Anthropology of Edward T. Hall
An extensive attention to the identification of the basic dimensions for cultural comparison is found in the works of anthropologist Edward T. Hall, who during the 1960s conducted detailed, structured interviews with the representatives of different professional groups among various cultures. In his works, Hall has always stressed the close relationship between culture and communication. On this ground he defined culture as a “system to provide, send, store and edit information”. Hall argued that “communication is culture, and culture is communication” (Gudykunst 1996:4). The communication process is determined by context, which is considered “the information that surrounds an event” (Hall 1979:6). He has defined the four dimensions of context:
• Low-context versus High-context
• Time ( Monochronic versus Polychronic)
• Space
• Information flow
By high-context communication, according to Hall, we emphasize how intention or meaning can best be conveyed through the context (e.g., social roles or positions) and non-verbal channels (e.g., pauses, silence, tone of voice) of verbal message. A high-context communication or message is one in which “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalised in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hall 1979:79).
Low-context communication determines that intention or meaning is best expressed through explicit verbal messages. A low-context communication or message is one in which “the mass of information is vested in the explicit code” (Hall 1979:70). In low context communication, typically a clear, precise and direct language style and a lot of explicit information can be found. High-context cultures (including much of the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South America) emphasize interpersonal relationships. According to Hall, these cultures are collectivist, preferring group harmony and consensus to individual achievement. People in these cultures are less governed by reason than by intuition or feelings. Words are not as important as context, which might include the speaker’s tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, and posture. Russians are identified as high context people. High-context communication tends to be more indirect and more formal. In high-context communication, the listener of a message is expected “to read between the lines”. Low-context cultures (including the U.S., Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries) value logic, facts, and directness. Solving a problem means lining up the facts and evaluating one after another. Decisions are based on fact rather than intuition. Discussions end with actions. Communicators are expected to be straightforward, concise and efficient in telling what action is expected. To be absolutely clear, they strive to use precise words and intend them to be taken literally. When we use low-context communication we stress the importance of explicit verbal messages to convey personal thoughts, opinions, and feelings.
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.
Hall’s Time Dimention. Polychronic and Monochronic Cultures
The second dimension examined by Hall is people’s attitude towards, and the use of time. He describes those cultures that tend to do more than one thing at a time as polychronic and those that do one thing after another as monochronic (Hall 1985:13). Western Europe goes by monochronous time, meaning that a person gives his undivided attention to one event before proceeding to the next. He takes deadlines seriously, values promptness. Polychronic cultures, to which belongs Russia, are characterized by a great involvement with people. There is more emphasis on human transactions than on holding to schedules (Hall 1985:14). These people also have many close friends with whom they spend a great deal of time. The close links create a reciprocal feeling of obligation and a mutual desire to be helpful (Hall 1985:16). Russians basically live in polychronous time, in which a person deals simultaneously with multiple events and is very flexible about appointments. A person is always ready to change his/her schedule at a moment’s notice to accommodate a friend or relative, since he/she attaches more importance to long-term relationships that to short-term ones (Hall 1985:13-15).
Personal space is the next cultural dimension. As Hall argues, “each person has around him an invisible space which expands and contracts depending on the relationship to the people nearby, the person’s emotional state, cultural background and the activity being performed” (Hall 1985:11).
The dimension of information flow, Hall describes, as how long it takes a message intended to produce an action to travel from one part to another and for that message to release the desired response (Hall 1985:22). Information flow varies across cultures.
