anthropology

Blind Spot

In February I did the following project on the topic “Blind Spot”, based on the insight that in the West we often categorize people into scenery, machinery and people. Only the last group is seen as truly human and requiring respect. The two other groups are usually ignored or even treated as ‘dirt’. Unfortunately.
Blind spot
Blind Spot
50 x 40 cm
Acrylics on Paper

Complex Communication

Cross-cultural communication can be very tricky. Especially when people from indirect cultures communicate with people from direct cultures, and vice versa. The potential for misunderstandings is huge.

This was one of the topics I taught this week. Craig Storti uses the dialogue concept (which was developed by Alfred Kraemer) in his book “Figuring foreigners out.” The idea is to bury cultural differences inside a small dialogue to make people think.

I am especially fascinated by the following dialogue between an American employer and an Asian employee.

Ms. JONES: It looks like we’re going to need some people to come in on Saturday.
Mr. WU: I see.
Ms. JONES: Can you come in on Saturday?
Mr. WU: Yes, I think so.
Ms. JONES: That’ll be a great help.
Mr. WU: Yes. Saturday’s a special day, did you know?
Ms. JONES: How do you mean?
Mr. WU: It’s my son’s birthday.
Ms. JONES: How nice. I hope you all enjoy it very much.
Mr. WU: Thank you. I appreciate your understanding.

One reason I find this one so fascinating is that even I did not pick up on everything. Of course, I am not a specialist for Asian indirectness. But would you have noticed that the first two replies from Mr. Wu are an indirect ‘no’?

Ms. Jones did not realize that already her first opening sentence was perceived as an indirect request. Neither did she realize that Mr. Wu answered twice in the negative, but in his indirect style. He was probably wondering why she does not get it, so he tries to be more direct but without success. I did realize that, in the end, they both thought that they had understood each other, but didn’t. Mr. Wu will not come to work on Saturday but Ms. Jones still thought he would. Not a happy ending.

Since my students were all from indirect cultures, one exercise was to rewrite indirect sentences into more direct ones, so that their colleagues from direct cultures would get the message. I have not yet seen all the papers, but I can tell you that it was not an easy task for them. What they considered very direct was still fairly indirect. I guess it is the same for us, from direct cultures – it is hard to be more indirect, and not have the feeling that this way the message will never come across.

On the other hand, we need to realize that in situations where people from several cultures work together, indirect communication is not a good choice. Indirect communication is also called high context. It works well in situations where people have a lot common. Then it is not necessary to spell things out clearly. A lot can be implied and will still be understood because people have an intuitive understanding of each other because of the shared context. This is not the case in more individualistic contexts, nor in multicultural contexts. In these situations it is better to work towards a more direct communication style to avoid misunderstandings. Hopefully with a happier ending.

Cross-cultural communication can be very tricky. Especially when people from indirect cultures communicate with people from direct cultures, and vice versa. The potential for misunderstandings is huge.

This was one of the topics I taught this week. Craig Storti uses the dialogue concept which was developed by Alfred Kraemer in his book “Figuring Foreigners Out.” The idea is to bury cultural differences inside a small dialogue to make people think.

I am especially fascinated by the following dialogue between an American employer and an Asian employee.

Ms. JONES: It looks like we’re going to need some people to come in on Saturday.
Mr. WU: I see.
Ms. JONES: Can you come in on Saturday?
Mr. WU: Yes, I think so.
Ms. JONES: That’ll be a great help.
Mr. WU: Yes. Saturday’s a special day, did you know?
Ms. JONES: How do you mean?
Mr. WU: It’s my son’s birthday.
Ms. JONES: How nice. I hope you all enjoy it very much.
Mr. WU: Thank you. I appreciate your understanding.

One reason I find this one so fascinating is that even I did not pick up on everything. Of course, I am not a specialist for Asian indirectness. But would you have noticed that the first two replies from Mr. Wu are an indirect ‘no’?

Ms. Jones did not realize that already her first opening sentence was perceived as an indirect request. Neither did she realize that Mr. Wu answered twice in the negative, but very indirect. He probably is wondering why she does not get it, so he tries to be more direct but without success. I did realize that, in the end, they both thought that they had understood each other, but didn’t. Mr. Wu will not come to work on Saturday but Ms. Jones still thought he would. Not a happy ending.

Since my students were all from indirect cultures, one exercise was to rewrite indirect sentences into more direct ones, so that their colleagues from direct cultures would get the message. I have not yet seen all papers, but I can tell you that it was not easy for them. What they considered very direct was still fairly indirect. I guess it is the same for us, from direct cultures – it is hard to be more indirect, and not have the feeling that this way the message will never come across.

On the other hand, in situations where people from several cultures work together, indirect communication is not a good choice. Indirect communication are also called high context works well when people share a lot of background in common. This

What did you learn today?

So, what did you learn today? (or the last few days)

Here is what I learned last week:

I spent the second half of last week in San Diego at a conference of the NAES, National Association of Ethnic Studies. The main goal was to see how such a conference is organized and to learn how to present a conference paper. This means I was more interested in the technicalities than in the content, but I still tried to choose presentations that were of some interest to me.

Here are some of my observations:

  • General framework: each panel was scheduled for 1hr 15min, and had 4-5 speakers. As there should also be time for questions at the end, this meant that each presenter had about 12-15 minutes. This is very little. It is certainly not easy to stick to that time.
  • The chair sometimes introduced the presenters in detail, sometimes not. In one case the chair used the final time slot to present a critique (not criticism) of each presentation, basically giving an additional presentation. I found that less interesting than the Q&A times.

Presenters roughly fell into three groups:

  1. Some gave a strict reading of the paper, often with little eye contact.
  2. Others read the paper, but interspersed with informal comments and explanations, usually with more eye contact and lively (livelier) intonation. In some cases they read large passages but then made transitions with informal remarks that made it more lively. Or the reading was interspersed with explanations about the PPT (powerpoint) slides.
  3. A third group presented the material freely without reading any material, except maybe some quotes. My guess is that most people in this group were teachers or professors who were used to lecturing without reading their paper.

Other differences and observations:

  • Some read too fast and it was hard to follow, especially when coupled with
    • Reading with little intonation, not very lively way of speaking.
    • Using too many big words that were hard to conceptualize for non-insiders.
  • Only one person handed out copies which was good because his PPT did not work, but it is hard to know how many people will come to each group.
  • Maybe half of the presenters used PPT.
  • In one case the picture on the screen was for the following presenter. This was distracting.
  • Only one person went overtime and even that was due to a misunderstanding.
  • There was especially one presentations that kept the audience spellbound by the way of presentation (as far as I could tell):
    • an African professor who was a great storyteller (in good African tradition).
  • There were three presentations (among those that I heard) that captivated people due to the content:
    • an African-American young lady who talked about her auto-ethnographic research and search for identity,
    • two men who spoke about the humanitarian blight of illegal immigrants along the American-Mexican border.

Concerning the content of the presentations and the supporting research data:

  • The presenters did not give a lot of information about the research data, only about general methodology (probably due to the time constraint).
  • Even if they had done a lot of research the presentation could only focus on a small part of it.
  • The titles of the presentations were not always telling you much about the content.
  • In quite a few cases I had the impression that the title had more to do with the conference theme than with the actual content of the presentation.
  • Some presentations had very little to do with ethnic studies, e.g.
    • one geography student who had done the same presentation at a geography conference and now just left out a lot of geographical details.
    • one student of philosophy (?) spoke about the Islamic concept of the heart with very little reference to the panel theme.

All this tells me that I need to be less concerned about not having material that fits exactly with the conference theme. It seems to be OK if it only touches on the theme in some broad sense and with creativity. This was actually my main worry because it is of course rare that you have done sufficient research in an area that fits a conference theme exactly. I also go the impression that there are large differences in the amount of research that went into each presentation, and the depth of knowledge.  This will also help me to be less afraid of not having enough data or having done huge amounts of research.

Good ideas and things I want to copy:

  • Set a timer before you start. Even though the chair will give you a notice when you have only 2 minutes left.
  • Say “quote” before you read a quote.
  • Explain the larger context of your paper in the beginning, including any planned future research.
  • Don’t assume that the audience knows a lot about your topic, give enough simplified explanations so that anybody can follow.
  • Avoid “big” (technical) words and tongue twisters.
  • Mention authors of existing works in your research area by name.
  • Preferably use a PPT but not too many slides.
  • Try to speak freely but practice good timing and lively intonation.
  • Provide a clear summary at the beginning and the end of what you propose or want to communicate through the paper.
  • If possible try storytelling and include personal stories.

All this was very helpful and gave me a better idea about what it means to present a conference paper, as this is something I will be doing in the near future. Thanks to this conference I am now better equipped to do it. And hopefully less nervous. 😉

BlogDay 2008

Through the blog of a Facebook friend (thanks, Eddie) I discovered that it is BlogDay 2008 today. That was the first time I heard about it but it sounds like a good idea and a lot of fun. This is the fourth time.

 

The instructions for it are fairly simple:

BlogDay posting instructions:

  1. Find 5 new Blogs that you find interesting
  2. Notify the 5 bloggers that you are recommending them as part of BlogDay 2008
  3. Write a short description of the Blogs and place a link to the recommended Blogs
  4. Post the BlogDay Post (on August 31st) and
  5. Add the BlogDay tag using this link:
    http://technorati.com/tag/BlogDay2008 and a link to the BlogDay web site at http://www.blogday.org

Since the day is not over yet, I will suggest my share of five blogs:

One of me recent discoveries is “Savage Mind” a group blog on anthropological topics. I have already found several interesting ideas there. I am looking forward to reading more and keeping myself up-to-date in the area of anthropology.

Everyday Sociology” is an even more recent discovery (this weekend) that I plan to read regularily because the topics are really interesting and fascinating. Plus, there is a lot of relevance to my own resesarch.

Wayne Jacobsen, writes on “Life Stream Blog”. I have listened to his podcast “The God Journey” (together with Brad Cummings) on and off over the past few years and found them inspiring and challenging. Now I have started reading his blog. And one of his books – “He loves me!“. 😉

For some time I have been lurking on Dan J. Brennan’s blog. 😉 Dan is in the process of writing a book on cross-sex (non-romantic) friendships. He writes more blogs than I have time to read but I find his point of view interesting, even though some of his ideas leave me with mixed feelings. I think a lot will depend on the practical implementation of the idea. I wish I had the time to read some of the books he mentions. At least through his blog, I get a glimps of some of them.

And last but not least, one from down under,  “Mark Conner’s Space”. I stumbled across this blog today and from all that I have read so far, I really like his balanced and pastoral take on things, such as the recent revelations on some Christian leaders.

P.S. Apologies to the blog owners that I notified you so late. Certainly too late for Australians to participate. 🙁