What we become: the impact of Cultural Diversity on Relationships and Families of Media in Taiwan
Undoubtedly, today’s modern societies and people are greatly influenced by the various occurrences brought by media and communications. Media played a very pervasive and ambivalent function in contemporary history. This is why most researchers have taken up the courage in understanding its functions, and impact it makes in changing the matters pertaining to society, the least of which is that of public opinion (Rothman 1992, p.5). In daily human experiences, mass media affects single or more aspects of human life particularly on the aspect cultural diversity in terms of relationships and families. This is the time of strong economic and cultural globalisation (International Communication Association 2003, p. 2). This paper argues on the supposition that cultural diversity affects relationships and families in specific areas and varied degree of influences. Specifically, it focuses on the idea that “postmodern society exposes people to a wider range of family patterns, as travel, migration and changing behaviours and values challenge family boundaries”.
Cultural Diversity
“The cultural wealth of the world is its diversity in dialogue”, this is the opening line of Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) written in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. In brief summary, this Declaration encompasses policies and guidelines that safeguards cultural diversity for the international community (UNESCO 2001). According to Matsuura, the Declaration “raises cultural diversity to the level of “the common heritage of humanity”, “as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature” and makes its defence an ethical imperative indissociable from respect for the dignity of the individual” (UNESCO 2001). It aims to preserve cultural diversity and to prevent fundamentalism. Meanwhile, defining cultural diversity is arguable as the definition of its root words – culture and diversity – is relative. To have a clearer understanding on what cultural diversity is, defining culture and diversity in individual instances will greatly help.
Culture by definition is similar to culture itself. It does not have established definition; however, there are common concepts that unite various definitions. The basic definition of culture in the dictionary is anything that pertains to human knowledge, belief, and behaviour including shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by people in particular place and time that transcend beyond generations. According to Handwerker (2002, p. 107), culture mainly consists of the knowledge on what or how people use to live their lives and the way in which they do so. Culture consists of both explicit and implicit rules through which experience is interpreted. Basically, Murphie and Potts (2003, p. 2) noted that the function of culture is to establish modes of conduct, standards of performance, and ways of dealing with interpersonal and environmental relations that will reduce uncertainty, increase predictability, and thereby promote survival and growth among the members of any society. It affects behaviour and provides explanations on how a group communicates and filters information. The cultural meanings of such elements of culture render some forms of activity, may it be normal and natural while others are strange or wrong. Amidst the passing of time, cultural beliefs, values, customs and other elements carry on and are to be followed so long as they yield satisfaction on the group of individuals or society that uses it. However, when a specific standard no longer fully satisfies the members of a society, it is modified or replaced, so that the resulting standard is more in line with the current needs and desires of the society (Murphie & Potts 2003, p. 3). Thus, culture gradually but continually evolves to meet the needs of society.
Diversity, on the other hand, is characterised by variety or the condition of being diverse. It is practically the state of differing characteristics of people, places, circumstances, and others that is mainly composed of distinct or unlike elements and qualities that differentiates the one from the others. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2003) reflects that diversity is culture itself. To quote, “diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind.” Diversity is the one that differentiates one person or group, for example, from another persons or group regardless of given parameter such as race, gender, age, language and others.
Given the above theoretical background, cultural diversity is logically defined as the variety of culture that is present in every individual and occurs in given society. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2003) deemed that it is “as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations.” It also necessitates a contextual and cultural examination of the values, behaviors and attitudes that underlie every individual (Temple 1997, p. 608). Thus, while difference in culture itself is sufficient explanation in the misunderstanding and sometimes barriers that governs relationships of different nationalities, extending this dissimilarity is instrumental in establishing better relationships with other people.
Now the question is what is the impact of cultural diversity on relationships and families? In response to this, there are many things to consider as much as perspectives to look into in order to provide a sufficient explanation to the question posed. Globalisation is among the major indicator of effects of cultural diversity on relationships and families. Globalisation receives a significant amount of attention in recent studies and policy development. According to the inclusive definition of provided by De Soysa (2003, p. 7),
Globalization is generally understood as economic, political, and social integration of states and societies, both horizontally and vertically, in tighter webs of interdependence. Globalization is a process and not a qualitatively different endstate, where politics and the state have become superfluous and the market has taken over. Horizontal and vertical integration of states in the global economy is currently taking place through at least two major visible and measurable processes-the rapid spread of foreign capital, trade, and the spread of the ideas of political democracy and market principles to an extent never before witnessed in modern history.
Moreover, globalisation is evidently everywhere particularly on cultures and societies. Kim and Weaver (2003, p. 124) stated that globalization has invaded people’s consciousness in many forms as the manifestations are seen everywhere. Prominent international magazines like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal almost mention it every issue (Lazarus 1998, p. 91) and political leaders almost mention it all the time, particularly its advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, economists see it in terms of highly integrated global markets and increasing interdependence between previously autonomous domestic economies while mass media researchers see it in the technological innovations of communications media that have enabled people to penetrate and communicate with even the most remote corners of the world (Kim & Weaver 2003, p. 123-125). Globalisation and cultural diversity intersects in terms of its impact on relationships and families. In order to limit the discussion in specific cases, workplaces relationships are provided as example while in terms of families, it is concentrated on traditions.
Cultural Diversity and Relationships
The concept of diversity has been described roughly as groups of two or more individuals which characteristically denote demographic dissimilarities among group members (McGrath et al 1995, p. 17). In the workplace, cultural diversity serves different impacts – both beneficial and harmful. Considering the conditions brought about by globalisation like substantial industrial competition, dynamic process of internationalisation and fast-tracking of technological innovations, the global workplace and human capital and labour is evidently affected particularly in international organisations. Among the impacts of cultural diversity are the following: for the beneficial side, it serves as competitive feature of the organization because of its inclusiveness and its given role on the development of organisational culture and management style, and for the harmful side, it creates conflict among members of the organisation if not properly managed.
According to Aronson (2002, p. 46), diversity is important in an organisation because it is about inclusiveness. That it is not simply a code word for minority concerns, but embraces a new way of thinking about maximising the potential of everyone within the organization. It is basically about providing equality within the organisation. When the workplace is consist of various employee cultures, granted that it is properly managed, it serves as a source of competitive workforce. The productivity and performance of people complements or coexist with each other. For example, managers from US are said to fall from a broad category of executive, administrative, and professional personnel who are not subject to the requirement of being paid overtime wages and salaries for work beyond eight hours per day and forty hours per week while manager from the UK includes professionals who play specific formal roles in corporate organization and direction, excluding supervisory personnel, except for our discussion of managerial training and development (Peterson 1996, p. 7). The national attributes of both managers as based on their cultural orientation are deemed to be essential. In cases where these managers from the US and UK need to work together, chances is that they integrate the cultural practice of one another in the performance of their managerial responsibilities. This is just a simple instance where cultural diversity works for the advantageous position in the workplace. There are other integral impacts that are embodied in various researches like Wilson (1996) identifying the critical role of managing diversity in ensuring economic and competitive success and other studies that are focused on human resource (HR) strategy and firm performance (e.g. Huselid 1995; MacDuffie 1995; Boudreau 1991; Jones & Wright 1992; Kleiner 1990). Yet, there is lacking relationship of all the areas concerned in overall firm productivity.
Workplace diversity is one of the most effective strategies because it manages individuals with different characteristics who eventually create the team (Cross 2000, p. 137). The role of managing diversity in business has been considered important particularly to the welfare of the employees. It places an important emphasis on the nature of organisational culture (Ross & Schneider 1992; Kandola 1996; McDougall 1996) and management styles (Iles 1995). Concurrently, recent studies have been created to describe the abundant dimensions for categorizing these demographic dissimilarities. Nonetheless, it is recurrent that hypothesizing diverse results for individuals and work clusters, particularly those relating to the level and disposition of those diversity. To illustrate, the study of Pelled (1996, p. 615) created one set of calculations regarding the implications of ethnic diversity among the members of the group clusters. The study has also been able to post another assertion regarding the implications of functional background diversity, which is fundamentally focusing on the manifestation of race as well as other work-related operating setting. Therefore, managing diversity involves building a healthy workplace for all members of the team, and giving them opportunities to develop themselves as a person, as well as their performance at work (Thiederman 2003). This is a long-term strategy that will prepare the organization to meet the challenges of the evolving business world.
On the contrary, cultural diversity in the workplace can create conflict if not treated appropriately. For instance, conflicts in relation to cultural diversity are ubiquitous in multinational and transnational companies. According to Singer (1994, p. 3), sometimes employee dispute processes that are created to deal with complaints of discrimination expand naturally to deal with broader areas of disagreement. Spurred by rumours of sexual harassment, for example, a national non-profit organization hired a conflict management or HR expert to teach several of its employees to counsel or mediate complaints of harassment as well as other forms of discrimination. Managers had decided to spread the neutral’s role over several employees on a part-time basis in order to give people with problems access to counsellors of different races, sexes, and shifts. Shortly thereafter, the general counsel, who had participated in the counsellors’ training, succeeded in mediating a bitter conflict between workers in two departments over their overlapping jurisdiction to perform different types of work. As a result, employees from the two departments produced a more workable and easily understandable arrangement. With this, the HR manager should been called on to meet with groups of the company’s employees (in one case, with men and women separately) in order to mediate disputes that had been festering between them (Singer 1994). Cultural diversity in the workplace could be a picture of the general society, if and only if, people are not able to recognised the individuality of everyone. The diversity in culture defines identity of people. Thus, in managing cultural diversity, may it be in workplace or general society, the idea of respect is always deliberate and understandable.
Cultural Diversity and Families
Family being the fundamental unit of every given society is considered to be the most influential component of social institution. It is also believed that a family is the core avenue and an essential channel for learning process that will serve as the basis of such attitude and behaviour pattern of an individual and how s/he responds to certain changes in the society (Anderson 1997; Bryceson & Vuorela 2002, p. 3; Rueter & Runner 1931, p. 73). Today, globalisation affects the traditional concept of families in terms of its cultural composition and functions. On this case, it is cultural diversity that identifies the identity of families on aspect of traditions. Traditions are part of certain culture and this somewhat dictates how people react or what to do on specific conditions. Cultural diversity, in relation to families, changes traditions. The role of media is considered to be the prime motivator of change.
Family traditions are valuable tools for parents and elders to carry out the responsibility of raising children and inculcating into them the social values and ethos. Because families share many qualities of individuals, they also have the capacity to grow, change and adapt (Gambrill 1997, p. 18). It is very pleasing to see multi-generation families congregating and dealing with problems that are not defined by their racer and ethnicity. Maurice Halbwach (1992, p. 58-59) added:
In addition to regulations that are common to a whole society, there exist customs and modes of thinking with each particular family that equally impose—and even more forcibly—their form on the opinions and feelings of their members… Similarly, in the most traditional societies of today, each family has its proper mentality, its memories which it alone commemorates, and its secrets that are revealed only to its members. But these memories, as in the religious traditions of the family of antiquity, consist not only of a series of individual images of the past. They are at the same time models, examples, and elements of teaching. They express the general attitude of the group; they not only reproduce its history but also define its nature and its qualities and weaknesses.
Due to the role of media in presenting various cultures in its various channels of communication like television and film, traditions are changed. On the issue of travel, migration and changing behaviours and values, considerable attention has been given by the media to the special issues and problems arising out. On travel, people are persuaded to visit places and their short-term interaction to a foreign culture created a significant impact to their host culture and vice versa. Specifically, the food selection of US (e.g. fast food culture like McDonalds) is explicitly spread globally as traditional meals of a given culture is replaced (e.g. distinct Australian or Asian food traditions), thus the process as part of globalization is referred to as McDonaldization (Erling 2001). On migration, Handwerker (2003, p. 110) presented an outstanding findings that migrants contribute to ongoing cultural evolution in their host regions. When a foreign family lives in a new community where their culture is deemed to be unknown, chances are, they should adapt or resist the host culture. In one way or the other, each culture – that of the foreign family and the community – may undergo changes. The specific contribution may vary with age, gender, education, travel patterns, and the patterns, networks, and character of social networks, including experience with people from different ethnic and social class backgrounds, experience with health and education professionals, household composition and caregiving responsibilities, or other contingencies (Handwerker 2003, p. 110). Other changing values and behaviours in family traditions as affected by media is the development of consumerism or materialism. In studies of consumerism, it has become almost a cliché to claim that the purchase, use and display of goods in some way expresses social identities and is rooted to the persuasive effects of advertising. Consumerism is already deep-rooted part of every given culture (Barnhill 2004, p. 55). Defining consumerism is always equated into a negative image. Traditionally, consumerism is known as the purchasing of products beyond the basic requirement of consumption. It is related to environmental conditions that are persuasive and are contributory factors along with politics, economics, social institutions, industrial technology, and ideological tendency (Barnhill 2004, p. 56). Meanwhile, materialism in modern life is rooted in the innate freedom and quest for satisfaction of people. In the US, personal freedoms and life satisfaction or the need to optimize on life’s happenings are both integral elements in lifestyles (Schiffman & Kanuk 2000, p. 91). In application, the advertising in media challenges family traditions and changes values and behaviours. The aesthetics of advertising easily provoke a culture of consumerism (Harris 2000, p. 49). Paradoxically, quaintness in advertising shows consumerism correcting itself, disassociating itself from its own conceited techniques, hiding consumerism from the consumer and ostensibly rejecting the commercialism on which it is based. Thus, animated or unrealistic presentation of some advertisements could easily attain its goal – persuasion. Although people in various countries individually contribute to the cessation of consumerist behaviours or practices (Jones 1997, p. 39), new connections between the cultural and the political, the visual and the material, advertising and personal belonging, consumerism and the rights of citizenship has been premeditated issues tackled by each government worldwide. Today, social scientists agree that effective family traditions promote a sense of identity and a feeling of closeness, sense of security and assurance in today’s fast, hectic, and dynamic world. However, when it comes to cultural diversity, family traditions undergo cultural evolution. Cultural evolution in individuals that shifts the balance of power in social relationships, and other forms we have yet to specify very precisely, produce changes in the recurrent, patterned behaviour that constitutes the super organic environments of cultures (e.g. Handwerker 2001; Wolf 1982). All in all, cultural diversity and its impact in families are rooted on the extent of exposure to various media, which are said to be the most powerful catalyst of change. Diversity is not neutral. It requires acknowledging that differences between existing cultures on the basis of ephemeral beliefs, feelings, and behaviour unique in their details to each individual. To end, it has become commonplace to hear people ascribe differences in what people think and do (cultural differences) to labels for class, gender, and ethnicity, in much the same way that we once ascribed differences to identities.
References
Anderson, GL (ed) 1997, The Family in Global Transition, St. Paul, MN: Professors World Peace Academy, pp. 3-6 and 22.
Aronson, D 2002, “Managing the Diversity Revolution: Best Practices for 21st Century Business,” Civil Rights Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 46+.
Barnhill, DL 2004, “Good Work: An Engaged Buddhist Response to the Dilemmas of Consumerism,” Buddhist-Christian Studies, 24, pp. 55+.
Boudreau, JW 1991, Utility analysis in human resources management decisions, In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.) vol. 2, pp. 621-745, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bryceson, D & Vuorela, U (eds.) 2002, The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Global Networks, New York: New York.
Cross, EY 2000, Managing Diversity – The Courage to Lead, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
De Soysa, I 2003, Foreign Direct Investment, Democracy, and Development: Assessing Contours, Correlates, and Concomitants of Globalization, New York: Routledge.
Erling, E 2001, The Current Status of the English Language Has Changed and These Changes Must Be Recognized in Both the School and the University, accessed October 23, 2007 http://www.userpage.fuberlin.de/~berling/globalesEnglishInBerlinerSchulen.htm
Gambrill, E 1997, Social Work Practice: A Critical Thinker’s Guide, New York: Oxford University Press.
Halbwachs, M 1992, On Collective Memory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Handwerker, WP 2002, “The Construct Validity of Cultures: Cultural Diversity, Culture Theory, and a Method for Ethnography,” American Anthropologist, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 106-122.
Handwerker, WP 2001, “Child Abuse and the Balance of Power in Parental Relationships: An Evolved Domain-Independent Mental Mechanism That Accounts for Behavioral Variation,” American Journal of Human Biology, 13, pp. 679-689.
Harris, D 2002, Cute, Quaint, Hungry, and Romantic: The Aesthetics of Consumerism, New York: Basic Books.
Huselid, MA 1995, “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 635-672.
Iles, P 1995, “Learning to work with difference,” Personnel Review, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 44–60
International Communication Association (ICA) 2005, Communication for Social Change – Struggles for Visibility and Voice, Culture and Diversity Paper submitted to the International Division of ICA for the ICA Conference, May 2005, New York City.
Jones, J 1997 “Can’t Shop, Won’t Shop: No Shop Day Activists Will Soon Be Protesting at a Mall near You. Can They Wean Us off Our Addiction to Consumerism?” New Statesman, vol. 126, no. 4360 (November 14), pp. 39.
Jones, GR & Wright, PM 1992, An economic approach to conceptualizing the utility of human resource management practices, In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 10, pp. 271-299, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Kim, TS & Weaver, DH 2003, “Reporting On Globalization: A Comparative
Analysis Of Social Patterns In Five Countries’ Newspapers,” Gazette: The International Journal For Communication Studies, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 121–144.
Kleiner, MM 1990, The role of industrial relations in firm performance, In J. A. Fossum & J. Mattsons (Eds.), Employee and Labor Relations, vol. 4, pp. 23-24, Washington, DC: BNA Press.
Kandola, B 1995, “Selecting for Diversity,” The International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 3, no. 3, (July), pp. 162-167.
Lazarus, L 1998, “Charting Globalisation,” Race and Class, vol. 40, no. 2/3 (October 1998-March 1999), pp. 91-111.
MacDuffie, JP1995, “Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry,” Industrial and Labour Relations Review, vol. 48, pp. 197-221.
McDougall, M 1996, “Equal opportunities versus managing diversity: another challenge for public sector management?”, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 9, no. 5/6, pp. 62-72.
McGrath, JE, Berdahl, JL & Arrow, H 1995, Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: The dynamics of diversity in work groups, In S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman (Editions), Diversity in Work Teams, Washington. DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 17-45.
Murphie, A & Potts, J 2003, Culture and Technology, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pelled, LH 1996, “Demographic diversity, conflict and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory,” Organization Science, 7, pp. 615-631.
Peterson, RB (ed) 1993, Managers and National Culture: A Global Perspective. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Ross, R & Schneider, R 1992, From Equality to Diversity: A Business Case for Equal Opportunities, London: Pitman.
Rothman, S 1992, the Mass Media in Liberal Democratic Societies, Paragon House, New York.
Rueter, EB & Runner, JR 1931, The Family: Source Materials for the Study of Family and Personality, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Schiffman, L and Kanuk, LL 2000, Consumer behavior, 7th ed. London: Prentice Hall.
Singer, LR 1994, Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business, Families, and the Legal System, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Temple, B 1997, “Watch your tongue: issues in translation and cross-cultural research,” Sociology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 607-618.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2001, UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, UNESCO General Conference (November 2), Paris, France accessed October 23, 2007 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf
Wilson, E 1996, Managing diversity and HRD, In J. Stewart and J. McGoldrick (Eds.), HRD Perspectives, Strategies and Practice, London: Pitman.
Wolf, ER 1982 Europe and the People without History, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment