这是用户在 2024-6-29 9:53 为 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/word/ 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?


What is Culture?Intercultural Communication andStereotyping

Two men meet on a plane from Tokyo to Hong Kong. Chu Hon-fai is aHong Kong exporter who is returning from a business trip to Japan. AndrewRichardson is an American buy er on his first business trip to Hong Kong.It is a convenient meeting for them because Mr Chu's company sells some of the products Mr Richardson has come to Hong Kong to buy. After a bit of conversation they introduce themselves to each other.
两个男人在从东京飞往香港的飞机上相遇。朱汉辉是一名香港出口商,从日本出差归来。安德鲁·理查森(AndrewRichardson)是第一次到香港出差的美国买家,Kong.It 这对他们来说是一个方便的会面,因为朱先生的公司出售理查森先生来香港购买的一些产品。经过一番交谈后,他们互相介绍自己。

Mr Richardson: By the way, I'm Andrew Richardson. My friends call me Andy. This is my business card.

Mr Chu: I'm David Chu. Pleased to meet you, Mr Richardson.This is my card.

Mr Richardson: No, no. Call me Andy. I think we'll be doing a lot of business together.

Mr Chu: Yes, I hope so.

Mr Richardson (reading Mr Chu's card):“Chu, Hon-fai.”Hon-fai, I'll give you a call tomorrow as soon as I get settled at my hotel.

Mr Chu (smiling): Yes. I'll expect your call.

When these two men separate, they leave each other with very different impressions of the situation. Mr Richardson is very pleased to have made the acquaintance of Mr Chu and feels they have gotten off to a very good start. They have established their relationship on a first-name basis andMr Chu's smile seemed to indicate that he will be friendly and easy to do business with. Mr Richardson is particularly pleased that he had treated MrChu with respect for his Chinese background by calling him Hon-fai rather than using the western name, David, which seemed to him an unnecessary imposition of western culture.

In contrast, Mr Chu feels quite uncomfortable with Mr Richardson. He feels it will be difficult to work with him, and that Mr Richardson might be

136 What is Culture?
136 什么是文化?

rather insensitive to cultural differences. He is particularly bothered thatMr Richardson used his given name, Hon-fai, instead of either David orMr Chu. It was this embarrassment which caused him to smile.

This short dialogue is, unfortunately, not so unusual in meeting s between members of different cultures. There is a tendency in American business circles to prefer close, friendly, egalitarian relationships in business engage-ments. This system of symmetrical solidarity, which has its source in theUtilitarian discourse system, is often expressed in the use of given (or“first”) names in business encounters. Mr Richardson feels most comfort-able in being called Andy, and he would like to call Mr Chu by his first name. At the same time, he wishes to show consideration of the cultural differences between them by avoiding Mr Chu's western name, David. His solution to this cultural difference is to address Mr Chu by the given name he sees on the business card, Hon-fai.

Mr Chu, on the other hand, prefers an initial business relationship of symmetrical deference. He would feel more comfortable if they called each other Mr Chu and Mr Richardson. Nevertheless, when he was away at school in North America he learned that Americans feel awkward in a stable relationship of symmetrical deference. In other words, he found that they feel uncomfortable calling people Mr for any extended period of time. His solution was to adopt a western name. He chose David for use in such situations.

When Mr Richardson insists on using Mr Chu's Chinese given name,Hon-fai, Mr Chu feels uncomfortable. That name is rarely used by anyone,in fact. What Mr Richardson does not know is that Chinese have a rather complex structure of names which depends upon situations and relation-ships, which includes school names, intimate and family baby names, and even western names, each of which is used just by the people with whom a person has a certain relationship. Isolating just the given name, Hon-fai,is relatively unusual and to hear himself called this by a stranger makes MrChu feel quite uncomfortable. His reaction, which is also culturally condi-tioned, is to smile.

In this case there are two issues of intercultural communication we want to use to introduce our discussion of intercultural professional communica-tion: one is the basic question of cultural differences, and the second is the problems which arise when people try to deal with cultural differences, but,like Mr Richardson, actually make matters worse in their attempts at cul-tural sensitivity.

The first problem is that there is a cultural difference in each of the participants’ expectations of what face relationship should be used in such an initial business meeting. Mr Richardson prefers or expects symmetrical solidarity; he expects both of them to use involvement strategies of polite-ness, such as exchanging given names. The Hong Kong businessman,

What is Culture? 137

Mr Chu, prefers symmetrical deference; he prefers for them both to use independence strategies of politeness, which in this case would mean that they would both call each other by family names and the title,“Mr.”This is a cultural difference of considerable significance, because if Mr Richardson persists in using involvement strategies and Mr Chu persists in using inde-pendence strategies, a system of asymmetrical relationship will develop,with Mr Richardson in the superior position and Mr Chu in the subordin-ate position.
朱先生,更喜欢对称的尊重;他更喜欢他们俩都使用礼貌的独立策略,在这种情况下,这意味着他们都会用姓氏和头衔来称呼对方,“先生”这是一个具有相当重要的文化差异,因为如果理查森先生坚持使用参与策略,而朱先生坚持使用独立策略, 一个不对称的关系体系将会发展起来,理查森先生处于上级位置,朱先生处于从属地位。

The second problem, paradoxically, is that both Mr Chu and MrRichardson are concerned with being culturally sensitive. Mr Chu's experi-ence in North America has given him the solution of adopting a western first name, David, so that someone such as Mr Richardson will feel more comfortable in addressing him. This also fits within the Chinese pattern of adopting new names as situations change, and so Mr Chu can be comfortable with the use of this western name. On the other hand, Mr Richardson is not familiar with this practice. To him it seems that using Mr Chu's name, David,is forcing a western definition upon Mr Chu, and he wants to acknowledgeMr Chu’s Chinese cultural background. He imagines that a Chinese might feel a greater sense of cultural identity with his given name than he would with a name of convenience. He intends to show concern, friendliness, and at the same time respect for Mr Chu’s Chinese culture, and so chooses the quite inappropriate first name, Hon-fai, to address Mr Chu.

The result of Mr Richardson's attempt at cultural sensitivity has actually made the situation worse than if he had just used the adopted western name, David. Unfortunately, Mr Richardson also is not aware that one means of expressing acute embarrassment for Mr Chu is to smile. While within North American culture there is consciousness of what might be called“nervous laughter,”there is a general expectation that a smile can be taken as a direct expression of pleasure or satisfaction. Mr Richardson misinterprets Mr Chu's embarrassment as agreement or even pleasure at their first encounter, and as a result, he goes away from the encounter with no awareness of the extent to which he has complicated their initial introduction.

In the rest of this book, we will discuss the problems which arise when participants in a discourse are members of different cultures or discourse systems. We will also discuss problems which arise in trying to solve the first type of intercultural communication problem. As we have seen in the example above, it is often the case that one's attempts to be culturally sensitive actually produce a second level of problem, and in those cases it is often even more difficult to realize what sort of problem it is. It becomes hard to accept that one has tried one's best and ended up making things worse, and yet, this is what often happens. This is one of the reasons that very pragmatically oriented professionals sometimes go to the mistaken

138 What is Culture?
138 什么是文化?

extreme of saying that intercultural communication studies make no real contribution in international negotiations.

How Do We Define“Culture”?

The subject of“intercultural communication”is beset by a major problem,since there is really very little agreement on what people mean by the idea of culture in the first place. The word“culture”often brings up more problems than it solves. On the one hand, we want to talk about large groups of people and what they have in common, from their history and worldview to their language or languages or geographical location. There is some meaning to such constructs as “the Chinese,” “the Japanese,”“Americans,”“British,”or“Koreans,”which is recognized by most, if not all, members of those groups. This common meaning often emphasizes what members of these groups have in common and at the same time plays down possible differences among members.

On the other hand, when we talk about such large cultural groups we want to avoid the problem of overgeneralization by using the construct“culture”where it does not apply, especially in the discussion of discourse in intercultural communication. From an international sociolinguistic per-spective, discourse is communication between or among individuals. Cul-tures, however, are large, superordinate categories; they are not individuals.Cultures are a different level of logical analysis from the individual mem-bers of cultures. Cultures do not talk to each other; individuals do. In that sense, all communication is interpersonal communication and can never be intercultural communication.“Chinese culture”cannot talk to“Japanese culture”except through the discourse of individual Chinese and individualJapanese people.

The Three Character Classic (San Zi Jing- Southern Song Dynasty, AD1127–1279; Xu Chuiyang, 1990) has been used in Confucian education inChina, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam for as long as eight hundred years as a primer for the learning of both classical Chinese writing and Chinese ethical philosophy. It is based on Confucian classics such as The Analects of Con-fucius and Mencius, and therefore it embodies the ethical position taken by that school of thought that all humans are born good. It begins with the following words:

Ren zhi chu, xing ben shanXing xiang jin, xi xiang yuan

Man, by nature, is good; people's inborn characters are similar, but learning makes them different.

What is Culture? 139

In contrast to this philosophical belief that humans are born with a naturally good character, we could cite a nineteenth-century New Englander who has been quoted by the historian Robert Sunley as saying that all children are born with an evil disposition:“No child has ever been known since the earliest period of the world, destitute of an evil disposition-however sweet it appears”(Sunley, 1955: 159).
与这种认为人类天生具有善良品格的哲学信念相反,我们可以引用一位19世纪的新英格兰人的话,历史学家罗伯特·桑利(Robert Sunley)曾引用他的话说,所有的孩子天生都有邪恶的性格:“自世界最早的时期以来,从来没有一个孩子被人知道,没有邪恶的性格——无论它看起来多么甜蜜”(桑利, 1955: 159).

In a book on professional communication, we are not directly concerned with trying to decide which of these positions on the nature of humankind is the correct one. We will leave that to philosophers and religious writers to discuss. We want to raise a different kind of question, which has two parts:to what extent do individual Chinese or Americans, Koreans or British,Australians or Singaporeans personally represent their culture's beliefs, and do those beliefs make any significant difference in their ability to communi-cate professionally? For our purposes the main concern is to see how the ideological positions of cultures or of discourse systems become a factor in the interpersonal communication of members of one group with members of other groups.

In other words, for our purposes in this book, we will try to restrict our attention to just those aspects of culture which research has shown to be of direct significance in discourse between groups and which impinge directly upon the four elements of a discourse system - ideology, face systems,forms of discourse, and socialization. This does not mean that other aspects of culture are not interesting or very important. In this presentation we have tried to focus on what we think are the most crucial few dimensions of culture and on aspects of intercultural communication which have proven to be recurring problems in professional communication.

Before moving on, however, we want to mention that there is an inter-cultural problem in using the word“culture”itself. In English there are two normal uses of this word: high culture, and anthropological culture. The first meaning, high culture, focuses on intellectual and artistic achievements.One might speak of a city as having a great deal of culture because there were many art exhibits, concert performances, and public lectures. Or we might speak of a particular period in history, such as the Elizabethan period(1558–1603) of England, as a high point in English culture because of the great number of musicians and poets of that time whose works we still revere. The Tang period (AD 618–907) in Chinese history is generally regarded as a period of high culture as well.

In studies of intercultural communication, our concern is not with high culture, but with anthropological culture. When we use the word“culture”in its anthropological sense, we mean to say that culture is any of the cus-toms, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set that group apart as a distinctive group. By using the anthropological sense of the word

140 What is Culture?
140 什么是文化?

“culture,”we mean to consider any aspect of the ideas, communications, or behaviors of a group of people which gives to them a distinctive identity and which is used to organize their internal sense of cohesion and membership.

Of course, this book is not a work in anthropology as such, and so we will make no attempt to provide a formal definition of the idea of culture or to make complete or rigorous cultural descriptions. As we have said above, our purpose is to single out among all of the many aspects of cultural descrip-tion just those factors which have been clearly shown to affect intercultural communication. Among that research literature, which is in itself enormous and which continues to grow very rapidly in these days of increasingly frequent internationalization of world business and government, we have chosen to focus most directly on aspects of culture which our research has shown to affect communication between East Asians and westerners.

In the discussion which follows, then, we will be selecting out of the research literature on intercultural communication just those aspects of culture which we feel are most directly significant in order to understand how discourse systems are formed. In chapters 8–11 we will then turn to a discussion of several different discourse systems and the problems which arise in communication between members of those different systems.

Culture and Discourse Systems

The aspects of culture which are most significant for the understanding of systems of discourse and which have been shown to be major factors in inter-cultural communication are as follows:

1 Ideology: history and worldview, which includes:
1 意识形态:历史和世界观,包括:

(a) Beliefs, values, and religion
(a) 信仰、价值观和宗教

2 Socialization:

(a) Education, enculturation, acculturation
(a) 教育、文化融合、文化适应

(b) Primary and secondary socialization
(b) 初级和次级社会化

(c) Theories of the person and of learning
(c) 人与学的理论

3 Forms of discourse:

(a) Functions of language:
(a) 语言的功能:

– Information and relationship
– 信息和关系

- Negotiation and ratification
- 谈判和批准

-Group harmony and individual welfare

(b) Non-verbal communication:
(b) 非语言交流:

-Kinesics: the movement of our bodies

-Proxemics: the use of space

-Concept of time

What is Culture? 141

4 Face systems: social organization, which includes:

(a) Kinship

(b) The concept of the self
(b) 自我的概念

(c) Ingroup-outgroup relationships
(c) 内群体-外群体关系

(d) Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
(d) 社区与社会


The first major aspect of culture which we will consider is history and worldview. This is the most familiar way of looking at cultures, by studying their histories and the common worldview s which arise out of these his-tories. Perhaps the clearest difference between East Asian cultures (China,Korea, and Japan) and so-called western culture is that East Asians have a sense of having a long, continuous, and unified history, whereas westerners tend to emphasize the shorter-term political organizations which have arisen since the Renaissance. An American businessman visiting Korea for the first time, for example, is almost certain to be told that Koreans have a“5000-year history”and to be shown Namdaemun and Tongdaemun, the“new”gates to the city of Seoul, built before the United States was established as a country. The American, on the other hand, is likely to have little con-sciousness of his own cultural roots in the equally distant past of Mesopo-tamia. He is more likely to focus on the newness of his culture and theAmerican emphasis on rapid change and the idea of progress.
我们要考虑的文化的第一个主要方面是历史和世界观。这是看待文化的最熟悉的方式,通过研究它们的历史和从这些历史中产生的共同世界观。也许东亚文化(中国、韩国和日本)与所谓的西方文化之间最明显的区别是,东亚人有一种悠久、连续和统一的历史感,而西方人则倾向于强调文艺复兴以来出现的短期政治组织。例如,一位美国商人第一次访问韩国,几乎肯定会被告知韩国人有“5000年的历史”,并参观南大门和同大门,这是通往首尔市的“新”大门,在美国建国之前建造。另一方面,美国人很可能对自己的文化根源在同样遥远的 Mesopo-tamia 过去几乎没有意识。他更倾向于关注自己文化的新颖性,以及美国对快速变化和进步理念的强调。

Hong Kongers are likely to use their position on the boundary between the old culture of China and the newest technological aspects of interna-tional business culture as a convenient backdrop in taking pragmatic posi-tions. When it is convenient to take a conservative stance in a business negotiation, for example, a Hong Kong businessman is perhaps more likely to emphasize the Chinese aspects of his cultural heritage. On the other hand, where an impression of quick change and progress is called for, he would rather stress the special status of Hong Kong as a member of the most progressive leading edge of Asian internationalization.

In either case, the consciousness of long, continuous history forms part of the worldview of most Asians. This is sometimes called upon in discourse as explanation or justification for moving more slowly, for not rushing to conclusions, or for taking a longer perspective on future developments. In contrast, the westerner is more likely to de-emphasize his or her own ancient historical heritage dating from Ancient Greece or before. The westerner is more likely to emphasize the need for quickness in concluding negotiations,the need to bring about economic, political, or social change, and the need to“keep up”with world changes.

142 What is Culture?
142 什么是文化?

Beliefs, values, and religion

We want to briefly comment on beliefs, values, and religion, because these aspects of culture have played a very significant role in the communications between Asians and westerners over the past few centuries. At the same time we want to caution against making too direct an application of our ideas about cultural values and, especially, religion in discussions of inter-cultural communication. In such discussions it is common enough to outline the basic principles of, say, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism on the one hand and Christianity on the other, and then to hastily assume that these religious and ethical systems have led to or will lead to major differences in interpretation in intercultural communication.

In many cases, a person's religious beliefs will be quite consonant with those of his or her culture in general. We still need to ask to what extent these beliefs directly affect his or her communication, especially in inter-cultural situations. Unfortunately, it is well known that the trade in drugs which ultimately resulted in present-day Hong Kong was carried out by people who professed the most Christian beliefs. Whether we are speaking of the general belief structure of Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, or Con-fucianism we have to acknowledge, sadly, that many scoundrels have openly espoused beliefs in these religious systems, supported their churches, temples,or monasteries, and used the cloak of these moral and ethical systems to cover their own illegal or immoral activities.

Face systems

The second aspect of culture we are considering, social organization, is one of the most important in that it refers to the way a cultural group organizes relationships among members of the group. For many scholars the word“culture”is very nearly synonymous with the concept of social organization.We will take up just four aspects of this organization: kinship, the concept of the self, ingroup-outgroup relationships, and what sociologists have sometimes called Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.


In Korea, mothers set up temporary shrines outside the university and pray all day while their children inside write their examinations. In the fervor of the Cultural Revolution in China, children were encouraged to criticize their parents. Throughout Asia these and many similar examples indicate that the ancient Confucian kinship relationships are an extremely powerful force in Asian cultural relationships. On the one hand, such relationships

What is Culture? 143

may be seen as the major magnetism holding together these ancient cul-tures. On the other hand, such relationships may be seen as the great barrier to modernization and development. Our point is that either position indi-cates the centrality of kinship in the thinking of most East Asians.

In contrast to this, a recent United States census accepted fourteen different family types, from the traditional extended family to the single parent with adopted child. Almost any current newspaper from Europe,North America, or Australia will show that for most westerners, kinship is far from being felt as a significant tie among members of society. In many cases, kinship relationships are seen as significant barriers to individual self-realization and progress. The increasingly popular American practice of children calling their parents by first names, for example, would be quite unpleasantly surprising to most Asians.

There are two aspects of kinship which are of direct importance to intercultural discourse: hierarchy and collectivistic relationship. Kinship relationships emphasize that people are connected to each other by having descended from common ancestors. In doing so, kinship relationships em-phasize, first of all, that ascending generations are before, prior to, and even superior to descending generations. This hierarchy of relationship is em-phasized by Confucius and reiterated in such teaching materials as the SanZi Jing (Xu Chuiyang, 1990) or even the public school workbooks used today in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, and throughout the rest of East Asia. The primary relationships are not lateral relationships, those between brothers and sisters, for example, but hierarchical, those between fathers and sons, mothers and daughters.

In Asia, as in any other society in which such traditional kinship relation-ships are emphasized, any individual is acutely aware of his or her obliga-tions and responsibilities to those who have come before as well as to those who come after. From birth one is made conscious of the debt owed to one's own parents, which is largely carried out in the form of duty and obedience.But western readers should also be aware that one is also made acutely con-scious of the debt owed to one's own children and other descendants, which is largely carried out through nurture, responsibility, and benevolence.

This emphasis on hierarchical relationship has a twofold consequence for discourse: from very early in life one becomes subtly practiced in the dis-course forms of hierarchical relationship. One learns first to show respect to those above, then, in due time, one learns the forms of guidance and leader-ship of those who come after. The second consequence is that one comes to expect all relationships to be hierarchical to some extent. If hierarchy is not based on kinship relationship, then it is seen to be based on age, experience,education, gender, geographical region, political affiliation, or one of the many other dimensions of social organization within a culture.

The second aspect of kinship which is significant for discourse is that

144 What is Culture?
144 什么是文化?

individual members of a culture are not perceived as independently acting individuals but, rather, they are seen as acting within hierarchies of kinship and other such relationships. A son's primary motivation for action is thought to be to bring credit to his parents and to provide security for his own descendants. He is not thought of as acting on his own behalf or for his own purposes. Indeed, such individual action is seen as an aberrant or possibly pathological form.

This emphasis on kinship relationships, which is still characteristic ofEast Asians to some extent, even in contemporary and“westernized”Asian centers such as Hong Kong, is sharply contrasted with the western empha-sis on individualism and egalitarianism. This assertion of individualism and egalitarianism may reach its extreme in North America, but it has been at the center of political values since the eighteenth century in European political philosophy. Contemporary Americans, as we will see in chapter 10in our discussion of generational systems of discourse, assert an extreme of independence from kinship or other hierarchical relationships.

This difference in egalitarianism and hierarchy will, then, most likely play out in the choice of strategies of interpersonal politeness, with the westerner using strategies of involvement as a way of emphasizing egalitari-anism and the Asian using strategies of independence as a way of showing deference. In the short dialogue above between Mr Chu and Mr Richardson,Mr Richardson tried to establish the use of his given name, Andy, and MrChu's given name, Hon-fai. Such a difference in approaches and the embar-rassment which occurs are a direct result of this difference in emphasis on hierarchy and egalitarianism. The Asian is more likely to be conscious of kinship relationships, which will, in turn, lead to his assumptions of hier-archy. The American on the other hand is likely to have de-emphasized such relationships, and therefore, to assume more egalitarian relationships.

The concept of the self

A second aspect of social organization concerns the concept of the person or of the self as a unit within that group's organization. Individualism, of course, is not something unique to the American continent. It has its roots in the western tradition going back to Socrates or to Jesus. One thing is clear: there is a long tradition of emphasizing the separation of the indi-vidual from any other social commitments, especially in the pursuit of social or political goals. The Chinese psychological anthropologist Francis L. K.Hsu believes that the excessive individualism of the western sense of the self has led to a general inability or unwillingness among the psychological sciences to consider the social aspects of the development of human behavior.He goes on to say that even in the anthropological and sociological sciences,culture and society are seen as being built up out of the association of
社会组织的第二个方面涉及个人或自我作为该群体组织内一个单位的概念。当然,个人主义并不是美洲大陆独有的。它起源于西方传统,可以追溯到苏格拉底或耶稣。有一点是清楚的:强调将个人与任何其他社会承诺分开的传统由来已久,特别是在追求社会或政治目标时。中国心理人类学家弗朗西斯·徐(Francis L. K.Hsu)认为,西方自我意识的过度个人主义导致心理科学普遍无法或不愿考虑人类行为发展的社会方面。他接着说,即使在人类学和社会学科学中,文化和社会也被视为建立在

What is Culture? 145


6 Wider material culture

5 Intimate society and culture
5 亲密的社会和文化

4 Expressible conscious
4 可表达的意识

3 Inexpressible conscious

2 Pre-conscious (“Freudian”)
2 前意识(“弗洛伊德”)

1 Interior unconscious

Figure 7.1 The Chinese concept of the person (based on Hsu, 1985).
图 7.1 中国人的概念(基于 Hsu, 1985)。

individuals, not as primary realities in themselves. In an essay on intercultural understanding in his collection of essays entitled Rugged Individualism Re-considered (Hsu, 1983), he says,“The major key(though never the only key)as to why we behave like human beings as well as to why we behave likeAmericans or Japanese is to be found in our relationships with our fellow human beings”(p.414). Hsu considers human relationships to be the fun-damental unit of analysis, not a secondary, constructed category. He argues that,“the concept of personality is an expression of the western ideal of individualism. It does not correspond even to the reality of how the western man lives in western culture, far less any man in any other culture”(Hsu1985: 24).
个人,而不是作为其本身的主要现实。在他题为《重新考虑粗犷的个人主义》(Hsu, 1983)的论文集《重新考虑粗犷的个人主义》(Hsu, 1983)中,他写了一篇关于跨文化理解的文章,他说:“关于我们为什么表现得像人类,以及为什么我们表现得像美国人或日本人,主要的关键(尽管不是唯一的关键)可以在我们与人类同胞的关系中找到”(第414页)。徐认为人际关系是有趣的分析单位,而不是次要的、建构的范畴。他认为,“人格概念是西方个人主义理想的表达。它甚至不符合西方人在西方文化中生活的现实,更不用说任何其他文化中的任何一个人了“(Hsu1985:24)。

In place of the idea of the individual self, Hsu suggests a concept based on the Chinese concept of person (ren or jen), which includes in his analysis not only interior unconscious or pre-conscious (“Freudian”) levels and inexpressible and expressible conscious levels of the person but also one's intimate society and culture. In this analysis of the self, such relationships as those with one's parents and children are considered inseparable aspects of the self. Where a western conception of the self places the major bound-ary which defines the self between the biological individual and that indi-vidual's intimates, Hsu argues that the Chinese concept of person(ren or jen)places the major boundary of the person on the outside of those intimate relationships, as we show in figure 7.1, which is based on Hsu's original diagram. The western concept of the biological self can be diagrammed

146 What is Culture?
146 什么是文化?


6 Wider material culture

5 Intimate society and culture
5 亲密的社会和文化

4 Expressible conscious
4 可表达的意识

3 Inexpressible conscious

2 Pre-conscious (“Freudian”)
2 前意识(“弗洛伊德”)

1 Interior unconscious

Figure 7.2 The western concept of the person (based on Hsu, 1985).
图 7.2 西方人的概念(基于 Hsu,1985)。

using Hsu's categories as indicated in figure 7.2, also based upon Hsu's diagram.
使用图 7.2 所示的 Hsu 类别,也基于 Hsu 的图表。

Hsu's point in making this analysis is not just to propose an alternative to the individualistic concept of the self. He argues that the biologically iso-lated individual is neither culturally nor, in fact, biologically viable. Because intimate human relationships are“literally as important as [a person's]requirement for food, water, and air”(1985: 34), it is a dangerous analytical fiction to believe that the individual is the source of all social reality.

We believe that in any society human individuals must have close rela-tionships with other humans as well as the freedom to operate independ-ently. It is hard to imagine a human society in which either one of these extremes was practiced to the exclusion of the other. What is important in studying cultural differences is not whether a society is individualistic or collectivistic in itself, but what that society upholds as its ideal, even when we all recognize that we must all have some independence as well as some place in society.

For professional discourse, the question we want to consider is the relative difference between two people in their concept of the self as an individual or as part of a larger social group. We believe that on this dimension Asians tend to be more aware of the connections they have as members of their social groups, and therefore, they tend to be more conscious of the consequences of their actions on other members of their groups. In contrast to this, westerners,and especially Americans, tend to emphasize their independence. This leads

What is Culture? 147

them to be more concerned about their own freedom of activity than with their connections to other members of their group.

Each group is also likely to make false assumptions about members of the other group. Asians will possibly overestimate a westerner's concern about his group's response to an issue, while a westerner is likely to assume a greater degree of independence on the part of an Asian with whom he or she is negotiating.

When we first introduced the concept of face relationships in chapter 3,we discussed face as having to do with a relationship between or among two or more participants in a discourse. Now we can see that it is actually somewhat more complex than this. From an individualistic point of view,face relationships are very much a matter of individual face. From a collectivistic point of view, however, one's face is really the face of one's group, whether that group is thought of as one's family, one's cultural group, or one's corporation. It is quite likely that in intercultural commu-nication, a person from a highly individualistic culture would pay more attention to his or her own personal face needs, whereas a person from a more collectivistic culture would always have the face of others foremost in his or her mind.

Ingroup-outgroup relationships

The third aspect of social organization we want to consider is the problem of establishing relationships between members of the group and members of other groups. One consequence of the cultural difference between individu-alism and collectivism has to do with the difference between speaking to members of one's own group and speaking to others. In an individualistic society, groups do not form with the same degree of permanence as they do in a collectivist society. As a result, the ways of speaking to others are much more similar from situation to situation, since in each case the relationships are being negotiated and developed right within the situation of the discourse.

On the other hand, in a collectivist society, many relationships are estab-lished from one's birth into a particular family in a particular segment of society in a particular place. These memberships in particular groups tend to take on a permanent, ingroup character along with special forms of discourse which carefully preserve the boundaries between those who are inside mem-bers of the group and all others who are not members of the group.

In the dialogue between Mr Chu and Mr Richardson, Mr Chu was embarrassed when Mr Richardson called him by his given name, Hon-fai.Actually a person's Chinese given name alone is rarely used at all, but if it is used, it is generally only within ingroup communication. When MrRichardson calls him Hon-fai, not only has he suggested a relationship of symmetrical solidarity, but he has also crossed over a line between family

148 What is Culture?
148 什么是文化?

and intimate communications and those used with strangers or others out-side of Mr Chu’s immediate social group.

Readers should not think that this is entirely a matter of Asian and western cultural differences, however. Many people, east and west, have names or variants of their names which are used only within the intimate circle of their friends or family, and it feels quite embarrassing when some-one from outside of that group uses that name.

The cultural difference we are talking about in this case, as in so many others, is one of degree only. What is important in the analysis of discourse is to understand first whether the distinction between ingroup and outgroup communication is significant in any particular case, and then to determine whether a term or a form of speech is used for ingroup or outgroup com-munication.

In some cases even the language or the register within that language will be associated with the distinction between ingroup and outgroup communi-cation. Recently a study was made of the Japanese used for speaking toJapanese as compared to the Japanese used for speaking to foreigners. Even when speaking to foreigners with a very high level of competence in theJapanese language, Japanese considered it more appropriate to use a simpli-fied“foreigner talk”register when speaking outside of their own group.Those who used a complex register of Japanese when speaking to foreigners were given more negative ratings by other Japanese.

In this case, as in others, members of an ingroup feel that it is a kind of ingroup betrayal to use ingroup forms of language to non-members. In cultures where the distinction between ingroup and outgroup is a significant distinction, this is often paralleled by the use of different forms of discourse such as a special set of personal names or the use of particular registers for ingroup and outgroup communication.

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

One of the major and foundational insights of the field of soc iology was that there are two very different ways in which society can be organized.In 1887, in a book called Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Community andSociety) the German Ferdinand Tönnies(1971), argued that the problems of modern society have arisen because of a split with the traditional, community-based social organization of the Middle Ages. He argued that such an organic, community form of social solidarity, which he called Gemeinschaft,was based on the fact that individuals shared a common history and com-mon traditions.
社会学领域的主要和基本见解之一是,社会组织有两种截然不同的方式。1887年,德国人费迪南德·托尼斯(Ferdinand Tönnies,1971)在一本名为《共同体与社会》的书中指出,现代社会的问题是由于与中世纪传统的、以社区为基础的社会组织的分裂而产生的。他认为,这种有机的、社区形式的社会团结,他称之为Gemeinschaft,是基于这样一个事实,即个人拥有共同的历史和社区传统。

In contrast to the Gemeinschaft or community organization of social rela-tionships, in modern society relationships are more contractual, rational,or instrumental. This form of society by mutual agreement and to protect

What is Culture? 149

mutual interests - one might say corporate society --which developed as part of the industrialization of Europe, Tönnies called Gesellschaft. Soci-ologists such as Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Geor g Simmel develop this concept in their own foundational works.
共同利益 - 可以说是企业社会 - 作为欧洲工业化的一部分而发展起来,Tönnies称为Gesellschaft。埃米尔·涂尔干(Emile Durkheim)、马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)和乔尔·西梅尔(Geor g Simmel)等社会学家在他们自己的基础著作中发展了这一概念。

In intercultural professional contexts, this distinction has been observed by analysts of the structure of businesses in Asia. In Taiwan and HongKong, for example, there is a tendency for businesses to be small, family-owned and controlled structures, which operate very much along traditional lines more closely associated with k inship than more western corporate structures. In such a case we might want to say that such businesses dem-onstrate a social structure of a Gemeinschaft nature. On the other hand, the large, impersonal, utilitarian international corporations show a Gesellschaft structure.

There are two major types of discourse system: those into which one becomes a member through the natural processes of birth and growth within a family and a community (one's gender and one's generation, for example), and those into which one chooses to enter for utilitarian purposes such as one's professional specialization or the company for which one works. The social structure of the first kind of discourse system is more like what the sociologists would call Gemeinschaft, and the goal-directed dis-course systems such as corporations are rather strong examples of theGesellschaft form of social organization.

This distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft is also useful for talking about how people learn to be members of their discourse systems.One learns one's community, one's gender, and one's ge nerational place in life through processes of socialization or enculturation; that is, one learns to be a member largely through naturally occurring, non-institutional forms of learning. On the other hand, membership in goal-directed discourse sys-tems such as the academic discourse system or a corporate structure comes more often through formal education, training, and institutionalized learning.
Gemeinschaft 和 Gesellschaft 之间的这种区别对于谈论人们如何学习成为他们话语系统的成员也很有用。一个人通过社会化或文化化的过程来了解自己的社区、性别和自己在生活中的非理性位置;也就是说,一个人主要通过自然发生的、非制度化的学习形式来学习成为成员。另一方面,以目标为导向的话语系统(如学术话语系统或公司结构)的成员资格更多地来自正规教育、培训和制度化学习。

In intercultural communication many problems arise, particularly in pro-fessional contexts, when people make different assumptions about whetherGemeinschaft or Gesellschaft forms of organization are most appropriate. Awestern company doing business in an Asian country, for example, might want to set up a subsidiary production facility. From their point of view the most important issue would be to produce the product efficiently, with the lowest possible cost at a predictable flow of production and with a small range of variability in the quality. To do this they would most likely empha-size finding“the right person”for each job. They would be concerned about selecting individual employees on the basis of their training and experience.In other words, they would be most likely to create a social structure alongGesellschaft lines of rational, utilitarian purpose.

In contrast to the owners of such a project, the local Asian counterparts

150 What is Culture?
150 什么是文化?

might well have in mind major aspects of Gemeinschaft or community which they would want to emphasize. It might well be important that the new project would employ certain persons who were well placed in the local community structure, even where they might not have the initial training and experience. From the point of view of Gemeinschaft, these would be the best people, because employing them would enhance the community social structure.

No modern culture or discourse system, of course, is purely organized as either Gemeinschaft or Gesellschaft alone. In any social structure we will see a mixture of elements of both forms of organization. What is important in understanding intercultural communication is to understand in which con-texts one of these forms of organization is preferred over the other. It is also important to understand that conflicts and misinterpretations may arise where participants in a discourse do not come to agreement over which mode of organization should predominate.

Forms of discourse

Functions of language

History, worldview, beliefs, values, religions, and social organization may all be reflected through different languages and linguistic varieties in a culture.At the same time, language may be a directly defining aspect of culture,rather than simply a reflection of other, more basic structures. A cultural group may have quite distinctive ways of understanding the basic functions of language, and therefore we will take up the question of the functions of language as the third major aspect of culture which plays a role in intercultural communication.

To give an example of the functional role language itself may play,Chinese in its many forms is a major aspect (but, of course, not the only one) of the definition of Chinese culture. When Chinese are asked to defineChinese culture, they will frequently point to the common use of Chinese writing, both in the present and historically back for several millennia, as the defining core.

Such a definition of culture would be very unlikely in the west. English is the principal language of the United Kingdom, Australia, the UnitedStates, and New Zealand, one of the principal languages of Canada andSouth Africa, and an official or major language in quite a number of other countries. Nevertheless, people who live in those countries may make a strong claim for having a culture quite distinctive from other speakers ofEnglish in other English-speaking countries.

It is true that since the Renaissance in Europe, countries have tried to use languages such as German, French, and English as a defining criterion of

What is Culture? 151

national and cultural distinctiveness. Nevertheless, Europeans tend to use language more to divide than to unify. One does not often hear of Euro-peans saying that they share a common culture with everyone who uses theRoman alphabet to write, for example. Nor is there a common sense of cul-ture among the speakers of the Indo-European language family. Not even such relatively close language families as that of Romance languages, which includes French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, are thought to unify a group culturally.

For our purposes, however, the most important aspect of language from a cultural point of view is how a particular culture conceives of the function(s)of language.

Information and relationshipCommunication theorists, linguists, psy-chologists, and anthropologists all agree that language has many functions.In chapter 3 we showed how all language must be used simultaneously in a communicative function as well as in a metacommunicative function. Of course, there is much discussion among researchers about how many func-tions there are and just which functions take priority in any particular case.One dimension on which there is complete agreement, however, is that virtually any communication will have both an information function and a relationship function. In other words, when we communicate with others we simultaneously communicate some amount of information and indicate our current expectations about the relationship between or among participants.

At the two extremes of information and relationship, there are often cases in which one or the other function appears to be minimized. For example,in those daily greetings such as,“How are you? I'm just fine,”there is often a minimum of actual information. After all, we do not really expect the other person in most cases to answer about how they actually are. Nor do we expect them to believe that we are literally“fine.”Such exchanges are nearly, but not quite exclusively, relational. The meaning of such exchanges is simply to acknowledge recognition and to affirm that the relationship you have established remains in effect. At the other extreme, such discourses as weather reports may seem almost completely devoid of relationship, focus-ing only on information about the weather.

What is of concern for us is not to establish whether or not the purpose of language is to convey information or relationship; the use of language always accomplishes both functions to some extent. From an intercultural point of view, we can see that cultures often are different from each other in how much importance they give to one function of language over the other.For example, Japanese culture places a very high value on the communication of subtle aspects of feeling and relationship and a much lower value on the communication of information. International business culture, especially since the introduction of nearly instant global computer communications, places

152 What is Culture?
152 什么是文化?

a very high value on the communication of information and very little value on the communication of relationship.

The tradition of communication without language which the Japanese call ishin denshin might be translated as“direct transmission”and has been strongly influenced by Zen Buddhism. This influence originated in China in the early Tang period (AD 618–907) and has had a major impact onChinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures, even in the modern period. In this tradition of thinking about communication, it is believed that the most important things cannot be communicated in language, that language is only useful for somewhat secondary or trivial messages.
日本人称之为“ishin denshin”的无语言交流传统可以翻译为“直接传播”,并受到禅宗佛教的强烈影响。这种影响起源于唐初期(公元 618-907 年)的中国,对中国、韩国和日本文化产生了重大影响,即使在现代也是如此。在这种关于交流的思考传统中,人们认为最重要的事情不能用语言来交流,语言只对次要或琐碎的信息有用。

In contrast to this is the tradition of Utilitarian discourse, in which it is assumed that the ideal language use is to purge one's speech and one's writing of everything but the essential information. This very positivist position assumes that what cannot be communicated in this way is hardly worth paying attention to.

We do not suppose that normal international professional communication takes place very often between Japanese-speaking Zen Buddhist priests andEnglish-speaking computer scientists who might hold to the extremes of these two positions on the function of language . Nevertheless, we do know that throughout Asia, members of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cultures have been strongly influenced in their thinking about language by such traditions. As a result, one might expect the average Asian to be somewhat more skeptical about the value of direct, information al communication, and to place a higher value on thinking deeply about a subject.

An advertisement in a Korean newspaper for a Korean advertising com-pany says,


The deeper the thinking, the true r the action.Likewise, the deeper the thinking behind advertising,the more outstanding are the results.Deep thinking and sincere ideas produce advertising that is more persuasive than dazzling, more touching, and more exciting.By always“thinking twice,”the THINKING AGENCY, DONG BANG,creates advertising that is believable. DONG BANG's advertising,therefore, has the power to persuade consumers to buy your products.
思考越深刻,行动才是真正的。同样,广告背后的思考越深入,结果就越突出。深思熟虑,真心实意,产生比炫目更有说服力、更感人、更精彩的广告。通过始终“三思而后行”,THINKING AGENCY东邦创造了可信的广告。因此,东邦的广告具有说服消费者购买您的产品的力量。

In this context, thinking twice implies thinking about the consequences of one's actions on human relationships. It is hard to imagine that this appeal to deep thought would carry much weight in American advertising circles,in spite of the fact that this advertisement was published in English in anEnglish language newspaper, presumably in order to win over potential non-Korean clients.

What is Culture? 153

In regular conditions of intercultural professional communication, this difference between a focus on information and a focus on relationship often leads to a misunderstanding of the purposes of specific communicative events. From the point of view of the functions of language, the westerner may well want to get to the bargaining table as quickly as possible because he or she believes that it is in direct talk that information is exchanged and that any other form of communication is quite beside the point. His or herAsian counterpart, on the other hand, may want to set up a series of social events in which the participants can more indirectly approach each other and begin to feel more subtle aspects of their relationship.

Negotiation and ratification Having said that there is often a cultural differ-ence in the belief about whether language is primarily used for the purposes of conveying information or expressing relationships, we now need to com-plicate the picture somewhat further. There is also a difference among cultures in the extent to which relationships are thought to be freely negotiated on the one hand, or given by society in a fixed form on the other. This is the second aspect of the functions of language we will need to consider.
谈判和批准 话虽如此,关于语言是否主要用于传达信息或表达关系的信念往往存在文化差异,我们现在需要进一步复杂化情况。不同文化之间也存在差异,一方面认为关系是自由协商的,另一方面是社会以固定形式给予的。这是我们需要考虑的语言功能的第二个方面。

In recent years, for example, there has been a growing cultural reaction in North America and elsewhere to the excessive emphasis on information in human relationships. Psychologists who have specialized in the treatment of stress have pointed out that the American narrow emphasis on informa-tion and control in communication is part of what has been called the Type-A Behavior syndrome. This syndrome, which is closely associated with heart disease, has been observed to emphasize an excessive attention to numbers,quantities, and direct communication on the one hand, and to downplay or minimize human relationships on the other.

At the same time, as we will discuss below in chapter 11, scholars such as Deborah Tannen have observed a contrast between women and men inAmerican society in their attention to information over relationship. We will also discuss the major generation gap between the generations born before and after World War II. One of the characteristics of this younger generation is its greater emphasis on human relationships.
与此同时,正如我们将在下面的第11章中讨论的那样,黛博拉·坦南(Deborah Tannen)等学者观察到,美国社会中女性和男性在关注信息而不是关系方面存在差异。我们还将讨论二战前后出生的几代人之间的主要代沟。年轻一代的特点之一是更加强调人际关系。

Taking these together, we can see that there is a clear movement within contemporary western society toward recognizing that successful (and healthy)communication cannot ignore human relationships. Nevertheless, we be-lieve there remains a major distinction between the way human relationships are understood in Asia (and in other traditional societies) and the way they are understood in contemporary western society. The difference, we believe,lies in whether human relationships are thought of as given by society or, on the other hand, as being spontaneously created between individuals.

As we have said above, kinship is a major source of structure within most cultures, including Asian cultures. In such societies, human relationships

154 What is Culture?
154 什么是文化?

are thought of as being largely vertical relationships between preceding and following generations. Whether it is family relationships such as those be-tween parents and their children or relationships outside of the family such as those between a teacher and a student, the significant point is that most of the relationships are understood to be given by the society, not newly negotiated by the participants in the situation. One is born the son or daughter of particular parents, the descendant of particular ancestors, a member of a particular village. These characteristics of one's personal iden-tity are not negotiable; they are given by the situations into which one is born.

In contrast to this, in contemporary western society the word“relation-ship”has come to mean almost exclusively horizontal or lateral and, in fact,sexual, relationships made between people who freely choose to enter into them. Because of the social and semantic strength of this use of the term,most other uses have been crowded out of the common lexicon. The prim-ary concern in what are called relationships is with the establishment of equality and freedom. In fact, one could safely say that one of the greatest concerns one finds in the popular press about such relationships, as well as any other human relationships, is over how to keep any relationship from taking on hierarchical characteristics.

If we return, then, to the question of intercultural communication, we can see that a major difference between these two points of view lies in the question of negotiation or ratification. Within a traditional concept of ver-tical and generational relationships, language is thought of as being used for the purposes of ratifying or affirming relationships which have already been given. On the other hand, in the contemporary western concept of relation-ships, language is seen as a major aspect of the ongoing negotiation of the relationship. Particular care is taken not to ratify existing relationships, but to seek continual change, or as it is more favorably put, growth.

The difference in these two views of language is that in one view the stable condition is seen as the favorable condition and in the other it is the changing condition that is thought of as being favorable. We know of manyAsians, for example, who have known each other for many years and who have engaged in mutually profitable business arrangements, but who con-tinue to call each other quite formally by their last names and titles. On the other hand, we know of American business people who have felt that their attempts to develop a better business relationship with Asians have not succeeded because after a long series of encounters with them they have not been able to establish themselves on a first-name“friendly”basis.

Group harmony and individual welfare The third way in which we can see that cultures differ in the focus on information or on relationship in lan-guage use is to mention the research of a Japanese psychologist who studied
群体和谐与个人福利 我们可以看到文化在语言使用中对信息或关系的关注方面存在差异的第三种方式是提到一位日本心理学家的研究

What is Culture? 155

group processes in solving problems. In this research project, subjects were given individual problems to solve in some cases and in other cases they were asked to so lve the problems in groups. He found that when there was a conflict within the group about how to solve a problem, group harmony was always the greatest consideration, even if it meant that the group had to select a worse solution. In other words, his conclusion was that members of a group much preferred to say they would go along with the group than to express their own, individual solutions, if those solutions would produce disharmony in the group.

Other scholars have pointed out that one major difference between An-cient Chinese and Ancient Greek rhetoric was on this dimension of group harmony versus individual welfare. Ancient Chinese rhetoric emphasized the means by which one could phrase one's position without causing any feeling of disruption or disharmony. Ancient Greek rhetoric, on the other hand, emphasized the means of winning one's point through skillful argu-ment, short of, Aristotle says, the use of torture.

We do not suppose that contemporary international business circles would approve of the use of torture to achieve a good contract on the western side,and we also do not suppose that Asians would scuttle the possibility of a good contract just for the sake of a harmonious group feeling. Nevertheless,we do believe that this cultural difference in assumptions made about the functions of language will have some effect in intercultural discourse in-volving Asians and westerners. We know that Asians will tend to state their positions somewhat less extremely if they feel that not to do so would disrupt the harmony of the negotiations. We also know that westerners will tend to assume that each party has only in mind achieving their own best advantage in negotiations, and that they will do so, even if it should cause a feeling of disharmony. This difference in assumptions about what is actually going on can easily lead to more complex misinterpretations in the discourse.

Non-verbal communication

Non-verbal communication might be thought of as any form of communi-cation which is not directly dependent on the use of language. Generally speaking, however, it is very difficult to know where to separate verbal and non-verbal forms of communication. Such non-verbal aspects of communi-cation as nodding the head most often accompany sp eech and are part and parcel of the verbal system of language use. On the other hand such forms of communication as dance and music often have no verbal component at all. Our interest here is not in providing a theoretically rigorous definition of the difference between verbal and non-verbal communication. Our purpose in using this category is simply to call attention to the fact that many aspects
非语言交流可以被认为是不直接依赖于语言使用的任何形式的交流。然而,一般来说,很难知道在哪里区分语言和非语言形式的交流。点头等交际的非语言方面最常伴随着 sp eech,并且是语言使用语言系统的重要组成部分。另一方面,舞蹈和音乐等交流形式通常根本没有语言成分。我们在这里的兴趣不是为语言和非语言交流之间的区别提供理论上的严格定义。我们使用此类别的目的只是为了引起人们对许多方面的注意

156 What is Culture?
156 什么是文化?

of discourse depend upon forms of communication which cannot be easily transcribed into words and yet are crucial to our understanding of discourse.

Throughout this book we have emphasized communication in speaking and in writing, and yet we realize that much communication also takes place without the use of words. The way a person dresses for a meeting may suggest to other participants how he or she is prepared to participate in it.In fact, we can use virtually any aspect of our behavior or our presentation which others can perceive as a means of communication. This would in-clude our posture, our movements, our attire, our use of space, and our use of time. All of these have been considered by researchers in their studies of non-verbal communication.

While there are many kinds of non-verbal communication, here we will focus on just three aspects of human behavior which are relevant to inter-cultural communication: the movements of our bodies (called kinesics), our use of space (called proxemics), and our use of time.

Kinesics: the movement of our bodies At the beginning of this chapter, the incident involving Mr Chu and Mr Richardson ended with Mr Chu smiling,which Mr Richardson interpreted as meaning they had achieved a good interpersonal relationship. One aspect of intercultural communication which is often open to misinterpretation is this one of smiling or laughing. Many researchers have argued that smiles or laughing are universal human char-acteristics which we all immediately understand. This is, of course, true.There is little doubt that any human being would know when some other human was smiling.
运动学:我们身体的运动 在本章的开头,涉及朱先生和理查森先生的事件以朱先生的微笑结束,理查森先生将其解释为他们建立了良好的人际关系。跨文化交际的一个方面经常被误解,那就是微笑或大笑。许多研究人员认为,微笑或大笑是人类的普遍特征,我们都立即理解。这当然是真的。毫无疑问,任何人都会知道其他人何时在微笑。

Unfortunately, from one cultural group to another there is a great deal of variability about when one smiles or laughs and what it should be taken to mean. The most obvious and the most often misinterpreted form of this is what in the west might be called“nervous laughter.”Perhaps it is only a difference in the amount of smiling or laughter under such conditions, but it has been widely observed that Asians in general tend to smile or laugh more easily than westerners when they feel difficulty or embarrassment in the discourse. This is, then, misinterpreted by westerners as normal pleas-ure or agreement, and the sources of difficulty are obscured or missed.

We believe that there is a connection between this non-verbal behavior and the tendency for Asians to use communication to promote interpersonal or group harmony. If we think of the smile as a natural means for humans to encourage interpersonal harmony, then we can understand that it is likely to occur when an Asian feels there is some disruption of this harmony. On the other hand, if someone feels that the purpose of speaking is to promote individual welfare or the transfer of information, he or she is likely to assume that a smile means that the individual is pleased and is, therefore,feeling that he or she is succeeding in his or her own personal ends.

What is Culture? 157

From this point of view, we would not want to say that the difference which has caused misinterpretation is attributable to smiles, which are so different from one culture to another. Instead we would want to say that it is the discourse and its purposes which are different. The smile in one case is being used to cover over what is felt as a potential problem; in the other case it is used to directly register satisfaction. If two participants in a discourse have different goals, they are likely to interpret the smile within the purview of their own particular goals and, therefore, miss the fact that the other participant sees that something has gone wrong.

A second aspect of kinesi c behavior or body movement that is immedi-ately noticed when one travels between Asia and western countries is bow-ing. Most of the readers of this book will be quite aware of the fact that shaking hands in the west is the most common form of greeting, especially when being introduced to someone or when seeing someone whom one has not seen for a long time. In Asia there is considerable variability in practices,which include bowing as the main form in Japan and Korea, but also sometimes including shaking hands when westerners are involved. The traditional Chinese practice of clasping one's hands before the chest while making a short bo w is now rarely seen outside of movies depicting an earlier time.
当一个人在亚洲和西方国家之间旅行时,立即注意到的运动行为或身体运动的第二个方面是鞠躬。本书的大多数读者都会非常清楚这样一个事实,即在西方握手是最常见的问候形式,尤其是在被介绍给某人或见到许久未见的人时。在亚洲,习俗有相当大的差异,包括日本和韩国以鞠躬为主要形式,但有时也包括西方人参与时的握手。中国人将双手抱在胸前,同时做一个简短的 bow 的传统做法现在很少见,除了描绘更早时代的电影之外。

There are several problems which arise with these practices. Such greet-ings are distributed differently in different Asian countries (Japanese andKoreans bow more frequently and more deeply than Chinese), and cultural changes are bringing about changes in these practices. Furthermore, in western countries changes are taking place in handshaking practices. For example, it is now generally assumed that when a woman and a man are introduced they will shake hands in acknowledgement of the introduction,especially, of course, in professional or business circles. It has only been relatively recently, however, that this practice has been widely accepted.Even just a few years ago, it was somewhat unusual for men and women to shake hands. They would generally have nodded to each other.

There are many books on intercultural non-verbal communication which the reader may consult for details of what might be appropriate or inappro-priate in any particular social context. Our purpose here is not to go into non-verbal communication in detail. We only want to make the reader aware that we do not intend to ignore the question of it. We are primarily concerned with verbal discourse; as a result, we are only briefly taking up the question of modes of communication which lie outside of this domain of study. Kinesics may not be a major aspect of discourse. Nevertheless, as part of the contextual background within which our discourses take place,it is extremely important to remember that as humans we simply cannot ignore the interpretations and misinterpretations we are making in reading the non-verbal signals of other participants in the discourse.

158 What is Culture?
158 什么是文化?

Proxemics: the use of space The second aspect of non-verbal communi-cation which is important in intercultural communication is in our use of space. Cultural differences in the use of space are a constant source of mis-understanding and confusion in preparing the settings for discourse. In traditional Japanese and Korean rooms, one leaves shoes at the door and sits on the floor at small, low tables. Chinese rooms use chairs and higher tables.Japanese and Korean rooms seem almost empty. This is because objects such as tables, cushions, or bedding not currently in use will be stored behind cupboard doors out of sight. Chinese rooms seem much fuller. In this comparison, Chinese rooms will seem more familiar to westerners, who are also accustomed to sitting in chairs at higher tables.
近似:空间的使用 非语言交际的第二个方面,在跨文化交际中很重要,是我们对空间的使用。空间使用的文化差异是准备话语环境时误解和混乱的持续根源。在传统的日式和韩式房间里,人们把鞋子放在门口,坐在地板上的小矮桌旁。中式房间使用椅子和较高的桌子。日本和韩国的房间似乎几乎是空的。这是因为当前未使用的桌子、靠垫或床上用品等物品将存放在橱柜门后面,看不见。中式房间似乎更满。在这种比较中,西方人似乎更熟悉中国房间,他们也习惯于坐在更高桌子的椅子上。

Differences will, nevertheless, be found between the western placement of furniture such as chairs and tables and the corresponding Chinese place-ment. A Chinese room will often have two chairs placed side by side with a small table between them. Two people who are to talk to each other will thus sit side by side rather than across from each other, as would be more commonly practiced in a western conversation. It is an interesting twist of contemporary technology and social practice that because of television many westerners are now adopting a pattern which in some ways is similar to theChinese practice. Because television now often forms a f ocal point for western casual conversation, conversationalists often sit side by side looking at or toward the television set when they talk.

There are, of course, many other aspects of proxemics which might be considered in intercultural communication. One of these, however, is of recurring importance in preparing settings for intercultural communication,and that is the concept of personal space. It was clearly demonstrated some years ago(Hall 1959) that each person has a“bubble”of space in which he or she moves and in which he or she feels comfortable. Intrusions into that space are acceptable only under circumstances of intimate contact. Outside of that space is a second“bubble”of space in which normal interpersonal contacts take place. Then outside of that is a third“bubble”of public space.
当然,在跨文化交际中,还有许多其他方面可以考虑近似学。然而,其中之一在为跨文化交际做准备方面具有反复出现的重要性,那就是个人空间的概念。几年前(Hall 1959)清楚地表明,每个人都有一个空间的“气泡”,他或她在其中移动,他或她在其中感到舒适。只有在亲密接触的情况下,才可以侵入该空间。在那个空间之外,是第二个“泡泡”的空间,在这个空间中,正常的人际交往发生。然后,在它之外是公共空间的第三个“泡沫”。

Edward T. Hall, who first described these spaces(1959, 1969), points out that these spheres of space are one aspect of culture which comes into play in intercultural communication. One culture, that of Mexicans for example,will have a slightly smaller sphere of intimate space than another culture,such as that of North Americans. The result of this difference, which can be measured in just a few inches, is that when a North American and a Mexican stand together to converse, the Mexican will nudge slightly closer to the NorthAmerican in order to get at the right distance for comfortable interpersonal discourse. The North American, who has a slightly larger intimate sphere, will feel that the Mexican is invading his or her intimate space and will, therefore,step back an inch or two. This will make the Mexican feel uncomfortable be-cause he or she will feel too distant and, therefore, he or she will move closer.
爱德华·霍尔(Edward T. Hall)首先描述了这些空间(1959,1969),他指出,这些空间领域是文化的一个方面,在跨文化交际中发挥作用。一种文化,例如墨西哥人的文化,将比另一种文化(例如北美文化)具有略小的私密空间范围。这种差异的结果是,当北美人和墨西哥人站在一起交谈时,墨西哥人会稍微靠近北美人,以便与舒适的人际交往保持适当的距离。北美人的私密范围稍大,会觉得墨西哥人正在入侵他或她的私密空间,因此会后退一两英寸。这会让墨西哥人感到不舒服,因为他或她会觉得太遥远,因此,他或她会走得更近。

What is Culture? 159

The net result of these cultural differences in intimate and personal spaces is that, where norms are different, you will find the person with the smaller sphere constantly moving closer to the other, and that other person constantly moving back a bit to increase the space. These two conversation-alists will create a kind of dance in which they will move across a consid-erable amount of space in the course of a brief conversation. If the space is crowded with other people, they will end up moving around and around in a circle while each person tries to find a comfortable position.

Westerners visiting Asia for the first time often notice this sort of proxemic problem. Generally speaking, Asians have a smaller sphere of personal space than westerners, with Americans at one extreme and Mediterraneans coming much closer to the Asian norm. Asians in North America will experience the opposite feeling, of people being quite distant from them.

This difference leads quite naturally to westerners having a very different experience of Asian city life than Asians themselves have. While such places as central Taipei, the Mongkok district of Hong Kong, or NamdaemunMarket in Seoul are among the most densely packed places on earth, the physical crowding is not experienced in the same way by everyone. It depends on the person's expectations of personal space, and those expecta-tions depend, in part, on how space is used in that person's culture.

Concept of time The authors received a letter recently from a former student in Taiwan who said about Hong Kong,“I presume Hong Kong is a busy area, where people walk fast, talk fast, and overwork to death.”One aspect of the concept of time which will be all too obvious to most readers of this text is that there seems to be too little time in which to do too many things. This sense of time might be called time urgency, a term taken from descriptions by researchers into stress and Type-A behavior. As they have described this“hurry sickness,”it is a syndrome of behavior in which the person continually tries to accomplish more than can be humanly accom-plished. Until very recently, time urgency was thought to be a characteristic of Americans, particularly American males in the generation born in the period from the Great Depression through to the end of World War II(1929-45).
时间概念 笔者最近收到一封来自台湾前学生的来信,信中谈到香港时说:“我认为香港是一个繁忙的地区,人们走得很快,说话很快,过度劳累得要死。对于本文的大多数读者来说,时间概念的一个方面是显而易见的,那就是似乎时间太少,无法做太多的事情。这种时间感可能被称为时间紧迫感,这个术语取自研究人员对压力和A型行为的描述。正如他们所描述的那样,“匆忙病”是一种行为综合症,在这种综合症中,人们不断试图完成超出人类所能承受的范围。直到最近,人们还认为时间紧迫是美国人的特征,尤其是从大萧条到第二次世界大战结束(1929-45)出生的一代美国男性。

It should be obvious to most of our readers that this sense of time urgency is no longer a cultural characteristic of just this one generation ofAmerican males. It is a characteristic of the Asian “salaryman,”and is spreading throughout the world rapidly as one aspect of the internation-alization of business and government. It does not take much imagination to see that this time urgency fits very nicely within the Utilitarian discourse system which we described in chapter 6. As that discourse system spreads together with international business communications, this sense of time urgency also appears to be spreading.

160 What is Culture?
160 什么是文化?

The most important aspect of this sense of time is that in discourse it will almost always produce a negative evaluation of the slower participants by the faster participants in a communicative situation. Those who share in this concept of time urgency will come to see anyone who moves more slowly than they do as conservative, as uncooperative, as resistant to change,and as opposing progress. Behind the concept of time urgency is the idea that what lies ahead in the future is always better than what lies behind in the past; it is based solidly on the belief in progress.

This belief in progress puts human life and human culture on a Utopian time line from the distant past into the distant future. It is believed that we have yet to reach our greatest accomplishments. It is felt that it is only natural to want to arrive at that future Utopia as soon as possible.

In contrast to this belief in human progress is the concept of the GoldenAge. In the China of Confucius, and continuing down to very recently, it was felt that the present time was worse than the times of the past, in which human society was more reasonably ordered, justice and benevolence pre-vailed, and benevolent rulers concerned themselves with the good of their subjects. Changes in society were justified from the point of view of restor-ing the better conditions of the past, not with moving toward new conditions in the future.

This same Golden-Age concept of the past was held in Europe up until and through the Renaissance. The thinkers of the Renaissance looked back at their immediate predecessors and considered them to have degenerated from the much higher state of culture of the Roman and Greek ancients,and it was their goal to restore Europe to this former condition.

It is not our purpose to debate the relative merits of these two arrows of time. One arrow, the Utopian arrow of progress, point s toward a better and better future; the other arrow, the arrow of the Golden Age, points toward the past and considers the present time to be a degenerate period. From the point of view of intercultural communication, the main point we want to consider is that if two people differ in their concept of time between theUtopian and the Golden Age, they will find it very difficult to come to agreement in many areas of their discourse.

The main point of disagreement, however, will have to do with the concept of time urgency. Those who hold a Utopian concept of time will push for the quicker realization of their goals. Those who hold a Golden-Age concept of time will not be in any hurry to rush forward, because to them most movements forward are actually just getting away from the better conditions of the past. Utopianists will justify taking actions just because they bring about change, and from their point of view change in itself will bring them closer to their goal. In contrast to this, Golden Ageists will resist change on the belief that any change is likely to further deterior-ate conditions.

What is Culture? 161

As a result of this difference in point of view, the same facts will be brought into the discussion, these facts may also be widely agreed upon, but then, the conclusions from these agreed upon facts will point toward oppo-site solutions. At this point participants will become confused, because they believed that all they had to do was to come to agreement on the facts under discussion. What they had never considered was their differences in the concept of time.

In considering these two concepts of time, it should be clear that theUtopian concept of time is most often associated with the Utilitarian dis-course system, with modernization, with internationalization, with technolog-ization, and with political change. The Golden-Age concept of time is most often associated with more traditional cultural interests. Throughout Asia,for example, this cultural conflict in the sense of time is being debated not only across cultures (interculturally) but within cultures (intraculturally).In many cases, the Utopian sense of time is thought of as westernization and the Golden-Age sense of time is thought of as traditionally Chinese orJapanese or Korean. We think it is important to realize that this conflict between a progressive and a restorative sense of time is also widely debated within western culture.


It is an oversimplification to say that whereas animals have instinct, human beings have culture. Nevertheless, while the exact proportion of inborn,innate behavior to learned, cultural behavior will probably always be de-bated, most scholars would agree that human beings are born with fewer preset patterns than other animals. What this means is that human beings must begin at birth what is a life-long process of learning how to be human beings. We have used the word“culture”to refer to this complex pattern of knowledge and behavior, and we will use the general term“socialization”to refer to the process of learning culture.

Technical definitions of all of the terms relating to culture learning are difficult to establish, since in different fields, such as psychology, sociology,anthropology, they are used somewhat differently. For our purposes, three terms in addition to“socialization”will be sufficient for a general under-standing of how we learn to be members of our cultures and how we learn our systems of discourse: education, enculturation, and acculturation.

Education, enculturation, acculturation

The most important distinction to be made is between what we might call formal and informal means of teaching and learning. While both education and socialization have been used for both forms of learning, we will use

162 What is Culture?
162 什么是文化?

the word“education”for formal teaching and learning, and“socialization”(or“enculturation”) for informal teaching and learning.

When a person takes up employment in a new company, he or she might be in doubt about the way employees are supposed to dress for work in the office. It is possible that the company would have a handbook in which such things as a code of dress would be specified. In that case we would call that formal education. In the business context it would normally be called train-ing and would probably consist of a formal orientation session, in which the handbook would be introduced, new employees would be guided through the main points, and questions they might have would be answered.

On the other hand, the issue of dress might not be mentioned at all, but when the new employee arrives in the office for the first day of work he or she might notice that there is some difference in the way he or she is dressed and the way others in the office are dressed. It is quite likely that this new employee will take this into consideration and make some changes for the next day at work. Such a process of just looking around to see what others are doing and then trying to match their behavior we would want to call socialization.

It should be obvious that in most cultures the first learning of children is socialization, not education. That is, they are not given explicit training in behavior through rules, guided practice, testing, and other forms of formal assessment. They look around at what others are doing, and others make comments which indicate whether or not they approve.

While in the case of infants there is little to distinguish between the words“socialization”and“enculturation,”in most cases the word“enculturation”is restricted just to the early learning of culture. It is what in the next section we will call“primary socialization.”When a person learns a new job through observation of the actions of others and through their informal approval or disapproval, it would be best to call that sort of learning sociali-zation rather than enculturation, as it applies largely to adult behavior.

The distinction between education and socialization, then, is based upon whether or not the procedures for teaching and learning are formally worked out by the group or the society and systematically applied to new members(whether those new members are just born into the society or come in as immigrants). The concept of education is most often associated with what sociologists have called Gesellschaft, whereas socialization is more often associated with Gemeinschaft. This is not a hard and fast distinction; many societies which sociologists consider traditional communities have clearly formal practices of education. Nevertheless, historically from eighteenth-century Europe on there has been a clear association of the rapidly increas-ing Gesellschaft structures of the Utilitarian discourse system and the rapid rise of universal formal public education in those societies which have embraced Utilitarian forms of discourse.

What is Culture? 163

Another aspect of the distinction between education and socialization is that education tends to be periodic or formally structured into units of instruc-tion, whereas socialization tends to be continuous. The units of instruction in education tend to have entrance or admission procedures and requirements as well as exit requirements and ceremonies, along with completion cred-entials. On the other hand, it would be difficult to say in the process of socialization just when one is actually engaged in learning. As a result, there is often a corresponding devaluation of the learning one acquires through socialization and an exaggerated valuation of learning acquired through formal education.

A third point is that education and socialization are often, perhaps nearly always, mixed. For example, in entering a new position, a person might receive specific training as we have mentioned above through handbooks and manuals of company procedures, while at the same time being expected to observe the general practices of older and more experienced employees and to follow their behavior.

Finally, to close out these first definitions, we want to briefly comment on the term“acculturation.”Anthropologists and sociologists have used this term to talk about situations in which two different cultural or social groups come into contact. When one group is more powerful than the other and therefore produces a strong influence on that second group to forget or put aside its own culture and to adopt that of the more powerful group, that process of enforced culture learning is called acculturation. Generally speaking, acculturation is used as a negative term, since the process of cultural loss is considered by analysts to be an unfortunate one.

Primary and secondary socialization

We have one further terminological complication to add to this picture.Social psychologists have widely used the term“primary socialization”to refer to what anthropologists would be more likely to call“enculturation”;that is, primary socialization consists of the processes through which a child goes in the earliest stages of becoming a member of his or her culture or society. Generally speaking, this learning takes place within the family and among close intimates. In this same framework, then, secondary socialization refers to those processes of socialization which take place when the child begins to move outside the family, such as when the child first goes to school and begins to interact with other, non-fa milial children.

One might think it pointless to talk about secondary socialization instead of just calling it education when a child goes to school, but the point being made with these terms is that there are really quite complex processes of learning taking place. Education remains the best term for the formal pro-cesses of school learning-the curriculum, if you like; secondary socialization

164 What is Culture?
164 什么是文化?

refers to those informal processes of learning which take place in and around or even during the other, more formal processes.

While it goes beyond the purposes of this book to go into primary socialization in detail, it is important to bear in mind what sorts of thing a child learns as part of this process. For our purposes, language and social behaviors are the most important. Linguists are in agreement that the great majority of the basic syntactic and phonological structures of one's language are learned (or acquired) as part of one's primary socialization (or during the period of one's primary socialization). For many, probably most humans,the ways one learns to speak during this period of early learning among the family and close intimate relatives places an indelible stamp on one's dis-course for the rest of life. This is when one picks up the“accent”one will carry, with relatively few modifications, throughout life. This is when one becomes handy at using the basic syntact ic structures and functions commonly used in one's community. Whatever other forms of discourse one might learn later on, for most of us they are largely learned against the background of the language acquired during this period of primary socialization.

Patterns of social behavior are also given a fi rm cast during the period of primary socialization. The child learns and develops patterns for relating to those of higher and lower status, older and younger and same age, boys and girls, and he or she learns how to be a boy or girl as well. Beyond these general forms of learning, the child also receives toilet training, and learns how to dress, how to eat, and how to play with others. All of these very fundamental aspects of human behavior are first learned during this period,and while they may undergo changes later in life, those changes are set up against this early learning as modifications and revisions more than simply taking on entirely different behavior patterns. Whatever discourse systems we may become members of later in life, the discourse systems which we enter through primary socialization have a weighted advantage over any we enter into later on.

Figure 7.3 summarizes our usage of these various terms. Socialization is being used both as the term covering all forms of cultural learning and as the more specific term to cover informal aspects of cultural learning. In the text which follows, we will try to make it clear in the context which meaning is to be understood.
图 7.3 总结了我们对这些不同术语的用法。社会化既被用作涵盖所有形式的文化学习的术语,也被用作涵盖文化学习的非正式方面的更具体的术语。在下面的经文中,我们将尝试在上下文中明确理解哪个含义。

Theories of the person and of learning

It is comfortable to think that all humans are alike in basic human processes,and that is certainly true to a considerable extent. Unfortunately, every culture has quite specific ideas about the nature of the human person and of human society, which it simply takes for granted as the obvious truth and yet which another cultural group would find quite surprising or with which

What is Culture? 165

Figure 7.3 Terms for socialization.
图 7.3 社会化术语。

they would strongly disagree. We will only consider three of the ways in which cultural groups may differ in their understanding of the nature of humans: their assumptions about whether humans are good or evil, their views about whether the group or the individual is the basic unit, and their understanding of the human life cycle.

We have quoted the San Zi Jing (Xu Chuiyang, 1990) as saying that we are all born good. This view that human nature is basically good has been held in Confucian ideology from at least the time of Mencius to the present.In contrast to this, in Christian ideology it has been believed that humans are basically evil or sinful. Of course within Chinese history there have been many arguments put forward for why it would be better to consider humans not to be basically good, and in western history many arguments have been put forward that humans are really good.

The important issue for us is not to try to decide whether or not humans are good or bad; we are more interested in what this issue means for socialization into a culture or a discourse system. If you assume humans are basically good, in trying to teach them you will assume that they are trying to do what is right and that what is needed is to show them the right thing to do. Motivation will be based on the learner's own intrinsic desire to do what is right.

On the other hand, if you assume humans are basically evil, in trying to tea ch them you will assume that they will do everything they can to distort your teaching, to turn it to their own mischievous purposes, or to refuse to cooperate. Motivation of such learners is more likely to be based on punish-ment and threats than rewards and promises. In other words, the theory of education and socialization which is held by a society or within a discourse system will be based on the more general concept of the good or evil nature of its members.

A second factor which will be important is whether the group believes that individuals or collectivities are the basic units of society. As we have discussed above, the anthropologist Francis Hsu and many others have argued that Asian society is primarily founded upon a“self”which is larger in scope than the“self”predicated in western society. This Asian self
第二个重要的因素是群体是否认为个人或集体是社会的基本单位。正如我们上面所讨论的,人类学家弗朗西斯·许(Francis Hsu)和许多其他人认为,亚洲社会主要建立在“自我”之上,其范围比西方社会所预设的“自我”更大。这个亚洲的自己

166 What is Culture?
166 什么是文化?

includes intimates of the immediate family, whereas the western self does not include such intimates.

A society which emphasizes the individual as its basic unit will adopt forms of education and socialization which focus on individual learning and individual success, even where those individuals become competitive with each other and destroy group harmony. On the other hand a society which emphasizes a broader concept of the person that includes fa milial intimates,such as traditional Confucian Asian society, will focus education and socialization on the development of that broader unit. The activities and the successes at learning of the individual unit will be seen as part of the activities of the larger units of society, and their successes will be gauged against their contribution to those larger units.

It is now well known that the children of Asian immigrants to the UnitedKingdom and to North America tend to do very well in schools, sometimes even against the odds of having to learn the new language, English, into the bargain. While this mystifies some educational observers, who focus on the individual students, it is clear that the social practices of the group are strongly supporting this learning. One sees even in very crowded living conditions that after dinner the table is cleared and the children settle down to doing homework, with each child helping the other so that all of them succeed in completing their tasks. This social behavior forms a strong contrast with the more typical American pattern, for example; of each child going to separate rooms to listen to music or to watch television while making half-hearted attempts at getting the homework finished.

Finally, a third factor in understanding the concept of the person and of learning for a particular group is that group's conception of the human life cycle. In western popular thought the terms and concepts of the social psychology of the past century have become well established. It is taken as common knowledge that the human life cycle can be divided into such phases as infancy, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, the midlife tran-sition, and so forth. Such terms are so widely used that they are taken as the only imaginable division of the human life span into developmental periods.Nevertheless, many cultures make rather different divisions of the human life cycle.

If we take only Europe in contrast, we can see that in earlier historical periods there was little recognition of the major divisions between child-hood and adulthood we now consider to be so important. Furthermore, we tend to forget in these days of longer life expectancies that for many people now on earth as well as for much of our own earlier history, when an expected life span was closer to fifty years, an“old”person might well have been a person in his or her late forties or early fifties. When child bearing is expected to begin shortly after puberty, a person of the generation of mothers might be in her teens, a grandmother in her thirties. If we compare

What is Culture? 167

this to the rather late child bearing of some contemporary mothers who are having their first children even in their forties, we can see that it becomes very difficult to make direct translations of the experience of motherhood and the practices of primary socialization between mothers in such different periods in their lives. A contemporary mother who is a professional woman in her forties approaches the problems of primary socialization very differ-ently from a mother who is in her early teens, whatever else these two women might have in common.

Seen from the point of view of the individual, differences in the society's conception of the life cycle include major differences in the importance ascribed to various periods as well. The prolonged adolescent period which contemporary westerners experience - we do not necessarily want to say enjoy-is in sharp contrast to the plunge into a short lifetime of hard work experienced by the children of the early Industrial Revolution. As lifetimes have increased under industrial development and as the overall complexity of society and its technologies have increased, more and more of the per-son's total lifespan is given over to educational preparation. In some soci-eties, direct socialization through apprenticeship into the adulthood tasks is sufficient for most members of the society. In modernized contemporary society or in what some have called post-modern society, much of one's life is spent in preparation for fully legitimate“adult”activity.

A childhood friend of one of the authors is now a brain surgeon. In a real sense his period of education and training lasted nearly forty years; he was in his forties before he was sufficiently well prepared to stand on his own feet as a fully legitimated practicing brain surgeon. His life experience may be compared to an Athabaska n hunter also known by the authors who entered into his full adulthood occupation when he was fifteen years old.While there is much to separate the experiences of these two men, the point we wish to make here is that if we want to understand their membership within their cultures and within their discourse systems, it will be important to see that the processes of socialization for each of them are strikingly different.

Cultural Ideology and Stereotyping

Now that we have introduced a number of dimensions which should be con-sidered in analyzing intercultural discourse between Asians and westerners,we think it is important to take up the question of cultural ideology and stereotyping. We have said above that a balanced cultural description must take into consideration the full complexity of cultural themes. When one of those themes is singled out for emphasis and given a positive or negative

168 What is Culture?
168 什么是文化?

value or is treated as the full description, then we would want to call that ideology rather than cultural description. A much more common term for such cultural ideological statements is“stereotyping.”

Ideological statement or stereotyping often arises when someone comes to believe that any two cultures or social groups, or, as we prefer to call them, two discourse systems, can be treated as if they were polar opposites.For example, in chapter 5 we introduced the concept of two different rhe-torical strategies, the inductive and the deductive strategies, for the introduc-tion of main topics in a discourse. There is a danger in such a concept when someone comes to consider Asians to be inductive and westerners to be deductive. That would constitute an ideological statement, by trying to make a clear division between Asians and westerners on the dimension of rhetorical strategies. As we argued in chapter 5, both strategies are used in all cultures that we know of. What might be different is the way com-municative situations are established in different cultures, and especially the relationships among participants.

In the preceding section on cultural differences in time, we argued that the Utopian sense of time urgency is often thought of as western, and opposed to the Asian Golden-Age concept of time. This binary contrast is obviously too simplistic, since we see so many cases of the Utopian sense of time in Asia as well as cases of the Golden-Age sense of time in the west.Cultural ideologies in intercultural comparison are the fa llacy of opposing two large cultural groups upon the basis of some single dimension, such as the introduction of topics in discourse or the sense of time.

Such general cultural ideological statements, then, focus on simplistic contrasts between cultural groups. Stereotyping arises from such ideologies by focusing upon individual members of cultural groups. It is the process by which all members of a group are asserted to have the characteristics attributed to the whole group.

Stereotyping is simply another word for overgeneralization. The differ-ence, however, is that stereotyping carries with it an ideological position.Characteristics of the group are not only overgeneralized to apply to each member of the group, but they are also taken to have some exaggerated nega-tive or positive value. These values are then taken as argument s to support social or political relationships in regard to members of those groups.

For example, it is clear that the sense of time urgency is characteristic of many of the residents of Asia's urban capitals, such as Tokyo, Taipei, HongKong, Seoul, or Singapore. It would become an overgeneralization to simply assume that, because someone was a resident of one of these cities,he or she would show a constant sense of time urgency. It becomes stereo-typing to assume that this is a particularly good or bad quality of that person upon the basis of his or her membership in the group of residents of that city.

What is Culture? 169

Stereotyping is a way of thinking that does not acknowledge internal dif-ferences within a group, and does not acknowledge exceptions to its general rules or principles. Ideologies are largely based on stereotypical thinking, or,to put it the other way around, stereotypes are largely ideological. There is usually a good bit of accurate cultural observation which underlies stereo-types; it is not the truth of those observations which is the problem. The problem is that stereotypes blind us to other, equally important aspects of a person's character or behavior. Stereotypes limit our understanding of human behavior and of intercultural discourse because they limit our view of human activity to just one or two salient dimensions and consider those to be the whole picture. Furthermore, they go on ideologically to use that limited view of individuals and of groups to justify preferential or discrim-inatory treatment by others who hold greater political power.

Researchers and consultants who are concerned with the analysis of intercultural communication range from anthropologists and sociolinguists to speech communication analysts and teachers of English. While their theoretical interests are often quite different, these researchers share a basic set of common assumptions in their work. Among these are four:

1 Humans are not all the same.
1 人类并不都是一样的。

2 At least some of the differences among them show culturally or socially predictable patterns.
2 它们之间的一些差异至少显示出文化或社会上可预测的模式。

3 At least some of those patterns are reflected in patterns of discourse.
3 这些模式中至少有一些反映在话语模式中。

4Some of those differences in discourse patterns lead directly to un-wanted social problems such as intergroup hostility, stereotyping, pref-erential treatment, and discrimination.

We want to focus now on the problem of oversimplification of intercultural(or intergroup) analyses, which arises when people accept an ideological con-ceptual division of humanity. This is, of course, a very common situation.We will give one quite innocuous example.

Recently one of us was lecturing in America to a group of teachers fromTaiwan who were in America on a cultural exchange program. The purpose of the lecture was to discuss some of the aspects of intercultural communi-cation between Chinese and Americans. When we took a break for lunch,one of the American women present said that she was struck by how much the differences between Chinese and Americans were“just like the differ-ences between women and men as Tannen had outlined in her book.”She was referring to the book You Just Don't Understand: women and men in conversation by Deborah Tannen (1990a).
最近,我们中的一个人在美国给一群来自台湾的老师讲课,他们在美国参加一个文化交流项目。讲座的目的是讨论中美跨文化交际的一些方面。当我们休息吃午饭时,在场的一位美国女性说,她对中国人和美国人之间的差异感到震惊,“就像坦宁在她的书中概述的那样,女性和男性之间的差异”。她指的是黛博拉·坦南(Deborah Tannen)的《你只是不明白:对话中的女人和男人》(You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation,1990a)一书。

Even though we were carefully trying to avoid the fallacies of ideological and stereotyping statements-in fact, that was the point of the whole lecture—the form of analysis, contrastive analysis, provided the basis for one of the

170 What is Culture?
170 什么是文化?

people there to make such an intuitive leap. This woman went on further to ask if it was not the case that the“American”in our analysis was not really better described as“an American man,”since she felt the characteristics we had described for the“American”really did not seem to apply to American women, while at the same time the characteristics given for the Chinese did seem to fit better.

In a sense this is correct. As we will describe in chapter 11, there was actually a legitimate basis in the research literature for this woman's insight.At the same time, it is patently absurd to suggest that all Chinese, men and women, are“just like”American women. The problem we had run into was that of ideological oversimplification, or what we might call“binarism.”The lecture had presented binary contrasts as the most graphic way of showing areas where miscommunication might arise. The woman, who was one of the teachers of this group of Chinese, was rather concerned to develop common grounds of solidarity with her Taiwanese students.

In discussing the differences between Chinese and Americans in that particular situation, there was little direct cause to wander further afield into other intercultural and intergroup comparisons. The audience consisted ofChinese English teachers who were in the United States for the purposes of learning more about English and about American culture. Their primary concern was not with gender differences as such, nor was it with other such differences as communication between Athabaskans and Anglo-Americans,or Chinese and Japanese. As a result, the framework which had been set around this presentation was that of a binary comparison.

At the same time, the American woman had just recently read Tannen's book. The framework set on that analysis by the subtit le on the cover is“women and men in conversation.”As a perfect case in point, Tannen is very careful throughout her text to include many other intercultural com-parisons, and yet Tannen's scrupulous presentation of her gender analysis within the context of much broader sociolinguistic comparative work was swept aside by her reader, whose own interpretive framework had settled into the ideological binarism of a polarized difference between American men and American women.
与此同时,这位美国女士最近刚刚读了坦宁的书。封面上的微妙 le 所设定的分析框架是“对话中的女人和男人”。作为一个完美的例子,坦南在她的整个文本中非常谨慎地包括许多其他跨文化比较,然而坦南在更广泛的社会语言学比较工作的背景下对她的性别分析的谨慎呈现被她的读者扫地出门,他们自己的解释框架已经陷入了美国男性和美国女性之间两极分化差异的意识形态二元论。

The solution to the problem of oversimplification or binarism and stereo-typing is twofold: comparisons between groups should always consider both likenesses and differences, that is, they should be based upon more than a single dimension of contrast, and it must be remembered that no individual member of a group embodies all of his or her group's characteristics. As we will discuss in de tail in chapters 8–11, we all are simultaneously members of multiple groups, or, as we call them,“discourse systems.”None of us is fully defined by our membership in any single group. One is simultaneously a son or a daughter, a father or a mother, a member of a particular company,a member of a particular generation, and so forth in an indefinite number of

What is Culture? 171

discourse systems. One's sense of identity and group membership is a com-posite of all of these identities and a complex and sometimes difficult inter-action among them.

Negative Stereotypes

Any form of stereotyping is potentially an obstruction to successful inter-cultural communication, because it will blind us to real differences that exist between the participants in a discourse. The most obstructive form of stereo-typing, however, is also sometimes called negative stereotyping. In such a case, the first step is to contrast two cultures or two groups on the basis of some single dimension. For example, someone might say that all Asians are inductive and all westerners are deductive in their introduction of topics.Such a statement may have some basis in observation, but it ignores the fact that in many cases Asians also use deductive strategies on the one hand, and on the other inductive strategies are frequently used by westerners.

The second step in negative stereotyping is to focus on this artificial and ideological difference as a problem for communication. Unfortunately, this step is essential for any analysis of intercultural discourse, and as a result, it requires a great deal of care in such analysis to forestall stereotyping. We might say, for example, that because Asians are inductive and westerners are deductive, it is difficult for them to communicate with each other easily or successfully.

If we have already forgotten that our first premise was somewhat over-simplified, that is, if we have already forgotten that both inductive strategies and deductive strategies are used in both cultures, and if we have forgotten that we can never classify all Asians together and all westerners together,it becomes natural at this step to jump to the conclusion that Asians and westerners can never successfully communicate with each other. This is false,of course, but at this step in the process it can easily be forgotten.

The third step, then, is to assign a positive value to one strategy or one group and a negative value to the other strategy or group. At this step, for example, a westerner might say the problem with intercultural communica-tion between Asians and westerners is that they refuse to introduce their topics so that we can understand them. The simple descriptive difference leads to the idea that somehow members of the other group are actively trying to make it difficult to understand them.

The fourth and final step is to regeneralize this process to the entire group. One reasserts the original binaristic contrast as a negative group con-trast. One might say, for example, that all Asians or all westerners are like this; they always try to obstruct communication. Often one final step is taken;these characteristics are assumed to be genetic or racial characteristics.

172 What is Culture?
172 什么是文化?

Negative stereotyping is a perennial problem in intercultural communi-cation. This is because these stereotypes are usually based on some accurate observation. It is accurate to say that in many instances there will be some difference in topic introduction between an Asian and a westerner. As we have argued above, in chapter 5, this difference does not result from Asians trying to be indirect or westerners trying to be direct. This is based on deeper assumptions being made about the face relationships one can adopt in certain communicative situations. It would be quite correct to say that in a communication between strangers, most Asians would be careful to use strategies of independence out of deference and respect for the other per-son. One of those strategies would be the rhetorical strategy of inductively introducing one's own topics.

It would also be correct to say that in communication between strangers,most westerners would try to bring the situation around to one of symmet-rical solidarity. This would be because of the value placed in most western societies on egalitarianism and individualism. One strategy which would be used to do this would be to use a deductive rhetorical pattern for the intro-duction of topics.

If we forget the deeper reasons why these rhetorical strategies are used,we can easily move into negatively stereotyping members of other groups who are working from different basic assumptions about the most respect-fu l way to treat strangers. The result is an overall negative impression of members of the other group.

Positive Stereotypes, the Lumping Fallacy, and the Solidarity Fallacy

We have mentioned above the woman who thought that our description of“Chinese”characteristics was just the same as Deborah Tannen's descrip-tion of those for American women. Now we can go back and look at just what led this woman to this conclusion. The point we were discussing which led her to it had to do with the function of language. As we have said above, language has both the function of conveying information and the function of maintaining relationships among participants in speech events.We said that generally speaking, if we contrasted Chinese and Americans,we would see that Chinese would be on the relationship end of this con-tinuum and Americans would be on the information end of the same con-tinuum. In other words, Chinese tend to be concerned that good relationships are maintained, even if this means that less information may be exchanged,while Americans and Europeans in general will tend to emphasize the exchange of information, even if relationships cannot be easily maintained.
我们在上面提到了一位女士,她认为我们对“中国”特征的描述与黛博拉·坦宁(Deborah Tannen)对美国女性特征的描述相同。现在我们可以回过头来看看是什么让这个女人得出了这个结论。我们讨论的那一点是,她想到了这一点,这与语言的功能有关。正如我们上面所说,语言既具有传达信息的功能,又具有维持言语事件参与者之间关系的功能。我们说过,一般来说,如果我们对比中国人和美国人,我们会看到中国人将处于这种连续体的关系端,而美国人将处于同一连续体的信息端。換句話說,中國人傾向於關注保持良好的關係,即使這意味著可以減少信息的交換,而美國人和歐洲人一般會傾向於強調信息的交換,即使關係不容易維持。

What is Culture? 173

Tannen has observed that in communication between American men andAmerican women, there is a tendency for men to emphasize information over relationship and for women to emphasize relationship over informa-tion. She characterizes this difference as that between report and rapport,with men emphasizing report and women emphasizing rapport.

Both of these characterizations, that of American women in comparison to American men and that of Americans to Chinese in general, have a basis in actual observations. The solidarity fa llacy comes into play here when this woman tries to group together American women and all Chinese on this single dimension of information and relationship. There is no reason to deny that on this single dimension one would expect to find better under-standing between American women and Chinese in general. The mistake-the solidarity fallacy-is to proceed from there and conclude that because there is common ground on this single dimension, there will be commonality across all of the cultural characteristics of these two groups.

If we look at just one other dimension, that of egalitarian and hierarchical relationships, it will become clear that while all Chinese, both men and women, and American women may have some common ground on the question of their perceptions of the function of language, when it comes to the question of relative status, there is little or no agreement at all. Particu-larly in contemporary times, American women tend to emphasize egalitarian relationships throughout society. In contrast to this, throughout the history of China up to the present day, Chinese in general have always emphasized clear hierarchical relationships. Ideologically, of course, this has been some-what more to the advantage of Asian men then Asian women. To bring this statement up to date it should be noted that throughout Asia many women are now urging or hoping for greater equality in their relationships withAsian men.

The solidarity fallacy of putting American women together in a single conceptual group with Chinese is shown to be impossibly wrong when the question of hierarchy comes up. On that dimension one might see them as polar opposites. Of course, no two groups are either polar opposites or exactly identical. The problem of negative stereotyping is one of seeing mem-bers of different groups as being polar opposites. The problem of positive stereotyping is one of seeing members of different groups as being identical.In either case, it is a problem of stereotyping which arises from making a comparison on the basis of a single, bin ary dimension of analysis.

When the grouping is based on falsely combining one's own group and some other group, we would call it the solidarity fallacy. In the case we have just described, the American woman falsely included her group, American women, with Chinese on the belief that they had the emphasis on relation-ship in common, while ignoring the major differences between their groups.When the person making the false grouping is doing so in reference to two

174 What is Culture?
174 什么是文化?

other groups, we would call that the lumping fallacy. For example, when westerners consider all Asians to be members of the same group without taking into consideration the major differences among these groups, this would be called the lumping fallacy. In the same way, grouping together all westerners would also be the lumping fallacy. In both cases, positive stereo-typing occurs when the person making the categorization takes the charac-teristics he or she used to make the stereotyping as positive, while negative stereotyping results when the basis of comparison was considered to be negative.

Whether the stereotyping is positive or negative in intent, it should be clear that it stands in the way of successful communication because it blinds the analyst to major areas of difference. As we have said at the very begin-ning of this book, communication is inherently ambiguous. Effective com-munication depends on finding and clarifying sources of ambiguity as well as learning to deal with places where miscommunication occurs. Such clari-fi cation is impossible when the analyst does not recognize areas of difference among participants, because he or she will assume common ground and mutual understanding. The perennial paradoxical situation of the analyst of intercultural communication is that he or she must constantly look for areas of difference between people which will potentially lead to miscommunication,but at the same time he or she must constantly guard against both positive and negative stereotyping.

Differences Which Make a Difference:Discourse Systems

In this chapter, we have reviewed several areas in which researchers have demonstrated that cultures may differ significantly from each other. While we have only touched upon each of these areas with a few examples, we hope it is clear that the potential for intercultural misunderstanding is great.At the same time, now that we have reviewed these many areas of potential difference, we want to point out that not all cultural differences are equally problematical in intercultural communication. In fact, some cultural differ-ences do not make any major difference from the point of view of discourse analysis. The reason for this is that cultures tend to be very large groupings with many internal sub-groupings. There is hardly any dimension on which you could compare cultures and with which one culture could be clearly and unambiguously distinguished from another.

To give just a few examples, we have observed earlier that the inductive and the deductive rhetorical strategies are not sufficient to distinguish be-tween cultures because both strategies may be used in virtually any culture.

What is Culture? 175

If one tries to distinguish between cultures on the basis of egalitarianism or hierarchy, one will always find contexts in any culture in which one or the other structure will predominate. If we classify on the basis of the functions of language, again, one will find that while Americans and Chinese are different on the dimension overall, with Americans tending toward the function of information and Chinese tendi ng toward the function of rela-tionship, yet American women will tend to be more like the so-called“Chinese”value. And, of course, one will find within Chinese culture many areas in which the emphasis is, in fact, on information, not relationship.

One strategy which has been used, of course, is to use multiple dimensions to contrast cultures. While it is more accurate, still it is difficult to draw very direct connections between aspects of culture and actual situations of discourse.

In chapter 6, we described the nature of discourse systems. Such systems are smaller than whole cultures and tend to take on somewhat more homo-geneous characteristics, if not ideological unity. For example, it would be impossible to talk about western culture in any clear and unambiguous way.On the other hand, it is possible to describe quite clearly the Utilitarian discourse system, its practices of socialization, its assumptions about face politeness, and the forms of discourse that are used as a result of this face politeness system of symmetrical solidarity. This is because, on the whole,the Utilitarian discourse system is an ideological system which quite self-consciously seeks ideological unity.

As we have shown in this chapter, there are many characteristics of culture which may influence discourse as long as it is possible to clearly show that the participants in a particular discourse are different from each other on that dimension or factor. For example, if two participants in a discourse are different from each other in their choice of deductive or inductive strategies for the introduction of topics, whether or not they are from different cultures, they will find themselves confused as to how to interpret what is being said by the other person. What is significant is not the difference in culture; it is the difference in that particular rhetorical strategy.

The same argument can be made for differences between any two partici-pants in a discourse on the basis of any of the factors we have just discussed.They could find difficulties in communicating based upon their belief about whether humans were essentially good or evil, their religion, their kinship relationships, their sense of ingroup loyalty, their understanding of egali-tarianism and hierarchy, their emphasis on individualism or collectivism,whether they conceive of language as being used primarily for information or relationship, whether negotiation or ratification of those relationships is thought to be primary, or the assumptions they make about the most effective ways of socializing either their children or new members to the group.
根据我们刚才讨论的任何因素,可以对话语中任何两个参与者之间的差异提出同样的论点。他们可能会发现沟通的困难,因为他们相信人类本质上是善还是恶,他们的宗教,他们的亲属关系,他们的内群体忠诚感,他们对egali-tarianism和等级制度的理解,他们对个人主义或集体主义的强调,他们是否认为语言主要用于信息或关系,是否认为这些关系的谈判或批准是主要的, 或者他们对他们的孩子或小组新成员社交的最有效方式所做的假设。

176 What is Culture?
176 什么是文化?

Their emphasis on group harmony or individual welfare could lead to a different interpretation of such non-verbal aspects of communication as smiles or their use of space. Even a difference in such an abstract factor as their concept of Utopian or Golden-Age directions in the“arrow of time”could lead to major problems of interpretation in discourse.

We would be very unlikely to find any two cultures or members of any cultural groups who would differ completely from each other on all of these dimensions. As a result, we believe that in discussions of intercultural communication, we will be more effective by narrowing our focus to dis-course systems, which are sub-cultural systems where contrasts between one system and another are somewhat more strongly made. In chapters8-11 we will focus on communication which takes place across boundaries between groups which are defined as discourse systems. From this point of view, intercultural communication might better be analyzed as interdiscourse system communication.
我们不太可能找到任何两种文化或任何文化群体的成员在所有这些方面都完全不同。因此,我们相信,在跨文化交际的讨论中,我们将注意力集中在话语系统上会更有效,话语系统是亚文化系统,其中一个系统与另一个系统之间的对比更加强烈。在第 8-11 章中,我们将重点关注跨边界发生的交流,这些交流被定义为话语系统。从这个角度来看,跨文化交际可以更好地分析为话语间系统交际。