2.5 Intercultural encounters in my social and work environment

As we saw in the previous section, concepts of culture have moved on from the idea of cultures as static, homogenous, nation-bound units or 'containers' (e.g. studies from E.T. Hall, Hofstede) to conceptions that embrace a more fluid, dynamic and multi-relational notion of culture.

From a practical point of view, this means acknowledging that members of society and of a team maintain relationships with a whole range of people and are members of a range of different collectives. Additionally, the figure below indicates that some of these collectives have a stronger influence on them than others. For example, the blue area may show an affiliation with their study group, which is highly relevant in the context of an upcoming team project.

Source: Based on Rathje, Stefanie (2015). Multicollectivity – It changes everything. Key Note Speech at the SIETAR Europe Congress (stefanie-rathje.de). Accessed 24 May 2021.

Figure by Julia Flitta (www.julia-flitta.com)

Earlier on we talked about how Mareike and Pedro met at university and developed routine actions together, until after a short while they felt comfortable with each other. However, even here it is possible that the notion of strangeness and difference will surface again. Imagine that Mareike is also a committed member of a religious community, a fact that she had never mentioned to Pedro. When one day she invites him to a celebration within this community after class, suddenly the intercultural perspective in their relationship dominates once more, since Mareike’ s religious affiliation is new to Pedro. Joining her for the celebration places him in a very unfamiliar and even awkward situation. He is very happy that people walk up to him, greet him and are ready to explain the meaning of the celebration to him. They also invite him to sing with them, making Pedro feel welcomed and integrated.

Since both spheres of activity, i.e. professional and non-professional, are interlinked by the reciprocal relationships between the two actors, the way in which Pedro and Mareike interact 'interculturally' in this external context will influence their already culturalised reciprocal relationship (and vice versa). In other words, despite the fact that Mareike and Pedro had already developed a common culturalised relationship, the lack of plausibility, normality and routines inherent in interculturality can and did occur once again due to this new experience . By joining Mareike, being interested in the celebration, getting to know more about her religious affiliation, this then becomes a new aspect of their culturalised relationship.

As we have seen, normality, plausibility and routine action are missing in intercultural interactions. In order to understand why this is we need to return to the nature of culture itself: It is a social construct, where meaning is constantly produced and reproduced through communication through and for its participants. And if we understand language as a system of signs and symbols, then it becomes clear that language is used as a basis for developing a common understanding and therefore interculturality.

From this perspective, interculturality encompasses the communication process that takes place when two or more people with unfamiliar cultural backgrounds meet in a specific environment as illustrated in the example below:

"On top of that, I was impressed by the fact that they often spoke simultaneously and interrupted each other for questions. To me, at the beginning, this seemed rude. But I learned that, on the contrary, my way of listening silently and only speaking when the others had said what they wanted to say, had two negative results: Firstly, I noticed that my way of communicating irritated my colleagues and I found out that it made them think I was not interested. Secondly, it made it difficult for me to express my opinion because I never found a moment in which no one was speaking. Another difference concerning communication is the use of gestures. I adapted quickly to using my hands in order to emphasize what I was saying. When I was at home for Christmas, my family suddenly broke out laughing while listening to me and explained that my hands were moving wildly which seemed strange to them. As I had done this unconsciously, I was a bit annoyed that they laughed at me and immediately, also unconsciously, used the gesture that Italians usually use when something is going wrong."

What this example highlights is that the communication style was both the cause of irritation but at the same time the means through which interculturality was being created.

Intercultural interactions are commonplace. They are just as prevalent in our own residential area, educational institutions or at work just as they are when travelling abroad. We are constantly and often unconsciously engaged in reaching agreements and determining positions – in the sense of “communicare” (lat.), meaning joint action to create common meaning. Understanding intercultural interaction as joint or collaborative action has the potential to enrich various aspects of our lives. In order to act / interact well in various cultural contexts, it is important to keep an open mind and avoid making assumptions about others’ cultural belongings. While we may be able to identify some aspects of the cultural context within a communication encounter, there are likely to be cultural influences that we cannot see.

How individuals interpret a situation (e.g. as familiar or unfamiliar), and which actions are selected and performed, depends on a range of factors. One of these is a person's previous experience of normality in comparable contexts. The less diverse this previously experienced normality is, the less flexible the images in the individual’s mind are (cf. Bolten 2015). If our previous experiences are similar, then behaviour can be easily conventionalised (and repeated). A further influencing factor lies in the fact that the experiences we collect have an impact on our self-image, the image we have of others and the meta-image. By meta-image here we mean the image we believe another person has of ourselves. All three images are interdependent and are related to the context in which they are generated. Furthermore, how we perceive objects around us or the people we encounter is orchestrated by our mental models and by the interplay of these three images (self-image, image of other, meta-image). We tend to group things together or use a known model in order to better understand something new and to interpret new experiences.

What we learn from this YouTube video / poem is that each person interpreted the new experience by using a mental model, i.e. they used their previous experiences. Their perception of the elephant is based on their mental models. Perception in this context can be defined as the process of making sense of the world around us, which involves deciding which information to notice and how to categorise and interpret it. However, perception is not the same as reality because it is based on an individual’s feelings, knowledge and experiences, which are all subjective. However, perception determines a person’s interpretation of a specific situation and their response to it.

This also means that our expectation and perception of intercultural encounters is influenced by our mental models. And it is in our mental models where our knowledge of intercultural interactions is stored. It is key to recognise here that a mental model is simply an abstraction or a simplification of a part of reality, acting like a filter. It is therefore personal and subjective (cf. Jonassen & Cho, 2008). Nevertheless "essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" (Box & Draper, 1987, p. 424). They are wrong because they are simplifications, and they can be useful because they give orientation. The ways in which people understand and create meaning from interacting with people to a particular end can be explained through the expression of their mental models (cf. Johnson-Laird, 1983).

Although perception is a largely cognitive and psychological process, how individuals perceive people and objects around them not only affects the interpretation of any encounter but also communication. For example, individuals respond differently to an object or person that they perceive favorably than they do to something they find unfavorable.

When two people meet, person A will perceive person B in a certain way based on expectations, knowledge and previous experiences. However at the same time the perceiver A is also part of the interaction process as person B will react and be affected by the behaviour of A. The perception process is therefore also influenced by the response patterns that ensue. This process can be described as “you see what you expect”. These expectations, assumptions and response patterns are in turn influenced by socialisation contexts (lifeworlds), which are, among other things, influenced by culture.

In intercultural communication, interpersonal perception leaves more scope for error and distortion than perceiving a particular object. Although interpersonal perception is more complex than object perception, it does, however, follow similar rules and can equally lead to errors.

Perception and communication are inextricably linked. How individuals communicate depends on the way they perceive the other. In the communication process, all events and feelings are activated and stored.

As we have seen, cultural differences can cause misunderstandings if we are not open-minded and aware of our mental models. These models are generated by our perceptions, expectations and experiences.

---