Last session's topic was on cross gender interaction, and I personally felt that it was one of the more interesting sessions as we delved into the inherent differences between the way a man and a woman communicate.
There are a couple of stereotypes which do hold true, whilst some on the other hand have been debunked. Stereotypes like the perception that women speak more than men have been debunked. Studies have shown that men indeed do speak more than women. This is especially the case during public speaking or speaking up in class as was mentioned during the previous lecture. After attending last week's lecture, I have become more aware that these studies do indeed hold some truth. As a finance major, I realise that predominantly, the probability of male students speaking up in finance classes especially is higher than that of female students. This might be due to the impression that Finance is more of a masculine field, as a result, masculine traits like assertiveness as mentioned in the lecture on Cultural Components and Representation might prevail.
Another facet of last week's lecture which I would like to comment on, is the degree of back chanel support which women provide in comparison to men. Back channel support refers to the verbal and non verbal feedback provided by the listeners. Women tend to be ready givers of listener responses. When engaged in conversation with another person, they tend to provide feedback by uttering conversation prompters or fillers like "hmmm", "mmm", "yeahh" and through their body language like nodding, smiling or other facial expressions. This shows that the woman is actively involved in the conversation and her full attention is being devoted to the conversation.
I believe that a certain degree of listener responses must be present in order for the speaker to feel that the listener is being actively engaged in the conversation. Otherwise, the speaker would tend to feel a tad bit un-appreciated and that he might even be boring the socks off the listener. Which hopefully, is not the desired intention! On the other hand, it is important to be sincere in interactions and to be firmly aware of the various impacts of both verbal and non verbal communication.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Entry 6 : Face and Politeness
So this is another entry that's coming pretty late, sorry about that!
The concept that stuck with me the most is that of negative and positive politeness and the actions or speech acts which result in them being on or off record. Negative politeness recognises the individual's need to be independent and also to possess freedom of action. Positive politeness on the other hand leverages on the need of individuals to be accepted and treated as a member of the group.
When we are faced with Face Threatening Acts (FTA), we can choose to react in a way that is off or on record. Off record refers to carrying out the next action in an indirect manner, however on record refers to doing things in a direct manner. Taking for example seeking help, we can go about it in a direct manner (on record) or an indirect manner (off record).
As described in the lecture, an off record manner of seeking help would be to ask in a loud voice, a question which is not directed at any particular person. This seeks to ensure that the distance between each party is observed and in no way is the speaker infringing on the rights of the people around him. On the other hand, an on record manner of seeking help would be to just ask directly for the help required.
For certain scenarios, it would be more suitable and effective to practice on record actions. Take for example if you were in the canteen and you would like to know what time it was as you had a class coming up. Assuming you did not have a watch with you, it would be a lot more effective to ask someone next to you directly for the time instead of standing in the middle of the canteen and exclaiming loudly " oh gosh, I have no idea what time it is!" It would be tons more likely that you would attract stares and weird glances than you would actually find out the actual time. Thus, for some situations, going on record would be better than going off record.
However, in selecting each method, we have to ensure that we firstly recognise the needs of each individual. For those who value their individualism and space, we have to make sure that negative politeness is used in dealings with them. On the other hand for those who have a more collectivist attitude, positive politeness should be employed in interactions with them.
The concept that stuck with me the most is that of negative and positive politeness and the actions or speech acts which result in them being on or off record. Negative politeness recognises the individual's need to be independent and also to possess freedom of action. Positive politeness on the other hand leverages on the need of individuals to be accepted and treated as a member of the group.
When we are faced with Face Threatening Acts (FTA), we can choose to react in a way that is off or on record. Off record refers to carrying out the next action in an indirect manner, however on record refers to doing things in a direct manner. Taking for example seeking help, we can go about it in a direct manner (on record) or an indirect manner (off record).
As described in the lecture, an off record manner of seeking help would be to ask in a loud voice, a question which is not directed at any particular person. This seeks to ensure that the distance between each party is observed and in no way is the speaker infringing on the rights of the people around him. On the other hand, an on record manner of seeking help would be to just ask directly for the help required.
For certain scenarios, it would be more suitable and effective to practice on record actions. Take for example if you were in the canteen and you would like to know what time it was as you had a class coming up. Assuming you did not have a watch with you, it would be a lot more effective to ask someone next to you directly for the time instead of standing in the middle of the canteen and exclaiming loudly " oh gosh, I have no idea what time it is!" It would be tons more likely that you would attract stares and weird glances than you would actually find out the actual time. Thus, for some situations, going on record would be better than going off record.
However, in selecting each method, we have to ensure that we firstly recognise the needs of each individual. For those who value their individualism and space, we have to make sure that negative politeness is used in dealings with them. On the other hand for those who have a more collectivist attitude, positive politeness should be employed in interactions with them.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Entry 5 : Components & Representation
Last session, we discussed the basic concepts for intercultural communication. In furthering our grasp of this topic, we utilised Hofstede's dimensions of cultural variability which are separated into four categories; power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty accepting versus uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity versus femininity.
Out of the four categories, the last one on masculinity versus feminity piqued my interest the most. Hofstede used those two words not with the intention of referring to males and females, but instead, to refer to the degree to which masculine or feminine traits prevail in a society. Masculine traits would refer to assertiveness, achievements and "not caring for others". Feminity on the other hand refers to traits like nurturing and having concern for others.
From these definitions, I do believe that Singapore is a society that has shifted from a masculine culture to one that melds femininity and masculinity together. Singapore focuses on meritocracy, where we are rewarded for the results we produce borne out of our hard work, or our smart work. This is undoubtedly a masculine trait as our society focuses on achievements and success and we are subsequently motivated in order to achieve our rewards financially or in any other way in which we may furnished. There has also been a perception that Singapore is gradually moving towards a more and more materialistic society due to the focus on possessing branded goods.
However, these masculine traits that our society possesses, are tempered by a variety of feminine traits that work towards neutralising and providing a balanced society. Sexual equality is celebrated in Singapore and an increasing number of women are assuming roles of greater power and influence at work. This highlights a blurring of the lines between the stipulated rigid roles of men and women in the past, and celebrates greater flexibility and fluidity in the gender roles.
Overall, I feel that this shift from a more masculine culture to one that is a blend of both, is a mark of an increasingly developed society both in terms of infrastructure, but also in terms of values and ideals.
Out of the four categories, the last one on masculinity versus feminity piqued my interest the most. Hofstede used those two words not with the intention of referring to males and females, but instead, to refer to the degree to which masculine or feminine traits prevail in a society. Masculine traits would refer to assertiveness, achievements and "not caring for others". Feminity on the other hand refers to traits like nurturing and having concern for others.
From these definitions, I do believe that Singapore is a society that has shifted from a masculine culture to one that melds femininity and masculinity together. Singapore focuses on meritocracy, where we are rewarded for the results we produce borne out of our hard work, or our smart work. This is undoubtedly a masculine trait as our society focuses on achievements and success and we are subsequently motivated in order to achieve our rewards financially or in any other way in which we may furnished. There has also been a perception that Singapore is gradually moving towards a more and more materialistic society due to the focus on possessing branded goods.
However, these masculine traits that our society possesses, are tempered by a variety of feminine traits that work towards neutralising and providing a balanced society. Sexual equality is celebrated in Singapore and an increasing number of women are assuming roles of greater power and influence at work. This highlights a blurring of the lines between the stipulated rigid roles of men and women in the past, and celebrates greater flexibility and fluidity in the gender roles.
Overall, I feel that this shift from a more masculine culture to one that is a blend of both, is a mark of an increasingly developed society both in terms of infrastructure, but also in terms of values and ideals.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Entry 4 : Written Discourse
Oops, so this post is coming really late, but hopefully it's still worth the read!
During the written discourse lecture, we were taught the different types of discourse patterns which different cultural groups utilise. The two which I found to be the most interesting was the circular and romance pattern which the Chinese and the French use, respectively. The oriental pattern referred to placing the most important point at the end of the sentence. On the other hand, the romance pattern refers to starting and ending with the mainpoint, however in the middle, some digression will occur which doesn't tend to link to the main point.
However, the part which struck me as the most interesting was the written discourse in the form of emails. The way in which the Chinese and the Australians approached a request through an email was very starkly different. While the Chinese would temper the email with social niceties and cushion the request with praises and compliments before coming to the point of the email, the Australians went straight to the request after a brief salutation and concluded it by signing off.
This thus made me wonder whether this would be similarly applied in the context of emailing our professors with queries and clarifications. How many of us tended to go straight into the request immediately after the salutation whilst how many would tend to engage in a spot of social niceties? I wonder which approach would be more preferable to the professor. From my point of view, most students tend to engage in the social niceties for a bit, however sometimes from their replies, I tend to get the impression that professors would rather students cut to the chase with the true intention of their email than beat around the bush. (Dr Deng, if you're reading this, what is your opinion?)
Anyhow, I personally believe that in interactions with people, certain corners especially those pertaining to politeness and etiquette should not be cut. Lasting impressions are formed during the first few interactions between two people, thus what might seem inconsequential in an email, can actually go a long way towards moulding a person's perception of us.
During the written discourse lecture, we were taught the different types of discourse patterns which different cultural groups utilise. The two which I found to be the most interesting was the circular and romance pattern which the Chinese and the French use, respectively. The oriental pattern referred to placing the most important point at the end of the sentence. On the other hand, the romance pattern refers to starting and ending with the mainpoint, however in the middle, some digression will occur which doesn't tend to link to the main point.
However, the part which struck me as the most interesting was the written discourse in the form of emails. The way in which the Chinese and the Australians approached a request through an email was very starkly different. While the Chinese would temper the email with social niceties and cushion the request with praises and compliments before coming to the point of the email, the Australians went straight to the request after a brief salutation and concluded it by signing off.
This thus made me wonder whether this would be similarly applied in the context of emailing our professors with queries and clarifications. How many of us tended to go straight into the request immediately after the salutation whilst how many would tend to engage in a spot of social niceties? I wonder which approach would be more preferable to the professor. From my point of view, most students tend to engage in the social niceties for a bit, however sometimes from their replies, I tend to get the impression that professors would rather students cut to the chase with the true intention of their email than beat around the bush. (Dr Deng, if you're reading this, what is your opinion?)
Anyhow, I personally believe that in interactions with people, certain corners especially those pertaining to politeness and etiquette should not be cut. Lasting impressions are formed during the first few interactions between two people, thus what might seem inconsequential in an email, can actually go a long way towards moulding a person's perception of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)