Principle 3: Presume that the images and words you use are universally understood, and accepted.
If the person to whom I am speaking does not understand me, then it's my fault. It's my responsibility, as the transmitter to communicate the message in a way that is acceptable to the ears (and hopefully the brain) of the receiver. (It's the same theory as digital radio!) This doesn't mean I change the message: it doesn't require a dumbing down, nor does it result in a patronising tone that 'talks down'.
Communication of any sort requires a sensitivity to, and engagement with, the language, beliefs, values, ideas and priorities (the culture) of the receiver. But communicating cross-culturally requires all this plus imagination and effort - it demands a seeking after dynamic equivalents. That is, identifying images or forms that will carry the meaning of the message in a way that is both acceptable to, understandable by, and representative of the other culture - without destroying the original intention of the message, (which was also presented within a specific culture and context).
It is sheer arrogance and selfishness to demand that a receiver put aside their individuality (all that makes them unique) so that they can understand my message and before they can be acceptable to my community.
The burden of relevance is mine as the transmitter: I must take the time to understand the receiver as an individual, a person worth knowing; I must make the effort to be creative and imaginative: then I can know that I have communicated with integrity and with passion. Then I can know that I have delivered the message - the response is not mine to control!
Monday 24 August 2009
Thursday 13 August 2009
Inaugral World Humanitarian Day - August 19, 2009
Established by the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations in December 2008, 19 August 2009 is the first World Humanitarian Day. The designation of the Day is a way to increase public understanding of humanitarian assistance activities worldwide. The Day also aims to honour humanitarian workers who have lost their lives or been injured in the course of their work. The General Assembly invites all countries, the entities of the UN system and international and non-governmental organizations to observe the day annually in an appropriate manner.Why 19 August? Six years ago, on 19 August 2003, the United Nations Office in Iraq was bombed and 22 people lost their lives. Among them was Sergio Vieira de Mello, at that time the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to Iraq. While there have been many other fatal incidents involving humanitarian personnel the General Assembly decided to use the anniversary of this incident as World Humanitarian Day.
What is planned? - For 2009 the Day will have three areas of focus:
- To draw attention to humanitarian needs worldwide;
- To acknowledge the ongoing work of humanitarian staff around the globe;
- To honour those who have lost their lives in humanitarian service.
Wednesday 12 August 2009
Principles of Cross-Cultural Communication (#2)
Principle 2: If you don't understand a persons actions or behaviour - ridicule them: their religion, their culture, their language.
Australians are amongst the best at making jokes out of everything. When we are sad, mad, confused, frustrated or just plain apathetic we turn an event into a joke, and often a bad one! When Steve Irwin died jokes about stingrays where heard within hours, and during the bush fires of Black Saturday people told jokes about fires, firefighters and black stumps.
When we hurt, when we are unsure, when we don't understand we ridicule: and most Australians understand - it's who we are, it's part of our culture.
But that's not the way all cultures work. In fact in many cultures that are represented in our society 'saving face' is valued above all. The idea of being ridiculed, or ridiculing another in public is not only embarrassing, but offensive. And therein lies a problem for the person who is trying to communicate an important and life transforming message.
Too often rather than make the effort to understand what makes the Other tick, (what they value, what they believe, how they communicate) we expect them to act and behave as we do - we expect them not only to speak our language, but absorb our values and communicate our way. We assume they should just know and accept the rules of our culture as if by some kind of cultural osmosis. And when they don't, and we are unsure of where to go, we either ridicule them, their insecurity and their uncertainty, or we walk away.
Taking the time to understand culture - what makes another tick - must be the first step in effective cross-cultural communication, after that is when the real fun begins.
Australians are amongst the best at making jokes out of everything. When we are sad, mad, confused, frustrated or just plain apathetic we turn an event into a joke, and often a bad one! When Steve Irwin died jokes about stingrays where heard within hours, and during the bush fires of Black Saturday people told jokes about fires, firefighters and black stumps.
When we hurt, when we are unsure, when we don't understand we ridicule: and most Australians understand - it's who we are, it's part of our culture.
But that's not the way all cultures work. In fact in many cultures that are represented in our society 'saving face' is valued above all. The idea of being ridiculed, or ridiculing another in public is not only embarrassing, but offensive. And therein lies a problem for the person who is trying to communicate an important and life transforming message.
Too often rather than make the effort to understand what makes the Other tick, (what they value, what they believe, how they communicate) we expect them to act and behave as we do - we expect them not only to speak our language, but absorb our values and communicate our way. We assume they should just know and accept the rules of our culture as if by some kind of cultural osmosis. And when they don't, and we are unsure of where to go, we either ridicule them, their insecurity and their uncertainty, or we walk away.
Taking the time to understand culture - what makes another tick - must be the first step in effective cross-cultural communication, after that is when the real fun begins.
Tuesday 4 August 2009
Principles of Cross-Cultural Communication
Principle 1: If a person cannot understand your language - speak the same words louder and slower - and if that fails - shout at them!
I live and work in an excitingly (culturally and ethnically) diverse corner of Australia. In the space of a five minute walk I hear numerous languages spoken, see signs in as many scripts, pass shops selling unrecognisable (and secret) goods and smell foods that have the ability to simultaneously test the gag reflex or stimulate the saliva glands.
Lot's of good food too - on any given day I might go to China, then Sri Lanka, Portugal, Vietnam, Greece, Turkey, India, Italy, Mongolia, Uzbekistan... Preston is a great place to live.
This colourful mosaic of culture brings with it exciting challenges for me. Let's assume I have the right to engage people in dialogue on a deeper level than the menu, (which is another topic). How do I make relevant and attractive: what I do, the reason I do it, and the relationship that drives it, without resorting to the tried and true methods of paternalism, or tokenism?
As I waited in line at the bank I saw one method of communication. A young woman who was obviously nervous about her transaction was trying to withdraw some of her money, but the teller must have been having a bad day. When it became obvious that the young woman was not understanding the teller repeated the same phrase louder and slower until she was practically shouting at the woman.
What makes us think that if a person doesn't understand our language that shouting louder and slower will make a difference? (And let's be honest we all do it!) Maybe we need to find new ways of communicating. We have an amazingly important message - let's find ways of communicating that offer the hearer respect and rather than scaring them off the premises, eases their fears, shows them acceptance and empowers them to try again.
I live and work in an excitingly (culturally and ethnically) diverse corner of Australia. In the space of a five minute walk I hear numerous languages spoken, see signs in as many scripts, pass shops selling unrecognisable (and secret) goods and smell foods that have the ability to simultaneously test the gag reflex or stimulate the saliva glands.
Lot's of good food too - on any given day I might go to China, then Sri Lanka, Portugal, Vietnam, Greece, Turkey, India, Italy, Mongolia, Uzbekistan... Preston is a great place to live.
This colourful mosaic of culture brings with it exciting challenges for me. Let's assume I have the right to engage people in dialogue on a deeper level than the menu, (which is another topic). How do I make relevant and attractive: what I do, the reason I do it, and the relationship that drives it, without resorting to the tried and true methods of paternalism, or tokenism?
As I waited in line at the bank I saw one method of communication. A young woman who was obviously nervous about her transaction was trying to withdraw some of her money, but the teller must have been having a bad day. When it became obvious that the young woman was not understanding the teller repeated the same phrase louder and slower until she was practically shouting at the woman.
What makes us think that if a person doesn't understand our language that shouting louder and slower will make a difference? (And let's be honest we all do it!) Maybe we need to find new ways of communicating. We have an amazingly important message - let's find ways of communicating that offer the hearer respect and rather than scaring them off the premises, eases their fears, shows them acceptance and empowers them to try again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)