3 ms·
> …and then they’ll go on to explain something that one might easily mistake for a rule, or a request, or the enforcement of a social norm, but which is actuall
by 4bpp 8y ago
> …and then they’ll go on to explain something that one might easily mistake for a rule, or a request, or the enforcement of a social norm, but which is actually (as far as I can tell) just a statement about the version of the world they carry around inside their head.
The way I understand it, not qualifying these sorts of statements with "in my culture..." is exactly how the cultures in question - as sets of common assumptions that are taken to be universal rules or as natural and invisible as breathable air - get forged to begin with. The moment someone says X is a rule and nobody is raises any eyebrows at the statement, it becomes functionally true (for the speaker and their listeners).
Relinquishing the claim to universality by framing them as personal hangups is probably good diplomacy and helps you to get along with coworkers and other relations from various backgrounds, but could it also amount to surrendering the possibility of ever building a shared culture with them?
- em-bee 8y agoi don't think it surrenders the possibility of creating a shared culture. in order to build a shared culture we must first understand each other, so explaining ones personal culture is useful for that. also, very often the problem is not an act itself, but the interpretation of it. if in my culture a thumbs up is a slightly obscene gesture, and i can explain why i feel perplexed every time you give me that sign, and likewise you explain your actual intention, then this enables us to discover that your actual intention in this case is actually welcome by me, and i was just not able to read it. we can then develop a way to communicate that intention that we are both comfortable with.