CHAPTER

COMMUNICATION AND GLOBALIZATION 22

Introduction

Local and international business nowadays believe that schools should help
students to think more globally. Cultural awareness and understanding global issues
are particularly valued and are as equally important as learning a foreign language
nowadays. Giving young people an understanding of how the world works can be a
really important skill as thriving in life is concerned (Sutcliffe, 2012).

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

a. explain how cultural and global issues affect communication;

b. appreciate the impact of communication on society and the world;

c. determine culturally appropriate terms, expression, and images; and

d. adopt cultural and intercultural awareness and sensitivity in communicating

ideas.

Learning Content

Because of technology, our world has transformed into a global village.

Communication becomes faster and in a split of a second, an event is shared to the
entire world through the use of social media. Today, individuals have to understand the
dynamics of long-distance collaboration, the outcome of non-verbal cues in different
cultures, as well as the use of technology in connecting people.

These developments require communication etiquette such as holding virtual

meetings where individuals from different places share their ideas – coming up with
solutions and innovations for the company.

“While the dream of global village holds great promise, the reality is that
diverse people have diverse opinions, values, and beliefs that clash and too often
result in violence.

Only through intercultural communication can such conflict be managed and

reduced” (Neuliep,2006).

Culture is perceived as the summation of values, beliefs and behaviours from a

group of individuals having a shared history of verbal and nonverbal cues.

The cultural, micro-cultural and environmental contexts surround the

communicators, whose socio-relational context is defined by the exchange of verbal
and nonverbal messages are encoded and decoded within each interactant’s
perceptual context”. James Neuliep (2006).

Globalization is the increasing economic, political, and cultural integration and

interdependence of diversity cultures- the worldwide integration of humanity.

Globalization is not the only thing influencing events in the world today, but to
the extent that there is a North Star and a worldwide shaping force, it is this system.
Thomas Friedman (1999 cited from Kluver, 2006) in The Lexus and the Olive Tree

Every is enticed to join in the “new international information order” and that
detailed cultural, social, economic and political conditions are interrelated to people’s
interaction. Likewise, there is a phenomenal change as individuals delve into the
elements of intercultural communication

Globalization may be seen as an interconnectedness of economic

relationships, political units as well as digital networks. Such technology and other
social networks have transformed the economic and social relationships breaking
cultural barriers. Hence, cultural and civic discourse will mold information and
communication technologies.

FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Five assumptions that take place during intercultural communication: (Neuliep, 2006).

Assumption #1 the message sent is usually not the message received.

When two speakers from different cultures interact, their values, emotions,
perceptions, and behaviours greatly affect the interpretation of their messages.
“Intercultural communication is a symbolic activity where the thoughts and ideas of
one are encoded into a verbal/or nonverbal message format, then transmitted
through some channel to another person who must decode it, interpret it, and
respond to it” (Neuliep, 2006). Thus cultural noise is filled with encoding, decoding
and interpreting making culture a smokescreen of all the messages. This allows the
speakers to think that one’s own culture is the center of everything.

Assumption #2 A nonverbal act between individuals

Since it is said that intercultural communication is a nonverbal procedure

where articulation of power, intimacy and status being combined with “paralinguistic
cues, proxemics, haptics, oculesics, and olfactics”.

Paralinguistics are the aspects of spoken communication that do not involve

words. These may add emphasis or shades of meaning to what people say.
Examples are body language, gestures, facial expressions, tone and pitch of
voice are all examples of paralinguistic features.

Proxemics is a theory of non-verbal communication that explains how people

perceive and use space to achieve communication goals.
 Haptics is a form of non- verbal communication using a sense of touch.

Oculesics refers to the study of eye contact and pupil dilation in terms of

nonverbal communication. 

Olfactics involves communicative functions associated with the sense of smell,

such as body odors, use of perfumes, etc.

For instance, an individual’s position in Korea is manifested through vocal

tone and pitch. Therefore, when a lowly person receives an important document, this
person grasps with both hands and the associated with a moderate head nod and
indirect eye contact.

Different sensory is shared by different cultures. Edwards Hall (cited from

Neuliep, 2006) claims that various cultures employ in “selective screening of sensory
information” that will eventually result in different perspective. “Regarding olfactics
(smell), most cultures establish norms for acceptable and unacceptable scents
associated with the human body. When people fail to fit into the realm of olfactic
cultural acceptability, their odor signals others that something is wrong with their
physical, emotional or mental health” (Neuliep, 2006). American are fixated on how to
mask the smell of the human body since body odor is considered as horrible and
unlikable. Several Muslims think that hygiene of the body and purity of the soul are
correlated. After menstruation, Muslim women purify themselves. Even before and
after meals, cleanliness is being recommended.

Assumption #3 Involvement of style in communication among speakers

There are communication gaps and only wisdom tells as whether to when to
speak or not. Interpretation of silence differs from across cultures. Expression of
intimacy in relationships is best demonstrated without words according to Japanese
and some native American tribes. “They believe that having to put one’s thoughts
and an emotion into words somehow cheapens and discounts them.” Neulip (2006).
Several cultures favor in direct and impersonal style in communication. There is no
necessity of saying verbally every message. Neulip (2006). True understanding is
implicit, coming not from words but from actions in the environment where speaker
provide hints or insinuations.”

Assumption #4 Group phenomenon experienced and shared by individuals

Communication is subject to the speaker’s background and knowledge. “In

other words, we have a tendency to see others not as individuals with unique
thoughts, ideas, and goals, but rather than as an “Asian”, or a “woman”, or an “old
person” or “a cab driver”. We do not see the person, we see the groups to which the
person belongs. That’s why people must not prejudge a person just because this
individual is associated to a specific group. When this happens, miscommunication
cannot be avoided. During intercultural communication, we have to be mindful that
while the person with whom we are interacting is from a different cultural group, he or
she is also an individual. Only through intercultural communication can we ever get
to know the person as an individual” (Neulip, 2006).
 Assumption #5 A cycle of stress and adaptation

It is normal to feel anxious, apprehensive and uncertain when one mingles

and speaks to another person from a different culture. It is important to be flexible
and adapt a communication style to be able to make the other individual comfortable.
Being able to recognize that people from various cultures are different is really an
advantage. This will lead the speaker to adjust the verbal and nonverbal symbols
appropriately to the individual from another culture.

Learning Activities

Activity 1

Read the article entitled “The Flight from Conversation” by Sherry Turkle dated April
21, 2012 from New York Times.

The Flight from Conversation

Sherry Turkle, April 21, 2012

WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And

yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.

At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text
during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and
when we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves
maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it
can be done.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and
talked to hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in
lives. I’ve learned that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that
they change not only what we do, but also who we are.

We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-

enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to
wherever we want to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out
of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our
attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own
party.

Our colleagues want to go to that board meeting but pay attention only to what
interests them. To some this seems like a good idea, but we can end up hiding from
one another, even as we are constantly connected to one another.

A businessman laments that he no longer has colleagues at work. He doesn’t

stop by to talk; he doesn’t call. He says that he doesn’t want to interrupt them. He says
they’re “too busy on their e-mail.” But then he pauses and corrects himself. “I’m not
telling the truth. I’m the one who doesn’t want to be interrupted. I think I should. But I’d
rather just do things on my BlackBerry.”

A 16-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says almost
wistfully, “Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a
conversation.”

In today’s workplace, young people who have grown up fearing conversation

show up on the job wearing earphones. Walking through a college library or the
campus of a high-tech start-up, one sees the same thing: we are together, but each of
us is in our own bubble, furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens. A
senior partner at a Boston law firm describes a scene in his office. Young associates
lay out their suite of technologies: laptops, iPods and multiple phones. And then they
put their earphones on. “Big ones. Like pilots. They turn their desks into cockpits.” With
the young lawyers in their cockpits, the office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be
broken.

In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of
people — carefully kept at bay. We can’t get enough of one another if we can use
technology to keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far,
just right. I think of it as a Goldilocks effect.

Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means
we can edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the
face, the body. Not too much, not too little — just right.

Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned
the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to
connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves.
Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.

We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big
gulp of real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have
their places — in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how
valuable, they do not substitute for conversation.

Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for
saying, “I am thinking about you.” Or even for saying, “I love you.” But connecting in
sips doesn’t work as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In
conversation we tend to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it’s derived from words
that mean to move, together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we
are called upon to see things from another’s point of view.

FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we

communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the
volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get
these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications,
even on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable
news. Shakespeare might have said, “We are consum’d with that which we were
nourish’d by.”

And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our
flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection.
These days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little
motivation to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires
trust. It’s hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect.

As we get used to being shortchanged on conversation and to getting by with

less, we seem almost willing to dispense with people altogether. Serious people muse
about the future of computer programs as psychiatrists. A high school sophomore
confides to me that he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead
of his dad about dating; he says the A.I. would have so much more in its database.
Indeed, many people tell me they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant
on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more advanced, “she” will be more and more like a best
friend — one who will listen when others won’t.

During the years I have spent researching people and their relationships with
technology, I have often heard the sentiment “No one is listening to me.” I believe this
feeling helps explain why it is so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed
— each provides so many automatic listeners. And it helps explain why — against all
reason — so many of us are willing to talk to machines that seem to care about us.
Researchers around the world are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be
companions to the elderly, to children, to all of us.

One of the most haunting experiences during my research came when I brought
one of these robots, designed in the shape of a baby seal, to an elder-care facility,
and an older woman began to talk to it about the loss of her child. The robot seemed
to be looking into her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman
was comforted.

And so many people found this amazing. Like the sophomore who wants advice
about dating from artificial intelligence and those who look forward to
computer psychiatry, this enthusiasm speaks to how much we have confused
conversation with connection and collectively seem to have embraced a new kind of
delusion that accepts the simulation of compassion as sufficient unto the day. And why
would we want to talk about love and loss with a machine that has no experience of
the arc of human life? Have we so lost confidence that we will be there for one
another?

WE expect more from technology and less from one another and seem
increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without
the demands of relationship. Always-on/always-on-you devices provide three powerful
fantasies: that we will always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we
want it to be; and that we never have to be alone. Indeed our new devices have turned
being alone into a problem that can be solved.

When people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a
device. Here connection works like a symptom, not a cure, and our constant, reflexive
impulse to connect shapes a new way of being.
 Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by
sharing our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a
feeling; I want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to
send a text.”

So, in order to feel more, and to feel more like ourselves, we connect. But in our
rush to connect, we flee from solitude, our ability to be separate and gather ourselves.
Lacking the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people but don’t experience them as
they are. It is as though we use them, need them as spare parts to support our
increasingly fragile selves.

We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true.
If we are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our
children to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.

I am a partisan for conversation. To make room for it, I see some first, deliberate
steps. At home, we can create sacred spaces: the kitchen, the dining room. We can
make our cars “device-free zones.” We can demonstrate the value of conversation to
our children. And we can do the same thing at work. There we are so busy
communicating that we often don’t have time to talk to one another about what really
matters. Employees asked for casual Fridays; perhaps managers should introduce
conversational Thursdays. Most of all, we need to remember — in between texts and
e-mails and Facebook posts — to listen to one another, even to the boring bits,
because it is often in unedited moments, moments in which we hesitate and stutter
and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another.

I spend the summers at a cottage on Cape Cod, and for decades I walked the
same dunes that Thoreau once walked. Not too long ago, people walked with their
heads up, looking at the water, the sky, the sand and at one another, talking. Now they
often walk with their heads down, typing. Even when they are with friends, partners,
children, everyone is on their own devices.

So I say, look up, look at one another, and let’s start the conversation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

Based from the abovementioned essay, write a reflection paper in 250-300

words by tailoring your essay to the guide questions:

1. Why would you prefer the traditional way of communicating through physical face
to face with someone or do you think that using the social media is the best way to
relay messages?
2. Translate communication in sips from your own experience as portrayed in the
essay?
3. Why do you think social media and the internet revolutionize your life?
 Activity 2

Choose one video and reflect on it:

1. “Connected but alone”

https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_connected_but_alone/transcript?language=en

2. “How social media can make history”

https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_social_media_can_make_history/transcript
?language=en
3. “Wiring a web for global good”
https://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_wiring_a_web_for_global_good/transcript?
language=en
Tailor your discussion paper with the following questions:

1. What is the message?

2. What is the purpose of the message?
3. How is the message conveyed by the text and/or image?
4. Who is the target audience of the message?
5. What other ways of presenting the message are there?

Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading

Reading: Intercultural Communication: Differences between Western and Asian

Perspective, Dang Linh Chi

Flexible Teaching Learning Modality adopted

Online (synchronous)
Edmodo, google classroom, SeDi, Messenger, Facebook group
Remote (asynchronous) module

Assessment Task

Have you interacted with people who have different culture from yours? How
was your interaction with them? Was it clear? Was it productive? Was it respectful?
What could you have done for a better interaction?

What is your attitude towards people who have a different culture from yours?
Do you celebrate how they are different from you? Do you look down on them?

References

Lim, J. A., PhD, Hamada, I. B., PhD, & Alata, E. P., MAEd. (2019). Lesson 2: Local
and Global Communication in Multicultural Settings. In A Course Module for Purposive
Communication (pp. 11-17). Manila, Recto Avenue: Rex Bookstore.
SyGaca, S. B., PhD. (2018). Chapter Two: Communication and Globalization. In
Principles and Competencies in Purposive Communication (pp. 33-49). Quezon City:
Great Books Trading.