Page 180 - Culture Technology Communication

Diversity in On-Line Discussions 163

ance or the extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguity; and
individualism which reflects the relational ties between an individ-
ual and others. Although this research focused on cultures of differ-
ent nations, it can be argued that Hofstede’s findings can also be
applied to a variety of cross-cultural communication situations.
Scholars of cross-cultural communication, most notably Hall
(1976) and Ting-Toomey (1988), regard Hofstede’s dimension of indi-
vidualism as a crucial dimension of variability across cultures. It is
also a key dimension in understanding interpersonal and group in-
teraction and communication processes. In an individualistic cul-
ture, individuals are loosely integrated with others and value their
own self-interest and that of their immediate family only. In con-
trast, in collectivistic cultures, individuals relate to larger collectivi-
ties and groupings and themselves as integrated with the whole.
Hall (1976) describes cultures as being high- or low-context, with
context serving as the information that surrounds and gives meaning
to an event. In other words, in high-context cultures, meaning is
found in the nature of the situation and relationships, while in low-
context cultures meaning is found in the words. Furthermore, key to
interpersonal and communication behavior, high-context cultures
strive for subtlety, patience and empathy, while low-context cultures
value straight talk, assertiveness and honesty. Hall explains that
high-context cultures also value collective needs and goals and create
“us-them” categories, while low-context cultures value individual
needs and goals and believe that every individual is unique.
Ting-Toomey (1988) has developed Face-Negotiation Theory to ex-
plain cultural differences in a key communication context, negotiation
and conflict. Her basic assumption is that all people negotiate face,
with face serving as a metaphor for public self-image. Face Work
involves enactment of face strategies, verbal and non-verbal moves,
self-presentation acts, and impression management interaction. Our
identity can always be called into question and this leads to conflict
and vulnerability; however, this varies from culture to culture, partic-
ularly along the dimension of high- and low-context cultures. Ting-
Toomey (1988) describes this issue of identity and vulnerability in
terms of the “faces of face.” For example, in high-context cultures one
strives to preserve the other’s autonomy through face-saving and to
include the other through face-giving, while in low-context cul-
tures, one seeks to preserve one’s own autonomy through face-
restoration and to include oneself through face-assertion. In conflict
resolution and negotiation, communication styles vary based on con-
cern for self- and other-face. Her research also suggests that there is