Summary Of American Culture
43617760 Our human lives involve many different things, from our jobs, our family, the shows we watch, our religious tendencies, interacting with all of these people and a number of other tangible ways. Culture is the collection of these things, or our material culture, is the way we live our life. We find material culture in the clothes we wear, the transportation we use, the tools we use and many other things. It does not just extend to the things we do or use, but also the way we think about the things that we do, or our non-material culture. Do we have a positive or negative view on the way someone greeted another person? What do we choose to try to value and what do we choose to believe when there are uncertainties? Members of a cultural group mostly have shared expectations, that are passed on through generations and the institutions of the culture, such as academic organizations, markets, government organizations, religion, entertainment that we enjoy and research
…show more content…
that we pursue.
There is no firm definition, though, of what belongs to one person’s culture and not to another’s culture, rather, it is a creation of the society that it represents. Hooker adds a perspective in chapter 1 by pointing to the language and gesturesooHooHOooooodnfsfklhoohooohooheopr. He specifically points to how scratching one’s head can have three distinct meanings depending on the social context. Additionally, Adler and Gunderson, in their What is Culture? section, used a number of different definitions to say that culture is something used by most members of a society, which are passed through generations, to effect a person’s actions and views. That is, one person can have a cultural similarity between someone who lives across the street, while simultaneously have a cultural affiliation with someone across the country that the neighbor across the street
could not relate with.
An example of this cultural affiliation phenomenon could be shown in a story. If a neighbor across the street bought a scientist doll for their daughter. In contrast, a friend across the country could buy a farmer doll for their daughter. They both bought dolls for their daughters to help show them potential occupations that they could have but with radically different ideas of the occupations that they could have. This shows similar cultural expectations that the daughters should take to think about what jobs interest them, but also shows differences. These differences can be found in education expectations, pay expectations, social recognition expectations, and many other ways. These expectations are the differences that set these cultures apart from one another. Our family is a primary force that shapes our concepts of identity and culture, particularly on the small scale of culture. Understanding how the phenomenon works and the implications of the cultural differences is extremely important. In order to understand these differences, one must first have an understanding of their own culture. For such an exercise it would be helpful to look at Meyer’s culture spectrums provided in the introduction. What is most important about these maps, is not the absolute location on the maps, but rather the relative location on the maps. This is necessary since although one may consider one’s culture on a particular part of the scale there is still the possibility that someone else is more extreme one way or another in comparison to one’s own country. Additionally, one must consider that even though a country is located on a particular part of the scale it only shows the rough approximation of where those people lie on the scale. There is a certain probability that one can find people to the left and right of that point on the scale. Countries, companies and other multinational and global institutions need to work to realize the differences and how they affect their relationship with other organizations.
On a large scale, we see the effects of cultural differences instituted by governments when they codify cultural norms in laws and regulations. These cultural norms (and the laws and regulations that buttress them) used to be not as important because the world was not that well connected with itself. There would not have been a direct connection made in the textile industry in China to the trucking industry in the United States in the 1930s, but today there is. Thus, our laws here, in America, and the laws of China, today, affect industries across the world. We now have, not only the interest, but also the need to understand the past, present, and forthcoming cultural norms and trends. If we choose to disregard the impact of our differences we are preventing business transactions, intellectual discussions and the advancement of the cultures and the people that are found within them. One must also consider how some people are working to accommodate cultural differences. The largest example, as Adler and Gunderson discussed, is the European Union. This economic bloc requires twenty-eight nations, using twenty-four different languages, to cooperate over a wide range of legal and economic matters. Some of these nations have fought each other over the last eighty years, thus having this union has worked to stabilize the region of the long term. The Union continues to evolve to the needs of its members and the region as some members remove themselves and others are in the process of adding themselves to the unified currency and other rules and regulations. This effort to unite over half a billion people would be impossible without a concentrated effort to work with each other on their cultural differences. They have done this through several efforts including having a unified European Central Bank and the European Parliament. These both have the function of a facilitating financial and regulatory needs of the many nations. Four examples of nations within the European Union that experience differences are the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Russia. This diagram shows how complex it is for the European Union, the previously mentioned nations, and other nations within the Union to communicate with each other. As both Hooker and Meyer would discuss, they have to communicate across the spectrum from Low-Context, most exemplified by the Netherlands, to a more High-Context nation, like Russia.
With this in mind if the Netherlands wished to say something to Spain they would want to be more subtle with what they are saying so as not to offend the Spanish, and vice versa is also true. Although, they would have to be even more subtle if they wished to communicate with the French in a manner suitable to them and their customs. By knowing these important facts communicating across languages and cultures can become less treacherous and more consistently fruitful for both parties. Additionally, one can avoid other issues by seeking to understand, as Hooker noted in Chapter 7 Context and Learning, why certain societies are at some extreme on a map. In this case, it can be shown that a relationship based society is a high context society, whereas a rule-based society is a more low-context nation.
Examples how this works is found in Makiko Eda, a part of the Intel’s Asia marketing team, who has to communicate with the US-based team. This requires her to be more vocal and direct with what she says. In contrast, when dealing with her local partner her main focus was the use of honorific language with her superiors. Eda also tells a story of an African woman who was criticized for thinking like a white woman, because she was required to mention a company policy that went against a local custom prior to a negotiation. As Hooker points out in Chapter 1, though, not everyone has the belief that there is a compelling need to understand other cultures.
Some have stated that the world is converging on Western ideals and culture. There is some truth to this, but it ignores more prevailing realities, such as a variety of forms of government throughout the world. Whether it is a meritocracy in the United States, familial connections in Asia, or quasi-socialism in Nordic countries there is a great deal of disparity that needs to be understood in order for effective communication to occur. This idea also ignores the fact that cultures are not rigid blocks, but rather free flowing ideas that ebb back and forth from a center. Cultures can adapt and integrate different ideas that then become unique characteristics. Today we do not worry that there are Italian and Chinese restaurants spreading throughout the world, because they do not define the culture there, rather they complement it in a unique way. Additionally, arguments against the value of understanding ignore the facets of culture that are deeply ingrained in people. Our cultures are not math and science where there are concrete rights and wrongs. Rather it is more like history, where there are multiple perspectives and if you look at enough of them and try to understand what they are saying you are more likely to find a truth.
The world has come a long ways to have the need to develop an understanding of cultures that are dissimilar from their own. Today, now that we have this need, it is important that we observe it and know how and when to apply this understanding of cultures. Not understanding these differences inhibits the world’s economy, knowledge, and general advancement. If we as a global society work to understand other parts of the world we will be better off for it, and we will reap many benefits from these noble efforts.
that we pursue.
There is no firm definition, though, of what belongs to one person’s culture and not to another’s culture, rather, it is a creation of the society that it represents. Hooker adds a perspective in chapter 1 by pointing to the language and gesturesooHooHOooooodnfsfklhoohooohooheopr. He specifically points to how scratching one’s head can have three distinct meanings depending on the social context. Additionally, Adler and Gunderson, in their What is Culture? section, used a number of different definitions to say that culture is something used by most members of a society, which are passed through generations, to effect a person’s actions and views. That is, one person can have a cultural similarity between someone who lives across the street, while simultaneously have a cultural affiliation with someone across the country that the neighbor across the street
could not relate with.
An example of this cultural affiliation phenomenon could be shown in a story. If a neighbor across the street bought a scientist doll for their daughter. In contrast, a friend across the country could buy a farmer doll for their daughter. They both bought dolls for their daughters to help show them potential occupations that they could have but with radically different ideas of the occupations that they could have. This shows similar cultural expectations that the daughters should take to think about what jobs interest them, but also shows differences. These differences can be found in education expectations, pay expectations, social recognition expectations, and many other ways. These expectations are the differences that set these cultures apart from one another. Our family is a primary force that shapes our concepts of identity and culture, particularly on the small scale of culture. Understanding how the phenomenon works and the implications of the cultural differences is extremely important. In order to understand these differences, one must first have an understanding of their own culture. For such an exercise it would be helpful to look at Meyer’s culture spectrums provided in the introduction. What is most important about these maps, is not the absolute location on the maps, but rather the relative location on the maps. This is necessary since although one may consider one’s culture on a particular part of the scale there is still the possibility that someone else is more extreme one way or another in comparison to one’s own country. Additionally, one must consider that even though a country is located on a particular part of the scale it only shows the rough approximation of where those people lie on the scale. There is a certain probability that one can find people to the left and right of that point on the scale. Countries, companies and other multinational and global institutions need to work to realize the differences and how they affect their relationship with other organizations.
On a large scale, we see the effects of cultural differences instituted by governments when they codify cultural norms in laws and regulations. These cultural norms (and the laws and regulations that buttress them) used to be not as important because the world was not that well connected with itself. There would not have been a direct connection made in the textile industry in China to the trucking industry in the United States in the 1930s, but today there is. Thus, our laws here, in America, and the laws of China, today, affect industries across the world. We now have, not only the interest, but also the need to understand the past, present, and forthcoming cultural norms and trends. If we choose to disregard the impact of our differences we are preventing business transactions, intellectual discussions and the advancement of the cultures and the people that are found within them. One must also consider how some people are working to accommodate cultural differences. The largest example, as Adler and Gunderson discussed, is the European Union. This economic bloc requires twenty-eight nations, using twenty-four different languages, to cooperate over a wide range of legal and economic matters. Some of these nations have fought each other over the last eighty years, thus having this union has worked to stabilize the region of the long term. The Union continues to evolve to the needs of its members and the region as some members remove themselves and others are in the process of adding themselves to the unified currency and other rules and regulations. This effort to unite over half a billion people would be impossible without a concentrated effort to work with each other on their cultural differences. They have done this through several efforts including having a unified European Central Bank and the European Parliament. These both have the function of a facilitating financial and regulatory needs of the many nations. Four examples of nations within the European Union that experience differences are the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Russia. This diagram shows how complex it is for the European Union, the previously mentioned nations, and other nations within the Union to communicate with each other. As both Hooker and Meyer would discuss, they have to communicate across the spectrum from Low-Context, most exemplified by the Netherlands, to a more High-Context nation, like Russia.
With this in mind if the Netherlands wished to say something to Spain they would want to be more subtle with what they are saying so as not to offend the Spanish, and vice versa is also true. Although, they would have to be even more subtle if they wished to communicate with the French in a manner suitable to them and their customs. By knowing these important facts communicating across languages and cultures can become less treacherous and more consistently fruitful for both parties. Additionally, one can avoid other issues by seeking to understand, as Hooker noted in Chapter 7 Context and Learning, why certain societies are at some extreme on a map. In this case, it can be shown that a relationship based society is a high context society, whereas a rule-based society is a more low-context nation.
Examples how this works is found in Makiko Eda, a part of the Intel’s Asia marketing team, who has to communicate with the US-based team. This requires her to be more vocal and direct with what she says. In contrast, when dealing with her local partner her main focus was the use of honorific language with her superiors. Eda also tells a story of an African woman who was criticized for thinking like a white woman, because she was required to mention a company policy that went against a local custom prior to a negotiation. As Hooker points out in Chapter 1, though, not everyone has the belief that there is a compelling need to understand other cultures.
Some have stated that the world is converging on Western ideals and culture. There is some truth to this, but it ignores more prevailing realities, such as a variety of forms of government throughout the world. Whether it is a meritocracy in the United States, familial connections in Asia, or quasi-socialism in Nordic countries there is a great deal of disparity that needs to be understood in order for effective communication to occur. This idea also ignores the fact that cultures are not rigid blocks, but rather free flowing ideas that ebb back and forth from a center. Cultures can adapt and integrate different ideas that then become unique characteristics. Today we do not worry that there are Italian and Chinese restaurants spreading throughout the world, because they do not define the culture there, rather they complement it in a unique way. Additionally, arguments against the value of understanding ignore the facets of culture that are deeply ingrained in people. Our cultures are not math and science where there are concrete rights and wrongs. Rather it is more like history, where there are multiple perspectives and if you look at enough of them and try to understand what they are saying you are more likely to find a truth.
The world has come a long ways to have the need to develop an understanding of cultures that are dissimilar from their own. Today, now that we have this need, it is important that we observe it and know how and when to apply this understanding of cultures. Not understanding these differences inhibits the world’s economy, knowledge, and general advancement. If we as a global society work to understand other parts of the world we will be better off for it, and we will reap many benefits from these noble efforts.