• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Culture communication context and power.sec 1

on

  • 2,564 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,564
Views on SlideShare
2,562
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
35
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

https://learn-files.uen.org 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Culture communication context and power.sec 1 Culture communication context and power.sec 1 Presentation Transcript

    • CHAPTER 3CULTURE, COMMUNICATION, CONTEXT , AND POWER
    • CHAPTER OBJECTIVES:1. Identify three approaches to culture2. Define communication3. Identify and describe nine cultural value orientations4. Describe how cultural values influence communication5. Understand how cultural values influence conflict behavior6. Describe how communication can reinforce cultural beliefs and behavior7. Explain how culture can function as resistance to dominant value systems8. Explain relationship between communication and context9. Describe characteristics of power10. Describe relationship between communication and power
    • WHAT IS CULTURE? Learned patterns of behavior and attitudes shared by a group of people. Considered the core concept in intercultural communication Defined in many ways from a pattern of perceptions that influence communication to a site of contestation and conflict. How we think of culture frames our ideas and perception
    • Scholar Wen Shu LeeIdentifies different commonuses of the term culture :1. unique human efforts2. Refinement , mannerism3. Civilization4. Shared language, beliefs, values5. Dominant culture6. The shifting tensions between the shared and unshared
    • 3 PERSPECTIVES ON DEFININGCULTURE:
    • SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE:( focused on the influence of culture oncommunication, ) Culture is learned and shared patterns of perception “programming of the mind” A social psychologist Geert Hofstede says that culture becomes a collective experience because it’s shared with people who live in and experience the same environment. The relationship between culture and communication: culture influences communication
    • CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE: Heterogeneous, dynamic ( we have richness, complexity) Site of contested meanings ( critical scholars suggest that the differences between U.S Americans are often looked over)EX: Tiger woods has multicultural identities Relationship between culture and communication is that communication reshapes culture.
    • INTEPRETIVE PERSPECTIVE:( focuses on contextual patterns ofcommunication behavior rather than on group-related perceptions) Learned and shared  Common example = ethnography of communication : analyzing symbolic meaning of verbal and non-verbal activities in attempt to understand patterns and rules of communication  Contextual symbolic meanings (activity must have the same symbolic meaning for everyone)EX: Gathering around the coffee machine at work everymorning symbolizes the desire to interact with colleagues  Involves emotion  Relation between culture and communication would be that culture influences communication and communication reinforces culture.
    • WHAT IS COMMUNICATION?A symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed.
    • How Cultural Values Influence Communication (1950s study of contemporary Navaho and descendants of Spanish colonists and European Americans in the Southwest) They emphasized … Cultural values: the worldview of a cultural group and its set of deeply held beliefs They are the most deeply felt beliefs shared by a cultural group, they reflect the shared perception of what ought to be and not what is. Example: Equality (shared by many, refers to belief that all humans are created equal)
    • Cultural values influenceconflict behavior Intercultural conflicts are often caused by differences in value orientations. To not have conflict members of cultural groups must answer these questions… What is human nature? What is the relationship between humans and nature? What is the relationship between humans? What is the preferred personality? What is the orientation toward time?
    •  These answers become a framework for understanding broad differences in values among various cultural groups. Pg. 97
    • Kluckhohn and StrodtbeckValue Orientations According to these men, there are three possible responses to each question as they relate to shared values. They believe that although all responses are possible in all societies, each society has one, or possibly two, preferred responses to each question that reflect the predominant values of that society. Ex. : Religious beliefs may reinforce certain cultural values.
    • Relationship BetweenCommunication and Context Context typically is created by the physical or social aspects of the situation in which communication occurs. Ex.: Communication may occur in a classroom, a bar, or a church. In each case, the physical characteristic of the setting influence the communication. Context is neither static nor objective, it can be multilayered and consist of the social, political, and historical structures in which the communication occurs.
    • Hofstede Value Orientation(Based on extensive cross cultural study of personel working inIBM subsidiaries in 53 countries) Examine value differences among national societies identifying 5 areas of common problems
    • 1. Individualism vs. CollectivismAlthough problems were shared by differentcultural groups, solutions varied from cultureto culture.
    • 2. Power Distance Refers to the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept the unequal distribution of power. Ex.: Denmark, Israel, and New Zealand value small power distance because they believe that less hierarchy is better and that power should be used only for legitimate purposes. The best corporate leaders in those countries are those who minimize power distances. Mexico, India, and the Philippines values high power distance
    • 3. Femininity vs. Masculinity Two dimensional Gender specific roles of value The degree to which cultural groups value so called masculine values(achievement, ambition, acquisition of material goods) or so called feminine values (quality of life, service to others, nurturance, and support for the unfortunate) IBM employees in Japan, Austria, and Mexico=high masculine value Employees in Northern Europe rank higher in feminine value orientation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2FjLcEqVN4
    • 4. Uncertainty Avoidance Concerns the degree to which people who feel threatened by ambiguous situations respond by avoiding them or trying to establish more structure to compensate for the uncertainty. Great Britain, Sweden, Hong Kong, and US = prefers to limit rules, accept dissent, and take risks.(weak) Greece, Portugal, and Japan= prefer more extensive rules and regulations in organizational settings and seek consensus about goals.(high)
    • 5. Long Term vs. Short TermOrientation This reflects a society’s search for virtue or truth Short term= concern with possessing truth (western religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) Focus on quick results in endeavors and recognize social pressure to conform. Long term= tend to respect the demands of virtue( Eastern religions such as Confucianism, Hinduism, and Shintoism) Focus more on thrift, perseverance and tenacity in whatever they attempt and to be willing to subordinate themselves to a larger purpose.
    • Limitations of ValueFrameworks Remember that cultures are dynamic and heterogeneous. We shouldn’t reduce individuals to mere stereotypes based on these value orientations. Another limitation of value framework is that they tend to “essentialize” people and assume that a particular group characteristic is the essential characteristic of a given member at all times and in all context.
    • Relationship between Communication and Power Power is universal in communication interactions, although it is not always evident or obvious how power influences communication or what kinds of meaning are constructed. We often think of communication between individuals as being between equals, but this is rarely the case. 2 levels of group related power  1.Primary dimensions (age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities, race, and sexual orientation)*more permanent  2.Educational background, geographical location, marital status, and socioeconomic status.* changeable Example: Communication style in college classrooms emphasizes public speaking and competition (first person who raises his/her hand gets to speak) Pg. 111
    • SUMMARY THE 4 BUILDING BLOCKS TO UNDERSTANDING INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION : COMMUNICATION,CONTEXT AND POWER. CULTURE CAN BE VIEWED AS :1.Learned patterns of group related perceptions2.Contextual symbolic patterns of meaning, involving emotions3. heterogeneous, dynamic• Communication = process whereby reality is produced, maintained and transformed• Can be viewed as components of a speaker, sender, receiver, message and channel and variable
    • Cont. The relationship between culture and communications is complex :Culture is influences communication and is enacted and reinforced through communication. Communication can be a way of contesting and resisting dominant culture Context influences communication: It is the physical and social setting in which communication occurs or the larger political, social and historical environment Power is pervasive and plays an enormous, often hidden role in intercultural interactions.
    • Works Cited Martin,J.N., and T. K. Nakayama. Intercultural communication in contexts. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. pp 83-119. Print.