SOCIO-CULTURAL SIGNS IN POLITICAL DIALOGUE
$avtor = ""; if(empty($myrow2["author"])) { $avtor=""; } else { $avtor="автор: "; } ?>New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria
kunsttrans@yahoo.com
Abstract
When people are involved in a political dialogue as part of the delegation of their own country, very often they reproduce the ancient archetype of socio-cultural differentiation ‘we-they’. The socio-cultural identity of the individual implies a stereotypic range of characteristics – behavioral, symbolic, and objective, which have been rooted in the 'political' behavior of people belonging to various civilizations. In this sense exactly, one can distinguish between the Western negotiation style and the Eastern negotiation style. Or, for example, certain religious tenets are especially strictly observed in negotiations and negotiators are particularly sensitive to issues related to national and religious independence. The category of national identity enables us to see the connection between the individual and the socio-cultural determination of their actions at the table of negotiations.
Within the context of the subject of political dialogue, the cathegory of identity helps us perceive the connection between the individual and the socio-cultural determination of their actions at the table of negotiations. It encompasses the psychological and sociological dimentions of the proces and creates the connection of objects – symbols – information – interpretation – evaluation.
The socio-cultural identity of the individual implies a stereotypic range of characteristics – behavioral, symbolic, and objective, which have been rooted in the ‘political’ behavior of people belonging to various civilizations. As early as the Antiquity, Herodotus, Hippocrates and Pliny sought to explain the peculiarities of ‘political character’ with the variations in climate, geographical and historical conditions.
More recently, with the evolution of ethnography and of semiotics later on, ‘more modern’ arguments for the analysis of political phenomena and their relation to national culture have been employed. Charles Montesquieu and John Locke also wrote on the ‘national spirit’, which was shaped by the respective climatic and geographical factors.
When people sit at the table of negotiations as part of the delegation of their own country, they logically reproduce the ancient archetype of socio-cultural differentiation ‘we-they’ at ‘a new historical level’. Therefore, the stereotypes of national character and style, which in homogeneous socio-cultural environment would remain in the background, emerge without necessarily being demonstrated here.
With the advances in civilization, more complex, and, in a sense, hierarchically ordered, levels of socio-cultural identity have formed. These are mentioned briefly below:
• I–identity: the individual idea of oneself as a member of the community;
• subjective socio-cultural identity – the notion of the individual herself in situations of social interaction with the community;
• demonstrated public identity – the reaction of the surrounding socio-cultural behavior of the individual. The person – seen through the behavior of other members of the community;
• objective socio-cultural identity – a set of psychological and socio-cultural patterns of behavior that occur in situations of social contacts.
When representatives of different cultures sit at the table of negotiations, the precise interpretation of the peculiarities of the national style of dialogue is essential. Under the ‘national style’ here I mean the devotion to particular cultural values, traditions and customs, the orientation towards specific mechanisms for decision making, and the compliance with certain rules in political negotiations, which are deeply rooted in the national culture.
There are hundreds of examples of extreme oppositeness in the perception of some or other actions, words and behavior. For representatives of the Eurocentric culture – Europeans and Americans it is quite natural to sit with their legs crossed especially during an informal meeting, while for Arabs this is deeply offensive. In Arabic, for example, the word ‘intermediator’ has a very negative connotation — ‘an impertinent person who intervenes between the negotiating parties’ and therefore the word, which is generally acceptable in other situations, should be avoided in the negotiating vocabulary. Thus, like the prince from the Taoist parable, who despite his best intentions killed the seabird due to his ignorance, a negotiator who is not sensitive to the otherness might destroy the possibility of success of the negotiations quite too soon.
It is recommended that the analysis of the national negotiation style focuses on several key parameters:
• orientation of values, religious customs and norms, ideological propositions;
• mentality specifics related to the specific perception of the world;
• mechanisms for political decision-making – individual and collective, degree of freedom and autonomy in decision-making;
• behavioral characteristics associated with non-verbal communication.
In general, the national negotiation style can be subdivided into Eastern and Western. This criterion, undoubtedly, stems from the subdivision of modern ‘political cultures’ to the extent that any national political culture is reflected in the individual negotiation style of its representatives.
The following comparative analysis of the Eastern and the Western way of conducting political negotiations can be made, based on several criteria:
Dominant value orientation of personality
The West: material value priorities, inviolable private property. The political sphere is almost independent of moral and religious traditions, which stems from the separation of the church from the state.
The East: sacralization of political power, religion in most cases is an integral and official part of the state’s political tradition, inheritance and ‘ownership’ of power; politics and moral norms are, in a sense, much more connected.
Mentality specifics
The West: anthropocentric principle of argumentation. The person is the ‘center of the universe’, who endeavors to subdue nature, the world, and anything that, according to him, has not been conquered. Orientation to a rational path towards the truth.
The East: theocentric principle of argumentation. The transcendent will, which man must obey, is at the heart of the universe. Respectively, the main task of the person is to recognize this will and act in accordance with its principles. Orientation to an intuitive path towards the truth.
Dominants of political behavior
The West: tendency to use extreme transforming and modernizing techniques in politics. Sense of a linear course of time, including political time, which flows to infinity without disturbing its rhythm and course. Orientation to the future – their own, that of the future generations, of their nation, of mankind.
The East: tendency to use of ‘soft’ techniques in diplomacy and politics which are not conflicting with natural and moral laws. Sense of cyclical time, including political time, which suggests the possibility of variation in each new cycle. Orientation to the standards of political behavior in the past – that of their ancestors, of their nation, of mankind.
Basic archetypes in the public mind
The West: the archetypal image of a conquering hero, ‘Prometheus unbound’, who subdued the whole world to his will.
The East:
• the archetypal image of the hero-liberator, who saves the world after the struggle with evil and restores global justice and social harmony in Orthodox Christianity;
• the archetypal image of the ‘noble man’, maintaining order and harmony in society in Confucianism;
• the archetypal image of the dancing Shiva, the metaphor of ‘cosmic dancer’, symbolizing the mystery of the universe and its harmonious dynamics in Hinduism;
• the archetypal image of the warrior, fighting to death for the faith in Islam.
Socio-cultural identity
The West: ‘blurred’ socio-cultural identity due to the belief that in an era of globalization the person is a ‘citizen of the world’, in which national and cultural differences disappear gradually, as the individual stands in the foreground.
The East: ‘strengthened’ socio-cultural identity because of the belief that in an era of globalization it is important to protect one’s cultural identity, which is a guarantee for success and progress in the world of competition between different cultures.
Ethos of the culture of negotiation
The West: the ethos during negotiations unfolds the idea of ‘morality of success’ – striving for victory, prosperity and progress in all spheres of public life.
The East: the ethos of the culture of negotiation combines the pursuit of keeping harmony in the world, in nature and in society. This is achieved through:
• the path of service in Orthodox Christianity;
• the path of reverence for life in Hinduism;
• the path of the golden rule in Confucianism;
• the path of Allah’s wars in Islam.
In this sense exactly, one can distinguish between the Western negotiation style and the Eastern negotiation style. For example, the first criterion – the one related to value orientation and influence of religious norms, has a very strong influence on the national negotiation style in Muslim countries. Certain religious tenets are especially strictly observed in negotiations and negotiators are particularly sensitive to issues related to national and religious independence.
Japanese negotiators following their value norms strive to avoid conflict situations at all costs. This is the reason why one will never hear a distinct ‘no’ spoken by a Japanese diplomat even if the options discussed are completely unacceptable for them. “I will do everything that depends on me”, uttered by a Japanese politician, does not mean consent but rather polite refusal.
West European and American diplomats do not adhere to religious, moral, or even ethical norms to such an extent. Respecting basic business etiquette, they too quickly, according to Eastern criteria, address the essence of the negotiations and endeavor not to burden them with issues of minor importance. As the Western political culture is based primarily on formal logic, it strives towards ‘rationality’ of the negotiation process and its ‘alignment’ in the most straightforward way to reach the goal set.
Therefore, clear definitions and proposals as well as compliance with the agreed deadlines and strict implementation of the agreements reached are extremely important for Western negotiators.
The Eastern culture of negotiation is not as ‘formalized’ as the Western, and one of the main concerns is to establish personal relationships because of the belief that they are more important than individual specific arrangements. And of course, Eastern negotiators focus on rituals and ceremonies, which can sometimes have a sacred meaning and yet remain completely misunderstood by Western negotiating partners.
In terms of degree of freedom and autonomy in decision-making, the Western negotiation tradition gives many more alternatives. The Eastern culture of negotiation is very clearly based on the collectivist spirit and participants in the political negotiations cannot make a decision unless it has been discussed by everyone else.
In the age of globalization and intense international contacts the skill of reading “body language” and the sensitivity to cultural peculiarities and differences are of crucial importance. In particular, cultural barriers can sometimes be a major obstacle to reaching an agreement even when much more substantial issues have been resolved.