December 10 - American Cultural Patterns
I thought that it might be time to let you in on some of the material that I have been reading. The posts for the next several days will be the books that I have been reading in class. The first book is a heady but excellent book called American Cultural Patterns. I read it for Anthropology Class.
Grace and peace,
Trav Wilson
Grace and peace,
Trav Wilson
Central Argument. Whereas “Americans frequently have difficulties in communicating and cooperating with their foreign counterparts” (Stewart 174), Stewart and Bennett wrote this book on American cultural patterns “to improve cultural understanding” (ix), to help readers “to inform [their] judgment and to assist readers in becoming intercultural communicators who are capable of making the necessary observations about themselves and their counterparts” (176). This is not merely a text on American cultural patterns; it compares American and other cultural examples, acting as a vehicle for American cross cultural communicators to understand themselves as they reach out in ‘mission’ around the world. Whether the ‘mission’ is economic, political, social or religious, this book guides the reader to sensitive interaction with cultures that are foreign in terms of their “cultural assumptions” (12) and their “cultural values” (14).
Sub-points. In a variety of social environments, Americans and the persons with whom they are interacting have a tendency to develop “stereotypes” of each other, mainly because of a “a failure to recognize relevant cultural differences” (6). Therefore, Stewart and Bennett’s goal for their readers is “lasting success” in cross-cultural communication, based on a developing “empathy” and “good human relations” with their “co-workers” (1). For the authors, cultural differences reside in the “subjective culture … [the] assumptions, values and patterns of thinking” and the “objective culture … [the] economic system, social customs, political structures … arts, crafts and literature” (2). These differences may be transcended with the adoption of a kind of “third culture … based on expanded cross-cultural understanding” (16).
The authors begin with American cultural patterns of perception and thinking. Primarily, Americans focus on “functional, pragmatic applications of thinking” (28) with thinking that is “more closely oriented to action and getting things done” (30). This causes Americans to understand ‘facts’ as “empirical, observable and measurable”, “reliable” between observers (30), “objective” and related to “coordinates of time and space” (31). This leads to a “pragmatism” in American thought which “emphasizes solving problems and accomplishing tasks” (32). Due to this pragmatism, Americans tend to focus on the obstacles to solving problems, also known as “negative reasoning” (36). Pragmatism further gives Americans the need for an “implied agent” (37). Even the English language demands this in the simple sentence “It is raining” (39).
Thus, as Americans have an “abstract, analytical” worldview (44), Americans view language as a tool where their “message reaches the receiver … [delivering the] meaning intact” (45). This ignores the possibility of a richer linguistic tradition on the part of the hearer. “Status markers” and “kinship terms” (49) that do not exist in English are prevalent in the languages of other cultures. Other issues of vocabulary may be words that have subtle spectrum of meaning or connected with “social obligations” (51). Beyond mere vocabulary, the “subject/predicate” construction of English, unlike other languages, prejudices “the speaker to interpret as fixed the relationship between subjects or things and their qualities or attributes” (50). Beyond structure, Americans tend “to see nonverbal behavior as ancillary to verbal communication,” whereas in other cultures it expresses the bulk of the conversation (59). As a result, Americans are “poorly prepared” to interpret the subtleties of “nonverbal communication” in other cultures (60).
For Americans, activity is rooted in “problem solving”, belief in a “natural order” (68), emphasizing a “choice” between alternatives (69) and founded on the individual. Americans believe in “effort-optimism” that “hard work will bring about what the individual wants” (74). Individuals are motivated by “achievement” and “ascription.” The authors assert that achievement is rooted in “measurable achievement” (78), “competition and affiliation” (79) and is ultimately based on doing. However, ascription is based on “being in a [certain] role” (77).
According to the authors, Americans view themselves as “egalitarian” in their social relations (89). This means that they value “equality” (90) yet avoid “personal commitments” (94). Americans are also given toward “meeting … [a] problem head on” (96) yet also given to “informality” (99) in personal relationships, even giving “friendship” (100) easily. Ironically, this egalitarian view of friendship leaves many Americans “depersonalized” (104). Also competition and egalitarian leanings define the need for cooperation and fairness among Americans and a “need to be liked” (107).
Americans perceive the world, indeed nature itself, as something to be “controlled in the service of human beings” (115). This gives rise to a certain level of materialism and a cultural assumption that property is private. Due to a residual limitless-frontier mentality, Americans also assume that these material blessings should increase and should “progress” (119). This places a high value on labor saving technology and other technical achievements that “simplify and standardize human performance” (121). In such a technical culture, time is a commodity, the future is of prime importance, concrete measurement is valued, and health and disease are meant to be crushed. The world is to be mastered and the individual self has the right to do just that.
Americans believe the individual is the “cultural quantum of society” (133). As such American moral decisions must meet two criteria: the “consent” of those involved and “no one is harmed” (135). Autonomy, self-reliance and self-motivation are the currency of the American cultural economy. With this emphasis on the individual, Americans are also radically independent of “systems of thought” (140), viewing them as “threats to the individual” (141). Even government, from which Americans have always struggled for independence, is seen as assuring the people of “certain rights rather than demanding obligations” (145).
Compliment or Clash. As I have yet to read the other required books, I cannot comment on how this book does or does not compliment or clash with them. However, given that the others are in many ways Christian in orientation, I might surmise that one clash would be with theology. I was surprised at how, in a book on culture, there was little discussion of religion. If religion is discussed it is phrased negatively and stated without context: “… Christianity is committed to the doctrine that human beings are evil by nature …” (114).
If one transcends this secular humanism, a missional church has much to learn from it. Perhaps this book was chosen to be read first to illumine how Americans communicate in general. This complements the other assigned readings which were chosen to further develop a missional perspective on American culture. The encounter with the secular humanism in this book is, therefore, a blessing, as through it we may touch the culture that is to us home.
Vision of Class Discussion. American Cultural Patterns is full of generalizations, dated ideas, and tends to gloss over finer points of some issues. In fact, regarding generalizations, the title does not indicate the subject matter. A title that involves discussing white, middle-class, non-southern, non-New England, non-minority Americans would be more accurate. Regarding, dated ideas, there is no discussion of the fastest growing mission field on the North American continent: Hispanics. One has only to look at the sale signs at Wal-Mart to see this.
In regard to glossing over finer points, when the authors discuss the “fundamental difference in how Americans and Japanese work with measurements, probability and plans” (34) they betray a misunderstanding of Japanese quality control systems when compared to their American counterparts. The ‘Japanese’ quality control system (actually Toyota) did not rise from a conversation in a community, but was developed by Shigeo Shingo, chief engineer at Toyota, building on the work of American mathematician W. Edwards Deming. While Shingo was doubtless formed by his own culture, his response seems very American. The Toyota system is possible, because Shingo invented the SMED (single-minute-exchange-of-dies) concept. As a result, the Japanese “adopt the attitude of craftsmen and … [inspect] … each item produced” (34) because it is possible in ‘their’ system, though culture is doubtless involved, this is not necessarily because of culture, but because one man developed one concept. The Japanese mimicked Americans mass-production methods well into the 1980s. Harley-Davidson has made an excellent and complete transition to this system without adopting Japanese culture. For a better summary of this, please read The Machine that Changed the World.
Despite these limitations, first, this book is full of insights on intercultural communications. Therefore, in class we should wrestle with this question: what insights may we glean from this book? Second, there are excellent dimensions to this book, which I will discuss in the final section of this paper. All of them, however, are secular. I envision the class discussion of this book being a baptism of its secular dimensions.
Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience & Ministry Application. My generation will set to pattern for how the church will respond in mission and ministry in the 21st and early 22nd centuries. The only reason that this is not scary is because Christ will not leave us alone: “I am with you until the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:18 NRSV). As we begin this great work, we would do well to heed Stewart and Bennett’s advice on cross cultural communication. In particular, the cultivation of “empathy” (169) and intimacy with “cultural variations.” However, what I found most fascinating was the idea of “the creation of a third culture” (173). Baptized in the name of Christ, the idea of the third culture is synonymous with bedrock Christian ideas such as incarnation and mission. While the purpose of this book is secular humanist and enters no direct encounter with scripture, through the third culture concept, it obliquely connects to scripture, giving insight into the incarnate missional life to which Christ calls us.
Traditionally we have not done so well at creating a third culture. Historically, we transplant our extant liturgy and music to other cultures with little thought of translation. When I did short term mission projects to Brazil, my effectiveness in building trust dramatically improved when I was willing to sit in the presence of the culture there and absorb it. Brazilians, themselves a stewpot of immigrants, have different views of time, but generally, the culture focuses on the present. Once I quit looking at my watch and allowed time, space and even the Holy Spirit to work, some of my best relationships were forged.
The best application that we can make from this book is to study and follow the authors’ cultural objectives: (1) establish cross-cultural bridges through the crafting of a third culture, (2) be culturally relevant, (3) understand ones own cultural biases, (4) identify and understand facilitating and interfering factors in cross-cultural communications, (5) and continuously improve ones cultural judgment (174-175).
“And the Word became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). Even in a secular humanist book, if it is of value to the Kingdom of God, the truth of Christ will leak out. Nowhere in the whole book is the above scripture more present than in their words: “Programs sponsored in the third culture are considered to be rational, secular, and future-oriented. Expected to show concrete results, they are construed as a beginning and are expected to grow and perhaps diffuse throughout the society” (174). Christ’s mission to earth had many rational elements to it: he debated the Pharisees and challenged the dominant paradigms of theological thought. He was not secular, yet neither did he follow the dominant paradigm of religion either. His vision of God’s Kingdom was present now, yet also was future-oriented. There were also concrete results of his presence with us such as, “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43) and “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41). Jesus’ incarnation was a beginning of God’s greatest work. It was expected to grow. It was expected to diffuse throughout society. So should we be missional, incarnate and effective.
Sub-points. In a variety of social environments, Americans and the persons with whom they are interacting have a tendency to develop “stereotypes” of each other, mainly because of a “a failure to recognize relevant cultural differences” (6). Therefore, Stewart and Bennett’s goal for their readers is “lasting success” in cross-cultural communication, based on a developing “empathy” and “good human relations” with their “co-workers” (1). For the authors, cultural differences reside in the “subjective culture … [the] assumptions, values and patterns of thinking” and the “objective culture … [the] economic system, social customs, political structures … arts, crafts and literature” (2). These differences may be transcended with the adoption of a kind of “third culture … based on expanded cross-cultural understanding” (16).
The authors begin with American cultural patterns of perception and thinking. Primarily, Americans focus on “functional, pragmatic applications of thinking” (28) with thinking that is “more closely oriented to action and getting things done” (30). This causes Americans to understand ‘facts’ as “empirical, observable and measurable”, “reliable” between observers (30), “objective” and related to “coordinates of time and space” (31). This leads to a “pragmatism” in American thought which “emphasizes solving problems and accomplishing tasks” (32). Due to this pragmatism, Americans tend to focus on the obstacles to solving problems, also known as “negative reasoning” (36). Pragmatism further gives Americans the need for an “implied agent” (37). Even the English language demands this in the simple sentence “It is raining” (39).
Thus, as Americans have an “abstract, analytical” worldview (44), Americans view language as a tool where their “message reaches the receiver … [delivering the] meaning intact” (45). This ignores the possibility of a richer linguistic tradition on the part of the hearer. “Status markers” and “kinship terms” (49) that do not exist in English are prevalent in the languages of other cultures. Other issues of vocabulary may be words that have subtle spectrum of meaning or connected with “social obligations” (51). Beyond mere vocabulary, the “subject/predicate” construction of English, unlike other languages, prejudices “the speaker to interpret as fixed the relationship between subjects or things and their qualities or attributes” (50). Beyond structure, Americans tend “to see nonverbal behavior as ancillary to verbal communication,” whereas in other cultures it expresses the bulk of the conversation (59). As a result, Americans are “poorly prepared” to interpret the subtleties of “nonverbal communication” in other cultures (60).
For Americans, activity is rooted in “problem solving”, belief in a “natural order” (68), emphasizing a “choice” between alternatives (69) and founded on the individual. Americans believe in “effort-optimism” that “hard work will bring about what the individual wants” (74). Individuals are motivated by “achievement” and “ascription.” The authors assert that achievement is rooted in “measurable achievement” (78), “competition and affiliation” (79) and is ultimately based on doing. However, ascription is based on “being in a [certain] role” (77).
According to the authors, Americans view themselves as “egalitarian” in their social relations (89). This means that they value “equality” (90) yet avoid “personal commitments” (94). Americans are also given toward “meeting … [a] problem head on” (96) yet also given to “informality” (99) in personal relationships, even giving “friendship” (100) easily. Ironically, this egalitarian view of friendship leaves many Americans “depersonalized” (104). Also competition and egalitarian leanings define the need for cooperation and fairness among Americans and a “need to be liked” (107).
Americans perceive the world, indeed nature itself, as something to be “controlled in the service of human beings” (115). This gives rise to a certain level of materialism and a cultural assumption that property is private. Due to a residual limitless-frontier mentality, Americans also assume that these material blessings should increase and should “progress” (119). This places a high value on labor saving technology and other technical achievements that “simplify and standardize human performance” (121). In such a technical culture, time is a commodity, the future is of prime importance, concrete measurement is valued, and health and disease are meant to be crushed. The world is to be mastered and the individual self has the right to do just that.
Americans believe the individual is the “cultural quantum of society” (133). As such American moral decisions must meet two criteria: the “consent” of those involved and “no one is harmed” (135). Autonomy, self-reliance and self-motivation are the currency of the American cultural economy. With this emphasis on the individual, Americans are also radically independent of “systems of thought” (140), viewing them as “threats to the individual” (141). Even government, from which Americans have always struggled for independence, is seen as assuring the people of “certain rights rather than demanding obligations” (145).
Compliment or Clash. As I have yet to read the other required books, I cannot comment on how this book does or does not compliment or clash with them. However, given that the others are in many ways Christian in orientation, I might surmise that one clash would be with theology. I was surprised at how, in a book on culture, there was little discussion of religion. If religion is discussed it is phrased negatively and stated without context: “… Christianity is committed to the doctrine that human beings are evil by nature …” (114).
If one transcends this secular humanism, a missional church has much to learn from it. Perhaps this book was chosen to be read first to illumine how Americans communicate in general. This complements the other assigned readings which were chosen to further develop a missional perspective on American culture. The encounter with the secular humanism in this book is, therefore, a blessing, as through it we may touch the culture that is to us home.
Vision of Class Discussion. American Cultural Patterns is full of generalizations, dated ideas, and tends to gloss over finer points of some issues. In fact, regarding generalizations, the title does not indicate the subject matter. A title that involves discussing white, middle-class, non-southern, non-New England, non-minority Americans would be more accurate. Regarding, dated ideas, there is no discussion of the fastest growing mission field on the North American continent: Hispanics. One has only to look at the sale signs at Wal-Mart to see this.
In regard to glossing over finer points, when the authors discuss the “fundamental difference in how Americans and Japanese work with measurements, probability and plans” (34) they betray a misunderstanding of Japanese quality control systems when compared to their American counterparts. The ‘Japanese’ quality control system (actually Toyota) did not rise from a conversation in a community, but was developed by Shigeo Shingo, chief engineer at Toyota, building on the work of American mathematician W. Edwards Deming. While Shingo was doubtless formed by his own culture, his response seems very American. The Toyota system is possible, because Shingo invented the SMED (single-minute-exchange-of-dies) concept. As a result, the Japanese “adopt the attitude of craftsmen and … [inspect] … each item produced” (34) because it is possible in ‘their’ system, though culture is doubtless involved, this is not necessarily because of culture, but because one man developed one concept. The Japanese mimicked Americans mass-production methods well into the 1980s. Harley-Davidson has made an excellent and complete transition to this system without adopting Japanese culture. For a better summary of this, please read The Machine that Changed the World.
Despite these limitations, first, this book is full of insights on intercultural communications. Therefore, in class we should wrestle with this question: what insights may we glean from this book? Second, there are excellent dimensions to this book, which I will discuss in the final section of this paper. All of them, however, are secular. I envision the class discussion of this book being a baptism of its secular dimensions.
Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience & Ministry Application. My generation will set to pattern for how the church will respond in mission and ministry in the 21st and early 22nd centuries. The only reason that this is not scary is because Christ will not leave us alone: “I am with you until the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:18 NRSV). As we begin this great work, we would do well to heed Stewart and Bennett’s advice on cross cultural communication. In particular, the cultivation of “empathy” (169) and intimacy with “cultural variations.” However, what I found most fascinating was the idea of “the creation of a third culture” (173). Baptized in the name of Christ, the idea of the third culture is synonymous with bedrock Christian ideas such as incarnation and mission. While the purpose of this book is secular humanist and enters no direct encounter with scripture, through the third culture concept, it obliquely connects to scripture, giving insight into the incarnate missional life to which Christ calls us.
Traditionally we have not done so well at creating a third culture. Historically, we transplant our extant liturgy and music to other cultures with little thought of translation. When I did short term mission projects to Brazil, my effectiveness in building trust dramatically improved when I was willing to sit in the presence of the culture there and absorb it. Brazilians, themselves a stewpot of immigrants, have different views of time, but generally, the culture focuses on the present. Once I quit looking at my watch and allowed time, space and even the Holy Spirit to work, some of my best relationships were forged.
The best application that we can make from this book is to study and follow the authors’ cultural objectives: (1) establish cross-cultural bridges through the crafting of a third culture, (2) be culturally relevant, (3) understand ones own cultural biases, (4) identify and understand facilitating and interfering factors in cross-cultural communications, (5) and continuously improve ones cultural judgment (174-175).
“And the Word became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). Even in a secular humanist book, if it is of value to the Kingdom of God, the truth of Christ will leak out. Nowhere in the whole book is the above scripture more present than in their words: “Programs sponsored in the third culture are considered to be rational, secular, and future-oriented. Expected to show concrete results, they are construed as a beginning and are expected to grow and perhaps diffuse throughout the society” (174). Christ’s mission to earth had many rational elements to it: he debated the Pharisees and challenged the dominant paradigms of theological thought. He was not secular, yet neither did he follow the dominant paradigm of religion either. His vision of God’s Kingdom was present now, yet also was future-oriented. There were also concrete results of his presence with us such as, “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43) and “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41). Jesus’ incarnation was a beginning of God’s greatest work. It was expected to grow. It was expected to diffuse throughout society. So should we be missional, incarnate and effective.
posted by Trav Wilson at 9:11 AM
<< Home