The Impact of Cultural Differences on

Individuals
Culture is one of the factors that determine the way people think, act and interact; and it is
composed of many layers. Some of them are obvious, such as customs, arts, food and
celebrations. Others, such as social status, body language, social interaction, sense of humor,
concept of time, or even the definition of insanity, aren’t as noticeable.
Every country has a specific inherent culture, which can vary from one region to another.
Anthropologist Edward T. Hall introduced the concept of high and low-context culture, as
well as the use of personal space by individuals within a culture.

High-context cultures, which include many Asian, South American and African countries,
value society and collectivity. Group harmony and intuition are important concepts. Context
is more valuable than words themselves, and much of the meaning of speech is implied. Body
language, eye behavior and even the use of silence are valued means of communication. In
low-context cultures, however, facts, descriptions and precision of words are considered a lot
more important than context. Logic is also given more credit than intuition and society tends
to be individualistic. It is customary to speak out and explain one’s point of view in detail.
As culture influences behavior and one’s reaction to a given situation, it is a primary element
of communication in general and even more so in a business environment. Doing business
with foreigners is particularly delicate: It can differ from one culture to another and what is
customary in one country could be considered extremely rude in another one needs to be
aware of the other person’s culture when a transaction is at stake.
Business etiquette, negotiations and even contracts (the latter of which, in some countries, are
a sign of distrust), are just a few of the numerous business practices that are influenced by
culture.
In the high-context Chinese culture formality is very important and hierarchy is a big part of
the culture. It is therefore especially important to take these cultural aspects into
consideration when doing business with China. Part of the business etiquette is to hand out or
receive a business card with both hands, and it is considered rude not to look at it carefully
before putting it away. In some countries, negotiations cannot take place before socializing,
drinking tea or coffee or having a meal.
It is essential to get acquainted with all these practices before a business trip or a meeting
with foreigners.
Hiring a language company for your business translations or interpretations will facilitate
your professional interactions. It can prevent deal-breaking faux pas and other mistakes, and
ensure a strong, successful long-term business relationship with your foreign collaborators.
Trained bilingual and bicultural experts will help you with the translation of important
documents and interpretation at conferences or meetings. Accent on Languages works with
the best language professionals and can be a valuable partner for all your linguistic and
cultural needs.

Verbal and Non-verbal Communication

across Cultures
A communication style is the way people communicate with others, verbally and
nonverbally. It combines both language and nonverbal cues and is the meta-message that
dictates how listeners receive and interpret verbal messages. Of the theoretical perspectives
proposed to understand cultural variations in communication styles, the most widely cited
one is the differentiation between high-context and low-context communication by Edward
Hall, in 1976. Low-context communication is used predominantly in individualistic cultures
and reflects an analytical thinking style, where most of the attention is given to specific, focal
objects independent of the surrounding environment; high-context communication is used
predominantly in collectivistic cultures and reflects a holistic thinking style, where the larger
context is taken into consideration when evaluating an action or event. In low-context
communication, most of the meaning is conveyed in the explicit verbal code, whereas in
high-context communication, most of the information is either in the physical context or
internalized in the person, with very little information given in the coded, explicit, transmitted
part of the message.
Verbal Communication
The Verbal Communication is a type of oral communication wherein the message is
transmitted through the spoken words. Here the sender gives words to his feelings, thoughts,
ideas and opinions and expresses them in the form of speeches, discussions, presentations,
and conversations.
The effectiveness of the verbal communication depends on the tone of the speaker, clarity of
speech, volume, speed, body language and the quality of words used in the conversation. In
the case of the verbal communication, the feedback is immediate since there are a
simultaneous transmission and receipt of the message by the sender and receiver respectively.
The sender must keep his speech tone high and clearly audible to all and must design the
subject matter keeping the target audience in mind. The sender should always cross check
with the receiver to ensure that the message is understood in absolutely the same way as it
was intended. Such communication is more prone to errors as sometimes the words are not
sufficient to express the feelings and emotions of a person.
The success of the verbal communication depends not only on the speaking ability of an
individual but also on the listening skills. How effectively an individual listens to the subject
matter decides the effectiveness of the communication. The verbal communication is
applicable in both the formal and informal kind of situations.
Non-verbal Communication across Cultures
Non-verbal communication is communication that occurs without words which is continuous.
It is body language and environmental context involved in any communication. It is not what
is said with words but how it is said and expressed. There are many types of non-verbal
communications like eye contact, hand movements, facial expressions, touch, gestures, etc.
Non-verbal communication is different from person to person and especially from one culture
to another. Cultural background defines their non-verbal communication as many forms of
non-verbal communications like signs and signals are learned behavior.
Some of the nonverbal communication differences in different cultural are:
(i) Eye Contact
Western cultures mostly consider eye contact to be a good gesture. It shows attentiveness,
confidence and honesty. Other cultures such as Asian, Middle Eastern, Hispanic and Native
American do not take it as a good expression. It is taken as a rude and offensive expression.
Unlike in Western cultures taking it as respectful, other do not consider it that way. In Eastern
cultures women should especially not have eye contact with men as it shows power or sexual
interest. In some cultures, whereas, gazes are taken as a way of expression. Staring is taken as
rude in most cultures.
(ii) Gestures
Gestures such as thumbs up can be interpreted differently in different cultures. It is taken as
“Okay” sign in many cultures whereas is taken as a vulgarism in others like Latin American
cultures and in Japan some even take it as money.
(iii) Touch
Touches are taken as rudeness in most cultures. Shaking hands is considered to be acceptable
in many. Similarly, acceptability of kissing, hugs, and many other touches are different in
different cultures. People in Asia are more conservative in these types of non-verbal
communication.
(iv) Appearance
Appearance is another form of non-verbal communication. People are judged from their
appearance. Racial differences as well as differences in clothing tell so much about any
individual.
Grooming yourself to look good is taken as an important aspect of personality in most
cultures. But, what is considered to be a good appearance is different again in different
cultures. Modesty is also measured from appearance.
(v) Body Movement and Posture
People receive information or message from body movements. It shows how people feel or
think about you. If a person does not face you while talking to you can mean that the person
is nervous or shy. It might also mean that the person doesn’t like to talk to you. Other body
movements like coming to sit near or far can also show confidence, power or trying to control
the environment.
(vi) Facial Expressions
Face shows feelings, attitudes and emotions. The degree of facial expressions are determined
by cultures. People from United States show emotions more than their Asian counterparts.
Facial expressions are shown to be similar all over the world, but people from different
cultures do not show it in public. The meanings of these are commonly acknowledged
everywhere. Too much expression is taken to be shallow in some places whereas in some it is
taken as being weak.
(vii) Paralanguage
How we talk also constitutes of what we communicate. For example, vocal tones, volume,
rhythm, pitch, etc. speak more than what words express. Asian people control themselves
from shouting as they are taught not to from childhood.
They are known as vocal qualifiers. Vocal characterizations like crying, whining, yelling, etc.
change the meaning of the message. Giggling is taken as a bad gesture in some cultures.
Many other emotions are shown by vocal differences while all of them are included in
paralanguage.
(viii) Physical Space (Proxemics)
People from different cultures have different tolerance for physical distance between people.
In Middle Eastern culture people like to go near to others to talk while in others people might
get afraid if anybody does so.
Even Europeans and Americans do not have that much acceptance on the breach of physical
distance and less acceptance for it among Asians. People have specific personal space which
they do not want intruded. In some cultures, even close physical contact between strangers is
acceptable.

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning

Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral dilemmas were presented to these participants
and they were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments of each
scenario.
One example was “Heinz Steals the Drug.” In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her
doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local
pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The
woman’s husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug. He tried to negotiate with
the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the
pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz
instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, “Should
the husband have done that?”
Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to questioning whether Heinz was wrong
or right but in the reasoning for each participant’s decision. The responses were then
classified into various stages of reasoning in his theory of moral development.
Level 1. Pre-Conventional Morality
The earliest stage of moral development, obedience, and punishment is especially common in
young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage,
Kohlberg says, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important
because it is a means to avoid punishment.
At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for
individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the
Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best-served
Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves
one’s own interests.
Level 2. Conventional Morality
Often referred to as the “good boy-good girl” orientation, the interpersonal relationships stage
of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an
emphasis on conformity, being “nice,” and consideration of how choices influence
relationships.
This stage is focused on maintaining social order. At this stage of moral development, people
begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining
law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty and respecting authority.
Level 3. Post-Conventional Morality
The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to
account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are
important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these
standards.
Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract
reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they
conflict with laws and rules.
Criticisms
Kohlberg’s theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between
knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Moral reasoning, therefore, may not
lead to moral behavior. This is just one of the many of the criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory.
Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg’s theory of moral development overemphasizes the
concept of justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring, and other
interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.
Does Kohlberg’s theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualist cultures
emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and
community. Eastern, collectivist cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg’s
theory does not take into account.
Were Kohlberg’s dilemma’s applicable? Most of his subjects were children under the age of
16 who obviously had no experience with marriage. The Heinz dilemma may have been too
abstract for these children to understand, and a scenario more applicable to their everyday
concerns might have led to different results.
Kohlberg’s critics, including Carol Gilligan, have suggested that Kohlberg’s theory was
gender-biased since all of the subjects in his sample were male. Kohlberg believed that
women tended to remain at the third level of moral development because they place a
stronger emphasis on things such as social relationships and the welfare of others.
Gilligan instead suggested that Kohlberg’s theory overemphasizes concepts such as justice
and does not adequately address moral reasoning founded on the principles and ethics of
caring and concern for others.
The Historical Origins of Beliefs and
Values
In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of
determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to
describe the significance of different actions. Value systems are proscriptive and prescriptive
beliefs; they affect ethical behavior of a person or are the basis of their intentional activities.
Often primary values are strong and secondary values are suitable for changes. What makes
an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethical values of the objects it increases,
decreases or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic
good”.
Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or
outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be.
“Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with
respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and
behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious,
political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that
are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some,
such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues
Personal values exist in relation to cultural values, either in agreement with or divergence
from prevailing norms. A culture is a social system that shares a set of common values, in
which such values permit social expectations and collective understandings of the good,
beautiful and constructive. Without normative personal values, there would be no cultural
reference against which to measure the virtue of individual values and so cultural identity
would disintegrate.
Personal Values
Personal values provide an internal reference for what is good, beneficial, important, useful,
beautiful, desirable and constructive. Values are one of the factors that generate behaviour
and influence the choices made by an individual.
Values may help common human problems for survival by comparative rankings of value,
the results of which provide answers to questions of why people do what they do and in what
order they choose to do them. Moral, religious, and personal values, when held rigidly, may
also give rise to conflicts that result from a clash between differing world views.
Over time the public expression of personal values that groups of people find important in
their day-to-day lives, lay the foundations of law, custom and tradition. Recent research has
thereby stressed the implicit nature of value communication. Consumer behavior research
proposes there are six internal values and three external values. They are known as List of
Values (LOV) in management studies. They are self respect, warm relationships, sense of
accomplishment, self-fulfillment, fun and enjoyment, excitement, sense of belonging, being
well respected, and security. From a functional aspect these values are categorized into three
and they are interpersonal relationship area, personal factors, and non-personal factors. From
an ethnocentric perspective, it could be assumed that a same set of values will not reflect
equally between two groups of people from two countries. Though the core values are
related, the processing of values can differ based on the cultural identity of an individual.[5]
Cultural Values
Individual cultures emphasize values which their members broadly share. Values of a society
can often be identified by examining the level of honor and respect received by various
groups and ideas. In the United States of America, for example, top-level professional
athletes receive more respect (measured in terms of monetary payment) than university
professors. Another example is that certain voters (taken from surveys) in the United States
would not willingly elect an atheist as president, suggesting that believing in a God is a
generally shared value.
BELIEF
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of
empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of
defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the
likelihood of something being true. In the context of Ancient Greek thought, two related
concepts were identified with regards to the concept of belief: pistis and doxa. Simplified, we
may say that pistis refers to “trust” and “confidence”, while doxa refers to “opinion” and
“acceptance”. The English word “orthodoxy” derives from doxa. Jonathan Leicester suggests
that belief has the purpose of guiding action rather than indicating truth.
In epistemology, philosophers use the term “belief” to refer to personal attitudes associated
with true or false ideas and concepts. However, “belief” does not require active introspection
and circumspection. For example, we never ponder whether or not the sun will rise.
People sometimes criticize others’ beliefs by insisting that they would have believed
otherwise if they’d had a different upbringing. They say things like, ‘you only believe in God
because you were raised in a Christian household’, or ‘you wouldn’t support the Labour Party
if you hadn’t been raised by trade unionists’. These criticisms are sometimes called
‘etiological challenges’. Everyone’s beliefs have a particular etiology, that is, a particular
causal origin. You had some experiences, received educational instruction and testimony
from others, spent some time—or maybe not much—thinking about the wider issues, and
ultimately arrived at your beliefs. An etiological challenge to your beliefs suggests that
certain facts about the causal origins of those beliefs make them problematic.
Etiological challenges can serve various purposes in culturally diverse societies. One thing
they’re useful for is cultivating intellectual humility. The fervent young religious or political
zealot is often inclined to think that those who reject his views are merely being pig-headed.
John Stuart Mill complained of this character: ‘it never troubles him that mere accident has
decided’ which belief system is his, ‘and that the same causes which make him a Churchman
in London, would have made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Pekin’. An etiological
challenge may constitute an attempt to complicate matters in this person’s mind and to
produce in him a certain anxiety, by reminding him that he would hold different views if he’d
been raised in different conditions. Even if he continues thinking his reasons for believing are
good ones, an etiological challenge tells the single-minded fanatic to be humble about
judging others for the mistakes he thinks they’re making.
Intellectual humility is a widely shared ideal, so this is fine as far as it goes. Still, it seems
like etiological challenges are meant to do more than just elicit humility or anxiety. These
challenges often look like demands that others revise their beliefs. When someone says to a
theist, ‘you only believe in God because you were raised in a Christian household’, this isn’t
just a call for intellectual humility. It’s offered as a reason against maintaining belief in God.
The question, then, is whether considering facts about the causal origins of your belief ever
does rationally require belief revision. The crux of the issue can’t just be the mere possibility
that you may be mistaken in your beliefs. You don’t have to grapple with etiological
challenges to recognize the fact that you’re rarely able to indemnify yourself against the
possibility of error. So, if etiological challenges are just a way of reemphasizing that point,
they don’t have any distinctive bearing on the rationality of belief.
It could be that etiological challenges are simply meant to remind you that some people who
appear to be just as sincere, intelligent, and well informed as you end up with different beliefs
thanks to their different upbringings. On this interpretation, an etiological challenge forces
you to recognize the apparent reasonableness of other people’s contrary beliefs, which, in
turn, rationally requires you to reduce confidence in your own beliefs. Indeed, this is what a
number of philosophers writing about this issue concluded recently. But if that’s the right
interpretation of things, then, again, etiological challenges end up being more or less
redundant. Etiological challenges can give you an indirect reason to revise your beliefs, but
only by drawing your attention to generic considerations that you could have and should have
been factoring into your judgements all along.
On both of these interpretations of an etiological challenge’s rational force, etiology
ultimately drops out of the picture. We favour a different analysis that makes etiology central.
We think etiological challenges are linked to an issue in applied epistemology, namely, the
problem of indoctrination. It’s difficult to say exactly what indoctrination is and what
differentiates it from education as such. Rather than advancing a decisive definition, we
propose a rough characterization of indoctrination. We think it’s clear that there are
educational methods that aim at imparting something like absolute or inflexible commitment
to a belief system. Under these kinds of methods, students are discouraged from entertaining
reasons to doubt these commitments. They’re encouraged to prejudicially give high
credibility to those who share these commitments, and low credibility to those who deny
them. They’re led to associate rejection of these commitments with certain vices (for
example, disloyalty) and negative affective states (for example, fear), and to associate
acceptance of these commitments with corresponding virtues and positive feelings.
Indoctrination needn’t be thought of as an all-or-nothing affair. Our view is that within an
educational practice, the more prevalent methods like these are, the more fitting it is to see
that practice as a system of indoctrination. Thus characterized, indoctrination naturally
contrasts with good education. Where good education cultivates students’ capacities for
rational thought, indoctrination tries to bypass those capacities or impair their development.
Our view is that, in many cases, when a person receives an etiological challenge, it’s being
put to her that her beliefs are a product of indoctrination, and that she should, therefore,
reduce confidence in them. Now, suppose for the sake of argument that the recipient of the
challenge grants that she’s been indoctrinated. Why does this require her to change her mind?
Generally speaking, it’s irrational to think that you’ve lucked into getting true beliefs via a
method of belief-acquisition that usually delivers falsehoods. And everyone agrees that in our
world—not as a matter of logical necessity, but as a matter of contingent fact—indoctrination
usually delivers false beliefs. Even those who belong to religious or political groups that
consciously employ indoctrination to transmit their views agree with this. When Catholics
think children are being indoctrinated into Catholicism, they think these children are being
indoctrinated into truth. But they think all the other indoctrinated children in the world—
being indoctrinated into Islam, or atheism, and so on—are getting falsehoods. Whatever
creed you subscribe to, you’ll think the vast majority of the beliefs that get instilled via
indoctrination false. And so if you come to see your own beliefs as a product of
indoctrination, this recognition generates a reason for you to reduce your confidence in their
truth.
Impact of Cross Cultural Communication
In this age of globalization, workplaces are increasingly integrated. This makes
communication and cross-cultural understanding more crucial for everyone, including
executives, business leaders, workplace managers, and employees. In order to develop skills
as communicators, we must gain practical knowledge of the factors that make communication
across cultures succeed or fail. According to experts in the field, some of those factors
include:

 Cultural identity
 Racial identity
 Ethnic identity
 Gender roles
 Individual personalities
 Social class
 Age
 Roles identity

Cultural Identity
Culture can be defined as the values, attitudes, and ways of doing things that a person brings
with them from the particular place where they were brought up as a child. These values and
attitudes can have an impact on communication across cultures because each person’s norms
and practices will often be different and may possibly clash with those of co-workers brought
up in different parts of the world.
Racial Identity
Racial identity refers to how one’s membership to a particular race affects how they interact
with co-workers of different races.
According to an article by Professor Daniel Velasco, published in the 2013 Asian Conference
on Language Learning Conference Proceedings, there are exercises for intercultural training
that asks participants to describe, interpret, and evaluate an ambiguous object or photograph.
“If one is going to undertake the unpleasant goal of uncovering underlying racism in order to
learn how to better communicate with other cultures,” Velasco writes, “it is necessary to
engage in exercises that confront racism head-on.” His method, called E.A.D., asks
participants to objectively describe what they see first and evaluate what they see. “By
moving backwards through the . . . process, we are able to confront underlying racism, which
will hopefully pave the way for self-awareness, cultural respect, and effective intercultural
communication.”
Ethnic Indentity
Ethnic identity highlights the role ethnicity plays in how two co-workers from different
cultures interact with one another. In the United States, white European Americans are less
likely to take their ethnicity into account when communicating, which only highlights the
importance of addressing different ethnicities in a workplace as a way of educating all co-
workers to the dynamics that may arise between individuals of the same or different ethnic
groups.
So what is the difference between race and ethnicity? According to experts from PBS, “While
race and ethnicity share an ideology of common ancestry, they differ in several ways. First of
all, race is primarily unitary. You can only have one race, while you can claim multiple
ethnic affiliations. You can identify ethnically as Irish and Polish, but you have to be
essentially either black or white.”
Gender Roles
Another factor that impacts intercultural communication is gender. This means that
communication between members of different cultures is affected by how different societies
view the roles of men and women. For example, this article looks at the ways that western
cultures view government sanctioned gender segregation as abhorrent. A Westerner’s
reaction to rules that require women in Saudi Arabia to cover themselves and only travel in
public when accompanied by a male family member as repressive and degrading. This is
looking at the world through a Western lens. Saudi women generally view themselves as
protected and honored. When studying gender identity in Saudi Arabia it is important that we
view the Saudi culture through a Saudi lens. Women in America struggle with these
traditional stereotypes, while women in Saudi Arabia embrace their cultural roles.
Individual Identity
The individual identity factor is the fifth factor that impacts cross-cultural communication.
This means that how a person communicates with others from other cultures depends on their
own unique personality traits and how they esteem themselves. Just as a culture can be
described in broad terms as “open” or “traditional,” an individual from a culture can also be
observed to be “open-minded” or “conservative.” These differences will have an effect on the
way that multiple individuals from the same culture communicate with other individuals.
Social Class
A sixth factor which influences intercultural communication is the social identity factor. The
social identity factor refers to the level of society that person was born into or references
when determining who they want to be and how they will act accordingly.
According to professors Judith N. Martin and Thomas K. Nakayama, authors of Intercultural
Communication in Contexts (McGraw-Hill ), “scholars have shown that class often plays an
important role in shaping our reactions to and interpretations of culture. For example, French
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1987) studied the various responses to art, sports, and other
cultural activities of people in different French social classes. According to Bourdieu,
working-class people prefer to watch soccer whereas upper-class individuals like tennis, and
middle-class people prefer photographic art whereas upper-class individuals favor less
representational art. As these findings reveal, class distinctions are real and can be linked to
actual behavioral practices and preferences.”
Age
The age identity factor refers to how members of different age groups interact with one
another. This might be thought of in terms of the “generation gap”. More hierarchical cultures
like China, Thailand, and Cambodia pay great deference and respect to their elders and take
their elders’ opinions into account when making life-changing decisions. Cultures like the
United States are less mindful of their elders and less likely to take their advice into account
when making important decisions. Such attitudes towards age cause the age identity factor to
impact intercultural communication in the workplace.
The Roles Identity Factor
The roles identity factor refers to the different roles a person plays in his or her life including
their roles as a husband or wife, father, mother or child, employer or employee, and so forth.
How two members of a workforce from two different cultures view these various roles
influences how they will interact with their fellow colleague or counterpart.

Kohlberg, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther

King Jr, Are some societies better than
others
A half-century after their deaths, Martin Luther King Jr, Kohlberg and Malcolm X was the
world’s most revered political activists.
They were respected leaders of the American Civil Rights movement, struggling for racial
equality and freedom. But at the start of the 1960s, the media were constructing a conflict that
stirred the civil rights debate: Malcolm X versus Reverend Martin Luther King.
While King advocated non-violent direct action and passive resistance to achieve equal civil
rights, Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI), the black Muslim
movement which violently rejected white America and its Christian values, and preached the
supremacy of blacks over whites.
He promoted a segregationist approach that sought to instil in blacks a pride in their African
heritage, whereas Martin Luther King believed that self-respect would come through
integration.
“King was working to take down signs that prevented black people from riding buses where
they wanted to, and to ride in trains, public transportation, preventing them from voting, and
all of those things that black people were prevented from doing in the south. In the north,
blacks always could vote, but as Malcolm said ‘You may have the vote but you ain’t no
voting for nothing because they’ve already decided that you are not going to have any
power’,” explains historian James H. Cone.
King once told the press that “the method of non-violent resistance is one of the most potent,
if not the most potent weapons available to oppressed people and their struggle for freedom.”
However, for Malcolm, turning the other cheek was a weak strategy that was unacceptable.
“Malcolm comes from a black nationalist tradition that does not believe that you can get your
freedom, your self-respect, your dignity by simply letting somebody beat up on you, and you
do not try to defend yourself. That’s why Malcolm emphasised self-defence. But King
emphasised non-violence because if blacks had responded, tried to defend themselves, that
would have brought the police department down on those demonstrators and whites would
have loved to have the chance to kill black people indiscriminately. So King and Malcolm
had that tension,” says Cone.
The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable
developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its
predecessor. Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages
studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through
constructive stages. Expanding on Piaget’s work, Kohlberg determined that the process of
moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout
the individual’s lifetime, a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of
such research.

Relativism vs. Development

RELATIVISM
Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration.
There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its
own truth.
The major categories of relativism vary in their degree of scope and controversy. Moral
relativism encompasses the differences in moral judgments among people and cultures. Truth
relativism is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to
some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cultural relativism).
Descriptive relativism seeks to describe the differences among cultures and people without
evaluation, while normative relativism evaluates the morality or truthfulness of views within
a given framework.
Cultural relativism is the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be
understood based on that person’s own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of
another.
It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few
decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the
idea in 1887: “civilization is not something absolute, but … is relative, and … our ideas and
conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes”.
The first use of the term recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary was by philosopher and
social theorist Alain Locke in 1924 to describe Robert Lowie’s “extreme cultural relativism”,
found in the latter’s 1917 book Culture and Ethnology. The term became common among
anthropologists after Boas’ death in 1942, to express their synthesis of a number of ideas
Boas had developed. Boas believed that the sweep of cultures, to be found in connection with
any sub species, is so vast and pervasive that there cannot be a relationship between culture
and race. Cultural relativism involves specific epistemological and methodological claims.
Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. This
principle should not be confused with moral relativism.
Some people worry that the concept of culture can also be abused and misinterpreted. If one
culture behaves one way, does that mean all cultures can behave that way as well? For
example, many countries and international organizations oppose the act of whaling (the
fishing of whales) for environmental reasons. These environmental organizations say that
there are not many whales left and such fishing practices should be stopped. However, other
countries argue that whaling is a cultural practice that has been around for thousands of years.
Because it may be part of a country’s oceanic culture, this country may say that such a
cultural practice should not be opposed based on cultural differences, say, by an inland
country that does not understand. Who gets to define what a moral cultural behavior is? Is
whaling immoral? Two different cultures may have very different answers, as we saw in the
above example. Another more extreme instance would be female genital cutting in some parts
of the world. Locally, it is argued that the practice has cultural roots, but such a practice has
raised concerns among many international human rights organizations.
Anthropologists say that when we think about different cultures and societies, we should
think about their customs in a way that helps us make sense of how their cultural practices
fits with their overall cultural context. For example, having several wives perhaps makes
economic sense among herders who move around frequently. Through such an
understanding, polygamy makes cultural sense.
DEVELOPMENT
One of the challenges facing organisations today is creating a culture of learning that
encourages employees to increase their knowledge, develop their skills and enhance their
performance on a continuous basis, not just once or twice a year. Yet, organisational L&D
programmes are falling short when it comes to creating a learning culture that reflects how
people learn in today’s workplace.
More Features

 The challenges of matrix management

 Overcoming noisy communication
 The challenge of free will
 Keeping abreast of change

It is becoming more apparent that HR and L&D professionals need to approach learning in
new and different ways. There is no place now for forcing employees into an outdated model
of what learning should look like – such as sitting in a classroom for days on end.
For a variety of reasons, economists have avoided getting too closely involved with the
concept of culture and its relationship to economic development. There is a general
acceptance that culture must have a role in guiding a population along a particular path, but,
as Landes (1998) points out, a discomfort with what can be construed as implied criticism of
a particular culture has discouraged broader public discourse.
The role of culture in economic development is not an easy subject to get a handle on. To
start with, one faces issues of definition. The more all-encompassing the definition, the less
helpful it tends to be in explaining patterns of development. Economists tend to narrowly
define culture as “customary beliefs and values that ethnic, religious, and social groups
transmit fairly unchanged from generation to generation” (Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales,
2006). This approach is largely dictated by the aim to identify causal relationships, by
focusing on aspects of culture that are constant over time. Not surprisingly, some of the most
insightful writing on the subject has been done by anthropologists. Murdock (1965) argues
that a culture consists of habits that are shared by members of a society. It is the product of
learning, not of heredity. Woolcock (2014) highlights how the sociologic scholarship has
evolved to consider culture as “shaping a repertoire or ‘tool kit’ of habits, skills, and styles
from which people construct ‘strategies of action” (Swidler, 1986).
A second complication is that even with a sensible definition, one would have to confront the
fact that cultural identity is not fixed. Cultural change—anthropologists tell us—begins with
processes of innovation, of which cultural borrowing or diffusion is by far the most common. 
But it can also be precipitated by social acceptance, by selective elimination and by
integration.

Respect Cultural Differences vs. Stages

of Development
Respect Cultural Differences
Technological advances continue to shrink the world and bring disparate and far-apart
cultures much closer together. Participation in today’s global society requires showing
respect and understanding to members of all cultures even when they contradict one’s own
culture. Cultural differences are inevitable; showing respect for those differences is
imperative for successful intercultural relations.

 Self-Awareness: Intercultural respect begins with the awareness that your

culture is no more valuable or “correct” than any other. Being part of the
majority culture in a given country does not change this; in fact, it only
makes that awareness more important, since it may be even easier to see
your culture as normal and dismiss or mock others for being strange. To
show respect for any cultural differences you encounter, keep in mind that
you see the world through a cultural “filter” that not everyone shares.
 Education: Lack of understanding often plays a role in intercultural tension,
so it’s important to educate yourself on other cultures to help minimize that
tension. For example, a German doctor who deals primarily with patients
from Peru is likely to find that his patients’ view of time is different from his
own. He may place a high value on punctuality, while the patients see
arriving after the appointment time as completely normal. Neither is right;
 they’re just different ways of dealing with time. Educate yourself on the
cultures around you so that you’re prepared and equipped to deal with any
disparities.
 Engagement: It’s natural to gravitate toward those with whom you share a
culture, but interacting with those from other cultures will broaden your
worldview and help you show respect when cultural differences arise.
Without being pushy or critical, ask questions and exchange views. Take an
interest in what it means to be a member of another culture, being careful
not to make unfair or insulting comparisons. For example, it is not
uncommon for the parents of Chinese university students to choose their
child’s area of study, but Western cultures may see this practice as
controlling or even wrong. Instead of making judgments, talk to members of
the other culture to understand the context of their decisions.
 Flexibility: Be willing to defer and adapt to another culture when
differences arise, as this is often the ultimate show of respect. For example,
an American traveling in Palestine may be repeatedly offered cups of tea,
food and myriad other forms of hospitality. In the United States, it’s often
more polite to decline, with the goal of not inconveniencing your host. In
other cultures, however, declining anything offered is considered
disrespectful; on the other hand, it is often perfectly acceptable to take one
sip of tea and leave the rest untouched. Deferring to another culture is in
effect saying, “Let’s do things your way. I respect and value your way of
life.”

Stages of Development
Social Scientists identify cultures as passing through four stages. These are the sometimes
called the stages of cultural development.

 The development and use of tools

 The control and use of fire
 The development of Agriculture
 The development of a writing system

When cultures develop a writing system, we usually refer to the culture as a civilization. 
Some cultures, though very few, never progressed to later stages.  There were, and still are, a
few societies that are “hunter-gatherer” cultures, which passed away with the development of
agriculture.  People like Professor Jared Diamond argue, convincingly, that societies that
remained hunting and gathering did so because of the geographic “hand that they were dealt,”
not that they did not possess the intelligence to develop agriculture.  Some societies,
developed agriculture, but did not develop a writing system.  No American Indian tribes of
the present day United States ever developed a writing system before contact with
Europeans.  In the video that we will watch, Guns, Germs, and Steel, Professor Jared
Diamond will describe the cultural complexities that we need to understand about the
development of writing systems.
The Possibility of an International
Subculture
Subcultures traditionally represent alternative cultures and practices to the dominant culture
of the established society. While they often construct themselves within and against the
governing culture from which they are born, their comparatively smaller population size,
their associations with emergent youth culture and the manifold novelties of the day, and
their occasionally politically resistant and activist temperaments all serve to ensure that
subcultures are constructed so as to be more than mere reproductions of the grander cultural
forms, themes, and practices. If the dominant culture provides the semantic codes by which
groups attempt to transmit and reproduce themselves, then subcultures represent a challenge
to this symbolic order in their attempt to institute new grammars and meanings through which
they interpret the world, and new practices through which they transform it.
Our present moment, however, is highly turbulent and complex, and can be characterized as a
“postmodern adventure” in which traditional forms of culture and politics are being
resurrected, imploded into and combined with entirely new cultural and political modes in a
global media culture that is becoming increasingly dominated by the corporate forces of
science, technology, and capital (see Best and Kellner 2001). To speak of post-subcultures,
then, is to recognize that the emerging subcultures are taking place in a world that is saturated
with proliferating technologies, media, and cultural awareness. Post-subcultures are
constructed in new cultural spaces and with innovative forms, entering into novel global
configurations by technological advances such as the Internet and multimedia which help
produce alternative forms of culture and political activism.
Thus, whereas many traditional subcultures, like the Beat Generation, could aspire to the
spirituality of “immediate” experience and intimate face-to-face communal relations, this is
increasingly difficult for the post-subculture generation. Instead, the new subcultures that are
arising around the evolving Internet and wireless technologies appear as wholly mediated and
committed to the medium of network communication that they correctly recognize as their
foundation, while reaching out to help shape the broader culture and polity of which they are
a part.
However, as with previous generations of subcultures, Internet subcultures seek a certain
immediacy of experience that strives to circumvent dominant codes in the attempt to access a
wealth of global information quickly and directly, and then to appropriate and disseminate
material further. The new subcultural immediacy, then, centers around flows of information
and multimedia, and post-subcultures can be seen to be using the Internet as an environment
that supports their attempts to gain and provide access to information and culture that exists
beyond the means of control of the dominant order. In this fashion, subcultures associated
with the Internet are involved in the revolutionary circulation and democratization of
information and culture. In as much as this material is also part of the media-process by
which people come to identify and define themselves, the emergent mediated post-
subcultures are also involved in the attempt to allow people the freedom to re-define and
construct themselves around the kind of alternative cultural forms, experiences, and practices.