reflection essay about cultural differences when communicating

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Interpersonal Communication — Communication Style and Cultural Influences: A Personal Reflection

Communication Style and Cultural Influences: a Personal Reflection

• Categories: Intercultural Communication Interpersonal Communication

About this sample

Words: 1263 |

Published: Aug 4, 2023

Words: 1263 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, impact of culture on communication style, pronoun usage in communication, silence and collectivism in communication, works cited.

• Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Communication. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/communication
• Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2018). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures. Pearson.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1012 words

7 pages / 3262 words

3 pages / 1258 words

1 pages / 1683 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Interpersonal Communication

Essay about toxic friendship delves into the intricate dynamics of interpersonal relationships, highlighting the profound effects of toxic friendships on individuals' emotional well-being and self-esteem. Toxic friendships, [...]

Does texting hinder interpersonal communication skills is a pertinent question in our digital age, where text-based communication has become a ubiquitous mode of interaction. The rise of smartphones and instant messaging [...]

Al-Fedaghi, S. (2012). A Conceptual Foundation for the Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication. International Journal of Soft Computing.Benz, A. (2012). Errors in Pragmatics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information: The [...]

Qualities of strong relationships are the foundation upon which enduring connections are built. This essay delves into the essential characteristics that contribute to the strength and resilience of relationships. By exploring [...]

Have your parents ever taught you to be polite and respect to others? There are a communication theories called politeness theory, which is commonly used between human. It is about keeping both faces of the speakers and [...]

Italy is a very high context culture; they learn more from nonverbal and environmental cues than spoken words. They have a very relaxed concept of time, use many hand gestures and haptics, live by Bella Figura, and share a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Cultural Differences Can Impact Global Teams

• Vasyl Taras,
• Dan Caprar,
• Alfredo Jiménez,
• Fabian Froese

And what managers can do to help their international teams succeed.

Diversity can be both a benefit and a challenge to virtual teams, especially those which are global. The authors unpack their recent research on how diversity works in remote teams, concluding that benefits and drawbacks can be explained by how teams manage the two facets of diversity: personal and contextual. They find that contextual diversity is key to aiding creativity, decision-making, and problem-solving, while personal diversity does not. In their study, teams with higher contextual diversity produced higher-quality consulting reports, and their solutions were more creative and innovative. When it comes to the quality of work, teams that were higher on contextual diversity performed better. Therefore, the potential challenges caused by personal diversity should be anticipated and managed, but the benefits of contextual diversity are likely to outweigh such challenges.

A recent survey of employees from 90 countries found that 89 percent of white-collar workers “at least occasionally” complete projects in global virtual teams (GVTs), where team members are dispersed around the planet and rely on online tools for communication. This is not surprising. In a globalized — not to mention socially distanced — world, online collaboration is indispensable for bringing people together.

• VT Vasyl Taras is an associate professor and the Director of the Master’s or Science in International Business program at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA. He is an associate editor of the Journal of International Management and the International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, and a founder of the X-Culture, an international business competition.
• DB Dan Baack is an expert in international marketing. Dan’s work focuses on how the processing of information or cultural models influences international business. He recently published the 2nd edition of his textbook, International Marketing, with Sage Publications. Beyond academic success, he is an active consultant and expert witness. He has testified at the state and federal level regarding marketing ethics.
• DC Dan Caprar is an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School. His research, teaching, and consulting are focused on culture, identity, and leadership. Before completing his MBA and PhD as a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Iowa (USA), Dan worked in a range of consulting and managerial roles in business, NGOs, and government organizations in Romania, the UK, and the US.
• AJ Alfredo Jiménez is Associate Professor at KEDGE Business School (France). His research interests include internationalization, political risk, corruption, culture, and global virtual teams. He is a senior editor at the European Journal of International Management.
• FF Fabian Froese is Chair Professor of Human Resource Management and Asian Business at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and Editor-in-Chief of Asian Business & Management. He obtained a doctorate in International Management from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, and another doctorate in Sociology from Waseda University, Japan. His research interests lie in international human resource management and cross-cultural management.

Partner Center

Differences in Communication Across Cultures Essay

Elements of communication in african american culture.

African American nonverbal communication, such as gestures, is a unique manner of conveying thought patterns without using words. These motions might be subtle and enigmatic or bright and self-assured (Segerstråle & Molnár, 2018). The physique communicates vital information in a sophisticated and robust dialect. Certain expressions demonstrate togetherness and acknowledge the links that connect African Americans as families, society members, and individuals sharing commonalities (Hall et al., 2017). At the heart of these movements is the dap, which has been used to represent solidarity, bravery, rebellion, and opposition for millennia. For instance, Hall et al. (2017) stated that dap transformed into the Black Power embrace. Today, African Americans perform variants of these cooperation gestures, ranging from the first bump to the high-five (Hall et al., 2017). Wobbling the head down with enough mobility demonstrates respect for various people of color cultures.

However, the up nod, the grip, and the dap are typically male African American pleasantries. The up nod indicates that the other person is being observed and may not wish or be able to speak, whereas the grip indicates a deep association (Hall et al., 2017). Hall et al. (2017) insinuated that giving dap, a gesture of regard, can also be used in place of a greeting. It is not always essential to use words to convey that an individual or something is not deserving of detailed concern (Segerstråle & Molnár, 2018). Additionally, dismissing gestures is straightforward and understandable since they can convey scorn, disapproval, displeasure, and impatience.

African Americans frequently prefer to communicate with their entire body and hence require a lot of physical space around them to tense up and react. Consequently, some African Americans enjoy getting in a person’s space when conversing. Their closeness to the individual with whom they are conversing can convey their feelings and identification (Bonvillain, 2019). This seeming paradox between a desire for space and intimacy appears contextual. Discourse with people of the same society tends to be more energetic and immediate contact (Bonvillain, 2019). For some African Americans, appropriate personal boundaries are nearer 6-12 inches or an arm’s distance apart (Bonvillain, 2019). When African Americans experience a strong emotional attachment, such as joy or fury, they may gravitate toward and aside from the other person and toward and far from near vicinity.

In African American civilization, verbal conversation and speech are used to communicate principles, ideas, and practices to others. Dialogue reflects tradition and a shared commonality for members of African American society (Bonvillain, 2019). Engagement with representatives of other cultural communities may be developed to ensure a remark about African American culture or the progress of African-Americans inside the European American community. While African American adults typically maintain a straight stare when conversing with others to demonstrate attentiveness, African American adolescents frequently avoid looking at an instructor when conversing, particularly when being scolded and out of regard (Yang, 2020). African Americans frequently gaze into someone else’s eyes to indicate that they wish to ask for clarification.

Elements of communication in Chinese and Mexican cultures

I intend to work in New York City, which probably has numerous multicultural communities interacting with each other. In New York, 6% of the population comprises Chinese, and 27.5% comprises the Mexican population (Timberlake et al., 2017).

As a result of their attempt to keep successful relationships, the Chinese place a premium on informal communication; they use less language and concentrate more on stance, attitude, and manner of speech to convey meaning (Cai, 2019). Their language is frequently confusing, and they frequently underestimate their points. Thus, this is performed to ensure unity throughout the talk and avoid embarrassment on either side of the interaction.

Chinese is a phonetic language, which can have several interpretations depending on how a term is spoken. For instance, ‘ma’ can refer to a reprimand, cotton, horse, or mother, contingent on the presenter’s intonation (Cai, 2019). In terms of personal space, the Chinese are accustomed to maintaining little over an arm’s distance apart, and this separation will be greater while talking to strangers. Chinese people often avoid physical interaction with people unless it is imperative (Cai, 2019). They will avoid physical contact during conversations unless they speak with a close relative, personal friend, or companion. In principle, direct eye contact is preferred over secondary eye contact since it is regarded as a show of civility (Cai, 2019). When speaking with an unknown elder, one may bow their head to show reverence by lowering their eyes. In Chinese communication, quietness is a critical and strategic attending skill (Cai, 2019). Pausing before responding implies that someone has given the question adequate thought and care and demonstrates civility and respect.

On the other hand, while most Mexicans accept eye contact, extended eye contact is frequently regarded as impolite. Intimate or confidential interactions require extended eye contact (Jackson et al., 2019). Obstructed gaze is frequently a defining characteristic of Mexican adults and youngsters. Most Mexicans demonstrate their friendliness and psychological excitement through their immediate contact with those they chat with (Jackson et al., 2019). Mexicans frequently maintain six to eight inches closer to one another than European Americans do when conversing. Mexican frequently touch their relatives and friends while conversing, often with a pat on the back.

Due to their great connection to the community, Mexicans regularly prefer this more normal mode of communication with family members. A common greeting is to embrace or kiss on the cheek. Mexicans, particularly ladies, will be extremely expressive in their vocalizations, recognizing the effective undercurrent of their discourse (Jackson et al., 2019). Therefore, this is demonstrated through vocal variation and pitch severity. The natural warmth of Mexican communication culture is frequently evident in the seductive and sensitive conversational style that many persons employ and their apparent love of discussion.

Specific cultural problems that may impact behavioral health treatment with Asians and Latinx

The way people express and experience their ailments is influenced by their cultural factors. It can influence a person’s decision to acknowledge and discuss medical conditions, subjective distress, or both. Each society has a unique perspective on behavioral health. Since these Asian and Latinx cultures avoid body interaction with those they do not regard as a family or near relatives, clinicians have a tough time detecting diseases in these communities. Due to the fact that Chinese and Mexican individuals are more susceptible to developing physical symptoms than mental issues, their screening, and therapeutic plan are affected. Additionally, the two cultures have an increasing stigma surrounding behavioral health, and its related concerns are viewed as a show of desperation and something to conceal. As a result, it may be more difficult for those suffering to talk candidly and seek assistance.

To address the issues mentioned above, I would work to eliminate cultural differences in behavioral health structures and infrastructure. By establishing a professional connection based on approachability, sincerity, tolerance, and cultural sensitivity through face-to-face dialogues in diverse groups, a human-to-human interaction is developed, eroding the hierarchal structure. Thus, this form of constructive balance and engagement allows for the education of individuals about behavioral disorders and medical services, thereby combating stigmatization. By understanding how to create good behavioral health among diverse ethnic groups by tackling systemic difficulties in healthcare, people from these civilizations can assist themselves.

Bonvillain, N. (2019). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages. Rowman & Littlefield.

Cai, M. (2019). Reflection of Cultural Difference of the East and the West in Nonverbal Communication . Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 311, 288-296.

Hall, B. J., Covarrubias, P. O., & Kirschbaum, K. A. (2017). Among cultures: The challenge of communication. Routledge.

Jackson, K. F., Wolven, T., & Crudup, C. (2019). Parental ethnic-racial socialization in multiracial Mexican families. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 28(2), 165-190.

Segerstråle, U., & Molnár, P. (2018). Nonverbal communication: Where nature meets culture. Routledge.

Timberlake, J. M., & Johns-Wolfe, E. (2017). Neighborhood ethnoracial composition and gentrification in Chicago and New York, 1980 to 2010. Urban Affairs Review, 53(2), 236-272.

Yang, P. (2020). Intercultural nonverbal communication competence as intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom. In Language Learning and Literacy: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp.339-359). IGI Global.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, March 21). Differences in Communication Across Cultures. https://ivypanda.com/essays/differences-in-communication-across-cultures/

"Differences in Communication Across Cultures." IvyPanda , 21 Mar. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/differences-in-communication-across-cultures/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Differences in Communication Across Cultures'. 21 March.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Differences in Communication Across Cultures." March 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/differences-in-communication-across-cultures/.

1. IvyPanda . "Differences in Communication Across Cultures." March 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/differences-in-communication-across-cultures/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Differences in Communication Across Cultures." March 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/differences-in-communication-across-cultures/.

• Latinx Art as a Means of Expressing Ethnic Identity
• “With a Nod and the Clip of the Hat” by Grosskopf
• Improving the Way Snap-A-Dap Operates
• Healthcare Disparities in Latinx and and the Euro-American Communities
• Group-Affirmation of Latinx and Mexican Americans in the US
• Latino Characters in the Film “Machete”
• Autoimmunity, Its Effect on the Body and Methods of Its Treatment
• State Standards vs. Developmentally Appropriate Practices
• Health Promotion: Depression Awareness in Teenagers
• Program and Curriculum Planning
• Emotions Across American and Chinese Cultures
• The US and Japan Cultural Comparison
• Cultural Differences and Language Structure
• Cultural Differences and Origins of Conflict
• Mexican vs. American Cultural Differences in Business

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Michelle LeBaron

June 2003  

Cultural Diversity

Montaigne said, "The most universal quality is diversity."[1] Given that diversity abounds, the project of understanding each other is both daunting and important. It is a journey never finished, because the process and the endpoints change constantly. The journey is bound up with communication and conflict, since misunderstandings and miscommunication can cause and escalate conflict. Effective communication is often the key to making progress in a conflict.

Progress through conflict is possible, and the route is twofold. First, self-knowledge and self-awareness are needed. Without these, our seemingly normal approaches to meaning-making and communication will never be clear enough that we can see them for what they are: a set of lenses that shape what we see, hear, say, understand, and interpret. Second, cultural fluency is needed, meaning familiarity with culture and the ability to act on that familiarity.[2] Cultural fluency means understanding what culture is, how it works, and the ways culture and communication are intertwined with conflicts.

This may sound simple enough, but it actually requires significant, continuous effort. As Edward T. Hall writes in the introduction to his book, The Dance of Life ,[3] for us to understand each other may mean, "reorganizing [our] thinking...and few people are willing to risk such a radical move." Communication theorists, anthropologists, and others have given us tools to develop awareness of our own lenses, and to facilitate the reorganization of thinking necessary to truly understand others whose starting points may differ from our own. Two of these tools are explored here.

Communication Tools for Understanding Culture

The tools we will examine here relate to communication and ways of seeing the self in relation to others. They are:

• High-context and low-context communication, and
• Individualist and communitarian conceptions of self and other.

Since all of these tools are used in the service of understanding culture, a working definition of culture is useful. Donal Carbaugh defines culture as "a system of expressive practices fraught with feelings, a system of symbols, premises, rules, forms, and the domains and dimensions of mutual meanings associated with these."[4] He also suggests culture is "a learned set of shared interpretations about beliefs, values, and norms, which affect the behaviors of a relatively large group of people."[5] In each of these definitions, culture is linked to communication and a wide range of human experience including feelings, identity, and meaning-making. Communication is the vehicle by which meanings are conveyed, identity is composed and reinforced, and feelings are expressed. As we communicate using different cultural habits and meaning systems, both conflict and harmony are possible outcomes of any interaction.

There is no comprehensive way to understand culture and its relationships to communication and conflict. The two tools outlined here give windows into how different groups of people make sense of their worlds. They are neither reliable guides to every member of a particular group nor are they fixed in nature, since culture is constantly evolving and changing as people within groups and the contexts around them change. These two sets of tools are the most frequently used classifications of cultures used by anthropologists and communication scholars. We begin with one of the most familiar sets of tools: high-context and low-context communication.

High-context and Low-context Communication refers to the degree to which speakers rely on factors other than explicit speech to convey their messages. This tool, developed by Edward T. Hall,[6] suggests that communication varies according to its degree of field dependence, and that it can be classified into two general categories -- high-context and low-context. Field dependence refers to the degree to which things outside the communication itself affect the meaning. For example, a request for a child to "shut the door" relies comparatively little on context, while a comment containing meaning other than what is on the surface relies largely on context for its meaning to be received. A high-context message of disagreement might be telegraphed to a spouse or a co-worker by the words chosen or the way they are spoken, even if no disagreement is explicitly voiced.

Hall says that every human being is confronted by far more sensory stimuli than can possibly be attended to. Cultures help by screening messages, shaping perceptions and interpretations according to a series of selective filters. In high-context settings, the screens are designed to let in implied meanings arising from the physical setting, relational cues, or shared understandings. In low-context settings, the screens direct attention more to the literal meanings of words and less to the context surrounding the words.

All of us engage in both high-context and low-context communication. There are times we "say what we mean, and mean what we say," leaving little to be "read in" to the explicit message. This is low-context communication. At other times, we may infer, imply, insinuate, or deliver with nonverbal cues messages that we want to have conveyed but do not speak. This is high-context communication. Most of the time, we are somewhere nearer the middle of the continuum, relying to some extent on context, but also on the literal meaning of words.

To understand this distinction between high-context and low-context communication, ask yourself these questions:

• Do I tend to "let my words speak for themselves," or prefer to be less direct, relying on what is implied by my communication? (low-context communication)
• Do I prefer indirect messages from others, and am I attuned to a whole range of verbal and nonverbal cues to help me understand the meaning of what is said? (high-context communication)

As will quickly become clear, most people can and do function at both ends of the high-context, low-context continuum. There are times when direct, clear communication is most appropriate, and times when it is preferable to communicate in layers of meaning to save face, spare feelings, or allow for diffuse interpretations. Most people rely on a whole range of verbal and nonverbal cues to understand the meaning of what is said. Even in the most direct, low-context setting, meanings will be conveyed that are not explicitly spoken.

The novelist Amy Tan describes the different starting points of English and Chinese this way: "I try to explain to my English-speaking friends that Chinese language is more strategic in manner, whereas English tends to be more direct; an American business executive may say, 'Let's make a deal,' and the Chinese manager may reply, 'Is your son interested in learning about your widget business?' Each to his or her own purpose, each with his or her own linguistic path."[7]

As people communicate, they move along a continuum between high context and low context. Depending on the kind of relationship, the situation, and the purpose of communication, they may be more or less explicit and direct. In close relationships, communication short-hand is often used, which makes communication opaque to outsiders but perfectly clear to the parties. With strangers, the same people may choose low-context communication.

Low- and high-context communication refers not only to individual communication strategies, but may be used to understand cultural groups. Generally, Western cultures tend to gravitate toward low-context starting points, while Eastern and Southern cultures tend to use high-context communication. Within these huge categories, there are important differences and many variations. Where high-context communication tends to be featured, it is useful to pay specific attention to nonverbal cues and the behavior of others who may know more of the unstated rules governing the communication. Where low-context communication is the norm, directness is likely to be expected in return.

It is less important to classify any communication as high or low context than it is to understand whether nonverbal or verbal cues are the most prominent. Without this understanding, those who tend to use high-context starting points may be looking for shades of meaning that are not present, and those who prefer low-context communication may miss important nuances of meaning.

The choice of high-context and low-context as labels has led to unfortunate misunderstandings, since there is an implied ranking in the adjectives. In fact, neither is better or worse than the other. They are simply different. Each has possible pitfalls for cross-cultural communicators. Generally, low-context communicators interacting with high-context communicators should be mindful that

• nonverbal messages and gestures may be as important as what is said;
• status and identity may be communicated nonverbally and require appropriate acknowledgement;
• face-saving and tact may be important, and need to be balanced with the desire to communicate fully and frankly;
• building a good relationship can contribute to effectiveness over time; and
• indirect routes and creative thinking are important alternatives to problem-solving when blocks are encountered.

High-context communicators interacting with low-context communicators should be mindful that

• things can be taken at face value rather than as representative of layers of meaning;
• roles and functions may be decoupled from status and identity;
• efficiency and effectiveness may be served by a sustained focus on tasks;
• direct questions and observations are not necessarily meant to offend, but to clarify and advance shared goals; and
• indirect cues may not be enough to get the other's attention.[8]

As communicators factor awareness of high-context and low-context communication into their relations, conflict may be lessened and even prevented.

Individualism and Communitarianism is the second dimension important to conflict and conflict resolution. In communitarian settings (sometimes called collectivist settings), children are taught that they are part of a circle of relations. This identity as a member of a group comes first, summed up in the South African idea of ubuntu: "I am because we are." In communitarian settings, members are rewarded for allegiance to group norms and values, interdependence, and cooperation. Wherever they go, their identity as a member of their group goes out in front. Identity is not isolated from others, but is determined with others according to group needs and views. When conflict arises, behavior and responses tend to be jointly chosen.

Individualist patterns involve ideas of the self as independent, self-directed, and autonomous. Many Western conflict-resolution approaches presuppose exactly this kind of person: someone able to make proposals, concessions, and maximize gains in their own self-interest. Children raised in this milieu are rewarded for initiative, personal achievement, and individual leadership. They may be just as close to their families as a child raised in a communitarian setting, but they draw the boundaries differently: in case of a conflict, they may feel more free to choose their individual preference. Duty, honor, and deference to authority are less prominent for those with individualist starting points than communitarian ones.

Individual and communitarian identities are two quite different ways of being in the world. They connect at some point, of course, since all groups are made up of individuals and all individuals find themselves in relationship with various groups. But the starting points are different. To discern the basic difference, ask yourself which is most in the foreground of your life, the welfare, development, security, prosperity, and well-being of yourself and others as individuals, or the shared heritage, ecological resources, traditional stories, and group accomplishments of your people? Generally, those who start with individualism as their beginning tend to be most comfortable with independence, personal achievement, and a competitive conflict style. Those who start with a communal orientation are more focused on social connections, service, and a cooperative conflict style.

French anthropologist Raymonde Carroll, who is married to a North American, suggests that North Americans tend to see individual identities as existing outside all networks. This does not mean that social networks do not exist, or that they are unimportant, but that it is notionally possible to see the self apart from these. In the North American view, there is a sense that the self creates its own identity, as in the expression, a "self-made person." This view explains why it is unnecessary for North Americans to hide things about their past, such as humble origins. It also explains why the alcoholic brother of a president of the United States is seen as having no connection to the president's standing or ability. In a communitarian setting, identity is defined much more by the person's social network, and cannot be so easily separated.

One way to discern communitarian or individualist starting points is to listen to forms of greeting and address. Thomas Morning Owl, a member of the Confederated Umatilla Tribes in Oregon, reports that his response to the question 'Shinnamwa?' (Who are you?) would not be his name, but a description of his father, mother, and tribe, and the place they came from. Morning Owl reflects that individual identities are subsumed into the collective in his culture: "Who preceded you, is who you are."[9]

Members of communitarian cultures place less importance than individualists on relationships with outsiders, such as strangers or casual acquaintances. Boundaries around relationships tend to be less porous in communitarian contexts like Japan, where attention is focused on maintaining harmony and cohesion with the group. In the individualist setting of the United States, by contrast, "friendly" behavior is directed to members of in-groups and strangers alike. This difference can lead to misunderstandings across cultures, since the U.S. American behavior of friendliness to strangers may be seen as inappropriately familiar by those from communitarian settings, while U.S. Americans may find social networks in communitarian settings very difficult to penetrate.

No matter which starting point seems natural, it is important to keep the entire continuum in mind when trying to understand and address conflict. From each vantage point, it is useful to remember some things:

From an individualist starting point,

• achievement involves individual goal-setting and action;
• I am ultimately accountable to myself and must make decisions I can live with;
• while I consult with others about choices, I am autonomous: a discrete circle; and
• I believe in equality and consider everyone able to make their own personal choices.

From a communitarian starting point,

• maintaining group harmony and cohesion is important, and my decisions should not disrupt that;
• choices are made in consultation with family and authority figures and their input is weighted as heavily, or even more heavily, than mine. I am an overlapping circle amidst other overlapping circles;
• my decisions reflect on my group and I am accountable to them as a member; and
• I notice hierarchy and accept direction from those of higher status than myself.

With these differences in mind, it is important for individualists to recognize the web of relations encompassing the communitarian party to a conflict, and to act in recognition of those. Similarly, it is helpful for those from communitarian settings to remember that individualists value autonomy and initiative, and to act in ways that respect these preferences.

Combining Starting Points: High-Context/Low-Context and Individualism/Communitarianism

As with any set of starting points, neither of these starting points exists in isolation. High-context communication often corresponds with communitarian settings, just as low-context communication often occurs in individualist settings. This is not always true, but it is worth exploring because it is frequently the case. Where communitarianism is the preferred starting point, individual expression may be less important than group will. Indirect communication that draws heavily on nonverbal cues may be preferable in such a setting, because it allows for multiple meanings, saves face, leaves room for group input into decisions, and displays interdependence. In individualist settings, low-context communication may be preferable because it is direct, expresses individual desires and initiatives, displays independence, and clarifies the meaning intended by the speaker.

Nobel Peace Laureate Jimmy Carter understood the importance of high-context communication with his counterparts from Israel and Egypt in the historic Camp David peace negotiations. In one example, Carter reports that Prime Minister Begin was about to leave the negotiations after several days, discouraged at having reached an impasse. Carter met Begin at his accommodations and presented him with pictures of the three heads of state, inscribed with the names of each of Begin's grandchildren. Prime Minister Begin repeated the names of his grandchildren out loud as he paused to look at the pictures, seeming to reflect on the importance of the peace negotiations to the grandchildren's futures.

Carter knew instinctively that no direct, low-context appeal would work to bring Prime Minister Begin back to the negotiating table. Perhaps low-context requests were already tried without success. Instead, Carter relied on a high-context reference to legacy, future generations, and the relations that Begin cared about. He invoked the communities each leader served by reminding Begin of his grandchildren. Through Carter's masterful, high-context appeal, negotiations resumed and peace was achieved between neighbors who had been in intractable conflict for many years.[10]

This example shows the importance of these two interrelated starting points, individualism/communitarianism and low/high context. While there are many exceptions to cultural patterns and all of us use different starting points depending on the context, noticing the intersections of ways of making meaning is often a useful window into conflict dynamics.

[1] Montaigne, 1580. Quoted in Tracy Novinger. Intercultural Communication . (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001)

[2] This is closely related to the concept of framing .

[3] Edward T. Hall, The Dance of Life. The Other Dimension of Time (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 7.

[4] Donal Carbaugh, Intercultural Theory [on-line] Available from http://eco.ittralee.ie/personal/theories-III.php#1 ; Internet. 

[5] Lustig, Myron and Jolene Koester. 1998. Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures (3 rd Ed.). (Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1998), 30.

[6] Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture . (New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1971)

[7] Tan, Amy. "The Language of Discretion," in About Language 3 rd Ed ., E.H.Roberts and G. Turgeon, eds. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 142.

[8] These points are taken from Michelle LeBaron, Bridging Cultural Conflicts: New Approaches for a Changing World (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2003)

[9] Quoted in Tracy Novinger, Intercultural Communication (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2001), 31.

[10] Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), 392, 399.

Use the following to cite this article: LeBaron, Michelle. "Communication Tools for Understanding Cultural Differences." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/communication-tools >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Roles - Part 2 -- The first of two posts explaining the actor roles needed for a massively parallel peacebuilding/democracy building effort to work, which combined with an earlier post on strategy roles, makes up the current MPP role list.
• Lorelei Kelly on Strengthening Democracy at the Top and the Bottom -- Lorelei Kelly describes the work of the bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress which passed 202 recommendations, many unanimously. Over 1/2 have been implemented and most others are in progress.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of March 24, 2024 -- A rename of our regular "colleague and context links" to highlight how these readings and the activities they describe all fit within our "massively parallel" peace and democracy building framework--or show why it is needed.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1