朱曉楠

【Abstract】This paper gives a detailed description of a case of intercultural communication between Chinese and American people. The analysis elaborates possible reasons of the problem lying beyond lines. Differences in deep structure between cultures account for most of the confrontations and misunderstanding. In this analysis, by applying theories and principles concerning intercultural communication, the underlying rationale is elicited and for purpose of conflict avoidance and successful communication, it is suggested that handling both self-culture and the target culture as well as strengthening cross-cultural communication are among effective approaches to fulfill successful dialogue between cultures.

【Key words】Intercultural communication; conflict; power distance

Case

An American manager in a data-processing company was having difficulty dealing with a conflict between a young, ambitious American male and his co-worker, an older Chinese woman. She had recently become uncooperative and had made it clear to the manager that she would not travel to the Capitol with her co-worker to hold discussion with legislators about a new product.

When the manager asked her what the problem was, he received no clear explanation. When he asked her co-worker, the young man had no insights to offer. The young American was clearly annoyed that the Chinese woman refused to share her data with him. That meant he could not make the presentation. The manager repeated his questions to her but her “problem” got nowhere. So he changed his approach. He began explaining his concerns, as manager and as spokesperson for the company, about the upcoming meeting with legislators. His explanation about his position was unemotional. She then revealed that she felt that as an elder, and to her mind, more senior person, she should not be sent to the Capitol with a younger employee who would do the presentation that she had worked hard to develop. That would diminish her status. The general manger knew the root of his headache.

1. Analysis.Three subjects were involved in this case: the manager, the young American, and the elder Chinese woman. The main conflict was between the young American and the Chinese woman, yet misunderstanding also lay between the manager and the woman at first. Put it this way, the contradiction between the young American and the Chinese woman cannot be de-conflicted because of the noncooperation and silence of the woman and the manager seemed to be a mediator between the two. In a first direct inquiry, the manager failed to elicit any possible reasons from the woman whereas an approach change in the second try turned out to be effective. By sharing his own difficulty, the manager was able to exchange it with the woman.

2. Hierarchy vs. Egalitarian.In spite of gaps between the young man and the elder woman, only two defining properties differing between the two are worth considering: the status and the age, which can be analyzed using value dimensions theory proposed by Hofstede who has classified cultural patterns into five value dimensions (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, long-term/short-term orientation). According to him, “power distance defines the extent to which the less powerful person in society accepts inequality in power and considers it as normal.”[1]In his statistical results of the power distance ranking for fifty-three countries or regions, there is a sharp contrast between the United States (ranking 38) and Hong Kong (ranking 15/16). For high power distance countries, both consciously and unconsciously, social hierarchy is pervasive and inequality ubiquitous. Yet low power distance countries are for the most part administered by laws, norms, and everyday behaviors that make power distinctions to the minimum.

Hong Kong is a region with higher power distance whereas the United States is a country enjoying lower power distance. What distinguishes high power distance from low power distance is whether there is the conventionalized inequality embedded in that particular culture, and this is perhaps the premise and center of our discussion. Being immersed in western culture for over a hundred years as a vigorous international metropolitan, Hong Kong still cannot free itself from a more influential effect of traditional Chinese culture which emphasizes on Li (禮). What underlies Li is the hierarchical social structure in China; people give tacit consent to the inequality between individuals. And this inequality endows men with different labels according to their various social statuses. In contrast, in the U.S., a persons status is usually obtained through individual effort. Most Americans are not very concerned with differences in social status since they believe that everyone is equal and has equal opportunities to succeed. [2]

Age-grouping is common in all cultures. [3] In China, elder people always enjoy priorities over the young because of their seniority. On many occasions, people from high power distance cultural background are more likely to rank themselves according to age. ‘Perhaps the chief determinant of relative power in China is seniority.[4] Absolute Obedience and deference to the senior are highly recommended. Conspicuously, the younger generations are required to unconditionally obey the elders in traditional Chinese family. It is also identical in business cases. Interestingly, senior workers usually have the final say in all decisions. They have a superiority complex over the new comers. That is to say, people are respected not because of their competence but because of their statuses or seniorities. However, things are entirely different in American culture or at least among most members of the dominant culture. American people prefer young to old age; by extoling the values of youth and warns of the growing old, Americans have developed a pessimistic outlook toward aging. [5]

3.Implication.This is a common case in intercultural communication between China and the United States. Because of cultural differences between the two, conflict might arise from time to time. The analysis shed light on how to avoid confrontations and misunderstanding. Possible ways include making personal contact with the host culture, participating in cultural activities, and being aware of cultural differences in listening, encouraging and analyzing feedback. Worth mentioning is that the chief principle in intercultural communication is to respect not only the very person but the culture in which the person was nurtured. Besides, it is equally important to keep the conflict concentrated on ideas, not people. [6] In a word, the ultimate goal of intercultural communication is to fulfill mutual understanding. Therefore, the first and foremost is to fully understand the culture of your own as a basis from which extension and comparison can be made between the self-culture and the target culture.

Reference：

[1]Xu,Lisheng. Intercultural Communication[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2008.

[2][3][4][5][6]Samovar, L. A. Porter, R. E. McDaniel, E. R. Communication Between Cultures, Seventh Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010.