{"id":1821,"date":"2018-03-29T10:00:33","date_gmt":"2018-03-29T17:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.asiamissions.net\/?p=1821"},"modified":"2018-08-01T22:47:53","modified_gmt":"2018-08-02T05:47:53","slug":"cross-cultural-communication-in-asian-context","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/ewcenter.org\/?p=1821","title":{"rendered":"CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN ASIAN CONTEXT"},"content":{"rendered":"

Esther Lee Park<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND<\/strong>
\nMany nations in Asia and Africa won their independence from the super strong imperialists in the 20th century. These countries also have been through times of political convulsions under the military regimes and historical transitions to democracy. The wounds of these nations from the past, especially from foreign exploitations are not completely healed. Even, today, the people from these hurting nations, somehow show their suspicions or overly sensitive reactions toward foreigners, including missionaries. I hope this article will contribute some thoughts for the cross-cultural workers, how important knowing the culture and the people of the countries where they are working. My observations and studies are confined in South-East Asia, particularly in the Philippines where I served as a missionary for 17 years. The following is an exemplary study of the Philippines.<\/p>\n

A. Effects of Colonialism<\/strong>
\nColonialism affected every area of the Filipino life. Everett Mendoza, points out the outcome of colonization in this country: \u201cthe external pressures of colonial imposition distort existing mechanisms of resources allocation, disturb traditional patterns of social relationships and interactions, and break down structures of ideas that give order, orientation and meanings to every aspect and the whole of social and personal existence.\u201d[1]<\/a> For that reason, the Philippines became one of the most cosmopolitan in culture among Asian countries.[2]<\/a>
\n– Lack of National Identity:<\/em> <\/strong>The Philippines suffered from long history of colonization. Some critics argue that even though the Philippines became politically independent in 1946, earlier than most of its neighbours, the country and its people still lack a strong identity as a nation. For an explanation, a foreign writer named Niels Mulder rationalises the lacking allegiance to the nation as, \u201cof all things, independence was not the fruition of nationalism. It was not a product of struggle.\u201d[3]<\/a> By transferring state leadership to the Filipino elite from the government of the United States without much involvement from the majority of ordinary people, neither event had a chance of having a nation-building impact nor did it lead to popular mobilization.[4]<\/a>
\n– Regionalism:<\/em><\/strong> Bautista points to two negative traits that in his view explain the weak national consciousness among Filipinos: strong regionalism and the colonial mentality. Tujan, on the other hand, identifies two social structures Filipino society suffers from: the system of patronage and a colonial mentality.[5]<\/a> Bautista continues, \u201cregionalism is the tendency of a person to be strongly attached and exclusively protective by the members within his group\u201d.[6]<\/a> Constantino explains that this regionalism, especially by demographic and cultural segregation from each other, enabled easy conquest by both Spaniards and Americans.[7]<\/a> Tujan points out the ill effects as \u201cthat in spite of the fact that the Philippine state has been liberated from their colonizers, but allowing foreigners\u2019 domination on economy, politics and culture causes a politico-cultural system of patronage that has no concept of individual self-worth or self-determination but only of one\u2019s position in relation to the patron\u201d.[8]<\/a> This regionalism became an obstacle to build a national identity and a barrier to cross for missionary work.
\n– Fusion Religion:<\/em><\/strong> Despite the predominant Catholicism in this country, some indigenous, pre-Magellan, religious traits have been embedded deeply in Filipino religious concepts and practices, both in sacred and daily life.[9]<\/a> Mulder notes that when speaking generally of Southeast Asian religions, the focus is not on morality or salvation or liberation, but rather an animistic quest for power, potency, and protection (protective blessing \u2014 safety from danger and misfortune).[10]<\/a> He continues, \u201cimplicit in this view is the conviction that power is near, tangible, and accessible.\u201d[11]<\/a>
\n– Christianized Bathalism:<\/em><\/strong> As is commonly known, folk-Catholicism, or Christianized animism, is the dominant belief system of the majority of the Philippine northern and middle islands (Luzon and the Visayas) while the southern Philippines is dominated by Islamized animism or Christianized Bathalism (from Bathala \u2018God\u2019).[12]<\/a> However, overlaid on these synthesised religions, Filipino religious psychology can be found in traditional, indigenous, Anitism (from the word anito, an ancestral god), and it is deeply rooted in various aspects of life.[13]<\/a> Mulder gives an example of Filipinized Spanish Catholicism in anito worship: \u2018this fitted nicely with the local belief in the active role of the recently deceased in the lives of the living. Even today, departed parents and grandparents are often supplicated, and supernatural intervention in human affairs is \u201cnaturally\u201d expected in many areas of life\u2019.[14]<\/a> He continues by explaining the Filipino concept of honouring deceased parents and grandparents, since they were sources of blessing while alive or even after death. Mulder puts it this way: \u2018the only line between life and death is as fluid as the line between the visible and the invisible. These are not separate realms but interpenetrate each other, religious manifestations being pervasive and present to the senses\u2026\u2019.[15]<\/a>
\nTherefore, outwardly, the majority of Filipinos say they are Roman Catholic as Spanish orientation lies in their culture. Henry describes the fusion of animism with Hispanic Catholicism as \u2018the fusion of two separate thought and behaviour systems and the coexistence of two religions in the same person without inconsistencies\u2019.[16]<\/a> The similarities were well adapted in Filipino religiosity and practices.<\/p>\n

B. The Voices of Missionary Moratorium<\/strong>
\nIn the 1970s the voice of \u201cmissionary go home\u201d in Africa and Asia shook the Christian community. The causes were several factors, but one thing was clear about a sullen word regarding missionaries\u2019 attitudes. Unconsciously or unintentional attitudes of missionaries who engaged the missions in those areas were provoked by the Christian national leaders. The voices were loud enough that some Western mission organizations ended up withdrawing their missionaries. However, Korean missionaries, after the Western missionaries\u2014were poured out in these areas as replacements. Due to this, I would like to discuss about the cultural clashes in this section which is the main cause of miss-communication happens in general.<\/p>\n

C. Cultural Clashes among \u201cDoing Culture\u201d and \u201cBeing Culture\u201d<\/strong>
\nGrowing up and residing in a community, people inevitably internalize the commonly shared practices of the group, values that form the basis of their ways of thinking, expressing, and evaluating things in their surroundings.[17]<\/a> Ultimately, these values also become their own standards for certain ways of decision-making and behaviours when they are a part of organisations.[18]<\/a> For that purpose, I aim to explain the different value systems and behaviors in both \u201cbeing culture\u201d and \u201cdoing\u201d culture societies. Interestingly, some scholars claim that even among Asian countries there is a clear distinction between Confucian and non-Confucian societies. For example, Jack Scarborough distinguishes \u2018doing\u2019 culture from \u2018being\u2019 culture like this: \u201cthe primary difference is that the Confucian culture is a \u2018doing\u2019 culture, whereas the non-Confucian is a \u2018being\u2019 culture.\u201d[19]<\/a>
\nWe need to study both cultures in order to compare and evaluate without passing judgment on others. For instance, in order to reduce the perceived differences between cultures, the technique needs to focus on the individual level rather than the cultural level and functionality of differences. And differences should be addressed in a contextualized way. Providing a reason for their existence makes for better cognitive acquisition of concepts rather than simply stating cultural differences.
\nHere I will compare two distinctive cultures: Korean culture as a \u2018doing\u2019 culture and Filipino culture as a \u2018being\u2019 culture. Scarborough continues with a further description of the uniqueness of these world views:<\/p>\n

\u2018Doing\u2019 cultures are more individualistic, are more masculine and competitive, and have smaller power distances. Very much different from \u2018being\u2019 cultures, wherein people tend to be weak in uncertainty and tries avoidance, not out of submission to fatalism, but rather because they are conditioned to bring about change proactively. They want to build <\/em>a more perfect world rather than enjoy the world as it is. \u2018Doing\u2019 people tend to define themselves according to their occupations and measure themselves by their achievements. \u2018Being\u2019 cultures tend to be more relaxed, more holistic in their <\/em>world view, more relationship-oriented, and more accustomed to yielding power; view time as a continually recurring cycle; feel less able to control their fate; and want work, which at best can be enjoyed and at worst can be tolerated as a necessary evil. \u2018Being\u2019 people define themselves by their collective affiliations. They \u2018work to live\u2019, whereas their \u2018doing\u2019 counterparts \u2018live to work\u2019. \u2018Doing\u2019 people see \u2018being\u2019 people as lazy, unproductive, and irresponsible. \u2018Being\u2019 people see \u2018doing\u2019 people as cold, compulsive, and unable to enjoy life.[20]<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1. An Example of \u201cDoing Culture\u201d Background: Koreans (missionaries)<\/strong>
\n– Confucius world view: Confucianism and Koreans cannot be separated. George Paik, a Korean Christian historian, testifies as<\/p>\n

\u2026it was Confucianism that formed the character of the people and shaped the course of the ancient civilization of Korea. Korea accepted the imported system and made it part of the bone and fiber of the people. In return, Confucianism made distinctive contributions to the development of Korea.[21]<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The effects of Confucianism, Paik writes, had many deplorable results: \u201cit nourished pride, taught no higher ideal than that of superiority,[22]<\/a> and was agnostic and atheistic in its tendency; it encouraged selfishness, exalted filial piety\u2026and it imbued every follower with a hunger for office.\u201d[23]<\/a> The effect of Confucianism on Korean society was controversial: some say its systematic higher and lower concepts have been a hindrance to their becoming a healthy democratic society. Others say it created a balanced life from a fast-paced and changing society. However, most people observed that one Confucian heritage, enthusiasm for education, is undoubtedly a main contributor to the modernization of Korea. Foreign observers conclude that the traditions of Confucianism and the needs of a modernizing society coincide for \u201cnot only natural but perhaps even inevitable that Koreans would transfer their traditional respect for learning to the task of mastering new technologies from the West.\u201d[24]<\/a> This positive influence from Confucianism is from a \u2018self-cultivation\u2019 to reach virtue: It provides the fundamental source of insight and strength to rule orderly within oneself, one\u2019s family, one\u2019s country, and abroad.<\/p>\n

2. An Example of \u201cBeing Culture\u201d: Filipinos (local church leaders)<\/strong>
\n– Equilibrium-maintenance worldview:<\/em><\/strong> As I mentioned earlier that the effects of long history of colonization made the definition of Filipino difficult. The general notion of \u2018Asian is Asian\u2019 becomes confusing when it is applied to Filipinos.[25]<\/a> Historically, the Philippines has been under the influence of Western contacts for a long period. The Filipino is Asian but cannot be considered entirely Eastern.[26]<\/a> The complexity of defining the Filipino is, as Bautista writes, \u201cin a highly stratified country like the Philippines, defining the members of the set of Filipinos can itself be a problem.\u201d[27]<\/a> Therefore, this study will focus more on the indigenous psychology of Filipinos that has survived throughout the centuries: their basic temperament and lifestyle. Mercado employs the phrase pagkakapantay-pantay,di pagkakatalo \u201cequilibrium-maintenance\u201d as the Filipino concept of being in harmony with nature. They calmly accept the continuation of natural catastrophes such as storms, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions and learn how to adapt in this harsh environment. Therefore, if this balance is disturbed, the Filipino expects suffering and other forms of misfortune.[28]<\/a> This equilibrium-maintenance with nature also applies to everyday life and interpersonal relationships. Well-known Filipino communication skills such as avoiding conflict, smooth interpersonal relationships (SIR), and group consensus are ways of coping with the disruption of peace and accepting pre-ordained destiny.<\/p>\n

3. Comparison<\/strong>
\nIt is evident that two people raised in different worlds easily become judgmental toward those from the other culture. Management practices in an office can become problematic since two groups of people follow different work ethics and hold a different general world view. Filipino anthropologist, Landa F. Jocano emphasizes the art of Management By Cultural awareness (MBC): \u201cIn the office, the tasks may be technical in nature, but motivating people to peak performance is cultural\u201d.[29]<\/a> He goes on to say that MBC is the new key to achieving teamwork and cooperation:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026foreign techniques may be academically attractive, but they are seldom suited to the Filipino cultural temperament; effective management is the function of fit or match in the perceptions and expectations managers and workers have of each other.\u201d><\/em>[30]<\/a> I think that comment also can be applied to missionaries who work in cross-cultural settings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Korean culture and management, it is almost impossible to escape the hierarchical structures which have been embedded in Korean homes and society. Therefore, for people who were born and raised in this environment, Confucius\u2019 five-fold proprieties would obviously be a dominant theme between leader and subordinate; it is a monolithic, regimental management style. Even if the subordinate is more knowledgeable and able to handle things better than the boss, the position is territorial and cannot be crossed over. Scolding a person in public (during meetings) in a Philippine setting \u2014 a common and expected practice by the boss in Korea \u2014 can provoke anger among Filipinos. Therefore, in the Philippines, communication is always indirect and non-adversarial. Under the Filipino cultural norm where everything is relational (Smooth Inter Relationship, SIR), Korean missionaries\u2019 unconscious actions stemming from their Confucius psyche produced a rather poor acculturation outcome. This exogenous relational gap could affect the competency of the mission work: its performance, quality, and productivity.
\nThe following three steps are the traditional ways Filipinos use to communicate and arrive at decisions for the group: \u201cpagsasangguni (consultation)\u201d, \u201cpaghihikayat (persuasion)\u201d, and \u201cpagkakasundo consensus).\u201d[31]<\/a> An example, the reclusive planning of the growth strategies by Korean missionary executives, without inviting their local counterparts\u2014only requesting them to join at the implementing stage instead of the brainstorming stage\u2014has been the usual practice by foreign mission leaders and has created resentment against missionary leadership by the majority of national leaders. Therefore, the practical use of \u201cconsultation\u201d seems to be the only solution to remove clashes at the top leadership level. Jocano continues that this functions more than just as consultation, but it shares the responsibility by getting people to participate in planning. Also, \u201cconsensus\u201d can be a helpful tool to boost team spirit since everyone agrees in the group, but it can become a sumbat (may be translated as reprimand or reproach) or moral censure if planning is not done as a consensus.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n

D. Misunderstandings and Improvement of Culture <\/strong>Sensitivities For A Better Communication<\/strong>
\nCulture can be observed on a surface level related to language, food, and behavior, while on the deeper level they relate to beliefs, feelings, and values. As Hiebert points out \u201cmisunderstandings are based on ignorance of beliefs, feelings and values of another culture\u201d[33]<\/a> :<\/p>\n