Blog

We’ve talked a lot about how culture shapes our world. Our identities. Our beliefs. Our frames of interpretation.

But what, exactly, is “culture”?

The word originates from the Latin, “colere,” meaning “to cultivate.”

When the word, “colere,” was first used, it was reserved for crop-growing and farming. I’m sure you can already see a correlation between cultivating crops and cultivating people.

We cultivate our crops, nurture them, and help them develop. We cultivate our in-group, nurture them, and help them develop too.

With time, this is what culture came to mean.

Cultura Animi

Knowing the word, “colere,” and its meaning in the crop-growing sense, Cicero, the Roman orator, used the term for the first time in another context: “cultura animi” – “the cultivation of the soul.”

This metaphorical use of the word referred to philosophy. In using the term in this fashion, little did Cicero know, he would be evolving the word’s definition to its modern day meaning.

Refinement

In the 17^th century, the term, “cultured,” came into vogue again, but this time, it was used by European savants to describe refinement and education.

“Boy, they read nothing but classics…aren’t they cultured?”

Again, Cicero drew a metaphorical line from agricultural cultivation to individual cultivation, while this new definition drew a line to societal cultivation.

Way of Life

It wasn’t until the 19^th century that the word took on its present-day meaning: the shared commonalities of a group. Most often, in the early usage, national ideals and aspirations were in mind, while, later, anthropology focused the definition as a group’s distinctive way of life.

Edward Tylor, famed 19^th century anthropologist, described it in his work, “Primitive Culture”: “Culture or Civilization…is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

This stands as culture’s first formal definition, and you’ll notice Tylor mentioned that culture is “acquired.” It is not inherited; it is learned through socialization.

Shared Patterns

CARLA (the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition) defines culture further as “the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group.”

This is probably the most refined definition of culture, and it is the one we will refer to in our discussion next week on human nature.

“It is very obvious that we are not influenced by facts, but by our interpretation of the facts,” Alfred Adler, the famous psychologist and founder of the School of Individual Psychology, once said.

What builds the framework for this interpretation of facts?

Our culture.

Although differing frameworks of interpretation can sometimes result in humor – like when you’re traveling in a foreign country, and you make an innocent flub – they can also cause serious interpersonal and financial consequences in business.

Take, for instance, the negotiations between two managers: one Russian, one Swiss.

Swiss Framework

Two managers – one Swiss, one Russian – are discussing the plans for a collaborative project. And things aren’t going so well.

The Swiss value the long-term relationship. They like calm problem-solving, nonconfrontational discourse; they appreciate compromise in negotiations. This is seen in every level of Swiss society, from business to politics. Switzerland has one of the only governments which employs ministers from all major parties.

This is why the Swiss preference in negotiations is the win-win strategy. They believe in compromise and goodwill in business. If they demonstrate to their partners that they are willing to compromise in the beginning, they are projecting a promising future cooperation and long-term success in the partnership.

Thus, the Swiss manager offers the Russian concessions in the early stages of their negotiations.

Russian Framework

Russians oppose the win-win strategy. In some ways, they see both sides winning as a loss, because they always want to come out on top. Confrontation shows strength and power, in their minds.

Therefore, confrontational and uncompromising discourse is what drives Russian conflict resolution – and the resolution is that the winner takes all. If their opponent concedes at all, this is seen as a sign of weakness, not one of goodwill.

Hint: if you concede early on with the idea that your Russian counterpart will work with you, you shouldn’t expect your concessions to be reciprocated.

Swiss vs. Russian Framework

Watch as the Swiss manager, in alignment with his cultural norm, offers a concession at the beginning of the negotiation, expecting the Russian manager to understand the gesture as one of goodwill.

What do you think the Russian response will be?

The Russian will take this concession and give nothing back. He will probably believe his Swiss partner is in a weak negotiating position or is just plain weak, altogether.

Instead of crediting the Swiss manager for the offer of goodwill, he credits himself for his tough negotiating strategy. He believes he “won.”

Without any concessions being returned to him, the Swiss manager is now in a weakened position. He might reconsider the project and the partnership. And, thus, the business partnership falls apart.

This is what bad cross-cultural management looks like. Next week, we’ll talk about the alternative.

911.

When you see this number, what do you think of?

If you’re an American citizen, you might think of the emergency contact number. Or, you might think of 9/11, the date of the World Trade Center attacks in 2001.

If you’re a Porsche fan, you might think of the famous 911 sports car.

And if you’re an IT-specialist, without context, the number 911 is just that – a number: data.

These various correlations are all due to the frame of interpretation through which we view data. And this is one reason why, in a multi-cultural environment, you should never assume that facts will be unanimously interpreted.

Data vs. Information

IT-specialists differentiate between data and information. Numbers, without context, are data. Apart from numerical value, they are insignificant.

Without context, 911 is just a number. To turn it into information, you must provide the context. Otherwise, our varied cultural frames of interpretation can cause crossed wires in communication, misunderstandings, or simply no understanding at all.

“911 is the emergency contact number in the US.”

This provides the data context, making it information – and important information, at that, for anyone in need of assistance while living or traveling in America.

But without the transition to information via context, the same data can become information of various other types (an emergency number, a Porsche, the anniversary of a terrorist attack), based entirely upon the context of our life experience.

A Framework

Shake your head left to right in Sri Lanka, and you are in agreement. This is often called “the waggle.” In the West, the same gesture means you’re disagreeing.

Give a thumbs up in the West, and you are showing approval. In Bangladesh, the same gesture is an insult.

The V sign – otherwise known as the “peace” sign – was adopted by American activists during the Vietnam War to promote peace. But if you go to South Africa, Australia, or the UK, flash the “peace sign” with the back of your hand toward someone, and this, too, is an insult.

This is what culture provides us: a framework to interpret daily facts, turning data – and all else, even our gestures and body language – into information. These different frameworks are why our interpretations and world views vary so greatly across cultures.

Depending upon your cultural framework, you may understand the same data, or even the same gesture, differently than your cross-cultural counterpart.

A Framework Exercise

An exercise that I’ve developed for my students highlights how we can interpret one piece of data differently.

I provide a piece of paper to half the class with the numbers 12, 13, and 14.

I provide the other half of the class a piece of paper with the letters A, B, and C.

When the class is asked what the middle figure is, half of them see a B, while the other half sees the number 13.

This, of course, is because our frame of reference determines how we interpret the data around us – the frames, in this case, being B & C versus 12 & 14. This demonstrates how a single piece of data can churn out multiple interpretations, depending on the frame from which it is viewed.

Last week, we talked about unconscious learning.

A refresher: unconscious learning is when we learn something without any memory of how, where, when, or why we learned the idea, concept, or method.

As the Great Toilet Paper Conundrum demonstrated, this can lead to cross cultural confusion. By thinking we, alone, are justified in our method, we instinctively point out the “wrongness” of another culture’s ways, without even knowing why we think our own way is right.

It’s strange, I know, but most things that are culturally anchored in us – like our values and norms – are not conscious choices. They’re just what we’ve always known. In this way, our cultural foundation offers us an invisible frame of interpretation, enabling us to try and understand everything going on around us…but also often disabling us from seeing the world from another’s perspective.

Alternative Facts

Our cultural frame of interpretation directs how we see and understand the world. It even affects how we interpret fact from fiction.

What are facts?

The sky is blue, the grass is green, the Earth is round.

These things are concrete, objective, and invariable, right?

Not necessarily.

In this current world of so-called “alternative facts,” the word “fact” seems to have taken on a new meaning.

We depend on facts in business. They are our stronghold, the basis of clear communication and logic.

But when working in a multi-cultural environment, what one might see as fact, another might not see as such…or they might simply ignore the fact’s validity, altogether.

Don’t get me wrong – we’re not living in an alternate universe, where photographic evidence disproving the size of a crowd is not reality. Rather, what I mean by this statement is that, despite an accepted set of facts, conflicts often arise regarding said facts when you’re managing across cultures.

Frame of Interpretation

The truth is, it’s not the facts that clash; it’s our frames of interpretation. When this happens, each party often insists that the other party prove the validity of the facts in question. But once they do, this proof is often ignored.

Take, for example, former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s insistence that the size of the crowd at President Trump’s inauguration was the largest ever, despite clear photographic evidence that it was not.

“Photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered at the National Mall,” he told the press. After laying out a deluge of “alternative facts,” Sean Spicer pronounced, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.”

Needless to say, after this statement, resistance was met on both sides – the press vs. the White House…and everyone else in between who had an opinion on the matter. Thus, the term “alternative facts” came into vogue.

When Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts,” what she really meant was that the Trump administration had a different frame of interpretation than the press. While the administration’s motives behind declaring unfact as fact are not the same as those that determine a cross-cultural misunderstanding, the result is the same: in a multi-cultural environment, you should always assume that what may be cold hard fact to you may not be to your foreign counterpart.

All because your frame of interpretation differs from their own.

If you’re a European who’s traveled the US, you’ve probably met with an issue that’s both uncomfortable to discuss and just plain uncomfortable: public restroom toilet paper.

Whether you find yourself in a gas station WC or the restrooms of a swanky lobby on 5^th Avenue, you’ll notice that the paper is low quality, thin, and easily tear-able.

Is the “most powerful nation on Earth” skimping on the quality of their TP to balance their budget?

Believe it or not, there’s an even more logical reason for this discernible difference in toilet paper quality.

The Folders vs. The Crumplers

The thing is, Americans don’t complain about their substandard toilet paper, and researchers have actually investigated this phenomenon.

What they found is that Europeans and Americans use toilet paper fundamentally differently.

Europeans fold toilet paper. They might take two sheets from the roll and carefully fold them in half and then again. This method is so ingrained that when European toilet paper companies put out double- or triple-ply TP, Europeans still folded it.

Americans, on the other hand, are crumplers. They take a few sheets, crumple them up, and then use them.

This is why public restroom toilet paper can be thin or “substandard,” as Europeans might see it: because if you’re a folder, you need a sturdier paper. Resistance from tearing is more important for folders than for crumplers.

This is unconscious learning at its finest.

What is Unconscious Learning?

Primary socialization is unconscious learning. As opposed to conscious learning – like learning in school – unconscious learning is when you learn your culture without even knowing it.

Unconscious learning has three aspects:

1. Most often, no one remembers how they learned their method (in this case, the way they learned to use toilet paper)
2. Before the cultural differences were researched, no one knew there was a difference in method across cultures
3. Everyone assumed the method of use was the same, the world over

The point is: while some cultural differences are obvious and clear, some are hidden and may take more digging to uncover the truth.

You are NOT Normal

As we’ve continually highlighted in this blog: you are NOT normal.

There is no universal normal, so while you might follow the norm of your own culture, you’d be abnormal in another. See: The Great Toilet Paper Conundrum.

If you’re integrating into a foreign culture, how might the locals respond to your “abnormal” methods?

In Welcome to Germerica, blogger Courtney researched the use of toilet paper in Germanic culture versus American culture. She writes: “I actually found one hilarious forum where the Germans were calling anyone that folds their toilet paper a barbarian, and the Americans were replying that folding simply takes too much time.”

While calling someone’s use of toilet paper “barbaric” is an obvious joke, it does bring about our most important take-away from the Great Toilet Paper Conundrum: cultural differences don’t make you any better or more civilized than another, and understanding that is the key to success across cultures.

Meet Ann.

Ann is a teacher from England. She teaches her native language at a primary school in Tunisia. She loves Tunisia, she loves her job, but she does run into some cultural conflicts every now and then.

One example: cheating.

Meet Ahmed.

Ahmed is one of Ann’s smartest and most diligent students. He has a cousin, Khalid, in the same class, who is a little less diligent. He doesn’t often study for his exams and, during one of these exams, Ahmed slips the answers to his cousin.

Ann catches him.

What Did Ann Do?

She did what she would have done in England: raised the issue with Ahmed’s parents at a parent-teacher conference. She wanted Ahmed’s parents to know he hadn’t obeyed school rules. He’d cheated. And by passing Khalid the answers, Ahmed was enabling Khalid’s lack of motivation and impeding his learning.

In Ann’s point of view, Khalid should learn to stand on his own two feet.

Ann assumed Ahmed’s parents would understand and agree that he’d done wrong. Ann assumed they’d support her as a teacher and would reprimand Ahmed for his actions.

How Did Ahmed’s Parents React?

“What is wrong with this?” Ahmed’s father asked Ann. “Ahmed helped his cousin. That’s what we do in our family. Someone will always be there to help Khalid. We are an important family in the village.”

Ahmed’s parents did not support Ann. In fact, they were offended by her reprimanding Ahmed for something they saw as not only right, but commendable. They stormed out of Ann’s classroom.

And Ahmed continued to pass Khalid the answers during exams – or “cheat,” as Ann saw it – leaving Ann in an ethical dilemma.

Who is “Right”?

Ann is right, according to her primary socialization and cultural conditioning. Cheating is morally wrong in England so, as a teacher, correcting the discretion and disciplining those concerned was the proper thing to do…in England.

Ahmed and his parents are right, according to their primary socialization and cultural conditioning. If one child can help another, he will, and his parents will expect him to. Doing so is seen as helping, not cheating.

Whereas learning and succeeding is often an individual effort in Britain, it’s a communal effort in Tunisia.

What Should Ann Have Done?

While Ann is in her right to approach cheating however she wishes in her own classroom, being that she is an ESL teacher in a foreign country, she should consider the cultural value differences between her own culture and Tunisia’s.

In a TESOL Quarterly article, entitled, “Attitudes toward ‘Cheating’ Behaviors in the ESL Classroom,” the authors write:

“When ESL teachers encounter behaviors reflecting cultural value differences that they do not recognize, their most likely tendency is to judge those behaviors – and to characterize the students who engage in them – in terms of their own cultural value system.”

This is what you should try not to do: don’t frame others in terms of your own cultural value system.

The article goes on to say that “Bagnole (1977), writing about the Arab kinship culture, stated that ‘cheating which does occur may contain additional cultural influences, not least of which is the compelling desire to help a friend’ (p.39).”

Instead of coming down hard on cheating, as she would in her home country, Ann might look at the positive Tunisian values that justify this behavior. Though she should still teach her own cultural values of integrity to her students, she must also take a step back and understand that the yarns that weave the tapestry of Tunisian culture are different than her own. That doesn’t make these yarns any less beautiful or these values any less “right.”

Primary socialization is a type of conditioning.

What does it mean when something – or someone – is “conditioned”?

Merriam-webster defines conditioning as follows: “to adapt, modify, or mold so as to conform to an environing culture.”

Primary socialization is one reason why the universal norm doesn’t exist. It is the period during which culture is formed within each individual, when a child learns not only what is acceptable in his society, but what should motivate him or her.

To illustrate this cultural conditioning in stark contrast, let’s take a look at the motivations taught to an American child as opposed to a Middle Eastern child.

The American Child

Primary conditioning for young Americans is largely based in individual ambition, success, and self-determination.

The American Dream is the basis for this – the idea that if you work hard and put your mind to it, you can do anything you want in life.

You can be a teacher, a doctor, an actor, an astronaut…even the President of the United States.

As historian, James Truslow Adams, writes in Epic of America: “The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”

In general, this is what American children are taught; that they are the masters of their own destiny. Entrepreneurs and people who’ve “come from nothing” are highly esteemed in America. The self-made man reigns supreme here.

An American child is exposed to plenty of examples of successful folks who came from nothing and became successful. They have motivational speakers in school. They are often told that goal-setting, discipline, and hard work are the keys to success.

This is the conditioning an American receives from childhood: that they can do anything, be anything. That nothing stands in their way.

The Middle Eastern Child

Primary conditioning for a Middle Eastern child is quite the opposite. It’s largely based in communal success and a “destiny” that is out of their hands.

Middle Eastern children generally grow up in large close-knit families. Although school is important, the wise elders of the community are even more highly respected educators of life. A Middle Eastern child would likely bend an ear to the wisdom of old, rather than to a textbook.

While the American Dream is more career-centric, the Middle Eastern dream is family-centric. Building a happy family is the most important thing. As I mentioned in last week’s post, traditional African families place similar value on family as a large, connected unit.

Unlike the American, the Middle Eastern child will grow up with the concept of a fate that they have no hand in. Their destiny can’t be forced, so there is no need to place great emphasis on goal-setting and discipline. If the child’s destiny is predetermined, then success will come in time…if that is God’s will.

Cultural Clash

So what happens when these cultures clash? Tune in next week for Primary Socialization V: What Would You Do?

Fear and right/wrong are not the only things we learn through primary socialization. We also learn about our culture’s social structures, family being the most important among them.

Family

A mom, a dad, and children: this is what many Western cultures consider a family.

A mom, a dad, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, great grandparents: this is what many traditional African cultures consider a family, with the eldest male holding the most authority. In fact, the eldest uncle might hold more authority over the children than their own father, if he is a younger brother.

Of course, these differences between family in Western culture and some African cultures are sharply contrasted. Parents in Western culture hold the highest authority over their children. If an uncle attempted to discipline the children against their parents’ wishes, a family feud might ensue.

But in multi-generational African families, the social structure is based on the need to survive as a group. The young take care of the old, and so living together within this eldest male authoritarian structure is a means of survival.

The Cultural Divide

This is where “the rub” comes in. The differences between what is acceptable in one culture versus another can often be morally divisive.

For instance, arranged marriages are often condemned in Western cultures, particularly when it’s a question of age disparities between the husband and wife.

However, in many traditional societies it’s more than acceptable; it’s preferred. An Indian woman, who I met while giving a lecture at an American university explained how her husband was chosen for her and, after six years together, they were still happily married.

“My parents raised me,” she said, “and in India, where we still get married at a very young age. I think my parents know far better which man suits me best. They have more life experience and their judgment is not as emotional as would be mine. I trust them to act in my best interest.”

In fact, some studies corroborate her experience, suggesting that this custom may not be as amiss as many Western cultures believe. A study led by Robert Epstein, the Harvard-educated Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, examined arranged marriages, interviewing more than 35 couples across different cultures.

According to the study, couples who connect through “love marriages” often experience a decrease in feelings of as much as fifty percent after 1.5 to 2 years of marriage. Those in arranged marriages report a gradual increase in feelings and dedication to their relationship.

Normal

So what is normal?

The point is no universal norm exists and, considering the different needs of a society, the economic influences to culture, and all other consequential factors, nor should there be. Your own cultural norms shouldn’t necessarily be someone else’s.

So before you rush to judgement, viewing others through your own culture-tinted glasses, consider the social factors that have created this difference. When facing cultural differences or integrating into another culture, look at the advantages that the custom in question may render to members of this particular society. See the bigger picture.

This does not mean you must accept, adapt, or adopt this custom. But you should be aware and try to understand. And you must respect that other cultures don’t have to accept, adapt, or adopt your own point of view.

Last week, we talked about primary socialization in infancy.

Primary socialization involves the initial stages in which babies and children learn how to interact and behave within the confines of their cultural environment.

As we suggested, this means that culture is learned; it is not inherent. We discussed how fear is learned, but what may come as a greater surprise is that “right” and “wrong” are learned too.

Moral Learning

Consider the Korowai tribe in Indonesian New Guinea. They’re one of the few societies on earth that still practices cannibalism. Children in the Korowai tribe grow up in a culture where killing and eating khakhua, or male witches, isn’t considered wrong.

For many cultures in the world, the morality of cannibalism is a black-and-white matter. It’s wrong – there are no exceptions, there’s no grey area. If you even mention the topic, you’ll quickly find it’s taboo.

But imagine you’re a child, growing up in the Korowai tribe. Remote, void of electronics and the Internet. Closed off to any other way of life or moral code.

Imagine you know nothing else.

Do you think your moral sense of right and wrong would differ with that of your parents’, your friends’, your tribal chief’s, and with everyone else around you?

Probably not.

Right vs. Wrong

While this is an extreme example, it highlights just how cultural moral codes develop and how culture is a learned thing.

Before the age of seven, learning is an emotional process; it’s not necessarily rational. Emotions are strong during this period, making children more impressionable – and, therefore, more apt to learn right from wrong, according to their culture.

For example, when a child is taught not to touch a hot stove, the child may not learn why until he touches it and burns his fingers. The learning process is experiential, experimental and, often, painful. And the emotional recall reminds the child not to touch that hot stove again.

Cultural Learning

Similarly, cultural primary socialization is an emotional process. When taught cultural “right” from “wrong” during childhood, an emotional reaction is provoked when the individual faces any moral crossroads. This reaction depends on what the child has been taught or what they’ve been brought up with.

For instance, a much milder example comes in the form of food (yes, I know – food, again).

In America, a child grows up eating peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches. The mother often prepares the snack, packing the child’s lunch in a ziplock bag. This emotional association between peanut butter-and-jelly and motherly love continues into adulthood. Therefore, the American preference for this particular food is strong…but mention the pairing in the U.K., and you’ll likely be surprised by the repulsed response.

This is why different societies, different cultures, and even different groups from one culture react differently to the same things. This is also why it is sometimes difficult for adults to adjust to a new culture; because primary socialization is a learned and emotional process that begins at birth and continues from childhood into adulthood, and adults simply don’t have the emotional connections learned in youth.

Tune in next week for a discussion on primary socialization and social structures.

Last week, we talked about how culture is learned. In this post, we’ll discuss the specific process of that cultural education, which is called primary socialization.

Boundless.com, the education website, defines primary socialization as “when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture.”

Cultural learning begins early. In fact, as humans, we learn how to survive in our own specific cultures by the time we’re seven years old. By this age, we’ve gathered the tools and learned survival basics to cope in our own world.

And, in fact, primary socialization begins much earlier than this…before we’re even able to walk.

Learned Behaviors

How do we know this?

Because social learning developmentalists study at what age particular behaviors are learned.

For instance, just as we instinctively teach our children what NOT to put in their body orifices for reasons of hygiene and infant health, we also teach them what to eat/not to eat, what to fear/not to fear, and right from wrong.

This starts early. When infants want to play in their own poo, parents teach them not to touch it by reacting negatively to their doing so.

Same goes for animals that we deem harmful. Snakes versus dogs, for instance. Through our own visceral and vocal reactions to them, we might teach children that snakes are bad and dogs are good before the child is even able to talk or understand speech.

Fear is Learned

Just like everything else, fear is learned.

An infant’s instinctual reaction to such things is curiosity, not fear. This is why adults teach fear – so that children avoid danger, like heights, snakes, spiders, and other potentially fatal creatures and objects.

In fact, this was highlighted in a study done by Rutgers-Newark psychologist, Vanessa LoBue, and published in Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Researchers showed two videos to infants 7 months and older. One of the videos was of a snake, the other was of a less threatening animal, like an elephant. Corresponding with the videos, happy voices or scared voices were played.

What did researchers discover?

Babies Learn to Be Apprehensive

When babies watched the snake videos along with frightened voices, although they showed no signs of fear, they watched them longer and more intently.

“This suggests they find something natural about the combination of the snake and something fearful,” said LoBue. “The implication is that this might help us learn to be afraid of snakes very quickly.”

The study concluded that children showed a “perpetual bias” towards snakes; that is, they associated snakes with fear.

This is how such things as fear and love and all other feelings about objects, people, and norms are taught and learned in cultures.

Next week, we’ll continue with the process of primary socialization from infancy to childhood.