Human culture is the result of human activity, which is at the same time its condition. Culture, man, activity - these are three inseparably with each other related concepts, and if one of them is missing, then reasoning about the others loses any meaning. Main characteristic culture, which includes an understanding of the nature of the other two concepts - its over - or out of nature. At the same time, it is necessary to realize that in this context the concept of “nature” does not carry purely negative connotations, although there are prerequisites for this. Nature is assumed as a given, culture as an activity assignment. Above - or extra-naturalness of a person means his extra-biological, over - or extra-natural, over - or extra-natural activity means creativity in the broad sense of the word, as the birth of a new, not existing in nature. In all cases, above - or out of nature can be achieved in two ways: either by overcoming or by transforming nature. But if the first path denies the second, then the second includes the first.
Nature is primary, culture is always secondary, but the secondary nature of culture does not mean its inevitable dependence on nature. Such a direct relationship is impossible because culture and nature have a different nature of conditioning, defined by I. Kant. According to the German philosopher, if natural conditioning is causal, then culture is due to expediency.
Arguments about two types of culture have become commonplace: material and spiritual, that is, about nature-oriented or non-nature-oriented activities, or about diversity. national cultures. With all the fairness of such reasoning, one should be aware of their limitations in that they focus on the multiple essence of culture, losing its unity. On the other hand, having recognized both the primordial dependence and the teleological independence of culture from nature, we inevitably lay the foundation for the possibility of considering it as plural. The multiplicity of culture is also based on the scheme of opposing civilization and culture, adding the opposite of the characteristics of internal and external to the distinction between material and spiritual characteristics.
Reasoning about the plurality of culture is justified only if the conditions for its single essence are revealed. As we have already found out, culture is a creative human activity aimed at transforming nature and having a goal that ideally does not contain anything natural in itself. At the same time, one should keep in mind the integrity of the essence of culture, which does not deny its multiplicity. The above logic of considering the essence of culture corresponds, it would seem, to the definition of Vl. Solovyov, given by him in his work “The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge”: “Only such a life, such a culture that does not exclude anything, but in its entirety combines the highest degree of unity with the fullest development of free plurality - only it can give real, lasting satisfaction to everything needs of human feeling, thinking and will, and thus be a truly universal, or universal, culture, and it is clear that at the same time, and precisely because of its totality, this culture will be more than human, introducing people into actual communication with the divine world. However, presenting culture as something external to “human feeling, thinking and will”, defining it in the limit as “summum bonum”, Solovyov himself eventually comes to the denial of this kind of culture in the existential dimension: “... if the last result of your progress and your culture is, after all, the death of everyone and everyone, it is clear that any progressive cultural activity is useless, that it is aimless and meaningless.
Despite the negating nature of the two approaches to the definition of culture, Solovyov nevertheless correctly noticed two dimensions in them that are somehow opposite to culture: the divine world and death. What is this opposite? Can not culture and death come together in the movement towards the supernatural as divine? Quite differently: only the presence of the divine world gives the true meaning to the natural world and the human world. Culture, located entirely in the human world, acts as a process of transforming the natural world into the divine world, in which there will no longer be anything from the original natural characteristics. It is clear that only a culture that, without neglecting the created, fallen world, is open to the guiding and inviting impulses of the divine world, can possess such a kind of alignment for transformation through overcoming the natural world. It is in this "middleness" of culture that the main danger of its multiplicity is hidden, which, in turn, provokes a state of permanent crisis. The civilizational crisis in all its numerous manifestations has a basis, which can be characterized as the emasculation in the telos of culture of everything divine, that is, the supranatural, and the locking of the goal of culture on the natural, material. Such a result is a consequence of the deafness of culture to its divine currents, the oblivion of the procedural nature of its "middleness".
The extreme instability of the middle position of culture should be especially emphasized. To acquire the desired stability is often sought by strengthening this middle ground, which is always achieved by strengthening the role of man or humanity. So how humane is cultural humanism? The question is by no means rhetorical. Nature and man acquire their true destiny only in culture, through transforming activity directed towards the divine. The independence of nature, therefore, must be limited only by its originality and, thus, the conditionality of culture by it. In culture itself, the opposition of nature and culture should be limited only by the supernatural teleological nature of culture. When one strives to expand the zone of opposition between nature and culture, one passes by culture into its multiplicity. Thus, neither the multiplicity of culture, one way or another focusing on its natural, material component, nor the humanity of culture, emphasizing the special role of man in it, reveal to us the true essence of culture.
Moreover, the oblivion of the extra-natural foundations of culture plunges it into a permanent state of crisis, which is becoming more and more aggravated. Attempts are being made to build an absolutely secular culture, either completely denying the existence of a certain essence in culture, or replacing it with another surrogate invented by the human mind. Today it becomes obvious that Huntington's thesis about the clash of civilizations, in which the idea of a contradiction of values based on various religious foundations of human civilizations is rooted, does not correspond to reality and is fundamentally erroneous. Civilizations based on religious principles, albeit of different religions, will never collide, since a collision is always, after all, a material process. But no religion has ever put forward the material world as its priority.
However, a clash is taking place, and it is becoming more and more violent, a clash of religious and secular culture. The danger that this conflict will become fatal for mankind is extremely high, since two different fundamental principles of human life converge in an irreconcilable confrontation here. And the idea of the American researcher F. Fukuyama about the end of history as a result of the complete victory of liberal values, which in modern world there is simply nothing to oppose, far from reality. The end of history, if it is coming, is not through unipolar stagnation, but through a deadly battle of spiritual and carnal forces, more and more clearly colliding in space modern culture.
Thus, if the οντα of culture is human freedom in its creative expression, then its τελος is divine revelation, divine truth. Only taken together, that is, both the essence and the goal of culture, make it truly extra-natural, and not anti- or a-natural. The task of culture in this case becomes articulation, fusion, union in its space of free human creativity and divine truth; The task is, therefore, extremely complex and difficult to accomplish. Even if a middle position is attributed to culture, which, in the author's opinion, is not entirely true, then this is not the middle of averageness, and not even the middle of synthesis, but the middle of the effort of the human spirit, tragic in its tension.
As already noted, the trend of modern culture is marked by the complete oblivion of its τελος'a, which leads to an increasingly intensifying crisis and its essence. Confirming this fact, the Russian thinker singled out four main reasons for the secularization of culture and, accordingly, its crisis:
a) belief in the omnipotence of materialistic science;
b) non-religious statehood, where the law becomes higher than the truth;
c) a consumer society that exploits acquisitive instincts;
d) godless art, in which idle entertainment and unnerving spectacles rule the roost.
To these four areas cultural life societies that have undergone secular corrosion, it is necessary, in our opinion, to add one more very important sphere, the sphere of education, where the so-called humane pedagogy, which educates an egocentric prudent personality, now reigns supreme.
Christianity brings completely different foundations to the space of culture:
1) Not rational, but Christian gnosis or knowledge of God as the knowledge of living truth. Ancient rationalism postulates the need to work with being and the meaninglessness of turning to non-being. As for being, here he finds its duality, moreover, a person, endowed by nature with the mind, is able to figure out what's what in this being. Christian gnosis is a gnosis that accepts non-existence and illogicality. Such a metamorphosis occurs to him thanks to faith, which transforms the understanding of true being and, accordingly, changes the means of its comprehension. True being ceases to be impersonal. As rightly remarked by Fr. Andrey Kuraev, the main difference between faith and knowledge is not that they have different truths or different ways go to the same truth, but that there is a reassessment of the very relationship to the Truth. This kind of reassessment concerns the whole complex of problems in the areas of ontology, anthropology, ethics, epistemology.
2) The concept of personality as an unmerged unity of natural and spiritual principles. Greek thought knew only the atomized individual who, as a part, belonged to the whole of the human genus or species. That is, the human generic essence diminished, disintegrated into many individuals. Only the dialectic of the whole and the part and the principle of subordinationism were acceptable here. A completely different dialectic corresponds to the trinitarian terminology in Christianity. Personalities do not break up a single human race into many parts, but, being the only and unique, they do not introduce signs of multiplicity into the generic essence. Each person, without mixing with his own kind, and accordingly, without absorbing it, expresses the fullness of human essence.
3) Love like αγαπη , that is, sacrificial love; only through it are filled true value love ερος, φιλια and στεργω. In view of the fact that the object of cognition is not an object, but a subject, therefore, the very process of cognition requires not the elimination of a person - the so-called objectification - but his full presence, and the presence of a transformed one. And what in our world can transform a person in the most radical way? Without a doubt, this is love. Moreover, Christianity preaches unselfish love, love that leads a person out of his narcissistic self-admiration. Even altruistic love for one's neighbor does not guarantee the elimination of selfish feeling in a person. Therefore, Christianity offers the only possible sequence: only love for God is capable of transforming love for one's neighbor into true love, and not into a cover for self-aggrandizement. Love for God harmonizes not only the attitude towards other people, but also the attitude of a person towards himself: in this love he receives true ideals, acquires meaning, fullness of development, strength and energy of self-determination. Through the denial of his egoistic self, the personality becomes complete for the first time, it does not lose, but gains.
Is a new Christian-humanistic synthesis possible within the framework of culture, on which many Western cultural philosophers are now betting? Is a new “grafting” of religiosity on the secularized tree of modern culture possible? The answer seems obvious, and yet we will not rush into it.
Solovyov of the beginning of integral knowledge // Solovyov. in 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1990. S. 176.
Solovyov talking about war, progress and the end world history// Solovyov. pp. 717-718.
In this context, there is no need to specify the religious nature of culture based on the confessional differences of individual religious teachings, since the fundamental properties that distinguish religious culture from secular ones remain practically identical in different religions.
See: Ilyin of Christian culture // Ilyin. op. in 10 vols. T. 1. M., 1993. S. 287-289.
O. Andrey Kuraev. On faith and knowledge - without antinomies // Questions of Philosophy. 1992. No. 7. S. 52.
Jesus Christ, answering the Jewish scribe to the question about the essence of the law that he preaches, said: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is similar to it: love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. XXII, 37-40)
Favorites in Runet
Suheil Farah
Dialogue or Clash of Cultures: Status and Hope
Farah Suheil Naim - philosopher, professor at the Lebanese University, chairman of the Lebanese-Russian House (Days), foreign member Russian Academy education.
Reality
In this land with its many races, languages, religions, cultures and social formations the movement towards partnership and cooperation, unity and harmony goes in parallel with the strengthening of arbitrariness, outbursts of egoism, phenomena of alienation and rejection of each other; evil, fanaticism and hatred accompany goodness, generosity and love, the anxieties and horrors of war - the desire for tranquility and peace. A person lives in a surreal environment - between life and non-life, an environment where peace of mind and storms of emotions, nobility and meanness, wisdom and madness, feelings of joy and a sense of hopeless longing rule the ball.
In the world, the struggle between the ideas of confrontation and the ideas of harmony does not stop, the struggle that gives rise to models of behavior, forms of representations, legends and myths, as well as the experience of mutual hostility, as well as the experience of coexistence. There are two main forms of communication and interaction between civilizations:
- hostile which uses various means to destroy the traditional culture of that ethnic group or another, and replace it with a culture that imposes itself from the outside;
- friendly which is based on the craving for genuine understanding and respect for the freedom of choice of each of the parties.
Civilizations and peoples coexist between these two extremes. Any culture demonstrates the breadth or narrowness of its horizons compared to another in the example own experience, regardless of whether it acts as a standard-bearer leading the column of a civilization that has gone ahead, or as a lateral civilizational branch.
Fighting in the modern world
Despite the desire of quiet dreamers for a world dominated by the ideas of friendship, love, fair and equal cooperation, the struggle remains a characteristic feature of being and a form of a person's relationship to his environment. At all stages of the emergence, development and expansion of civilizations, there was a craving for confrontation and hegemony, which served the interests of the tribe, ethnic group, religion, class or ideology. Over time, the methods and technologies of militant hegemonism improved. What is happening today is an unprecedented danger that threatens all of us: traditional values, most ethnic groups, shrines and cultures are being destroyed before our eyes, which are being replaced by a cultural innovation built on the principles of self-interest and the deification of things, belittling the value of the printed word. and assertion of the role of the visual image, release cultural creativity from any restraining beginnings and turning it into an object of sale, the widespread imposition of audiovisual culture.
The third industrial revolution and the computer science revolution opened a new era in civilizational communication between people, leading to the reproduction and dissemination of the values and achievements of different cultures on new foundations - in a different way. spatial dimension and forms different from the past. New types of knowledge and new values arose that filled the sphere of relations between countries and peoples, and the material values of the consumer civilization became common to the entire ecumene.
American civilization in its universal dimension (“the civilization of the world ruled by McDonald's,” as Benjamin Barber defined it) is not interested in democracy, national aspirations, cultural identities, or aesthetic values. “Its goal is a global consumer society in which there are no races, no citizens, for they are all useless as customers. There is only one new race men and women are consumers.
Market values dominate everything
New faces adorn the façade new civilization- political celebrities, TV and movie stars, film directors, owners of transnational banks and large corporations, oil barons, population experts, auditors, lawyers and athletes, computer science kings and developers information systems. These people speak two languages - the language of the dollar and English.
All of them are devoid of ethnic, cultural and religious affiliation. Their homeland is business, their civilization is consumption, their deity is wealth. Barber says in this regard: Shopping centers are the capitals and parks of the world where McDonald's rules. There is neither a real theater nor a children's dispensary. You will not stop there to chat with a girl passing by, and you will not retire to pray. There is no agricultural association, no school. You see only a network of outlets that make us forget who we really are, so that, not paying attention to others, to fully enjoy the acquisition. This is how globalization invades the sphere of national values, symbols and myths, which previously constituted an inseparable closed unity. It was around them that cultural identity was formed - the basis of national identity.
Globalization and pseudo-democracy
In the era of mondialization, there is a revival of the idea of confessional pluralism and the phenomenon of pseudo-democracy. The new "international order" staunchly supports ethnic and religious groups to choose precisely the pseudo-democratic path. This is an erroneous path that gives opposite ideas about a reasonable democracy based on the principle of freedom and justice of civil society. Under the definitions and knowledge of pluralism and pseudo-democracy, numerous ethnic groups have sprung up that carry out purely narrow confessional programs. These confessions grant themselves all human rights, but deny these same rights to other ethnic and cultural groups. Instead of establishing a sound and peaceful platform for a viable and loyal democracy in place, on the contrary, new conflicts and wars are being revived. Each ethnic group is closed around itself, looking for its historical memory of all the phenomena that kindle and provoke intolerance and hostility towards other ethnic groups and cultures. We see examples of this type in India and Turkey, Lebanon and Yugoslavia, Sudan and Nigeria, the Philippines and Indonesia, Spain and the North Caucasus and Latin America as well as in other regions of the world.
The mondialization of pseudo-democracy not only negatively affects the development life process different ethnic groups, developing countries, but also has a negative impact on the internal ethnic structure of the most developed countries. Recently, this has been seen in the rise of elements of fanaticism and conservatism in Protestantism and Catholicism. A clear example, at this stage, is the spiritual father of the Ku Klu Klan ethnic group, Mr. David Duke, who reached the post of Senator in the United States. He frankly declared to wage a merciless war against the colored race and said: "We must wage a sharp fight against any party that tries to change America's white Christian heritage."
The danger of this phenomenon lies in the fact that the struggle and conflicts do not have a common national character against other civilizations, and it penetrates into the inner nation of its civilization. Each ethnic group and religion painfully tries to close itself and is hostile to the other.
Ethnic and cultural wars recent years have replaced confrontations and in the 21st century will obviously take the place of the social conflicts of the past centuries. There is a confrontation with the use of brutal violence. The maestro who directs its development is armed, no doubt, with a profound historical memory and owns killer technologies. He looks like a designer or engineer who, for fun, planned a military spacecraft, similar to those that children and teenagers are fond of in films and video games. The engine of his ship is, of course, pure interest, and the steering mechanism is a malicious desire for the possession of power. Under its destructive power, everything that the cultures of peoples are rich in turns into dust and pitiful fragments that cannot be brought back to life.
Serge Moskovich, one of the theorists of postmodernism, wrote that life on our planet is threatened by the deadly consequences of environmental pollution and the impact of multiplying technologies. At the same time, he says, social groups living within its boundaries are isolated from each other, shunning any forms of social or cultural integration. Alain Touraine, for his part, reproaches the theory and practice of modernism for a tragic break with the realm of the sacred and its destruction through rationalistic ideas about the world. According to him, we live "in an anarchist society, where the organizational-technological and emotional-cultural spheres are in sharp conflict with each other" .
In the face of globalization, peoples, especially small ethnic and cultural communities, are no longer masters of their own destiny. Attempts are being stepped up to make our world unipolar and one-dimensional, where "Uncle Sam" would be in charge of everything, striving to perpetuate the hegemony of his "culture" on the planet.
Nevertheless, as Toffler, one of the foremost American futurologists, points out, the relationship of domination and subordination is in a state of "continuous change, just as changes in relations between people do not stop." Neither are eternal political regimes, no world empires, no dominant cultures, no matter how powerful they may be. Relations between countries, peoples, professional teams and public associations subject to constant change. The same Toffler says: “With people and natural environment, with technologies, cultures and many other forms of formation, great metamorphoses are taking place, leading to upheavals and conflicts. As a result, the sources of power are redistributed.
Dialogue and meeting
An alternative to rivalry and confrontation is the desire of many associations of earthlings for dialogue and rapprochement. Values, concepts, principles and ideas can circulate within the framework of one isolated culture, but they can also interact with the content of other cultures. To begin with, everyone needs to free themselves from the viciousness of the subculture - subordination to instinct and commitment to drug addiction, worship of violence and cheap sex, stupid attachment to material values. Humanity, - rightly emphasizes the Russian thinker Igor Bestuzhev-Lada, - "was realized through the elimination of the danger of lack of culture."
Before liberating ourselves from conflict with the Other, we must ask ourselves whether we are the reason for our inability to find with him mutual language for a calm dialogue and a warm meeting. Let us reject our isolation, our fanaticism and extremism, and cast aside ourselves critical eye. The more sincere we are towards the Other, the stronger his desire for dialogue with us. The situation is similar with relations between certain communities, certain cultures. Intercivilizational ties can also be built on solid, conflict-free foundations.
In every culture, advanced or backward, in every religious or ethnic community, between neighborhood neighbors, among members of the same family, as in our own souls, open spaces and closed corners coexist, open spaces for generosity and nooks for fanaticism, havens for democracy and places for tyranny, temples for love and snares for hate, abodes for peace and refuge for violence. We all need to cultivate positive qualities in ourselves and in others.
Confrontations and wars occupy an important place in the relationship between Me and the Other. But there are also opportunities for interaction and creative connection between Us. This should be encouraged in every way.
Analyzing Huntington's statements about the clash of civilizations, the Russian scientist Boris Yerasov emphasizes that there are developed forms of intercivilizational relations, “based primarily on interaction in the sphere of 'high' culture, mutual acquaintance and exchange of intellectual, spiritual, moral and scientific achievements. The results of such interaction turn out to be highly favorable for enriching the heritage of the "receiving" civilization and the prestige of the "giving" civilization.
Perhaps the most brilliant image of the future is one that involves the creation of solid foundations for dialogue, mutual acquaintance, interaction and rapprochement. The history of intercivilizational relations includes many glorious pages that depict the results of joint efforts in the field of urban planning, visual arts And literary creativity, development of science, tourism and general culture. Examples of cooperation in the implementation of various scientific, tourism and entertainment programs indelible from the memory of peoples and civilizations.
Hope
The assessment of intercivilizational relations in the postmodern era leads to the following reflections:
Since the confrontation between the two political and economic systems has ended, the developing ties between civilizations, ethnic groups and religions, taking on the character of confrontation or cooperation, alienation or dialogue, play a major role in the geopolitical context. Experience of the present transition period suggests that the conflict between the civilizations of East and West will intensify, the gulf between rich and poor peoples will become deeper. The struggle for spheres of influence, sources of energy and other natural resources will be intensified. The number of countries representing the side branches of civilizations will multiply, and the contradictions between them will increase.
All this causes anxiety, generated by the expectation of a feverish escalation of tension, the limits of which will expand, and the severity will increase. With the increase in the number of countries possessing weapons of mass destruction, the danger of the destruction of human civilization, at least one of its parts, will approach. Life on earth may enter a new biological cycle.
Another thought comes to mind. The future can be treated with faith, assuming the creation of reasonable conditions for the rapprochement and interaction of earthly civilizations on the basis of fair approaches, equal dialogue and disinterested cooperation, the purpose of which is to eliminate reasons for wars, to unite in the fight against technogenic and environmental disasters solve the problems of hunger and poverty, rid mankind of dangerous diseases, effectively help achieve greater returns from the activities of economic associations, scientific centers and technological communities, take a common position in the development of large-scale humanitarian, educational and general cultural programs, pay special attention to the implementation of ideological and information campaigns designed to help shape a new consciousness in younger generation which in the 21st century could live and develop in a single global civilizational atmosphere.
Common denominators and interests that stimulate the spirit of cooperation, rapprochement and meetings, most often relate to the field of science, art, tourism, mutual enjoyment of spiritual values. Here they are filled life force souls of people, rushing towards each other under the power of noble aesthetic feelings. Japanese thinker Dasiyako Ikeda says: “The human will is driven by a strong and genuine faith in common life and hope for rebirth, which are based on a new philosophy of life and a new cultural and educational project for the younger generation. That's enough to tip the scales on this planet in the direction of optimism."
Therefore, academic minds, spiritual authorities and cultural luminaries are called upon to unite their efforts in order to make the dream of a meeting of cultures the object of attention of policy makers and economic leaders through a continuous series of seminars and conferences. Its implementation, of course, will mean a pleasing choice for us in favor of rapprochement and cooperation between all ethnic groups and cultures. On the positive side, the UN and all its organizations, including the one that is especially dear to us intellectuals - UNESCO, could seriously influence the matter.
But, without a doubt, the possibility of this or that decision depends primarily on those who control the factors of material and moral strength, being at the top of the pyramid of power in the leading countries. Between the two extremes of opting for hope and opting for despair, there are many intermediate solutions. The last word, of course, belongs to the political and military leaders, as well as to those in whose hands the power of money, the means of propaganda and the tools of computer science are in their hands.
But each of us, in turn, is responsible for the future of civilization. This or that course of events depends on the efforts of each of the sons of men. It is very easy to destroy what has been created over tens of millions of years, and it is difficult to preserve the aesthetic, spiritual and cultural treasures created the best minds humanity. Is there a nobler mission than one that shows concern for the preservation and increase of this wealth, opening up new horizons for cooperation and interaction based on mutual trust and respect for each other.
Notes
Benjamin Barber: "A World Ruled by McDonald's" as America Creates It, an-Nahar, October 7 October 1200, p. 11.
"Tame Magazine Daily" Pathfinder, July 13, 1996.
Alain Touraine: "Critique of Modernism", Paris, Faillard, 1992, p.228.
A. Toffler: "Metamorphoses of power", Damascus, 1991, p. 830.
Same source, p. 832.
I. Bestuzhev-Lada: "Alternative Civilization", Moscow, 1998, p. 296.
B. S. Erasov: “A Comparative Study of Civilizations”, Moscow, 1998, p. 520.
Dasiyako Ikeda: A series of lectures entitled "Toward the Revival of Hope", Moscow, 1994.
The merger of the two companies was also hampered by differences in their history, structure, markets, products, geographic locations and people. The VdBN intellectuals, the marketing-oriented townspeople of North Holland, had difficulty getting along with the down-to-earth, farm- or factory-oriented southerners of UVGN. These differences became apparent in their attitudes towards merger and management style - a classic clash of cultures (Table 3.1).
For a long time after the merger, the new company spoke of "us" and "them." Some VdBN workers clung to their past accomplishments and a sense of superiority over the "farmers" in southern Holland. “We had a highly professional organization,” says one account manager. - We had more data than UVGN, older history and more experienced people. Our former chairman of the board of directors offered slogans like "Let's innovate." I think it created a more positive atmosphere."
Others welcomed the change. The frankness in the discussions and the growing understanding of the real business environment provided a sense of renewal. The former CEO of the fat division recalls:
Table 3.1
Statements by VdBN and UVGN employees about cultural differences in companies
VdBN
General information... Location: Rotterdam, next to the Unilever headquarters. History: One of the two founding companies of Unilever, it has a century-old history.
Business: profitable.
People: market-savvy intellectuals with an urban flair.
UVGN
Location: Oss, south of Holland.
History: a meat business with a century of history.
Business: unprofitable.
People: mundane factory workers, "farmers" and "cowboys".
Merger Thoughts... Marketing Manager A: We
We were sure that we are the best in the world in marketing, especially when it comes to margarine.
About leadership style...
Sales Director: It was an organization with a complex hierarchy. Relations with clients have always been "fantastic", but no one wanted to let them into their territory. We had goals, but we didn't really care if we achieved them or not.
General Manager of Food Division (former): Van den Bergh was well organized - like a ministry of marketing. Lots of procedures, people, etc.
Sales Director: We are used to the fact that relationships were built from the top down. You were not allowed to enter into discussions. Someone decides for you what your company should be like. You didn't have the deciding vote.
Shift Supervisor: We started by destroying the old one and threatening to close the plant. We stood in front of a blank wall. We wanted to survive and understood that we needed to change.
Product Division CEO (former): At UVGN, people are used to working in small teams. Everything they did could be discussed.
Distribution Manager: UVGN had a more relaxed atmosphere. People felt more comfortable and were more satisfied with their work. They were not overloaded with any formal procedures, and they worked more creatively.
Product Division CEO (former):
When I joined UVGN, the company was like a drinking establishment or a Wild West town with a new sheriff. But, in the end, the company was “liberated” by one of the top managers who worked directly with them and put a lot of energy and effort into the work.
“The biggest problem with the culture of the old VdBN was that it was fake through and through. The company extolled its so-called "successes" too much. She emphasized teamwork, but it wasn't real teamwork. It was more like, "Let's pat each other on the back and say how great we are doing." They avoided to really look at what was happening.
The merged companies were faced with the task of learning to face the truth together and develop a vision for the future. To do this, it was necessary to distract from each other and study the market, competitors and consumer needs. The new chairman of the board of directors was to introduce the VdBN managers, as he introduced the UVGN managers, to the basics of the business. In short, the combined company, now operating under the name VdBN, had to "pass a course of psychotherapy."
The clash of cultures turned out to be very difficult.
It is extremely difficult for people to give up their culture and
adapt to another, new. Culture clash usually
leads to conflict and confrontation. People want
keep their roots and their identity even after the change
living place.
Ryszard Kapuscinski
This statement by Ryszard Kapuscinski is the starting point in the discussion social aspects multiculturalism, arising from the phenomenon of globalization, because it reflects the true reality of our time - dynamic, changeable, full of dangers. The current XXI century. often call century of multiculturalism: contact, dialogue, clash of cultures, their interaction and, as a result, the need for coexistence in one country.
Multiculturalism is a phenomenon commensurate with the history of civilization. For many centuries, its development went side by side with progressive social changes. In the literature, one can find many interpretations of multiculturalism, or, as it is often called, cultural pluralism, or transculturalism. Nevertheless, the basic meaning of this concept remains approximately the same, regardless of the wording. The approach of P. Sztompka deserves special attention: he considers multiculturalism in two aspects. First, as "a variety of cultures that have been successful in terms of historical assessment and coexist at the moment" . Secondly, as an ideological position that implies the right of different societies to their own way of life and supports the thesis of the absolute equality of all cultures [ibid.]. Multiculturalism is also interpreted in the context of cultural diversity, meaning the acceptance and respect for the individual traits and uniqueness of each culture. We are talking about the democratic coexistence of both individuals and groups with a certain ethnic identity, their own values and traditions.
The idea of multiculturalism arose only in the 80s. XX century, however, its origins can be traced even earlier: for example, in 1915, the American philosopher Horace Cullen first introduced the concept of “ cultural pluralism» . Cullen's approach was based on his observations of immigrants who, while undergoing cultural assimilation, still retained a number of qualities inherent in their own culture. All these aspects related to the migration of people - political, educational or cognitive - have become the starting point in the modern study of multiculturalism. Theory "policy of appreciation", proposed by Charles Taylor, also deserves attention. According to this theory, a person's personality is formed under the influence of dialogues and interactions with the social and cultural environment. Taylor argues that "proper recognition not only expresses the respect people deserve, but is above all a basic human need". Taylor considers two types of political attitudes that conflict with each other: the first type emphasizes the equal dignity and rights of the individual, while the other type emphasizes differences in identities and groups. Such dualism reflects the paradoxical nature of understanding multiculturalism: on the one hand, Taylor points to the ideals of equality and tolerance towards different cultures, and on the other hand, he claims that the recognition of cultural equality is impossible, since it leads to conflicts and confrontation. Will Kimlik offers a similar approach to multiculturalism. He considers respect for other cultures in the context of the history of the people and compensation for the unfair treatment of a particular nation. According to Kimlik, multiculturalism allows people to publicly identify with their ethnic group and maintain their national identity [ibid].
The idea of multiculturalism itself has acquired some ambiguity. On the one hand, it still characterizes a certain type of social status in society, actual or ideal. On the other hand, the term “multiculturalism” also denotes a project in the field of social policy adopted and approved by the state. Such a status quo implies the intentional and conscious building of a heterogeneous, mixed society and, as a result, a distance from ethnic homogenization. Multiculturalism as a sociocultural phenomenon is realized within the framework of the territorial-state mechanism various systems or through a system of norms and values.
If we take into account the territorial aspect of multiculturalism, its connection with the phenomenon of migration becomes obvious. Population migration is the motivating force that underlies intercultural contacts in an era of social change and globalization. Isabela Jaruga-Nowacka believes that modern migration is a natural process. She quotes the words of Ryszard Kapuscinski, who says that "at the end of the 20th century, we entered the third phase - the phase of the decolonization of the Third World, which is looking for - and finding - its roots and its identity, so different from ours" . This process is also connected with the growing level of self-awareness in ethnic groups. These groups, until recently rejected and oppressed, are in an active search for their own cultural identity.
Based on the principles of the coexistence of different values and traditions within one state, multiculturalism takes on a broader meaning and sets one up for deeper reflection. It pushes us to understand and accept the whole diversity of the world, to get rid of deeply rooted historical prejudices and stereotypes, and, more importantly, it provides an opportunity to look into a foreign culture, into other value systems, get acquainted with other traditions, etc. Multiculturalism also implies self-respect and respect for other cultures, leveling the division into “We” and “They” described by Z. Bauman. Such a division contrasts representatives of the "native" culture with representatives of the "foreign" one. Thus, the adoption of a foreign culture means showing respect for it. As M. Ratajzyk writes, understanding one's own behavior is the key to respecting diversity and otherness. It is equally important to realize that getting to know other cultures is at the same time reflecting on the essence of one's own culture. Understanding the culture of other peoples, therefore, is determined by the depth of a person's awareness of his own culture and the breadth of his knowledge of another culture.
Knowing and following the principles of cultural relativism provide a theoretical foundation for understanding characteristic features and characteristics of other cultures. What is cultural relativism? One of the definitions sounds like "abstracting from one's own deeply rooted cultural ideas and evaluating the situation on the basis of the principles of another culture" . Cultural relativism primarily affects the social sphere with its dilemma of reconciling our own views and beliefs with the culture of another people.
Cultural relativism also acts as a methodological rule, according to which “a person who observes and describes a certain culture relies on the point of view of representatives of this culture” . This technique helps to eliminate various prejudices regarding other cultures and contributes to the development of tolerance necessary to ensure the normal existence of a person in large and small social groups, micro and macrostructures.
The main determinant of the emergence of multiculturalism is the phenomenon of cultural diffusion, which can be clearly seen at various points over many centuries. Cultural diffusion is "the flow of cultural elements or entire groups of cultural configurations through different cultures". From the very early days humanity in the role of a trigger mechanism for cultural diffusion were cultural meetings. E. Mikulowski-Pomorski describes them as situations in which representatives of different cultures come into contact with each other, without having the intention to join one or another culture. In contrast, cultural contacts ( cultural contacts) means "interaction and social relations between groups of people living in different cultures". Both phenomena are accompanied by intercultural communication, which can take a variety of forms, both verbal and non-verbal. Cultural meetings and cultural contacts are examples of all those cultural interactions, traces of which go deep into the history of civilization. They are the result of many factors, among which the migration of ethnic groups comes to the fore, carried out in order to search for new, more comfortable living conditions. Diffusion of cultures is quite often observed precisely in such situations, and this diffusion is unintentional, not based on a conscious desire for socialization. The process of socialization in this context is defined as "the main channel for the transmission of culture between generations at all times" .
Although the process of socialization is usually associated with the process of adaptation of a person to a new cultural environment, it is important to emphasize that it can also occur accidentally, during cultural encounters and contacts. At primitive people such intercultural encounters and contacts were hosted various forms and took place in different situations: sometimes it was an exchange of goods, and sometimes it was a genuine interest in other cultures. However, most often people were driven by the desire to seize power over other peoples, and then intercultural contacts took radical forms. Cultural conflicts based on aggression have never been uncommon; according to J. H. Turner, they always arise as a result of the differentiation of cultures coexisting in a motley world. P. Sztompka considers the conflict of cultures as "antipathy, enmity or struggle between groups in contact, differences in lifestyle which are dictated by their own cultures" .
Cultural conflicts are a sphere related not only to primitive tribes, but also to the history of civilization as a whole. According to J. Campbell, an American specialist in the field of comparative mythology, "history is replete with examples of wars between representatives of different cultures (...), and myths invariably glorify and glorify war" . Regardless of historical time, where intercultural contacts and meetings took place, cultural conflicts were born at the same time.
However, one does not always accompany the other: the positive consequences of such contacts are also extensive. Cultures can be integrated at the level of both their individual representatives and entire ethnic groups. Such integration, especially noticeable where ethnic groups border on each other, is of a commercial or military nature and contributes to economic development and strengthening security in the event of an armed attack from other peoples.
Integration is accompanied by the phenomenon of cultural assimilation, which is to some extent identical to the process of cultural socialization, but in fact is more complex, as it occurs in several stages. For its implementation, several conditions must be met at once. E. Mikulowski-Pomorski refers to the approach of M. Gordon and his description of these conditions: the first condition is acculturation, i.e. the adoption of samples of an assimilated culture by a representative of an assimilating culture; the second condition is structural assimilation, that is, the penetration of representatives of one culture into another; the third condition is the assimilation of identity, i.e. the development of a sense of belonging to a new culture. Thus, the process of assimilation can be considered complete when all the above conditions are met, that is, when all stages are passed. It should be noted, however, that complete assimilation does not imply short-term integration processes, but long-term integration, sometimes affecting two generations. Usually at the level of one generation, acculturation takes place, the first stage of assimilation.
One of the phenomena that occurs along with cultural diffusion is culture shock, defined as “a feeling of disorientation, the collapse of familiar norms, values and ideas about social reality that arises in a person in the course of his contact with another culture. The experience of culture shock exposes a person to the hidden prerequisites and foundations of his own culture, learned by him in the process of socialization, and helps him to know it more deeply. A similar theory was put forward by G. Hofstede, who considered culture shock not as a stage of assimilation, but as a stage of acculturation. As proof of his assertion, he uses the scheme of the so-called acculturation curve, which divides the process of acculturation into four stages: the first is euphoria, the second is culture shock, the third is adaptation, and the fourth is a state of equilibrium. Such a division is quite consistent with the integration processes taking place in a relatively short time. G. Hofstede also points to the phenomenon of "reverse" culture shock experienced by a person upon returning to the familiar cultural environment [ibid, 306]. The dynamics of the process of acculturation depends primarily on intercultural communication: understanding the traditions and customs of another culture, knowledge of its history and language can greatly facilitate this process. Factors related to the upbringing and education of a person also play here. important role because they help earn respect and trust from representatives of another culture.
An analysis of the history of civilization allows us to conclude that multiculturalism has gained a huge influence on the political, social and economic structure of the world, and this influence becomes especially noticeable during periods of numerous changes in public life. Without a doubt, multiculturalism meets the requirements of a dynamically developing social reality. It affects all spheres of human activity and appears on the stage every time when there is a meeting of two or more cultures, whether they are individual representatives and small groups (micro level) or large, diverse in culturally groups (medium or macro level). It can be assumed that the phenomenon of multiculturalism will develop and in the near future will become an indispensable condition for the normal functioning of the individual in the macrostructure or the so-called "global village".
It is important to consider how multiculturalism affects identity - both personal and social. To begin with, let's define what identity is in order to understand the relationship between the two phenomena. Z. Bauman writes: “Identity is not given to a person as a gift; it has to be built, there are (at least theoretically) different ways to do it, and it cannot come into existence in any other way except if it is built in one of these ways. Thus, identity is a task to be completed, a task from which it is impossible to escape.
Identity (in general sense of this word) is immanent in every individual and every nation. And although it seems quite understandable as a theoretical construct, there are a huge number of problems when trying to accurately define its boundaries. These problems are associated with the difficulty of distinguishing between individual and collective identity features, caused by their diffusion, interpenetration. This interpenetration needs to be analyzed at two levels. At the first level, the concept of social identity is considered, that is, the qualities that others attribute to a person. They act as signs showing others what kind of person is in front of them and to which social group (or groups) he belongs. If we remember that each of us performs several social roles, then the complex organization of human identity will become even more obvious. At the second level, individual, or personal, identity is considered. It is connected with the development of personality, with a person's feeling of the uniqueness of his being and the uniqueness of his relations with the outside world [ibid.]. According to P. Sztompke, personal identity refers only to those features of a person that only he and no one else possesses.
A special form of identity is national identity. J. Bluszkowski writes that “national identity determines the life attitudes of the people as an independent social group» . This is a feeling by a person of his belonging to a certain nation in contrast to all other groups to which he belongs: “I am like a Pole”, “I am like a Russian”. The sense of national identity is manifested in national self-determination and emphasizing the differences between one's own people and others. Z. Bokshański considers this type of identity as constituent part human interest in the transformation of modern nations and ethnic diversity within the borders of states-peoples. J. Bluszkowski also draws attention to the approach of W. Lippmann, who understood national identity as “a system or model of stereotypes that reflects our values, position and rights in the world” . It is important to emphasize that national identity is determined by several factors, the most significant of which is that the people are characterized "as a population inhabiting a certain historical territory having a common memory, myths, a common culture, a common economy, territorial mobility and, finally, common rights and obligations for all its members. It is also important that we feel affection for our people, we stand in solidarity with them and are aware of the mission that we have to fulfill, since each generation plays an important role in the history of the world and is the bearer of certain values [ibid.]. National identity affects the phenomenon of intercultural communication in different ways. On the one hand, it can contribute to the emergence of barriers to communication, reinforcing ethnocentric attitudes, ethnic separation and ethnic stratification. On the other hand, it can contribute to the development among representatives of one people of respect and tolerance towards the bearers of another culture.
Currently, two approaches to the interpretation of identity are most common. The first, the founder of which is E. Erickson, connects the development of identity with eight stages of a person's personal development. The second approach, presented by P. Ricoeur, focuses on a sense of stability, constancy and continuity over time. P. Ricoeur speaks of two special types of identity: the first type, idem ("identical", "one and the same"), is something that remains the same for quite a long time; second, ipse("self", "self") is the identity of the individual to himself. Such an approach captures both the static nature and the mobility of identity, which are associated with its susceptibility to both internal stimuli and external stimuli emanating from the surrounding cultural space.
Identity should be considered as a phenomenon that arises in the process of socialization and is associated with the formation of an image of culture, individual and collective. The sociological analysis of the concept is more diverse and belongs to the interdisciplinary field: it focuses on people's ideas about themselves and about what is significant for them. Identity cannot be built in an isolated social group; on the contrary, its foundation rests on interactions that bring with them a diverse experience, which is then integrated into a single common system. We must be aware that identity is an extremely complex formation in nature, the formation of which is influenced by a huge number of factors. H. Malewska-Peyr points out that these factors affect not only the values, life experience of a person, his feelings, but also his ideas about the future. The future, if we talk about its relationship with identity, stems from the individual abilities of each person and his desire to create his own "I", to bring new, different from the usual and rooted features into the face of his nation, as well as from the ability to cultivate sensitivity to cultural stimuli manifested in the process of interaction with representatives of other ethnic groups.
National stereotypes are another additional factor involved in the formation of identity. They can have a significant impact on cultural contacts and thus contribute to the emergence of barriers to communication, especially in conditions of cultural diffusion. E. Mikulowski-Pomorski draws attention to the approach of W. Lippman, already mentioned, who believed that stereotypes are just “schemes that arise in our heads, fixed patterns that affect our perception of the world around us and are not amenable to either change or verification for authenticity". Since stereotypes are an integral part of national identity, they represent serious problem in a situation of cultural diffusion.
However, this is not the only phenomenon that can have a negative impact on the processes taking place in multinational social groups. There are also biases that can affect intercultural communication and interactions in multinational structures. They promote ethnic stratification stemming from social inequality certain ethnic groups. Prejudices reduce the image of the surrounding world to simplified, schematic representations. According to A. Giddens, prejudices determine the attitudes and attitudes of members of one group towards members of another. They are extremely high level subjectivity in assessing the surrounding social reality and are most often based on rumors and unsubstantiated information. Moreover, it is very difficult to break them, even if you provide a person with reliable and objective information about a particular culture. Another important property of prejudices is their direct influence on stereotypes concerning one or another aspect of social reality.
The phenomenon of ethnocentrism is also a negative factor. J. H. Turner describes it as "the tendency of a person to feel the superiority of his own culture or subculture in relation to the culture of other people and peoples" . This means that a person places his nation or ethnic group at the center of everything, thereby provoking social isolation or rejection. The teaching in schools of subjects relating exclusively to a given country or people, or the conduct of international politics from the standpoint of the primacy of one's own national interests, are examples of ethnocentrism. On the other hand, healthy ethnocentrism arises from a sense of responsibility to one's own country and people and, in fact, is a manifestation of patriotism. Ethnocentrism is a form of affirmation towards one's own culture and the simultaneous rejection and marginalization of other cultures. As G. Hofstede writes, "the ethnocentrism of a group is the same as the egocentrism of an individual, that is, the perception of one's own little world as the center of the Universe."
According to P. Sztompke, an ethnocentric attitude is characterized by a person's conviction of the special value of his own culture and its superiority over others. Ethnocentrism also implies a person's tendency to judge other cultures from the standpoint of the norms of his own culture, which he considers as a kind of ideal, standard. The phenomenon of national megalomania is an extreme form of ethnocentrism. It is based on the conviction of a person in the exclusivity and uniqueness of his own people. Ya. S. Bystron defines national megalomania as the centrality of a nation, the belief that a given people occupies a central place in the world and therefore has more reason to claim world domination.
The above analysis only partially illuminates the negative factors associated with the problem of multiculturalism. The phenomenon of ethnic distance, a consequence of the prejudice of one nation against another, also needs to be considered. This is a form of isolation of certain groups, caused by their discrimination, i.e., the denial of granting them the rights given to others. The degree of isolation is measured by a special scale of social distance, developed by the American psychologist Emory Bogardus. Another negative phenomenon is cultural incompetence: according to P. Sztompka, this is a lack or lack of knowledge, skills and incentives for a person to use new electronic devices, to master new forms of relationships between people, new ways of thinking. Cultural incompetence is the result of many factors, among which ignorance of other cultures deserves special attention, either from a general lack of education or from such phenomena as ethnocentrism, national chauvinism and intolerance mentioned above.
When
Cultures
collide
Managing
successfully
across cultures
Richard D. Lewis
NICHOLAS
BREALEY
PUBLISHING
R.D. Lewis
BUSINESS
CULTURES
IN
INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS
From collision to
mutual understanding
Academy of National Economy
Government of the Russian Federation
Moscow
Publishing house "DELO"
2001
Translation from English
T. A. Nestika
General editorial and introductory article professor, doctor
psychological sciences, director of the Center for Social and
psychological research high school international
business of the Academy of National Economy P. N. Shikhirev
Lewis Richard D.
Business cultures in international business
to mutual understanding Transl. from English. - 2nd ed. - M. Delo, 2001.-
448s
ISBN 1-85788-086-2
ISBN 5-7749 0103 3 (Russian)
The book is practical guide for communication with
representatives of different cultures and countries. A significant part of it
is dedicated to the characteristics of the cultures of 14 leading countries of the world,
representing all continents. For each country, a set is offered
practical recommendations. They make it possible to anticipate and take into account
reaction and possible options human behavior and are important for managing
multinational teams, negotiating the conclusion
transactions and in general to form a successful long-term
cooperation.
For entrepreneurs, student managers, university professors and
students of international business courses persons interested in
problems of intercultural communication.
UDC 159.9224-316.77
BBC 88.53
Copyright © Richard D Lewis 1996 First published by Nicholas Brealey Puhlisliing Ltd
London 1996
Brealey Publishing Ltd and permission for this edition was arranged by the
matlock
Literary
Agency
ISBN
1-85788-086-2
(English)
© Publishing house "Delo" translation into Russian introductory article
clearance 1999
Introductory article. P. N. Shikhirev
From the clash of business cultures to the formation of them
common ground
Preface to the Russian edition
Foreword: Us and them
79
Part one
Understanding the Diversity of Cultures
1 Different languages, different worlds
2 Influence of culture
Part two
Management in international business
3 Classification of crops
4 Use of time
5 Status, leadership and organization
6 Cultural horizons and the creation of international
commands
7 Crossing the Chasm of Misunderstanding
8 Meeting of Minds
9 Manners (and customs)
64
85
101
127
139
167
203
Part three
Let's get to know each other
10. United States of America............................................... ...234
11. Great Britain ............................................... .........................244
12. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa...............252
13. Finland............................................... ................................. 265
14. France ............................................... ................................... 281
15. Germany.............................................. ................................... 290
16. Italy.............................................. ......................................... 301
17. Portugal............................................... .................................307
18. Russia ............................................... .........................................315
19. Spain ........................................................ .......................................327
20. Sweden ............................................... ............................................... 332
21. Arab countries.............................................. .........................342
22. Japan ............................................... ......................................350
23. China ............................................... ................................................. 370
24. India and Southeast Asia................................................. 385
Epilogue: Achieving Empathy............................................................... ........... 412
Bibliography................................................. .................................42 4
Dictionary................................................. ...............................................427
Introductory article
FROM COLLISION
BUSINESS CULTURES TO
FORMATION OF THEM
COMMON BASIS
ECONOMY,
HER
GLOBALIZATION,
transformation into a single interconnected system - obvious
characteristics of the late 20th century. Already by the beginning of the 90s. not less than 30°/o
global
gross
product
produced
joint
enterprises, and today this figure is approaching 40%. All
it becomes more difficult to determine the nationality of goods and
services. Quite often a product can be produced in one country
according to technology another with the participation of specialists from the third, fourth and
sold in many other countries around the world. And no matter how you feel about it
truly Babylonian confusion of economies, it is inevitable and
objectively.
Predictions far ahead of their time come true
outstanding Russian philosopher S. N. Bulgakov about a single world
economy, formulated by him at the beginning of our century.1 This idea,
born on the basis of the powerful and detailed religious and philosophical concept of the world unity of V. S. Solovyov, did not have
at that time compelling empirical evidence in the field of economics.
It was based on the idea of the spiritual unity of people, the world and
INTERNATIONALIZATION
See: Bulgakov S.N. Philosophy of economy. SPb., 1911.
God (also called Cosmos, Logos, Universal Mind, etc.
depending on the views of a particular thinker). As for
real economic reality, then the people involved in it,
proceeded mainly from the postulate of the "correctness" of their own
culture and the "strangeness" or even underdevelopment of all other cultures. Subsequently, this position began to be called culture-centric, i.e.
one in which my culture and my ways of solving problems
placed in the center of the universe, evaluated as the most effective and,
therefore, practically proved to be true, and all the rest - as
deviations from this one true path. To this must be added
egocentrism, no less common among people in general - placing oneself from time immemorial in the center social relations. If
add to this such "arguments" as military or technological
superiority, it will become clear why in the era of the great colonial
and other empires, culture-centrism seemed self-evident and
well-founded point of view. Recall that both the ancient Greeks and
Romans, all other peoples were considered not just different, different, but
less developed, less civilized, less cultured, etc.
It took many centuries for mankind to understand that
ways of life of people living in different conditions, Not
can be rated on the scale of any one country. All of them are adequate
specific conditions. A strong impetus to this insight was given
strengthening the interdependence of people, the consolidation of contacts,
speeding up the pace of communication and communication. It is enough to compare
speed and availability of communication via regular mail in
early 19th century and electronic - at the end of ours. In this accelerating
whirlwind of communication clashes of people representing different cultures,
different ways of solving essentially the same problems have become
everyday occurrence. In addition, the increasing benefits of cooperation,
cooperation, the need to reach a compromise, on the one
on the other hand, and the low efficiency of forceful methods, on the other hand, forced
doubt the hitherto immutable truth of culture-centrism.
Process
pen
INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE
The review of this dogma developed as a counter movement of science
(culturology, ethnography, cross-cultural psychology1) and practice.
Science found more and more evidence that people are more similar in
their internal, moral, ethical dimension and differ
mainly in external manifestations, customs, rituals, clothing and
etc. Practice was looking for ways to neutralize these differences: their
recognition, reconciliation, agreement - and developed methods
learning to work together with representatives of different cultures. The main area of practical research has become the business sector, where
the expediency of any innovation, new idea is proved quickly
and simply - getting more profit, achieving more
efficiency. In the 90s. practical technologies in the field of cross-cultural comparison developed and spread rapidly
pace, the number of publications on this topic has doubled annually,
cross-cultural training workshops have become a profitable business for
a whole layer of professionals who combine the qualities of scientists and
practitioners.
The proposed translation of the book by R. Lewis is one of the most striking
manifestations of the process described above, and its author is no less bright
personality. The organization "Richard Lewis Communications" headed by him
is
yourself
center
By
studying
cross-cultural
interaction and has branches in 30 countries. Here businessmen from
the world's largest corporations are trained not only in foreign languages,
but mainly skills business communication with representatives
other cultures. Among the clients of the center are such giants of modern
world economy, such as Deutsche Bank, BMW, Gillette, Nokia,
"IBM", and many others of the same magnitude. Lewis himself speaks
ten European and two Oriental languages, for five years he was
home teacher of the family of the Emperor of Japan.
The book "Business Cultures in International Business" is conceived and
built like tutorial for practitioners, business1
Region psychological science dealing with the comparison of cultures.
Men who want to avoid unnecessary collisions, conflicts due to
own ignorance and related financial and moral and psychological costs.
The author's logic is simple. First, in a rather brief first part, he
formulates the most general concepts and ideas about the role of language in
culture, about culture itself, which he defines as "the collective
Behavior Programming". The second, more detailed part
is an analysis of aspects common to all types of business
culture and specific to each of them: the use of time,
spaces, decision-making structures, rituals, etc. Finally, in
the third part, he characterizes the business cultures as individual countries,
and entire regions, including Russia.
Therefore, the book is of great interest to specialists in
cross-cultural studies, and for businessmen. more scientist
staging will attract theoretical problems, practice - concrete
recommendations regarding behavior in a new environment for him.
Accordingly, both will evaluate the work of Lewis from the point of view
view of the contribution that it makes to existing developments, because
enough literature on the topic of culture clashes has been published
a lot of. Let's dwell on this point in more detail.
In theoretical terms, R. Lewis proposed a very original
approach to solving one of the most difficult mysteries of modern
comparative cultural studies - a criterion for comparing cultures. IN
currently one of the few variables with respect to which
specialists there is no big disagreement, is a continuum:
"individualism" - "collectivism". In other words, it is recognized that
most existing cultures can be located on some
scale between these two poles, that is, in one culture a person will
make decisions based on potential response
corresponding social group, in another - on their own,
personal assessment.
Lewis introduces a new criterion: the way in which such
objective measurement of reality, like time. According to him culture
are divided into three types: monoactive (or linearly organized
INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE
11
Yawned), polyactive and reactive. In a monoactive culture
a person, in terms of Lewis, is accustomed to doing something,
breaking down activities into successive steps without distraction
for other tasks. Typical representatives of such a culture are
Anglo-Saxons: Americans, British, Germans, Northern Europeans,
methodically, consistently and punctually organizing their time and
vitality.
In a polyactive culture, typical representatives which
Latin Americans, southern Europeans perform, it is customary to do
several cases at the same time (we note in passing, often without bringing them to
end).
Finally, in the reactive culture characteristic of Asian countries,
activity is also organized not according to a strict and unchanging plan, but in
depending on the changing context, as a reaction to these changes.
Bye
difficult
say,
how much
proposed
Lewis
the classification conforms to the strict canons of a scientifically proven fact.
Another thing is important: the practical material he collected convincingly
testifies in favor of this idea. She is, as they say,
"works". The same can be said about the parameters of the business
interactions discussed in the second part: about the hierarchy of business
relations, on the methods of negotiating and a number of other inalienable
characteristics of business interaction. brought together in one system,
they form a profile of a specific business culture, which allows
predict possible discrepancies and prevent potential
conflicts.
Thus, the Lewis scheme becomes an important practical
a tool to improve the efficiency of international business.
Further detailing - by country and region - is almost
half of the book. Here is collected the richest material of observations for
"rules of the game" when doing business in the world. Trying to summarize it -
an impossible task, it is so densely and richly stated. It is forbidden,
however, bypass the chapter, dedicated to Russia. In general, it is beneficial
differs from many foreign works on this topic, but still gives
(unlike most sections for other countries) no
BUSINESS CULTURES.
Personal acquaintance of the author with Russia. Russian entrepreneur,
getting acquainted with his ideas about our reality, for sure
will make the appropriate adjustments.
So far, only the following paradox can be noted. By type of business
behavior, Russian business culture is much closer to
Latin American, that is, to the polyactive, in addition, "relational",
i.e. focused rather on the creation and preservation of good
relationship with a partner as a guarantee of a successful transaction, rather than on
end result and efficiency. At the same time enough
representative surveys of Russian entrepreneurs reveal that
they prefer to choose as ideal partners
representatives of a monoactive culture: Americans, Germans,
Scandinavians. Thus, this choice testifies in favor of a different
business culture than their own. Yes, and the carriers themselves
monoactive business culture prefer to do business with themselves
similar. This needs to be considered as we look forward to the future.
three types of crops identified by Lewis.
At the same time, it must be recognized that the Russian reality
changes so quickly that to keep track of it and even more so to identify
some stable patterns are difficult enough, even living in
Russia. In this regard, a number of fundamental questions arise:
patterns and standards of behavior should be guided by Russian
businessmen? what features, habits, rituals, customs of others
cultures should be perceived as something unchanging, inevitable, and
which ones should be learned and which ones should be simply neutralized? How will it be in general
transform such a colorful cross-cultural canvas, brightly
shown in the book? What are the prospects for a "clash of cultures"?
whether it will lead to further differentiation or will it move into
direction of integration, the formation of a certain common basis on which
will become
possible
efficient
international
business
interaction?
1
For the consequences of the Americans' choice, see G. Anderson, P. N. Shikhirev "Sharks" and
"dolphins": Psychology and ethics of the Russian-American business partnership. M.:
Case LTD 1994.
INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE
Lewis does not set himself the task of answering all these questions,
some of them are only touched upon. Thus, in the epilogue he formulates
position on empathy (the ability to empathize) as the most important
condition for overcoming "cultural imperialism", culture-centrism and
"cultural
myopia",
calls
seventeen
socio-psychological characteristics of the behavior of a participant in international
negotiations. In the course of the book, he notices that in the depths of human
nature has much more in common than different, that unprejudiced,
sincere, friendly attitude towards a partner from another culture
helps a lot to overcome previously learned stereotypes - these
sketchy and very often negative ideas about other peoples
and countries. One cannot but agree with such conclusions, but in order to answer
the above questions are not enough. Necessary
delve further into the essence of man. Having taken this step, we find ourselves in the core of the human psyche -
regulating its universal, universal moral
values. This is the area of ethics, in relation to the topic of the book - ethics
business, which Lewis practically does not touch, focusing on
attention to work with that layer of the value structure of the personality, which
grows around this core and sometimes hides it.
In this regard, we offer the following metaphor. Businessman personality
can be represented in the form of a matryoshka - a famous Russian toy. IN
in this case, the smallest matryoshka will represent the set
basic values that are similar for all people: health, respect for loved ones
and friends, the warmth of relations with them, material well-being,
sense of meaning in life. The next matryoshka represents
a set of values formed in a given civilization. Examples
serve as the priority of the individual in Western civilization and the principle
collectivism - in the east. Then comes a matryoshka containing a set
