Two Cross-Cultural Paradigms

In 1986 I had been living and teaching in Japan for nearly two years, honing my understanding of and immersing myself in Japanese culture. Like many expatriates, I had in that too-short time begun to believe, naively, that Japanese culture had become sufficiently familiar to me that I could accurately predict and interpret my hosts. I was swiftly (and appropriately) disabused of that vanity on a sunny Monday morning riding the Odakyu railway line on my way to Shinjuku in Tokyo.

The Odakyu Line is notorious for being crowded, even by Tokyo standards. Finding a seat is not merely a piece of good luck, it's tantamount to winning the lottery. On that particular day, I was one of the fortunate ones. Having boarded at the first station, I had managed to wedge myself between two businessmen and settled in for the 40 minute ride into Shinjuku Station.

Ten minutes later, the train stopped at Machida Station, a very busy crossroad where many passengers dis-boarded, and even more got on. As it happened, one of the seats next to mine was vacated, and when the hordes of waiting passengers boarded the train, there was a mad rush for the privilege of being seated for the thirty minutes to our destination. The one who conquered the crowd and claimed the seat next to mine was a businessman, in his late thirties, who threw himself into the open space and breathed a proud and satisfied sigh of relief at being able to ride out the rest of the journey comfortably, while the rest of the passengers pressed into the standing-room space, squeezed tight as rice in sushi. It was then that I noticed her.

She too was in her thirties, at least seven months pregnant, and carrying several shopping bags in one hand while trying to keep her balance by clutching the hand-strap with the other. Naturally, I rose and offered her my seat. At which point the "gentleman" who had rushed to claim the seat next to mine tugged on my sleeve and with a straight face, said in accented English, "I want to thank you for being so polite to my wife." I was tempted to tweak his nose!

The second story is famous among cross-cultural trainers, and may be apocryphal. Nevertheless, it is instructive. As the story has it, an American businessman had scheduled a meeting with a Saudi official to discuss the timely unloading of construction materials from a ship docked in Jeddah. He had made the appointment some days in advance, so he was surprised when, after having been kept waiting in the anteroom for nearly an hour and offered cup after cup of strong, sweet coffee, which, after having consumed several cups, he repeatedly declined, he was ushered into the office only to find that he was one of several people vying for the official's attention. Each guest had his own agenda completely unrelated with the (to the American) more urgent and important subject of the unloading of material. He sat with the rest of the assembly on the lushly carpeted floor and waited, legs crossed, with all the patience he could muster, for the attention of his host, who entertained each petitioner in turn while simultaneously answering phone calls and occasionally addressing the needs of yet other visitors.

When at last the official turned his attention to the American, the businessman greeted him with all the friendliness his impatience and caffeine buzz could conjure, inquired about the health of his wife and children, and promptly got down to business. He handed him a copy of the bill of ladle and emphasized the urgency of getting the shipment unloaded immediately, since the Ramadan holy days were imminent, which would mean a month-long delay in 'business as usual.' The meeting was interrupted several times by telephone calls and other interruptions. After the half-hour exchange, the Saudi official frostily explained that since his country had done without the projected construction for over three hundred years, he could wait another month, that he was unimpressed with the sense of urgency the American businessman seemed to find so important, and that the meeting was over.

In a follow-up interview with a cross-cultural consultant hired by the American company whom the American executive represented, the Saudi official expressed his offense at the rudeness and insensitivity of his visitor. "First, he turns down the coffee that I offer him in hospitality," he said. "Then, he has the audacity to inquire about my wife and daughter, he sits so as to expose the soles of his shoes, he hands me the papers with his left hand, and to add insult to injury, he offends my religion and insists on expediting a project that in his mind, apparently, is more important than establishing good human relations. Someone so rude will do no business with me or my department. We have a saying, 'A man who tries to predict the future is either insane or irreligious. What good is a plan if God has planned otherwise?' Neither he nor his company will ever get another contract from my office."

Distinguishing Culturally-Driven Behavior from Character-Driven Behavior

What makes each of these cross-cultural experiences notable and informative is how they contrast with one another. When I had got over my initial shock and offense at the behavior of the businessman on the Odakyu line, I met with a Japanese friend and colleague who had lived for several years in Boston, Massachusetts. When I recounted the experience to him, he was as shocked as I. "Boy, that guy was really rude and disrespectful to his wife - and to you," he said. His response confirmed what I had assumed at the time: that this was a man whose lack of courtesy and shallow character was betrayed by his behavior. And yet, it would have been easy for me to jump to the conclusion that his actions were indicative of the entire Japanese culture. "Japanese are rude;" "Japanese are insensitive to the needs of others;" "Japanese lack all respect for women, even their own wives," and so on. The fact was that the behavior I had been witness to was just as offensive to Japanese as it had been to me, and for me to assume that it reflected on all Japanese people and their culture would have been entirely unjust and completely false. His behavior was an indictment of one man's character, not of his culture.

The second event, however, was a result of cultural ignorance, on the part of both men. The American businessman did not understand - had not bothered to learn - that the proffering of coffee is a gesture of hospitality central to the dignity of an Arab host (when one has had enough, one simply does not drain the cup); that sitting with the soles of one's feet exposed is deeply offensive in the Arab culture; that using one's left hand to proffer a document, or any object, is considered an insult in Arab culture (indeed in any Islamic culture); that even to speak of a woman - let alone someone's wife or daughter - is offensive to any Arab male; that to speak of the future without invoking the will of God (Inch'Allah) is, to most Muslims, blasphemous. The mistake the American made was not to have educated himself in the mores, traditions and values of his hosts. The mistake the Saudi official made was to overestimate the level of cultural understanding which his guest brought to the table. The result was a lose-lose proposition.

And so the first example illustrated a flaw in an individual's character - there are rude people all over the world and across all cultures. The second was a misunderstanding of the level of cultural acuity that each participant assumed in the other.

The D.I.E. Formula

Two questions emerge. First, how can one distinguish between culturally-driven behavior and character-driven behavior? Second, how can one prepare oneself for perceiving and adapting to the variance between one's own culture and the culture of "the other?" In any cross-cultural experience, one effective formula is to employ the "D.I.E." method.

D.I.E. stands for "Description, Interpretation, Evaluation." The process is immensely valuable in avoiding cross-cultural discord. When one interacts with someone whose cultural identity is different from one's own, it is important not to make assumptions about the appropriateness of his/her behavior based on one's own cultural values.

The first step is simply, non-judgementaly, to Describe the behavior that runs counter to one's own concept of appropriateness. For example, "This person is breaking in front of me in line at the post office," or "this person is calling me at home later than I would consider polite." (Both of which are common and perfectly acceptable in, for example, Korean culture). These are simply descriptions of the behavior or the actions of "the other". This value-neutral perception is the first step in distinguishing character-driven from culture-driven behavior. It allows for an unbiased definition of the event in an unprejudiced, non-judgemental manner. It allows for a detached evaluation, unburdened with cultural bias. The simple act of defining and describing an event, unburdened by cultural assumptions, helps to identify objectively the source of the cross-cultural friction and subsequent frustration.

The second step, Interpretation, requires some thought and a measure of empathy. Why is the person exhibiting this behavior? If Mr. Durand, from France, declines to participate in week-end work sessions, there may be many reasons. He may simply be lazy, of course. But also he may have more urgent problems at home. He may not care about the successful outcome of the project he and his team are working on. He may not enjoy the company of his colleagues. Or he may value his time with his family above the needs of the workplace (most likely, in the context of French culture). What matters is to make as full a list of alternative motives for what appears to be aberrant behavior as possible. This step helps to open the mind to alternative motives for what seems to be inappropriate.

These two steps are pre-requisite to any cross-cultural interpretation of behavior. They help to disassociate one's own cultural prejudices from the behavior of the individual across the table. Holding to the formula of the first two steps in D.I.E. is not easy, and requires intellectual discipline and objectivity, but it is central to maintaining cross-cultural harmony.

Description and Interpretation are within the scope of all cross-cultural participants. Interpretation, however, is not. None of us is sufficiently educated or informed in the subtleties of other cultures to make those value judgements. And yet, Interpretation is ultimately what distinguishes character-driven from culture-driven behavior. Where do we turn for an appropriate interpretation of behavior?

The Cultural Informant

Mining the knowledge and experience of a trusted Cultural Informant is a crucial - indeed an essential - resource for anyone engaged in cross-cultural exchange. What is a Cultural Informant?

Whether one occupies the role of a guest within a dominant culture, or a host to a member of an unfamiliar culture, one lacks a sufficient understanding of "the other's" motives to draw a value judgement on his/her behavior. One needs, so to speak, a "teacher," an "informant" to acquire a sense of whether or not the behavior in question is culturally- or character-driven. A cultural informant should be a trusted friend or colleague, one who preferably has experienced both the target culture and one's own, to make the evaluation and to explain and define the motives behind the act that is the source of the cultural conflict.

When I spoke to my Japanese friend, he justified my impression that the behavior was inappropriate, and steered me clear of what could easily have been an over generalization that risked indicting, in own mind, an entire culture for the shortcomings of one man. It is unfortunate that neither the Saudi official nor the American businessman bothered to turn to a similar human resource to explain the reasons for their cross-cultural mis-communication.

The best cross-cultural informant is someone who is originally from the target culture, but who has experienced first-hand the culture of the petitioner. He/she must be a trusted friend or associate, whose information can be trusted to be objective and unbiased. For anyone who is actively engaged in the cross-cultural adventure, and who is genuinely intent on finding a harmonious accommodation between him/herself and the target culture, such allies are not hard to find. But they are invaluable allies in the process of fine-tuning one's relations to and cooperation with the mores, values, traditions, priorities, and ways of life with which one is unfamiliar.

Applications for the International Teacher

To teach a foreign language is also to teach a foreign culture, and it is important to be sensitive to the fact that our students, our colleagues, our administrators, and, if we choose to live abroad, our neighbors, do not share all of our cultural paradigms. Keeping an open mind about the motives and causes that drive behavior which at times can be shocking or off-putting is a challenge, but it comes with the territory.

A teacher hosting foreign students must come to terms with the fact that those students are immersed in a culture with which they are not familiar, and that they bring with them not only their limited knowledge of the language, but a myriad of assumptions based on generations of cultural indoctrination.

We as teachers must become trusted cultural informants as well as teachers of syntax, structure and usage. Those of us who live abroad must make the intellectual adjustment to think "out of the box," and develop a non-judgmental attitude when it comes to behavior that seems, to us, inappropriate. Find and rely on a cross-cultural informant, and trust in the D.I.E. technique to distance yourself from evaluating behavior before you allow yourself to pass moral judgement on an individual or, even more important, on an entire culture. You will only gain from applying that discipline to your class and to your relationship with colleagues, at the same time enhancing the harmony between you and your neighbors, wherever you happen to live in our increasingly diverse world.