Response to Martinez readings

In his chapter on defining social relations Martinez provides some key areas of difference between Euro-American cultural assumptions and common assumptions from other cultures. The “myth of equality” Martinez argues blinds many Euro-Americans to the fundamental differences in privilege and status between different groups in North America. This creates a situation in which no-one in the dominant needs to overtly discriminate to perpetuate a system of inequality and injustice. Martinez also notes that white Americans tend to see problems in individualistic terms, rather than in terms of social system. The Euro-American concept of fair play further blinds white Americans to inequality because they assume the playing field to be level, the dice to be fair. But the dice are loaded, the game is rigged. Because they try to understand a rigged game in terms of fair play Euro-Americans assume that an individuals struggle to succeed is a matter of individual ability, not of social systems.

Gifts and social obligation are another potential area for miscommunication between Euro-Americans and people from other cultures. Euro-Americans tend to avoid social obligations and do not have a deep sense of reciprocity, of a gift obligating the recipient to respond with an appropriate gift. Similarly, many cultures assume social structures such as patronage which obligate wealthy or otherwise privileged members to help out those who are struggling. For example, a Korean-American student explained to me that in Korean culture, older students are expected to help out younger students, coaching them and giving them old class notes and so on. A Korean-American who has developed a more western mindset, in which obligatory social roles are avoided, might easily feel put upon by Korean students who expect to be helped out in this way.

Euro-American and other cultures also differ in how they understand friendship. Martinez notes that white Americans tend to view friendship as spontaneous, based on mutual affection, essentially something that is chosen. These relationships tend to be rather shallow in non-western terms, where friendship implies something more like mutual dependence. Similarly, Martinez notes that Euro-Americans tend to need to be liked. We take affirmation and acceptance as an indication that we are doing well, succeeding in whatever it is we are doing. However, in keeping with the Euro-American aversion to obligation, being liked does not imply reciprocation—it is something earned, and thus given upon merit rather than on the basis of social obligation.

A cultural difference with significant potential for misunderstanding is how Euro-Americans and other cultures deal with problem solving. Euro-Americans tend to be direct and confrontational, and easily appear rude and reckless to people from cultures with more indirect communication styles and problem solving strategies. Formality versus informality can also cause confusion. Euro-Americans tend to use informal communication in all situations, speaking to children, elders, pastors, employees and employers all alike. In some ways this communication is shallow, because it collapses all relationships into one mode of speaking it leaves no room for indicating both intimacy and deference.

Language and Non-Verbal Behavior

Martinez begins by noting that most white Americans have an essentially referential, or mechanistic, view of language—that is, they imagine that there is a direct relation between words or what is said, and what is meant. Another way of saying this might be that Euro-Americans tend to not speak, and therefore not read, between the lines.

Martinez notes the implication for intercultural communications of Whorf’s hypothesis, both strong and weak. The strong hypothesis is that language determines how we understand reality. On this view, if I don’t have a word for or a way of speaking about something then I cannot form a concept. The weak hypothesis is that language, thought and perception interact in a complex and dynamic relationship. This suggests to us that our language itself shapes how we understand reality, and therefore when people are speaking different languages (or, even if they speak the same “language” if they are speaking different dialects so to speak) they bring radically different concepts and categories to the table. Thus when looking at the same problem, two groups may “see” two entirely different things, and when one party “says” one thing, the other “hears” something entirely different. We cannot assume that what we mean to say is what gets conveyed to others, especially when they are from a different culture.

Grammar, notes Martinez, shapes how we think. For example, English uses a subject/predicate grammar that emphasizes fixed relationships between a subject and its properties, a certain polarization of reality, and cause/effect relationships. Similarly, how we conjugate structures how we think, and so American English speakers tend to be unaware of the social relations and personal intentions that Koreans have built into their language. The linguistic system American English speakers use does not have built in categories for these concepts, so Americans have difficulty even conceiving them in the first place.

Similarly, non-verbal cues do not play a large role in American English, and so Euro-Americans tend to be fairly illiterate when it comes to non-verbal communication. Martinez uses this to help explain the protestant aversion to iconography—because they tend not to “speak” symbolically, they have difficulty comprehending that icons communicate anything beyond idolatry.

American English does not easily recognize social distance. Many languages have different ways of addressing ones elders, social “betters,” religious or political leaders, and so on. By collapsing these diverse people and relationships into “I/you” English does not easily communicate familiarity verses polite distance, or respect, deference, etc. Similarly English is ill-suited for navigating relationships where there is a power differential. Thus the differences tend to go unrecognized, often with the result that communication breaks down.

Martinez finally applies these observations to the problem of ministry in a multilingual context. Biblical translators and missiology have long dealt with the tension between the belief that the gospel can be translated into any language or culture on the one hand and the reality that there is never a one to one correspondence between systems of meaning. This is further complicated by the fact that even while two groups may superficially seem to speak the same language, they may be using that language in very different ways. For example, an immigrant from India may speak fluent English, but is speaking Indian English, not American English.