全屏显示专题章节

These lines，written by one of themost cherished of haiku poets，express our timeless and universal curiosity about humankind．When they were written，nearly three hundred years ago，the word neighbor referred to people very much like one’s self—similar in dress，in diet，in custom，in language—who happened to live next door．Today relatively few people are surrounded by neighbors who are cultural replicas of themselves．Tomorrow we can expect to spend most of our lives in the company of neighborswho will speak in a different tongue，seek different values，move at a different pace，and interact according to a different script．Within no more than a decade or two the probability of spending part of one’s life in a foreign culture will exceed the probability a hundred years ago of ever leaving the town in which onewas born．As our world is transformed，our neighbors increasingly will be people whose lifestyles contrast sharply with our own．

The technological feasibility of such a global village is no longer in doubt．Only the precise date of its attainment is uncertain．The means already exist：in telecommunication systems linking the world by satellite，in aircraft capable of moving people faster than the speed of sound，in computers which can disgorge facts more rapidly than people can formulate their questions．The methods for bringing people closer physically and electronically are clearly at hand．What is in doubt is whether the erosion of cultural boundaries through technology will bring the realization of a dream or a nightmare．Will a global village be a mere collection of people or a true community？Will its residents be neighbors capable of respecting and utilizing their differences or clusters of strangers living in ghettos and united only in their antipathies for others？

Can we generate the new cultural attitudes required by our technological virtuosity？History is not very reassuring here．It has taken centuries to learn how to live harmoniously in the family，the tribe，the city-state，and the nation．Each new stretching of human sensitivity and loyalty has taken generations to become firmly assimilated in the human psyche．And now we are forced into a quantum leap from the mutual suspicion and hostility that have marked the past relations between peoples into a world in which mutual respect and comprehension are requisite．

Even events of recent decades provide little basis for optimism．Increasing physical proximity has brought no millennium in human relations．If anything，it has appeared to intensify the divisions among people rather than to create a broader intimacy．Every new reduction in physical distance hasmade usmore painfully aware of the psychic distance that divides people and has increased alarm over real or imagined differences．If today people occasionally choke on what seem to be indigestible differences between rich and poor，male and female，specialist and nonspecialist within cultures，what will happen tomorrow when people must assimilate and copewith still greater contrasts in lifestyles？Wider access tomore people will be a doubtful victory if human beings find they have nothing to say to one another or cannot stand to listen to each other．

Time and space have long cushioned intercultural encounters，confining them to touristic exchanges．But this insulation is rapidly wearing thin．In the world of tomorrow we can expect to live-notmerely vacation-in societieswhich seek different values and abide by different codes．There we will be surrounded by foreigners for long periods of time，working with others in the closest possible relationships．If people currently show little tolerance or talent for encounters with alien cultures，how can they learn to dealwith constant and inescapable coexistence？

The temptation is to retreat to some pious hope or talismanic formula to carry us into the new age．“Meanwhile，”as Edwin Reischauer reminds us，“we fail to do what we ourselves must do if‘oneworld’is ever to be achieved，and that is to develop the education，the skills，and the attitudes thatmenmusthave if they are to build and maintain such a world．The time is short，and the needs are great．The task faces allmen．But it is on the shoulders of people living in the strong countries of the world，such as Japan and the United States，that this burden falls with special weight and urgency．”1

Those who have truly struggled to comprehend other people—even those closest to and most like them—will appreciate the immensity of the challenge of intercultural communication．A greater exchange of people between nations，needed as that may be，carries with it no guarantee of increased cultural empathy；experience in other lands often does little but aggravate existing prejudices．Studying guidebooks or memorizing polite phrases similarly fails to explain differences in cultural perspectives．Programs of cultural enrichment，while they contribute to curiosity about other ways of life，do not cultivate the skills to function effectively in the cultures studied．Even concentrated exposure to a foreign language，valuable as it is，provides access to only one of themany codes that regulate daily affairs；human understanding is by nomeans guaranteed because conversants share the same dictionary．（Within the United States，where people inhabit a common territory and possess a common language，mutuality of meaning among Latino Americans，European Americans，African Americans，Native Americans，to say nothing of old and young，poor and rich，proestablishment and antiestablishment cultures，is a sporadic and unreliable occurrence．）Useful as all these measures are for enlarging appreciation of diverse cultures，they fall shortofwhat is needed for a global village to survive．

What seemsmost critical is to find ways of gaining entrance into the assumptive world of another culture，to identify the norms that govern face-to-face relations，and to equip people to function within a social system that is foreign but no longer incomprehensible．Without this kind of insight，people are condemned to remain outsiders no matter how long they live in another country．Its institutions and its customs will be interpreted inevitably from the premises and through themedium of their own culture．Whether they notice something or overlook it，respect or ridicule it，express or conceal it，their reaction will be dictated by the logic of their own rather than the alien culture．

There are，of course，shelves and shelves of books on the cultures of the world．They cover the history，religion，political thought，music，sculpture，and industry ofmany nations．And they make fascinating and provocative reading．Butonly in the vaguestway do they suggestwhat it is that really distinguishes the behavior of a Samoan，a Congolese，a Japanese，or an American．Rarely do the descriptions of a political structure or religious faith explain precisely when and why certain topics are avoided or why specific gestures carry such radically differentmeanings according to the context in which they appear．

When former President Nixon and former Premier Satomet to discuss a growing problem concerning trade in textiles between Japan and the United States，Premier Sato announced that since they were on such good terms with each other the deliberations would be“three parts talk and seven parts haragei．”2 Translated literally，haragei means to communicate through the belly，that is，to feel out intuitively rather than verbally state the precise position of each person．

Subscribing to this strategy—one that governs many interpersonal exchanges in his culture—Premier Sato conveyed without verbal elaboration his comprehension of the plight of American textile firms threatened by accelerating exports of Japanese fabrics to the United States．President Nixon—similarly abiding by norms thatgovern interaction within his culture—took this comprehension of the American position to mean that new export quotas would be forthcoming shortly．

During the next few weeks both were shocked at the consequences of theirmeeting：Nixon was infuriated to learn that the new policies he expected were not forthcoming，and Sato was upset to find that he had unwittingly triggered a new wave of hostility toward his country．If prominent officials，surrounded by foreign advisers，can commit such grievous communicative blunders，the plight of the ordinary citizen may be suggested．Such intercultural collisions，forced upon the public consciousness by the grave consequences they carry and the extensive publicity they receive，only hint at the wider and more frequent confusions and hostilities that disrupt the negotiations of lesser officials，business executives，professionals，and even visitors in foreign countries．

Every culture expresses its purposes and conducts its affairs through the medium of communication．Cultures exist primarily to create and preserve common systems of symbols by which theirmembers can assign and exchange meanings．Unhappily，the distinctive rules that govern these symbol systems are far from obvious．About some of these codes，such as language，we have extensive knowledge．About others，such as gestures and facial codes，we have only rudimentary knowledge．On many others—rules governing topical appropriateness，customs regulating physical contact，time and space codes，strategies for the management of conflict—we have almost no systematic knowledge．To crash another culture with only the vaguest notion of its underlying dynamics reflects not only a provincial naivetébut a dangerous form of cultural arrogance．

It is differences in meaning，far more than mere differences in vocabulary，that isolate cultures and that cause them to regard each other as strange or even barbaric．It is not too surprising thatmany cultures refer to themselves as“The People”，relegating all other human beings to a subhuman form of life．To the person who drinks blood，the eating of meat is repulsive．Someone who conveys respect by standing is upset by someone who conveys it by sitting down；both may regard kneeling as absurd．Burying the dead may prompt tears in one society，smiles in another，and dancing in a third．If spitting on the streetmakes sense to some，itwill appear bizarre that others carry their spit in their pocket；neithermay quite appreciate someone who spits to express gratitude．The bullfight that constitutes an almost religious ritual for some seems a cruel and inhumane way of destroying a defenseless animal to others．Although staring is acceptable social behavior in some cultures，in others it is a thoughtless invasion of privacy．Privacy，itself，iswithout universalmeaning．

Note that none of these acts involves an insurmountable linguistic challenge．The words that describe these acts—eating，spitting，showing respect，fighting，burying，and staring—are quite translatable into most languages．The issue is more conceptual than linguistic；each society places events in its own cultural frame，and it is these frames that bestow the unique meaning and differentiated response they produce．

As we move or are driven toward a global village and increasingly frequent cultural contact，we need more than simply greater factual knowledge of each other．We need，more specifically，to identify whatmight be called the“rule books ofmeaning”that distinguish one culture from another．For to grasp the way in which other cultures perceive the world，and the assumptions and values that are the foundation of these perceptions，is to gain access to the experience of other human beings．Access to theworldview and the communicative style of other culturesmay not only enlarge our own way of experiencing theworld but enable us tomaintain constructive relationshipswith societies thatoperate according to a different logic than our own．

To survive，psychologically aswell as physically，human beingsmust inhabit a world that is relatively free of ambiguity and is reasonably predictable．Some sort of structure must be placed upon the endless profusion of incoming signals．The infant，born into aworld of flashing，hissing，moving images，soon learns to adapt by resolving this chaos into toys and tables，dogs and parents．Even adultswho have had their vision or hearing restored through surgery describe the world as a frightening and sometimes unbearable experience；only after days of effort are they able to transform blurs and noises intomeaningful and thereforemanageable experiences．

It is commonplace to talk as if theworld“has”meaning，to ask what“is”themeaning of a phrase，a gesture，a painting，a contract．Yet when thought about，it is clear that events are devoid ofmeaning until someone assigns it to them．There is no appropriate response to a bow or a handshake，a shout or a whisper，until it is interpreted．A drop of water and the color red have no meaning—they simply exist．The aim of human perception is to make the world intelligible so that it can bemanaged successfully；the attribution ofmeaning is a prerequisite to and preparation for action．

People are never passive receivers，merely absorbing events of obvious significance，but are active in assigning meaning to sensation．What any event acquires in the way ofmeaning appears to reflect a transaction between what is there to be seen or heard and what the interpreter brings to it in theway of past experience and prevailingmotive．Thus the attribution ofmeaning is always a creative process by which the raw data of sensation are transformed to fit the aims of the observer．

The diversity of reactions that can be triggered by a single experience—meeting a stranger，negotiating a contract，attending a textile conference—is immense．Observers are forced to see it through their own eyes，interpret it in the light of their own values，fit it to the requirements of their own circumstances．As a consequence，every object and message is seen by every observer from a somewhat different perspective．Each person will note some features and neglect others．Each will accept some relations among the facts and deny others．Each will arrive at some conclusion，tentative or certain，as the sounds and forms resolve into a temple or barn，a compliment or insult．

Provide a group of people with a set of photographs，even quite simple and ordinary photographs，and note how diverse are the meanings the photographs provoke．They will recall and forget different pictures；they will also assign quite distinctive meanings to those they do remember．Some will recall themood of a picture，others the actions；some the appearance and others the attitudes of persons portrayed．Often the observers cannot agree upon even themost “objective”details—the number of people，the precise location and identity of simple objects．A difference in frame of mind—fatigue，hunger，excitement，anger—will change dramatically what they report they have“seen”．

It should not be surprising that people raised in different families，exposed to different events，praised and punished for different reasons，should come to view theworld so differently．As George A．Kelly has noted，people see the world through templates which force them to construe events in unique ways．These patterns or grids which we fit over the realities of the world are cut from our own experience and values，and they predispose us to certain interpretations．Industrialist and farmer do not see the“same”land；husband and wife do not plan for the“same”child；doctor and patient do not discuss the“same”disease；borrower and creditor do not negotiate the“same”mortgage；daughter and daughter-in-law do not react to the“same”mother．

The worlds people create for themselves are distinctive worlds，not the same worlds others occupy．They fashion from every incidentwhatevermeanings fit their own private biases．These biases，taken together，constitute what has been called the“assumptive world of the individual．”The worlds people get inside their heads are the only worlds they know．And these symbolic worlds，not the realworld，are what people talk about，argue about，laugh about，fight about．

Every communication，interpersonal or intercultural，is a transaction between these private worlds．As people talk，they search for symbols thatwill enable them to share their experience and converge upon a commonmeaning．This process，often long and sometimes painful，makes it possible finally to reconcile apparent or real differences between them．Various words are used to describe thismoment．When it involves an integration of facts or ideas，it is usually called an agreement；when it involves sharing amood or feeling，it is referred to as empathy or rapport．But understanding is a broad enough term to cover both possibilities；in either case it identifies the achievement of a common meaning．

If understanding is a measure of communicative success，a simple formula—which might be called the interpersonal equation—may clarify the major factors that contribute to its achievement：

Interpersonal Understanding＝f（Similarity of Perceptual Orientations，Similarity of BeliefSystems，Similarity ofCommunicative Styles）

That is，Interpersonal Understanding is a function of or dependent upon the degree of Similarity of Perceptual Orientations，Similarity of Systems of Belief，and Similarity in Communicative Styles．Each of these terms requires some elaboration．

Similarity in Perceptual Orientations refers to people’s prevailing approaches to reality and the degree of flexibility theymanifest in organizing it．Some people scan theworld broadly，searching for diversity of experience，preferring the novel and unpredictable．They may be drawn to new foods，new music，new ways of thinking．Others seem to scan the world more narrowly，searching to confirm past experience，preferring the known and predictable．They secure satisfaction from old friends，traditional art forms，familiar lifestyles．The former have a high tolerance for novelty；the latter a low tolerance for novelty．

It is a balance between these tendencies，of course，that characterizesmost people．Within the same person，attraction to the unfamiliar and the familiar coexist．Which prevails at any moment is at least partly a matter of circumstance：when secure，people may widen their perceptual field，accommodate new ideas or actions；when they feel insecure，theymay narrow their perceptual field to protect existing assumptions from the threat of new beliefs or lifestyles．The balancemay be struck in still other ways：some people like to live in a stable physical setting with everything in its proper place，but welcome new emotional or intellectual challenges；others enjoy living in a chaotic and disordered environment butwould rather avoid exposing themselves to novel or challenging ideas．

People differ also in the degree towhich their perceptions are flexible or rigid．Some react with curiosity and delight to unpredictable and uncategorizable events．Others are disturbed or uncomfortable in the presence of the confusing and complex．

There are peoplewho show a high degree of tolerance for ambiguity；othersmanifesta low tolerance for ambiguity．When confronted with the complications and confusions that surround many daily events，the former tend to avoid immediate closure and delay judgment，while the latter seek immediate closure and evaluation．Those with little tolerance for ambiguity tend to respond categorically，that is，by reference to the class names for things（businessmen，radicals，hippies，foreigners）rather than to their unique and differentiating features．

Itwould be reasonable to expect that individuals who approach reality similarly might understand each other easily，and laboratory research confirms this conclusion：people with similar perceptual styles attract one another，understand each other better，and work more efficiently together and with greater satisfaction than those whose perceptual orientations differ．

Similarity in Systems of Belief refers not to the way people view the world but to the conclusions they draw from their experience．Everyone develops a variety of opinions toward divorce，poverty，religion，television，sex，and social customs．When belief and disbelief systems coincide，people are likely to understand and appreciate each other better．Research done by Donn Byrne and replicated by the author demonstrates how powerfully human beings are drawn to those who hold the same beliefs and how sharply they are repelled by those who do not．3

Subjects in these experiments were given questionnaires requesting their opinions on twenty-six topics．After completing the forms，each was asked to rank the thirteen most important and least important topics．Later each person was given four forms，ostensibly filled out by people in another group but actually filled out by the researchers to show varying degrees of agreementwith their own answers，and invited to choose among them with regard to their attractiveness as associates．The resultswere clear：peoplemost preferred to talk with those whose attitudes duplicated their own exactly，next chose those who agreed with them on all important issues，next chose those with similar views on unimportant issues，and finally and reluctantly chose thosewho disagreed with them completely．It appears thatmost peoplemost of the time find satisfying relationships easiest to achieve with someone who shares their own hierarchy of beliefs．This，of course，convertsmany human encounters into rituals of ratification，both people looking to each other only to obtain endorsement and applause for their own beliefs．It is，however，what is often meant by“interpersonal understanding”．

Does the same principle hold true for Similarity of Communicative Styles？To a large extent，yes．But not completely．By communicative style is meant the topics people prefer to discuss，their favorite forms of interaction—ritual，repartee，argument，self-disclosure—and the depth of involvement they demand of each other．It includes the extent to which communicants rely upon the same channels—vocal，verbal，physical—for conveying information and the extent to which they are tuned to the same level ofmeaning，that is，to the factual or emotional content of messages．The use of a common vocabulary and even preference for similar metaphorsmay help people to understand each other．

But some complementarity in conversational style may also help．Talkative people may prefer quiet partners，the more aggressive may enjoy the less aggressive，and those who seek affection may be drawn to themore affection-giving，simply because both can find the greatest mutual satisfaction when interpersonal stylesmesh．Even this sort of complementarity，however，may reflect a case of similarity in definitions of each other’s conversational role．

This hypothesis，too，has drawn the interest of communicologists．One investigator found that people paired to work on common tasks were much more effective if their communicative styleswere similar than if they were dissimilar．4 Another social scientist found that teachers tended to give higher grades on tests to studentswhose verbal stylesmatched their own than to students who gave equally valid answers but did not phrase them as their instructorsmight．5 To establish common meanings seems to require that conversants share a common vocabulary and compatible ways of expressing ideas and feelings．

Itmust be emphasized that perceptual orientations，systems of belief，and communicative styles do not exist or operate independently．They overlap and affect each other．They combine in complex ways to determine behavior．What people say is influenced by what they believe and what they believe，in turn，by what they see．Their perceptions and beliefs are themselves partly a product of their manner of communicating with others．The terms that comprise the interpersonal equation constitute not three isolated but three interdependent variables．They provide three perspectives to use in the analysis of communicative acts．

The interpersonal equation suggests there is an underlying narcissistic bias in human societies that draws similar people together．They seek to find in others a reflection of themselves，those who view the world as they do，who interpret it as they do，and who express themselves in a similar way．It is not surprising，then，that artists should be drawn to artists，radicals to radicals，Jews to Jews—or Japanese to Japanese and Americans to Americans．

The opposite seems equally true：people tend to avoid those who challenge their assumptions，who dismiss their beliefs，and who communicate in strange and unintelligible ways．When one reviews history，whether one examines crises within or between cultures，one finds people have consistently shielded themselves，segregated themselves，even fortified themselves against wide differences in modes of perception or expression（in many cases，indeed，have persecuted and conquered the infidel and afterwards substituted their own cultural ways for the offending ones）．Intercultural defensiveness appears to be only a counterpart of interpersonal defensiveness in the face of uncomprehended or incomprehensible differences．

Every culture attempts to create a“universe of discourse”for its members，a way in which people can interpret their experience and convey it to one another．Without a common system of codifying sensations，lifewould be absurd and all efforts to sharemeanings doomed to failure．This universe of discourse—one of the most precious of all cultural legacies—is transmitted to each generation in part consciously and in part unconsciously．Parents and teachers give explicit instruction in it by praising or criticizing certain ways of dressing，of thinking，of gesturing，of responding to the acts of others．But themost significantaspects of any cultural codemay be conveyed implicitly，notby rule or lesson but throughmodelling behavior．The child is surrounded by others who，through the mere consistency of their actions asmales and females，mothers and fathers，salesclerks and police officers，display what is appropriate behavior．Thus the grammar of any culture is sent and received largely unconsciously，making one’s own cultural assumptions and biases difficult to recognize．They seem so obviously right that they require no explanation．

In The Open and Closed Mind，Milton Rokeach poses the problem of cultural understanding in its simplest form，but one that can readily demonstrate the complications of communication between cultures．It is called the“Denny Doodlebug Problem．”Readers are given all the rules that govern his culture：Denny is an animal that always faces north and can move only by jumping；he can jump large distances or small distances，but can change direction only after jumping four times in any direction；he can jump north，south，east，or west，but not diagonally．Upon concluding a jump，his master places some food three feet directly west of him．Surveying the situation，Denny concludes hemust jump four times to reach the food．No more or less．And he is right．All the reader has to do is to explain the circumstances thatmake his conclusion correct．6

The largemajority of people who attempt this problem fail to solve it，despite the fact that they are given all the rules that control behavior in this culture．If there is difficulty in getting inside the simplistic world of Denny Doodlebug—where the cultural code has already been broken and handed to us—imagine the complexity of comprehending behavior in societies where codes have not yet been deciphered—and where even those who obey these codes are only vaguely aware of and can rarely describe the underlying sources of their own actions．

If two people，both of whom spring from a single culture，must often shout to be heard across the void that separates their private worlds，one can begin to appreciate the distance to be overcome when people of different cultural identities attempt to talk．Even with the most patient dedication to seeking a common terminology，it is surprising that people of alien cultures are able to hear each other at all．And the peoples of Japan and the United States would appear to constitute a particularly dramatic test of the ability to cross an intercultural divide．Consider the disparity between them．

Here is Japan，a tiny island nation with a minimum of resources，buffeted by periodic disasters，overcrowded with people，isolated by physical fact and cultural choice，nurtured in Shinto and Buddhist religions，permeated by a deep respect for nature，non materialist in philosophy，intuitive in thought，hierarchical in social structure．Eschewing the explicit，the monumental，the bold and boisterous，it expresses its sensuality in the form of impeccable gardens，simple rural temples，asymmetrical flower arrangements，a theater unparalleled for containment of feeling，an art and literature remarkable for their delicacy，and crafts noted for their honest and earthy character．Its people，among the most homogeneous in the world，are modest and apologetic in manner，communicate in an ambiguous and evocative language，are engrossed in interpersonal rituals，and prefer inner serenity to influencing others．They occupy unpretentious buildings of wood and paper and live in cities laid out as casually as farm villages．Suddenly from these rice paddies emerges an industrial giant，surpassing rival nations with decades of industrial experience，greater resources，and a larger reserve of technicians．Its labor force，working longer，harder，and more frantically than any in the world，builds the earth’s largest city，constructs some of its ugliest buildings，promotes the most garish and insistent advertising anywhere，and pollutes its air and water beyond the imagination．

And here is the United States，an immense country，sparsely settled，richly endowed，tied through waves of immigrants to the heritage of Europe，yet forced to subdue nature and find fresh solutions to the problems of survival．Steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition，schooled in European abstract and analytic thought，it is materialist and experimental in outlook，philosophically pragmatic，politically　egalitarian，economically　competitive，its raw individualism sometimes tempered by a humanitarian concern for others．Its cities are studies in geometry along whose avenues rise shafts of steel and glass subdivided into separate cubicles for separate activities and separate people．Its popular arts are characterized by the hugeness of cinemascope，the spontaneity of jazz，the earthy loudness of rock；in its fine arts the experimental，striking，and monumental often stifle the more subtle revelation．The people，a smorgasbord of races，religions，dialects，and nationalities，are turned expressively outward，impatientwith rituals and rules，casual and flippant，gifted in logic and argument，approachable and direct yet given to flamboyant and exaggerated assertion．They are curious about one another，open and helpful，yet display amissionary zeal for changing one another．Suddenly this nation whose power and confidence have placed it in a dominant position in the world intellectually and politically，whose style of life has permeated the planet，finds itself uncertain of its direction，doubts its own premises and values，questions itsmotives and materialism，and engages in an orgy of self-criticism．

It iswhen people nurtured in such different psychological worldsmeet that differences in cultural perspectives and communicative codesmay sabotage efforts to understand one another．Repeated collisions between a foreigner and themembers of a contrasting culture often produce what is called culture shock．It is a feeling of helplessness，even of terror or anger，that accompanies working in an alien society．One feels trapped in an absurd and indecipherable nightmare．

It is as if some hostile leprechaun had gotten into theworks and as a cosmic caper rewired the connections that hold society together．Not only do the actions of others no longer make sense，but it is impossible even to express one’s own intentions clearly．“Yes”comes out meaning“no”．A wave of the hand means“come”，or itmay mean“go”．Formality may be regarded as childish or as a devious form of flattery．Statements of fact may be heard as statements of conceit．Arriving early，or arriving late，embarrasses or impresses．“Suggestions”may be treated as“ultimatums”，or precisely the opposite．Failure to stand at the proper moment，or failure to sit，may be insulting．The compliment intended to express gratitude instead conveys a sense of distance．A smile signifies disappointment rather than pleasure．

If the crises that follow such intercultural encounters are sufficiently dramatic or the communicants unusually sensitive，they may recognize the source of their trouble．If there is patience and constructive intention，the confusion can sometimes be clarified．Butmore often foreigners，without knowing it，leave behind them a trail of frustration，mistrust，and even hatred ofwhich they are totally unaware．Neither they nor their associates recognize that their difficulty springs from sources deep within the rhetoric of their own societies．All see themselves as acting in ways that are thoroughly sensible，honest，and considerate．And—given the rules governing their own universes of discourse—they all are．Unfortunately，there are few cultural universals，and the degree of overlap in communicative codes is always less than perfect．Experience can be transmitted with fidelity only when the unique properties of each code are recognized and respected，or where themotivation and means exist to bring them into some sort of alignment．

Among the greatest insights of thismodern age are two that bear a curious affinity to each other．The first，evolving from the efforts of psychologists，particularly Sigmund Freud，revealed the existence of an individual unconscious．The acts of human beingswere found to spring from motives of which they were often vaguely or completely unaware．Their unique perceptions of events arose not from the facts outside their skins but from unrecognized assumptions inside them．When，through intensive analysis，they obtained some insight into these assumptions，they became free to develop other ways of seeing and acting which contributed to their greater flexibility in coping with reality．

The second of these generative ideas，flowing from the work of anthropologists，particularly Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict，postulated a parallel idea in the existence of a cultural unconscious．Students of primitive cultures began to see that there was nothing divine or absolute about cultural norms．Every society had its own way of viewing the universe，and each developed from its premises a coherent set of rules of behavior．Each tended to be blindly committed to its own style of life and regarded all others as evil．The fortunate peoplewhowere able tomaster the art of living in foreign cultures often learned that their own modes of life were not universal．With this insight they became free to choose from among cultural values those that seemed to best fit their peculiar circumstances．

Cultural norms so completely surround people，so permeate thought and action，that few ever recognize the assumptions on which their lives and their sanity rest．As one observer put it，if birds were suddenly endowed with scientific curiosity，they might examine many things，but the sky itself would be overlooked as a suitable subject；if fish were to become curious about theworld，itwould never occur to them to begin by investigatingwater．For birds and fish would take the sky and sea for granted，unaware of their profound influence，because they comprise themedium for every act．Human beings，in a similarway，occupy a symbolic universe governed by codes that are unconsciously acquired and automatically employed．So much so that they rarely notice that the ways they interpret and talk about events are distinctively different from the ways people conduct their affairs in other cultures．

As long as people remain blind to the sources of their meanings，they are imprisoned within them．These cultural frames of reference are no less confining simply because they cannot be seen or touched．Whether it is an individual neurosis that keeps an individual out of contactwith his or her neighbors，or a collective neurosis that separates neighbors of different cultures，both are forms of blindness that limit what can be experienced and what can be learned from others．

Itwould seem that everywhere people would desire to break out of the boundaries of their own experiential worlds．Their ability to react sensitively to a wider spectrum of events and peoples requires an overcoming of such cultural parochialism．But，in fact，few attain this broader vision．Some，of course，have little opportunity forwider cultural experience，though this condition should change as themovement of people accelerates．Others do not try towiden their experience because they prefer the old and familiar，seek from their affairs only further confirmation of the correctness of their own values．Still others recoil from such experiences because they feel it dangerous to probe too deeply into the personal or cultural unconscious．Exposuremay reveal how tenuous and arbitrarymany cultural norms are；such exposuremight force people to acquire new bases for interpreting events．And even for themany who do seek actively to enlarge the variety of human beingswith whom they are capable of communicating，there are still difficulties．

Culturalmyopia persists notmerely because of inertia and habit but chiefly because it is so difficult to overcome．People acquire personalities and cultures in childhood，long before they are capable of comprehending either of them．To survive，people master the perceptual orientations，cognitive biases，and communicative habits of their own cultures．But once mastered，objective assessment of these same processes is awkward，since the samemechanisms that are being evaluated must be used inmaking the evaluations．Once children learn Japanese or English or Navajo，the categories and grammar of each language predispose them to perceive and think in certain ways and discourage them from doing so in otherways．When they attempt to discover why they see or think as they do，they use the same techniques they are trying to identify．

Fortunately，theremay be away around this paradox．Or promise of away around it．It is to expose the culturally distinctive ways various peoples construe events and to seek to identify the conventions that connect what is seen with what is thought with what is said．Once this cultural grammar is assimilated and the rules thatgovern the exchange ofmeanings are known，they can be shared and learned by those who choose to work and live in alien cultures．

When people within a culture face an insurmountable problem，they turn to friends，neighbors，and associates for help．To them they explain their predicament，often in distinctive，personal ways．Through talking it out，however，there often emerge new ways of looking at the problem，fresh incentive to attack it，and alternative solutions to it．This sort of interpersonal exploration is often successful within a culture，for people share at least the same communicative style even if they do not agree completely in their perceptions or beliefs．

When people communicate between cultures，where communicative rules as well as the substance of experience differs，the problems multiply．But so，too，do the number of interpretations and alternatives．If it is true that themore people differ the harder it is for them to understand each other，it is equally true that themore they differ themore they have to teach and learn from each other．To do so，of course，there must be mutual respect and sufficient curiosity to overcome the frustrations that occur as they flounder from onemisunderstanding to another．Yet the task of coming to grips with differences in communicative styles—between or within cultures—is prerequisite to all other types ofmutuality．