The Contributions of Hidden Assumptions to Culture Shock and Communication Barriers

Dr. Jungok Bae
University of California, Los Angeles
E-mail: jungokb@yahoo.com

Introduction

Culture Shock:

Since anthropologist K. Oberg first used the expression "culture shock" in the 1950s, this term has been popularized to describe problems of acculturation and adjustment among those suddenly transplanted abroad (Foster, 1962, p. 187). Foster views culture shock as a mental illness (1962, p. 187): the victim finds that he is irritable, depressed and annoyed by the lack of attention shown to him by his local technical counterpart. Adler (1987, p. 25-6) similarly describes culture shock: we picture the person undergoing intense culture shock as being lonely, homesick, and neurotic. He alternates between being angry with others for not understanding him and being filled with self-pity. He reflects his nervousness with cultural differences through defense mechanisms, such as repression, regression, isolation, and rejection.

Most cross-cultural specialists have used the term culture shock because of "historical tradition and the attention-getting value of the word" (Weaver, 1998). While the word "shock " has negative connotations, culture specialists have recommended that culture shock be understood as a profound cross-cultural learning experience, self-understanding, and personal growth (Adler, 1987; Arthur, 2002; Levy, 2000). Research since Oberg's has regarded culture shock as a normal and expected reaction as part of the process of adaptation to different cultures and the manifestation of a longing for a predictable and understandable environment (Chang, 2000). Weaver (1998) comments that culture shock is analogous to a cold. We can catch it over and over again, and the degree of the symptoms can vary from person to person. Some people who catch colds are inclined to suffer from severe reactions and additional stress. However, culture shock, like a cold, can be more or less harmless if we take some precautions to prevent it. For instance, having informed knowledge of the process of culture shock will provide a sense of control and predictability (Weaver, 1998). We can then develop our own coping strategies and control it as we do colds.

An Episode

In the following sections I will illustrate an example of culture shock, the process of which will be given a syllogistic analysis. In the early 1990s, I participated in a 3-week pre-academic orientation program in the United States sponsored by the U.S. Information Agency. There were about 50 students from all over the world who were about to begin their graduate degree studies in the U.S., each with one roommate in the dormitory. My roommate was a Filipino, who I befriended. We got along and associated with another young student, a married woman from Nepal.

One night, when my roommate and I were ready to go to bed, we heard someone knocking at the door. It was our friend from Nepal. She looked very embarrassed and said, with a little trembling voice, "Can I stay in your room for a few hours?&Quot; She didn't say why and tried not to show her unrest. We said yes. A few days later, we asked her to explain what had happened. She said: "When I opened my door that night, I was shocked at the sight of a man in my room. I found my roommate was with him. His hand was on her arm. I was so surprised that I couldn't stay there. I don't know who the guy is, but he was not one of our members. Nonetheless, as you know, I come from a cultural setting where I cannot talk to my husband freely and cannot even stand or sit with him side by side in the presence of his family or others. When I witnessed my roommate's usual liberal attitude or action toward the male students, I couldn't understand her. Moreover, the scene that night was a real shock. For me, it was the first culture shock.&Quot;

It was easy for our Nepalese friend to share her thoughts with us since both my roommate and I are from more or less conservative cultures. I wonder in what state of mind our Nepalese friend has been from that time on, but I guess that she has managed her shock. Her saying, "for me it was the first culture shock" implies that she has some informed knowledge of what she was experiencing and that she has her own coping strategy.

The Contributions of Hidden Assumptions to¾Culture Shock/Communication Barriers

We now turn to see why the scene became a shock to the young Nepalese student. In his discussions about cross-cultural communication, Gorden (1974) discusses a "syllogistic nature of meaning.&Quot; In this frame, "the silent assumption is the major premise, the message is the minor premise and the meaning is the conclusion of the syllogism" (p. 164). Applying this syllogism, I will analyze the process of my Nepalese friend's shock in relation to her hidden assumption below:

• Man and woman must be separated especially before marriage/ Chastity is a major virtue.

---> Major premise. Her hidden assumption

• This single, female student was sitting close to man in a woman's dormitory at night. This is not the kind of behavior of a chaste woman.

---> Minor premise. Action/message that the Nepalese student saw/heard.

• Therefore, this girl is immoral. It's unbelievable.

---> Conclusion. Interpretation of the action/message

As seen above, the Nepalese woman's assumption is based on her value system. In her own traditional culture, attitudes toward womanly virtues are very conservative and regulations on a woman's duties are strict. She observes her roommate's attitudes toward the opposite sex and feels that her value system, which she has cherished all her life, is challenged. In other words, her silent assumption based on her value and belief was disjointed in the new situation, and this brings about culture shock. This state causes inner conflict and sometimes anger. She comes to reject or avoid her roommate, not openly but rather covertly. Consequently, she and her European roommate begin to feel communication barriers. Realizing her shock state, the Nepalese student is probably confronted with another dilemma: she must either compromise to get along well with her European roommate, or persist in her value system. Not knowing what to do, she might suffer from additional stress.

Let us look more systematically at this process. The major premise is the Nepalese student's hidden assumption, from which she starts her thinking. The minor premise is what she saw in reality in the new environment. The conclusion of the syllogism becomes her interpretation of what she saw. This interpretation is based on her hidden assumption--an assumption that she takes for granted and lets remain unexpressed. When this assumption is disjointed, she experiences culture shock.

Let us further consider the contributions of hidden assumptions to culture shock or to communication barriers using examples found in Gorden (1974). Gorden's book, Living in Latin America, is a case study in cross-cultural communication. The book describes, analyzes, and interprets the interactions between young Peace Corp Americans as guests in Colombian homes (p. Xii). To date, the book has been considered a classic probe into cross-cultural communication and miscommunication between people from different cultures. In one example from this book, Colombian senoras expect an American guest to keep his towel and toilet articles in his own room and to hang his towel on the service patio to dry each day. The guest fails to do that. Thus, the Colombians conclude that Americans are generally thoughtless of others and do not care about their reputations. The American, on the other hand, concludes that Colombians are impractical and dirty, because he did not find any toilet articles in the bathroom and because, if there were any, they were always dirty. The process of this "reciprocal view" or "reciprocal miscalculation" (p. 34) of each party is analyzed next. Gorden, in his book, does not lay out the three-stage syllogism in the way I use below; however, it is implicitly in the syllogistic framework that he explains the process. In the following section, I will analyze a few of Gorden's examples with an explicit layout of the three-stage syllogism:

American:

• Towels and toilet articles should be left inside the bathroom.
• Towels and toilet articles are always missing in the bathroom. If there's any towel, it's always dirty.
• Therefore, Colombians are impractical and dirty.

Columbian:

• Towels and toilet articles are personal items. Towels should be hung on the patio each day to dry.
• This American always leaves towels and toilet articles in the bathroom.
• Therefore, this American is untidy, thoughtless of others, and does not care about his reputation.

As seen from these syllogisms, the American guest's silent assumption is different from that of the Colombian host's. The guest's assumption, which is relevant to the American cultural scene, becomes irrelevant to the Colombian culture. Moreover, the two parties are unaware of this problem. Consequently, as commented by Gorden, these different assumptions cause reciprocal misinterpretations of each other. In many cases, those misperceptions are based on another set of "dissonant silent assumptions" (p. 164). The senora may assume the following (analysis by L. Bouton, 1992): "'The guest will ask if he is interested or if he is not sure. He didn't ask me. Therefore, he knows it.' The guest, on the other hand, assumes differently: 'If I am wrong, she'll tell me. She didn't say anything. Therefore, I am right.' Actually, however, the reluctance to say to someone, especially to a guest, 'You are dirty,' or "You must do this,' is a human nature across cultures as commented by Gorden" (p. 46). Hidden assumptions remain unexpressed because they are unconscious or because the participants think their assumptions are universally understood, and therefore, need not be spoken.

Gorden indicates that hidden assumptions and the interpretations based on them are context-®specific. He comments that "when the scene changes there is a concomitant change in the potential activities, rules of the game, expectations, and assumptions that form the silent context used to interpret the true meaning of [the action/message]" (p. 12). Bouton (1992) comments that the American guest did not know that when the scenes change, the rules and assumptions change accordingly. He didn't know that, in the Colombian setting, the assumption and the rule on the common towel become the following: 'The common towel is for the kids, who have a tendency to soil towels unnecessarily. You are not a kid. Therefore, you should not use it.' As for the towels missing in the bathroom, the American did not know that the situation in Colombia is different: the climate is so humid that the towels should be always hung on the patio. Gorden points out that, because of the failure to know this situation, the foreigner unconsciously fills this "knowledge vacuum" with the wrong assumptions--one brought from his culture. (p. 44)

Now, how would culture shock or miscommunication, as the case may be, differ according to the stages of culture shock? To explain this, I will apply Hanvey's (1987) "four levels of cross-cultural awareness," which can be summarized as follows (p. 20- 21):

Level I: Awareness of superficial or visible cultural traits -- stereotypes.

Level II: Cultural conflict situations.

Level III: Intellectual analysis.

Level IV: Cultural immersion--living the culture.

To explain these levels, I will take my own example of a Korean student's slight "culture surprise" regarding Americans' blowing their noses in public. First, a Korean student begins with the following assumption based on "rules" of etiquette in Korea: "Blowing one's nose in public is improper. It is considered dirty and impolite. You'd better leave the place to do that.&Quot;

Level I: A Korean student hears or reads information on Americans blowing their noses and thinks the action is interesting or exotic.

Level II: However, when the student, now living in America, sees a respected professor suddenly and very naturally blowing his nose in front of the classroom. The student questions the professor's lack of concern for what appears to be a breach of etiquette. At this level, her culturally predetermined assumption becomes unsuitable, and it causes culture shock. If she stays only at this level without moving to Level III, she will not overcome cross-cultural communication gaps.

Level III: She analyzes it intellectually: "Blowing his/her nose is better than showing a runny nose in public. Moreover, blowing can be a candid action. Consider coughing. In Korea, even if we cough in the presence of others, we take it for granted and don't excuse ourselves. In America, Americans excuse themselves after a cough, however slight it may be. It is just a difference in cultural patterns. It is understandable.&Quot;

As Hanvey says, this Level III is necessary if one is to accept another culture. Otherwise, communication barriers and gaps will arise. This level, however, is not enough. One needs to try at least some aspect of Level IV awareness.

Level IV In reality, the student finds it very difficult to reach Level IV. For example, if she herself can blow her nose in class without feeling inappropriate, and feels that she acted like an American, we can say that she participated in and immersed herself in one aspect of American culture. As a result, she would get approval externally from Americans and rewards within herself. However, the student cannot blow her nose. If she must do that out of desperation, she may blow her nose very slowly to reduce the sound and hide her head under the desk so that her face cannot be seen. She has been conditioned and affected by her own culturally predetermined assumptions and rules. In fact, it is impossible for a person to perfectly reach Level IV. Moreover, as long as one intends to stay in another cultural setting as a temporary sojourner, it becomes more difficult to immerse oneself completely in the second culture, because that person knows he or she will return to one's own country. However, one should attain Level IV to some extent. As Hanvey (1987) concludes, one needs a readiness to "respect and accept" another culture, a capacity to participate, and plasticity.

Conclusion

In the previous section, I discussed the contributions of silent assumptions to culture shock and communication gaps. I applied Gorden's syllogistic nature of interpretations, laying out the three-stage syllogism to my own example and to those from Gorden. I have also discussed Hanvey's levels of cross-cultural awareness, applying my example to these levels. The discussion and the perspective in this paper are an elaboration, application, and re-emphasis of some of the insightful rules behind hidden assumptions and communication that these authors found. The summary below synthesizes and supports Gorden and Hanvey in the form of paraphrasing.

The particular assumptions that are applied in interpretations are linked with the situation itself and not with the words or observed actions. They are context-specific "situation-associated" assumptions (Gorden, p. 164). Indicating that the direct interpretation of the overt action or observation is insufficient to assure successful communication. One should understand a cultural situation and the assumptions shaped in that situation behind the overt verbal messages and observations that he or she may encounter in a new situation. One person's assumptions, which are relevant to his own cultural situation, can be inadequate in another culture. When one is ignorant of the culturally patterned possibilities of action in a foreign situation, he "unconsciously fills this knowledge vacuum with the assumptions brought with him" from his own culture (Gorden, p. 44). When his assumptions become disjointed or unfitting in the new environment, he experiences culture shock. This culture shock, if one cannot move to Hanvey's Level III (intellectual analysis), can lead to cross-cultural miscommunication.

Different assumptions of two participants lead to misinterpretations and communication barriers. Seemingly "trivial differences in cultural patterns" and "trivial misunderstandings" (Gorden, p. 34, 167) can often lead to mutual misperceptions and even generate hostility or alienation. We first need to understand how the cross-culturally dissonant assumptions cause culture shock and in many cases contribute to communication barriers. Second, to facilitate the acculturation process and to reduce the communication barriers, it is essential to learn and understand other cultures with which we are or will be in contact.

Author's Note:

I wish to thank Dr. Lawrence F. Bouton for helpful comments on the earlier version of the paper.

REFERENCE

Adler, P.S. (1987).

"Three Models of Culture Shock Viewed as a Limiting, Negative Experience, Followed by a Fourth, Positive Interpretation." In Luce, L.F., & Smith, E.C. (Eds.), Toward Internationalism. Newbury House Publishers.

 

Arthur, N. (2002).

"Preparing Students for a World of Work in Cross-Cultural Transition." Australian Journal of Career Development, 11, 9-13.

 

Bouton, L.F. (1992).

Lecture Notes for Course EIL 356, Culture and Second/Foreign Language Learning. Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

 

Chang, C-H. (2000).

"Culture Shock and Acculturation in Self-Directed Target Language Learning in an Authentic Target Language Environment." English Teacher: An International Journal, 4, 3-15.

 

Foster, G.M. (1962).

Traditional Cultures: and the Impact of Technological Change. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

 

Gorden, R.L. (1974).

Living in Latin America: A Case Study in Cross-Cultural Communication. National Textbook Co.

 

Hanvey, R.G. (1987).

"International Cross-Cultural Awareness and Methods to Attain Empathy and Integration in the New Culture." In Luce, L.F., & Smith E.C. (Eds.), Toward Internationalism. Newbury House Publishers.

 

Levy, D. (2000).

"The Shock of the Strange, the Shock of the Familiar: Learning from Study Abroad." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 1, 75-83.

 

Weaver, G. R. (1998).

"Understanding and Coping With Cross-Cultural Adjustment Stress." Culture, Communication and Conflict: Readings in Intercultural Relations (2nd edition). Pearsons.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: 28 April 2003 / Updated: 7 May 2003