Reflection of chapter 4 (The environmental context) ✓ Solved

Reflection of chapter 4 (The environmental context)

For this reflection, the concept that I have picked is from The Environmental Context in chapter 4. The specific concept that the paper will discuss is the concept of the cultural preference for privacy. This is a concept that explains that different cultures have different preferences for privacy both online and offline. The preference of privacy ranges from solitude to isolation to intimacy with friends or with family to anonymity and finally reserves. The level of preference that a culture has forms the basis upon which certain policies are set, how people socialize, and the basis of deciding how to structure their houses and living spaces.

I have had an experience with this concept especially in regard to the preference for privacy in the online space. Some time back in a group of very diverse individuals, a topic was raised about the numerous censoring and limitations that are done on the web in China. In the group, there was one Chinese individual who tried to explain that it works well for them and their country. However, most of the other individuals in the group, including myself, who come from a culture where there is a lot of freedom on the internet, where individuals can access anything and post anything they like, were against the whole concept of internet censoring. We went round and round telling the Chinese individual how the government was denying them a right to freedom and how much more they were missing on the internet because of being locked out by the government.

No matter how much he tried to explain how that worked well for their society, none of us were hearing any of it because we were all convinced that what their government does is wrong. Surprisingly, at the end of the whole discussion and debate, the Chinese individual seemed very unmoved by our many opinions and was still okay with the approach the government had decided to take to monitor activities on their web. From this experience, however, I ended up feeling like we had gone on and on to impose our views and criticisms without giving ourselves a chance to listen and understand the point of view of the one person who felt that such policies were okay for their country.

If I knew then what I know now, that is the concepts of this course in regard to the fact that different cultures have different preferences for privacy, the experience for me would be very different. This is because I would have made contributions to the discussion from a point of a lot more understanding rather than just imposing my opinion like what everyone else did. I would have been able to see and understand the point of view of the Chinese fellow in the group when he said that what they have worked for them and consequently be more accommodative of the fact we all do not have to be the same and that our needs are not their needs.

The communication or the debate, in this case, would have been more constructive because the argument would be made with consideration of the differences we have in culture and preferences. This would have helped to accommodate and bring to the table different objective rather than subjective points of view and consequently make the debate a lot more constructive for all involved.

The knowledge that different cultures have different preferences for privacy helps us see why individuals make the different choices that they do in policies and structures and that it is okay, and we do not need to impose our beliefs or critiques on them without understanding the basics.

Reflection on Intercultural Conflict

Intercultural conflict can be defined as the implicit or explicit emotional struggle between persons of different cultural communities over perceived or actual incompatibility of cultural ideologies and values, situational norms, goals, face-orientations, scarce resources, styles/processes, and/or outcomes in a face-to-face (or mediated) context within a sociohistorical embedded system.

Kim’s Model of Intercultural Conflict highlights primary orientation factors such as situational appraisals, conflict processes, and conflict competence. Understanding these aspects can help in navigating the complexities of intercultural interactions. The model shows that the way people approach conflict is heavily influenced by their cultural backgrounds, which shapes their perceptions and responses.

It is crucial to develop norms, mechanisms, and institutions that will guide individuals toward resolving divisive issues without resorting to violence. Dialogue is a central means through which such actions can unfold. Engaging in dialogue ensures that conflicting parties come together and interact, making it possible to understand each other’s point of view through respectful listening.

As individuals engage in dialogue, they create opportunities for respect and understanding. This engagement can facilitate a more profound perception of intercultural differences, which can lead to more effective resolution strategies. By recognizing the multiple dimensions of cultural conflict, individuals can better navigate discussions and disputes in a way that honors diverse viewpoints.

Conclusion

In summary, understanding intercultural communication requires acknowledging that different cultures have varying preferences for privacy and conflict resolution. This knowledge can foster a more constructive dialogue, allowing individuals to approach conflicts with sensitivity to cultural nuances. The ability to appreciate and respect these differences is integral in creating harmonious intercultural relationships.

References

  • Neuliep, J. W. (2018). Intercultural Communication (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • Broome, B. J. (2013). Building Cultures of Peace: The Role of Intergroup Dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 3737-3761). SAGE.

  • Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., & Takai, J. (2000). A Typology of Facework Behaviors in Conflicts with Best Friends and Relative Strangers. Communication Quarterly, 48, 397-419.

  • Kim, Y. Y. (2005). The Communication of Face in Intercultural Conflict. Intercultural Communication Theory, 1(1), 13-29.

  • Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The Challenge of Facework in Intercultural Relations. In D. R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (pp. 167-181). Wadsworth.

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. SAGE Publications.

  • Graham, J. L., & Lam, M. (2003). The Chinese Negotiating Style: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), 157-172.

  • Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building Cross-Cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Ideas. Yale University Press.

  • Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2017). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Doubleday.