car. I wouldn't want to give him the idea that I didn't know. After that, I
leave the car and walk around the block. When I come back to the garage, I
ask him if he has started to work yet. On my way home from lunch I stop in
and ask him how things are going. When I go back to the office I stop by
again. In the evening, I return and peer over his shoulder for a while. If
I didn't keep this up, he'd be off working on someone else's car.
If you haven't been needled by an Arab, you just haven't been needled.
A PLACE FOR EVERYTHING
We say that there is a time and place for everything, but compared to
other countries and cultures we give very little emphasis to place
distinctions. Business is almost a universal value with us; it can be
discussed almost anywhere, except perhaps in church. One can even talk
business on the church steps going to and from the service. Politics is
only slightly more restricted in the places appropriate for its discussion.
In other parts of the world, there are decided place restrictions on
the discussion of business and politics. The American who is not conscious
of the unwritten laws will offend if he abides by his own rather than by
the local rules.
In India, you should not talk business when visiting a man's home. If
you do, you prejudice your chances of ever working out a satisfactory
business relationship.
In Latin America, although university students take an active interest
in politics, tradition decrees that a politician should avoid political
subjects when speaking on university grounds. A Latin American politician
commented to. anthropologist Allan Holmberg that neither he nor his fellow
politicians would have dared attempt a political speech on the grounds of
the University of San Marcos in Peru-as did Vice-President Nixon.
To complicate matters further, the student body of San Marcos,
anticipating the visit, had voted that Mr. Nixon would not be welcome. The
University Rector had issued no invitation, presumably because he expected
what did, in fact, happen.
As a final touch, Mr. Nixon's interpreter was a man in full military
uniform. In Latin American countries, some of which had recently overthrown
military dictators, the symbolism of the military uniform could hardly
contribute to a cordial atmosphere. Latin Americans need no reminder that
the United States is a great military power.
Mr. Nixon's efforts were planned in the best traditions of our own
culture; he hoped to improve relations through a direct, frank, and face-to-
face discussion with students-the future leaders of their country.
Unfortunately, this approach did not fit in at all with the culture of the
host country. Of course, elements hostile to the United States did their
best to capitalize upon this cross-cultural misunderstanding. However, even
Latin Americans friendly to us, while admiring the Vice President's
courage, found themselfes acutely embarrassed by the behavior of their
people and ours in the ensuing difficulties.
BEING COMFORTABLE IN SPACE
Like time and place, differing ideas of space hide traps for the
uninformed. Without realizing it, almost any person raised in the United
States is likely to give an unintended snub to a Latin American simply in
the way we handle space relationships, particularly during conversations.
In North America, the "proper" distance to stand when talking to
another adult male you do not know well is about two feet, at least in a
formal business conversation. (Naturally at a cocktail party, the distance
shrinks, but anything under eight to ten inches is likely to provoke an
apology or an attempt to back up.)
To a Latin American, with his cultural traditions and habits, a
distance of two feet seems to him approximately what five feet would to us.
To him, we seem distant and cold. To us, he gives an impression of
pushiness.
As soon as a Latin American moves close enough for him to feel
comfortable, we feel uncomfortable and edge back. We once observed a
Conversation between a Latin and a North American which began at one end of
a forty-foot hall. At intervals we noticed them again, finally at the other
end of the hall. This rather amusing displacement had been accomplished by
an almost continual series of small backward steps on the part of the
American, trying unconsciously to reach a comfortable talking distance, and
an equal closing of the gap by the Latin American as he attempted to reach
his accustomed conversation space.
Americans in their offices in Latin America tend to keep their native
acquaintances at our distance-not the Latin American's distance-by taking
up a position behind a desk or typewriter. The barricade approach to
communication is practiced even by old hands in Latin America who are
completely unaware of its cultural significance. They know only that they
are comfortable without realizing that the distance and equipment
unconsciously make the Latin American uncomfortable.
HOW CLASS CHANNELS COMMUNICATION
We would be mistaken to regard the communication patterns which we
observe around the world as no more than a miscellaneous collection of
customs. The communication pattern of a given society is part of its total
culture pattern and can only be understood in that context.
We cannot undertake here to relate many examples of communication
behavior to the underlying culture of the country. For the businessman, it
might be useful to mention the difficulties in the relationship between
social levels and the problem of information feedback from lower to higher
levels in industrial organizations abroad.
There is in Latin America a pattern of human relations and
unionmanagement relations quite different from that with which we are
familiar in the United States. Everett Hagen of MIT has noted the heavier
emphasis upon line authority and the lesser development of staff
organizations in Latin-American plants when compared with North American
counterparts. To a much greater extent than in the United States, the
government becomes involved in the handling of all kinds of labor problems.
These differences seem to be clearly related to the culture and
social organization of Latin America. We find there that society has been
much more rigidly stratified than it has with us. As a corollary, we find a
greater emphasis upon authority in family and the community.
This emphasis upon status and class distinction makes it very
difficult for people of different status levels to express themselves
freely and frankly in discussion and argument. In the past, the pattern has
been for the man of lower status to express deference to his superior in
any face-to-face contact. This is so even when everyone knows that the
subordinate dislikes the superior. The culture of Latin America places a
great premium upon keeping personal relations harmonious on the surface.
In the United States, we feel that it is not only desirable but
natural to speak up to your superior, to tell the boss exactly what you
think, even when you disagree with him. Of course, we do not always do
this, but we think that we should, and we feel guilty if we fail to speak
our minds frankly. When workers in our factories first get elected to local
union office, they may find themselves quite self-conscious about speaking
up to the boss and arguing grievances. Many of them, however, quickly learn
to do it and enjoy the experience. American culture emphasizes the
thrashing-out of differences in face-to-face contacts. It de-emphasizes the
importance of status. As a result, we have built institutions for handling
industrial disputes on the basis of the local situation, and we rely on
direct discussion by the parties immediately involved.
In Latin America, where it is exceedingly difficult for people to
express their differences face-to-face and where status differences and
authority are much more strongly emphasized than here, the workers tend to
look to a third party-the government-to take care of their problems. Though
the workers have great difficulty in thrashing out their problems with
management, they find no difficulty in telling government representatives
their problems. And it is to their government that they look for an
authority to settle their grievances with management.
Status and class also decide whether business will be done on an
individual or a group basis.
In the United States, we are growing more and more accustomed to
working as members of large organizations. Despite this, we still assume
that there is no need to send a delegation to do a job that one capable man
might well handle.
In some other parts of the world, the individual cannot expect to gain
the respect necessary to accomplish this purpose, no matter how capable he
is, unless he brings along an appropriate number of associates.
In the United States, we would rarely think it necessary or proper to
call on a customer in a group. He might well be antagonized by the hard
sell.
In Japan-as an example-the importance of the occasion and of the man
is measured by whom he takes along.
This practice goes far down in the business and government
hierarchies.
Even a university professor is likely to bring one or two retainers
along on academic business. Otherwise people might think that he was a
nobody and that his affairs were of little moment.
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
