This paper presents a personal narrative in which a Mexican-American law student receives a prestigious clerkship offer, only to be told by a classmate that the position was granted solely because of his ethnicity. The author uses this incident as a case study to examine how cultural assumptions, stereotypes, and prejudice operate across several leading intercultural communication frameworks. Drawing on Hofstede's "mental processes," Trompenaars's cultural factors, Hall's High-Context vs. Low-Context model, D'Iribarne's concept of cultural rank, and the intercultural dynamics of Identity, Otherization, and Representation, the paper argues that each framework illuminates a different dimension of the harmful generalization embedded in the classmate's remark.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
It was late November in Madison, Wisconsin. The leaves had begun to fall, creating a crunchy undergrowth as you tramped across the quad toward the oblong, entirely glass-encased building that undergraduates had aptly nicknamed "The Shark Tank" — no doubt a symbol of their attitude toward young, budding members of the Bar. It had been several weeks since my mid-term meeting with my on-campus mentor, who had assisted me in crafting a well-thought-out, lucid, and cogent cover letter to accompany my résumé, which was dutifully sent to a law firm located next to the state capitol building in downtown Madison.
The firm was one of the foremost and most prestigious in the city, and securing a clerkship within its hallowed halls was a prize many law students sought to attain. I was a non-traditional student planning to take summer courses in order to graduate earlier than my counterparts, so I was designated a "Spring Associate." This did not mean, however, that the competition was any easier. I had good grades — a solid B-plus average — and strong extracurricular activities that rounded out a competitive application. Then, one day in late November, everything changed.
I was standing in the student lounge on the main floor, stirring a cup of hot tea I had just taken from the microwave. I was talking with my best friend Jerry, who was African American, about our curriculum options when I noticed my cell phone vibrating in my pocket. I recognized the number as belonging to the law firm and immediately answered. I don't recall the precise details of the conversation — I only remember that it was short, terse, and to the point: I would be joining the firm in January as a "Spring Associate." For the first time in a while, something felt like it had gone right.
Jerry wasted no time telling everyone in our network of friends the good news. What I was not prepared for was the reaction of one of my competitors. A few days after I received the news, Jerry and I were standing once again in the Student Lounge when another friend and classmate, Carrie, arrived. I could tell she was upset about something, and it did not take long for her to reveal the source of her consternation. After I mentioned that I had been granted the "Spring Associate" position, she looked at me with complete certainty and said, "You know you only got it because you are Mexican." That statement landed like a grenade in the middle of the room. I stood there, simply stunned, as she turned and walked away. For a brief moment, I was reminded that I was a Mexican-American law student. Up until that moment, I had thought of myself as just another law student working as hard as I could and being judged on my merits — after all, the law firm had never asked about my ethnicity during the interview.
This narrative left a profound and lasting impression on me. Since that day, I have often found myself questioning the assumptions of those who interact with me in academic settings. Previously, I had never questioned the opinions of others in this way. In an institution of higher learning that prided itself on being a leading purveyor of progressive thought and tolerance, that experience left a significantly negative mark. The purpose of this analysis is not simply to recount a culturally significant moment, but rather to examine the incident within the context of cultural paradigms offered by several leading scholars in the field of intercultural communication.
These scholars have articulated various frameworks that can shape the interpretation of this event and allow for the derivation of meaningful conclusions. This analysis applies several aspects of the narrative to different intercultural models, with the aim of furthering the understanding of why such an incident can produce such deeply negative consequences. Finally, the analysis synthesizes the various constructs presented by the scholars introduced here and examines how each framework can influence the conclusions drawn from the narrative — and how those conclusions may shape future cultural interactions.
The first cultural construct to be examined in relation to this narrative is the intercultural framework developed by Geert Hofstede. Hofstede discusses the "mental processes" people develop when dealing with individuals from other cultures. These mental processes operate at the universal, collective, and individual levels. Hofstede defines culture as the "collective programming of the mind"; it manifests itself in values, and those values are not always accurate. These values represent themselves in superficial ways (Hofstede, 2001, p. 5).
According to Hofstede, mental processes dictate that cultural systems are not based on random events but on a degree of predictability. This predictability shapes assumptions about certain cultural characteristics. These assumptions are often predicated on false narratives about how specific cultural groups behave, and they may further dictate how individuals perceive those groups in terms of intelligence and maturity (Hofstede, 2001, p. 6). These mental processes can be understood as the "software of the mind" — the cultural assumptions that drive how individuals relate to members of other groups.
Hofstede's mental processes model applies directly to the narrative described above. Given that Hofstede contends these processes are rooted in predictable behavior and assumptions about how certain cultural groups act, his framework may help explain how Carrie arrived at the conclusion that I received the position because of my minority background. Perhaps someone from her background — white and majority-culture — had internalized the false assumption that minorities are awarded spots in graduate programs or prestigious firms solely because of quota systems. In other words, her cultural assumptions may not have accommodated the possibility that members of minority groups could have worked just as hard or proved just as capable as anyone else. This kind of mental process builds in several negative and demonstrably incorrect assumptions that lead to hasty generalizations about members of an ethnic group — and it is precisely these assumptions that produced the harmful incident described in this narrative.
The Dutch culturalist Fons Trompenaars developed a series of cultural factors that can be used to explain how certain cultures interact with one another. These factors also provide an academic framework for analyzing my colleague's behavior and its implications ("Trompenaars' Cultural Factors," 2010).
These factors include: (1) Universalism vs. Particularism — Universalism involves applying broad, general rules, much like the hasty generalization that a quota system was responsible for my securing the position. Particularism involves recognizing exceptions. Unfortunately, my colleague's cultural assumptions left no room for exceptions. (2) Analyzing vs. Integration — Analyzing refers to those who view the big picture as disconnected from reality, while Integration involves assembling details in order to see the larger picture. (3) Individualism vs. Communitarianism — Individualism refers to the rights of the individual, while Communitarianism focuses on the rights of society as a whole ("Trompenaars' Cultural Factors," 2010). My colleague's comment demonstrated a communitarian attitude, in that there was an inherent assumption that all members of my ethnic group would have received positions based solely on ethnic status. (4) Inner-Directed vs. Outer-Directed — Inner-directed culture is governed by personal judgment. The narrative clearly demonstrates that my colleague engaged in a broad personal judgment about another cultural group.
Taken together, Trompenaars's cultural factors make clear that my colleague's comment represents an unfair, hasty generalization. This conclusion intersects with Hofstede's concept of mental processes: both frameworks converge on the idea that faulty assumptions become integrated into individuals' decision-making processes regarding how certain cultural groups behave. These negative assumptions are reinforced by predictability and personal judgment. When Trompenaars and Hofstede are read together, both sets of core principles explain the harsh stereotype that was expressed in the narrative.
Anthropologist Edward T. Hall developed a series of cultural factors that are essential for defining specific interactions between cultural groups and for providing yet another framework within which to place the narrative ("Hall's Cultural Factors," 2010).
The most critical of Hall's factors is the distinction between High-Context and Low-Context cultures. High-Context cultural assumptions hold that many contextual elements are embedded in communication, helping people understand the unwritten "rules" of culture. Low-Context cultural assumptions hold that very little is taken for granted, which reduces the chance of misunderstanding the cultural norms of a specific group or society. Hall draws on a parallel between French and American cultures to highlight this difference ("Hall's Cultural Factors," 2010).
Hall observes that French contracts tend to be shorter in length than American contracts. This is because French contracts assume that all parties entering into the agreement are well versed in French culture and will have an inherent understanding of French contract law — such assumptions do not need to be written into the contract itself ("Hall's Cultural Factors," 2010). Conversely, American contracts are considerably longer. American contract law does not assume that individuals share common cultural assumptions, and it is therefore essential that all relevant details be spelled out explicitly so that all parties understand their obligations ("Hall's Cultural Factors," 2010).
This model again predicates itself on the making of cultural assumptions. Just as the French assume that parties to a contract will incorporate French cultural norms into their reading of the document, some individuals assume that cultures other than their own may not place the same emphasis on academic achievement — and their culturally conditioned worldview allows them to adopt a low-context attitude toward members of other groups. The High-Context vs. Low-Context paradigm can thus be linked to Hofstede's mental processes and Trompenaars's cultural factors to form a broader, integrated picture of how cultural assumptions lead to intercultural misunderstanding.
Philippe D'Iribarne is a French culturalist recognized for analyzing the differences between French and American culture. According to D'Iribarne, certain high-level principles can predict how individuals within each of these countries will act ("French Strangeness," 2006), and these broad principles can be integrated into the overall narrative analysis.
"Hall's context model links cultural assumptions to contracts"
"D'Iribarne's rank concept explains cultural stereotyping"
"Identity, otherization, and representation explain prejudice"
Holliday, Adam. Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, 2004. Print.
Hunsiger, Peter. "Culture and Cultural Identity." Technical Communication Quarterly 15 (2006): 28–42. Print.
"Trompenaars' and Hampden-Turner's Cultural Factors." Changing Minds and Persuasion — How We Change What Others Think, Believe, Feel and Do. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.