I would submit that one writes/communicates the sender and receiver are acting under a set of
norms or constraints
For as I write/communicate/argue I am cognisant of not exceeding the bounds of behavioural
norms and expectations. As I put ‘pen to paper’ there is a hierarchy of
desirable norms which I act under; my communication must have synthesis, must
lack incongruity and ambivalence, other desirables are brevity, coherence and
civility.
So I would submit that in any Western cultural subset there are shared
norms and expectations that guide the thinking and behaviour of participants;
these norms act as reinforcers or restrainers, or as a set of shared
cognitions. I would offer that such norms/cognitions are acquired through
social learning and socialization processes exposing individuals to a variety
of culture-bearing elements.
Communication in such forms as debates, stories, rumours, secrets,
reported events and role expectations convey normative information about the
appropriateness and desirability of behaviours within these communication
parameters.
But what if these cultural norms are not relevant to all members?
Let us say at this juncture I could take an obstructionist view i.e. I
do not wish to be amicable or genial and am content that my communication will
have a negative even incendiary effect on my reader and I feel protected, by
geographic distance, or by some other boundary-creating feature. However
cultural norms preclude me from such action.
For I live in a culture (Western) which has largely assumed that
individuals are uncomfortable with incongruity and that they possess a basic
need to synthesize contradictory information about an attitude object, this
overhanging cultural norm, influences people’s reasoning about contradiction as
well as their tolerance for ambiguity.
Although attitudes are recognized to be complex and multidimensional, in
the Western mind set they have traditionally been conceptualized as dichotomous
or bipolar in nature. That is, one’s attitude toward an object or event is
either positive or negative, but not both.
Several decades of research have shown that Westerners experience
cognitive dissonance when their values, preferences, and actions are
incongruent. Attitudes have been assessed with bipolar scales (e.g.,
dislike-like), which are designed to elicit an overall summary judgment. Most
conventional theorizing assumes that attitudinal inconsistency leads to psychic
tension or conflict and the need for synthesis one does not want cognitive
dissonance . Yet the cognitive dissonance may have been triggered by the imposition
of cultural norms. At this juncture one could argue that by playing the game of
norms one is engaging in naive dialecticism
The growing corpus of cross-cultural research in other non western
cultures (Japan/China) is of interest; for in non Western societies the self is
evaluated as both good and bad, simultaneously, this would appear improbable,
illogical, or even irrational in most Western nations. Self-evaluative
ambivalence may seem especially improbable in societies where positive
self-regard is culturally mandated, highly valued, and strongly inculcated in
the home and educational system
Yet East Asian epistemologies tend to tolerate, rather than eschew,
psychological contradiction this is true of dialectically oriented cultures,
and dialectically oriented individuals within various cultures, the nature of
the world is such that masculinity and femininity, strength and weakness, good
and bad, and so on exist in the same object or event simultaneously.
Recognizing and accepting the duality in all things (yin/ yang), including the
self, is regarded as normative and adaptive in dialectical cultures.
Dialectical thinking is rooted in East Asian philosophical and religious
traditions, including Confucianism and Buddhism. It is based on three primary tenets:
· the principle of contradiction (two opposing propositions may both be
true,
· the principle of change (the universe is in flux and is constantly
changing),
· and the principle of holism all things in the universe are
interrelated
In contrast, Western cultures tend to be more linear or synthetic in
their cognitive orientation: They consider both sides of an opposing argument
and then they search for synthesis and the resolution of incongruity
Western folk epistemologies are rooted in Aristotelian traditions, which
emphasize three basic principles
· the law of identity (if A is true, then A is always true),
· the law of noncontradiction (A cannot equal not A),
· the law of the excluded middle (all propositions must be either true
or false).
As a result, Westerners are generally less comfortable with
contradiction and attitudinal ambivalence is associated with psychic tension
and conflict
East Asians are inclined to acknowledge and accept contradictory
(negative) appraisals of the self. For example, Japanese do not discount
self-criticism, they accept their failures as readily as their successes, and
they exhibit less cognitive dissonance in the face of negative personality.
Whereas North Americans experience and express a far greater proportion of positive
than negative emotions.
To illustrate, Japanese do not exhibit unrealistic optimism or
exaggerated perceptions of control when evaluating themselves, their lives, and
their futures Likewise, Chinese score lower on measures of optimism than do
Americans, in part, because they perceive both positive and negative events as
pervasive and enduring.
I would submit, that such East/West cultural norms as I have illustrated
overhang us and we pick readily at the all too easily accessible fruit of
norms.
Article by Dr Peter P. Cheevers
No comments:
Post a Comment