Cultural iceberg. Culture shock
1. Theoretical approaches to research
The study of the effectiveness of the practice of obtaining education abroad from the point of view of perception, assimilation and reproduction by recipients of sociocultural and institutional norms and rules is concentrated on the study of such social phenomena as: intercultural communication; sociocultural adaptation of the individual in someone else's group; variability of the socio-regulatory consciousness of man; perception by a group of a stranger who came from the outside; The attitude of the individual to its former environment after receiving the experience of interaction with the society to him on the regulatory, cultural, psychological level.
The phenomenon of intercultural interaction, the problem of assimilation of norms and cultural samples and the adaptation of a person in another medium received comprehensive coverage in theoretical sociology. Consider some theoretical concepts that interpret the situation of the individual who produced in another country in terms of its social and cultural interaction, and which can be used as theoretical and methodological categories of analysis.
The study of the assimilation of Western standards and cultural samples is directly related to the phenomenon of intercultural communication, since assimilation as such is the result of the intercultural communication process between the individual, which turned out to be in someone else's environment and the local community.
The concept of "intercultural communication" was introduced into the scientific circulation by the American researchers by E. Hall and D. Traman in 1954 in the book "Culture as communication: model and analysis". In their work, intercultural communication was considered as a special area of \u200b\u200bhuman relations. Later in the work of "Mute Language", E. Hall develops ideas about the relationship of culture and communication and for the first time brings this problem to the level of not only scientific research, but also independent educational discipline. E. Holl developed a culture model by type of iceberg, where the most significant parts of the culture are "under water", and what is obvious - "above the water." That is, it is impossible to "see" the culture itself. In other words, to understand and know another culture, not enough observations. A full-fledged study may occur only with direct contact with another culture, which means in many respects means interpersonal interaction. The author believes that the value orientations of individuals (regarding actions, communication, situational environment, time, space, etc.) regulate communication actions in a particular situational context and thus there is a certain exchange of experience between people from different cultures. It should also be noted that E.Holl has become the founder of intercultural communication as a separate discipline.
The study of intercultural communication is often carried out using a systemic approach (T. Parsons, K.-O. Apel, N. Luman, K. Doych, D. Eston, S.Kuzmin, A. Deh). According to this approach, diverse social systems are announced in sociology in sociology, that is, one way or another, ordered sets of people's relationships, including such a social system as society. Intercultural communication in this case is the interaction of two or more systems. The interaction can be carried out in different ways, but in one way or another this is a kind of exchange of elements of systems, which can be both individuals and information, knowledge, cultural values \u200b\u200band social norms. Unlike E. Holla and D. Trapher, who seen in intercultural communication, a special area of \u200b\u200bhuman relations, a number of other researchers imply the interaction of systems where people are not representatives of cultures, but only their elements.
The theory of cultural relativism (I. Merder, O.Shpengler, A.Tunby, U.Samner, R. Bentict, N. Ya Danilevsky, Ph.D. Leontiev, L.N. Gumilev) insists on independence and the usefulness of each culture, where the success of intercultural communication is associated with the stability of cultural entities and the refusal to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe versatility of the Western sociocultural system. In other words, in this theory, the criticism of the process of assimilation as such and the uniqueness of each culture is placed at the head of intercultural communication. That is, the difference between standards, cultures, the lifestyle of communicating immigrants from different countries should in no way become a stumbling block for the success of this communication. Interchange of cultural practitioners in this case is rather negative than a positive phenomenon.
Studying the interaction of an individual with someone else's environment, its adaptation to it is also one of the main problems of ethnosociology. Ethnosocytiologists are special emphasis on the process taking place with a person in a new group, stages and phases of changes in the human sensation of group affiliation. Russian researcher S.A. Tatutunz in its work "Etonosociology" considers the problem of the interaction of representatives of different cultures, special attention to the adaptation of a person who has fallen into alien to him is a well-minded environment with its rules, norms and cultural samples.
In ethnosociology, the process of finding a representative of one country to another, alien to him, the process of its interaction with an alien to him is customary to be called sociocultural adaptation. Sociocultural adaptation in another medium occurs in two forms - assimilation and accurate. In the first case, the person (group) takes (voluntarily or forced) the values \u200b\u200band norms of the host ethnic environment. In the new environment, migrants, immigrants as it were to dissolve. Then neither them nor the host environment perceive them as "strangers" or "foreign minority". As the author writes, according to the majority of scientists, complete assimilation, the dissolution can occur only in the second, third generation. In another case, their main ethnocultural characteristics are preserved, but minorities take the norms and values \u200b\u200bof the new sociocultural environment and follow them.
Depending on human goals, adaptation may have a different temporal character: short and long. With short-term adaptation, man, while maintaining belonging to its cultural group and explicing it, mastering a new language for himself, establishes contacts and communication. It is believed that such an adaptation lasts up to two years, and over two years, staying in a new ethnic medium, it is necessary to show greater involvement and activity.
In the structure of sociocultural adaptation S.A. Tatutunz distinguishes three components:
Situation, need, ability. It is assumed that the migrant must pass three mandatory stages. The first stage is a device that includes searching and finding housing, work. In the second stage of adaptation, adapting to the tongue, a natural environmental environment, confessionality and public life occurs. The third stage - assimilation is associated with the elimination of the entire complex of uncomfortable aspects through acquiring
A new identity when a former migrant becomes part of the host ethnic environment.
The success of sociocultural adaptation depends on the proper balance of individual needs of the person and the requirements of the host ethnocultural environment. This balance, in turn, depends on the person, which should have a high degree of self-control and comply with the generally accepted regulatory requirements of the new environment.
If you transfer the problems we study, it can be noted that, firstly, especially sharp for a young man who has abroad, there may be a problem of mastering the language and complex discomfort due to the loss of "soil under the legs" in the form of a usual social landmarks , norms and rules.
Another researcher, K. Dodd, studying intercultural cooperation in an ethnosociological aspect, in turn pays attention to the individual in the foreign environment. In the work "Dynamics of intercultural communication", the author considers the problem of human interaction with the surroundings alien to him.
According to K. Doddo, a man, being in a foreign environment, first of all tests "cultural shock", in other words, this is a feeling of discomfort, helplessness, a state of disorientation, anxiety due to the loss of the usual symbols and signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. Cultural shock is primarily a socio-psychological phenomenon, the reasons for which may also be the complexity of initial contact with a new ethnocultural medium, a state of uncertainty, etc.
Dodd allocates three main categories of symptoms of cultural shock:
psychological (insomnia, constant headaches, stomach disorder
etc.);
emotional (irritability, anxiety, longing house, sometimes turning into parano);
communicative (closedness, difficulties in relationships, even with close, constant discontent, frustration).
The period of cultural shock in the individual who had in someone else's country undoubtedly prevents intercultural communication. Because of poor well-being, both physical and mental, man begins to "close" and avoid a new environment. Overcoming this period is one of the main tasks of the emigrant on the way to normal existence among the people of people.
1. Arriving to another, as a rule, a prosperous country, an emigrant is happily excitement. Dodd interprets this condition as satisfaction correctly accepted
Decision to move into this great place. I got literally all that surrounds him, he is in a state close to Euphoria. Dodd calls this stage "honeymoon". Indeed, the duration of such a state may vary depending on the nature of the individual, from a short period of time to the month.
2. The second stage indicates the end of the honeymoon. Faced with a lot of problems, a person begins to realize that the anticipation of happy expectations is just an illusion embracing the impressions of the honeymoon and enhanced by the first days of stay in a new place, and begins to consult that he was mistaken, arriving here. According to Dodd, this stage is called "all terrible."
3. Overcoming cultural shock - the process of the so-called device, "clutch" in a new environment that can pass differently from different individuals and have different results in essence.
K. Dodd tried to more structured to consider the interaction process
Individual with a new environment for it and distinguish four possible lines of human behavior that has been in someone else's country for him.
The first model of behavior is "FLIGT": flight, or passive autark. This is an attempt to avoid direct contacts with someone else's culture. Migrants create their microworld in which "their own", tribesmen live and have its own ethnocultural medium. This model of behavior is also called "ghetto". Ghettoation is characteristic of essentially owned by migrants and refugees, those who live in large industrial capitals and megalopolis. So, there are Turkish Quarter Kreuzberg in Berlin, Russian-speaking Brighton Beach in New York, Arab Quarters in Paris, Armenian in Los Angeles. Here they speak on the reflective language, the customs and traditions of their ethnic group are observed.
The second model is "Fight": Fight, or Aggressive Avtarkia. Migrants have an active manifestation of ethnocentrism. A new reality is perceived inadequately, a new culture is criticized. Migrants are trying to transfer their ethnic stereotypes and samples of behavior in a new environment.
The third model is "Filter": separation, or filtering. It manifests itself as a multidirectional strategy: 1) a complete rejection of the new culture and solid commitment to its culture; 2) Complete perception of a new culture and rejection of the former.
The fourth model is "Flex": flexibility, flexibility. Migrant is aware of the need to adopt a new code of culture - language, gestures, norms, habits; new ethnic frame. In other words, a person adapts in a new environment, it follows its installations, standards, etc., but it does not refuse the old, preserves the value of the past and if the case may return to the previous lifestyle.
The two first strategies of the behavior are due to the loss of familiar symbols, social communications signs and the lack of new knowledge. They complicate inter-ethnic interaction. Choosing a third model when committed to its culture remains, a person identifies himself with his ethnic group, promotes and spreads its culture, actually contributes to the dialogue of cultures, overcoming the isolationism.
The fourth model of behavior changes the cultural identity of a person, he fully accepts new and follows the new ethnic frame. This process can manifest itself both at the level of external observed behaviors and at the level of social perception: a person forms new installations, views, assessments, values.
The third and fourth models are a way out of the crisis of inter-ethnic interactions.
Interesting view of the relationship of Inozeman with local residents can be found at the German sociologist R. Shtihwe in the work "Abivalence, Indifference and Sociology of Alien". The author considers the social phenomenon of "someone else's" and put forward his abstracts about its interaction with the medium at different levels. Mentioning the provisions of this paper seems appropriate to us because it gives a look at the problem studied on the other hand, that is, from the position of society, which includes foreign individuals, and we have the opportunity to better understand the nature of the interaction learned.
The perception by the society of a stranger, a newly apparent individual and interaction with him, in the Shtihwe, wears a sufficiently versatile and difficult character. The main idea that the author expresses is the image of someone else's society can take different forms.
The first such form is characterized by the fact that someone else, appearing in a certain place, on the one hand, is someone else, characterized from this company for a number of criteria, such as its social and cultural installations, norms of behavior, knowledge and skills. It is perceived in this sense precisely as a stranger, whom people avoid and support due to the fact that he carries his differences a certain concern to the well-established order of one or another group. At the same time, someone else is a certain innovation and a reasons to society think about its order and the flow of life. Knowledge, skills, a different view of social norms and foundations - what can serve as a group in which he turned out to be for the development and change. As Shatychva writes, "someone else embodies the rejected or illegitimate possibilities that are inevitably returning to society through it." Alien provides, for example, the possibility of the hierarchy, the Supreme State of the leader or the monarch, which explains why in traditional African societies at the beginning of the new time and in the XIX century. The victims of the shipwreck Europeans often became leaders or monarchs. Or, it embodies inevitable for economic reasons the possibility of usury, which is not combined with many common value orientations, and therefore it is supplanted in a fraction of others. Examples of this type it becomes clear that society in a foreign figure creates indignation for himself, which are necessary for its further evolution and are not really unexpected. The author makes the reservation that the Society often forms such a fraction of someone else to justify the changes taken in it. That is, the first form of ambivalence of attitudes towards someone else can be called as a "alien-renechenets and someone else's innovative."
The second form of ambivalence of attitudes towards someone else is associated with the conflict of institutionalized regulatory expectations and the structural possibilities of their implementation. On one side there is an inevitable limited resources of almost any society, which forces to strategically calculating, hostile to the painted applying with everyone who does not belong to a close family circle or a certain community of people, where everything is somehow interrelated. But this pressure of limited resources is opposed by the widespread reciprocality in all societies in all societies, which are introduced into the rank of norms assistance and hospitality towards strangers. In other words, there is a contradiction in relation to someone else's. On the one hand, it is perceived as an enemy, striving to absorb, use part of the Company's resources, in which it turned out to be, whether material benefits, cultural values, information or knowledge and skills. On the other hand, someone else's at the same time is a guest who came from another country, which requires a certain passage with it in connection with hospitality standards, such as those who are friendly residents, willingness to assist, starting with orientation problems in someone else's environment and ending with physical help. As the author writes, hesitation in the understanding of the "Alien" between the guest and the enemy is clearly connected with the conflict of these structural and regulatory imperatives: limited resources and recycling commitment. In other words, this form of ambivalence of attitudes towards someone else's - "Alien Enemy and Alien Guest".
Further, the author writes about trends towards someone else's modern societies. Along with the mentioned forms of ambivalence of perception of someone else, there was a tendency, which lies in the fact that society seeks in any way to reduce the very existence of the category of "Alien". Since the existence of someone else carries some social tensions, it is not surprising that people tend to somehow neutralize this tension to those or other ways. The author allocates several such methods.
1. "Invisibility" of others. Alien is perceived as something having a negative color, as a threat man, but this attitude is not covered by specific people who came from other countries, but rather on the "mythical", as the author is expressed, bastards. That is, the category of someone else becomes something invisible, discussed among individuals, but at the same time not to certain and specific people does not appear similar attitude. Their "alienity" is either ignored, or perceived as a given.
2. Universalization of others. This is the so-called reduction on there is no category of someone else's consciousness of people, as the author is expressed - "parting with a stranger", which is carried out in different ways. In other words, someone else's thing ceased to exist in society.
3. Decomposition of someone else's. It lies in the fact that the solid personality of someone else is disintegrated into individual functional segments that are much easier to overcome. In modern society, increasingly short interactions, interaction partners are therefore strangers to each other, the integrity of the individual in all its disturbing aspects retreats for the act of interaction. In this sense, we are dealing with the developing differentiation of personal and impersonal connections. And it is someone else's - a protagonist of such differentiation. In other words, a person as a single person ceases to exist, he begins to be perceived in different hypostasis in their respective different communities. Personal and impersonal relationships are just determining the nature of perception of others. At the level of personal connections, such as friendship, informal communication, someone else can act on the surrounding annoying, strengthen the feeling of alienity. But, being in society, a foreigner is increasingly and more often to go out on the impersonal communication level, where we are talking about the social aspects of communication, such, for example, how business negotiations, and here if someone else's stranger remains, then this quality is becoming Expected and normal, ceases to disturb and no longer causes the need to somehow recycle alienity.
4. Typing someone else's. This aspect of the loss of the value of the category of someone else is to significantly typisions and categories in the interaction processes. While communications with close people are based on sympathy, include the individuality of both sides, others are perceived only through typing, through the attachment to any social category. It clearly assumes successful overcoming the initial uncertainty. Someone else is no longer a reason for uncertainty; It can be more accurately determined by categorical assignment. For someone else's position in previous societies, it was characteristic that he was often on any one side of distinction, which clearly did not provide for the third opportunity. Thus, it remained either a tough attachment to one of two sides, or for any of the participants in advance not the calculated oscillation between both sides. One of these differences is related / stranger. Now the so-called third status appears. This category can be described as follows: People relating to it are neither friends nor enemies or loved ones or others. The dominant installation of others in relation to them is indifference. At the place of hospitality or hostility, the figure of the indifferentity is set as a normal installation in relation to almost all other people.
Problems of interaction between individuals with representatives of the Society alien to him are considered by the city of Zimmelev in the work of the "excursion of someone". Zimmel analyzes the concept of a stranger - a person who has in a group different from him in different criteria. A stranger is a wanderer who comes from the outside. He, therefore, is precisely spatially someone else, since the group identifies itself with a certain space, and the space, the "soil" - with him. A stranger, defines Zimmel, this is not the one who comes today to leave tomorrow. He comes today to stay next. But, staying, he continues to be a stranger. The group and strangers are heterogeneous, in general, they form some more broader unity, in which both sides need to be taken into account. In the history of the strangers performed as a merchant, and the merchant is like a stranger. An objectivity is characteristic of a stranger, because it is not confused in intragroup interests. But therefore it is also free, and therefore suspicious. And often he not only can not divide with a group of her sympathy and antipathy, and therefore it seems like a person who wants to destroy the existing order, but really becomes the side of "progress", against the dominant customs and traditions.
The key criterion for determining the stranger at Zimmel is the "unity of proximity and remoteness" of a stranger in relation to the group (and at first this criterion is perceived as a spatial). Such unity can be denoted by distance, border, mobility, fixed. These concepts help to determine the specifics of the interaction of a stranger with a group. The creature of this specificity is "freedom" of a stranger, the consequences of which for the group and for the foster itself, mainly and occupy Zimmel. To clarify the meaning of this freedom, it is necessary to understand what said "remoteness" is, a distance, which has a completely defined point of reference - a group, but not defined at either the final item or no longer. For the group, these recent parameters are insignificant in the characteristics of a stranger; It is only important that he is distinguished from the group and is distinguished from this particular, group; His presence in it is significantly only because it allows you to fix this process of distance or return to this group. The group does not observe and does not control the stranger all over the distance, so its alienation is not deprivation or schism. Rather, this is the position of the observer, when there is an object of observation - the group and when observation is the creature of the relationship of a stranger with a group, leitmotif, tension and dynamics of this relationship.
"Strangers" is not related to no one with one group, he opposes everyone; This attitude is not just non-participation, but a certain structure of the ratio of remoteness and proximity, indifference and involvement, within which is conceivable, although it is reprehensible - "with its charter in someone else's monastery." Objectivity and freedom of a stranger determine the specific nature of the proximity to it: relationships with a stranger are abstract, you can only share the most common features, those that unite any person with any. The removal process, "alienation", transformation into a stranger is shown by the Winmelie as the process of universalization. The generality of the features between people, as it spread to a large totality, gives them away from each other. The more unique thing is that they are binding, the more closely the connection. The more this general applies beyond their relationship, the less close these relationships. This kind of community is universal and can associate with anyone: the basis of such relations can serve, for example, "universal values" and, perhaps, the most "universal" of them is money. The universality of generality enhances an element of chance, the binding forces lose the specific, centripetal nature.
Theoretical consideration of the situation when a person seeks to understand the cultural samples of the social group with which he wants to get close to the work of A. Syutza "strangers. Sketch of social psychology. " Under the "stranger" the author understands the "adult individual of our time and our civilization trying to achieve permanent recognition or, at least tolerant attitude from the group from which he gets closer." Syutz analyzes how this rapprochement occurs, comparing the adoption of cultural samples by a person who was born in this group, and a person who is for her "alien".
Syutz believes that each born or educated in the group takes a predetermined standardized scheme of a cultural sample given by the ancestors. This scheme is not questioned and acts as guidance in all situations arising in the social world. The knowledge that corresponds to the cultural pattern is taken as of granted until the opposite is proven. This knowledge allows, avoiding unwanted consequences, to achieve in any situation with minimal efforts of the best results. Thus, the function of the cultural sample is to exclude the elimination of a labor-intensive study, the provision of ready-made guidelines.
The fact is that in everyday life, a person is only partially interested in clarity of his knowledge, that is, a complete understanding of the links between the elements of his world and the general principles that these connections are managed. He does not wonder how, for example, his car is arranged and what laws of physics make it possible to function. A man believes Syutz, it takes about it for granted that another person will understand his thought if it is expressed by a clear language, and will react to it accordingly; At the same time, it is not at all interested in how much it is possible to explain this "wonderful" event. Moreover, he does not seek truth at all and does not require certainty: "All he needs is information about the likelihood and understanding of those chances and risks that are introduced by the situation in the future result of its actions."
Meanwhile, a stranger, due to his personal crisis, does not share the aforementioned assumptions. In fact, he becomes a man who has to question is hardly unlikely that members of the group with which it comes closer seems undoubted. A cultural sample of this group does not have an authority for him, at least due to the fact that it was not involved in a living historical tradition, which this sample shaped. Of course, a stranger knows that the culture of this group has its own special story; Moreover, this story is available to him. However, she never became the same integral part of his biography, which the history of his native group was for him. For each person, those customers for which his fathers and grandparents lived with elements of lifestyle. Consequently, A. Syutz writes, a stranger comes into another group as a neophyte . At best, it may be ready and is able to divide with a new group in live and direct experience in general present and future; However, under any circumstances, it remains excluded from a similar overall experience of the past. From the point of view of the group host, he is a person who has no story.
The cultural sample of the native group still continues to remain for a stranger the result of continuous historical development and element of its biography; And therefore, this sample was as it was, and remains for its "relatively natural worldview" not questioned by the correlation scheme. Consequently, the stranger naturally begins to interpret the new social environment in the categories of the usual thinking.
The discovery that much in his new environment is very different from what he expected to see it, being at home, is often the first shock to be subjected to the faith of others in the significance of the usual "ordinary thinking." In addition to the fact that the stranger is experiencing difficulties in making cultural samples, it faces the fact that he has no status of a member of the social group to which he would like to join, and that it cannot find a starting point for orientation.
A significant obstacle, the barrier on the way to the assimilation of cultural samples becomes for someone else's language, which is spoken in this social group. As a diagram of interpretation and expression, the language does not consist of simply from linguistic characters cataloged in the dictionary, and syntactic rules. The first are translated into other languages, the latter are understandable through their correlation with the relevant or deviating rules of the non-elective native language. However, there are a number and other factors:
1. Around each word and every sentence, if you use the term U. Jems, there are "periphery" that surround them with the halo of emotional values, which themselves remain inexpressible. These "periphery", writes Syutz, like poetry: "They can be put on music, but cannot be translated."
2. In any language there are words with several values \u200b\u200bthat are also given in the dictionary. However, in addition to these standardized connotations, each element of speech acquires a special secondary value, derived from the context or social medium in which it is used, as well as, in addition, the special shade associated with the specific circumstances of its use.
3. In each language there are special terms, jargonisms and dialects, the use of which is limited to special social groups, and their meaning can also be assimilated with a stranger. However, in addition to this, each social group, no matter how little it, has its own private code, understandable only to those who participated in the total past experiences in which he arose.
All of the above specific subtleties are available only to members of the group itself. And they all relate to their expression scheme. They are impossible to teach or learn as, for example, vocabulary. To freely use the language as a scheme of expression, a person must write love letters in this language, should know how they pray. Of course, problems with the language make it difficult for the "alien" process of assimilation of norms and cultural samples.
Applying all this to a cultural model of group life as a whole, we can say that the member of the group grabs the normal social situations from one glance, in which he falls, and immediately caresses the prepared recipe suitable for solving the cash problem. His actions in these situations demonstrate all signs of the usual, automatic and semi-awareness. This becomes possible due to the fact that the cultural sample provides its recipes typical solutions of typical problems available for typical actors.
However, for someone else's sample of the group with which it comes closers, it guarantees not an objective probability of success, but rather a purely subjective probability that should be checked step by step. That is, he must make sure that the decisions proposed by the new scheme will also lead to the desired result in its position of the outsider or a novice, which has grown outside the system of this cultural sample. He must first determine the situation. Therefore, he cannot stop at an approximate acquaintance with the new model, needs explicit knowledge about his elements, asking not just that, but why.
In other words, a cultural sample group is a kind of problem field for a stranger, which must be explored. All these facts explain two features of the installation of others in relation to the group, for which almost all sociologists engaged in this topic, paid attention to: objectivity alien and his dubious loyalty .
The main reason for the objectivity of the stranger lies in his experiences of the narrow and limitations of "usual thinking", who led him that a person can lose his status, his life guidelines and even his story and that the normal way of life is always much less unshakable than it seems. Therefore, a stranger notes that the crisis is able to shake the most foundations of "relatively natural worldview", while all of these symptoms remain unnoticed for members of the group, relying on the inviolability of their usual lifestyle.
Very often, reproaches in dubious loyalty are born out of the surprise of the group members about the fact that the stranger does not accept the entire cultural sample as a whole as a natural and proper lifestyle and as a better of all possible solutions to any problem. The stranger is reproached in ungrateful, as he refuses to admit that the proposed cultural sample gives him shelter and protection. However, these people do not understand that a stranger who is in a state of transition does not perceive this sample at all like shelter, and even giving protection: "For him, this is a labyrinth in which he lost any feeling of orientation."
It is important to note that Schyutz refrained from the study of the assimilation process itself, making an emphasis on the problem of rapprochement preceding assimilation. Adaptation of a stranger to the group, at first seemingly strange and unfamiliar, is a continuous process of studying the cultural sample of this group. If the process of research is successful, this sample and its elements will become for the beginner of course, turns into a non-elegant lifestyle for it. In this case, the stranger will stop being a stranger.
Another aspect of the process of interaction between an individual with an alien to him is considered by A. Schyutz in the work "returning home". "Returning home" in this case is defined as a person returning to his native environment forever after staying and interaction with another group.
Installation returned different from installing someone else's. Returning home expects to return to the environment, which he always knew and, as he thinks, still knows from the inside and which he should only take as a given, in order to determine the line of his behavior in it. The house, by definition of Schutz, is a specific lifestyle consisting of small and important elements to which a person belongs to love. The life of the house is followed by a well-organized pattern; She has its own specific goals and well-proven funds to achieve them, consisting of many traditions, habits, institutions, charts of all kinds of sorts, etc.
The returning home believes that for the final recovery of communication with the abandoned group, it should only appeal to the memoirs of the past. And since everything happens somewhat differently, he is experiencing something similar to shock.
The life of the house returned to the previous environment is more unavailable directly. Schütz writes that, even seeking home, a person always has a desire to bring something from new goals to an old model, from new means of their achievement, from skills and experience gained abroad. Such an individual, to one degree or another, subject to change on a foreign or, at least, who has acquired a certain amount of new information for it, to consider it important and useful, trying, as he believes to bring benefit in the native environment. But people from his former surroundings, by virtue of the lack of such experience, perceive information from him through the usual prism of her correlation with their daily life for them. Explaining this, the author leads an example of a soldier who returned from the war. When he returns and talks about his experience as unique, he notes that the listeners do not understand his uniqueness and try to find familiar features, taking it under their pre-formed ideas about the soldiers' life at the front. There is a gap between the uniqueness and the exceptional importance that the absent person attributes to his experiences, and their
pseudotyping by people at home; This is one of the biggest obstacles to the mutual restoration of the interrupted "We - Relations". Unfortunately, Schyutz states, it is hardly necessary to hope that ways of behavior that justified themselves in one social system will be as successful in another.
In general, the concepts of the concept were theoretical and methodological basis for the study taken by us, devoted to the study of the assimilation and reproduction of Russian youth, who studied abroad, the western lifestyle, socio-cultural and institutional norms and rules. In particular, the provisions of the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz, in that part of it, where within the framework of the general theory of interpretation refers to the "foreign" and about the "returning home", as it is impossible to comprehend our materials.
Culture shock - Emotional or physical discomfort, disorientation of an individual caused by hitting a different cultural environment, a collision with another culture, unfamiliar place.
In the scientific circulation, the term "cultural shock" in 1960 introduced the American Researcher Caleevo Oberg (Eng. Kalervo Oberg.). In his opinion, cultural shock is "the investigation of anxiety that appears as a result of the loss of all the usual signs and symbols of social interaction", in addition, when a person entitled to a new culture, a very unpleasant feeling appear.
The essence of cultural shock is a conflict of old and new cultural norms and orientation, old - inherent in an individual as a representative of the society, which he left, and new, that is, representing the society in which he arrived. Actually, cultural shock is a conflict of two cultures at the level of individual consciousness.
Iceberg Concept
Probably one of the most famous metaphors describing "cultural shock" is the concept of iceberg. It implies that culture consists not only from what we see and hear (language, visual arts, literature, architecture, classical music, pop music, dancing, kitchen, national costumes, etc.), but also from the fact that Lies beyond our initial perception (the perception of beauty, the ideals of raising children, attitude to the eldest, the concept of sin, justice, approaches to solving problems and problems, group work, visual contact, body language, facial expressions, perception of themselves, attitude to the opposite sex, relationship past and future, time management, distance when communicating, intonation of voice, speech speed, etc.) The essence of the concept is that the culture can be represented as iceberg, where only a small visible part of the culture is above the water surface, and under the edge of the water weighing An invisible part that does not turn out to be in sight, however, has a great influence on our perception of culture as a whole. When a collision in an unknown, underwater, an iceberg (culture) is most often a cultural shock.
The American researcher R. Wiper shall like a cultural shock of two icebergs meeting: it is "under water", at the level of "non-obvious", there is a basic clash of values \u200b\u200band mentalities. He argues that in the collision of two cultural icebergs, the part of the cultural perception, which was previously unconscious, goes to the level of conscious, and the person begins to treat them with great attention both to its own and someone else's culture. Individual with surprise is aware of the presence of this hidden system of controlling the behavior of norms and values \u200b\u200bonly when contacting a contact with another culture falls into a situation. The result of this is psychological, and often physical discomfort - cultural shock.
Possible reasons
There are many points of view related to the causes of cultural shock. Thus, the researcher K. Forn, based on the analysis of literary sources, allocates eight approaches to nature and the peculiarities of this phenomenon, commenting on and showing even their insolvency in some cases:
Mostly, a person gets cultural shock, falling into another country, different from the country, where he lives, although with such sensations it may face in its own country with a sudden change in the social environment.
A person has a conflict of old and new cultural standards and orientations, the old, to which he is used, and new characterizing a new society for him. This conflict of two cultures at the level of their own consciousness. Cultural shock arises when familiar psychological factors that helped a person adapt to society disappear, and instead there are unknown and incomprehensible, which came from another cultural environment.
Such experience of a new culture is unpleasant. As part of his own culture, a persistent illusion of its own vision of the world, lifestyle, mentality, etc. is created, etc. As the only possible and, most importantly, the only permissible one. The overwhelming number of people does not realize themselves as a product of a separate culture, even in those rare cases when they understand that the behavior of representatives of other cultures itself is actually determined by their culture. Only going beyond the limits of its culture, that is, having met with another worldview, the worldview, etc., can understand the specifics of their social consciousness, see the difference in cultures.
People are experiencing cultural shock in different ways, it is not possible to realize the sharpness of its impact. It depends on their individual characteristics, the degree of similarity or nonstation of cultures. This can include a number of factors, including climate, clothing, food, language, religion, education, material welfare, family structure, customs, etc.
Factors affecting the sharpness of cultural shock
The force of manifestation of cultural shock and the duration of intercultural adaptation depends on a number of factors that can be divided into two groups: internal (individual) and external (group).
According to researchers, a person's age is a basic and critical element of adaptation to another culture. With age, a person is more difficult to integrate into a new cultural system, stronger and more practices have a cultural shock, slowly perceives values \u200b\u200band samples of behavior of a new culture.
Also important in the process of adaptation is the level of human formation: the higher it is, the more successful adaptation passes. This is due to the fact that education expands the internal potential of a person, complicates its perception of the environment, and therefore makes it more tolerant to changes and innovations.
You can talk about the universal list of the desired characteristics of a person who is preparing for life in another culture. Such characteristics should include professional competence, high self-esteem, sociability, extrovertness, openness for different opinions and points of view, interest in environment and people, the ability to cooperate, internal self-control, courage and perseverance.
To the group of internal factors determining the complexity of adaptation and the duration of cultural shock, among other things, the human life experience belongs to the movement of the experience of staying in another culture; Availability of friends among local residents.
The group of external factors includes a cultural distance, under which the degree of differences between "its" and "foreign" culture is understood. It is necessary to understand that the cultural distance itself has an effect on adaptation, but a person's presentation about it, which depends on many factors: the presence or absence of wars, conflicts in the present and in the past, knowledge of someone else's language and culture, etc.
It is also worth noting a number of external factors indirectly determining the process of adaptation: the conditions of the country of stay, the goodwill of local residents to visit, willingness to assist them, the desire to communicate with them; Economic and political stability in the host country; crime level; The possibility and accessibility of communication with representatives of another culture.
Phases of cultural shock
According to T.G. Stefenko, there are the following stages of cultural shock: "Honeymoon", "actually cultural shock", "reconciliation", "adaptation".
1. "Honeymoon". This stage is characterized by enthusiasm, raised mood, great hopes. During this period, the distinction between the "old" and "new" culture is perceived positively, with great interest.
2. Actually "Cultural Shock". At the second stage, the unusual environment begins to have a negative impact. After a while, a person is aware of emerging problems with communication (even if knowledge of the language is good), at work, study, in the store, at home. Suddenly, all the differences become even more noticeable for him. A person realizes that with these differences he will have to live not a few days, and months or perhaps years. The crisis stage of cultural shock begins.
3. "Reconciliation". This stage is characterized by the fact that depression is slowly replaced by optimism, feeling confidence and satisfaction. A person feels more adapted and integrated into society.
4. "Adaptation". At this stage, a person no longer reacts negatively or positively, because it adapts to the new culture. He again leads everyday life, as before in his homeland. A person begins to understand and appreciate local traditions and customs, even adopt some behaviors and feels more relaxed and freely in the process of interaction with local residents.
Ways to overcome
According to the American anthropologist F. Boca, there are four ways to resolve the conflict arising in cultural shock.
The first method can be called ghettoization (from the word ghetto). It is carried out in situations when a person falls into another society, but is trying or it turns out to be forced (due to ignorance of language, religion or for some other reasons) Avoid any contact with someone else's culture. In this case, he tries to create its own cultural environment - the surroundings of compatriots, roaring this environment from the influence of the inocultural environment.
The second way to resolve the conflict of cultures is assimilation. In the case of assimilation, the individual, on the contrary, completely refuses to culture and seeks to fully assimilate the cultural norms of other culture necessary for the lives. Of course, it does not always succeed. The reason for failure can be either the lack of personality ability to adapt to the new culture or the resistance of the cultural environment, the member of which he intends to become.
The third way to resolve the cultural conflict is an intermediate, consisting in cultural exchange and interaction. In order for the exchange to benefit and enriched both sides, you need openness on both sides, which is found in life, unfortunately, it is extremely rare, especially if the parties are originally unequal. In fact, the results of this interaction are not always obvious at the very beginning. They become visible and weighty only after a considerable time.
Fourth way - partial assimilation, when the individual donates its culture in favor of the inocultural environment in part, that is, in some spheres of life: for example, at work is guided by the norms and requirements of another culture, and in the family, in religious life - the norms of their traditional Culture.
Each specific linguocultural generality is inherent in certain ideas about the world, scenarios and behaviors, which are reflected in its linguistic model of the world. Lingucultural model is a quantum of sociocultural knowledge with its subject area and implementation scenario. " As noted by M.B. Bergelson, Lin-Gvocultural models occupy an intermediate position between the most individualized knowledge that constitutes a unique personal experience of the subject and the most common, universal knowledge that all people possess. Lingucultural model integrates concepts such as concept (Likhachev, 1993; Stepanov, 1997) and Cultural Scenario (Cultural Script) (Wierzbicka, 1992), since it includes both ideas about objects and scenarios of situations. Lingucultural models are implemented in discourse, they are mobile and dynamic, because In the process of communicative interaction, they are replenished, refined by new information and are subjected to modifications [ibid, 73-74].
In monolingval communication, participants own the necessary background knowledge and rely on the overall linguistic cultural model of the world, which ensures the success of their communication. However, in intercultural communication, failures may occur if the participants do not take into account possible discrepancies between the vision of the world in different cultures and mistakenly believe that it is the same.
Translation as intercultural mediation requires switching (Mindshifting - term R. TAFT, 1981) with one linguistic cultural model of the world to another, as well as intermediary skills to cope with the inevitable discrepancies in different ways of perception of reality. A. Lefevre and S. BassNett (1990) call it the term 'Cultural Turn', emphasizing the need for such switching and mediation.
In this context, the translator acts as a cultural intermediary. The cultural mediator is a person who contributes to successful communication, understanding and actions between people or groups of people who differ in terms of language and culture. He needed to take into account how much the meaning of statements is associated with a specific social context and, accordingly, with the system of values, as well as how clear to the audience of the recipients is that this meaning is formed within the framework of another model of perception of the world.
The role of the mediator involves the interpretation of statements, intentions, perceptions and expectations of each group relatively other ways to ensure and maintain communication between them. In order to serve as a link, an intermediary must be familiar with both cultures to a certain extent and be able to look at things from the standpoint of each of them. J.M. Bennett (1993, 1998) believes that being bicultural means to go through certain stages of development in order to achieve a "intercultural sensitivity" (INTERCULTURAL SENSITIMITY). R. Leppi-Halme (1997) offers the concept of "metacultural ability" (Metacultural Capacity), i.e. "The ability to understand the extralyingvistic knowledge relating to the culture of the original language, which also allows you to take into account the expectations and background knowledge of potential recipients of the translation." In our opinion, such ability is of great importance for the translator.
For effective implementation of intercultural mediation, the translator must be able to build linguistic models of recipients of the initial and translation texts. One of the ways of such modeling can be the use of logical levels of culture, allowing to present a culture in a more system form.
Attempts to allocate cultural levels have been undertaken repeatedly. These include logical levels of culture, based on aspects of the NLP logical theory (DILTS, 1990; O'Connor, 2001), the Anthropological "Iceberg model" E. Hall (1959, 1990), also known as the "cultural triad". All of them reflect a similar vision of culture and its levels.
The logical levels of NLP include three levels, each of which gives an answer to a certain question: 1) Environment and behavior (where? When? And what?); 2) strategies and abilities (as?); 3) beliefs, values, originality and roles (why? Who?).
Let us dwell on the "Iceberg Models". Using the image of the iceberg allows you to visually show different levels of culture and emphasize the invisible nature of many of them. Some researchers also hold a parallel with a Titanic, whose team did not take into account the real size of the invisible part of the iceberg, which led to a catastrophe. This clearly illustrates the importance of invisible aspects of culture in the process of intercultural communication and the size of those negative consequences to which the disregard may be brought. The iceberg model has gained widespread due to its clarity and clarity. It allows you to clearly demonstrate the effect that has an invisible level of culture on visible behavior.
In the "Iceberg Models", all aspects of culture are divided into visible (above water), semi-free and invisible. The visible part of the iceberg includes aspects of culture that have a physical manifestation.
As a rule, it is with these elements that we face first, falling into someone else's country and culture. Such "visible" elements can be attributed to music, clothing, architecture, food, behavior, language. Behavior can be attributed to all starting from gestures and greetings to standing in queues, smoking in public places and violations of various rules, for example, transition to red light. All this is a visible manifestation of culture and mentality.
However, all these visible elements can be understood correctly and interpreted, only knowing and understanding the factors that cause them. These factors belong to the semi-free and invisible parts of the iceberg. These invisible elements are the reason that we have in the "visible" part. As E. Hall notes, "the basis of each culture is the so-called In-Fra-culture, the behavior that precedes culture or subsequently transformed into culture." This thought continues L.K. Latyshev, noting that "sometimes the national cultures are continuously prescribed to their representatives certain estimates of certain phenomena of material and spiritual life."
Such invisible elements include religious beliefs, views on the world, rules for building relationships, motivating factors, relationships to change, to the fulfillment of rules, risk, styles of communication, thinking and much more. Thus, the components underwater are more hidden, but they are closer to our ideas about the world and our cultural identity.
All this fully refers to a language that belongs to the visible elements of the culture, but is a direct reflection of its invisible elements. In this regard, it is customary to talk about the conceptual and language paintings of the world.
The language picture of the world is called "mapping in the language of the collective philosophy of the people, the way to think and express the relationship to the world in the language." The language reflects the vision of the world and its organization inherent in a certain linguetic community. It reflects those features of reality that are important for the carriers of culture, the psychology of the people is expressed in the form of language. As E. Sepir noted, "in a certain sense, the system of cultural models of one or another civilization is recorded in the language expressing this civilization." Moreover, the language is a "system that allows you to collect, store and transmit from generation to generation information accumulated by society. However, the conceptual picture of the world is significantly wider than the language. That is why we are talking about the "invisible" levels of culture hidden "under water".
The Triad of Culture E. Hall includes technical, formal and informal levels of culture. These levels are correlated with visible, semi-free and invisible levels of the "Iceberg model". These levels also reflect various ways with which we study culture: technical (through clear instructions), formal (by simulating trial and error behavior) and informal (through unconscious assimilation of principles and views on the world).
"Model Iceberg" and "Triad of Culture" can be very useful for the translator, since they clearly and consistently reflect those cultural aspects that he needs to take into account. Consider in more detail the relationship of each of the levels of culture with the language.
The technical level reflects the universal vision of culture, one for all people and uniform encyclopedic knowledge about the world known to everyone. At this level, language signs have a clear referential function, and possible hidden values \u200b\u200bassociated with them are universal for all. According to a number of researchers, "Since two cultures soon reached a comparable level of development, there are no reason why the importance of the word and understanding by his recipient cannot be universal" (D. SELESKOVICH) [CIET. at 13, 6].
In this regard, P. Newmark talks about the "cultural value" of translation. In the Charter of the International Federation of Translators states that translators must "promote the spread of culture around the world." The preparation of dictionaries, the development of national literature and languages, the spread of religious and cultural values \u200b\u200bis to a large extent.
The formal level of culture is usually correlated with what is normal, acceptable or appropriate. This level is under the visible part of the iceberg, since relevance and normality is rarely purposefully formulated. These concepts have more blurred borders. To this level, it is possible to attribute the definition of culture given by Hans Vermeer: \u200b\u200b"The culture consists of everything you need to know, to own and feel in order to evaluate where members of society behave acceptable or not according to their various roles." At this level, culture is a system of general practice, which determines the use of the language (technical level).
The third level of culture is called informal or unconscious ("Out-of-Awareness"). At this level there are no formal guidelines for action. Here we are dealing with indisputable basic values \u200b\u200band beliefs, ideas about themselves and the surrounding world. Under the influence of the family, school and media, a person is formed by a sustainable perception of reality, which, on the one hand, sends, and on the other, it restrains his behavior in the real world.
In psychological anthropology, culture is defined as a general model, a map or a view of the outside world (Korzybski, 1933, 1958); Mental programming (Hoftede, 1980, 2001); The form of the surrounding things existing in the man's head (GOODENOUGH, 1957, 1964, p. 36), which affects the method of implementing various actions of a person and the entire community. These are basic, key ethical values \u200b\u200b(Chesterman, 1997), which influence the formal level of culture. The hierarchy of preferred value landmarks is reflected in the perception by the community of universal human needs or problems (Kluckhohn and Strodt-Beck, 1961).
At this level of culture, no word can be perceived only as a matter of some object. Virtually any word may have a "cultural baggage", which depends on the perceive audience. S. BassNett (1980, 2002), for example, notes as well-known products, such as oil, whiskey and martini, can change status and have different connotations in the context of different crops, due to the difference in the daily life of people. R. Diaz-Guerrero and Lorand B. Szalay (1991) noted that the same word can be associated with opposite values \u200b\u200band beliefs. So, in the course of their experiment, they found out that the Americans associate the word "USA" with patriotism and the government, and Mexicans are exploring and wealth.
How can the translator use the theory of logical levels of culture in its activities? Each level can be associated with certain strategies and action of the translator.
At the level of "behavior" (technical level), the translator must understand what exactly the text is said. At this level, the translator's task is to convey words and concepts from the source text with minimal losses (starting from the literature and philosophical ideas to technical instructions), so that what we have in the source text is equivalent to what we We get in the translation text.
At this level, the focus of the translator must be focused on the text itself. One of the problems with which he may encounter is the transfer of culturally determined words or a culture. They can be defined as "formalized, socially and legally fixed phenomena that exist in a certain form or function only in one of the two compared crops." These "cultural categories" (NEWMARK, 1988) cover a wide range of areas of life from geography and traditions to public institutions and technologies. As can be seen from the definition, in this case we are dealing with an uncerevial \u200b\u200bvocabulary.
Starting with J.-P. Wine and J. Darbelne, scientists offered various ways to transfer to cultivore / non-equivalent vocabulary. P. Kwiecinski (2001) summarized them in the form of four groups:
Exototization procedures that introduce foreign word in the translation language;
. detailed explanation procedures (for example, the use of explanations in brackets);
. recognized exoticity (translation of geographical names that have a well-established translation in other languages);
. The assimilation procedures are to replace words from the original language functionally close to them in the translation language or in general, refusal to use them, especially if they are not important.
The methods proposed by P. kwiecinski are largely similar to those methods of transmission of non-equivalent vocabulary, which are adopted today in translation practice: transcription, transliteration, calculation, approximate translation, descriptive translation and zero translation.
Turning from the technical level to the formal, the translator must take into account the questions of relevance: how the text was written and how the text functions or can function in the receiving culture. What to consider a good translation is also determined by the conversion standards existing in a specific culture. This may refer to the types of texts that can be translated, translation strategies that should be used, the criteria for which the translator should be assessed (Chester-Man, 1993; Touurn, 1995). The role of the translator at this level is that the translation text corresponds to the expectations of transfer recipients.
At the level of "values \u200b\u200band beliefs" (informal level), the translator deals with unconscious elements of culture: what values \u200b\u200band beliefs are implicitly present in the source text, as they can be perceived by the recipient of the translation and what were the intentions of the author of the original. In other words, it should be understood for what purpose the text of the original is written. It must be remembered that we are dealing with various actors, such as the author of the original, the estimated reader (in the original language), which are inherent in certain values \u200b\u200band beliefs that define the strategies for building text written in a specific social environment.
Thus, in the process of translation, the text itself is one, but far from the only source of meaning. Other "hidden" and "unconscious" factors that can be called cultural, if they are inherent in representatives of one linguocultural community, determine how the text will be understood and perceived. In the process of translation, a new text is created, which will be perceived from the standpoint of another linguistic model and through other filters of perception. Hence the need for intercultural mediation. To effectively implement such an intermediation, the translator should be able to project different models of perception of the world and switch between different positions of perception (the original recipient is the transfer recipient).
Literature
1. Bergelson M.B. Support for linguature models when interpreting discourse // Changes in language and communication: XXI century / Ed. MA Kronhaus. - M.: RGGU, 2006. - P. 73-97.
2. Zvegentsev V.A. History of the linguistics of the XIX-XX centuries in essays and extractions. Part 2. - M.: "Enlightenment", 1965. - 495 p.
3. Zinchenko V.G., ZUSMAN V.G., Kirosis Z.I. Intercultural communication. System approach: Tutorial. - Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House NGLU. ON THE. Dobrolyubova, 2003. - 192 p.
4. Latyshev L.K. Translation: problems of theory, practitioners and teaching techniques. - M.: Enlightenment, 1988. - 160 p.
5. Miloserdova E.V. National and cultural stereotypes and intercultural communication problems // Forers. Yaz. at school. - 2004. - №3. - P. 80-84.
6. Fast J., Hall E. Language of the body. How to understand a foreigner without words. - M.: Vese, Perseus, AST, 1995. - 432 p.
7. BassNett S. Translation Studies. Methuen Young Books, 1980 - 176 p.
8. Bennett J.M. TOWARS ETHNORELATIVISM: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity // PAIGE R.M. (Ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experience. - Yarmouth, Maine: INTERCULTURAL PRESS, 1993. - P. 21-71.
9. Diaz-Guerrero R., Szalay Lorand B. Understanding Mexicans and Americans: Cultural Perspectives in Conflict. - Springer, 1991 - 312 p.
10. Katan D. Translation AS Intercultural Communication // Munday J. The Rout-Ledge Companion to Translation Studies. - ROUTLEDGE, 2009. - P. 74-91.
11. Kwiecinski P. Disturbing Strangeness: Foreignision and Domestication in Translation Procedures in The Context of Cultural Asymmetry. Torun: Edy-Tor, 2001.
12. Leppihalme R. Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to The Translation of Allusions. - Clevedon and Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters, 1997. - 353 p.
13. NEWMARK P. A TEXTBOOK OF TRANSOTION. - New York: Prentice Hall, 1988. - 292 p.
14. Snell-Hornby M. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting ViewPoints? - John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2006. - 205 p.
15. TAFT R. The MEDIATOR // S. Bochner (Ed.) The Mediating Person: Bridges Between Cultures. - Cambridge, Schenkman, 1981. - P. 53-88.
16. Vermeer H. Skopos and Commission In Translation Action // A. Chesterman (Ed.) Readings in Translation Theory. - Helsinki, Oy Finn Lectura AB, 1989. - P.173-187.
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5c11908-the_ceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-The_ICEBERG_MODEL_OF_CULTURE_RUSSKIY_VARINT_1.JPG" ALT \u003d "(! Lang:\u003e Iceberg culture model">!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_2.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e Surface culture over" water surface "Emotional load: Relatively low Directly Near the surface. Smella"> Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Непосредственно возле поверхности. Негласные правила Основаны на поведенческих реакциях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая «Глубоко под водой» Неосознаваемые правила (бессознательные) Основаны на ценностях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Глубокая культура «Неглубоко» под водой!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_3.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e" Everyone does it differently "superficial culture over". Water Surface »Emotional Load: Relatively Low Food"> “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.” Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Еда * Одежда * Музыка * Изобразительное искусство* Театр * Народные промыслы * Танец * Литература * Язык * Празднования праздников * Игры Визуальные аспекты культуры, которые легко идентифицировать, имитировать и понять.!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_4.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!.\u003e Today is the third Thursday of November (In America) What you'll eat ? In the USA"> Сегодня третий четверг ноября. (В Америке) Что вы будете есть? В США в этот день празднуют день Благодарения. В этот день по традиции семьи могут приготовить индейку, ветчину, а могут и не готовить ничего особенного. Даже если вы не празднуете праздник, вы можете пожелать кому-нибудь“Happy Thanksgiving” («Счастливого Дня Благодарения») Культурологический пример Поверхностной культуры “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.”!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_5.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e Thai folk craft Thai dance Architecture Buddhist temple in Thailand Examples"> Тайский народный промысел Тайский танец Архитектура буддийского храма в Таиланде Примеры Поверхностной культуры!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_6.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e The concept of" courtesy "* Sentence Patterns depending on the situation * Concept "Time" * Personal"> Понятие «вежливости» * Речевые модели в зависимости от ситуации * Понятие «времени» * Личное пространство* Правила поведения * Мимика * Невербальная коммуникация * Язык тела, жестов * Прикосновения * Визуальный контакт * Способы контролирования эмоций “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?” Элементы культуры труднее заметить, они глубже интегрированы в жизнь и культуру общества. Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. «Неглубоко под водой» Непосредственно возле поверхности Негласные правила Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_7.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e Manifest in the behavioral responses of carriers of culture in Switzerland. To be late for an appointment"> Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. В Швейцарии: опоздать на встречу - это недопустимо. В России: опоздать на встречу - не очень хорошо, но мы так все же поступаем. В Италии: опоздать на пол часа - час - ничего страшного. В Аргентине: опоздать на три часа - это прийти КАК РАЗ вовремя. (Правила поведения) Культурологические примеры уровня «Неглубоко под водой» «Негласные правила» “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?”!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_8.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e« Deep under water "Emotional load: Intense Beauty Concepts modesty * *"> «Глубоко под водой» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Понятия Скромности * Красоты * Ухаживания * Отношение к животным * Понятие лидерства * Темп работы * Понятие Еды (отношение к еде) * Отношение к воспитанию детей * Отношение к болезни * Степень социального взаимодействия * Понятие дружбы * Интонация речи * Отношение к взрослым * Понятие чистоты * Отношение к подросткам * Модели принятия групповых решений * Понятие «нормальности» * Предпочтение к Лидерству или Кооперации * Терпимость к физической боли * Понятие «я» * Отношение к прошлому и будущему * Понятие непристойности * Отношение к иждивенцам * Роль в разрешении проблем по вопросам возраста, секса, школы, семьи и т.д. Вещи, о которых мы не говорим и часто делаем неосознанно. Основаны на ценностях данной культуры. Глубокая культура Неосознаваемые правила “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!”!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_9.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e Manifestations of culture based on its values," You just do not do that! "Examples"> Проявления культуры основаны на ее ценностях “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!” Примеры Неосознаваемых правил В Китае: Нельзя дарить девушке цветы (это считается позором для нее, оскорблением ее чести). В России: Нельзя свистеть в доме. Мы сидим «на дорожку». В Финляндии: Нет бездомных собак на улице. Глубокая культура!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_10.jpg" alt \u003d "(LANG:!\u003e Discussion Questions ... How we can explore other aspects of the culture that are "deep under"> Вопросы для обсуждения… Как мы можем изучать аспекты другой культуры, которые находятся «глубоко под водой»? Как избежать стереотипов при определении поведенческих моделей и ценностей культуры? Будете ли Вы чувствовать себя комфортно, выступая в качестве представителя своей культуры? Кто должен присутствовать, если мы ведем межкультурный диалог? Можно ли по-настоящему понять другую культуру вне своей собственной? Почему (нет)? Приведите примеры каждого уровня «айсберга» из вашей культуры.!}
Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5c11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-The_ceberg_Model_of_culture_russkiy_of_culture_russkiy_varint_11.jpg" alt \u003d "(! Lang:\u003e Thank you for your attention!">!}
"Cultural grammar" E. Hall Category Culture Culture Types 1. Context (information accompanying a cultural event). 1. High-ended and low-end textual 2. Time. 2. Monochronous and polychronous 3. Space. 3. Contact and distant
The concept of context The nature and results of the communication process are determined, among other things, and the degree of awareness of its participants. There are cultures in which additional and detailed information is needed for full-fledged communication. This is due to the fact that there are practically no informal information networks and as a result, people are insufficiently informed. Such cultures are called cultures with a "low" context.
Cultures with a high context in other cultures in humans have no need to receive more complete information. Here, people need only in an insignificant amount of additional information to have a clear picture of what is happening, since, because of the high density of informal information networks, they always turn out to be well informed. Such societies are called cultures with a "high" context. Taking into account the context or density of cultural information networks is a mandatory element of a successful understanding of a particular event. The high density of information networks involves close contacts between family members, constant contacts with friends, colleagues, clients. In this case, there are always close ties in relations between people. People from such cultures do not need detailed information about the events occurring, as they are constantly aware of what happens around.
High-endextual and low-mounted cultures Comparison of two types of crops shows that each of them has specific features. So, high-end cultural cultures are distinguished by: unbearable, hidden speech manner, meaningful and numerous pauses; The serious role of non-verbal communication and the ability to "speak through eyes"; excessive redundancy of information, because there is enough initial background knowledge to communicate; Lack of open expression of discontent under any conditions and results of communication. Low-mextual cultures are characterized by the following signs: direct and expressive speech manner; minor proportion of non-verbal forms of communication; clear and clear assessment of all issues discussed and issues; Assemblance assessment as insufficient competence or weak awareness; Open expression of discontent
High and low context to countries with a high context of culture belong to France, Spain, Italy, the countries of the Middle East, Japan and Russia. To the opposite type of low-ended crops can be attributed to Germany, Switzerland; The culture of North America combines medium and low contexts.
Types of cultures (in Hofstede) 1. Cultures with a high and low distance of power (for example, Turkish and German). 2. Collective and individualistic culture (for example, Italian and American). 3. Masque and Femina (for example, German and Danish). 4. With high and low levels of uncertainty (Japanese and American).
The theory of cultural dimensions of Hofstede the theory is based on the results of a written survey conducted in 40 countries of the world. Measurements of culture: 1. Distance of power. 2. Collectivity - individualism. 3. Mascline - feminost. 4. Attitude to uncertainty. 5. Long-term - short-term orientation
Distance Power Distance Measures the degree in which the least emphasized Individual in the organization takes inequality in the distribution of power and considers it a normal state of affairs.
Avoiding uncertainty The desire to avoid uncertainty measures the degree in which people feel a threat from uncertain, obscure situations, and the degree in which they try to avoid such situations. In organizations with a high level of avoidance of uncertainty, managers are usually concentrated on private issues and details, focused on the task, do not like to take risky decisions and take responsibility. In organizations with low avoidance of uncertainty, managers are concentrated on strategic matters, ready to take risky decisions and take responsibility.
Feminality Masculinity Culture Masculinity This degree in which the dominant values \u200b\u200bin society are persistence, assertiveness, mining of money and the acquisition of things and does not attach particular importance to people's care. Femininity is a degree in which the dominant values \u200b\u200bin society are the relationship between people, concern for other and universal quality of life. Measurement is important for determining motivation methods in the workplace, selecting the method of solving the most complex tasks to resolve conflicts.
Long-term short-term orientation of value associated with long-term orientation is determined by calculation and factories; The values \u200b\u200bassociated with short-term orientation are respect for traditions, the implementation of social obligations and the desire to not lose their face. Unlike previous four aspects, for this indicator, the difference table was not compiled due to insufficient learning of this area.
Individualism explaining the differences between collectivism and individualism, Hofstede explains that "in individualistic culture, people prefer to act as individual personalities, and not as members of any group. The high degree of individualism suggests that a person who is in the conditions of free social relations in society itself cares about himself and is fully responsible for his actions: the staff do not wish the organization's intervention in privacy, avoid the guardianship from her side, they only hope to defend themselves His interests. The organization poorly affects the well-being of its employees, its functioning is carried out with the calculation of the individual initiative of each member; Promotion is carried out inside or outside the organization based on the competence and the "market value" of the employee; Management is aware of the last ideas and methods, trying to embody them in practice, stimulates the activity of subordinates; Social ties within the organization are characterized by distant; Relations between the administration and employees are based on accounting for the size of the personal contribution of each employee 1.
Collectivism Collective society, in Hofstede, "requires a large emotional dependence of a person from the organization and responsibility of the organization for its employees. In collectivistic societies, people since childhood vaccinate respect for the groups to which they belong. The differences between the members of the group and those who are outside it are not. In collectivistic culture, employees expect an organization to deal with their personal affairs and protect their interests; Interaction in the organization is based on a sense of debt and loyalty; Promotion is carried out in accordance with work experience; The managers adhere to traditional views on the form of maintaining the activity of subordinates; Social ties within the organization are characterized by cohesion; Relations between administration and employees are usually based on a moral basis, based on personal relationships. "
Typology of crops R. Lewisa Three types of crops: monoactive, polyactive, reactive. Monoactive are cultures in which it is customary to plan their lives, studying only one thing at the moment. Representatives of this type of culture are often introverted, punctual, carefully plan their affairs and adhere to this plan, are focused on work (task), the dispute rely on logic, few people, have restrained gesticulation and facial expressions, etc. Polyactive is sociable, mobile peoples, Accustomed to do a lot of cases immediately, planning order not on schedule, but according to the degree of attractiveness, the significance of the event at the moment. The carriers of this type of culture are extrapetent, impatient, word, non-looting, work schedule is unpredictable (deadlines are constantly changing), oriented to human relations, emotional, looking for connections, protection, mix social and professional, have unrestrained gesticulation and facial expressions. Finally, reactive cultures are cultures that give the greatest value to respect, courtesy, who prefer silently and respectfully listen to the interlocutor, carefully reacting to the proposals of the other party. Representatives of this type of culture are introverted, silence, respectful, punctual, focused on work, avoid confrontation, have a barely feeled gesture and facial expressions.
Culture Personality Perception Options for value orientations Man is good in man There is a good and man bad bad perception of the world. A man dominates over harmony. Submission to the nature of the relationship between people is built individually. (Everything happens the process) spontaneously) time future real past space private mixed public
Klukchon and F. L. Strotbek for measuring the cultural differences F. Klukchon and F. L. Strotbek used six parameters: personal qualities of people; their attitude towards nature and the world; their attitude to other people; orientation in space; time orientation; Lead type of activity.
Personal qualities of people a good man in man is a good and bad man bad
Relationships between people are built individually being built in the Lateral group are built in the group of hierarchically
The leading way to do (enlarged the result) to control (the process is important) to exist (everything happens spontaneously)
The scheme for analyzing the orientation of various crops, developed in Princeton attitude towards nature: a person - the owner of nature, lives in harmony with nature or subordinates nature; Time relation: Time is perceived as motionless (Rigid) or "current" (Fluid); Orientation for the past present or future; attitude to action orientation or state (doing / being); The nature of the context of communication is highly low and low-competitive cultures; Attitude to space: Private or public space; Attitude to power: equality or hierarchy; The degree of individualism: individualistic or collectivist cultures; Competition: competitive or cooperative cultures; Structure: low structure cultures (tolerant attitude to unpredictable situations and uncertainty, unfamiliar people and ideas; disagreement with generally accepted opinion is acceptable); or highly structured cultures (the need for predictability, written and unprofitable rules; conflict is perceived as a threat; alternative points of view are unacceptable) formality: formal or informal cultures
Accounting is the process and result of the mutual influence of different cultures, in which representatives of one culture adopt the values \u200b\u200bof the value and traditions of another culture.
The main forms of accumulation assimilation is an accurate option, in which a person fully accepts the values \u200b\u200band norms of other culture, refusing to its norms and values. Separation - denial of someone else's culture while maintaining identification with its culture. In this case, representatives of the non-generalized group prefer a greater or smaller degree of isolation from the dominant culture. Marginalization means on the one hand, the loss of identity with its own culture, on the other, the lack of identification with the culture of the majority. This situation arises due to the impossibility of maintaining its own identity (usually due to any external causes) and the lack of interest in obtaining a new identity (possibly due to discrimination or segregation by this culture). Integration is an identification of both old and with a new culture.
The development of culture (according to M. Bennetu) ethnocentric stages. Ethnocentrism is a combination of ideas about its own ethnic community and culture as central to others. Ethnorelativistic stages. Ethnorelytivism - recognition and adoption of cultural differences.
Ethnocentric stages 1. Decitment of cultural differences between nations: a) isolation; b) Separation - the construction of physical or social barriers. 2. Protection (a person perceives cultural differences as a threat to its existence). 3. Crimigation (minimization) of cultural differences.
Ethnorelyivistic stages 1. Recognition of cultural differences. 2. Adaptation (awareness that culture is a process). 3. Integration - adaptation to someone else's culture, which begins to be felt like "its own."
Cultural shock - stressful impact of a new culture per person. The term was introduced by K. Oberg in 1960. To describe the mechanism of cultural shock, he proposed the term U figurative curve.
Cultural shock U well, bad, very bad, better, good stages: 1) emotional lift; 2) negative environmental impact; 3) Critical point; 4) optimistic attitude; 5) Adaptation to someone else's culture.
Factors influencing cultural shock individually personality characteristics of a person: age, education, warehouse of mind, warehouse character, the circumstances of life experience. Group characteristics: Cultural distance, presence of traditions, availability of economic and political conflicts between countries.
Intercultural competence of MK is a person based on knowledge and skills. The ability of a person to implement the ICC through the creation of a common value for communications and achieve a positive for both parties to communicate. It assumes the presence of cultural sensitivity in the individual.
Methods for the formation of intercultural competence 1. According to the learning method: didactic and empirical. 2. According to the content of learning: general cultural and culturally specific; 3. According to the sphere in which the results seek to achieve: cognitive, emotional, behavioral.