Most of us are occasionally exposed to cultures that are not our own. Especially those who travel continuously come in contact with cultural codes awaiting to be cracked. As all cultures are different, there’s no doubt intercultural training — which explains how to communicate effectively across cultures — is useful. Yet, there’s something in the way it’s done that puts me off time after time.
Problem with cultural frameworks
Intercultural communication training and research often uses different kinds of frameworks that help comparing cultures with one another. They’re used for avoiding misunderstandings and improving collaboration across cultural boundaries, among other things. They make people recognize cultural differences and navigate intercultural interactions effectively.
The most widely used frameworks in intercultural training are the seven cultural dimensions developed by Fons Trompenaars and the cultural dimensions model created by Geert Hofstede. These dimensions include aspects such as hierarchy, time orientation, individualism vs collectivism or uncertainty avoidance. Even I used to explain cultural codes through these dimensions when working with intercultural teams in different companies.
But.
These frameworks carry an intrinsic problem which is less frequently discussed: apart from being built on Western philosophy and research, they often represent dominant cultures, shaped by colonial histories.
The need for cultural generalizations
In intercultural contexts, some extent of frameworks and methods are essential. Althoug generalization may sound negative, without it, it would be nearly impossible to teach about cultural differences. If we refused to generalize, we have no starting point for comparing communication styles or explaining cultural behaviour. This is why broad categories such as “Brazilian culture”, “Finnish culture”, or “Zimbabwean culture” exist in the first place.
Local perspectives enhance cultural complexity
However, the more local you go, the more difficult generalizations become. Ask a Finn about Finnish culture and they may ask whether you’re referring to the Finnish-speaking or the Swedish-speaking population. Or an Italian about Italian culture and they might ask whether you mean the North or the South. Ask a Brazilian and they may ask whether you mean the coastal regions or the Amazon.
Locals usually know their internal cultural differences. They are aware, that culture is not only national, but also regional, linguistic, social and historical. And still, for political or social reasons, even locals may choose to downplay or ignore multiculturalism.
Intercultural communication = nation states?
The above-mentioned intercultural communication frameworks rarely operate at local levels of complexity. Instead, they tend to treat the nation-state as the primary — and often only — unit of culture. Indigenous cultures, although numerous and diverse, rarely appear in intercultural communication representations.
When such frameworks speak about “Brazilian culture”, they usually refer to the dominant Portuguese-speaking culture shaped by colonial history. As for “Finnish culture”, it rarely includes minority cultures such as the Roma or the Sámi, even though these communities are part of the country’s cultural landscape. And when speaking about “Paraguayan culture”, what’s usually discussed is the dominant, Spanish-speaking colonial culture, not the Guaraní culture. Even though the latter is the actual majority culture in regard to population.
Intercultural communication makes minority cultures invisible
By relying on national generalizations, intercultural communication education reinforces the visibility of dominant cultures while rendering minority cultures invisible.
In multicultural societies — which most societies are — this has important consequences. When a single communication style is presented as the national norm, it can implicitly become the “correct” or expected way of communicating. Other communication styles remain outside this framework.
Multiculturalism vs. homogenous national units
Most intercultural training today is designed for international business environments. The goal is practical: to help people collaborate more effectively and avoid misunderstandings that could affect productivity.
This is why I keep questioning the goal of intercultural communication education. Is it only productivity? Is to help people navigate dominant cultural systems more efficiently? Or should it aim for understanding the cultural diversity that exists within societies?
And if intercultural communication is actually about understanding cultures and about human connection, then it must also acknowledge that cultures are not homogeneous national units. They’re diverse and shaped by historical power relations.
Generalizations just a starting point
Recognizing that cultures are not homogenous national units, doesn’t mean abandoning cultural frameworks altogether. Generalizations and some sort of cultural dimensions can be useful as a starting point for discussion.
It is, however, good to note that these generalizations represent dominant patterns, not entire cultures. And they rarely acknowledge national multiculturalism. And this is why intercultural understanding requires moving beyond simplified national portraits and recognizing the plurality that exists within cultures themselves.
Only then can intercultural communication move closer to what, in my opinion, should sit at its core: genuine cultural understanding.
Growing intercultural consciousness
So, how to understand explore cultures without relying on over-simplified generalizations of frameworks? Here is how to get started:
- Observe cultures neutrally, without prejudice
- Be curious and ask open-ended questions
- Listen actively, repeat and rephrase to see that you’ve understood
Although I’ve studied intercultural communication and have taught it, I’m no expert in every culture — but that’s not the point. The point is to grow intercultural consciousness, accept cultural differences as they are and learn to navigate them. With this goal in mind, these steps will get you much further than any frameworks or dimensions will!
For a post on the Finnish culture, see UNDERSTANDING MY CULTURE: WHAT IS FINNISHNESS? and for Lusophone realities, see SOCIOCULTURAL LINGUISTICS: A WORLD SHAPED BY LANGUAGES.
