Context As A Relativistic Metric of Culture
A (cultural) context does not rank as "high" or "low" in an absolute sense because each message can be presented on a continuum from high to low. Likewise, a culture (French Canadian) may be of a higher context than one (English Canadian) but lower context than another (Spanish or French). Likewise, a stereotypical individual from Texas (a higher context culture) may communicate more with a few words or use of a prolonged silence, than a stereotypical New Yorker who is being very explicit, although both being part of a culture which is lower context overall. Typically a high context culture will be relational, collectivist, intuitive, and contemplative. They place a high value on interpersonal relationships and group members are a very close knit community.
While the milieu of individuals in a culture can be diverse, and not all individuals can be described by strict stereotypes, understanding the broad tendencies of predominant cultures of this world can help us inform and educate ourselves on how to better facilitate communication between individuals of differing cultures. The following spectrum of levels of context in various cultures was determined in 1986 by Copeland & L. Griggs (1986)
- Lower context culture
- United States (excluding the Southern United States)
- Australian
- English Canadian
- English
- Finnish
- German
- Irish
- New Zealand
- Scandinavia
- Switzerland
- Higher context culture
- African
- Arab
- Brazilian
- Chinese
- Filipinos
- French Canadian
- French
- Greek
- Hawaiian
- Hungarian
- Indian
- Italian
- Japanese
- Korean
- Latin Americans
- Persian
- Portuguese
- Russian
- Southern United States
- Spanish
- Thai
- Turkish
- Vietnamese
- Indonesian
Read more about this topic: Low Context Culture
Famous quotes containing the words context and/or culture:
“Among the most valuable but least appreciated experiences parenthood can provide are the opportunities it offers for exploring, reliving, and resolving one’s own childhood problems in the context of one’s relation to one’s child.”
—Bruno Bettelheim (20th century)
“Any historian of the literature of the modern age will take virtually for granted the adversary intention, the actually subversive intention, that characterizes modern writing—he will perceive its clear purpose of detaching the reader from the habits of thought and feeling that the larger culture imposes, of giving him a ground and a vantage point from which to judge and condemn, and perhaps revise, the culture that produces him.”
—Lionel Trilling (1905–1975)