimension most often used to explain cultural variability, sometimes to the exclusion of all others. Individualistic cultures are person-based, with examples coming from the Northern European countries, the United States and Australia. The group-based culture found in collectivism is exemplified by countries such as Japan and other Asian societies, African countries and Latin American countries. This individualist-collectivist dichotomy, however, can be manifested in many ways (the African community spirit, the Latin American family group, the Japanese desire for harmony) and is mediated by individual constraints as illustrated by Gudykunst (2000:297) in the following flow chart:

cultural norms/rul es

communication

cultur al Individualismcollectivism selfconstruals Individu al socializati on Individual values

personality orientations

Figure 2. Cultural and individual level influences of individualism/collectivism on communication. Adapted from Gudykunst (1998). 3. Uncertainty Avoidance. Obviously this, as all the other variables, refers to a predominant tendency within a culture and not to all the individuals within that culture. A high score, however, indicates that the tendency is for members of this culture to have
11

higher levels of anxiety when faced with uncertainty. They feel a greater need for absolute truth and are less tolerant of people or groups who deviate from the norm. This may affect their communication with strangers.

12

4. Masculinity. This male-female dichotomy especially affects communication within gender roles. In a masculine culture the roles are clearly distanced, the men being assertive, tough, and materialistic while the feminine involves modesty, nurturing and sensitivity. A feminine culture would be more concerned with the quality of life and show less differentiation between the sexes. The bipolar scales used by other authors to describe role relations, such as cooperative/competitive, equal/unequal, socioemotional/task-oriented might also be included in this category. Hofstede added a fifth dimension after conducting additional international studies. This dimension was called Confucian Dynamism referring to Long-Term Orientation and studies the degree to which the society accepts long-term traditional values. A high Long-Term Orientation ranking indicates the country values long-term commitments and respect for tradition. This is thought to support a strong work ethic. In a culture with a low Long- Term Orientation ranking, change can occur more rapidly. Another dimension (Hall, 1983) whose understanding may help cross- cultural communication is time. Monochronic cultures with a preference for one thing at a time value punctuality highly. They adhere religiously to plans, meet deadlines, show respect for private property and are concerned about not disturbing others. Polychronic cultures do many things at once, are highly distractible, accept interruptions, are more committed to human relationships, change plans often, and accept the idea of community property. They value patience above promptness. So, if your business associate arrives twenty minutes late, it is not necessarily inconsideration on his/her part, but perhaps a matter of coming from a polychronic culture. There are many other classifications or dimensions/dichotomies of culture, two important ones being Trompenaars and Hampden-Turners (1997) and Schwartzs (1992, 1994), and each of these classifications add a further nuance, another focus, to intercultural studies of values or behaviour. Most of them, however, can actually be incorporated for simplicitys sake into the dimensions explained above. As we mentioned in the section on Masculinity, the competitive/cooperative axis could be placed there . Future vs. Pastoriented is similar to Hofstedes Long Term Orientation and Trompenaars and HampdenTurners communiarianism vs. individualism sounds very similar to Individualism/Collectivism. Neutral vs. emotional as a behavioural expression might also be categorized here. Swartzs hierarchy vs. egalitarianism as a value fits to some degree in Hofstedes Power Distance. The division mentioned by Vaknin (2005) of neurotic vs. normal cultures carries a value judgment which does not really aid communication. One possible division he describes, however, that of exogenic (cultures which find

meaning in frameworks outside themselves, e.g. God, the Nation, an Enemy) vs. endogenic (cultures which center on themselves when searching for meaning), may be useful in some cases. All in all, this brief review of some of the different classifications of culture can help us see the problems foreseeable in interpersonal communication across cultures. As we have seen in Spencer-Oateys flow chart, other individual factors intervene in any communication, but having an idea of the possible cultural explanations for communication breakdowns can help to overcome them. These theories have been applied to a variety of different communication theories and setting; especially interesting to us are linguistics and rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2000), marketing (Dahl, 2005) and general business (Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars and Hampden- Turner, 1997). THE HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS IN A NUTSHELL Table 1 Ten Differences Between Small- and Large- Power Distance Societies Small Power Distance Use of power should legitimate and is subject criteria of good and evil Parents treat children as equals Older people are respected nor feared Student-centered education Hierarchy means inequality of roles, established for convenience Subordinates consulted expect to be neither Large Power Distance be to Power is a basic fact of society antedating good or evil: its legitimacy is irrelevant Parents teach children obedience Older people are both respected and feared Teacher-centered education Hierarchy inequality means existential

Subordinates expect to be told what to do

 Pluralist governments based on majority vote and changed peacefully Corruption rare; scandals end political careers Income distribution in society rather even Religions stressing equality of believers

Autocratic governments based on

co-optation revolution

and

changed

by

Corruption frequent; scandals are covered up Income distribution very uneven Religions priests with in society

a hierarchy

of

Power Distance has been defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than other. Table 1 lists a selection of differences between national societies that validation research showed to be associated with the Power Distance dimension. For a more complete review the reader is referred to Hofstede, 2001 and/or Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005. The statements refer to extremes; actual situations may be found anywhere in between the extremes, and the association of a statement with a dimension is always statistical, never absolute. Power distance index scores were higher for East European, Latin, Asian and African countries and lower for Germanic and English-speaking Western countries.

Table 2 Ten Differences Between Weak- and Strong- Uncertainty Avoidance Societies Weak Uncertainty Avoidance Strong Uncertainty Avoidance The uncertainty inherent in life is The uncertainty inherent in life is felt accepted and each day is taken as as a continuous threat that must be it comes fought Ease, lower stress, self-control, low anxiety Higher scores on health and well-being subjective Higher stress, anxiety, neuroticism emotionality,

Lower scores on subjective health and well-being Intolerance of deviant persons and ideas: what is different is dangerous Need for clarity and structure

Tolerance of deviant persons and ideas: what is different is curious

Comfortable and chaos Teachers know may

with

ambiguity

say

dont

Teachers supposed to have all the answers Staying in jobs even if disliked Emotional need for rules even if not obeyed In politics, citizens feel and are seen as incompetent towards authorities In religion, philosophy and science: belief in ultimate truths and grand theories

Changing jobs no problem Dislike of rules - written or unwritten In politics, citizens feel and are seen as competent towards authorities In religion, philosophy science: relativism empiricism and and

Uncertainty Avoidance is not the same as risk avoidance; it deals with a society's tolerance for ambiguity. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict behavioral codes, laws and rules, disapproval of deviant opinions, and a belief in absolute Truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have it'. Research has shown that people in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have fewer rules, and on the philosophical and religious level they are relativist and allow different currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions. Table 2 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension. Uncertainty avoidance scores are higher in East and Central European countries, in Latin countries, in Japan and in German speaking countries, lower in English speaking, Nordic and Chinese culture countries. Table 3. Ten Differences Between Collectivist and Individualist Societies Individualism Collectivism Everyone is supposed to take care People are born into extended of him- or herself and his or her families or clans which protect them immediate family only in exchange for loyalty "I" - consciousness Right of privacy Speaking one's mind is healthy "We" -consciousness Stress on belonging Harmony maintained should always be

Others classified as individuals

Others classified as in-group or outgroup

 Personal opinion expected: one person one vote Transgression of norms leads to guilt feelings Languages in which the word "I" is indispensable Purpose of education learning how to learn Task prevails over relationship is

Opinions and votes predetermined by in-group Transgression of norms leads to shame feelings Languages in which the word "I" is avoided Purpose of education is learning how to do Relationship prevails over task

Individualism on the one side versus its opposite, Collectivism, as a societal, not an individual characteristic, is the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find cultures in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side we find cultures in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world. Table 3 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension. Individualism prevails in developed and Western countries, while collectivism prevails in less developed and Eastern countries; Japan takes a middle position on this dimension. Masculinity versus its opposite, Femininity, again as a national, not as an individual characteristic, refers to the distribution of values between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society, to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and

caring and similar to women's values on the other. The assertive pole has been called 'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values. In masculine cultures there is sometimes a taboo around this dimension (Hofstede et al, 1998). Taboos are based on deeply rooted values; this taboo shows that the Mas/Fem dimension in some societies touches basic and often unconscious values, too painful to be explicitly discussed. In fact the taboo validates the importance of the dimension. Table 4 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension Table 4 Ten Differences Between Feminine and Masculine Societies Femininity Masculinity Minimum emotional and social role Maximum emotional differentiation between role differentiation the genders genders Men and women should be modest and caring Balance between family and work Sympathy for the weak Both fathers and mothers deal with facts and feelings Both boys and girls may cry but neither should fight Mothers decide on number of children

and social betweenthe

Men should be and women may be assertive and ambitious Work prevails over family Admiration for the strong Fathers deal with facts, mothers with feelings Girls cry, boys dont; boys should fight back, girls shouldnt fight Fathers decide on family size

 Many women political positions Religion focuses human beings

in

elected

Few women in elected political positions Religion focuses on God or gods

on

fellow

Matter-of-fact attitudes about sexuality; sex is a way of relating

Moralistic sexuality; performing

attitudes sex is a

about way of

Masculinity is high in Japan, in German speaking countries, and in some Latin countries like Italy and Mexico; it is moderately high in English speaking Western countries; it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in some Latin and Asian countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Korea and Thailand. Table 5 Ten Differences Between Short- and Long-Term-Oriented Societies Short-Term Orientation Long-Term Orientation Most important events in life Most important events in life occurred in the past or take place now will occur in the future Immediate expected need gratification Need gratification deferred until later What is good and evil depends upon the circumstances Traditions are adaptable changed circumstances to

There are universal guidelines about what is good and evil

Traditions are sacrosanct

Family life guided by shared tasks Family life imperatives guided by

 What one thinks and says should be true Children should learn tolerance and respect Social consumption spending and

What one virtuous Children thrifty

does

should

be

should

learn

to

be

Saving, investing

Unstructured problem solving In business, stress on short-term profits

Structured, problem solving

mathematical on future

In business, stress market position

Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation: this fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Values associated with Long Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with Short Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face'. Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius around 500 B.C. So it is not correct to equal Long-Term Orientation with Confucianism; it represents a focus on the future-oriented maxims of Confucianism, at the expense of the past-oriented ones. Also, the dimension applies equally well to countries without a Confucian heritage. . Table 5 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension. Long-term oriented are East Asian countries, in particular in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea but to a lesser extent also India and Brazil. A medium term orientation is found in most European countries, but the U.S.A. and Britain are more short term oriented. A very short term orientation is found in Africa and in a number of Islamic countries.