Vertical and horizontal dimensions of culture. Cultural dimensions. What you should never do

The cultural dimensions proposed by J. Hofstede can be used to develop an effective strategy designed to coordinate the activities of people from different countries. After examining survey data on the values ​​shared by IBM employees working in more than 50 countries, Hofstede concluded that the cultural values ​​of these people varied greatly. In many countries, difficult situations and problems arising from values ​​of this kind appear similar, but their perception and understanding and, as a result, subsequent decisions taken in each state may be particularly specific and significantly different from other responses. . Hofstede's model helps a company operate more efficiently when it has to deal with representatives from different countries. In the course of his research, this scientist identified four cultural dimensions that reflect the different values ​​of people:

  1. power distancing;
  2. individualism/collectivism;
  3. masculinity/femininity;
  4. avoiding uncertainty.

However, after further taking into account the differences between Western and eastern countries, a fifth dimension was added to the specified set:

  1. long term/short term orientation.

Knowing the differences between national cultures, helps to better understand the behavioral characteristics of representatives of different countries. Understanding and acknowledging these differences is the first step towards interacting effectively with others in a multicultural environment.

When to use the model

Nowadays, most of us frequently interact on a daily basis with people from other cultures while doing business. This internationalization of life leads to more international clients, partners and suppliers, and may also mean that the people you hire may come from many countries around the world. This trend increases the risk of misunderstanding of cultural characteristics, which can lead to certain business failures. Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Model and Assessment Using It different cultures can, on the one hand, help ease the tensions that arise, and on the other hand, lay the foundation for establishing good relations With potential clients and partners from other countries.

How to use the model

Hofstede's cultural dimensions model does not show how relationships between people should be structured. It only helps to better understand some of their behavior. It uses the following parameters.

Power distance index(power distance index, PDI). It shows the degree of inequality among people that the population of a country considers acceptable. If you compare two marketing managers, an Austrian and a Malay, working in their companies at the same hierarchical level, you can see that the values ​​​​of this index will differ markedly. Compared to an Austrian (who has a low PDI), a Malay manager (who has a high PDI) is unlikely to have any responsibility or significant authority. In a Malay company, power is more centralized.

Individualism(individualism, IDV). This property (like collectivism, which is opposed to it) describes the relationship between individual and the collective that are characteristic of a given nation. Individualism is more characteristic of societies in which connections between people are free and where everyone is expected to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Collectivism is characteristic of those societies in which people unite into powerful, cohesive groups that last for a long time. Such associations of “insiders” continue to protect their members throughout their lives, in return demanding unquestioning loyalty from them. For example, in American companies workers are much more self-interested and pay much less attention to the well-being of the entire team than their counterparts in Asian companies.

Masculinity(masculinity, MAS). This is a quality opposite to femininity. These constructs (basic elements of the model) show gender differences. Male cultures emphasize self-confidence, while female cultures emphasize achieving personal goals and nurturing others. For example, in Japan, ambition, competitiveness, and the ability to earn money are valued, but in Sweden they pay more attention to relationships with others and quality of life.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index(uncertainty avoidance index, UAI). This index shows the extent to which culture influences anxiety when people find themselves in ambiguous situations. In cultures whose members strive to avoid uncertainty, they try to minimize the likelihood of such situations occurring, for which purpose, in such countries, relevant laws and regulations are actively adopted and actions are taken to improve safety. In addition, such crops are characterized by long-term employment. In other countries, where people are more willing to take risks and are more likely to experience them, UAI is low.

Long term orientation(long-term orientation, LTO), opposed to short-term orientation. Examples of values ​​associated with a long-term orientation include frugality and perseverance, while those associated with a short-term orientation include respect for tradition, fulfillment public duties and “saving face.” Asian countries, in particular China, Vietnam and Japan, have high LTO index values, but Western countries, for example in Austria, Germany and Norway, they are relatively low.

What you should definitely do

  • Understand that the actions and reactions of people from other countries may be completely different from what you are used to.

What you should never do

  • Don't think that cultural differences can necessarily prevent you from communicating effectively with each other; in the end, even two people - citizens of the same country - are not alike.

conclusions

Hofstede's cultural dimensions model is useful for understanding the cultural characteristics that emerge almost immediately when a company begins to operate internationally. However, over the past few decades, differences between cultures have become smaller and therefore less visible, due to their interpenetration. Of course, one can question the rankings of some countries, which are based on whether all cultural groups are represented within the country or not. In any case, rankings on given dimensions may vary depending on the residents of a particular country. Finally, we must take into account that no two people are completely identical, and therefore we must understand why mistakes and misunderstandings still occur in this area.

The horizontal dimension is characterized by a variety of cultural forms.

The vertical dimension is specified by the category “level of culture”.

In the horizontal dimension organizational culture There are four forms of organizational culture:

Economic;

Social-psychological;

Legal;

Political.

Of greatest interest are two forms of organizational culture:

tours: economic culture and socio-psychological.

The economic culture of an organization is the result of it economic behavior, which is determined by the mechanism of economic thinking.

Economic culture includes:

1) production culture – culture of labor organization, culture of working conditions, culture of means of labor, etc.;

2) culture of distribution;

3) consumer culture;

4) culture of exchange.

Social and psychological culture is determined by the thinking mechanism of employees; it includes many components, the most obvious of which are:

1) culture of managers and employees;

2) ethical and aesthetic culture;

3) culture of behavior (motivation);

4) communication culture;

5) culture of conflict resolution.

In turn, each of the cultural elements can be divided into other, more fractional ones.

Considering the vertical dimension of organizational culture, we can distinguish three levels - surface, subsurface and deep.

At a superficial level, the external manifestations of culture are studied; at the subsurface level, values ​​and beliefs are analyzed, the perception of which is conscious, and at the deep level, basic assumptions that are difficult to comprehend even by members of the team, hidden assumptions taken on faith that help to perceive the attributes that characterize a culture (Fig. 1.1.1.).

Rice. 1.1.1 Basic elements of organizational culture

There are other points of view on identifying the elements of organizational culture, but they only clarify the previous scheme.

Some researchers consider the culture of an organization only at two levels - surface and deep, due to the similarity of the subsurface and deep levels.

By assessing any organization according to a certain set of characteristics, it is possible to create a complete picture of the organizational culture, against the background of which the employees’ general understanding of the organization is formed (Fig. 1.1.2.).

The author believes that any study of organizational culture should take place at all identified levels, since the essence of organizational culture can only be established at the deep level of the basic ideas underlying the organization’s activities. Having established them, you can understand the meaning of the more superficial manifestations of a given culture and give them an appropriate assessment.

Thus, organizational culture and the climate that develops in the organization have a direct impact on the work motivation of employees. Organizational culture is perhaps the greatest catalyst and, in cases of failure, the greatest inhibitor to implementation. strategic plans, developed by management.

Rice. 1.1.2 Components that make up organizational culture

Human behavior in a company is always socially conditioned. Different people or groups of people may specialize according to their assigned role, goal or objective, or differentiate themselves from other members of the organization according to their rank or status in the hierarchy. Within the same organization, employees may set different goals for themselves, but almost all of them must work collectively to achieve a common goal. strategic goal a company determined by its mission and resource capabilities. The main connecting element that allows you to effectively unite the company’s socially diverse personnel to achieve common goal, is the organizational culture of the company.

1.2 Methods and approaches to diagnosing organizational culture

The methods used by the theory to study the culture of an organization allow us to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of its subject. They represent techniques, ways of studying cultural phenomena in the activities of organizations (6, P.113).

The most important and frequently used methods in the theory can be divided into three groups.

The first group is general methods for studying the culture of an organization (they are often called approaches). They differ in their direct focus on the subject being studied, either they give a specific interpretation of it (for example, a systems approach), or they focus on special approach to him ( comparative method) (see Fig. 1.2.1.).

A systematic approach to the study of the phenomenon of organizational culture should reflect a comprehensive view of the object of study - the organization; This is the specificity of the systems approach, i.e. he orients the research towards revealing the integrity of the object and the mechanisms that provide it.

At systematic approach to the phenomenon, the main attention is paid to subsystems and connections between individual system units.

A systematic approach to the phenomenon of “organizational culture” allows us to identify interconnected subsystems in the studied phenomenon - cultural complexes:

Activity-role;

Managerial (authoritative);

Cultural complex of relations with the external environment;

Behavioral.

Rice. 1.2.1 General methods for studying organizational culture

Taken together, the identified subsystems/complexes form the cultural space of the organization (see Fig. 1.2.2.).

Rice. 1.2.2 Cultural space of the organization

The activity-role cultural complex represents the main part of organizational culture and includes the values ​​and norms that govern the production of a product in a given organization (in fact in a broad sense the product can be services, information, material products and so on.). This complex regulates and controls the fulfillment of role requirements, the reaction to stimulating influence and in mutual (mainly group) control of everyday activities.

The managerial (power) cultural complex is a set of norms and values ​​that regulate relations of power, subordination and control in an organization. A new member of the organization, first of all, tries to master the norms of power and subordination and adapt to these norms. To do this, it is important to know what degree of power managers at various levels in the organization have, what forms of power (coercion, reward, expert, referent, informational or normative) they predominantly use. In addition, a member of the organization needs to find out his place in the system of power relations, determine the behavioral norms of subordination to managers specific to each organization, as well as the norms governing advancement in the power hierarchy.

Culture is a multifaceted phenomenon.“As such”, “in general” it does not exist. There are various types and forms of it. With some reservations, as we have seen, all culture can be divided into material and spiritual. But this classification cannot be limited. Firstly, with this approach the historical-genetic aspect of cultural development is lost; secondly, it lacks its important ethno-civilizational cross-section; thirdly, different levels of culture within the same society are not recorded. With a differentiated approach to culture, we can distinguish:

1) primitive culture, the culture of antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the New Age, modernity, postmodernity;

2) the culture of the West and the East, the North and the South; various national cultures;

3) universal forms of spiritual culture (they are sometimes called forms of social consciousness), which include morality, law, politics, religion, mythology, philosophy, science;

4) vertical (elite, folk, mass) and horizontal levels of culture (subculture, marginal and counterculture).

Vertical dimensions of culture:

· elite culture carries out the professional production of new cultural values, which are intended to become canonical. It is distinguished by its closedness and esotericism, intended only for initiates;

· folk culture is distinguished by ethnic tradition, simplicity and accessibility, expression of the mentality of the people;

· mass culture is focused not on creativity, but on consumption, it is adapted to the transient standards and tastes of the average consumer, characterized by naivety and simple plots, and often by ordinary primitivism; Unlike folk culture, which is “transtemporal” and stable, mass culture is dynamic and susceptible to fashion.

Horizontal dimensions of culture:

· subculture is a local, holistic formation within the dominant culture, which is distinguished by its own value orientations, language, customs, and mores. Its occurrence is due to the differentiation and specialization of the population;

· marginal, border culture. It is associated with deviant forms of behavior and thinking, the causes of which are associated with rootedness in the past, rejection of the present, or a pronounced focus on the future;

· counterculture is the most radical manifestation of a marginal culture that is in open conflict with the official culture and claims to replace it as a new cultural canon.

Various shapes, types, levels of cultural formations are not isolated from each other. In their systematicity, they form a single cultural space. Interaction and productive dialogue between cultures contributes to their rapprochement, mutual enrichment and development. Any cultural innovation acquires the status of a significant event in the sociocultural environment as a result of its conceptual design at the level of elite culture. Over time, the “cultural current” from the “upper floors” of culture reaches its mass foundations. In turn, much of what originated in the depths of mass consciousness becomes the object of serious spiritual and conceptual understanding. This relieves the tension between the “elite center” and the “rebellious outskirts.”

The mutual penetration of different cultures occurs not only along the “level vertical”, but also along the “ethno-civilizational horizontal”. IN modern world The meeting, interaction and interpenetration of civilizations become integral components of the cultural and historical process. In such conditions, it is impossible to preserve pure civilizational formations with their original ethnic and sociocultural isolation. These processes are called the globalization of sociocultural space. This is a profound transformation of the heterogeneous world social and cultural space into a single global system. Information flows of ideas, values ​​and their carriers, capital, standards of behavior and fashion move and interact freely in it. As a result, there is a modification of the worldview, activity social institutions, communities, individuals, social mechanisms their interactions.

In the course of the development of globalization processes, the problem of preserving the sociocultural identification of each ethnic group, and within its framework, of each person, arises. The spread and planting of a certain version of culture in various regions of the world faces increasing sociocultural resistance from national and regional cultural elites. An example is the opposition of developing countries in Asia and Africa to the Westernization of their national cultures and the imposition of Western patterns of thinking and behavior.

The globalizing world is significantly changing traditional system cultural communication. The modern communication space seems to break the boundaries between different ethno-civilizational cultures and creates the preconditions for the emergence of a new type of cultural unity. The diversity of local cultures is absorbed into an integrative superculture. The rate of destruction of established local values ​​is rapidly increasing. The proportion between high and low cultures is also disrupted. Grassroots culture becomes massive both in the number of subjects involved in it and in the simplification of the product consumed. A typical manifestation of the new global communication space is the so-called. pop culture. At its core, it is devoid of ethnic, local and cultural basis. This is the global heritage of modern technogenic society. Moreover best samples elite culture (both past and present) often cannot withstand the pressure of pop culture, turning into an object of simplified, primitive consumption. A necessary condition dialogue of cultures both at the local and international levels is tolerance, mutual tolerance, respectful attitude of bearers of different cultures towards each other.

Culture can have two forms. The first hypostasis is culture as horizontal. This includes the everyday, somewhat reduced and blurred understanding of culture as a certain monolithic entity, a cultural fund, the totality of all cultural works and achievements. This also includes a more nuanced understanding of culture as an all-pervading “we” dimension, taken from: wherever there is a subject of activity, this subject is immersed in intersubjective connections, called in the integral approach the dimension, or sphere, of culture.

Any person is born from the interaction of a man and a woman (who, in turn, exist in a society of people and other living beings) and in the first years of his life cannot survive without care from a nurse or breadwinners. From the psychology of object relations it is known that the initial immersion in the intersubjective matrix with one’s mother and the subsequent gradual differentiation from it influence the whole life in a fundamental way (unsuccessful experiences of the early years can be expressed, for example, in the development of chronic suspicion of reality and the inability to establish trusting relationships, not not to mention the likelihood of more serious mental disorders). Immersion in both local and field interactions with one's culture and humanity is inevitable.

If we exist, even if we have reached the stage of maturity as an autonomous subject, our autonomy is always located in a certain community — in a community, a commonwealth of people, living beings; and transpersonal researchers argue that in dialogue with the Spirit.

The second hypostasis, which I would like to dwell on, can be described by the thesis: culture is a vertical. Vertical of time and growth of consciousness. When we are born into the world and gradually realize ourselves as figures immersed in culture as a whole (even if the edges and horizons of this culture are sometimes difficult to perceive), we interpret it based on our level of consciousness, operating with one or another.

Structures of consciousness develop in stages from less complex to more complex, from less consciousness to greater consciousness, starting with the reflexive stages of life and consciousness, unfolding into impulsive and egocentric stages, then unfolding to ethnocentric consciousness, implying an exclusive identification with a particular group or nation, which is then transcended in world-centric consciousness, where an already mature personality gradually begins to feel like a human being—a participant in global events. Ultimately, if a person or group of people continues their development, cosmocentric horizons open up before them, when they disidentify with anthropomorphic self-perception and begin to recognize themselves as manifestations of the evolution of the Cosmos.

Each of the structures of consciousness is not only and not so much localized in individuals, but is a combination of the individual and the collective: in other words, the structure of consciousness forms the container of a specific subject, but it itself is present in culture in the form of an often invisible intersubjective network. The formation of structures of consciousness in an individual depends on cultural habits and morphic fields, which are a universal and all-human property in their deep properties, although the surface manifestations of structures of consciousness may vary depending on culture, language, country, etc.

A living conscious being is not an island, it always manifests itself outwardly as materiality and embodiment and is woven into sociocultural connections and backgrounds

Wilber points out that the structures of consciousness are not predetermined, while he relies on Charles Sanders Peirce's vision of the laws of nature as evolutionary habits and the understanding of morphic fields developed by the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake. To this vision Wilber adds an understanding of tetraevolution, that is, evolution in the four quadrants, and not just the objective evolution of form. The four quadrants are “I”, “we”, “it” and “they” — subjective, objective, intersubjective and interobjective. The subjective dimension is my consciousness and my psyche (as well as your consciousness and your psyche); an objective measurement is behavior that is externally recorded by the body and brain; intersubjective dimension — actually, the dimension of culture and semantic interactions; interobjective dimension — communication between cultural figures, captured in terms of theories social systems and self-organizational processes. A living, conscious being is not an island; it always manifests itself outwardly as materiality and embodiment and is woven into sociocultural connections and backgrounds.

The structures of consciousness unfolded in time — they unfolded with the course of human-and-cosmic evolution. When each new structure of consciousness appears, be it prepersonal, personal or transpersonal (only in relation to the human range of evolution, various scientists have identified more than a dozen of them), if it undergoes evolutionary selection and stabilizes, then it always stabilizes in the form, probably, not amenable to strict physical localization of morphogenetic fields that define, at a given level of complexity of consciousness-and-matter, the patterning of manifestations of life in all quadrants.

Each more complex structure of consciousness creates a horizontal branching - a certain platform for self-realization of consciousness-in-interaction within a given level of adaptation to cosmic processes

Thus, we can say that each new, more complex structure of consciousness with its corresponding level of complexity and depth creates a horizontal branching - a certain platform for self-realization of consciousness-in-interaction within a given level of complexity and adaptation to cosmic processes. If we turn our gaze to society from the position of a hypothetical meta-observer (which, naturally, requires activating the ability for post-formal thinking and visionary logic), then the entire society as a whole, the entire culture as a whole can be seen as complex, flexible, dynamic, but still a hierarchical system of various orders of consciousness, the complexity of interactions, etc. At each level of the sociocultural hierarchy there is its own “playground” - each level of consciousness-and-being provides a platform for the realization of its subjects-in-action-and- community.

However, as one climbs the ladder of development (or dives into ever greater depths of consciousness), it becomes clear that higher levels of complexity of being and worldview are co-involved only if an individual consciousness or a group of individuals has access to an appropriate jointly shared structure of consciousness. If a person does not have the corresponding, say, cognitive complexity, that is, he has not stabilized his resonance with the collective structure of consciousness, which opens this or that world space, but is at a more early level development, then these higher boundaries of human meanings and culture will simply be inaccessible to him.

That is why I put forward the thesis that culture is a vertical, and not just a horizontal. Culture is a kind of field unfolding from a multidimensional set of field structures associated with morphogenesis, the evolutionary formation of cosmic habits, etc. A cross-section of any culture (for example, Russian culture - as a participant in world culture and universal culture) will always reveal a multi-level distribution of meanings , values, methods of production, material security and functional adaptability. The richness of a culture is precisely determined by the extent to which it contributes to the individual-in-community having the opportunity to potentially develop to the highest peaks of his culture — and not necessarily in a forced form (although some compulsion is necessary in the sense of mandatory general education to maintain, say, an integral culture, otherwise the risk increases that people en masse, without proper support structures, will abort their development at egocentric stages).

Also, understanding the integral wealth of culture allows us to see that not all living beings, not all people should develop to a certain standard; on the contrary, the horizontal dimension of culture should provide people with fairly comfortable means of self-realization within the framework of the stage-structure of development with which they are identified. But at the same time, at the slightest desire of the subject to move on, a rich and developed culture provides a flexible system of education and psycho-spiritual development (where, as is known, the religious coordinate system is an important component), which allows him to continue his ascent along the long ladder of culture and gradually come into contact with everything the deep potential of both their own culture and the cultures of other countries and peoples, as well as global culture.

At the right moment, my culture, if it is integral, will take care of me and help me discover not only existential, but also transrational and transpersonal, truly spiritual and transcendental meanings

In other words, having been born into a world where I first learn the ABC book and the basics of culture by reading fairy tales, if my culture is truly holistic and integral, I have the opportunity not only to enjoy the concrete operational world, but also to gradually discover formal operational and postformal realities; not only to be involved in interactions with pre-rational spheres, but also to be realized in the personal and rational dimension, while always feeling that at the right moment my culture will take care of me and help me discover not only existential, but also transrational and transpersonal, truly spiritual and transcendental meanings (which may otherwise be present invisibly in a healthy culture in the form of protective potentials and attractor evolutionary points). I am free to make choices, and the number of degrees of my choices gradually increases as I develop greater structural complexity and depth of my consciousness — if the conditions of my life and my own inclinations contribute to this (and one cannot deny the pressure of evolutionary factors requiring gradually adapt to increasingly complex and chaotic conditions of life realities).

Culture as a vertical allows a person to feel the space of cultural diversity, gradually deepening and complicating this feeling, which at first may include mythocentric epics and legends, and at its peak include an understanding of the deep meanings of the works of F. M. Dostoevsky, V. S. Solovyov, L. N. Tolstoy, N.A. Berdyaev, A.F. Losev, V.V. Nalimov, etc., as well as those complex fate trajectories, selection factors, sometimes quite cruel, that operate in all quadrants. At some point, climbing to a new level of the transcendental mountain of worldview, meanings that were previously hidden behind the horizon of my understanding are suddenly revealed to me - a flower meadow of depth of worldview, the aroma of which inspires me to soar above the conventional world of everyday life. At the same time, one can understand and recognize the value of the everyday world, which serves as the necessary support, the basic foundation for a huge and majestic, constantly multiplying temple of culture, the upper floors of which not everyone can climb to (simply because everyone has the right to have a picnic on the side of the evolutionary stream ).

As part of the study of “dimensions of culture”, which our site began to conduct, we introduce our readers to the approach proposed by the Dutch scientist Geert Hofstede for studying the characteristics of national cultures. As a first short introduction describing Hofstede’s “cultural scales,” the material from the website www.filippsapienza.com seemed most suitable to us.

What is culture?

The word “culture” comes from the Latin “colere” (to inhabit, to cultivate). It entered the Russian language relatively late - at the end of the 19th century. At first, two meanings of this word were recorded - “farming” and “education”.

Since the mid-60s of the twentieth century, culture has been viewed as a set of material and spiritual values ​​created by man. Culture is a multifaceted, complex, historically developing social phenomenon, a way of mastering reality, realizing human creative potential in the sphere of material and spiritual activity. Social aspect culture is often associated with biological characteristics. For example, it is assumed that people of a certain gender, age, and also having a certain skin color or body structure (height, weight, etc.) belong to a certain culture.

Varieties of culture

We can talk about certain types of culture - - such as subcultures or microcultures. For example: religious culture - - Catholic, Muslim; social culture - - hockey players, snowboarders; professional culture- - military men, businessmen, actors/actresses, etc. There are no hard boundaries between these interpenetrating groups. They do not remain unchanged, but rather change and develop over time. Cultures have an organic structure. The most historically successful cultures are able to adapt to external forces.

General characteristics of crops

All cultures have a communication system (linguistic, nonverbal), form the basis of self-definition and community, and exhibit established behaviors and customs. Finally, the most successful cultures in history adapt to their environment and changing circumstances.

Aspects of culture

In the 1960s and 1970s, two theorists, Geert Hofstede (1980) and Edward Hall (1976), independently developed a system for organizing and identifying cultures. The main goal This study was to identify the presence of universal categories of culture covering social communities and countries.

The study identified five aspects that apply to cultures around the world:

· Power distance

· Collectivism - Individualism

· Feminine - Masculine

Uncertainty avoidance

Low/High Context

Let us consider the content of these “aspects” or “dimensions of culture,” as they are also called.

Power distance

The power distance dimension measures the extent to which people accept the unequal distribution of power in society. A society with high levels of power distance believes in rigid authority and power hierarchy and is characterized by a lack of equality. The non-powerful citizens of such a society tend to accept the unequal distribution of power. In a society with low power distance, equality and power sharing are emphasized. The leader in such a society is “first among equals.”

Collectivism - Individualism

This aspect determines the extent to which a society places the individual above the goals of the collective. In an individualistic culture, the needs of the individual are considered more important than the collective. Particular importance is attached to individual achievements and success, the uniqueness of the individual, as well as the ability to leave your mark in this world and stand out among others.

The opposite is true in a collectivist culture, where the success of the team is more important than the achievements of individuals. The desire to support the goals of the collective and wider society is considered more important than the individual aspirations of people.

Feminine - Masculine

This aspect determines the extent to which a culture demonstrates traditionally masculine qualities (self-confidence, competitiveness, toughness, vanity, achievement, property ownership, success) or feminine qualities (family, cooperation, tenderness, nurturing, caring for others, protection environment, maintaining quality of life), and the extent to which differences between males and females persist in society.

Uncertainty avoidance

This aspect reflects the degree to which a society is willing to accept or avoid the unknown. A high uncertainty avoidance culture values ​​predictability, structure, and order. A low uncertainty avoidance culture values ​​risk, ambiguity, and limited structure. Members of cultures high in uncertainty avoidance tend to have low tolerance for conflict and value security more than risk.

Low/High Context

Context refers to a number of stimuli present in a communication event, which include: gestures; tone of speech; physical distance between interlocutors; time of day; weather; accepted norms in society; geographical location of communication; and other external factors.

There are two types of context: high and low. The main difference between them is the importance each culture places on the context of a communicative act versus its content.

High context

In high-context cultures, primary importance is attached to the triggers of a communicative act and secondary importance to its content. Communication norms of high-context cultures include, among others, the following: it is not what is said, but who said it and how it is said, and the prohibition of talking in church. High context cultures take more time to make decisions and complete business transactions than low context cultures. There are very common situations in which you need to “read between the lines.”

According to Nitish Singh, “In high-context cultures, there are close connections between group members, and everyone knows what everyone else knows. Most information is received internally (implicitly) rather than explicitly (2005 55).” Here good example high-context communication: a husband and wife are at opposite ends of a crowded room at a party and, seeing each other, wink at each other. It is impossible for outside observers to understand the explicit meaning of this act of communication, or the meaning may be misinterpreted (they say they love each other - how sweet!). In fact, this couple may simply be reminding each other that it is time to go home, walk the dog and put the kids to bed. Singh states that “in general, high context cultures use more symbols and non-verbal cues in the communication process. Meaning is embedded in the context of the situation (2005 55).”

The legal system in high context cultures tends to be based on testimony and social status people (for example, what is the social or official status of the person accused of theft?), and the trust of the population is enjoyed by informal groups of relatives, friends and colleagues instead of institutions, officials and government bodies.

Low context

In low-context cultures, the objective content of the communicative act is of primary importance and its context is of secondary importance. Communication norms of low context cultures include, but are not limited to: just the facts, please; state the essence of the matter in simple language / state the real state of affairs. Low context cultures emphasize speed, accuracy, and efficiency of communication (“dry” content is preferred). According to Singh, “Low context cultures are logical, linear, and efficient; the amount of information is explicit and formalized. The communication process is generally rational, verbal and explicit (2005 55).” Participants in the process expect concrete, not abstract content.

In low context cultures great importance attached to the printed word, and the legal system is usually built on the basis of official documents such as the constitution and others government documents. In some situations legal institutions can replace informal groups of friends, relatives and colleagues.

Within context is a subset of cultural categories based on time. Every culture adheres to a monochrome or polychrome understanding of time. A monochrome culture perceives time linearly. Hence the expressions “time passes” and “time flows like a river.” In monochrome cultures, activities are organized according to the calendar and punctuality is valued. Low context cultures tend to be monochromatic. In polychromic cultures, many events usually occur simultaneously. Events are organized and remembered in a circular manner. In some polychrome societies, the past is not forgotten, but past events continue to develop and change in the present. Polychrome crops are usually high context crops.

Interesting, one might say unique, results were obtained not so long ago during a study of our compatriots living in the USA.

Cultural values/dimensions of “Russian Americans”

Cultural dimensions of Russian Americans (Russians living in America) were obtained using a modified instrument developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988). The results obtained were “standardized” by the method proposed in the literature (Fernandez et.al. 1996) and compared with Hofstede’s measurement indicators for Russia and the USA. The results of the study are presented in the figure below. Since users come from two cultures, it was assumed that their performance would be between general indicators countries USA and Russia on
scale. However, line graphs indicate a wider range of results:

As shown in the line graphs, the scores of the Russian Americans who participated in the study fell between the scores of the countries in only one of the four dimensions. The results indicate the need for careful and individual analysis groups of emigrants and representatives of two cultures.

Note site

In connection with the results obtained, interesting hypotheses arise regarding the stability of cultural attitudes. If you believe the results presented, the Russians who found themselves in America, after only 5 years (this was the average period of residence in America for the Russians participating in the experiment) became “Americans” in culture in all respects with the exception of “collectivism.” Thus, we can conclude that the specificity of culture lies more in the environment that exists in society than in people. And the huge “power distance” is not a consequence of the “wrong people”, but rather the result of the “wrong power”, because under a different government the same people quickly become culturally different.

References

Sapienza, F. (2001). Nurturing Translocal Communication: Russian Immigrants on the World Wide Web. Technical Communication 48(4), 435-448.

 

It might be useful to read: