Entry 7: Different Different, But Same

Week 9: Communicative Situations 2 - Cross-Gender Interactions

Does a men's brain really look like that?

John Gray adopted the metaphor “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”, likening men and women to the classical Roman god Mars and goddess Venus as ideal types in his widely successful book of the same title. Hence, it does not come as a surprise that there are indeed differences between cross-gender and same-sex interactions.

The first theory that accounts for this difference is ‘dominance’ theory. As the power continuum is not allocated to man and women equally, it often results in man having more “power” than women.

The second theory is called the ‘difference theory’ and this is often link to biological factors (hormones) and socialization patterns of the 2 genders.

I believe the major fallacy of both theories is that is homogenizes both genders to behave in a certain way. If the above 2 theories stand, how do we account for men who are known as the “lady’s men” or women who are known as the “men’s lady” (is the such a term?). These 2 groups of people don’t seem to fall under the classification of being either man or women. Even Gray realizes that his "Martians" and "Venusians” stereotypes cannot be applied blindly to individuals. In the same light I think the above theories can be used as a framework to analyse cross-gender interaction, but it is by no means to be taken like the holy grail.

So if men and women are that different? Wouldn’t it be tempting to be able to get in to the heads of the opposite gender (just for a day) and get a sneak peak of what is actually going on in their brains? Maybe those so-called “lady’s men” are can really read women’s thoughts, or maybe simply they just bat for the other team. Anyhow, this brings to mind the film “What Women Wants” that starred Mel Gibson as a male chauvinist, who is able to read the mind of women after encountering a bathroom accident.

Maybe if we could all read the opposite gender’s thoughts, it would save us all a lot of trouble? But then again, without the ‘trouble’, there wouldn’t be ‘the fun’ right?

Entry 6: A Face-Threatening ‘Affair’

Week 7: Cultural Systems 2 – Face, Politeness and Power

The two most prominent approaches to the study of linguistic politeness are the conversational-maxim view by Leech (1980, 1983) and the face management view (Brown & Levinson 1987).

As I didn’t want my entry to just contain blatant materials that are lifted from the lecture notes, I racked my brains to find relevant examples to exemplify the use of these two approaches.

Then it struck me! The headline news for the past week had revolved around Jack Neo (a local film maker) and his extra-marital affairs that recently came to light. Thus, I decided to use the 2 approaches of linguistic politeness to assess his press conference clip (see below), where he made a public apology for his affair.

I feel that my analysis is relevant to the contents of the press conference, because the speaker (Jack Neo), being a well-known public figure in Singapore is using the press conference to maintain a harmonious relationship with the general public by seeking their forgiveness.

Disclaimer: My analysis of the press conference is purely from the angle of using linguistic expression in the cultural context, and I would not be commenting on my personal opinions with regards to Jack Neo’s adulterous ways.

http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/44818.html

In the clip, you would see that he expressed deep remorse over his adulterous actions and he apologized to the media by saying “I caused this saga. All this is my fault. It has nothing to do with anyone else… Please give me a chance.” After which he is seemingly over-whelmed by his emotions and his eyes started brimming with tears.

I believe he is employing the sympathy maxim here, by ‘maximizing sympathy between self and other’. In this instance, this would be the most appropriate maxim to adopt as he is seeking for the public’s forgiveness on the affair.

Following Jack Neo’s address, it was his wife’s turn to address the media.

http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/44820.html

She attempts to seek the understanding of the media and began by saying “I am not an artiste. I don’t know how to handle this (the affair & the press conference)”. I believe she started off with a modesty maxim, minimizing praise to self, so that it reduces the social distance between her and the media. Subsequently, it would help the viewers to sympathize with her and her current situation.

She goes on to professed her love for Jack Neo, marriage and her family and said that “I have already suffered a lot. Please spare me.” The of the word “please spare me” puts the viewers in a higher status and allows us to assume that we have got the power in deciding whether Jack Neo’s acts should be forgiven.

Also, when faced with this face-threatening act (FTA), Jack Neo’s wife (Irene) redressed the FTA with positive politeness. Saying that she has already suffered a lot, she is attempting to demonstrate closeness and solidarity with the media reporters and ultimately the viewers at home. This is because one seldom confesses their’s suffering to another person, unless he or she is a close friend and/or family member.

On a personal note, I do feel that this press conference seemed somewhat staged, especially the dramatic exit. Having said that, I think it is really up to Irene to decide for herself if her husband is to be given a second chance

Entry 5: Singapore's Dimensions of Cultural Variability

Week 6: Communications Systems 1: Components and Representation

Hofstede highlighted in his studies 4 major dimensions along which national culture differ. They were classified as: (1) power distance (2) individualism versus collectivism (3) uncertainty accepting versus uncertainty avoidance and (4) masculinity versus femininity.

For my entry this week, I will be looking at these 4 dimensions of cultural variability by cross-examining Singapore’s ranking for each of the dimensions found in Hofstede’s study. Thereafter, I would attempt to give my two cent’s worth on our country’s ranking for each of the dimensions.

(1) Power-Distance

Singapore was ranked pretty high up in the power-distance index, which implies that people in Singapore recognizes and accept a hierarchy (including within families) based on factors such as age, gender and family background.

Since our independence in 1965, it has been driven into us that we are a small country with limited land and no natural resources. Hence, for us to thrive as a nation, citizens understand that we need to abide by certain rules and fulfill certain social objectives that are set out by our government in order for our nation to prosper.

This could have either consciously or subconsciously instill in us that it is acceptable for people in higher positions to have certain amount of control our people with less authority. I guess it also suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that 'all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others'.

(2) Individualism versus collectivism

In general, high power distance countries tend to be a feature of collectivist societies. Hence it did not come as a surprise when Hofstede's ranking found that Singapore, being a high power distance country, was a collectivistic society.

I believe the reason why our nation is a collectivistic country goes back to the fact that we are still a relatively young nation and it is important for the government to inculcate a certain level of national loyalty in our people. After all, human resource is our only and most precious resource. If we do not instill a certain level of national loyalty amongst our people, we could end up losing our 'human talents' to other countries.

(3) Uncertainity accepting versus uncertainty avoidance

Our country was found to be on the extreme right of the continuum, i.e. our people were extremely tolerant to uncertainties. Hofstede mentioned that people of culture where uncertainty can be tolerated are generally more dynamic and are more ready to face changes.

This somewhat surprises me, because Singaporeans are generally deemed to be “kiasee” (very risk adverse), so it seems to disagree with Hofstede’s findings.

Personally, I feel that most Singaporeans are not as risk-taking due to the fact that our course of lives seemed to be already been planned out for us for at least the first 20 years of our lives. If you think about it, most children advance from their (compulsory) primary to tertiary education. Seldom do they evaluating if they could have certain talents like in the sporting arena or in the performing arts that is worth developing, thinking that these areas would not be a viable career option in Singapore. Hence, I do not exactly agree with Hofstede’s finding on this particular dimension.

I think his results were derived from people that grew up in the 1970s (since he conducted his studies in the 1980s). People who grew up in the post independence era could be more risk taking, because we were still a young nation then and individuals were still trying to find their foothold in the society. Comparatively, I feel that many of our younger generation are less risk-taking these days, often relying on “tested and proven formulas” to tackle their day to day tasks.

(4) Masculinity versus femininity

Singapore is in the middle of Hofstede’s theoretical range pertaining to the degree to which masculine or feminine traits prevail. I guess the reason for this is because materialistic possessions and sex roles are clearly differentiated in our culture. Moreover, we come from a strong asian background which values the roles that a man and women should play. However, with the influx of western culture in our society, there is a blurring of gender roles like fathers are no longer deemed to be the sole bread winner of the house and occupations like engineers that were traditionally a male-dominated industry are opening up to members of the opposite sex as well.

Overall, I feel that Hosfstede has made some very precious insights to our Singapore culture, but it could be time that the study was re-conducted for dimensions like uncertainity avoidance in particular.