In Dance of Life (1983), the well-known anthropologist, Edward T. Hall, explains that every culture is affected by the manner in which time, context, and space are handled. It is stunning that his discoveries are not included in most introductory social science texts. He and Mildred Reed Hall further elaborate on these measures of cultural difference in a book that analyzes differences between American, French and German notions of ideal interaction and best business practices, Understanding Cultural Differences (1990). While Hofstede's (1983) measures of individualism and communalism provide a strong departure point for understanding civility differences between cultures, Hall's analysis allows us to further refine our understanding of these differences.
Hall
differentiates between monochronic time and polychronic time,
explaining that a considerable amount of bitterness between people of different
cultures occurs due to different conceptions of time (1983: 179). Monochronic
time is characterized as linear use of time and is understood in terms of
quantifiable segments. In monochronic time (M-time), events are planned to
occur one at a time; the importance of preventing extraneous events from
interrupting a set schedule takes precedence over interpersonal relationships.
Efficiency takes on extreme importance and is measured through the 'use' of
time. How time is 'spent,' 'saved,' 'wasted' or 'made' reveals the quantitative
nature of linear time. Polychronic time (P-time), on the other hand, is
characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of many things and by a great
involvement with people. People act differently, depending on which conception
of time is prevalent in their culture. Hall categorizes these various reactions
as follows:
MONOCHRONIC PEOPLE POLYCHRONIC
PEOPLE
·do one
thing at a time ·do many
things at once
·concentrate
on the job ·are highly
distractible and subject to
interruptions
·are low-context and need
information ·are high-context
and already have
information
·are committed to the job ·are
committed to people and human
relationships
·adhere religiously to plans ·change
plans often and easily
·are concerned about not disturbing
others; ·are more
concerned with those who
follow rules of privacy and consideration
are closely related (family, friends,
close business associates)
than
with privacy
·show great
respect for private property; seldom ·borrow and
lend things often and
borrow or lend easily
·emphasize
promptness ·base
promptness on the relationship
·are accustomed to short-term
relationships ·have a
strong tendency to build
lifetime relationships
(1990: 14).
Although
these patterns cannot be applied rigidly to all cultures, a given culture will
have a tendency to lean more towards one mode than the other. Additionally,
ethnic groups within a culture may have predispositions towards one mode even
though the ideal of the majority culture is in the opposing mode. Hall
categorizes Northern European and American cultures as monochromic and
Mediterranean cultures as polychronic.
Now,
the manner in which time is further correlated to whether a culture is high
context (HC) or low context (LC). High and low context refers to
the amount of information that a person can manage without feeling that he is
being overloaded or not being given all the facts he requires. People from a
high context culture often convey information implicitly, and maintain larger
networks of personal contacts and sources of information. People from low
context cultures tend to verbalize background information to a considerable
degree and tend not to be fully informed of what is not within their immediate
interest (1976; 1990: 7).
Hall
specifies that a major distinction between HC and LC modes of communication is
the degree of interpersonal involvement as well as the amount of information
exchanged:
A high context (HC) communication or message is one in
which most of the information is already in the person, while very
little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low
context (LC) communication is just the opposite: i.e. the mass of the
information is vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together
can and do communicate more economically (HC) than two lawyers in a courtroom
during a trial (LC), a mathematician programming a computer, two politicians
drafting legislation, two administrators writing a regulation (1976, cited in
1990: 6).
It would seem that cultures that value
complex information networks in families, and with friends and close
colleagues, are of the high context type. HC individuals 'do not require, nor
do they expect, much in-depth, background information. This is because they
keep themselves informed about everything having to do with the people who are
important in their lives' (7). According to Hall, America is a low-context
cultures while France is a high-context culture. We would add that England is
neither, falling into a category which Hal does not use: Moderate Context. We will
explain this further in Ch. 11.
Generally, Hall's definition of HC and LC cultures can be
summarized according to a series of characteristics or outcomes:
HIGH CONTEXT CULTURE
LOW CONTEXT CULTURE
·Much covert
and implicit messages
·Much overt
and explicit messages;
(Metaphoric; read between
the lines) (Plain and literal
meanings)
·Internalized
Messages
·Plainly
Coded Messages
(Inner focus of control; self-blame) (Focus
on outer control; blaming of external sources for failure)
·Much nonverbal coding
·Verbalized
details
(Considerable body language and mannerisms) (More verbal than body
language)
·Reserved reactions ·Reactions on the surface
(React
more inwardly than outwardly) (React more outwardly)
·Distinct in-groups and out-groups ·Flexible in-groups and out-groups
(Closely knit groups of affiliation: families, (Open groups of
affiliation…i.e.
and close colleagues) PTA, communal fast
food outlets)
·Strong bond people ·Fragile people bonds
(Family and community very
important)
(Family and community less
important)
·High commitment ·Low commitment
(Relationship is more important than
the task; (Task more important
than
long-term relationships) relationships; short term
relations)
·Open and
flexible time ·Highly organized time
(Process more important than product) (Product more important
than
process)
Hall's model of HC and LC cultures coincides in many
respects with Hofstede's classifications of individualism and collectivism:
INDIVIDUALISM COLLECTIVISM
·Individual
autonomy ·Group unity
and harmony
·Self-oriented ·Group-oriented
·Personal
goals ·Group goals
·Unique and
independent ·Conforming
and interdependent
·Individual
privacy ·Group
belongingness
·Nuclear
family ·Extended
family
·Individual
rewards (equity) ·Equal
distribution of reward (equality)
·Competition ·Cooperation
Hall
further explains that the manner in which time and context are used has a very
telling effect on the use of space 'proxemics' (10-12). He defines
space as the
'visible boundary…[that]…is surrounded by a
series of invisible boundaries that are more difficult to define but are just
as real. These other boundaries begin with the individual's personal space and
terminate with her or his "territory" (10).
The
delineation of space is not only physical but involves all the senses,
including the olfactory and auditory ones. In some cultures, speaking loudly is
considered an invasion of personal space (11). Each sphere of space---'personal
social space' and 'public social space'---has varying rules regarding the use
of body mannerisms as well as the use of familiar forms of address.
So
it would seem that the 'physical distance' one maintains between oneself and
another is determined by cultural habituation and is psychologically grounded.
And this cultural habituation has a salient influence on the manner in which
one uses one's 'sensorium' during one's relations with others. If a person is
habituated to keeping his distance then someone who stands too close to him
will make him feel that his senses are overloaded and perhaps even
disrespected; this may move him to judge the other as being 'too forward' or
'shameless.' Conversely, someone used to standing close to others, might
interpret someone who keeps a distance greater than that to which he has been
habituated as a lack of interest or a sign of disdain. The sentiments will be
registered without conscious understanding of why there is such an immediate
visceral reaction.
The
misunderstanding and conflicts that can occur from mismatches in conceptions of
context, time and space can create considerable dissonance in civility,
understanding and sympathy. As Hall elaborates in his comparisons of German,
American and French business cultures (1990), much of the alienation felt
between the French and the Americans and the French and the Germans may be
connected to the fact that they follow different contextual, time-use and
space-delineation standards. Conflict and incomprehension result not only from
what is being said and done but from how it is being said and done.
Expectedly, the stability of the above-listed values and
dimensions will be greatly determined by the manner in which subjects
'appraise' situations and react to them. Varying appraisals of an identical
situation will trigger different emotional responses. There might also be
exceptions to the norm due to sudden explosions of anger or an overload of
hurt. In individualistic cultures, it would be expected that the appraisal and
the actual emotional affect shown in reaction to the appraisal would be closely
matched. But that is not the case in all cultures and there are, in fact,
substantial differences in affect-expression in various individualistic
cultures. Not all cultures assign the same values to the universal emotions
that have been located by Western theorists such as Ekman (1972) and Ekman, et
al. (1987) who experimented with photos showing the human face experiencing a
variety of emotions. While respondents in various countries managed to identity
the photographed faces as experiencing emotions such as 'enjoyment, anger,
sadness, fear, surprise, and disgust,' their familiarity with which emotions
they considered positive or negative varied according to their own cultural
habituations (Matsumoto 1992, cited in Smith and Bond, 1998: 75; Schimmack,
1996, cited, 75).
Particular attention, therefore, needs be paid to the
manner in which the citizenry of a nation manages its emotions, for there can
be considerable variation even between cultures that are considered
individualistic and self-referential.
The potential antagonism between 'communal' and 'self-referential'
mentalities (at least as understood in Anglo-American society) was observed
during the protracted tensions between the late Princess Diana of Britain and
the Windsors. A Queen who had reigned for nearly half a century using duty and
restraint of emotion as her guiding principles was suddenly confronted with a
self-referential person who insisted that the monarchy be 'humanized' and
brought down to the level of the people. Elizabeth II may have been surprised
(and perhaps even embarrassed) by the claims of the Princess. A monarchy was
supposed to act as an organic reminder of duty, harmony, restraint and honor.
Its function was not to resemble the people but to give the people some stable
model to emulate, one that stood above the contingency of emotion and the
vicissitudes of change. The emotional restraint adopted by the Queen in favor
of duty required some distancing between her and her people. The distancing was
not necessarily an act of self-aggrandizement but one of presenting a grave countenance
to symbolize a collective commitment to British institutions.
This well-fulfilled role was referred to by her son, Charles, Prince of Wales, during a short speech delivered at the end of the Jubilee celebrations of 2002. The Prince remarked that the Queen had steadfastly held to her duty and been a reminder of 'continuity' in an era of 'perilous change' (BBC-TV, June 2, 2002). Princess Diana, however, had been an agent of change, a considerably self-referential woman who considered emotional interaction, familiarity, informality, and open mutual recognition as important as the preservation of the protocols of a long-standing British institution. She was the outcome of an individualistic therapeutic mentality. Graham Turner, a British court journalist and author of Elizabeth: The Woman and the Queen (2002), has stated that a major difficulty between the Princess and the Queen was that the princess desired to be 'recognized' by the Queen for her efforts whereas the Queen may have not understood why the performance of duty, being that it was a duty, would need extraordinary recognition (Interviewed on ITV-TV, June 3, 2002).