In detail it is said about concept "values", factors influencing values, the meaning of values in intercultural communication and understanding between different nations.

In brief it is mentioned differences between beliefs, values.

The actuality and novelty of a theme consist in the following points.

Problems of the intercultural communications and cultural values are
"young". Scientists started to consider them rather recently. In Russia researches have begun only in the 80th years. In such a way, there is not enough literature and materials on the given questions. Therefore any new works and researches make the significant contribution to studying these problems.

So in my work I tried: to research the influence of cultural values to attitude one country to another; to explore and to compare Japanese and
American patterns of social behavior; to understand the factors influencing values; to discover stereotypes between different countries.

In conclusion it is noted that excellent knowledge of language is only half-affair for successful cooperation with other country. Also it is necessary to know features of people of other country in negotiating or their attitude to business. Also it is necessary to take into account features of dialogue, etiquette, relations with grown-ups and many other things.

KEY WORDS

Cross-cultural communication is the information exchange between one person and any other source transmitting a message displaying properties of a culture different to the one of the receiver’s culture. The source of such a message can be either a person, in an interpersonal communication process, or any form of mass media or other form of media.

Values. A value is something that is important to people — like honesty, harmony, respect for elders, or thinking of your family first. They are represents what is expected or hoped for, required or forbidden. It is not a report of actual conduct but is the inductively based logically ordered set of criteria of evaluations by which conduct is judged and sanctions applied.

Beliefs are generally taken to mean a mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. A belief links an object or event and the characteristics that distinguish it from others. The degree to which we believe that an event or object possesses certain characteristics reflects the level of our subjective probability (belief) and, consequently, the depth or intensity of our belief. The more certain we are in a belief, the greater is the intensity of that belief.

Clusters are groups of inter-related industries that drive wealth creation in a region and provides a richer more meaningful representation of local industry drivers and regional dynamics trends than traditional methods and represents the entire value chain of a broadly defined industry from suppliers to end products, including supporting services and specialized infrastructure.

Stereotype is a fixed set of ideas about what a particular type of person or thing is like, which is (wrongly) believed to be true in all cases.

INTRODUCTION

The subject of my diploma work is cultural values.

Our perception of foreign cultures is usually based not on their complex reality, but on the simplified image they project. The clearer and more sharply defined that image is, the more convinced we will be that we are intimately acquainted with it: it is a mere outward confirmation of knowledge we already possess.

All cultures have been designed to meet universal human needs: for shelter - for love — for friendship. While they have commonalties, they have great variety too! Values - universal feature of culture, how they might vary within and between cultures.

One universal feature of culture is values. A value is something that is important to people — like honesty, harmony, respect for elders, or thinking of your family first.

We can't see values directly, but we can see them reflected in people's ordinary, day to day behavior. What we value shapes what we do. If respect for elders is important to me, I might listen very patiently to grandmother's stories and not argue with her. In fact, I might turn to her for valuable and wise advice. If I value honesty, I will hope that my friends will tell me the truth and not what they think I want to hear. If harmony is more important to me, I prefer to say things that make people happy, even if those things are not exactly true.

In the course of human interaction, evaluations are assigned to given types of behavior, attitudes, and kinds of social contact. Taken together they form the belief and value system, the cultural premises and assumptions, and the foundation for law, order, and the world view of given cultural groups. These systems embrace a number of assumptions about how the world is put together. Some values and norms, differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong. Some of these assumptions are made explicit in the beliefs and myths of the people. Beliefs, value systems, and world view often combine with other features of social and cultural organization to provide shared cultural symbols.

The actuality and novelty of a theme consist in the following points.

Objects of research in my diploma work are behavioral samples and cultural clusters.

1. DEFINITIONS: BELIEFS, VALUES

It is useful at this juncture to make some distinctions between beliefs and values.

BELIEFS

This is well attested to in the power of religious beliefs. There are three types of beliefs, all of which are of concern to us. They are experiential, informational, and inferential. Experiential beliefs come from direct personal experience, of course; they are integrated at the intrapersonal level. The second type involves information. This is transferred on the interpersonal level and shows great cultural variation.
Here cultural beliefs are stated, transferred, learned, and practiced.
Informational beliefs are connected with what are called "authority belief," or credible information sources. If a group of people believes that exercising increases the individual's physical and mental well-being, these believers may also be willing to accept athletes as authority figures even though the testimonies of these idols range beyond their physical prowess. Witness the selling success of Olympic champions and football stars in promoting breakfast food or panty hose.

Inferential beliefs are those which go beyond direct observation and information. These concern rules of logic, argumentation, rhetoric, and even establishment of facts (the scientific method). Although internal logic systems differ from one individual to another within a culture, they differ more from one culture to another. The most dramatic difference in cultural variance in thinking lies between Western and Eastern cultures.
The Western world has a logic system built upon Aristotelian principles, and it has evolved ways of thinking that embody these principles. . . .
Eastern cultures, however, developed before and without the benefit of
Athens or Aristotle. As a consequence, their logic systems are sometimes called non-Aristotelian, and they can often lead to quite different sets of beliefs.

VALUES

Values bring affective force to beliefs. Some of these values are shared with others of our kind some are not. Thus, we all adhere to some of the beliefs and values generally accepted within our cultures; we reject others. Values are related to what is seen to be good, proper, and positive, or the opposite. Values are learned and may be normative in nature. They change through time and are seldom shared in specifics by members of different generations, although certain themes will prevail. For example, the positive attributions placed upon competitiveness, individualism, action, and other general principles that pervade the belief and value orientation of members of the North American culture of the
United States remain. They include the constitutionally guaranteed and socially valued "unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in individualistic, action-oriented, and competitive ways. These values have endured their expression varies from generation to generation.

A cultural value system "represents what is expected or hoped for, required or forbidden." It is not a report of actual conduct but is the inductively based logically ordered set of criteria of evaluations by which conduct is judged and sanctions applied.

THE VALUE / BELIEF PUZZLE

Value and belief systems, with their supporting cultural postulates and world views, are complex and difficult to assess. They form an interlocking system, reflecting and reflective of cultural history and forces of change. They provide the bases for the assignment of cultural meaning and evaluation. Values are desired outcomes as well as norms for behavior; they are dreams as well as reality, They are embraced by some and not others in a community; they may be the foundations for accepted modes of behavior, but are as frequently overridden as observed. They are also often the hidden force that sparks reactions and fuels denials. Unexamined assignment of these characteristics to all members of a group is an exercise in stereotyping.

ATTRIBUTIONS AND EVALUATIONS

Often values attributions and evaluations of the behaviors of
"strangers" are based on the value and belief systems of the observers.
Have you heard or made any of the following statements? Guilty or not?

Americans are cold.

Americans don't like their parents. Just look, they put their mothers and fathers in nursing homes.

The Chinese are nosy. They're always asking such personal questions.

Spaniards must hate animals. Look what they do to bulls!

Marriages don't last in the United States.

Americans are very friendly. 1 met a nice couple on a tour and they asked me to visit them.

Americans ask silly questions, they think we all live in tents and drink nothing but camel's milk! They ought to see our airport!

Americans just pretend to be friendly; they really aren't. They say,
"Drop by sometime" but when I did, they didn't seem very happy to see me.
Of course, it was ten o'clock at night!

How should such statements be received? With anger? With explanation?
With understanding and anger? Should one just ignore such patent half- truths stereotypic judgments, and oversimplifications? Before indulging in any of the above actions, consider what can be learned from such statements. First, what do these statements reveal? The speakers appear to be concerned about families, disturbed by statistics, apt to form opinions on limited data (friendliness), given to forming hasty and unwarranted generalizations (Spanish bullfighting), and angered by the ignorance of others. No one cultural group has a corner on such behavior. Second, we might be able to guess how certain speakers might feel about divorce, hospitality, or even animals. Third, the observations, while clearly not applicable to all members of the groups about which the comments were made, represent the speakers' perceptions. To many, Americans are seen as cold and uncaring. Because perceptions and native value and belief systems play such important roles in communication, it is important to recognize and deal with these perceptions-correct or incorrect, fair or unfair.

In the following part of this chapter the concept of value orientations will be explored. This will be followed by a review of the major value orientations associated with people from the United States.
These orientations will be contrasted with those of other culture groups.
Such an approach to cross-cultural variations in values and beliefs is far more productive than flat denial or even anger, as we form evaluative frames of reference for ourselves and hold them up to the frames of others we shall, at the very least, learn a great deal about ourselves.

VALUE ORIENTATIONS

Compiling a list of cultural values, beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions would be an almost endless and quite unrewarding endeavor.
Writers in the field of intercultural communication have generally adopted the concept of value orientations suggested by Florence Kluckhohn and Fred
Strodtbeck (1961).

In setting forth a value orientation approach to cross-cultural variation, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961:10) pointed out that such a theory was based upon three assumptions:

1. There are a limited number of human problems to which all cultures must find solutions.

2. The limited number of solutions may be charted along a range or
Continuum of variations.

3. Certain solutions are favored by members in any given culture group but all potential solutions are present in every culture.

In their schema, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck suggested that values around five universal human problems involving man's relationship to the environment, human nature, time, activity, and human interaction. The authors further proposed that the orientations of any society could be charted along these dimensions. Although variability could be found within a group, there were always dominant or preferred positions. Culture- specific profiles could be constructed. Such profiles should not be regarded as statements about individual behavior, but rather as tendencies around which social behavioral norms rules values, beliefs, and assumptions are clustered. As such, they might influence individual behavior as other cultural givens do; like other rules, they may be broken, changed, or ignored.

In the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck classification, three focal points in the range of variations are posited for each type of orientation. In the man-to-nature continuum variations range from a position of human mastery over nature, to harmony with nature, to subjugation to nature. Most industrialized societies represent the mastery orientation; the back-to- nature counterculture of young adults during the 1960s and 1970s, the harmonious stance; and many peasant populations, the subjugation orientation.

The time dimension offers stops at the past, present, and future.
Human nature orientation is charted along a continuum stretching from good to evil with some of both in the middle. The activity orientation moves from doing to being-becoming to being. Finally, the relational orientation ranges from the individual to the group with concern with the continuation of the group, as an intermediate focal point.

Value orientations only represent" good guesses" about why people act the way they do. Statements made or scales constructed are only part of an
"as if" game. That is to say, people act as if they believed in a given set of value. Because the individuals in any cultural group exhibit great variation, any of the orientations suggested might well be found in nearly every culture. It is the general pattern that is sought. Value orientations are important to us as intercultural communicators because often whatever one believes, values, and assumes are the crucial factors in communication.

CONTRASTIVE ORIENTATlONS

Let us take some American cultural patterns that have been identified as crucial in cross-cultural communication and consider what assumptions, values, and attitudes support them. Edward C. Stewart was a pioneer in examining such American behavior in a cross-cultural perspective. His book
- American Cultural Patterns. This book describes dominant characteristics of middle class Americans. Stewart distinguishes between cultural assumptions and values and what he called cultural norms. Cultural norms are explicit a repeatedly invoked by people to describe or justify their actions. They represent instances in which the behavior and the value attached to it seem at odds. Stewart writes, “Because cultural norms are related to behavior as cliches, rituals or as cultural platitudes, they provide inaccurate descriptions of behavior”. He points out that Americans are devoted to the concept of self-reliance but accept social security, borrow money, and expect a little help from their friends. Culture bearers are usually more aware of their cultural norms than their systems of values and assumptions. As Stewart explains, "being fundamental to the individual's outlook, they [the assumptions and values] are likely to be considered as a part of the real world and therefore remain unquestioned".

Table 1, illustrates some of the general value orientations identified with North Americans. The left-hand column indicates what the polar point of the orientational axis might represent. The Contrast American column does not describe any particular culture, but rather represents an opposite orientation. Of course, the American profile is drawn in broad strokes and describes the mainstream culture; ethnic diversity is of necessity blurred in this sweeping treatment.

Thus, with the reservations noted above, it can be said that in the relationship of human beings and nature, Americans assume and thus value and believe in doing something about environmental problems. Nature can and should be changed. In addition, change is right and good and to be encouraged. That toe pace of change has increased to a bewildering point in the United States at the present time presents problems, but, as yet, change has not been seen as particularly detrimental.

Equality of opportunity is linked to individualism, lack of rigid hierarchies informality, and other cultural givens. It is manifested in
American laws regarding social conduct, privacy, and opportunity. This contrasts with an ascriptive social order in which class and birth provide the bases for social control and interaction.

The achievement orientation calls for assessment of personal achievement, a latter-day Horatio Alger (Lee Iacocca) orientation. A future orientation is joined to the positive value accorded change and action.
Directness and openness are contrasted to a more consensus-seeking approach in which group harmony is placed above solving problems.

Cause-and-effect logic joined to a problem-solving orientation and a pragmatic approach to problems defines the much-vaunted scientific method.
Intuition and other approaches to evidence, fact, and "truth" are associated with being orientations and philosophical approaches to knowledge and knowing. Competition and a do-it-yourself approach to life are well served by a future orientation, individualism, and the desire for change.

The statements above simply point out some very general orientations that have driven and, to some degree, still guide North American society.
Change is always in the air. Many have pointed out, as Stewart himself does, that these orientations represent white middle class American values.
They do. They serve the purpose, however, of providing a frame of reference for cross-cultural comparison.

Table 2 offers a contrastive look at some American and Japanese values.

Such culture-specific contrast alerts us to the need to examine our cultural values and assumptions from the perspective of others. As one studies the dimensions of contrast, one cannot help but marvel at the communication that does take place despite such diversity. Okabe, in drawing upon Japanese observations about some well-known American values, reveals a new perspective to us. For example, the bamboo whisk and octopus pot metaphors refer to a reaching out tendency in the United States as opposed to the drawing inward of the Japanese.

Omote means outside and omote / ura combines both the inside and outside world. In the heterogeneous, egalitarian, sasara-type, doing, pushing culture of the United States, there is no distinction between the omote and the ura aspects of culture. In the hierarchical takotsubo-type, being, pulling culture of Japan, a clear-cut distinction should always be made between the omote and the ura dimensions of culture, the former being public, formal, and conventional, and the latter private, informal, and unconventional. The Japanese tend to conceive of the ura world as being more real, more meaningful.

Interpersonal relationships contrast on the basis of the role of the individual and group interaction. Japanese patterns are characterized by formality and complementary relationships that stress the value of dependence or amae. Amae is the key to understanding Japanese society. The concept of amae underlies the Japanese emphasis on the group over the individual, the acceptance of constituted authority, and the stress on particularistic rather than universalistic relationships. In the homogenous, vertical society of Japan the dominant value is conformity to or identity with the group. The Japanese insist upon the insignificance of the individual. Symmetrical relationships focus on the similarities of individuals; complementary relationships exploit differences in age, sex, role and status. There are many ways in which the Japanese publicly acknowledge a social hierarchy-in the use of language, in seating arrangements at social gatherings, in bowing to one another and hundreds of others. Watch Japanese each other and the principles will become quite apparent. Notice who bows lower, who waits for the other to go first, who apologizes more: (1) younger defers to older; (2) female defers to male;
(3) student defers to teacher; (4); the seller's bow is lower than the buyer's; and (6) in a school club or organization where ranks are fixed, the lower ranked is, of course, subordinate. These features of interpersonal relationships lead to an emphasis on the public self in the
United States and on the private self in Japan, Americans being more open in the demonstration of personal feelings and attitudes than the Japanese.

Let us look to this question in detail.

JAPANESE INTERPERSONAL NORMS

Numerous studies by social scientists of national character or culture have appeared in recent years, initially as a response to the need for knowledge of enemy countries in World War II. Most of these studies have is asked a substantive question: what is the nature of the behavior shared by all, or a majority, of the members of a national society? Once this shared behavior is "discovered," its written description becomes an outline of the national culture of that country. This approach has been extensively criticized on the grounds that the behavior of the members of any complex society is so variable that any attempt to describe the shared items results in superficial generalization. Critics have also pointed out that descriptions of national cultures frequently consist of statements of norms only, and do not denote actual behavior.

At this point in the account of our own research it is necessary to raise questions about the nature of national cultures. However, we shall not attempt to claim that our answer to these will be valid for all members of the Japanese nation. We do claim validity for our own subjects and are also willing to guess that much of what we say will apply to the majority of Japanese men who were socialized in prewar and wartime Japan in families of the middle and upper income brackets. We shall not claim that our subjects necessarily behaved in the manner suggested, for the description itself pertains to norms or principles and not to behavior. In a subsequent section we shall provide a description and analysis of the behavior of our subjects with reference to these norms.

This procedure implies the concept of a "cultural model": essentially a highly generalized description of principles, shared by a large number of people and maintained in the form of personal values. To some degree these principles or norms constitute guides or rules for behavior: sometimes followed literally, sometimes not, but always available as a generalized protocol for use by the individual in finding his way through social relationships and in judging the acts of others.

The first half of the model we shall construct pertains to the patterns of interpersonal relations in the two societies, Japan and
America. We recognize that as representatives of the class of modern industrial nations, these two countries have cultures very similar in many respects. The Japanese are, in fact, often called the "Americans of the
Orient," a phrase referring to their industrious orientation toward life and nature; their interest in mass-cultural pursuits like baseball; and their success with capitalist enterprise in a collectivist world.
Similarities in all these areas are a fact— but it is equally apparent that some significant differences have existed in other aspects of social life in the two countries. Among these differences the norms and patterns of interpersonal behavior are probably the greatest. Thus, while a Japanese and an American may share an interest in baseball which brings them closer together that either one might be to a member of some other nation, the two may differ so widely in their habits of behavior in social situations that communication between them may be seriously impeded.

Studies of Japanese social norms have revealed the following general features: articulate codification of the norms; strong tendencies toward a face-to-face, or "primary group" type of intimacy; an emphasis upon hierarchical status positions; concern for the importance of status; elative permanence of status once established; and "behavioral reserve" or discipline. These will be discussed in order.

articulate codification of rules

During the long Tokugawa period of centralized feudalism, Japanese patterns of interpersonal behavior underwent an elaborate institutionalization. The Shogunate attempted to fix the position of each class with respect to the others and established written rules of behavior for its members. The family system had developed historically along patrilineal lines, and during Tokugawa times such patterns of relations between kin were proclaimed as an official social code. After the Meiji
Restoration, the samurai class in control of the nation maintained these formalized rules and even elevated them to the status of an idealized spiritual expression of the Japanese ethos. The reason for this enhancement of the Tokugawa code after the Restoration lay in the need to preserve and strengthen national discipline and unity as a practical policy in industrialization and other aspects of modernization. Thus, Japan moved into her modern era in possession of a system of rules of social behavior based on feudal and familial principles.

It is necessary to note that this system of codified rules was consistently adhered to in actual behavior by only a minority of the population: the samurai and nobility. The remainder of the population followed the rules in part, or only in "public" situations where the pressure for conformity was strong. In the decades subsequent to the
Restoration a generalized version of the code was adopted by the developing business and official classes, and this is the situation which continues to prevail in Japan today (although since the Occupation a considerable liberalization of social behavior can be found in all classes and groups).
Since the student subjects of-the research project were persons from upper- and middle-class groups socialized in prewar and wartime Japan, we can use the gross aspects of this social code as a backdrop for the interpretation of their behavior. The strength and the influence of this code were enhanced further by the fact that up to the period of the Occupation, no large migration to Japan of Westerners had occurred. In this situation relatively few Japanese were presented with the need to learn the modes of interaction of other societies—particularly the more "open" type of the
Western nations. This isolation was intensified during the militarist- nationalist epoch of the 1930s and 1940s, in which the social code was given renewed emphasis as a counter-measure against liberal trends. The codified norms— on or ascribed obligation; giri or contractual obligation; chu or loyalty to one's superior; ninjo or humane sensibility; and enryo or modesty and reserve in the presence of the superior—were incorporated in the school curriculum as ethical doctrine, and exemplified in a multitude of cultural expressions.

primary associative qualities

An important aspect of Japanese social norms may be described in
Western sociological terms as that of "primary association." Emphasis upon personal qualities, obligations between subordinate and superior, and distinctions based on age or sibling birth-order are features suited to the atmosphere of a small, highly interactive social group, like the family or a feudal manor. It goes without saying that in the modern mass society of
Japan these rules have not always been observed, but the fact is that to an extraordinary degree the Japanese have succeeded in organizing present-day society into small, cell-like groupings, in which highly personalized relationships are governed by an explicit code of behavior. Even in impersonal situations, as in labor organizations, rules of primary associative type have been used at least symbolically as models for interaction and responsibility.

hierarchy

If Japanese social norms present an image of society in the character of a primary group, it is at least a hierarchically organized primary group—one in which there are explicit gradations of status from superior to inferior. The family is ideally organized on patrilineal-patriarchal principles, with the father as dominant, the eldest son superordinate to the younger, and so on. Primogeniture was the law of the land until the
Occupation period, and, even though no longer so, it is still followed in a great many cases.

Japanese business firms, government bureaus, and many universities and schools are organized in ways reminiscent of this familial model; or their organization may be more closely related historically to feudal or lord- vassal principles. In such cases the employee and the employer, chief and underling, or teacher and pupil occupy positions which carry with them defined and ascribed rights and duties, in which the superior generally occupies a paternalistic and authoritarian role. The term sensei means teacher, or mentor, but its wide application to people outside of the teaching profession suggests its connotation of benevolent but stern authority and superiority. Likewise the term oyabun ("parent-status" or
"parent-surrogate"), while strictly appropriate only for certain types of economic groups, is often applied to any highly paternalistic superior.

concern for status

All this would imply, of course, very considerable preoccupation with matters of social status. It is necessary or at least desirable for every
Japanese to know his own status in the interaction situation, since it is in status that one finds the cues for reciprocal behavior. To put this in sociological terms, there exists a very close tie between status and role: the role behavior expected of one in a given status position is clearly defined and there are relatively few permitted alternatives or variations from the pattern (when alternatives are present, they, too, are often very clearly defined). Thus the behavior of a person of a given status in a social relationship, can constitute familiar and unmistakable cues for the appropriate behavior of a person of another status.

Concern with status is evidenced further by the incorporation into the
Japanese language of a multitude of forms expressing varying degrees of politeness, levels of formality and respect, and subservience or dominance.
This type of language dramatizes status differences between persons by the use of such devices as honorific suffixes, special verb endings, and differing pronouns. To mention only the most commonly used forms for designating the second person singular, there are anata, omae, kimi, kisama, and temai. The proper use of each of these forms depends upon the relative status of the speaker and the particular situation in which the conversation or interaction takes place. Status in language depends upon age, sex, and class differences, as well as on the degree of intimacy and the extent of formal obligation existing between those communicating.

relative permanence of status

Once status positions are clearly defined, the parties holding these statuses are expected to occupy them for very long periods—often throughout life. A superior, for example one's professor, retains strong symbolic hierarchical precedence throughout the life of both parties, even when the student has become a professional equal in productivity, rank, and pay.
Subtle changes in status of course occur, and we do not wish to make too sweeping a generalization. However, as compared with the fluid patterns typical of Western society, Japanese society-possesses considerably more orderly and predictable allocations of status—or at least the expectations of this.

behavioral reserve and discipline

A "tight" social organization based on concern with status and hierarchy is by necessity one in which social behavior tends to be governed more by norms, or public expectancies, and less by free or idiosyncratic- response to a given situation. At the same time, a system of this kind requires institutional outlets in the event that obligations, duties, status relationships, and the like, for one reason or another, may be unclear or not yet defined. The Japanese have utilized, for this purpose, the concept of enryo, loosely translatable as “hesitance” or "reserve." The development of this pattern in Japanese culture is of particular importance for our problem here.

The original meaning of enryo pertained to the behavior of the subordinate in hierarchical status relations. The subordinate was expected to show compliant obsequiousness toward the superior: he should hold his temper, check any aggressive response to frustration (and of course, bide his time). This pattern of behavior may be manifested by Japanese when they interact with persons of their own or any society whom they regard as superior in status. Whenever the presumption is that a superior person occupies the "alter" status, enryo is likely to be observed by "ego".

Now, as Japan entered the stage of industrialization, with its expanded opportunities for individual enterprise and mobility (a process still under way), social situations became more complicated, more ambiguous, and more violative of the traditional rules and behavioral prescriptions. Since at the same time the basic hierarchical, primary-group character of the norms prevailed, there emerged strong needs for adjustive behavior. Enryo became the escape-hatch: in the new ambiguity, behavioral reserve and noncommitment became the frequent alternative, and the Japanese manifested such withdrawn, unresponsive behavior in the event that a particular interpersonal situation lacked clear designation of the statuses of ego and alter. Much the same situation holds when the Japanese is overseas. Here, too, his behavior is frequently characterized by enryo— often concealing confusion and embarrassment over his ignorance of the social rules of the foreign society. Thus the "shyness" or reserved behavior often found in Japanese on the American campus can be due either to the fact that the Japanese views Americans, or certain Americans, as superior people; or to the fact that he is simply not sure how to behave in
American social situations, regardless of status. The rule goes, when status is unclear, it is safest to retreat into enryo. This form of response is most typical of persons socialized in prewar and wartime Japan; the postwar generation, many of whom have grown up in the more liberal atmosphere of the Occupation and after, are much more tolerant of ambiguity.

2. JAPANESE AND AMERICAN PATTERNS OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

We may now view these normative patterns from a comparative cultural perspective. A detailed description of the American norms will not be required, since it may be presumed that the reader has sufficient familiarity with them. We shall select those American rules of interpersonal behavior that are "opposites" to the Japanese patterns just described. In a later section we shall discuss cases of similarity.

There is among Americans a tendency toward an initial egalitarian response oil the part of "ego": two persons are presumed to be equal unless proven otherwise. (The Japanese norms contain an opposite premise: when status is vague, inequality is expected.) In practice this egalitarian principle in American interpersonal behavior leads to what the Japanese might perceive as fluidity and unpredictability of behavior-in interaction, and highly variable or at least less apparent concern for status. Things like wealth, public versus private situations, and a host of other features may all in the American case, influence the behavior of ego and alter in ways which are not subject to predicate codification, Allowance is made continually for subtle changes in roles of those interacting, with a strain toward equalization if hierarchical differences appear. Thus, while in social situations the Japanese may find it difficult to communicate unless status differences are clear, the American, in view of his egalitarian preference, may point to and actually experience status difference as a source of interpersonal tension and difficulty in communication. Thus the
Japanese may see the free flow of communication as enhanced by clear status understandings; the American may view it instead as requiring maximal intimacy and freedom of expression.

Finally, reserve or discipline is in some cases much less apparent in
American social behavior. Initially, outward display of feeling is encouraged, and' reserve may develop after status differences are recognized. Once again the Japanese may proceed on an approximately opposite principle: behavioral freedom and expressivity become a potentiality after statuses are clearly differentiated—especially when equality is achieved— but not before. Moreover, even when statuses are clear to the Japanese participants in social relations, interaction often continues to be hesitant and guarded. (Important institutionalized exceptions to the general rule of avoidance are found in the frank behavior tolerated in sake parties, behavior of the male guest and his geisha partner, and a few others.)

In American interpersonal behavior the patterns of tact, obsequiousness, and other forms of retiring behavior are seen continually, but they are often much more situational and idiosyncratic. Americans lack a concept with the generalized cultural meaning of enryo; reserve may be a useful form of behavior for some people, but not others, or in some situations; it may be associated with status differences, or it may not.
And when this reserve is associated with status positions (and in the presence of hierarchical patterns generally), Americans are likely to express attitudes of guilt or regret, or are likely to conceal the existence of such patterns by verbally reaffirming egalitarian principles.
Moreover, some American normative attitudes frown on "manipulative" tendencies; frankness, openness, and humility are valued highly, if not always observed. Quotations from interviews with student subjects
(sojourners and returnees) may serve to indicate the Japanese perspective on their own and the American patterns of interpersonal behavior.

Q.: What did you like about America that you didn't about Japan?

A.: Well, it's hard to give concrete examples, but mainly I was satisfied with what you might call the smartness of life— the modernness of things. And also the simplicity and frankness of life. You don't have to worry about gimu-giri-on [obligations] over there ... In the United States you have to visit relatives too, but such visits are more personal, more real— more meaningful. Here in Japan they are for the sake of girt and righteousness and all that stuff.

Q.: Could you define the term "Americanized" as it is used by
Japanese students?

A.: Well, to be Americanized means to be indifferent to social position-indifferent to social formality — such as in formal greetings. It concerns points about how one acts socially.

This is about human relations — it didn't surprise me but it did impress me very much to find that relations with others are always on an equal plane in the U.S. In Japan I automatically used polite language with seniors so that this just seemed natural— and if I used polite words in
Japan I didn't necessarily feel that this was feudalistic— though some do.
At first in the U.S. when young

people, like high school students, talked to me as an equal, I felt conflicted, or in the dormitory it surprised me to see a boy of 20 talk to a man of 45 as an equal.

In Japan, my father and some of my superiors often told me that my attitude toward superiors and seniors was too rude. Here, though, my attitude doesn't seem rude— at least it doesn't appear as rude as I was afraid it would. It is easier to get along with people in America, because for one thing, Americans are not so class conscious and not so sensitive about things like status. In Japan, my conduct to superiors seemed rude, but the same behavior isn’t rude here. For instance here it is all right simply to say "hello" to teachers, while in Japan I would be expected to say “ohayo gozaimasu" [polite form of "good morning"] with a deep bow. In
Japan I did things like this only when I really respected somebody.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3