Entry 6: Which cultural system do you belong to?

You know, when I read back all the entries I've published for my GEK1036 blog, I've noticed a pattern. I actually observed from my previous blogs that rather than expressing my sincere thoughts and opinions for the topic of the week, I merely dissected what was discussed in the seminar. This isn't bad per se, but given the liberty I have at what to say (this is my blog), I feel that I'm under-utilising this privilege. I swear that I even sound docile for my own entries. So, for this topic (Communication System - Components & Representation), I'll try to make more visceral comments to each components of Hofstede's analyses (1980, 1984, 1991) and categories, which I personally feel are very questionable to begin with.


Power Distance

Hofstede proposed two categories for power distance which, in layman terms, it's how "thick" the wall between people of different status is. They are high power distance and low power distance. According to Hofstede's data, Filipinos and generally Eastern (not just Asian) people are found to adopt high power distance, while Westerners are more towards the low power distance. The standings for a number of a few countries are raising my eyebrow:

1. The index for Japan is 54, which is somewhere in the middle of the table. I've been learning Japanese for 7 years and have been to Japan to observe the social dynamics within 7 days. To me, this standing is a gross understatement. I would even argue that Hofstede's evaluation for Japan is quite flawed because it's very dated (this is done in 1980, anyway) and we can't really agree with something that dates back three decades ago. I think the Japanese have one of the highest power distance in the world; it's even reflected in their daily language. They have the phenomenon of keigo (Japanese honorifics) used extensively in business settings. For instance, the singular English pronoun "I" can be intepreted in at least 6 ways in Japanese ("watashi" = polite; "watakushi" = honorific; "boku" = casual masculine; "atashi" = casual feminine; "washi" = polite elderly; ore = impolite), for your information.
2. Singapore's index is 74? Not in this current time. I bet it's lower now, because I've seen plenty of cases where low power distance is observed, regardless of the environment. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the power distance isn't that high even in the military setting (read: National Service). God, I've even used coarse language in the presence of a few of my superiors. In fact, the idea of National Service being of conscript nature contradicts Hofstede's claim that we have high power distance. A lot of our superiors are also our friends outside the military setting before and after NS, anyway.
3. My friend strongly disagreed with Taiwan's index of 58. He said Taiwan should be above Singapore based on current circumstances. And you know, I can actually relate to his sentiments.

Uncertainty Avoidance
This proposed phenomenon refers to what degree of risk-taking a group of people would  inherently possess. According to his data, the Greeks, Portuguese, Japanese and French tend to avoid uncertainty; the Swedes, Danes and Americans are high risk-takers. According to stereotype, Asians are naturally people who opt for "safe choices", while the Americans have the "Cowboy Complex" to do reckless things. This may be true so I won't rebuke Hofstede's data, but here's what caught my attention:

1. Singapore in last place? Singaporeans loves taking heavy risks? Is this for real? We even beat the Americans?? I don't think so. This is a gross overstatement. Our Singapore ministers have commented several years ago (back when our economy was still alright) that we Singaporeans don't take risks often enough. Plus, since this data were taken in 1980, is it saying that we were originally risk-takers during those time? I find that really hard to swallow, actually. If anything, we should've belong to anywhere in the middle of the table.

Individualism VS Collectivism

Perhaps Hofstede's most extensive topic branch of the study of cultural components, this talks about the dynamics of a group of people. Individualism stresses "the moral worth of an individual" (wiki); collectivism emphasises the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals (wiki). Sounds deep, right? Actually, this topic is more of philosophical/political nature rather than just anthropological or sociological. Hofstede's data shows that the Americans are the most individualistic, while the Venezuelans and most Asians are the most collectivistic. I won't  rebuke this data either; for a long time, I feel that the Westerners are mostly individualistic while Asians have the more nucleus-like nature of being collectivinistic.



Here's a poser for you: Are we a community of human beings, or human beings that form a community? Same topic, different perspectives.

1. In the Singapore context, we used to have the kampung (Malay for "village") spirit but as we become more urbanised (read: westernised), we become more individualistic. This is not to say that being individualistic is a bad thing altogether, but there are some drawbacks to individualism. Being individualistic can also be seen as being selfish, and this is true to some extent. As Singapore becomes more individualistic, the "wall" between each of us gets thicker and in such sense, we somewhat drift apart. Heck, I don't even know who my neighbours are; all I know is that, when we hear Chinese dramas blaring next door, my family knows they're in their home. Our respective group representation constituencies (GRCs) make continual effort in fostering togetherness in a neighbourhood because they want to counter (not abolish) the negative forces that come with individualism.

1. Americans are stereotyped to preach independence and individual rights; after all, they are known as the country for free speech. I wholeheartedly agree that they're individualistic; how else would you explain their mindset that elicits the common following question: "You're a grown man, and you still live with your mother?", heavily parodied Principal Skinner of The Simpsons . Living with your parents isn't an undesirable thing in Singapore; it's actually something worth looking up to. It doesn't help with the fact that since Singapore is a small country with limited land resources, that collectivism is in favour in Singapore (read: living with your parents even as an adult).
2. In Japan, it is a commonly understood belief that one's actions is strongly reflected on his/her parents. A Japanese celebrity was dishonourably humiliated when he was caught for possessing/consuming drugs several years ago, and his parents came to publicly apologise for their son's actions. If this had happened in US context, the parents would've come into the limelight to defend their children's innocence.

Masculinity VS Femininity

This refers to the extent masculine or feminine traits prevail. By masculine, it stresses on assertiveness and advancement and pretty much the opposite for feminine. According to Hofstede's data, the Japanese have the highest index for having the "thickest" wall between masculine and feminine traits. Sweden is right at the opposite end of the spectrum. Here are my comments for some countries:

1. I completely agree with the Japanese data; the Japanese have a strong distinctiveness in their masculine and feminine traits. It is even reflected in their daily language. In English, there is only one personal pronoun for yourself (i.e. "I") but there are masculine and feminine variations in Japanese for that same pronoun ("boku" = masculine; "atashi" = feminine). However, if females use the masculine pronoun, it may mean that they want to be treated as equally as their male counterparts. Yes, using different pronoun does render an effect to those around him/her. If males use "atashi", they would appear very feminine and their social context, weird. Furthermore, it is common for Japanese males not to voice out their private emotions in conversation, especially if it may render himself looking weak. Being masculine in Japan is about knowing how to keep mum over feelings of displeasure, i.e. "sucking it in".
2. Machismo is a positive masculine trait in Latin America, something I know that Priscilla would agree with me. This may explain and justify Hofstede's data.
3. Singapore may personally still be somewhere in the middle, like Hofstede's data.

High Context VS Low Context

Proposed by anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1976), high context means most of the shared information is either internalised in physical context, whereas low context means information is shared explicitly. Stereotype would classify high context as being "vague" and low context as being "indiscreet". Oriental people are known to be very high contexted, and for Japanese context, I can really relate to this notion:

1. According to CNA Japanese bureau chief Michiyo Ishida from Tokyo, when Japanese businessmen respond to an offer "I'll think about it", it implicitly means they would take the offer, but if it's "I'll consider it", it means they are declining it. Plus, the Japanese dislike direct confrontation both physically and in speech. This explains why they don't often make eye contact in business context (staring is very confrontational). Plus, their Japanese honorifics is a form of not being confrontational (for one, it's used with a passive tone).
2. Americans are known to be low context. They just say it as it is, since being honest is good. They can be brutal, but even this is desirable to some extent. Even their language is somewhat direct in nature (which explains their "linear" contrastive rhetoric discussed in the previous seminar). Just watch the reality TV show The Apprentice to know what I mean.

The topic is very broad, and this is just one way of seeing culture in macro view. It's very interesting just like the last topic, and I'm really looking forward to what we have for next week.


P.S. Oh wow, I've actually exceeded the minimum requirement of 8 blog entries set by Dr. Deng. How verbose can I be...?