7.5 Quasi-natural worldview

The so-called "natural worldview" considers that when meeting others we usually take our knowledge and assumptions as facts in order to interpret behaviour. Knowing that there are different habits, values and meanings, we can use our existing knowledge, expand it by asking in order to get to enlarge it or as we at times do, assume that we know. Science also provides us with interpretations and frameworks when developing a cultural profile as part of unit 6. You may recall that we looked at independent versus interdependent patterns and indirect versus direct communication to name but a few. These are scientific constructions and second order categories that help us to ascribe meaning to an action. For example, an intercultural 'expert' might say: "He is more of an indirect type and uses high context communication in contrast to the other person who is a more direct type and uses lo context communication". This type of thinking is reflected by the many culture-contrastive 'critical incidents', which are supposed to exemplify a particular cultural behaviour. Due to the necessity of finding order in intercultural interactions, these categories have become and are often used as ways and means of interpreting a certain situation and giving meaning to it.

Source: Based on Rathje, Stefanie (2015). Multicollectivity – It changes everything. Key Note Speech at the SIETAR Europe Congress.
Figure by Julia Flitta (www.julia-flitta.com)

The main assumptive framework here is that there are particular cultural factors which influence the situation and from this perspective culture is seen as "ways of living and acting". This concept is mostly associated with national cultures, but also with any other idea of a closed group of people as members of a community, e.g. the "British family", "golfers", "all native speakers of Hindi". As you might have noticed, there is a reference here to the closed concept of culture that you came across in the first unit. Nonetheless our focus is on a dynamic understanding of cultures and the multi-collectivity approach. However, we need to be aware that if we use one or more cultural explanations and the moment we try to understand someone´s intentions, we automatically ascribe motives, meanings and find interpretations, which means we use closed notions of culture. That does not mean we cannot open up for other hypotheses as explanations what we should. Since intercultural communication from this perspective focusses on different meanings and expectations, misunderstandings could be said to be the logical consequence when people of different groups or communities meet. Whenever we use this meta-perspective of the ‘quasi world view’, we work with assumptions about the motives or intentions of others and ourselves, and we interpret and apply the knowledge we have. Hence, when dealing with strangeness, i.e. that which we do not know or that which is unfamiliar or 'abnormal' to us, we believe that a change of perspectives will help to foster understanding and support the development of intercultural competence.

(Inspired by Ferres, R., Meyer-Belitz, F., Röhrs, B., & Thomas, A. (2005): Beruflich in Mexiko. Trainingsprogramm für Manager, Fach- und Führungskräfte.)

Summary: the quasi-natural worldview meta-perspective

The intercultural approach has emerged because we can hardly interact without giving meaning to the actions of those involved when we experience misunderstandings. This is based on our knowing about possible other reasons for action, values as motives and habitual orientations in different cultures. Using this knowledge base leads to a closed notion of culture (e.g. nations, countries, regions, mentalities; "software of the mind") as hypotheses.

Characteristics of the quasi-natural world view and intercultural learning approach:

• considers people as primarily 'belonging' to (one or more) cultures
• anticipates the likelihood of culture clashes when people ('from different cultures') meet (culture as an independent variable)
• aims at understanding perspectives, e.g. values, motives, and meanings
• uses available knowledge or looks for routines in the respective cultures as a basis for interpretation
• aims at switching perspectives
• is oriented towards the Enlightenment: understanding and reasoning as key factor

Typical scholars of the culture contrastive approach are:

• Edward T. Hall (e.g. "The hidden dimension", 1976; "The dance of life", 1984)
• Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede & Michael Minkov ("Cultures and organizations – Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival", 2010
• Michele Gelfand ("Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world", 2018)