According to the British writer Raymond Williams, culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in English. It has many definitions but here is the crux to remember: Culture is the way of life of a given society. Our culture is what we are as a group; it is learnt from birth and is passed down from one generation to another.¹

Culture is to the person as water is to the fish. It influences the way we perceive the world, tells us how to behave, and tells scholars how to think about the causes of behavior. It even shapes the moods and opinions of public about what to eat, what to wear, what to think is right or wrong, and much more. However, people are generally unaware of their cultural conditioning and do not realize that the way they recognize the world is not necessarily same as the way other groups do.²

An array of traditions, norms and values observed in a society raise its cultural character which distinguish societies from one another. These cultural variations influence the course of communications, may cause (the escalation of) conflict when it leads to miscommunication or misinterpretation, and can be problematic in cross-cultural encounters when one acts as if differences did not exist.³ The deeper one interacts with a different cultural group, the more he/she understands its the norms and priorities. This awareness of the ways cultures operate in communication and conflict will yield to the ability to respond effectively to these differences and prevent misunderstandings in intercultural settings.

One can list many dimensions or their sublevels that cause variations both between and within cultures. Below, we will discuss some major aspects along which cultures vary. Although it seems that there are no direct linkages between each topic, it is interesting to see how they actually relate to one another.

Senses of Self:

From the outside, a tree grown in California would probably look just like a tree grown in Japan. However, the growth of each tree is largely dependent on the soil that roots of the trees have to interact with in order to grow. The strength of the roots is also dependent on the environment the tree is exposed to, from sunshine to thunderstorms. Imagine the values of a particular culture represented as the roots of a tree. These roots (values) are the source of strength needed by the tree to survive in the surrounding environment (society). Of course, we don’t really see the roots, but we are constantly exposed to the tree nevertheless. The type of fertilizer and water fed to the tree contributes significantly to the growth of it. In addition, you can not transplant a tree into other soil unless you prepare the roots for the new soil.

The roots of each tree may have a different form, much like the cultures they represent. The Japanese roots are twisted together because they may have rockier soil and need the combined strength of the roots to support the tree during rough weather. The American roots, however, are individual, separate, straight, and deep, responding to their soil condition. ⁴

Societies that value individual uniqueness and self-determination are referred to as individualistic cultures in which people make up their own mind and show initiative independently. In this way of life, people deem themselves as the masters of their lives which they think they can control by themselves. On the contrary, cultures in which people identify themselves with groups are categorized as collectivistic societies. These societies consider many external parameters outside one’s control that affect the course of their lives, and there is more emphasis on the role of destiny in daily life. Many of the Asian cultures are collectivist, while Anglo cultures tend to be individualist.

A “self-determining” individual tries to preserve his/her image and interests by taking a competitive stance in interpersonal encounters. However, for those in collectivistic cultures, direct confrontation may reflect poorly on the group or disturb overall harmony; then open criticisms of others are generally avoided. When there is conflict, a third party is utilized for resolution. Since no direct confrontation takes place, potential damage to the relationships is minimized.

The value placed on individual freedom in individualist societies leads to the idea that everybody is equal regardless of age, social status, or authority, which calls for a tendency to be informal when addressing one another. In the US, for instance, superiors and subordinates often interact socially as equals, and an outsider typically cannot tell them apart. However, collectivistic societies place more value on seniority and hierarchy and, therefore, are more formal. They also put more emphasis on the role of power/status: Is the boss, a) always right because he is the boss, or b) only when he gets it right?

Someone devoted to freewill and someone with a more philosophical orientation may face miscommunication. The first would expect immediate action and responsibility and, failing to see it, may conclude that the latter is lagging, hindering, or dishonest. The second person would expect respect for the natural order of things and, failing to see it, may conclude that the former is pushy or impolite.

Communication styles:

Japanese can find Westerners to be offensively blunt. Westerners can find Japanese to be secretive, devious and bafflingly unforthcoming with information. French can feel that Germans insult their intelligence by explaining the obvious, while Germans can feel that French managers provide no direction. ⁵

In some cultures, people presume ample commonality of understanding and attitude in their counterparts hence they feel that it is unnecessary to be “over-explicit”; information is communicated in indirect ways embedded in the existing context or internalized in the person per se. Whereas in other cultures, information is part of, and conveyed through, the verbal content of the communication; things are made explicit, and there is considerable dependence on what is actually said. The first types of cultures are known as high-context, and the latter low-context respectively. Due to the significance of social information networks, collectivistic cultures tend to be high context.

Since the focus is the message itself rather than the context, low context cultures are open to communication errors when they assume more shared knowledge than there actually is. This direct approach may help to avoid communication errors when used properly (in a good timing and context). However, communicators may fail to “feel the emotional state” of the other party, or may hurt feelings while trying to be “direct.”

Though, low context cultures expect thorough explanations, high context cultures take them as redundant discussions on details, and even somewhat hesitate to make mistakes with too much talk. These cultures are more cautious about the potential implications of the message delivered. Silence and other indirect/non-confrontational methods are frequently applied and patience is promoted for the sake of overall harmony. On one side, silence is viewed as a communication breakdown, whereas on the other it is utilized as an actual communication component at times.

Perception of time:

I was once told that one of the South American groups in the U.S. used to send to different invitations for the same occasion. One was truly showing the ceremony time, yet the other was for an hour before the actual kickoff. The first was for the American friends and the latter one was for their own community to offset possible delays.

Time is beyond what a clock reads: “There are two blessings in which most people are in great loss: Good health and free time.” ⁶ In addition to being a major blessing, it is one of the most central differences that separate cultures and cultural ways of doing things.

In the West, time has a present focus moving toward the future at an acknowledged swiftness. Events are explained via specific causes, and there is an appropriate time and place for everything. This notion of time is actually a product of the Industrial Revolution which requires certain tasks to be achieved at a predetermined hour. Concentration is on one event at a time, schedules and deadlines take priority, and interruptions are not very welcome, which ultimately seals people off from one another, as limited time allows some people in and leaves some others out.

In Western cultures, time is considered as a limited reserve which is continually being used up. It’s like having a bathtub full of water that is running down the drain, and can never be replaced. It has to be used as it runs down the drain or it is wasted.⁵ Time is perceived quantitatively; it is measured and almost tangible. Many expressions such as Boucicault’s following words highlight its importance and urge its awareness in these societies: “Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them.” “Time is money” is a household expression, and people often talk about “saving,” “spending,” “wasting,” “finding,” or “losing” time. Time orders life and priorities: “I don’t have time to do that.” Since time is prioritized, so is accomplishing a task as quickly as possible; thus taking risks are expected to bring the future closer.

As time is limited, punctuality becomes a desirable quality and wasting someone’s time is regarded as an insult. Lest communication takes more time, individual-oriented cultures promote direct and competitive communication, whereas group-oriented cultures prefer indirect and harmonious approaches to communicate and avoid direct confrontation. Individualistic cultures may view this communication avoidance as passive, unwilling, or even ignorant. On the other hand, collectivistic cultures may view the direct approach to communication as being rude.

In the East, time is circular, spiral, even repetitive, and has unlimited continuity; in old agricultural societies which depend on the months/seasons of the year, it renews itself annually (traditional Chinese calendar has a period of 12 years). Other unrelated events or mystical reasons may be used to explain a given event, “as time is viewed an unfolding of stories already written, or a play in which much of the set is invisible.” ³ This idea of time also goes along with fate and destiny, and is connected to other people as well as periods of history. People may handle many things at once in this approach. A manager’s office in such a culture typically has an open door, a ringing phone and a meeting all going on at the same time. Within all these intermingling events, punctuality is nice, but not essential.

In Eastern cultures, time is more plentiful and people tend to be more patient. It is quite acceptable to make people wait all day, and then tell them to come back later. Time-abundant cultures tend to rely on trust to do business, whereas time-limited cultures don’t have time to develop trust and have other mechanisms to substitute trust (such as judiciary mechanisms).⁵ This time pressure may also account for segmented relationships in Anglo cultures, while time-abundant societies tend to establish lifetime relationships. Furthermore, societies that have a more flexible sense of time are more comfortable with uncertainties and accommodate changes in verbal plans, whereas time-limited cultures prefer everything to be expressed in written details and abide by these binding plans.

In one viewpoint, past and future are both present in this stretching time that loops back and forth. In the other, time starts with the very current instant and extends into the future. In a negotiation setting of parties with these two different notions of time, one of the parties may take time to provide extensive information regarding their stories and their relationships to the issue; weaving themes, feelings, ideas, and experiences together as they remember the past and project the future. When it is the other party’s chance to speak, they may promptly project flow charts showing processes for decision-making and speak about their intentions for entering the negotiation process right away. Neither side would feel satisfied with this meeting, but everyone would feel that they were not “on the same page.” ³

Therefore, as people from different cultural backgrounds work together, they should ask questions about their values and needs, and how these may affect their progress. Both cultures would be comfortable with meeting face to face in a mediation setting to frankly discuss differences of any sort.

Figure 1, serves as a summary of the dimensions we have mentioned so far. While the generalizations listed do not apply uniformly to all cultures, they will help convey a pattern:

Figure 1. Comparison of various cultural dimensions

Most North European and North American cultures fall into Group A.

Most Latin American, Asian, South European, and some African cultures overall fall into Group B.

Each of the variables discussed here shows only a glimpse of various dimensions across cultures, which do not apply to all individuals within a culture. One should not generalize by ignoring individual differences; e.g., “he is like that because he is Asian – all Asians are nonverbal.” An individual’s behavior may well vary depending on the situation, individual personality, mood, etc. as well. Cultural differences discussed here are general guidelines and there will always be exceptions. Anyone is unique in a sense and must be approached accordingly. It is important to remember this uniqueness at times of negotiations or unease, and not rush to make decisions before clearly understanding the situation. Keep in mind that different cultures see the world through diverse filtering lenses; there may not be a disagreement but just a different interpretation of what is going on.

As a result of globalization, the world is becoming smaller and people of various cultures are able to communicate freely. Ideas and perspectives can span across cultures through different forms of media like the television, the newspapers and the Internet; thus, cultures are blending more and more every day, which makes dialogue and mutual understanding essential. Only by learning about, respecting, and celebrating these differences, we can build mutuality and co-operative relationships, rather than breeding enmities.

Osman Senkaya has a Master’s Degree in Nonprofit Leadership.

Notes

¹ http://www.celt.iastate.edu/international/culture-extras/CultureResources.pdf

² Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

³ LeBaron, Michelle. “Cross-Cultural Communication.” http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cross-cultural_communication

⁴ Elashmawi, Farid, and Philip R. Harris. 1993. Multicultural Management: New Skills for Global Success. 3rd ed.: Gulf Publishing Company.

⁵ “Differences in Cultures.” http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/cultural.htm

⁶ Sahih Bukhari: Vol. 8, Book 76, Number 421.

⁷ Foster, Dean A. 1992. Bargaining Across Borders: How to negotiate business successfully anywhere in the world: McGraw-Hill.

Stereotypes and Identities: Who are “They”?

In the context of conflicts that are faith-related or that appear to be faith-related, the term “they” typically represents a media-driven stereotype of a group of persons who seem totally out of “our” world. They speak a different language, they look different, they dress differently, and their values are different. Let’s examine these factors: The fact that some people look or dress differently is not a problem for most. Mexicans speak a different language than Americans. They look and dress differently. The same can be said of Chinese or Japanese. Yet these differences, in and of themselves, do not carry any negative connotations. How about the values? Do Muslims have essentially different values than Christians, Jews and Buddhists? Not really. Indeed, the vast majority of the fundamental values are shared by all these faiths.

Defining Lifestyles: What is “Our” Lifestyle and what is “Theirs”?

If we look for common traits of lifestyle of American Christians we realize that most of these traits are shared among Christians in the so-called “Western World”; in fact these can be found, to a great extent, throughout the Christian world. If we go on to compare these traits with those of the Muslim lifestyle, we then realize that Muslims also share these traits. This also answers one of the other questions we asked at the beginning: How much does their lifestyle differ from ours? The answer is, not much; certainly not to the extent that these differences should lead to hatred. Similarly, we should not have any animosity toward other peoples of the world whose lifestyle is different from ours.

Communication of Lifestyles: How Much do They Know about Our Lifestyle?

Most Muslims around the world have never met an American Christian in person. Their means of learning about the lifestyle of Americans is through the media. So the question of “how much do they know about our lifestyle?” becomes, rather, how accurately does the media reflect our lifestyle? Most readers might agree that the answer to this question may not be very reassuring.

Impact of Lifestyle across the Borders: How Much does Our Lifestyle have an Impact on Them?

For Muslims living in the same society as Christians in the US, this impact may be significant. For most people living outside the US though, the lifestyle of the people in the US has very little impact on them. What does have a great impact is the foreign policies of the government. Therefore, if we assume that there are some people out there who are opposed to the people of this country, then, with this image, foreign policy carries a greater weight. What then needs to be explored is whether the foreign policy of a country reflects the values and choices of the people of that country accurately. Unfortunately, this may not be the case in many situations.

Hidden Agendas: Who Benefits from the Lifestyle “Explanation”?

Making the rationale for an attitude that develops into a love/hate relationship between lifestyles helps to achieve group solidarity against another group. By positioning the conflict as a conflict of lifestyles, those who are trying to hide the real reasons behind a conflict or those who benefit from the conflict tell the masses: “It is your problem, they do not like you.” Thus, various entities who cannot act by themselves begin to legitimately act on behalf of the people.

Conclusion

When we hear the phrase “they do not like our lifestyle” we should be very careful. We should analyze the context and make sure that this is not simply a spurious “explanation” put out by an entity who benefits from conflict or which is trying to hide the real reasons behind conflict.

As human beings, we experience many situations that we do not expect and in which we do not feel comfortable. Sometimes we are criticized by others, caught by illness, exposed to unjust treatment, abandoned, imprisoned, or subjected to other unpleasant experiences. Some people may even lose everything they have. Most people become annoyed, depressed, or frustrated under such circumstances. Others, who have managed to look at life and events from a different perspective, can meet such incidents with patience, tolerance, and courage. They consider these events as warning signs that help them to stay on the right track, or they take on these situations to help them hone their skills and to help resist any current or future problems that they may encounter. As a matter of fact, the interpretation of incidents is a context related issue, and it is up to us to define the borders of the context.

Everything in the Universe is Beautiful

Everything, even things which appear ugly, has a beautiful aspect. In the universe, every incident is beautiful either by itself or because of its results. Although some occurrences seem unattractive and confusing, behind these appearances lie a hidden cause and a covert beauty. Who can point at a futile, unnecessary and unintentional creation in the Universe? Look inside the atom, examine the structure of the cell, study the human body, think about the ecosystem, the solar system, and the infinite space that we live in and ask yourself: Which one of these is futile, accidental or unintentional? We all know that a beautiful spring will follow a cold and blustery winter. For that reason, without merely looking at its cold face, we try to see the beauty inside winter and we try to imagine the beauty that will come after winter. If we cannot see that aspect, then winter is indeed a miserable season. Have you ever encountered people swearing at the wind and the rain? Without thinking about their real functions and benefits, such people get angry with the rain and the wind and swear at these wonderful phenomena because of the trifling harm they cause to their personal comfort. They draw the borders of the context according to their interests only, and interpret events from that narrow and shallow context.

Actually, bad results may follow a good event, while good results may occur after a bad incident. In the Quran, God states, œSomething that you do not like might be good for you, or something that you like might be bad for you. You are not able to know this; however, God knows.(2/216) Many times we have heard from others or we have personal experience that something that we wish to happen does not materialize; however, we eventually realize that the result was the most beneficial for us. Likewise, our memories are full of events which, at the beginning, we did not want to occur, but afterwards we came to understand that they were, ultimately, for the good.

We should not forget that we can obtain good results from our personal perception of events, i.e., from our perspective, our prayers, and our consciousness. Destiny looks at the true causes, yet we humans base our decision-making process on visible, tangible reasons. This divergence is the main reason why we at times can find it difficult to comprehend the justice of destiny.

Do Not Judge a Book by its Cover

History is full of great successes that followed desperate events. One example is the Hudaybiya Agreement that was signed between the first Muslims living in

Madina and the people of Makka, who hated the Muslims and who did not want them to visit Makka for pilgrimage. The signing of this agreement happened six years after the emigration from Makka to Madina. At the time of the agreement the Muslims were resting at Hudaybiya on their way to Makka to visit the Ka’ba. Those who had not accepted Islam did not want the Muslims to visit Makka. After several talks between representatives from both sides, the Hudaybiya Agreement was signed and the Prophet of the Muslims and the people around him had to return to Madina.

According to the agreement, those displaced Muslims who had moved from Madina to Makka and who were living in Makka at that time would not be released while the displaced people who had moved from Makka to Madina would be returned, even if they had become Muslims. Abu Jandal, a young Muslim who had left Makka to escape the torture his father had inflicted on him for choosing Islam appealed to the Prophet not to send him back to Makka. His father was the signatory of the agreement, representing the people of Makka. He said, œThis is the first person that you will return to us in accord with the agreement. It was a very hard decision for the Prophet to make. Umar, one of his closest friends and the second caliph after him, asked the Prophet why, if he was the genuine Prophet sent by God, did Abu Jandal have to be returned to Makka. Abu Jandal was crying and pleading: œAre you sending me back to be hurt and tortured? The Prophet was sure that God would never harm them and whispered to him, œBe patient for a while. Try to endure what you will be exposed to and ask God to be rewarded in return. It is certain that God will create a way out for you and the other Muslims who have no protector there. We can not break our promise given in the Agreement.

After the signing of the agreement, many Muslims from Makka, including Abu Basir, wanted to come to Madina. However, the Prophet did not allow them to, saying œA prophet never refutes his promise! Abu Basir found a place named Iss to live in after being denied entry to Madina. Other Muslims who had fled Makka also moved to Iss. The people of Makka were worried about this development and after a while they asked the Prophet to accept the Muslims in Iss. Thus, these Muslims, who were not to have been allowed to go join the other Muslims in Madina were finally given permission to do as they had wished, and the most irritating article of the Hudaybiya Agreement had now been nullified at the request of the very people who had created it, the disbelievers of Makka.

At the beginning, the Hudaybiya Agreement was perceived as being against the interests of the Muslims. On the other hand, this agreement stipulated that both sides would not fight for the following ten years. They put down their swords and enjoyed an environment that was conducive to dialogue. This situation helped the Muslims to express their beliefs. The people of Makka found an opportunity to learn about Islam and to closely monitor the Muslims and their daily practices, and to become aware of their honesty and righteousness. Important persons, like Khalid ibn Walid, a successful military leader, and Amr ibn al-˜As, a political mastermind, accepted Islam, in which they had earlier refused to believe, perceiving acceptance of this religion as capitulation to the force of the sword. Two years following the agreement, the number of the people who had accepted Islam outnumbered the Muslims that had accepted Islam in the first 20 years of Islam.

As can be seen from the above example from Islamic history, an event or situation that appears to be negative or destructive can result in a positive outcome. The Muslims of Makka were forbidden from joining the Prophet in Madina, but taking the situation in their own hands they changed their fate. The ultimate outcome was that, due to the ten years peace that followed the agreement, the number of people who came to believe in Islam increased more than it would have done had conflict continued. When one finds oneself in a negative or unpromising situation one should not despair; the result is never certain. This is a great part of faith “ we should not judge a situation and give up hope, we must always have faith in God, for He has our best interests at heart.