Interpersonal Case Study. Hillary White. University of Portland

Transcription

1 Interpersonal Case Study 1 Running head: INTERPERSONAL CASE STUDY Interpersonal Case Study Hillary White University of Portland CST 431 A Jeff Kerssen-Griep December 7, 2010

2 Interpersonal Case Study 2 The study of Intercultural Communication is fundamentally a study of how different cultures compare and contrast in the ways they communicate, and why those differences exist. By understanding the differences between cultures, or more importantly the similarities, then people will be better equipped in intercultural situations. This paper focuses primarily on the cultural value patterns and politeness in facework that exist in the American and Hawaiian cultures, and how this knowledge can be applied to any intercultural interaction. One of the primary differences in cultural value patterns that exist is individualism versus collectivism. Some cultures stress individualism, while others value collectivism. Feeny and Qi (2010) claim that individualists stress human independence Collectivists stress human interdependence... In addition, Markus and Kitayama (1991) state that the basic individualistic and collectivist view of people as either independent or interdependent leads to a different set of values. Some of the collectivist values include harmony, face-saving, filial piety, equality in the distribution of rewards among peers, and fulfillment of others needs, (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). Individualists, on the other hand, tend to value freedom, honesty, social recognition, comfort, hedonism, and personal equity, (Ting- Toomey & Chung, 2005). Collectivists also prefer high-context communication. Ting-Toomey and Chung (2005) say that collectivists prefer an indirect verbal style, emotional understated mode, self-humbling talk, and silence to gauge the situation and the cultural stranger. Conversely, individualists prefer a low-context communication, including direct verbal

3 Interpersonal Case Study 3 style, matter-of-fact mode, self-credentialing enhancement, and talkativeness, (Ting- Toomey and Chung, 2005). Varying significance on the value of politeness is another difference between cultures. Haugh (2004) claims that there is mounting evidence that politeness is conceptualized differently across cultures. He goes on to explain politeness, and how it differs across cultures: Other-oriented politeness arises when one thinks others show they think well of oneself Self-oriented politeness arises when one thinks someone is showing they do not think too highly of themselves. In English, [other-oriented politeness] involves showing consideration towards the feelings and positions of others, and being well-mannered in one s demeanor. In Japanese, on the other hand, it is related to showing respect and consideration towards the individual character and social position of others, and showing modesty with regard to one s own character and position. One aspect common to both these notions is that politeness involves showing one thinks well of others, and showing one does not think too highly of oneself. Another partially shared aspect is that both English and Japanese politeness involve showing modesty in relation to self, and consideration towards others, although the dimensions encompassed by this consideration and modesty are somewhat different. Basically, politeness is a concern for not only how you look, but also how the other person looks socially. In some cultures, like the American culture, politeness is used to spare the feelings of the person you are talking to. In other cultures, like

4 Interpersonal Case Study 4 Japanese for instance, the primary use of politeness is to show respect for the other person s rank or importance. Therefore, according to Haugh, the act of politeness is the same across cultures, but the reason for enacting it is certainly not. Brown and Levinson s facework and politeness theory (1987) is similar to Haugh s claims. Brown and Levison (1987) claim that interactional systematics are based largely on universal principles. But the application of the principles differs systematically across cultures. Brown and Levinson, however, go on to explain how politeness is managed across cultures, not just that it is managed. Their theory states that facework is a major player in managing politeness within a culture (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The definition of face is described by them (Brown & Levinson, 1987) as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. Facework, then, is about the verbal and nonverbal strategies used to maintain, defend, or upgrade our social self-image and attack or defend the social images of others, (J. Kerssen-Griepp, personal communication, November 9, 2010). In a culture where looking out for someone else s face is important, such as a collectivist culture, there is probably an emphasis on other-face (rather than self-face). Other-face concern means we are much more interested in providing identity respect and support for the other person s interest or need in the face-negotiation process, (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). This means we make a point of preventing face-loss

5 Interpersonal Case Study 5 (attacking the other person s face) for that other person as well as try to compensate for any face-loss that has occurred. In essence, Brown and Levinson (1987) claim that looking out for others face by either avoiding face-loss or repairing face-loss after is has happened is the most common way in which politeness is managed across all cultures. The need for facework may be different in every culture, but the process is still is the same. One way to avoid face-loss is by using self-humbling speech. Self-humbling talk emphasizes the importance of lowering oneself via modest talk, verbal restraints, hesitation, and the use of self-deprecation concerning one s effort or performance, (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). These types of statements prevent the other person s face from being attacked, and thus preventing face-loss for them, because, in comparison, their social rank is better. A specific example of face-saving is in my interactions with a friend from Hawaii. After spending an increased amount of time with her, I have noticed several differences in our communication style. One specific difference I have become aware of is her modesty about herself and her family. In our interactions, she often mentions her family s accomplishments or strengths. For instance, she has mentioned that her brother writes beautiful poetry, and her father has met a US President. Following her kind words, however, she immediately qualifies her statements. Her brother is a decent poet, honestly, and we never get to see his work, and my father met a president, but that was a long time ago. Her family s accomplishments are all made less important, less special, when she is talking to me. Though she has disclosed a lot of information in our

6 Interpersonal Case Study 6 meetings, I have not. Consequently, she knows little or nothing about my family, their accomplishments and successes, and has no idea what she is comparing her family to. The first few times she did this, I tried to ask her more questions. She was making interesting conversation, and naturally I wanted to know more. I asked her why her father met the President, under what circumstances, how? It is such an honor, and I was curious what happened. However, her response was lackluster. She gave me a brief answer about her father being in a group, and again, it was a long time ago. I thought perhaps her modesty was in large part because it had to do with her father. However, I thought that for sure an older sister would love to brag about the accomplishments of a younger sibling, so I tried to get more information about her brother s poetry. Yet again my inquiries were met with dismissals he won t ever do anything with them, though, so we never really think about it. Immediately following she continued spewing facts about the Hawaiian culture. I was surprised at her eagerness to move on to another topic of conversation, but I was pleased about the subject she decided to discuss, so I thought nothing of it. Reflecting back, I realized this must have been an uncomfortable situation for her, and I have since learned not to ask more about her family when they come up in conversation. She still mentions them, and what things they have done in their lives, but continues to qualify her statements. I have stopped asking because I know it makes her uncomfortable, and she is doing me a favor by talking to me anyway. Brown and Levinson s politeness in facework theory is helpful in analyzing this situation. In this interaction, theory states that my friend is probably trying to save my

7 Interpersonal Case Study 7 face. Since she does not know anything about my family, she is trying not to sound braggy about her own. If my family happened to be a group of losers, then she does not want her family to seem significantly better. This behavior is probably in direct correlation to the collectivist culture to which she belongs. Hawaii, though part of the United States, has a unique culture that does not necessarily mix with main-land culture and values. In Hawaii, the citizens are far more collectivist, and therefore rely on high-context communication. Because of this, Hawaiians value others more than they value themselves. My friend, then, is probably trying to respect me by valuing my family above her own. My Hawaiian friend is not the only actor in this conversation, though. I am a large contributor to our interactions, and my behavior can be attributed to a certain culture as well. My first instinct with my partner was to ask her to elaborate about her family. I wanted to know much more about those people in her life I have never met. Hearing about their experiences grabbed my attention, so I pressed for more information. This is a very American thing to do. Because I have spent my entire life on main-land America (with the exception of a few short vacations), I ascribe completely to traditional American culture. I am pushy, and want others to disclose information at my discretion. I fall in to the typical American mantra of if I want to know, then I have a right to know. However, after noticing her hesitation to reveal more information, I pulled back. I quit asking for more information about her family, even though I was curious. I think that I can attribute part of my behavior to my culture and part to my personality.

8 Interpersonal Case Study 8 My American culture causes me to be careful not to threaten my friend s face. By asking about her family even though I know it makes her uncomfortable, I threaten her face. I would be perpetuating her discomfort, and I would be trying to get her to do something against her cultural values. In American culture, if you know you are making someone uncomfortable, you usually stop. Along with my culture, my personality is also a large contributor to this situation. I am a shy person, and I am fearful of making anyone uncomfortable. Her attempt to avoid the conversation lets me know she does not want to talk about it further, so I am careful not to offend her. Despite the application of Brown and Levinson s theory to my encounter, there are some elements of our interaction that do not fit with Brown and Levinson s theory. For instance, my Hawaiian friend is a talker. She talks more than anybody I have ever met. In fact, it is difficult for me to even get a question in to the conversation about her family. This element of our interaction is most likely a byproduct of her personality, not her culture. Most collectivists prefer high-context communication. This communication style often prefers less talking, and more silence. She seems to instead prefer low-context communication, where relaying information relies heavily on the verbal mode. Her instinct to be incredibly chatty, then, means she does not ascribe completely to the communication style of her culture, and has probably developed her own communication style to suit her personality. Another divergence from the theory is my friend s propensity to say something complementary about her family at all. In most collectivist cultures, people are wary of

9 Interpersonal Case Study 9 mentioning anything that could be construed as impolite. They are careful to avoid faceloss by avoiding saying anything braggy. In contrast, my friend is more inclined to do the face-threatening act then immediately save-face. I am unsure if this can be attributed to personality, or if Hawaiian culture does not ascribe to this practice as other collectivist cultures do. Perhaps Hawaiian culture is a little more individualistic than a pure collectivist culture. On the other hand, my friend may have picked up some individualistic tendencies while living on the main-land that would account for this behavior. Nonetheless, she deters from traditional collectivist cultural values in this regard. I am also deviating from traditional American culture at some points in our interactions. When I asked her about her family, before I sensed it made her uncomfortable, I was not entirely obnoxious about it. I was curious, yes, but I was also sensitive to her potential discomfort in revealing information. I knew that it could make her uncomfortable, simply by virtue of revealing personal information. Traditional American culture would cause me to ask her questions without caring how it would or could make her feel. My personality, mostly, accounts for the difference. Finally, taking the analysis of my interaction into consideration, there are some social competencies that I think can be used across various cultures to aid in communication. In my opinion, to be interculturally skilled, you need to know how to prevent face-loss. I think that, no matter what country you are in, it is considered polite to prevent others from losing face. There will inevitably be situations in which face-loss is appropriate (in joking situations among equals, most likely), but overall, politeness is

10 Interpersonal Case Study 10 well respected in both individualistic and collectivist cultures, which encompass all cultures. I believe that a fundamental knowledge of when somebody is using facework, and how to use it yourself is crucial. Many intercultural bumps can be remedied by realizing that the other person is trying to save face for either themselves, you, or a third party. Politeness is most commonly enacted through facework, and it is used across cultures. I do not want to go as far as to say it is unimportant to know why somebody is engaging in facework, but I think that being able to use the skill, and understanding why it is needed are two separate entities. I think that small steps are needed for intercultural competence, and using facework is the first of many. If I had a friend who was going to study abroad and wanted to know the most basic ways to handle intercultural encounters, I would certainly make facework the top priority. The importance of face is similar in most cultures, and protecting that face is of great concern to many. A basic awareness of facework, particularly face-loss, can save you from an awkward intercultural encounter. Intercultural communication is one of the most significant aspects of communication study today. As the world becomes more dependent on global markets and countries become more culturally mixed, intercultural communication becomes an increasingly important skill. While this study does not begin to answer the larger questions concerning this area of study, it does bring to light the universality of facework in cultures apart from traditional American. For future study, I recommend looking at non-verbal communication between individuals. I think that the study of this particular

11 Interpersonal Case Study 11 interaction assumes a lot about the non-verbal codes being enacted. Knowledge of what was truly happening in this situation, as far as non-verbal communication goes, would have been helpful. However, I do believe that this particular interaction was a helpful addition to my own, and perhaps others, view of politeness and facework across cultures, individualist and collectivist cultures in particular.

12 Interpersonal Case Study 12 References Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Feeny, K., & Qi, W. (2010). Success Through a Cultural Lens: Perceptions, Motivations, and Attributions. China Media Research, 6(2), Haugh, M. (2004). Revisiting the conceptualization of politeness in English and Japanese. Multilingua, 23(1/2), Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2005). Understanding intercultural communication. New York: Oxford University Press.