Relationships in Russia
Relationships between Russian women and Western-European men present a series of fundamental issues of conflicting attitudes and beliefs which could become the cause of conflict. This chapter considers those cultural differences which might become critical issues when left unresolved in a Russian-Western relationship. The comparison of gender role differences, attitude to money and communication between Russian and western spouses will help us to identify these potential issues. Recognizing and accepting cultural differences with the development of a relationship can be extraordinarily beneficial and it is in this chapter that an attempt is made to highlight areas where disharmony may result due to a lack of mutual understanding of the respective cultures.
Here we focus our attention on Russian relationships. What does a Russian woman expect from her relationship and from her partner? In the following we explore the societal issues as well as beliefs and preferences about gender roles and attitude to money in contemporary Russia. Next, we consider manifestations of interpersonal communication and highlight aspects of the communicative behavior of the Russians.
Cultural Dimentions by Hofstede. Uncertainty avoidance.
Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which a society feels threatened by unsure and ambiguous situations and consequently searches for statutory structures (Hill 1998:15). The stronger the uncertainty avoidance is, the greater the feeling of threat and the inclination towards avoiding novel situations, argues Hill. Low uncertainty avoidance cultures encourage risk taking and the adoption of informal rules to guide behaviour, whereas high uncertainty avoidance cultures prefer clear procedures and formal rules. Russia belongs to the high uncertainty avoidance cultures. There is a great desire for consensus in cultures high in uncertainty avoidance (Andersen 2001:97). Members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures also tend to display emotions more than do members of low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Hofstede summarizes the view of people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures as “what is different, is dangerous” and for people in low uncertainty avoidance cultures as “what is different, is curious” (Hofstede 2001:119).
Intercultural Relationship Issues
Not all cultural differences cause problems for intercultural couples. The unique mixture of personality, assumptions and beliefs, educational and social backgrounds could contribute to possible problem areas. In following we identify those cultural traits which can give rise to misunderstandings and, hence, potential relationship discord between couples from different cultural backgrounds. We choose a subset of issues that could become potential problems for intercultural relationships. The chosen intercultural relationship issues and their impact on relationships should be viewed as potential ones among a great number of other factors impacting cross-cultural marriages. The chosen issues for this discussion are:
• Male-female Roles
• Attitude to Money
• Communication
Most of these areas can cause issues for all couples and not only for those in an intercultural relationship. However, we postulate that the differences in intercultural relationships could be more extreme and the causes of these issues harder to identify, which, in turn, makes it more difficult to resolve them.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimentions. Individualism vrs Collectivism
Geert Hofstede analyzed national cultures in an empirical investigation from 1967 to 1973 with 116,000 employees from all levels of the multinational concern IBM, in more than 50 countries. He came to the conclusion that national cultures differ in four fundamental cultural dimensions (Goodwin 1999:23):
• Power Distance
• Individualism versus Collectivism
• Masculinity versus Femininity
• Uncertainty Avoidance
Later Hofstede and his colleagues identified a fifth dimension, long versus short term orientation, which won’t be included in our discussion as it is a work-related concept. These dimensions enable quantitative and qualitative analysis of various cultures as well as their distinction and comparison. Notwithstanding that Hofstede’s four cultural variability dimensions are mostly related to business organizational values in different cultures, we apply them in a personal relationships area. While, as Stella Ting-Toomey notes, the four value dimensions should be viewed as a first systematic empirical attempt to compare cultures on aggregate, group level (Ting-Toomey 1999:66).
The Individualism versus Collectivism cultural dimension analyzes the relationships between an individual and a group. Individualism-collectivism is, probably, the major dimension of cultural variability, explaining differences and similarities across cultures. Hofstede identifies individualism as “the tendency of people to look after themselves and their immediate family only” (Hofstede 1980:419). Individuals’ goals are more important than groups’ goals in individualistic cultures. Members of individualistic cultures have many different groups (e.g., family, social clubs, professions) and tend to be universalistic and apply the same value standards for everyone. In contrast, groups’ goals is the main priority for members of collectivistic cultures. Such aspects as mutual support and common action are particularly highlighted by them. Members of collectivistic cultures have only a few general groups that influence their behaviour according to the situation and which tend to be particularistic, e.g., apply different value standards for in-group and out-group members (Gudykunst and Mody 2001:27). Among individualistic countries are the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Germany. Latin America, South-East Asia and Africa tend to be rather a collective form of society.
Model of Cultural Dimensions by Hostede
The next cultural dimension we consider is power distance. The basic issue involved, which different societies handle differently, is human inequality. Inequality can occur in areas such as laws, rights and rules, wealth, power, social status and physical and mental characteristics (Hofstede 2001:80). People in small power distance cultures tend to value equal power distributions, equal rights and relations. Small power index values are found in the UK. People in large power distance cultures tend to accept unequal power distributions, hierarchical rights and asymmetrical role relations (Ting-Toomey 1999:71).
The Masculinity versus femininity dimension refers to the division of emotional roles between men and women (Hofstede 2001:29). More rigid cultures influence members to behave within a narrow range of gender-related behaviours and stress traditional gender role identification. Masculine traits are typically such attributes as strength, assertiveness, competitiveness, achievement, and ambitiousness, whereas feminine traits are such attributes as affection, compassion, nurturance, and emotionality (Andersen 2001:94). The UK culture has a higher masculinity index score than that in Russia.
Despite some weaknesses of the Hofstede’s model of cultural dimension, such as its relation to business organizational values or actuality of the data, it is still the most popular and the most comprehensive study in the field of cultures’ comparative theories.
