Culture Frame of Reference


Cultural frame of reference is a large topic in intercultural communication. But for our initial understanding, we have briefly discussion two pairs of concepts, namely, (1) high context culture vs. low context culture, and (2) collectivistic culture vs. individualistic culture.


High Context Culture vs. Low Context Culture

The concepts of high context culture and low context culture were made famous by Edward T. Hall, a renowned anthropologist who was among the first people to engage in intercultural communication research and training back in the late 1940s. He is the author of many important books, including The Silent Language (1959), The Hidden Dimension (1966), and Beyond Culture (1976).

A "high context culture" refers to a society whereby people rely heavily on customs and traditions as the background for communicating and understanding messages. In other words, people do not have to rely mostly on verbal information for communication. Therefore, communication style in such a society (or "high context communication") is subtle and implicit. Unspoken rules--that is, rules that people learn and internalized through socialization--provide an important framework for people's communicative behavior.

High context cultures or societies tend to be less industrialized. Put somewhat differently, these societies have tended to have a slower rate of technological and social change. This is one reason why "traditions" and "customs" can endure in society more firmly than those in industrialized societies, where the rate of change of all kinds tend to be more rapid than, say, in a more rural, agriculturally-based society.

On the other hand, a "low context culture" refers to a society whereby people rely heavily on verbal information in communicating and understanding messages. Low context style communication is therefore more overt and explicit. Low context cultures or societies tend to be more industrialized and legalistic; they experience a more rapid rate of social change due to industrialization and the need for constant innovation. In such a context, people cannot rely on "traditions" or "customs" as the background or framework for constructing, communicating, and understanding messages because such a cultural context is not conducive for "traditions" or "customs" to take hold. This is one reason why people from highly industrialized societies tend to rely more on explicit, verbal information in communication.


Collectivistic Culture vs. Individualistic Culture

Collectivistic culture is often referred to as a culture or society whereby group identity supersedes individual identity. In such a culture, the collective or common good is generally regarded as more important than the well-being of the individuals. To a certain extent, therefore, it is often believed that collectivistic cultures have tended to maintain a relatively strict social hierarchy so the individuals are kept in their respective places; as a result, conformity to larger social norms is prevalent in collectivistic cultures. People in such a cultural frame of reference tend to be less aggressive when they are in a group because they do not want to be singled out; they want to be perceived as a team player.

On the contrary, an individualistic culture is a society whereby the well-being of the individuals takes the center stage. Individual identity supersedes group identity in such a culture, where social hierarchy is comparatively less strict and conformity is less pronounced. People in an individualistic cultural context are often believed to be more out-spoken or aggressive in a group setting, striving to establish an identity distinct from others. Very often, many scholars in the West have tended to view Asian cultures as being more collectivistic than cultures in the West, where individualism is believed to be more prevalent.

We should emphasize that the above is just a very brief description of the two pairs of concepts about cultural context. What is equally important to note is that we should view these concepts in relative terms. The fact of the matter is, individualism and collectivism co-exist in American and Chinese societies. While people in the U.S. may cherish or even strive for what they believe to be their individualism, collectivism is similarly prevalent in American society (e.g., conformity and collectivism is by and large the norm in "corporate America"). On the other hand, we should also expect to see individualism in Chinese society that has long been viewed by Western scholars as being collectivistic. Indeed, no one in his or her right mind to suggest that Chinese culture does not cherish the common good, but it would be equally absurd to think that Chinese people are therefore immune to the need for having a strong individual identity and their distinct role in society.

Similarly, It is important that we regard and understand "high context" and "low context" in relative terms. It is unrealistic for us to think in "black-or-white" terms that certain cultures or people are absolutely high-context while others are absolutely low-context. As we discussed above, culture changes and evolves over time. After all, increased international travel and intercultural communications among people from all corners of the world in the last century have indeed blurred many cultural boundaries. So as some scholars may say that Chinese society is more high context than American society (as in the U.S.), we should look at it only as a comparison or a reference point; it is because high context style communication does exist in the U.S. as low context style communication also exists in Chinese society.

Nevertheless, these two pairs of concepts are useful for our understanding of how people from different cultural contexts --or variations of them--make sense of their world. Such an understanding or awareness should enhance our ability to communicate with them more effectively and productively.