jim.shamlin.com

1: American Values and Assumptions

The concepts of "values" and "assumptions" are closely related: values are ideas about right and wrong, desirable and undesirable, normal and abnormal; assumptions are postulates, often accepted without much consideration. It's acknowledged that ethicists may define them in a different way, but this is for the purposes of the present discussion.

People who are raised in a particular culture learn the same values and assumptions - they are learned from parents, relatives, educators, media, and other members of one's community. This does not mean that every person shares exactly the same values to exactly the same extent, but there is a significant degree of commonality.

The author acknowledges that lists o values are arbitrary and may be defined differently by different sources, but presents a list of eight that he feels to be particularly germane to American culture:

(EN: I count seventeen in this alleged list of eight, but preserve the list as given as I expect there will be some correlation among the compound items in the list)

INDIVIDUALISM, FREEDOM, COMPETITIVENESS, AND PRIVACY

Individualism is perhaps the most vital to understanding American culture. Americans are trained from very early in their lives to consider themselves as individuals, responsible for their own welfare and destiny, rather than as members of any of the collectives in which they may participate. Research in the social sciences indicates American culture is the most individualistic in the world, and that individualism is perhaps the most significant characteristic of the culture.

The author relates a story, about a mother with a young child in a shopping mall - even though the child was about three, his mother had given him money to spend at his own discretion, though she coached him (because you bought X, you cannot afford Y). This confounds individuals of other cultures - the notion that a child so young would be given his own money and discretion on spending it is completely foreign - yet to Americans, this is perfectly normal, and even lauded as a good way to teach a child to make decisions and take responsibility.

There is a passage from Dr. Benjamin Spock's book on child rearing that underscores fundamentally the same point: that children are raised to be individuals - and membership in a family, religion, or country is not their primary value. It's likewise distinctly American that the goal of children is to move out of their parents' home and start their own life at an early age, and failure to do so is considered failure for both parent and child.

It follows that Americans are disdainful of collectively-minded cultures: a person who is concerned with obligation to family, following tradition, or conforming to the expectations of a group is seen as weak. Such a person is deemed incapable or unwilling to make up their own mind, and it's believed that person would be happier if they could have the opportunity to assert themselves and follow their own individual desires.

An example is given of a group of Malaysian students, who struggled terribly with an introductory college class in psychology. Such students had very little exposure to the concepts of Western psychology, and what they were being taught did not correlate to their personal experience. They simply could not relate.

Americans consider the ideal person to be individualistic, self-reliant, and independent - and incorrectly assume that people from elsewhere share this value. Such an individual idealizes an environment of freedom, where neither government nor any other external force dictates what he does.

People from other cultures consider the individualistic behaviors to be self-centered and lacking in consideration for others. They regard such behavior as immoral. But a foreign visitor who understands that Americans value freedom and independence can identify this as the root of many attitudes and behaviors. Some examples follow:

The author refers to late-eighteenth-century social scientist (Harry Triandis, Richard Brislin, and C.H. Hui) as good references whose work focuses on the contrast between individualism and collectivism. Another list follows, regarding the tendencies of individualists:

Competitiveness is a concept that bears further consideration: individualistic Americans see themselves as being competitive with others, and the notion of competition pervades the culture. It is obvious in the attention given to sports, both professional and even games among children. It's a bit less obvious, but still pervasive, in the way people persistently compare themselves to others and desire to be better than others at virtually everything they do.

Another important notion is the conception of the "self" - as a persistent identity that is the same in any environment. In other cultures, the notion of a person is more fluid, and personality changes according to context and situational rules.

Privacy is another important derivative of individualism. More so than other cultures, Americans seek to have "private time" to be alone and think things over, to retreat from the presence of others. They do not understand a person who cannot be alone, and regards such people as weak or dependent.

This is evident from early childhood: it is most common for children to have their own rooms, even from early childhood, where they can stay by themselves and keep their private possessions. The room, and the things within it, belong to a single person.

It is likewise maintained that people have "private thoughts" to which others are not permitted access - sometimes, knowledge is shared with a selected few individuals "close" to a person, and sometimes not at all. The notion of privacy is evident in professional relationships - the confidentiality that is expected of doctors, lawyers, and psychologists.

The attitude toward privacy can be difficult to understand in the face of American indiscretion. A person who will invite a casual acquaintance into their home, speak openly to strangers about sensitive issues that other cultures would jeep confidential, post revealing details about their personal life to Facebook, does not seem concerned with privacy - but there is a specific boundary that is not to be crossed. Defining where each person "draws the line" can be difficult - but once it's crossed, they can become aloof or hostile.

EQUALITY

The notion that "all men are created equal" is an ideal that is generally maintained. Americans believe in some fundamental way that all people are of equal value and that no-one is innately superior to another person. The democratic process and the notion of civil rights are based this belief.

Americans are loath to defer to others, and are uncomfortable when treated with deference. They approach social interaction, and expect others to respond, on the basis of equal status. Everyone, no matter how unfortunate, deserves some basic level of respect.

Americans are resistant to the notion that there are social classes in America. While they acknowledge differences in the level of wealth, they see no other difference between rich and poor, and are generally pleased by instances in which a wealthy person behaves like a "regular guy."

Over the past fifty years, this notion of equal status has been extended to formerly disenfranchised groups, namely women and minorities. The general attitude is that people may be "different, but not inferior." This is not to say that Americans make no distinctions, but such distinctions are acknowledged in relatively subtle ways.

The notion of status does remain, however, in power relationships. This is especially evident in the workplace: a person of higher status will sit at the head of a table, speak loudest and longest, interrupt others, initiate physical contact, etc. and individuals of lower status will assume other positions, speak less frequently, etc. to accommodate.

Foreigners accustomed to more obvious displays of respect, such as bowing or avoiding eye contact, may incorrectly assume Americans are disrespectful of others or are utterly unaware of differences in status - but it is merely more subtle.

Another distinctive belief in social mobility - that status is generally earned and that anyone, through their own effort, can achieve success and move up the "social ladder."

INFORMALITY

The sense of equality leads Americans to be informal in their interactions with other people. Even those who are in subservient roles, such as waiters and store clerks, treat customers in a casual and friendly manner. A servant who is treated in a brusque or disrespectful manner will take offense, which confounds many foreigners who are accustomed to greater deference and servility from individuals in lowly professions. Relationships between doctor and patient, student and teacher, worker and supervisor are likewise marked by an air of seeming informality.

Peer relationships are also entirely casual. The example is given of a dinner party: a staffer at a university office invites a mixed group of people to their home for dinner; shows them where to find the food and drinks in her kitchen and says to "make yourself at home," which people generally do, roaming about the place. When discussing the party later, French students remarked such a thing would not be possible in their country: casual acquaintances are not invited to visit a person's home, or given free run of the place, and that people of various standings (students, staff, professors) do not casually intermingle in a social setting.

Americans are informal in their speech, dress, and body language. Except when making a formal presentation, Americans use idiomatic speech and slang - and even in a formal presentation, the attitude toward the audience is more causal and interactive. When interacting with others, Americans are at ease - they will slouch in chairs or lean on walls when they converse, rather than maintaining a rigid posture.

Americans of any station in life dress informally and causally in public places - even wealthy people will wear jeans or sandals. In fact, a wealthy or powerful person in casual attire is lauded for his egalitarianism - he doesn't hold himself above others. Even U.S. Presidents dress "down" - Bill Clinton was often seen in shorts and a T-shirt while jogging, George Bush was often photographed wearing work clothing on his ranch. (EN: Probably worth noting that this was not accidental and in some cases was even staged - politicians seek to humanize themselves, as being austere and aloof makes them less "likable" to voters.)

The superficial friendliness for which Americans are well known - casual greetings to complete strangers - is likewise an effect of their egalitarian approach toward other people.

THE FUTURE, CHANGE, AND PROGRESS

Americans tend to be forward looking, and are less concerned with history and tradition than other cultures: history doesn't matter - it's the future that counts.

They also believe that the future is within their control, or at the very least they have the ability to influence it. Setting goals and working to achieve them is a common practice - and it is typical for a job interview to ask the question, "where do you see yourself in five years?" and to expect the respondent to have a ready answer.

This caries with it the premise that the present situation in which anyone finds himself is undesirable, at least in certain aspects, and that change is necessary to effect improvements. Where a person is going is more important, and better, than where they presently are.

Precipitating from the assumption of power is the belied that anything in the physical or social environment is subject to human influence and control. Early Americans cleared forests and drained marshes to build a nation; contemporary Americans replant forests and restore wetlands to correct their mistakes. The popularity of fitness, dentistry, and cosmetic surgery are evidence of the desire to control their own persons and amend or improve their physical selves.

One cross-cultural trainer suggests, "If you want to be an American, you have to believe you can fix it."

This sense of personal empowerment does not exist in many other cultures. Abroad, it is much more common to accept that things "are the way they are" and that it is beyond the capabilities of one person to make a change: the future is in the hands of god, or in the hands of a few powerful individuals who dominate a society, and not subject to the will of common man, whose goal is to accept his circumstances rather than seek to change them.

As such, American attitudes on personal power seem naive, arrogant, or even sacrilegious to foreigners. And conversely, Americans regard those who refuse to assume responsibility and take control of their own destiny as being weak or apathetic.

GOODNESS OF HUMANITY

Americans generally assume that human nature is basically good, rather than evil, and that people act with the intention of effective positive and constructive change in future. A handful of examples or precipitating behavior are given:

TIME

Americans regard time as a resource that can be used well or poorly, and in general, seek to make productive use of time - specifically, in activities that are expected to contribute to their future condition. Time management is valued, and people are expected to be considerate of other people's time - to be punctual and not "waste peoples' time" with activities that have no appreciable, beneficial outcome.

A quote is taken from an anthropologist working with native American groups, who were confounded with the notion of time: that whites were constantly in a hurry to get through what they were doing and on to the next thing, and the saw time as a "devil inside: the white man that seemed to drive them unmercifully.

Outside of America (and arguably Europe), this attitude does not exist: time is simply there, and of little importance. As such, foreigners often see Americans as "little machines running around" obsessed with clocks and schedules, always looking to the future and failing to value the present moment.

Because time is a resource to be conserved, Americans are constantly seeking efficiency - to complete a task as quickly as possible saves time, which can be used to do other tasks, and the more one does to improve the future, the better the future will be. Many instructional materials, and even magazine articles, are valued for teaching the reader a faster and more efficient way to get something done.

As a result, Americans seem curt and superficial in their interactions with others - they are seeking to save time on needless chatter and accomplish the goals of an interaction. This leads to seeking the fastest and most efficient method of communication: a phone call is faster than a face-to-face meeting, an e-mail is faster than a call, and a text message faster still. Many quickly become impatient if the responses aren't immediate, even when there is no apparent urgency.

Another example given is the "fast-food" industry, which is entirely a product of the American culture. In many cultures, a meal is a leisurely social gathering, whereas Americans seek to make their dining more efficient - to take in fuel as quickly as possible, often eating alone, and then move on to more important activities.

Consumer products are likewise chosen for their efficiency: a serviceable mechanism will quickly be abandoned in favor of a "better" model that accomplishes the same tasks more efficiently.

(EN: Scanning ahead, I don't see a section on leisure time, which seems a closely related topic. To that point, it's my sense that this is largely disappearing from American culture. People still take vacations, but it is uncommon to spend them on activities that are entirely for pleasure. Moreover, it is actively discouraged in the American workplace - the employee who has "never taken a vacation day in twenty years" is publicly praised - and there does seem to be a sneering, condescending attitude toward individuals who admit to being absent to take a personal vacation or even a personal day. There is some backlash, and a desire for better work-life balance, based on the notion of "all work and no play makes Jack bring a submachine gun to the office," but my sense is that the greater cultural influence is to eliminate leisure time entirely.)

ACHIEVEMENT, ACTION, WORK, AND MATERIALISM

Precipitating from the value of achievement. Americans focus intently on activities that produce a measurable outcome. Psychologists term this "achievement motivation" and it is a predominate trait in America. The notion of work is not limited to one's profession, but is extended to any task that seeks to accomplish a given outcome

In a more general sense, Americans like action and believe they should be "doing something" most of the time - they are not content to be idle, which is often interpreted as impatience, though it stems more from desire to be productively occupied in the moment rather than anticipation of a future activity or event.

As such, Americans are often criticized for seeming to be constantly active and unable to relax and enjoy idle moments. Even in recreation, Americans prefer to engage in active pursuits with measurable outcomes rather than being at rest.

In terms of profession, a person's occupation is significant: "what do you do?" is second only to "what is your name?" when Americans meet someone. And while Americans are not typically driven by status or prestige, the status of a profession is taken as an outward sign of their capability and the success they have achieved.

Professional success is often focused on income rather than the actual accomplishments: in a poll of university students in the US, earning :"a lot of money" was considered to be "very important" to about three-quarters of respondents.

Regardless of income level, Americans spend money freely on material goods, and items that most cultures consider luxuries (a refrigerator, television, and the like) are considered necessities to many Americans. AS such, Americans are often criticized for materialism and the concern with acquiring things. But to Americans, the material goods are considered to be rewards for their success and the means to a better future form themselves and their families.

(EN: The notion of conspicuous consumption seems absent here. Perhaps it's contrary to the notion of egalitarianism and a classless society, but it is a significant enough phenomenon that it can't be ignored: Americans use consumption as a method of representing their desired social class - while the lower and middle income brackets often purchase above their means to represent a higher class, the upper income brackets tend to be more modest in their consumption.)

DIRECTNESS AND ASSERTIVENESS

Americans consider themselves to be frank, open, and direct in their dealings with other people - the desire to "lay our cards on the table" and "get to the point" are common expressions that convey the idea that people should be direct and candid with one another.

Assertiveness is a cultural value, and some seek to take "assertiveness training" courses to overcome their reluctance to deal with others. However, defining the boundary between asserting and aggressive is difficult, even among different groups of Americans.

The level of directness may vary: in any power relationship, superiors are more likely to be direct and blunt than their subordinates. And while gender and racial equality are generally achieved, minorities and women must carefully assess how assertive they can be with a white male.

Americans are not taught, as is common in certain other cultures, to mask their emotions or refrain from making negative statements: and as such they speak openly and directly. Even when not speaking, their gestures and expressions are used to communicate their reaction, and this is not generally considered to be improper, though there are limits. However, this is culturally relative: Asians may consider Americans to be overly emotional, Latin Americans and Middle Easterners may consider the same level of expression to be virtually unemotional and cold.

However, Americans are often less frank and direct than they realize, and there are topics and situations where they may be reluctant to speak openly. Some examples are:

While frankness an honesty is the general rule, there are also cultural customs that preclude one or both. One example is when a person prepares a meal for an American, he will be gracious and complimentary even if he did not like their cooking at all.

And it's also noted that this varies regionally: a person from New York would be considered brash and offensive in Atlanta, and he might in turn consider the natives to be evasive and dishonest in order to be pleasant.

The author gives a few examples of areas in which Americans will deviate from their general practice of openness. One example is that an American would probably be reluctant to tell another person that they "smell bad" because the topic is considered to be too sensitive. Another example is when a someone asks a favor that is inappropriate, such as to borrow money, and the American wishes to decline the request but does not want to be abrupt in their refusal.

It's noted that the social awkwardness is compounded when the other individual is from another culture or country, as it plays to American's sense of egalitarianism: to refuse a request to a foreigner or a minority causes them to question whether they would do the same for any other person.

In spite of those limitations, Americans are generally more direct and open compared to most other countries (the author names Israel and Australia as tow notable exceptions) and consider honesty to be more important than harmony in personal relationships.

And as such, it may seem ironic that Americans react negatively to a person who is excessively assertive in voicing opinions or making demands of others - it is a difficult balance.

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT