Interculutral Chapter 2-15-10
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Basis of Cultural differences in Nonverbal Communication Peter A. Andersen School of Communication San Diego State University Human are noteworthy among living things because we use language. Yet most messages lie beyond language in a communication system popularly called body language or, more correctly, nonverbal communication (Andersen, 2004, 2007). Compare to verbal communication, nonverbal messages are both more powerful and more ambiguous because they are signaled and interpreted through multiple channels such as facial expressions, bodily language, tones of voice, spatial relationships, and the environment. Though nonverbal communication is both intentional and unintentional, it operates at a lower level of awareness and is more spontaneous and mindless than language (Andersen, 2004, 2007; Buck & Van Lear, 2002). Overall, nonverbal communication is a pervasive and powerful form of human behavior, which involves a subtle, nonlinguistic, multidimensional, spontaneous process (Andersen, 1999a). Although, some nonverbal behaviors are universal and show little or no cultural variation (Brown, 1991), most nonverbal behaviors show a considerable imprint of culture. Culture is “a shared system of socially transmitted behavior that describes, defines, and guides people’s ways of life, communicated from one generation to the next” (Matsumoto, 2006, p.220). At one time each culture was located in a particular geographic area or country. This is still the case to some degree, but cultures today may be based as much on the cultural identification and connection among its members as through geographic separation. Culture is mainly an unspoken, nonverbal phenomenon because most aspects of one’s culture are learned through observation and imitation rather than by explicit verbal instruction or expression. The primary level of culture is 2 communicated implicitly, without awareness, and chiefly by nonverbal means (Andersen, 1999a; Hall, 1984). Our cultural behaviors and attitudes are so deeply ingrained that people think that behaviors enacted by their own culture are the only ways that humans should behave. Speaking of nonverbal communication, Sapir (1928) long ago stated: We respond to gestures with an extreme alertness, and one might say, in accordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known to none and understood by all (p. 556). Andersen (1997) stated: “Indeed, culture is so basic, learned at such a tender age, and so taken-for-granted that it is often confused with human nature itself (p.244). Of course, culture is not human nature, but it is called “second nature” because it in nearly as deep within us as the fact that we are members of the human species. The belief that culture is part of human nature has a dark side. In many cultures, it is believed that people with different attire, religious customs, special behavior and many other aspects of nonverbal communication are subhuman or at least deficient humans because their behavior is viewed subhuman or at least a less refined, righteous, or proper way for humans to behave. It is only through the experience of cultural differences via education or travel can cultural differences in nonverbal behavior be understood and even appreciated. Nonverbal communication is comprised of both biologically determined and cultural-specific components. Some factors are innate and genetic, that produce cross- cultural similarities in nonverbal behavior (Brown, 1991; Ekman, 1972), but abundant cross-cultural differences exist in nonverbal behavior also and create intercultural miscommunication, friction, and confusion. With dramatically increasing numbers of people pursuing higher education, traveling for business and pleasure, and immigrating to another country, the probability of communicating with people from other cultures is greater than ever before (Brown, Kane, & Roodman, 1994). Despite a one-year downturn in international tourism due to 3 global economic crisis, generally international tourism has steadily increased for decades (United Nations, 2009). Likewise inexpensive electronic communication via email, Skype, or social networking sites makes international communication more likely. Understanding intercultural communication, particularly nonverbal communication for which there is no dictionary, is more important than ever before. Nonverbal messages serve a variety of functions in intercultural communication (Ting-Toomey, 1999). People rely on nonverbal cues to signal their identity (Burgoon, Guerrero & Floyd, 2010) and receivers rely on perceived judgments based upon these cues. From artifacts such as clothing, jewelry, cosmetics, and accessories to use of vocalic cues such as pitch, volume, articulation, and tempo, individuals in different cultures present, enhance, and/or assert a sense of self via various nonverbal behaviors (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Not only do nonverbal messages reflect strong personal identity, they also carry and infer powerful feelings, emotions, and attitudes typically through facial, bodily, and gestural movement and use of voice (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Culture shapes the display rules of when, how, what, and with whom certain nonverbal expressions should be revealed or suppressed (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Ekman & Oster, 1979) and dictates which displays are appropriate in which specific situations. Prior research on intercultural communication in general and cultural difference in nonverbal communication in particular, has provided many useful and interesting anecdotes about intercultural differences. This chapter attempts to connect these fragmented accounts and proposes a theoretical perspective that helps to explain thousands of differences in nonverbal communication across culture with a unified perspective. The article will first briefly review research in cross-cultural differences that lie along eight nonverbal codes: physical appearance, proxemics, chronemics, kinesics, haptics, oculesics, vocalics, and olfactics; and then focus on seven primary dimensions of cultural variation in nonverbal behavior based on the seminal work of Hall (1966a, 4 1976, 1984) and Hofstede (1984, 1991, 1998, 2001, 2003) in cultural dimensions, and many follow-up scholarly efforts in the field (Albert & Ah Ha, 2004; Andersen, 1988, 2000; Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler & Smallwood, 2002; Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, & Nicholson, 1997; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986; Merritt, 2000; Shackleton & Ali, 1990). The six dimensions of intercultural nonverbal communication include: context, identity, power distance, gender, uncertainty, future orientation and immediacy. NONVERBAL CODES Nonverbal messages communicate what verbal messages cannot express and usually generate more trust than verbal messages (Andersen, 1999a; Ting-Toomey, 1999). A smile, a wink, a scowl, a squeaky voice, prolonged eye contact, fingers drumming on a table top – all these expressions reveal feelings, thoughts, and subtle messages. Nonverbal communication runs the gamut, from easily readable facial expression and gestures to attitudes expressed by body posture or vocal tones hidden beneath the surface of spoken words. Most discussions of cultural differences in nonverbal communication are anecdotal and atheoretical, providing numerous examples of intercultural differences for each nonverbal code without providing a theoretical frame for the basis of such differences. Following a discussion of the codes of nonverbal communication, this chapter provides a conceptual framework for understanding the underlying basis of cultural difference in nonverbal communication. Physical appearance is the most externally obvious nonverbal code that covers relatively stable physical features of human beings such as gender, height, weight, skin color, and body shape, as well as the strategic use of artifacts associated with one’s physical appearance like clothing, jewelry, make-up, hair styles, and accessories. All of these elements play an important role during initial encounters. Hair styles vary greatly across culture and even across time; in the America and Europe body hair has become less and less stylish across the last 50 years (Andersen, 2007). Cultural attire is obvious 5 and leads to ethnic stereotypes. During a field study conducted at an international airport, the author witnessed Tongans in multicultural ceremonial gowns, Sikhs in white turbans, Hasidic Jews in blue yarmulkes and Africans in white dashikis—all alongside Californians in running shorts and halter tops (Andersen, 1999a). Blue jeans and business suits have become increasingly accepted attire internationally, but local attire still abounds. Little formal research has been conducted on the impact of physical appearance on intercultural communication. Discussions of intercultural differences in appearance are provided by Scheflen (1974) and Samovar, Porter, and Stefani (1998). Cultural cues of physical appearance are often very subtle; for example the level of a woman’s veil in rural north India indicates her sexual or romantic interest or disinterest (Lambert & Wood, 2005), a burka or a yarmulke may signal ones culture and religion, and a business suit may signal formality or an occupation. Preoccupation with physical appearance is hardly a new phenomenon. Since the dawn of culture, humans from the upper Paleolithic period (40,000 years ago) to the present have adorned their bodies in great variety of ways (Samovar et al., 1998). A number of studies have shown that race and culture have an effect on the recognition of faces (Meisner