cultural diplomacy in international relations : …...competence because “culture” is not...

山形大学紀要（人文科学）第18巻第２号別刷

平成 27 年（2015）２月

Cultural Diplomacy in International Relations: understanding hidden bias in cultural knowledge

Stephen B. Ryan（Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences）


Stephen B. Ryan(Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences)

1.Introduction

　　　　To successfully manage international relations, diplomats representing the national

interests of their respective countries are assigned abroad to cultivate cross-cultural

relationships, establish dialogue, inform others and influence decision makers in both the host

and mother countries. The overall purpose of diplomacy is to bring social, economic and

security benefits to both countries. Several socio-cultural constraints interfere with these

noble goals. First, because diplomats must follow the lead of domestic policymakers at home

who are often unaware of cultural communication behavioral and decision-making tendencies,

communication is often problematic and complex. Like their political counterparts at home,

diplomats are also expected to be self-serving by putting their own countries values and

norms above those of the host country where they are expected to work. This behavior

further encourages communication behavior and decision-making to be strongly linked to the

diplomat’s native cultural norms and frequently at odds with those norms of the host country.

What makes this situation even more complex is the esoteric nature of diplomatic talk

combined with the unrecognized and psychological nature of our hidden national cultural

norms that affect communication. Finally, the short term nature of language and cultural

training and assignment abroad (e.g. two years for US diplomats) makes it difficult to build

trust with cultures that highly value long-term relationship building.

　　　　Language competency issues are arguably the easiest to investigate because they

are recognizable. One can know concretely if words and sentences are understood or not.

Acquiring cultural competence is not nearly as straightforward as addressing language

competence because “culture” is not apparent in our daily lives. In addition, we tend to notice

only the obvious differences from our own cultural norms and ignore the subtle, but equally

important, ones of the other. We may begin to address this problem by asking, “How does

our own culture affect the way we communicate and reach decisions?” In a mono-cultural

setting, the common bond of a single culture goes unnoticed and generally smoothes and


― 63 ―

facilitates the decision-making process. What are these unnoticed communicative behaviors

that smooth communication? Cultural values and norms, or what we regards as “right/

wrong” and “good/bad”, are very similar and, therefore, go unrecognized by those in

communication with each other. This is partly because speakers from the same culture,

although unique as individuals, have similar cultural values, draw off very similar set of

communicative background knowledge and, generally, know what to expect from their

communication partner. The context of communication also plays a significant role in shaping

how interlocutors will achieve their communicative goals. For example, diplomats from a low-

context culture (see section 3.2) are expected to have an immediate opinion and be able to

articulate this directly to their colleagues to show that they are being attentive and

participative. This contrasts with the high-context culture tendency to prefer communication

that is more ambiguous, utilizing silence and moving from general to more specific comments

as each member is probed for their true opinion before reaching a final consensus. When one

or both speakers interacting from unique cultural mindsets fail to recognize these subtle face-

to-face communication preferences, confusion and misunderstandings are more likely to occur.

Therefore, it is vital to bring cultural background knowledge to the forefront to improve

cross-cultural communication and decision-making.

　　　　The goal of this paper is to correlate intercultural communication research theory

with diplomacy in International Relations for the purpose of showing how hidden cultural

knowledge can affect interpretations and decision-making in cross-cultural contexts.

2.0 International Relations (IR)

　　　　International Relations (IR) can be generally defined as relationships among nation-

states. The interdisciplinary field covers a prodigious area, both practical and theoretical,

depending on one’s academic focus or practical experiences. IR covers not only national

governments but also intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs). The study of modern IR has a long history dating back to the 16th and

17th centuries (Jackson and Sørensen, 2013, p. 5). IR has three broad theories which attempt

to understand and explain the behavior of other nation-states, organizations or groups of

people within these large entities: realism, liberalism and constructivism. Realism is the classic

area of analysis that focuses on the nation-state and balance of power. More recently

liberalism and constructivism have emerged to explain and analyze events in international

山形大学紀要（人文科学）第18巻第２号

― 64 ―

societies. The difference between the two lies in the approach that, “where constructivist

theorists focus on social structures both within and outside the states and the impact that

these have on states’ behaviors, liberal theorists make other assumptions about what drives a

state’s behavior that are more normative (or what should be) in approach” (Kaufman, 2013, p.

11). Addressing the assumptions that drive or motivate behavior are strongly connected with

the cultural group one belongs. This point is where the fields Intercultural Communication

and Cross-Cultural Psychology overlap with diplomacy and can help make communication

behavior clearer and more predictable. In the post-positivist school of thought in international

relations, the focus is on expanding the epistemological and methodological perspectives of

the field (Roach, Griffiths and O’Callaghan 2014, p. xii). That is, scholars are trying to

understand “how we come to understand the world and the latter involves practice” (Ibid, p.

xii). Methodologicial approaches to understanding other cultures are practical in nature and

attempt to understand and explain the shared norms and values between nation-states with

the broad idea that this encourages interdependency which will foster economic benefits and

security. However, problems arise when two nation-states have unique norms and values that

neither side recognizes as a cultural constructs but rather as political ones. For example, the

way some cultures regard democracy and capitalism is often different from the way it is

understood in American culture (see section 5.2). This epistemological knowledge is difficult to

bring to the surface so we tend to focus on interpreting the surface features of culture rather

than considering deeper unconscious cultural values that explain why the world is perceived

as it is or as a cultural mindset. The purpose here is not to choose between theoretical

approaches but to recognize the diversity and subfields within IR and how parts of

Intercultural Communication theory and cross-cultural psychology theory can be applied

within the field of diplomacy. It seems clear that the liberalism’s “what should be” approach is

driven by hidden cultural values and operates on a unconscious level affecting decision-

making and behavior.

3.0 Intercultural Communication

　　　　In contrast to the well established field of IR, Intercultural Communication (IC) is a

relatively new field of study and is also split between the school of theory and practice. IC is

mainly concerned with how and why communication differences occur across cultures within

a nation-state. Thus, IR’s emphasis on what should be in nation-state behavior overlaps with


― 65 ―

IC’s focus on understanding and predicting communication of a particular national cultural.

The field of IC focuses on how language underpinned by cultural norms, values and

expectations affect the communication process between participants living in distinct nation-

states. Diplomacy and cross-cultural studies focus on culture at the nation-state level because

it is more practical and useful. Those involved in diplomacy must directly deal with the

differences in societal norms and values of the host cultures that affect their personal

relationships with their counterparts in a very practical way. In this respect, both IR and IC

are essentially concerned with the same outcome: making oneself understood and

understanding someone else from a different country and national culture. Analyzing culture

from a larger national perspective is problematic however because, if effort is not taken,

harmful stereotyping can be reinforced. In the next section, culture is defined and a way of

regarding national culture is discussed by using IC theory as theoretical guideposts to begin

analyzing differences.

3.1 Culture

　　　　It is important to first define what is meant my the term culture as well as clarify

what is meant by a cultural identity because these terms often lead to some confusion over

how we regard culture. In this paper, culture is defined as, “a learned meaning system that

consists of patterns of traditions, beliefs, values, norms, meanings, and symbols that are

passed down from one generation to the next and are shared by varying degrees by

interacting members of a community” (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2012, p. 16). Norms tell us

what is correct behavior and can be defined as a “standard of behavior that exist within a

group or category of people” (Hofstede et al 2010, p. 29). Values tell us what is right or wrong

and are based on what we have learned from interacting with members of our community.

Schema can be defined as being, “...generalized collections of knowledge of past experiences

which are organized into related knowledge groups and are used to guide our behaviors in

familiar situations ” (Nishida, 1999, p. 754). “Schema(ta)” and “background knowledge” are

used interchangeably to imply unrecognized culture-specific groups of knowledge that the

speaker uses to interpret a text or utterance.

　　　　The criticism often heard (Holliday et. al. 2010) concerning analyzing culture from a

“large C” or, nation-state approach, is that it only helps to perpetuate stereotyping because

humans are capable of emergent behavior within a given cultural context in small groups. We


― 66 ―

are certainly capable of adapting and getting by in almost any context. However,

stereotyping a group by saying that someone from Country A is shy is different than using

well established IC theory to say people from Country A have the tendency to exhibit a high

uncertainty avoidance, high context, collectivistic, long-term oriented and high power distance

behavior (terms defined in section 3.2). Intercultural Communication theories have been well

developed over the past several decades and offer a powerful starting point to begin analyzing

cultural tendencies and a powerful tool for predicting communication behavior and decision-

making for diplomats assigned abroad.

3.2 IC Guideposts

　　　　Intercultural Communication theory gives us a large number of useful frameworks

with with to begin understanding and analyzing cultural differences at the nation-state level.

A comprehensive review is beyond the scope of this paper but a few are particularly

applicable to those involved in cross-cultural diplomacy.

　　　　Over the past four decades, Hofstede (2004, 2010) has built a a powerful framework

in which to start analyzing national cultural differences by giving six dimensions that contrast

national culture: individualism, large/small power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity,

long-term orientation, indulgence versus restraint. Large power distance cultures, for

instance, are characterized by “status-based credibility, experience, kind autocratic decision-

making, top down role relations, rewards and punishments based on age, rank or status”(Ting-

Toomey and Oetzel 2001, p. 31). In contrast, small power distance cultures tend to value

individual credibility, accountability, democratic decision-making style, equal relations and

equality in rewards and punishments. Uncertainty Avoidance refers to “the extent to which

members of a culture do not mind conflicts or uncertain situations and the extent to which

they try to avoid those uncertain situations” (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2005, p. 65).

　　　　Hall (1976) offers another way to begin analyzing cultures at the nation-state level:

High and Low context cultures. High Context (HC) communication cultures (e.g. Japan, China)

and Low Context communication cultures (e.g. US, Germany) approach decision-making

differently. HC is characterized by nonverbal communication, meanings that are shared

implicitly by speaker/listener which are highly dependent on the context. A high context

system is one in which information and interaction is constantly shared by all members of the

group thus building up and maintaining a high level of context. The emphasis is not so much


― 67 ―

on the direct meaning of each utterance but how and by whom it is uttered because there is

meaning associated with the context in which it is spoken. A low context culture values

explicit communication between speaker/listener; the context is less important that what was

actually said. Low context cultures place more value on the individual’s content of the

message in order to “better predict listener’s behavior in direct communication” (Gudykunst

& Nishida 1993, p. 151). High context cultures typically value their relationship to the group

more than low context cultures. Diplomats with these two unique cultural orientations may

easily have difficulty in disseminating their intended message to each other if they are

unaware of these tendencies.

　　　　The theory of cultural time orientation are also useful when trying to uncover deep

cultural values that speakers are mostly unaware. Certain cultures value the past, present

and future in different ways. Monochronic time oriented cultures (Hall 1983) as opposed to

polychronic (e.g. Japan), tend to view the progression of time and task as linear and logical.

Sticking to a schedule and accomplishing a task on order is socially responsible for the

monochronic time oriented cultures. Polychronic time oriented cultures tend to view time

and tasks done in a relational more emotive way. For polychromic time cultures, personal

interaction is based more on a case-by-case basis determined by the context whereas

monochromic cultures tend to adhere more strictly to set of universal rules applied more or

less equally.

　　　　Like much of intercultural communication, time orientation theory overlaps with the

theory of universalism-particularism. Universalists prefer a common standard of equality for

everyone regardless of relationship or social statues whereas particularists prefer to take a

case-by-case approach to every situation. Particularists tend to first regard who is in their

group before applying the rules to a given context. For example, if you were a passenger in

a friend’s car and he accidentally hit a pedestrian while speeding, would you tell the police

the truth if they asked you and there were no other witnesses? 93% of universalist Americans

said yes they would while only 47% of Chinese, 54% of Indians and 68% of Japanese said they

would not (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 35). Differences in how we regard the

standard in equal treatment of others is critical to interpersonal relationships in public

diplomacy and can result in lack of trust between both parties. In sum, “the universalist says

of the particularist, ‘You can’t trust them, they always help their friends,’ while the

particularist says of the universalist, ‘You can’t trust them, they don’t even help their friends’”

(McFarlane and Robinson, 2012, p. 52).


― 68 ―

3.3 Levels of culture

　　　　Humans are extremely adaptable to new situations and able to adjust for cultural

differences but more so if they are recognized or brought to a conscious level. Herein lies the

problem for cross-cultural communication and diplomacy. The vast bulk of our communication

process is at an unconscious level and based on what can be called deep culture. It is much

too difficult and time consuming in real time communication to exam cultural values and

norms that affect communication. Nor is it possible to process all the plethora of stimuli we

encounter every second of every day. As a result, we are required to simplify and stereotype

using our cultural schema to help us quickly make decisions and judgments of events at a

superficial level.

Figure 1 - Diplomacy iceberg

Invisible

Murky

Visible

Institutions, rules, laws, organizations: visible

Immigration issues, Educational policies, Economic data etc.

Security Issues, Government policies, Treaties, Agreements, Contracts, etc.

Traditions, Historical events, Public opinion

IR Theory, Social norms, Customs, Religious beliefs etc.

Beliefs InterpretationsValues ExpectationsKnowledge Common Understandings

Invisible

Murky

Visible

Institutions, rules, laws, organizations: visible

Immigration issues, Educational policies, Economic data etc.

Security Issues, Government policies, Treaties, Agreements, Contracts, etc.

Traditions, Historical events, Public opinion

IR Theory, Social norms, Customs, Religious beliefs etc.

Beliefs InterpretationsValues ExpectationsKnowledge Common Understandings

　　　　Robert Kohls introduced the iceberg theory (Macfarlane and Robinson, 2004, p. 42)

as a way of metaphorically illustrating how culture exists in our communication domain. The

tip of the iceberg floating on the surface is where communication norms and decisions

manifest themselves into easily recognizable patterns and speech acts. Underneath the

surface, however, the cultural iceberg becomes much larger and is murky or impossible to

see illustrating how culture unconsciously underpins our communication and decision-making

and becomes more of a psychological construct drawing off our past experiences and learned


― 69 ―

cultural norms. For instance, a diplomat drawing from the invisible deep cultural norms of

low power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Germany) will expect and perceive

communication in different ways than a diplomat from a high power distance, weak

uncertainty avoidance (e.g. India) schema. Hofstede (2004, 2010) has done considerable

research in describing and contrasting the dimensions of national culture.

　It may also useful to think of culture as a tree metaphor to help explain the interaction

between deep culture, or cultural schema, and the observable surface actions of our

communicative behavior. The roots of a tree are similar to cultural schema by continually

providing nourishment or direction to our outward decision-making and communication

behavior through years of growth in a particular environment. The movement and color of

the leaves offer observable behavior that give instant feedback to interlocutors so that they

can communicate more effectively and dynamically adjust to changing contexts. What

happens on the surface will affect the root system, and vice versa, but it will take time and

will likely never completely change the plant into a different kind of tree. The crux of good

cross-cultural communication is developing an awareness of the invisible deep culture that

drives behavior and ultimate decision-making.

　　　　Showing a way to highlight this deep cultural knowledge is where cross-cultural

psychology can also play an important role in cross-cultural communication. Psychologists call

the unconscious act of substituting a simpler question to answer a more complex one intuitive

heuristics. This is done quite frequently and without our awareness in both mono and cross-

cultural contexts. The crux of intuitive heuristics is that when we are faced with answering

a difficult question, we usually answer an easier one instead, without noticing the substitution

(Kahneman, 2011, p.12). This psychological phenomenon may have significant implications in a

diplomatic cross-cultural contexts. It is a subtle form of over-simplification or stereotyping to

aid us in filter through the plethora of stimuli we are faced with in daily life. Cross-cultural

psychology can give us a better understanding of how we make decisions, and what cultural

norms are underpinning them to help us understand what we do not know and, at best, make

achieving specific foreign policy goals easier. In sum, it is important to highlight hidden

cultural assumptions and biases within the diplomatic workplace because the lack of

awareness of our own and the host’s cultural values can lead to misperception, erosion of

trust and inconsistencies in international relations particularly in statecraft.


― 70 ―

　　　　3.3.1 Culture and cultural group identities

　　　　Another problematic area of cross-cultural research is how we regard group

identity. Specifically, cultural identity is often confused with group identity (Hofstede, 2010,

p.23). Two groups sharing the same basic national cultural identities may be at odds with

each other because of their group identities. For instance, the democrat and republican party

members in the US Congress share a common cultural identity but have a different group

identity (which often leads to disagreement and decision-making gridlock). Conversely,

individuals with very different national cultural identities may form a cohesive group identity

such as in a research institute of a university. Thus, what group or sub-culture one belongs to

does not necessarily imply smooth communication. Conversely, having a different cultural

identity, does not always mean one will have difficulty in cross-cultural communication.

　　　　Diplomats themselves may have common communication norms with other national

cultures but not others within their own culture, such as not directly answering questions

posed about a controversial government policy. Cultural values, on the other hand, are the

stability to culture that tells us what is right or wrong provide an unspoken context for

communication to function efficiently. Values get passed down from our parents, schools and

other groups to which we belong and are slowly, if ever, changed in our lifetime. Group

members belong to one of these cultural groups will often share a similar pattern of

perception and interpretation of events. For example, in the US, someone who has a firm

handshake and good eye contact is generally perceived as “confident” and “trustworthy” in

American culture. This sharing of norms, values and perceptions makes communication

smoother and simpler – and unconscious or unrecognized. Thus, a major supposition of

intercultural theory is that people raised in Culture A can communicate more easily with

people in Culture A than in Culture B. Humans are certainly capable of adapting to “get by”

in a foreign culture. But, what about when we carry our own cultural values into a cross-

cultural context? Will we adjust to compensate for the new culture or carry on using our

own background cultural knowledge? One study (Fisman and Miguel 2006) compared UN

diplomats from countries whose governments were rated as being more corrupt than others.

It was found that UN diplomats from countries who are known for having more corrupt

governments (using the Transparency International Corruption Index) are the ones who

habitually tend to break the traffic and parking laws in New York. Diplomats from countries

not regarded as corrupt tended to follow the law even though their diplomatic status


― 71 ―

protected them from prosecution. This type of evidence indicates that people transfer their

native cultural values and norms to their host culture despite the ability to get by without

much effort. In other words, although we may be able to get by for a short period of time in

a foreign culture, we cannot quickly or easily shed a lifetime of acquired learned values and

norms despite the context anymore than we can “unacquire” our native language. The point

being made is that those in consequential job posts interacting with people from diverse

cultural identities are more likely to encounter cultural based friction in communication and

also be unaware of why this is so unless they actively attempt to highlight cultural schema.

3.3.2 National Culture and Public Diplomacy

　　　　For Intercultural Communication, culture is looked at from a national culture

perspective. However, discussion of culture as at the national level can be problematic if it is

overly simplistic and judgmental. The aim with this approach is to search for commonalities

and tendencies rather than fixed or inflexible viewpoints. Finding cultural tendencies provides

a starting point, or guide stick, to begin understanding and predicting communication with

someone who has a completely different background. The alternative is to make assumptions

about how people should behave and assuming we are all basically the same. Thus, the two

fields, IR and IC, are closely linked but also faced with similar problematic issues.

　　　　Within IR, public diplomacy focuses on how a country, via its representing

organizations, communicates with the citizens in other countries. The national culture of

these individuals or what has been called “the software of the mind” (Hofstede, 2010, p.5), as

well as the organizations they form, influence how they view decision-making in public

diplomacy. Particularly in diplomacy, it is important to recognize differences at the national

level because this is where policy is made and intended to influence. Within the nation-state

exists culture and society (Kaufman, 2013, p. 129). Commonalities of a national culture are

drawn from a “... dominant national language, common mass media, a national education

system, a national army, a national political system, national representation in sports events

with a strong symbolic and emotional appeal, a national market for certain skills, products

and services” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 20).


― 72 ―

4.0 Hidden biases of national culture

　　　　A nation-state’s national values can strongly affect how they view cross-cultural

interaction within public diplomacy (PD). For instance, large power distance cultures that

value social hierarchy - a respect for authority - tend to have a mindset that government is

for the elite and not for the average person’s involvement. This contrasts with some small

power democratic cultures that believe the purpose of government is to serve its people.

Many high context cultures, such as China, value past events and history which continually

have influence on decision-making. This contrasts with low context cultures that tend to focus

on the present and future while minimizing the past.

　　　　The hidden bias of individualism and independence is a prevailing theme in cross-

cultural communication between American and others of different cultural backgrounds. “U.S.

Americans are particularly resistant to recognizing their national culture. Despite the fact

that nearly everyone else in the world immediately recognizes them as Americans, many of

them still insist on labeling themselves as “just individuals” or “a mixture of cultures.” Of

course, the very commonality of this tendency is an example of U.S. American national

culture; no other people in the world but U.S. Americans are so quick to disavow their

cultural affiliation” (Bennett, 1998, pp. 4-5). Americans have a tendency to believe that we are

all distinct individuals with distinct personalities and the only thing we have in common is the

universal values of human nature. The idea of culture as being specific to groups is often

downplayed or minimized for two reasons. First, it emphasizes the group and not the

individual which is not a highly valued cultural norm. Individuality and independence are core

values for American communication (see Ryan, 2007). Second, it is difficult to account for

group culture when you have nothing to compare it with such as living in a foreign country.

　　　　Developing an awareness of our own cultural norms and values is an important

starting point to successful cross-cultural communication. Low context, low uncertainty

avoidance culture diplomats usually focus on the end product or result as opposed to the

longer term process of relationship building of higher context oriented cultures to achieve

gains in economic or security issues. In addition, when a government is not responsive to the

will of its own people, but rather to a single party or dictator, the PD of large power, high

context cultures will often become sharply at odds with the PD of small power, low context

countries. This may have significant long term effects. For instance, if one nation-state values

a centralized government, this cultural value may lead to a less democratic or liberalized


― 73 ―

society than one that values it more. By utilizing the cultural guideposts of Intercultural

Communication theory, the diplomat is better prepared to understand the hidden biases of

deeper cultural norms and values that affect decision making or communication behavior.

4.1 Cultural norms and diplomacy

　　　　Inconsistency, many would call hypocrisy (Thakur, 2014, U.S. Foreign Policy Marked

by Blatant Hypocrisy), in US foreign policy can be linked to the inability of Americans policy

makers to understand how they are viewed from the outside. This may be partially due to

the fact that few have had little experience living outside the US for a significant period of

time. In order to be internationally minded, we need to be able to see ourselves as others

from different countries do. In addition, diplomat expats who do have experience living

abroad and good understanding of their own culture are only assigned to short term stints in

their host countries. This makes it difficult to develop a deep understanding of how the

culturally constructed social norms and behavior (e.g. uncertainty avoidance preferences) of

the host country influence decisions. Democratically elected leaders often change their

political focus with every new administration which also contributes to many real and

perceived inconsistencies in US foreign policy from the outside. For example, the George W.

Bush doctrine in international relations focused on the power politics of realism is compared

with the Obama policy of liberalism or pluralism. This sudden change in political emphasis

contributes to the perception of inconsistency and untrustworthiness to those on the outside

who are unfamiliar with how the U.S. government works. Totalitarian nation-states such as

China or Iran are better able to put out a consistent foreign policy due to the lack of constant

change in leadership brought on by democratically held elections. So the challenge for the US,

and other liberal democracies, is to have an overall strategy of statecraft that transcends

political differences but maintains the core values of good governance, liberalism, and

accountability towards its people while also discouraging corruption and pandering for a short

term political gain in its electorate. This last part seems to be particularly difficult for the US

due to American socio-cultural factors.

　　　　Social norms, which determine what we regard as well formed policy or hypocrisy

by others, are a cultural construct. What is hypocrisy to one country may very well be

normal and acceptable in another. To find the American cultural norm that underpins foreign

policy you only need to look at the subheading of the U.S. Department of State’s homepage -


― 74 ―

“Diplomacy in Action.” This sends a positive message to “doing” to the monochronic time

orientation, low context culture of Americans. However, it may very well send a mixed

message to other nations that do not share this same “doing” value system. American culture

is a doing culture, as opposed to a “being” culture in many high context oriented countries

This means that Americans value doing something as opposed to simply doing nothing (or

risk their electorate wrath). The outlook towards diplomacy and policy making necessitates a

short term, future oriented approach to problem solving, which can be pragmatic and result

oriented. However, there is little time for relationship building that being cultures depend on

to build the trust they feel comfortable with to make decisions.

　　　　Because public diplomacy is a profession that focuses on understanding, informing

and influencing foreign policy makers both at home and in the host country, the diplomat

assigned abroad is asked to interpret a plethora of culture based messages, both verbal and

non-verbal, that are fundamentally different from their own.

　　　　Diplomats may have limited cultural knowledge and language training of the host

country before beginning their jobs of dealing with sensitive cross-cultural issues. An

American diplomat typically receives seven months to a year of language training before

being deployed to the host country to promote American policy. Furthermore, once diplomats

are deployed abroad, they are only allowed to stay for a short time. US diplomats, for

instance, typically serve two years before being transferred out to another assignment where

the language training begins all over again. This policy reflects not only security concerns but

also American culture values of short term orientation by focusing on future tasks and results

while minimizing past history. Below is a how US diplomat describes the future orientation of

American policy.

　 “We were very focused on what was going to happen next, on future developments, and

often did not look back to learn highly relevant lessons even from the very recent past.

This attitude is reflected in other policies as well. The US Foreign Service rotates its

officers typically every two or three years. For security and space reasons, we retire almost

all of our official files on a two-year cycle. Virtually all classified files and a lot of the rest

are then either destroyed or shipped back for storage in Washington. At this point, they

are not likely to be referred to again since people at the post don’t know what’s in them

and have no idea what to ask for. ” (McFarlane and Robinson, 2012, p. 47).


― 75 ―

This short-term, task oriented approach approach sharply contrasts with high context

cultures whose culture that highly value long term relationship building and maintenance and

past events. Indeed, establishing successful relationships with a high context cultural (see

Gercik, 1992) will take a minimum of two years and in most cases much longer.

5.0 Highlighting Cultural Schema

　　　　One research method to highlight hidden bias of deep culture is by a method known

as Associative Group Analysis (AGA). AGA methodology has been employed to collect the

data presented in this paper. Szalay and Deese’s (1978), original AGA methodology sought to

permit a systematic way to compare cross-national beliefs by clarifying how two distinct

groups integrate their perception and understanding of the world around them. More

recently, Linowes et. al. (2000) have taken up this research and adapted it in an innovative

way to better show visually these differences and their salience. Linowes et. al. describe

AGA as “an unstructured method of research used to reconstruct people’s subjective images

from the spontaneous distributions of their free associations.

　　　　The method relies on the analysis of free associations to reconstruct the internal

world and subjective meanings of people, arenas inaccessible by more direct methods. The

basic unit of analysis is the stimulus word, or theme word, which evokes these associations

and hence serves as a key unit in the perceptual representational system” (Linowes et. al.,

2000, pp.75-76). This method produces visually appealing charts that can show participants

culture based schema so that it can be brought to the surface, discussed and analyzed. 　

　　　　The specific goal of the research is to visually show the deep layers of spontaneously

held beliefs of the group before and after their trip to investigate any differences in their

perceptional representational system caused by direct experience with the target language

and culture. The weighting of was done empirically via differential stability of rank place

using the test-retest method (Kelly 1985). This technique was modeled after Linowes’ et. al.

2000 study. Starting at the top of each participant’s word list, each word was ranked 6, 5, 4, 3,

3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1… . For a word to be included in the weighting, it had to be generated on two or

more participants’ word lists. Thus, a theme, such as “democracy” in this paper, generated

two response lists – one Japanese and the other American.


― 76 ―

5.1 Theme word “democracy”

　　　　In this section, we look at the theme word “democracy” to analyze background

knowledge that can lead to misperceptions and misunderstandings between members of two

distinct cultures. Data from Japanese and American respondents was analyzed.

　　　　5.1.1 Questionnaire

　　　　The data shown here is from an exploratory cross-cultural questionnaire that was

distributed to both Japanese in Japan and American participants at a large public American

university. The Japanese data was collected from students at the author’s institution. 39

(N=39) American questionnaires were collected while 62 were collected from the Japanese

(N=62). Originally 50 American questionnaires were collected but 11 were disregarded as the

respondents indicated that (American) English was not their native language. All the

Japanese respondents were native Japanese speakers. American participants’ average age

was 19.5 and the Japanese averaged 22.6 years old. There were more male respondents for

the Japanese respondents (M=48, F=14) than the Americans (M=15, F=24).

　　　　5.1.2 Response list

　　　　Both questionnaires with the single theme word “democracy” in Japanese generated

a long list of responses which were translated by a native Japanese speaker into English with

the author’s help when necessary. Each participant’s list of responses is then weighted

according to the readiness that the word came to mind (rank-order). Thus, the total response

list for each group yields a “mental map” that measure the “dominant mindset” (Linowes et.

al., 2000, p. 71) of Japanese and Americans for the particular concept being tested. In addition,

the salience of each theme is measured.

　　 “The salience of a theme is the total response score generated by all associations to that

theme by all respondents. It is a measure of “meaningfulness,” in the sense that it reflects

the total magnitude of associations linked to the theme in respondents’ minds and so

serves as a measure of what is foremost in peoples’ minds” (Linowes et. al., 2000, p. 78).


― 77 ―

Once the response list of raw data is totaled into a numerical ranking similar concept words

are then aggregated into a single concept words (see Appendix 1). Figure 2 shows only the

content category scores from Figure 2 for easier readability and interpretation while Figure 4

gives a graphical representation of the same data.

Figure 2

Content category comparison for stimulus word “democracy”

5.2 Analysis

　　　　This data shows the mental representation for the theme word “democracy” for two

national groups - Japan and the U.S. After balancing the number of participants who

responded, we can see that the salience of the theme word “democracy” is higher for

Americans (258) than the Japanese (224) indicating the theme word has a higher degree of

“meaningfulness” to the American participants. Once individual responses were aggregated

into categories (see appendix A), we can see that there are significant differences cultural

schema. Americans predictably associated their own country, freedom, voting, equality and


― 78 ―

their own government with democracy. Japanese respondents, on the other hand, had a

completely different schema for the stimulus word of democracy. Most notably, Japanese

participants did not associate their government with the stimulus word but rather the

sovereignty of people and nation. In addition, Japanese participants linked “socialism” and

“majority” with democracy, which failed to show up at all in the American schema. Japanese

participants also associated “public” “peace” and “difficult” with democracy whereas

Americans did not. We can see that Japanese and Americans, both considered to be

democratic countries, consider the term quite differently. This disparate mental

representation will inevitably cause unique interpretations to issues related to democracy and

the roles of government in society.

Figures 3 and 4

Graphical Representation of Content Categories

The (cultural) group oriented viewpoint of a high context nation-states, such as Japan, tend to

view the concept in a more interdependent, collectivistic way. For instance, “sovereignty of

people”, “nation of people”, “socialism” and “majority” are group oriented interpretations that

fits well with traditional Japanese culture and clearly influences their world viewpoint.

Although these differing interpretations to such a basic concept could have significant

ramifications in cross-cultural and diplomatic security or economic negotiations, they need to

be linked to practical communication contexts to better understand the hidden biases of

culture.


― 79 ―

5.3 Limitations

　　　　Highlighting culture-based schema is an epistemelogical approach because it allows

us to examine background knowledge that we could not previously “see” and starts us on the

road of understanding how others think. However, it is limited mental snapshot to what

participants spontaneously associate at a particular moment and does not represent the entire

breadth of complex cultural background knowledge, nor account for differences in

generational or gender or other socio-economic factors within a culture. Associate Group

Analysis is perhaps better used to start us on the road to discovery and understanding of

hidden bias and culture based differences that have the most potential to affect diplomatic

interactions and foreign policy in international relations.

6.0 Discussion

　　　　Highlighting hidden background knowledge in the world of international diplomacy

can help us understand our own biases at a national culture level as well as the contrasting

culture in cross-cultural communication. Identifying differences in cultural schema at the

national level can provide a first step and allow us to ask questions of ourselves and others

cultural groups that we previously would not have considered. The theme word “democracy”

showed some differences in how two national groups can interpret a concept that each

assumes the other shares. Upon looking deeper, however, evidence was found that both

cultures had a unique understanding of what the concept means. Cultural research focusing

on background knowledge in specific diplomatic contexts may help the diplomat to make

more informed judgments on why communication is problematic due to differences in

common background knowledge. In a broader sense, highlighting consequential theme words

in diplomacy may give the diplomat an increased ability to predict how their decisions may

affect international relations with counterparts in their host country.


― 80 ―

References

Bennett, M. J. (ed.) (1998). Basic Concepts in Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth:

Intercultural Press.

Fisman R. & Miguel, E. June (2006). Cultures of Corruption: Evidence from Diplomatic

Parking Tickets. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper No. 12312.

Gercik, P. (1992). On Track with the Japanese. A case by case approach to building successful

relationships. New York: Kodansha International.

Gudykunst, W.B. and Nishida, T. (1993). Interpersonal and Intergroup Communication in Japan

and The United States, pp. 149-188. In Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed) . Communication in Japan

and the United States, State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y.

Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Holliday, A., Hyde, M. and Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural Communication. An advanced

resource book for students. New York: Routledge.

Hofstede, G. (2004). Diplomats as Cultural Bridge Builders. In Slavik, H. (Ed.), Intercultural

Communication and Diplomacy, pp. 25-38. Malta: Diplofoundation.

Hofstede, G., Gofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations. Software of

the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G. (2013). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and

Approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, J. (2013). Introduction to International Relations: Theory and Practice. Lanham,

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Pubblishers.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York.


― 81 ―

Kelly, R.M. (1985) The Associative Group Analysis Method and Evaluation Research.

Evaluation Review Vol. 9, No. 1, 35-50.

Linowes, R.G., Mroczkowski, T., Uchida, K. & Komatsu, A. (2000). Using Mental Maps to

Highlight Cultural Differences: visual portraits of American and Japanese Patterns of

Thinking. Journal of International Management. Vol. 6, pp. 71-100.

McFarlane, L.R. and Robinson, H. (2004). A Diplomat and an Interculturalist Converse. In

Slavik, H. (Ed.), Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy. (pp. 39-56). Malta:

Diplofoundation.

Nishida, H. (1999). A Cognitive Approach to Intercultural Communication Based on Schema

Theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp. 753-777.

Roach, S.C., Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T. (2013). International Relations: The Key Concepts.

New York: Routledge.

Ryan, S.B. (2007). The Affect of Cultural Background Knowledge on C o m m u n i c a t i o n

Between Japanese and Americans in a Business Context. Bulletin of Yamagata

University (Humanities). Vol. 16, No. 2. pp.77-97.

Szalay, L.B. & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through

Word Associations. Lawrence Erlbaum/Wiley, Hillsdale, NJ.

Thakur, R. (2014, June 11). US Foreign Policy Marked by Blatant Hypocrisy. The Japan Times

Webpage . Retr ieved June 12 , 2014 f rom http ://www. japant imes .co . jp/

opinion/2014/06/11/commentary/u-s-foreign-policy-marked-blatant-hypocrisy/#.

U5kAgha1Kf0

Ting-Toomey, S. & Chung, L.C. (2012). Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los

Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.

Ting-Toomey, S. & Chung, L.C. (2005). Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los


― 82 ―

Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.

Ting-Toomey, S. and Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively. Thousand

Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding The Waves of Culture.

Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business. (Second Edition). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Appendix A

Components of perception and evaluation of the stimulus word “Democracy” (民主主義)

Content Category American Japanese*

Underlying responses score score

America

A :　America/USA (60) 47 18 (11)*

J :　America (18)

Freedom 60 23 (14)*

A :　freedom (60)

J :　freedom (23)

Equality 18 9 (6)*

A :　equal rights (18)

J :　equality (9)

Fairness 20 0


― 83 ―

A : fair(ness) (20)

J :

Japan 0 56 (35)*

A :

J : Japan (56)

Socialism 0 41 (26)*

A :

J : socialsm (24), majority decision (17)

Choice 42 0

A : voting (21), choice (21)

J :

Sovereignty of people 0 24 (15)*

A :

J : sovereignty of people (24)

People 10 0

A : people (10)

J :

Peace 0 16 (10)*

A :

J : peace (16)

Symbol 11 15 (9)*

A : US flag (11)

J : Taisho era (15)

Difficult 0 12 (8)

A :


― 84 ―

J : hard/difficult (12)

Nation of people 0 54 (34)*

A :

J : nation of people (24), public (17), nation (13)

Government 38 0

A : government (30), congress (8)

J :

Democracy 0 87 (55)*

A :

J : democracy (87)

Total: 337 355 (224)*

*Japanese N=62 (total category score *.63) to balance with American respondents

American N=39


― 85 ―


Stephen B. Ryan(Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences)

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to correlate intercultural communication research theory with

diplomacy in International Relations for the purpose of showing how hidden cultural

knowledge can affect interpretations and decision-making. First, in order to frame the

discussion, we discuss and define several key terms of international relations, diplomacy,

culture and intercultural communication to show the overlapping areas of interest. Second, a

rationale and justification is offered on why recognizing the affect of hidden cultural

knowledge is vital to the decision-making process within the area of International Relations,

particularly diplomacy. Third, data from the author’s cross-cultural research is given

illustrating how highlighting the hidden background bias of basic concepts relating to public

diplomacy can lead to a better understanding of deep cultural values can influence

communication for both native and non-native English speakers.

Keywords: International Relations, Public Diplomacy, Cultural Awareness, US foreign policy


― 86 ―

cultural diplomacy in international relations : …...competence because “culture” is not...

Documents