Aeons ago, I taught Allen, a Chinese student from Suzhou, in the English Enrichment Programme. He was an astute observer of his surroundings and, best of all, wonderfully talkative, which made our one-to-one classes thoroughly enjoyable.
Later that year, Allen and I decided to hike Mount Santubong as an impromptu break from our programme and daily classes. Halfway to the summit, we found ourselves alone, and the jungle suddenly became eerily quiet.
Then we heard it.
Once. Twice. Then a few more times.
It was a strange, animalistic call that sent cold sweat down my back, raised goosebumps and gave me a sudden adrenaline boost.
“Mr Azizan, what is that sound?”
Adoh… Why did you point that out?
“It’s nothing, Allen. Let’s move on.”
To those unfamiliar with the reason for my sudden, butt-clenching fear, there is a local belief among Malays that when you encounter something unusual in the jungle — whether you see, hear, smell or otherwise experience it — you should keep quiet. Otherwise, things might go south very, very quickly.
Needless to say, I spent the rest of the hike keeping my eyes peeled and quietly reciting whatever Quranic verses came to mind to calm my distress and crippling sense of dread.
Long story short, we reached the summit and returned home safely.
I share this wonderful memory with Allen because, amusing as it may seem, it illustrates something important about cultural differences and how they influence the way we see and interpret the world around us.
Every one of us is shaped by our culture. Culture influences our values, priorities, beliefs and practices, which in turn affect how we communicate and interact with other people.
This matters greatly in today’s workplace. Being able to work effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds — whether colleagues, clients or customers — can give us a significant professional advantage.
One useful way of understanding these differences comes from the work of anthropologist Edward T. Hall, who popularised the concepts of high-context and low-context cultures.
High-context cultures place considerable importance on relationships, shared understanding and the circumstances surrounding a conversation. People tend to communicate less information explicitly because much of the meaning is assumed to be understood from the context.
In such cultures, subtlety, courtesy and even a degree of ambiguity can be important. In some business settings, for example, a verbal agreement supported by a strong personal relationship may carry considerable weight.
Low-context cultures, by contrast, rely more heavily on explicit and direct communication. People tend to say what they mean and expect important information to be clearly stated.
Written agreements therefore tend to carry greater importance, while indirect communication may sometimes be perceived as evasive or even manipulative.
Parts of Asia, the Middle East and Latin America are often described as having stronger high-context communication tendencies, while North American, German and Scandinavian societies are commonly associated with lower-context communication.
Of course, these are broad cultural tendencies, not rigid rules. No culture is completely high-context or low-context, and individuals within the same culture can communicate very differently.
Nevertheless, differences in communication styles can create friction, particularly in multinational organisations.
And then there is non-verbal communication.
Take eye contact, for example.
In some cultures, avoiding prolonged direct eye contact can signal respect, humility or deference. In others, maintaining eye contact is associated with confidence, honesty and trust.
Imagine, then, an employee who interprets a colleague’s avoidance of eye contact as disrespect when, from the colleague’s cultural perspective, it is actually an expression of respect.
Here is another example.
Many Westerners generally associate shaking the head from side to side with disagreement or disbelief. In India, however, the characteristic head tilt or “head wobble” can communicate attention, acknowledgement or agreement.
A simple gesture can therefore be interpreted in completely different ways, potentially creating an unfair and unwarranted negative impression of a colleague.
Remarkably, cultural differences in non-verbal communication can even be seen in something as modern and seemingly universal as emoticons.
For a smiling face, an American may use :-), while a Japanese person might use ^_^.
The difference is subtle but revealing. The Western version emphasises the mouth, while the Japanese version suggests a smile through the eyes.
Even silence can mean different things in different cultures.
One particularly tragic example occurred at Larnaca Airport in Cyprus in 1978. During a hostage crisis, Egyptian commandos arrived in Cyprus in an attempt to rescue hostages aboard a hijacked aircraft. The Egyptian force subsequently moved towards the aircraft without authorisation from the Cypriot authorities, who had warned that a military intervention would not be permitted. The confrontation escalated into a gun battle between the Egyptian commandos and Cypriot forces, resulting in deaths and injuries and the destruction of the Egyptian C-130 transport aircraft.
The incident is sometimes invoked in discussions about intercultural communication because it demonstrates the potentially serious consequences of misunderstanding signals, intentions and expectations. However, it would be misleading to reduce the Larnaca tragedy simply to a misunderstanding over “silence”. The historical record points to a much more complicated combination of political decisions, conflicting assumptions and an unauthorised military operation.
Still, the broader lesson remains relevant: communication is not always contained in words.
Oh, how I wish I had given Allen a little pep talk about the “cultural silence in the jungle rule” before we went up Santubong!
To communicate successfully across cultures, we first need to recognise that our own way of communicating is not necessarily the universal standard.
We should make an effort to understand the values, beliefs and practices of the cultures with which we regularly interact. More importantly, we should avoid assuming that knowing something about a culture means we understand every individual from that culture.
People are individuals before they are cultural representatives.
A successful intercultural communicator recognises differences within cultures as well as between them. Just as importantly, such a person understands that his or her own assumptions, values and communication habits have also been shaped by culture — and that those assumptions are not automatically correct.
In other words, cultural awareness should not teach us to stereotype. It should teach us to pause.
To observe.
To listen.
And, when necessary, to ask.
As for that strange sound on Mount Santubong, a park ranger later told us that it most likely came from a hornbill.
That “most likely” still does not completely reassure me to this day.
There remains a small, minuscule but lingering possibility that some Syaitan-Eldritch horror was stalking the two of us from the top of a tree that day.
But hey…
Hornbill it is!!!
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
