'Culture' and 'Communication' - New insights, New opportunities.

I am truly amazed at how fast the weeks have flown by as always. Now that the final project has been submitted, I can finally take some time to take stock of all that I've experienced in this course over this semester. In sum, the course has offered me fresh and insightful perspectives especially with regards to my ideas about both Culture and Communication.

1. *Fresh perspectives on....Culture

One of the main takeaways of this course for me is a whole new understanding of the concept of 'culture'. I used to think 'culture' had to be something to do with the histories and traditions associated with a particular ethnic group, or at least the ways of living associated with only certain geographical entities (nations and cities for example). Through this course, I really saw how cultures may not have to be bound by clearly demarcated boundaries, including geographic ones.

For example, communities with seemingly identifiable 'cultural' characteristics can be found 'online', in a sort of virtual space where their members may not actually make up a perceivable 'presence' in reality. Communities can also be formed when people have common interests or occupations. Thus we have professional and academic communities, who develop their own conventions for communicating with each other through particular forms of discourse (Topic scheduled for Wk 10; I also recall one group's project presentation that showed us an approach to analyzing abstracts of sociology journals, which I found interesting).

It seems that biology may also have a part to play in creating distinct 'cultures' - we saw how different genders seem to constitute different 'cultures' (Lecture 9). Each possesses characteristics that are somewhat unique for each of them, including characteristics to do with they way they communicate. These distinctions have been attributed to the differences in the way roles and statuses have been allocated to the different sexes in larger society. Thus, features of the 'macro' context (society) can affect the 'micro' context (behaviour in communication with one another).

Among the topics covered, computer-mediated communication (Lecture 8) seems to be a relatively new area of research that has much potential for further expansion and development in the decades to come. When the platforms that may be used for CMC are evolving everyday, we can expect the dynamics observed between individuals in CMC to be changing rapidly. Therefore, the range of issues associated with CMC that may be studied will also evolve to incorporate new kinds of communication phenomena that arise. For example, we may examine the highly popular use of social applications like Facebook today and how it has impacted real-world communication over time. An example of an issue to probe is: to what extent has its widespread use led to changing acceptable standards for the amount of personal information we disclose in public? It is likely that our acceptable boundaries have changed compared to the past, owing to the use of these types of CMC platforms.

2. *Further perpectives on...Communication
I learnt also that there are many lenses we can use to study communication. The focuses of our analyses range from broad to narrow -for example, we may study phenomena as small as speech acts (Wk 2) to larger elements such as entire discourses (Wk 4 and Wk 5) as a whole. Thus, I learnt to see how 'culture' imposes norms on not just how we structure our discourses in a broad sense, but also on the smallest aspects of how we relate to one another (apologizing, complimenting, initiating/closing conversations, etc).

I am thankful also for the opportunity to learn how to understand cultural differences using frameworks and concepts that may apply universally to all human cultures. For example, frameworks that employ the concepts of power and politeness provide a relatively easier way of understanding why different cultures may favour a particular communicative style over another, from an outsider's point of view.

For example, with a concept of individualism-collectivism distinctions across cultures, a North American woman who is more direct in asserting her opinions in a group discussion should not be judged as being overly bossy too quickly. We who are outsiders to their culture should be able to explain her behaviour in 'cultural' terms, and not to impose our judgments on her based on our own standards and norms. Conversely, we should also not be quick to imagine that all North Americans will speak in a particular way because on the whole, the society is perceived to be more individualistic. In other words, these 'grand communicative styles' arising from cultural traits are but useful as possible ways of interpreting, but definitely not surefire ways of generalizing about an entire community of people.

>>Summary

All in all, one important thing I've learnt would be that the study of cross-cultural communication requires not only a sound knowledge of analytic frameworks and concepts. At the end of the day, it seems that one also needs to keep an open mind, to possess a willingness to empathize and appreciate things from new perspectives of the people whom we seek to establish communication with in our everyday lives. These I believe, are the keys to paving the way for effective and meaningful cross-cultural communication.

The stories we tell. (Wk 9 Gender issues in Communication)

**Warning: long post ahead. Viewer discretion advised. ;)**

Despite the long long list of work that's causing my feet to drag every time I walk to classes these past few weeks, I've eagerly anticipated this week's seminar. Partly because its the topic investigated in my research project...it's also been a topic I've been exploring for a while ever since I came across an article in another class on the language behaviour of males in college fraternities in the US.

The article talks of how males in a college fraternity tend to collectively construct a 'male' identity via their group conversations, where only particular types of discourses dominate (often related to 'chicks', 'sex' and 'booze'). When interviewed individually, individuals actually reported being not really too preoccupied by these subjects in their own lives in reality, but merely participating because it was the norm to talk about such topics in those groups.

Despite my interest, I'm not entirely convinced by ALL the theories that have been proposed thus far which suggest a strictly distinctive set of features that can be characterized as 'male' or 'female'. Instances of discriminatory attitudes towards people around me have occurred simply because they are labeled as speaking in a manner that is too 'masculine' or too 'girly'. For example, male friends who use a lot of emphatics like 'so' ('I'm soooo irritated, ok!') or who are perceived as more talkative than other 'normal' guys are labeled derogatory terms like 'sissy' or 'gay'. While these point to the fact that yes, people DO have inherent notions of what constitutes 'male' and 'female' speech, it deceivingly suggests that these distinctions are necessarily 'natural' and not to be challenged.

What we learnt thus far should probably tell us how male and female characteristics of speech are typically never universal. Rather, they are the products of socialization, and can differ from culture to culture. That being said, it thus remains a very interesting field of research that has potential to uncover at least the relations of gender peculiar to each culture and society.

The following is a very rough analysis of a mixed-gender conversation that recently occurred -

I happen to be in a project group for a Computing module, with three other male computing students. This happened in one of our project meetings earlier this week.

During the meeting, I noticed a prominent operation scar on one person's arm, and enquired about it. As he began telling the story behind the scar, another member almost instantly revealed that he had a similar operation scar on his arm too. Even though I originally posed the question to just one of them, both then started telling their story at about the same time. I became a passive member and listened as their narratives unfolded, occasionally asking one or two questions just to clarify the details (attempting to be like a researcher!). It was interesting to see how both stories developed at about the same time, without much engagement with each other. There were few pauses as each speaker was quick to produce conversation turns almost immediately after the first ended. I could tell both were eager to share their own story. There was a negligible number of minimal responses (most of them, if any, seem to have come from me). Thus, on the whole, it was definitely not very collaborative, but more focused on information-giving. It was particularly interesting that both injuries sustained were due to an act of playing gruelling sports - an act which is typically associated with being 'masculine'.

Compared to the experiences I've had with female friends, males and females do seem to share personal narratives with each other differently. Females would probably not just tell their stories out straight, but also focus on saying more things like 'Yeah...I know what you mean/how you felt" - a style which emphasizes the acknowledgment of the other party's experiences/contributions, BEFORE continuing with her own narrative. My humble guess is that the females I observed more readily recognize the opportunities for relational interaction and the building of closer ties with each other through the sharing of personal narratives. For males, it is a matter of comparing facts about each other's lives (achievements), which helps to give them a stronger sense of 'self' in relation to other males.

Just some humble conjectures (some stolen from well-researched academics). I warmly welcome any thoughts and inputs... :)

Issues in CMC (Wk 8 Reflections)

CMC probably only recently gained attention among researchers as an area of study that will potentially yield many interesting insights about human cultures. It appears to be a really dynamic field, since the tools and technologies involved are ever evolving and developing very rapidly.

One focal issue that arises in the literature on CMC is that of computer intervention, and the ways in which it leads to human communication behaviour being different from behaviour in real life, or from other more traditional discourse contexts. Academics have come to regard forms of CMC such as online journals as constituting a genre of their own. Some unique features that have been thought to characterize online journals include the prevalent use of non-standard vocabulary and spelling (slang, ungrammatical forms, etc) and haphazard narrative lines.These features which deviate from standard forms of writing are viewed as attempts by authors to assert their individuality (Eg. See Sutton, 1999), and therefore assist in the projection of a unique identity.

For forums and chatrooms, options for anonymity sometimes presents opportunities for socially inappropriate behaviour – such as ‘flaming’ (hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users) and the use of excessively emotive or vulgar language when sharing opinions.

Source: http://wineeconomist.com/2007/11/

This frequently cited comic by Peter Steiner succinctly captures the notion of anonymity on the Internet, and its potential implications. On the Internet, one may use language to project different social identities (female or male; teenager or professional, etc). This seems to have provided the basis for studies on CMCs like Blogs and Instant Messaging and how they are used to negotiate individual and group identities.

Thus, it seems that Internet and other forms of new media in general have really offered a whole range of opportunities for not just communication, but also self-expression for people today. I find discourse and communication in computer-mediated forms really interesting and worthy of further pursuit by academics and researchers, especially if it allows us to examine the extent to which technology has shaped the way we write and communicate in modern tech-savvy societies of today.

Wk 7: Face and Politeness

This week's topic of Face and Politeness is rather interesting. However, I seem to have difficulty differentiating between positive and negative politeness...Although most of the utterances we say are somewhat shaped to maximize the positive impression of ourselves that we give to the hearer, do we typically assume the strategies are evidently oriented towards the hearer's face needs? Hopefully by writing and thinking about it, my understanding of these politeness concepts can be strengthened.

One interesting speech event I've been observing of late is that of conversation closings - ways in which individuals propose the end of conversation in day-day interactions. These speech events do provide some insight into the unique ways politeness strategies are adopted in our culture.

Depending on the degree of familiarity or social distance between speakers, different types of conversation closings are used, which often seem to involve some kind of politeness work.

(In the library, A was talking to B who is studying at a table)
A: Ok, I better not disturb you and let you get back to your work.
B: No, its no problem.
A: Alright, bye! Talk to you again another time.

This is a common way of ending conversations that I often hear, especially between other peers in school. I think we share a common experience of being busy and having a lot of deadlines to meet during the semester. So this formulaic expression is useful for demonstrating politeness to our peers in school. Serving the broad function of initiating a closing to a conversation, it is a sort of negative politeness strategy which demonstrates a sensitivity towards the hearer's desires of not wanting to be imposed. Thus, it also employs the Sympathy Maxim.

Another common closing:
(At a bus stop)
A: Sorry I really got to go, my friend is waiting.
B: Oh sure, go ahead.
A: See you!
B: Bye, see you!

This is a more direct way of closing the conversation. It involves an apology that mitigates the sense of imposition towards the hearer, for wanting to end the conversation abruptly. Its directness compared is acceptable perhaps because of the situational context - it does not impose too greatly on the hearer and the reason for closing the conversation is legitimate.

Like many politeness strategies, these conversation closings are formulaic. Hence they serve their function well in these conversations, in that the hearer acknowledges them as initiations for closing and responses favourably. It would be interesting to study the universality of these strategies - whether if transported to another English-speaking country - the responses to them would be similar.

Week 6: Cultural Systems

To the extent that we can make generalizations about people from a particular culture based on certain dimensions of cultural variability, it is interesting to observe how national cultures do not stay stagnant and may evolve over time.

Individualism versus collectivism - some note that with economic progress and development, Singapore has shifted to some extent towards having a more individualistic culture. This is facilitated somewhat by not just changing economic, but also social structures. My parents and grandparents would lament about the loss of the 'kampong' spirit, which was prevalent in the olden days where entire communities lived in close proximity to one another in little villages situated largely in rural areas. There was a considerable amount of interaction between people, people knew each other and their families on a personal basis, and often planned and made shared decisions for the well-being of the community as a whole. While arguably, many people in Singapore live rather closely together still in HDB public housing, the nature and degree of social interaction between families today compared to the past is probably a lot less. At the level of the nation, perhaps the sense of collectivism is not as strong as before.

However, in comparison to other countries like America, we definitely seem more collectivist in several areas. I was studying in the US while on SEP last semester, and one thing that really struck me was the seemingly individualistic behaviour of the students at school. For example, at NUS, it is common for us to arrange to attend classes with groups of friends, and all subsequent activities in that class are often performed together with that same group of friends if possible. However, in the States, I was surprised to see that it was more common for people to enter and leave classrooms/lecture theatres on their own. There was less pressure to make sure you were in the company of people you knew. Meeting people you know in class is a bonus, but not deemed highly important at all. I believe group membership is not shunned entirely of course, as seen from their enthusiasm for joining fraternities/sororities, etc. It is probably just less important to treat group membership as an important aspect of personal identity.

In Singapore, when we introduce ourselves to others, our "school" (including former ones), "club", "CCA", "clan" or numerous other affiliations to groups and organizations all seem to be recognized by others as somewhat useful for knowing what kind of person you are. The importance tagged to group affiliation as a means of marking one's identity may be viewed as a big clue that highlights our being a collectivist society for me.

Know Thy Writer (Wk 5: Written Discourse)

We learnt five ways in which paragraphs can develop in written discourse today, according to a study performed by Kaplan (1972).

It was truly eye-opening to learn of the existence of these patterns that dominate the written discourse of other cultures. This ought to greatly change the way we evaluate the writing of our peers who may be of another culture, or who were educated to develop his or her writing in ways that are different.

Having been educated according to a largely Western model of education, it is likely that we native Singaporeans are well-accustomed to English linearity, to the extent that it leads us to be critical of any form of writing that diverges from the prototypical 'English' structure. Often it is easy to dismiss the writing of other non-native speakers of English very quickly, classifying their writing as 'bad', just because they do not develop their ideas the same way as we do. An awareness of the types of thinking and writing that can vary across cultures would help reduce any unwarranted discrimination on our part towards members of other countries and societies.

As we learn to appreciate the idiosyncracies of each other's writings, we gain better access to each other's thoughts and ideas. Hence, it is important to gain a sound understanding each other's style of writing as it would greatly aid in the communication and exchange of valuable knowledge and philosophies between cultures.

Male and Female Listener Responses (Wk 4: Spoken Discourse)

The phenomenon of Listener Responses as it is termed in communication research is truly an intriguing one. In particular, cultural norms affect not just the types of expressions used but also the frequency at which they are expected to occur. Some of the ones that I've heard in my own interactions with people include 'Mm-hmm', 'Ok', and 'Uh-huh'. Who ever thought such simple vocalizations can carry so much meaning?

One interesting study that I read about was on how men and women differ in their use of backchannel responses (eg. Scollon and Scollon, 2000, in their paper on 'Intercultural Communication and Stereotyping'). It was posited that differences between men and women arise largely because they have contrasting perceptions about the functions of discourse. Researchers have discovered that across cultures, there is often a difference in the belief about whether language is used primarily for the purposes of conveying information or expressing relationships. In general, it seems that women pay more attention to the relational aspects of discourse as compared to men.

For example, Deborah Tannen noted that in American culture, men in general seem to prioritize the conveying of information over the relationship-building functions of discourse. What this entails is that we can probably expect shorter and less frequent backchannel responses from men when they are in a conversation.

In relationship guidebooks, women always seem to be complaining about how all men are "terrible listeners", that they "just don't understand" our problems as much as other women. Perhaps it's time to reconsider these labels that we have imposed on them - our men could just be more 'passive' listeners, who merely see less of a need to provide vocal feedback to their interlocutors (including their girlfriends or wives) very often during a conversation. It does not necessarily mean that they are being less receptive or less attentive than our other female friends...

So, what do you say, ladies? Give the men a break now? :)