Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Contents S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 5. 6. Page No. Etymology .. 1 Definition 1 Basic Elements . 1 Cultural Models .

1
Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks Value Dimensions . 1 Hofstedes Model of Cultural Dimensions 2 Trompenaars and Hapden-Turners 7 Cultural Dimensions . 4

Comparison 5 5.1 Hofstede vs. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck ... 5 5.2 Hofstede vs. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner . 6
Conclusion .. 6

CULTURE Etymology
From the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate.

Definition
The British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor defined culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." Tylor's definition includes three of the most important characteristics of culture: 1. Culture is acquired by people. 2. A person acquires culture as a member of society. 3. Culture is a complex whole.

What are basic elements of all cultures? All cultures have features that result from basic needs shared by all people. Every culture has methods of obtaining food and shelter. Every culture has ways to protect itself against invaders. It also has family relationships including forms of marriage and systems of kinship. A culture has religious beliefs and a set of practices to express them. All societies have forms of artistic expression such as carving, painting and music. In addition, all cultures have some type of scientific knowledge. This knowledge may be folklore about the plants people eat and the animals they hunt, or it may be a highly developed science. CULTURAL MODELS Overview Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks Value Dimensions These anthropologists have developed a taxonomy of cultural values that looks at culture as a response to social problems. They offer six dimensions, based on problems that all societies face but resolve differently, across which we can measure and compare cultures. These problems and their categories are: 1. How do we view the environment (natural and social worlds)? Subjugation, Harmony, Mastery. 2. How do we see relationships among people? Hierarchical, Group, Individual. 3. How do we posit ourselves in the world? Being, Thinking, Doing. 4. What is basic human nature? Bad, Mixed, Good, and Changeable/Unchangeable. 5. How do we think about and use time? Past, Present or Future Orientation, and Plentiful or Scarce. 6. How do we think about and use space? Private, Mixed, Public.

Hofstedes Model of Cultural Dimensions Hofstede has found five dimensions of culture in his study of national work related values. Replication studies have yielded similar results, pointing to stability of the dimensions across time. The dimensions are: 1. Small vs. large power distance How much the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In cultures with small power distance (e.g. Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand), people expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decisions of those in power. In cultures with large power distance (e.g. Malaysia), the less powerful accept power relations that are autocratic or paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others based on their formal, hierarchical positions. Thus, Small vs. Large Power Distance does not measure or attempt to measure a culture's objective, "real" power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences. 2. Individualism vs. collectivism How much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships. In individualist cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose their own affiliations. In collectivist cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a member of a longterm group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a profession, among others. This dimension was found to move towards the individualist end of the spectrum with increasing national wealth. 3. Masculinity vs. femininity The value placed on traditionally male or female values (as understood in most Western cultures). In so-called 'masculine' cultures, people (whether male or female) value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions. In so-called 'feminine' cultures, people (again whether male or female) value relationships and quality of life. This dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to Quantity of Life

vs. Quality of Life. Another reading of the same dimension holds that in 'M' cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in 'F' cultures; but this strongly depends on other dimensions as well. 4. Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance How much members of a society are anxious about the unknown, and as a consequence, attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance, people prefer explicit rules (e.g. about religion and food) and formally structured activities, and employees tend to remain longer with their present employer. In cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance, people prefer implicit or flexible rules or guidelines and informal activities. Employees tend to change employers more frequently. Michael Harris Bond and his collaborators subsequently found a fifth dimension which was initially called Confucian dynamism. Hofstede later incorporated this into his framework as: 5. Long vs. short term orientation A society's "time horizon or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future: persistence/perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present: normative statements, immediate stability, protecting one's own face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.

Trompenaars and Hapden-Turners 7 Cultural Dimensions Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner have developed a model of culture with seven dimensions. There are five orientations covering the ways in which human beings deal with each other: 1. Universalism vs. Particularism (What is more important, rules or relationships?) 2. Individualism vs. collectivism (communitarianism) (Do we function in a group or as individuals?) 3. Neutral vs. emotional (Do we display our emotions?) 4. Specific vs. diffuse (How separate we keep our private and working lives) 5. Achievement vs. ascription (Do we have to prove ourselves to receive status or is it given to us?) 6. Sequential vs. synchronic (Do we do things one at a time or several things at once?) The last important difference is the attitude of the culture to the environment. 7. Internal vs. external control (Do we control our environment or are we controlled by it?)

COMPARISON Hofstede vs. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck


When the two approaches are compared we can see that the five respective dimensions bear some resemblance. What Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck identify as peoples relationship to each other is reflected in Hofstedes Individualism, Power distance and to some degree in Masculinity. Relationship to time and Long-term orientation are also somewhat similar although the Long-term orientation also encompasses certain elements of Kluckhohn/Strodtbecks relationship to activity (depending on whether activities are carried out with the hope for future rewards). The relationship to activity on the other hand contains some elements of Uncertainty avoidance because activities can take more or less risk when carried out. A closer analysis reveals that all five of Hofstedes dimensions refer to the three relationships to time, to activity, and to each other. The relationship to the environment and to the basic nature of human beings is not mirrored in Hofstedes dimensions. Therefore the Kluckhohn/Strodtbeck approach is the broader one. In this essay, however, Hofstedes approach will be favored because Hofstedes approach makes finer distinctions in the realm of interpersonal relations possible (peoples relationship to each other versus Power distance, Individualism and Masculinity). As this essays focus is on the (linguistic) interaction of people, it seems more important to have access to these finer distinctions of Hofstedes. After these preliminary theoretical considerations we can now have a closer look at how linguistics can be of use in understanding intercultural communication. It is evident that nearly all communication, be it intercultural or not, uses language as a communicative tool. In intercultural communication the first obvious problem is to find a language that all participants share. In many cases this will be English. But as communication is now channeled through the medium of a language that might not be the native language of some or all participants, new problems arise. This is mainly because people have only seemingly gained a common ground for communication. There still might be the influence of other languages, as English is very likely not the native language of all participants.

Hofstede vs. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner


Of seven value dimensions of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, two reflect closely the Hofstede dimensions of Collectivism/Individualism and to a lesser extent power distance. Trompenaars and 14 Hampden-Turner's communitarianism/individualism value orientation seems to be virtually identical to Hofstede's Collectivism/Individualism. Their achievement/ascription value orientation, which describes how status is accorded, appears to be linked to Hofstede's power distance index, at least if one accepts that status is accorded by nature rather than achievement, and that this reflects a greater willingness to accept power distances. It is, however, not a complete match, as Hofstede's power index does not only relate to how status is accorded, but also to the acceptable power distance within a society, an area that is not touched upon by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner.

CONCLUSION

Hofstedes Power Index and finer distinctions in the realm of interpersonal relations underlying Hofstedes Approach distinguish it from others and make the cultural orientations framework particularly well suited for research in cross cultural management.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai