Written by: Evelina Silveira
Standing amidst my collection, a testament to my brief foray into anthropology is Bronislaw Malinowski's The Sexual Life of Savages. Even my closest friends have never asked me about this book, but the odd repairman tries to pretend they did not see it. No, I am not a pervert or a racist, for that matter, but I was a student of anthropology in the 90s when the ethnographic classic became required reading for reasons academics today would find abhorrent. Peppered within the volume are old black and white photographs of Trobriand half-naked “savages” depicting lousing, ceremonial distributions, families and building structures, among others.
Although I never completed the text, I read enough to understand its pedagogical value. Instead of my professor giving her young students a quintessential ethnography, we were presented with a biased, sexist and, at times, stomach-churning book. Insightful in her reasoning, she wanted us to understand the tremendous responsibility of ethnographers to record their observations objectively. Today, this professor would probably be put on leave and subject to sensitivity training, yet using The Sexual Life of Savages was a thought-provoking and memorable way to ascertain how to document the observable and omit inferences. The lesson back then was that attributing ethnocentric/Eurocentric descriptive values to people who don't adhere to them is nonsensical and prejudiced. Here is one excerpt:
People will sometimes grow angry with their children and beat them in an outburst of rage; but I have quite as often seen a child rush furiously at his parents and strike him. This attack might be received with a good – natured smile, or the blow might be angrily returned; but the idea of definite retribution, or of coercive punishment, is not only foreign, but distinctly repugnant to the native. Several times, when I suggested, after some flagrant infantile misdeed, that it would mend matters for the future if the child were beaten or otherwise punished in cold blood, the idea appeared unnatural and immoral to my friends, and was rejected with some resentment.
Today, we would be hard-pressed to find this book in any university syllabus. Still, we can contend that The Sexual Life of Savages and other similar ethnographies of that era were products of colonial attitudes. Despite chronicling and integrating with local communities, you might expect Malinowski to be offering a treatise on universal humanity; instead, his characterization of other humans is prejudicial, invoking terms such as “primitive,” “exotic,” and “savages.”
While some academics and activists might understandably want to put to rest The Sexual Life of Savages, instead drawing on more recent ethnographies that are less ethnocentric, the question we need to ask is why other seminal research on cultural differences in communication is meeting a similar fate.
Consider the last time you heard about intercultural communication during your diversity, communications, leadership training or even in the media. Chances are you haven’t. Despite increasing immigration, the rise of globalism and more businesses going international, you would think there would be an interest in bridging the communication gaps to help newcomers integrate, for businesses to flourish and for the sake of world peace.
Surprisingly, even globetrotting YouTube influencers (our modern-day amateur ethnographers) focus on food, places, and general aspects of their host culture and rarely discuss tips for intercultural communication.
Years before starting my business as a diversity trainer, I held a few different roles in helping integrate new Canadian immigrants. I realized that I had a knack for making connections with people from regions that I knew little about, such as South Americans, Latin Americans, Arabs, Africans, and a variety of Asians and Europeans. I was often able to make more significant breakthroughs in communities than many of my co-workers, and I will explain why this could be true.
Unbeknownst to me, I was applying a more highly stylized and formal communication I had learned firsthand and understood growing up in a conservative Portuguese immigrant family. Whether my work found me in the middle of a cultural community meeting, a church, a festival or in someone’s home, I showed deference to older members, used titles, dressed up for my appointments, opened myself up more to personal questions to establish trust and recognized the importance of tradition, hierarchy, and separate gender spheres. According to renowned cultural anthropologists like Edward T. Hall, I used high-context communication, a multi-layered and complex form of relating that is difficult to comprehend if unfamiliar or new to a group. Understanding that communication in hierarchical cultures is conveyed with more than words but through status, image, and even how someone is dressed for an occasion. There are established complex rules, and being accepted into one of these circles means you have mastered some of the upspoken nuances of communication etiquette – hence the term “high context”.
Hall might posit that many Westerners and Northern Europeans who adopt a low-context communication style that is direct, concise, informal, linear, and egalitarian will quickly be rejected and ridiculed when communicating with more collectivist and traditionally oriented cultures. It’s interesting to note that in Geert Hofstede’s work, the likelihood of countries sharing key cultural dimensions has much to do with whether people share a similar language and the region where they live.
Like over 20 million other viewers, I watched Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. As someone with a life-long fascination and professional niche in intercultural communication, I was anticipating how these two opposites would interact. When one thinks of a stereotypical American, the likes of Tucker Carlson come to mind. How would an in-your-face journalist handle an interview with a former KGB agent?
First, unlike Carlson, who admitted in a subsequent interview with Lex Fridman that he was “annoyed” by what he thought was Putin’s “filibuster” to detract from the question related to, “Why did you do this?” (referring to the invasion of Ukraine). I did not think Putin’s long “greatest hits of Russian history” were intended to side-track or manipulate. If we understand that Russian speakers tend to use a high-context form of communication, a concise answer to a very sensitive question would be inadequate. With his historical explanation, Putin was establishing the context by his terms and the rationale for invading Ukraine. All of the points were relevant for him to justify the invasion. Carlson says Putin spoke like an “overprepared student.” High-context cultures tend to value history and tradition more than low-context ones. Ask yourself how many North Americans could talk about their country’s history in detail for 20 minutes. Carlson explains that he tried to interrupt him several times because it was taking too long, and Putin got upset. And that makes sense. Imagine if you felt you were giving important details to state your case, and someone was trying to cut you off; you would likely feel “annoyed” as well.
I recall similar situations when I was a job coach for new immigrants. This is where I learned firsthand the importance of understanding the nuances of intercultural communication. In these roles, I helped new immigrants bridge the gap between low-context (direct) communication and their more stylized high-context communication.
Miguel, one of the clients in our employment bridging program, told me he could not attend his co-op placement on Friday. While in a low-context region like North America, an employee might ask their employer for a couple of hours off to attend to a “personal matter” or even “ a medical appointment,” Miguel’s explanation took a few minutes. He pointed out that he had to take his mother-in-law to the hospital for her hysterectomy as his wife did not drive, and he proceeded to tell me the time, the hospital and pointed out this was an approximation. He also added the fact that his mother-in-law had had many difficulties with her uterus back in Colombia just before they sought asylum, and it was good to see that she would finally be getting some help. As my role was to assist Miguel with integrating into the workplace, I explained some of the features of low-context communication so that he could start adapting. I spoke about privacy, being concise, and trust. I related how most employers begin employment with an essential trust, not vice versa. Finally, I recommended that he tell the employer, “ I need a few hours off for a medical reason, which would be sufficient. He remarked on the simplicity of the request.
While intercultural communication theories are imperfect, there is agreement that people communicate differently worldwide -- which shouldn’t be a surprise. I will argue that those who think that variations in history, linguistics, ethnicity, politics, spirituality, geography, gender norms, etc, don’t impact the way cultures relate to one another are ethnocentric. I used to discuss theories in my customer service and workplace intercultural communication training. I could see the “lights go on” in participants’ heads, and those who were born outside of Canada would give an approving nod and smile at the connections I made. However, there are always a few, oddly enough, in academia who will proclaim that I am invoking stereotypes that there is no such thing as cultural differences in communication. I’ll be first to argue that we cannot routinely put people and how they communicate into neat boxes. However, there is now a large enough body of research that shows consistency. I wonder if they realize they are devaluing and cancelling their colleagues' work in the anthropology faculty. Having spent over five years coaching English as a Foreign Language learners in over 50 countries, I can attest that there are differences, and they often tell me so. For example, the Saudi woman spoke about her company's video conference call with a German firm. Her boss, an Arab, asked the German a question, and they replied with a simple “No.” The Arab man was so hurt and offended he left the meeting because the word “No’ was not said so directly.
One of the most valuable lessons I learned about intercultural communication is regarding the use of “No”. While low-context cultures like the Brits, Americans, Northern Europeans and Canadians tend to think of “no” as a direct, precise and honest way of rejecting an idea, most of the world doesn’t feel the same. You could say that, sometimes, we will plump up our rebuffs to make them sound less cold, such as, “No, sorry, I can’t do that”. “No, I have an appointment”.
Rejecting or saying “no” is among the most significant sources of misunderstanding and intercultural hostility. Recognizing that we use a variety of ways to decline someone’s invitations or proposals and that most people say no as politely as they know can de-escalate everyday situations.
I recall following up with a Russian co-op student I had placed at a hospital Human Resources department. Natasha was a hard worker and quickly picked up on what was expected of her. She was content, and so was her boss. However, one day, when I met with her supervisor, I was surprised to hear that the staff complained she was rude. I did not understand why. Her supervisor recounted how one of the staff members in the department had lost her pen and was walking around asking if someone had seen it. When she got to Natasha, she replied with a relatively flat, single-worded rejection, “No”. This happened a couple of times. I explained to Nancy, her supervisor, that this response should not be taken as rude but instead as a concise, direct and honest answer. As my Russian friend once said, “Canadians like to wrap everything up before they say things.” However, this is not always necessary in Russian. To combat any misunderstanding, I met with Natasha as well. I indicated to her that her boss had thought her responses were interpreted as rude, and she began to cry. I told her I explained that it was not intentional and that she was polite and kind. To avoid another reoccurrence and to advance Natasha's knowledge of how Canadians speak, I constructed a job aid for her to place in her cubicle. It offered a more detailed response that softened the “no.” Her job aid included comments, like: “No, sorry I am unable. I’m sorry, I can’t now, maybe later. No, thank you, and so on”. Not surprisingly, when I returned to the job site, I was thrilled to hear that Natasha’s communication had turned around, the department had understood there was no curtness intended behind her flat “no’s,” and she was offered a full-time job.
While there has been a big push to challenge cultural relativism, progressives also want to abandon discussions about cultural differences in communication for fear of accusations of bias. Could that be why there is so little new research on intercultural communication? Perhaps they believe that by doing so, we are establishing a hierarchy of superior or inferior communication styles. But the opposite occurs. When we witness intercultural friendships, international business deals, and the formation of political allies abroad, we can admire the tremendous dance between two worlds and the efforts, tolerance, and willingness to engage and understand one another despite navigating through various complex communication hurdles. There is a give and take and a humility that comes from working through differences to find common ground. I would argue that analyzing communication entirely from a Western lens is no less ethnocentric than Malinowski’s Eurocentric explanations. Doing so ignores the specificity of each culture’s communication, evolution, and values.
To quote Edward T. Hall, “Culture is not static; it is constantly evolving and adapting”.
At a time when diplomatic relationships seem to be faltering, large-scale wars are occurring, and our communities are growing with culturally different people, we must revisit, repurpose, reenergize and refresh our models of cultural communication, not abandon them.
Comments