The two famous anthropological scholars, Edward T. Hall and Geert Hofstede have given us the cultural theories which explain and contrast the differences between two main distinguishable cultures, high and low context cultures, as a whole. However, as an individual, I cannot entirely rank myself in an absolute sense of any particular cultural context yet. Therefore, a closer and careful look into each criteria separately is needed in order to analyse my personalities and to clarify my high and low context cultural factors.
Firstly, I would like to have a look at Edward T. Hall’s concept of polychronic versus monochronic time orientation. I find myself follow mostly the principle notion of the monochronic time concept because of the following reasons;
My schedule and time are highly rigid and fixed. Every appointment of mine has to be proper organized into its suitable timeframe. In addition, punctuation matters. In my opinion, to be on time shows a significant sign of proper time-management skill which, to me, is very important to perform professionally. For example, I like getting my homework, assignments, or projects neatly ready and done quite ahead of the stated deadline. Moreover, I like to plan things in advance to give myself a glimpse of an overview of what to do and to handle my tasks in order as planned. This helps when any errors occur because it is easier for me to work out the difficulties step by step. I feel comfortable when things work according to prior plan. I also prefer to handle one task at a time which does not mean that I am not capable of multitasking but I would like to focus and stay concentrate on the job at hand to get the best end result out of it. So my work time is clearly separable from personal time and each activity or task is isolated from organisation as a whole. I see the importance of my works and the necessity to get them done even though it contradicts my feeling sometimes. My working principle is to handle with brain rather than guts or feeling. To do what is right is more crucial than what feels right. The only odd approach would be to breaks and personal time as I sometimes overwork and get myself engaged in working continuously for quite a long time which is a little more polychronic. But all in all, I consider myself a rather obvious monochronic person.
However, I cannot provide an absolute explanation of my ‘space orientation’ according to Hall’s concept. I have discovered that I selectively concern about territoriality, ownership, and boundaries. With people whom I am familiar with, namely family members and friends, my territoriality is quite low. I could not care less about my ownership of space or material. I would not feel uncomfortable sharing territory and ownership with such people. On the other hand, I get more territorial around people I barely know or strangers. I feel the slight need to mark out my personal areas where I can feel safe and confident. I would like then to utilize some time with those people so I could afterwards provide more shared space of mine with them.
Moving on to observe myself according to the other study done by Geert Hofstede, "Dimensions of Culture" is a framework for cross-cultural communication, describing the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behaviour, using a structure derived from factor analysis. The theory has been widely used to comprehend the cross-cultural communication. What I have analysed is as followed:
While Thai society where I have been brought up is a collectivist society with a low individualism, I find myself most of the time being an individualist. I value personal achievements and individual rights and I willingly feel the need to stand up for myself and my close family members and close friends. I do not mind to stand out from the big group and make my own decision which is according to my own affiliations. My high individualism is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document