One of the most interesting things about Miller’s essay was his mention of Edward Hall’s work with spatial awareness and non-verbal communication. Hall, the former director of the Foreign Service Institute’s training for diplomats with overseas assignments, is studied extensively in the marketing and communication fields—both of which I am intimately familiar.
Although Miller did a good job outlining Hall’s work, he failed to express the surprisingly accurate breakdown Hall has done of almost all cultures—not just North and South American. According to Hall, almost every culture falls into one of three categories: high-context culture, low-context culture, and or a combination of the two. High-context cultures tend to rely on a sort of collective understanding that needs few words to be understood.
Japan, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia are all high-context cultures and tend to be non-confrontational. Low-context cultures on the other hand tend to communicate directly and may come off as aggressive to individuals in high-context cultures. The United States, Germany, and Canada are all low-context cultures.
This is not to say that every culture fits into Hall’s categories. Countries like Italy, France, England, and Russia all fall somewhere in the middle of the high to low-context scale.
The reason I find this all so fascinating is because I, much like Miller, believe that understanding other culture’s nonverbal communication queues can help us communicate better. As English majors (and professor), we work hard to express our ideas in thoughtful and creative ways. If we can increase our chances of doing so by doing a little background research into a culture before attempting to communicate with theme, why wouldn't we do so?
Just for fun, here are Hill’s criteria for high and low-context cultures:
High-Context: • Indirect • Emphasis on interpersonal relationships • Reliance on personal word • Respect for silence • Reaction inward, reserved • Clear notions of who is inside or outside the circle • Blame self for failure
Low-Context: • Direct • Emphasis on the business bottom line • Reliance on contracts • Verbal expressiveness valued • Reaction outward, expressive • Flexible patters of who is part of the group • Blame external factors for failures
I liked the last paragraph you posted. It really had me thinking about the nonverbal communication that deaf people use and what we discussed last class. The only thing that somewhat bothers me is that there are some cultures who are reluctant to want to have people communicate with them, especially the deaf culture. Why do certain groups want to separate themselves from others and not be seen as one big communicating family of different backgrounds? It really makes no sense to me. Anyway, I'm done ranting. Props on the High-Context & Low-Context cultures. It was very interesting to see it broke down like that. -Mark
I don't in any way agree with the way the deaf community seems to treat others, but I can understand where they are coming from. I see it as a kind of hyper reaction to the persecution they faced early on. They were taught that they were inferior to the hearing and marginalized to a large degree, and that can have a huge impact on a persons view of themselves. Their reaction is actually mirrored by many cultures that were similarly persecuted--the African American, the Native American, and Orthodox Jewish communities all have factions that can, at times, be very divisive. For example, Malcolm X originally supported the separation of blacks and whites--before having a profound religious experience and changing his views of course.
I have read every word of Miller's "Nonverbal Communication".
First of all, I was thinking of this Seinfeld episode the WHole time I was reading this article lol. "Close Talker" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVSIkEi3mM
I have been around people WHo are close talkers, and it is SO awkward! I am glad I am from a country WHere most people respect my personal space bubble. The essay mentioned getting close enough to people to smell them…I don’t want to smell other people, that’s awkward. What if they smelled bad? Would I be compelled to have to stay there and still have a close talking conversation? Yuck. But then again, if I was from a country WHere close talking was a thing, I’m sure it wouldn’t bother me. Close to the paragraph about close talking, it mentioned that Chinese people hate being touched, even shaking hands. I guess to Chinese people, shaking hands would bother them like it bothers me when people invade my bubble. I found that pretty interesting. The eye contact thing was pretty interesting to me too. When he analyzed how Americans made eye contact on page 55 I kept trying to think if that was how I had conversations. But honestly, it’s not something I, or other people I’m sure, ever think about. It just comes naturally when American’s are speaking. The next time I have a conversation with someone I am going to be paranoid that I’m staring at them!
Here’s a link to a cool ASL video I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veGYZ6CE0UA If you haven’t seen Disney’s Frozen yet, you really reaaaaaalllly need to watch it. That’s an ASL version of my favorite song from the movie (excited schoolgirl face).
I found the same thing to be really interesting that you did, Tori. Except I saw it kind of differently. To me, a lot of that information seemed kind of outdated. I mean, in general our country is one that is big on personal space and not standing too close, but we seem to be losing that a bit with each generation.
For example, I am a really affectionate, touchy-feely kind of person. I hug my friends, I stand way too close when I talk to people, even people I just met, I definitely make eye contact with whoever is speaking, and I don't really have a personal "bubble", as you put it. At first, after reading this essay, I started to get a little worried that maybe I was breaking some nonverbal communication rule that I was completely unaware of, until I started watching other people. So many people in our generation act the same way I do when it comes to this form of Nonverbal communication.
However, people older than us seem to be a bit more reserved. Maybe I just happened to observe a ton of people just like me, but it seems to me that, while his information was true when it was written, things are quickly changing with each generation. I would not say we are as bad as the South American cultures he was describing, if you back away from me I will understand and I definitely will not climb over a table to get closer to you, but I also don't agree that we are as reserved and distant as he made us out to be.
I was very interested in the section where he discusses American’s refrain from bodily contact. It reminded me of last Tuesday when my best friend was introduced to a young man who found her attractive. She, being single, was interested in him as well. However, when I introduced them, he leaned in and hugged her. They had never spoken nor met before in their lives. She turned bright red and decided she politely could not give him her number. She then tweeted about how she dislikes personal contact with strangers and wished it would cease and desist. I read this essay and began to wonder how she would survive in Eastern Mediterranean culture. - Kelsea Rabe
Thought this essay really was informative, in regards to some of the cultural differences in communication, verbal or non-verbal. The section talking specifically about American views on eye-contact was really interesting for me, being that I am not very good at making eye-contact. I tend to spend time looking down and around a person as they talk, because I am not much of a conversationalist, or sometimes - Lord forbid, I don't want to talk to them. I can't say that I am quite introverted, but understanding that - even from a scientific point of view, Americans love eye-contact, I will have to make a better effort to look up and engage during conversation.
I will say; however, that I am not at all surprised by the body language and closeness issues that Americans deal with in conversation. I do not at all find myself to be a touchy person, so being in close quarters with another individual, no matter their level of intimacy to me, is sometimes difficult. I have been to countries in which people have no issue with standing six inches away from you in conversation, and I've found that I have to make an effort to meet them somewhere in the middle, in order to have an effective conversation with them. I found this to be a sort of pidgin non-verbal language (is that possible?) that we created in order to meet each other and save face on both parties of the meeting. The cultural differences in language, verbal and non-verbal, are wonderful! I was so excited to read into more details of these aspects of how we speak and act.
Before reading this essay I had never really thought about pictures and moving pictures being a part of nonverbal communication, but they do contribute a lot of information without the aid of verbal speech. Throughout the essay, I recognized other forms of nonverbal communication that I rely on heavily as a member of my particular cultures. I especially like to look at the dilation of the person's pupils with whom I am speaking. It helps me to know whether they are interested in what I am saying and my person as a whole. I think it is a commonly overlooked communication point.
The idea of personal space is also an interesting part of nonverbal communication to me. I find that it is something I instinctually cling to. While I am a “people person” I become uncomfortable when someone invades my personal space without some sort of “permission.” Of course, the amount of personal space I am comfortable with allotting between myself and another person changes depending on how well I know someone or how comfortable I feel with this specific person as I’m sure other people know well. Near the end of the essay, I was caught off-guard by the verbal but nonverbal spectrum of communication. I find myself sighing excessively when I am extremely stressed, and when I am happy I also find that I let out a verbal sigh more out of relief than anything else. Before I speak, I notice that I sometimes make a sort of clicking sound with my mouth to prepare myself (and perhaps my audience) for what I am about to say.
There were so many cool subjects discussed in the Miller essay! The concept I think I took away most from this article was the concepts of eye communication. Paired with body language, this communication to me is often underestimated in American culture, though we all use it constantly. I had never really thought deeper into the subtleties of different culture and proximities of personal communication or touch. There is probably something to this with our perceptions of different cultures and their communication in relation to our own. I also never thought about how nonverbal gestures that represent common words or thoughts are not truly considered “nonverbal communication” because they are simply substitutes for spoken communication. Nonverbal communication is more about subtle body language, eye contact and cultural norms of space and touch. As mentioned by Miller, the sociology of language seems like a very important and fascinating field to explore that might help further bridge gaps in the communication breakdowns between cultures and peoples.
My favorite part of this whole essay was the section about the communication through clothing. We have been told all of our lives not to judge a book by it's cover, but this form of nonverbal communication seems to suggests we want people to judge us from our outer appearance. I had never thought of this phenomenon before but I think Miller was definitely on to something. We wear things we like that convey an image. For instance I wear dress pants and a button up shirt everyday. It is required by my job to dress this way because it conveys that I am part of a professional environment and someone who holds high regard for the thoughts of others. So maybe we wear things because they are required and arent necessarily a reflection of who they are. I guess now I am refuting his claim. Maybe he was talking about casual clothes here instead of clothes that are required for you to wear.
I also liked the section about eye contact. My favorite line is this. "Everyone knows how much lovers can communicate by their eyes, but aggressive eye contact can also be extremely informative." This really cracked me up the first time I read it. I mean when I think of "aggressive eye contact" I think of some creepy looking guy weirdly staring at someone, freaking them completely out. Overall I enjoyed this read.
One of the most interesting things about Miller’s essay was his mention of Edward Hall’s work with spatial awareness and non-verbal communication. Hall, the former director of the Foreign Service Institute’s training for diplomats with overseas assignments, is studied extensively in the marketing and communication fields—both of which I am intimately familiar.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Miller did a good job outlining Hall’s work, he failed to express the surprisingly accurate breakdown Hall has done of almost all cultures—not just North and South American. According to Hall, almost every culture falls into one of three categories: high-context culture, low-context culture, and or a combination of the two. High-context cultures tend to rely on a sort of collective understanding that needs few words to be understood.
Japan, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia are all high-context cultures and tend to be non-confrontational. Low-context cultures on the other hand tend to communicate directly and may come off as aggressive to individuals in high-context cultures. The United States, Germany, and Canada are all low-context cultures.
This is not to say that every culture fits into Hall’s categories. Countries like Italy, France, England, and Russia all fall somewhere in the middle of the high to low-context scale.
The reason I find this all so fascinating is because I, much like Miller, believe that understanding other culture’s nonverbal communication queues can help us communicate better. As English majors (and professor), we work hard to express our ideas in thoughtful and creative ways. If we can increase our chances of doing so by doing a little background research into a culture before attempting to communicate with theme, why wouldn't we do so?
Just for fun, here are Hill’s criteria for high and low-context cultures:
High-Context:
• Indirect
• Emphasis on interpersonal relationships
• Reliance on personal word
• Respect for silence
• Reaction inward, reserved
• Clear notions of who is inside or outside the circle
• Blame self for failure
Low-Context:
• Direct
• Emphasis on the business bottom line
• Reliance on contracts
• Verbal expressiveness valued
• Reaction outward, expressive
• Flexible patters of who is part of the group
• Blame external factors for failures
I liked the last paragraph you posted. It really had me thinking about the nonverbal communication that deaf people use and what we discussed last class. The only thing that somewhat bothers me is that there are some cultures who are reluctant to want to have people communicate with them, especially the deaf culture. Why do certain groups want to separate themselves from others and not be seen as one big communicating family of different backgrounds? It really makes no sense to me. Anyway, I'm done ranting. Props on the High-Context & Low-Context cultures. It was very interesting to see it broke down like that.
Delete-Mark
I don't in any way agree with the way the deaf community seems to treat others, but I can understand where they are coming from. I see it as a kind of hyper reaction to the persecution they faced early on. They were taught that they were inferior to the hearing and marginalized to a large degree, and that can have a huge impact on a persons view of themselves. Their reaction is actually mirrored by many cultures that were similarly persecuted--the African American, the Native American, and Orthodox Jewish communities all have factions that can, at times, be very divisive. For example, Malcolm X originally supported the separation of blacks and whites--before having a profound religious experience and changing his views of course.
DeleteI have read every word of Miller's "Nonverbal Communication".
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I was thinking of this Seinfeld episode the WHole time I was reading this article lol. "Close Talker" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVSIkEi3mM
I have been around people WHo are close talkers, and it is SO awkward! I am glad I am from a country WHere most people respect my personal space bubble. The essay mentioned getting close enough to people to smell them…I don’t want to smell other people, that’s awkward. What if they smelled bad? Would I be compelled to have to stay there and still have a close talking conversation? Yuck. But then again, if I was from a country WHere close talking was a thing, I’m sure it wouldn’t bother me. Close to the paragraph about close talking, it mentioned that Chinese people hate being touched, even shaking hands. I guess to Chinese people, shaking hands would bother them like it bothers me when people invade my bubble. I found that pretty interesting.
The eye contact thing was pretty interesting to me too. When he analyzed how Americans made eye contact on page 55 I kept trying to think if that was how I had conversations. But honestly, it’s not something I, or other people I’m sure, ever think about. It just comes naturally when American’s are speaking. The next time I have a conversation with someone I am going to be paranoid that I’m staring at them!
Here’s a link to a cool ASL video I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veGYZ6CE0UA
If you haven’t seen Disney’s Frozen yet, you really reaaaaaalllly need to watch it. That’s an ASL version of my favorite song from the movie (excited schoolgirl face).
-Tori W.
I found the same thing to be really interesting that you did, Tori. Except I saw it kind of differently. To me, a lot of that information seemed kind of outdated. I mean, in general our country is one that is big on personal space and not standing too close, but we seem to be losing that a bit with each generation.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I am a really affectionate, touchy-feely kind of person. I hug my friends, I stand way too close when I talk to people, even people I just met, I definitely make eye contact with whoever is speaking, and I don't really have a personal "bubble", as you put it. At first, after reading this essay, I started to get a little worried that maybe I was breaking some nonverbal communication rule that I was completely unaware of, until I started watching other people. So many people in our generation act the same way I do when it comes to this form of Nonverbal communication.
However, people older than us seem to be a bit more reserved. Maybe I just happened to observe a ton of people just like me, but it seems to me that, while his information was true when it was written, things are quickly changing with each generation. I would not say we are as bad as the South American cultures he was describing, if you back away from me I will understand and I definitely will not climb over a table to get closer to you, but I also don't agree that we are as reserved and distant as he made us out to be.
I was very interested in the section where he discusses American’s refrain from bodily contact. It reminded me of last Tuesday when my best friend was introduced to a young man who found her attractive. She, being single, was interested in him as well. However, when I introduced them, he leaned in and hugged her. They had never spoken nor met before in their lives. She turned bright red and decided she politely could not give him her number. She then tweeted about how she dislikes personal contact with strangers and wished it would cease and desist. I read this essay and began to wonder how she would survive in Eastern Mediterranean culture. - Kelsea Rabe
ReplyDeleteThought this essay really was informative, in regards to some of the cultural differences in communication, verbal or non-verbal. The section talking specifically about American views on eye-contact was really interesting for me, being that I am not very good at making eye-contact. I tend to spend time looking down and around a person as they talk, because I am not much of a conversationalist, or sometimes - Lord forbid, I don't want to talk to them. I can't say that I am quite introverted, but understanding that - even from a scientific point of view, Americans love eye-contact, I will have to make a better effort to look up and engage during conversation.
ReplyDeleteI will say; however, that I am not at all surprised by the body language and closeness issues that Americans deal with in conversation. I do not at all find myself to be a touchy person, so being in close quarters with another individual, no matter their level of intimacy to me, is sometimes difficult. I have been to countries in which people have no issue with standing six inches away from you in conversation, and I've found that I have to make an effort to meet them somewhere in the middle, in order to have an effective conversation with them. I found this to be a sort of pidgin non-verbal language (is that possible?) that we created in order to meet each other and save face on both parties of the meeting. The cultural differences in language, verbal and non-verbal, are wonderful! I was so excited to read into more details of these aspects of how we speak and act.
- Jesse Wright
Before reading this essay I had never really thought about pictures and moving pictures being a part of nonverbal communication, but they do contribute a lot of information without the aid of verbal speech. Throughout the essay, I recognized other forms of nonverbal communication that I rely on heavily as a member of my particular cultures. I especially like to look at the dilation of the person's pupils with whom I am speaking. It helps me to know whether they are interested in what I am saying and my person as a whole. I think it is a commonly overlooked communication point.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of personal space is also an interesting part of nonverbal communication to me. I find that it is something I instinctually cling to. While I am a “people person” I become uncomfortable when someone invades my personal space without some sort of “permission.” Of course, the amount of personal space I am comfortable with allotting between myself and another person changes depending on how well I know someone or how comfortable I feel with this specific person as I’m sure other people know well. Near the end of the essay, I was caught off-guard by the verbal but nonverbal spectrum of communication. I find myself sighing excessively when I am extremely stressed, and when I am happy I also find that I let out a verbal sigh more out of relief than anything else. Before I speak, I notice that I sometimes make a sort of clicking sound with my mouth to prepare myself (and perhaps my audience) for what I am about to say.
-Emily
There were so many cool subjects discussed in the Miller essay! The concept I think I took away most from this article was the concepts of eye communication. Paired with body language, this communication to me is often underestimated in American culture, though we all use it constantly. I had never really thought deeper into the subtleties of different culture and proximities of personal communication or touch. There is probably something to this with our perceptions of different cultures and their communication in relation to our own. I also never thought about how nonverbal gestures that represent common words or thoughts are not truly considered “nonverbal communication” because they are simply substitutes for spoken communication. Nonverbal communication is more about subtle body language, eye contact and cultural norms of space and touch. As mentioned by Miller, the sociology of language seems like a very important and fascinating field to explore that might help further bridge gaps in the communication breakdowns between cultures and peoples.
ReplyDelete-Leslie
My favorite part of this whole essay was the section about the communication through clothing. We have been told all of our lives not to judge a book by it's cover, but this form of nonverbal communication seems to suggests we want people to judge us from our outer appearance. I had never thought of this phenomenon before but I think Miller was definitely on to something. We wear things we like that convey an image. For instance I wear dress pants and a button up shirt everyday. It is required by my job to dress this way because it conveys that I am part of a professional environment and someone who holds high regard for the thoughts of others. So maybe we wear things because they are required and arent necessarily a reflection of who they are. I guess now I am refuting his claim. Maybe he was talking about casual clothes here instead of clothes that are required for you to wear.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the section about eye contact. My favorite line is this.
"Everyone knows how much lovers can communicate by their eyes, but aggressive eye contact can also be extremely informative." This really cracked me up the first time I read it. I mean when I think of "aggressive eye contact" I think of some creepy looking guy weirdly staring at someone, freaking them completely out.
Overall I enjoyed this read.