Encounters with Myself
Dr Irina Perianova,
University of National and World Economy, Sofia
Abstract
The paper gives an overview of the latest postings in dialogin.com.forum on humour
facilitated by Henri de Jongste which spilled over into a discussion of the relationship between
identity and culture. The main focus of the paper is the changing interface of identity as a result of
transition and cultural contacts. It is argued that our identity is fluid and shifts in different social
contexts. Its components, which are multidimensional and sometimes conflicting, become salient or
submerged in relation to the counterpart ‘Other’ so as to meet what A.Maslow called the needs of
acceptance and self-actualization. To a great degree, identity is conditioned by the culture we were
born into, but quite often, multiculturalism and adopted culture/s come into play as well contributing
to an emergence of plural identities under a common umbrella.
Key terms: identity (ascribed, perceived, aspired, collective, self-affiliated), self-concept, prestige
culture, culture and identity, plurality of social identities, fluid identity, degrees of foreignness,
umbrella nationality, overarching identity, supra-ethnos, multidimensionality of identity, Maslow’s
needs analysis, behavioural codification, stereotypes, culture of trust, submerged identities, salient
identities, new janissaries
Introduction
What kind of Russian are you? I was asked when I worked as an interpreter in my student
days in Moscow. We were all perceived as Russians by West European visitors, no matter whether
we were ethnic Russians, Tartars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Kirghiz, or, as in my case, of mixed
ethnicity. ‘Russian’ was our ascribed identity. According to Frederik Barth (1969) an ethnic group
can be seen as an ascriptive category that is best understood in the context of group boundary
formation and maintenance. To foreigners we were all Russian because Russian culture was rightly
perceived as the culture we were conditioned by. However in many cases this was not our selfconcept or self-affiliation. Most encyclopedias or dictionaries provide a definition of identity as what
one identifies with: “A person, as he goes through life, changes in many ways; but he remains the
person that he was. He is that person who was born on a certain day, that person who graduated 23rd
in a particular high school class, who married on a certain date in a certain place; he has a particular
identity through time. It is difficult to state what exactly it is that makes a person one and the same
self through time” but the two main criteria listed are bodily and psychological”(Encyclopædia
Britannica online).
It is my belief that self-concept and ascription are complementary: people have an
aggregate identity composed of many components – national, ethnic, gender-related,
professional. Some of these components may change in the course of a person’s life. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union nobody would attribute a “Russian identity” to a Latvian or a
Kirghiz. As in quantum physics, the position of the observer is of utmost importance and it
creates an alternative reality, the existence of which is equally undeniable. An individual is both
what he/she thinks of him/her self (self-concept) and what others think of him/her (ascription).
Ideally, communication serves to negotiate the distance between the two.
Culture and identity
In a dialogin.com forum facilitated by Henri de Jongste different opinions came up regarding
the relation between culture and identity:
Esra Sumpter stresses that they overlap and that identity may change because of a change in
the situation: “I agree that these two, culture and identity, are different but also crossing each other
just like the three pillars of past-present and future. Your past, un-conscious culture, shapes your
present. But on the other hand, your present is also shaped by your current situation or let’s says your
identity,
like
your
age,
graduation,
languages
etc.
Besides that the identities of the people are always labelled together with their national roots and
some stereotypes. I think the identity changes according to the actual living situation and experiences
but in the limits of cultural flexibility”.1 This description features both ascription (stereotypes) and
self-affiliation and notes a degree of flexibility in identification.
Mari Gonzales from San Francisco also thinks that “[....]
'identity' changes as we change
location because it relates to the group/society we interact with. 'Culture' remains the same since it is
our collective conditioning and we build from there.” This opinion is indeed quite common: “I was
Puerto-Rican all my life, but in Brooklyn I became something else”, a new resident of New York
says in a BBC interview. In the same vein, in Crash – a 2005 Oscar winning film directed by Paul
Haggis, one of the heroines, a Hispanic, stereotypically considered Mexican says: ‘My mother is
from Puerto-Rico, my father – from Salvador. None of them is from Mexico’. Since most Hispanics
in LA are Mexican, the distinction between different Latin Americans is too nice to notice for
‘outsiders’ and unknowingly the transfer may cause offence by, as it were, ‘redrawing’ other
people’s identity borders.
However, the dialogin.com.forum writers seem to hold differing opinions as to how different
culture and identity are: according to Gert Jan Hofstede [….] “identity and culture are two very
different things. For expats or bi-pats especially. Culture is usually non-conscious, while people who
are away from their own usual surroundings tend to be acutely aware of their identity - but that
identity depends on the difference that is most prominent. It could be age-, gender- or languagerelated, or something else.”
While agreeing that culture and identity are different things, Barbara St Claire is uncertain
about her own identity, i.e. her identity seems to be undergoing a process of change because she has
been exposed to different cultural influences: “So do I feel Polish or British? Hmh? Good question what is my identity and what is my culture? Perhaps I am carrying around too much cultural baggage
with me from both backgrounds to be able to make an informed decision about this? And, of course,
there are other bits of culture and identity which I have collected in my cultural suitcase during my
time spent living abroad in such places as Morocoo, Holland, Belgium, France, Germany etc etc etc
etc .................... I guess culture for me is simply "the way we do things around here" and identity is
who
I
have
become
and
who
I
am
now.“
Silke Vehlow has made a vital point in her forum posting. She points out that if culture is
defined as […] “patterns of human activity and identity is who and what you self-affiliate with then
of course identity and culture cannot be the same. However, I have a serious problem with that
definition of culture because it suggests that culture is only the result of something rather than the
1
No forum postings have been edited in any way apart from being made a little shorter.
root of something. If culture is patterns of human activity or behavior then where did the patterns
come from? My culture determines my identity as well as my behavior. And my identity determines
my behavior, too. And identity can also be a two-way street in that if I don't identify with my culture
and become part of some subculture it can also influence my culture.”
I believe that the postings seem to indicate that we are looking at an expansion, rather than a
change in one’s identity – no matter how eagerly we wish to renounce a part of our mental make-up
it is still there, hidden in a secret drawer or a compartment of its own, ready to emerge when the time
is right: “[… ] who we are and how we are differs and emerges depending on who we are with.”
(Collier, 1994, 40)
Degrees of Foreignness
Belonging to a certain national group is part and parcel of one’s identity but there are other
components, such as age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This paper will mostly deal with
the ethnic and cultural components of identity which cross and overlap. In many ways for the
purposes of this study identity equals ethnicity (but not nationality). The first point to note is that the
more ‘different’ you are, the more ‘foreign’ (and vice versa). People often make their identification
contrasting ‘you’ vs. ‘I’. Thus ‘foreignness’ is a key concept in discussing identity. Currently, in the
transition period, many West European seekers of the exotic are disappointed and note that Russians,
Czechs, Bulgarians and other East Europeans are everywhere, speak excellent English and look no
different from everybody else. Thomas Eriksen, a well-known 20th century expert in the field of
social anthropology, quotes a nostalgic correspondent of The Times who exclaimed - ‘Foreign is
elsewhere’ after travelling throughout Europe as early as April 1992 and encountering no, what he
perceived as, ‘cultural Otherness’ (Eriksen, 1993: 149-150). The new global phenomenon is degrees
of foreignness: in fact, according to the EC Commissionaire Emma Bonito “foreign” now means
‘non EC’. The degrees of foreignness explain why a marriage between a Swede and a Dane is
perceived not as foreign as between, for example, a Dane and a Bulgarian. By the same token, a
Mexican is less foreign to a North American than, say, a Russian. Austrians or Swiss Germans will
hardly be called “foreigners” in Germany. An American coming to France will be considered less
foreign than a Chinese. East Europeans are generally contrasted to West Europeans; in Germany
ossies and wessies are distinct entities. To a Bulgarian, Macedonians are only slightly foreign, less so
than the Serbs or Russians. Greeks as our Balkan neighbours are less foreign than, say, the British.
However, social changes may bring about a divergence and the inhabitants of the former USSR
are no longer regarded as Russian after its collapse. In the early 20-th century Macedonia (with the
capital Skopie) was part of Bulgaria and the ethnos living close to Thessaloniki in the early 20th
century was perceived as Bulgarian and their language as Bulgarian, or its dialect. For many
inhabitants of Macedonia the situation is very different now (Bulgarians are less emphatic): “Well
my dear Bulgars! I am here and I exist, I know I am a MACEDONIAN, I dont need you , or the
Greeks or any others to tell me who I am...You dont have any rights to judge and the right to say who
we really are...We all need to move on,,,RIGHT?and the dick that said that the Macedonian language
is Bulgarian dialect..- if the Slavic language came from the schools of Ohrid I think we are speaking
something that is more original than you who is little further…” says an anonymous participant of
another
on-line
forum
(the
spelling
is
he
author’s
-
IP).
The issue of converging and diverging identities may be treated in its political,economic and
social implications. Thus the centripetal tendencies of the IMF and the World Bank emphasize the
so-called universal values, often described as synonymous to “what America strives for” (Economist,
Jan. 2003). Even though South Americans and North Americans are very different, some people
consider themselves American first, rather than North American or Latin Americans. When
Ukrainians, Tartars or other minorities living in Russia visit other countries they will most probably
introduce themselves as Russian. In fact, one’s passport nationality (rather than ethnic background)
counts not only with the border officials but with most people one meets abroad and no matter how
aware an individual is of his/her ethnicity, by and large, in a foreign country, first and foremost,
he/she will identify with the mainstream ethnic group as his/her collective identity, or risk creating a
false impression.
Bulgarian Gypsies, which are a very distinct ethnic group in Bulgaria, are
perceived as Bulgarians elsewhere. Significantly, when Gypsy offenders holding Bulgarian passports
are described as Bulgarians in Austria or Germany, it is likely to make ethnic Bulgarians very
unhappy because Gypsies are regarded by ‘they’, not as ‘us’ by Bulgarians. In most cases, the details
of one’s ethnicity and religion are not likely to be disclosed immediately during the first meeting.
However, these details may come to the fore when we meet somebody we feel we can trust, or
identify with - in terms of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Plurality of cultures and fluid identities
In most cases there are no meta-structures against which different cultures resonate and that
makes translation, i.e. communication, difficult. By and large, the common ground, the interface, the
in-between space is tenuous, unmapped, trial and error.
The plurality of cultures and social identities applies to individuals, not to societies only: we
change or manifest a different ‘perspective’ depending on the setting, public or private space, or on
the role and therefore on manipulated identity (e.g. at a dentist’s, at a supermarket, as teacher/student,
etc.). According to O. Irrmann, identities of all sorts – social, ethnic, organizational – can shift
depending on the context we are in. This is why the critical issue is to identify what parts of culture
become salient and relevant in face of different conditions, contexts, events. (2002). These changes
may involve power or lack of power and our treatment of it. A case in point would be the conduct of
a minority representative at home with his family, where he rules the roost, or conversely, when he
is among members of the predominaant ethnic group. Some external manifestations of this behaviour
might be the use of the so-called political correctness (pc) which is a good example of a clash
between public and private identities. The concept of pc, so important a graft from the US culture of
equality and low power distance, withers at home: my survey has shown that hardly anybody uses pc
terms, such as ‘Roma’ ( a pc term for the Gypsies in Bulgaria) or ‘disadvantaged’ at home. To a
Bulgarian, the use of ‘Roma’ at home would be ironical, a farce; to a Gypsy – not important because
at home his identity is not under threat. In the same vein, no white person in America is likely to use
the word “negro’ in public , to describe a ‘black person’ unless they mean a deliberate insult, but two
blacks may address each other as ‘negroes’ – as some kind of a nickname, allowed to the initiates
only.
Thus, political correctness resides in public space only. The approach to pc in Bulgaria is
often completely un-pc, which shows that the old stereotypes are still there, as well as the gap
between the ascribed and the self-affiliated identities. For this reason a Bulgarian writer who has
written a story called: When Romas Were Gypsies claims in a radio interview that there is nothing
offensive in the word ‘gypsy’. Apparently he does not realize that one can neither proscribe nor
prescribe to others what they find hurtful or insulting.
In Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles every human wants one of the few surviving Martians
to "be" someone else. This fluidity of identities brings about the Martian’s destruction. Unable to
control his own malleable identity, he is destroyed by the conflicting expectations of humanity. It is
very similar to what Silke Vehlow writes in her dialogin.com on-line posting: “But this to me seems
one of the greatest difficulties of being bilingual and –cultural - that you are constantly torn between
fitting in and not appearing to be a stranger and yet there will always be moments when you are. And
even when you're in your home country you're not totally 'whole' because that other culture isn't
there... I have found no solution to that conflict yet other than surrounding myself with multi-cultural
friends who I all admire for living in Germany but who all understand about having another culture
deep inside you”.
For many of us, especially those with a uni-cultural ethnic background, it is difficult to accept
conflicting, fluid and plural identities. It is evident in Gert Jan Hofstede’ posting when he claims that
having multiple identities is rare: “I have had the experience that (some, not all) French people went
absolutely gaga when I turn out to know many French songs. I think it gives them a conflict as to my
identity”.
However this plurality is a fact for many. Even Gert Jan tacitly admits it by using the
word ‘disguise’ in the same statement: “Solitary immigrants have been known to try to be'holier than
the Pope' and disguise (italics are mine – IP) their foreign culture, adopting the identity of a citizen of
the new country. Alternatively they could form a group of bi-pat identity, who have their difference
as a common characteristic”. Obviously “disguise” does not mean ‘no longer have, discard’.
It has been argued that our identity changes even depending on the language we use. In a paper
published in 1989 quoted by Hutchins, Kuroda and Suzuki warn of the dangers of translation effects
in cross-cultural surveys pointing out the differences in responses to the same questions when the
respondents were asked to respond in a foreign language as opposed to their own (2002: 33). In the
context of new Europe this identification uncertainty is increasingly prominent. Cf. for example, the
following forum posting: ”It is also one big challenge for the EU, I think. What are we? Are you and
I both Europeans or are we German, Dutch, French no matter where we live? Is my boyfriend still
French although he's been living in Germany for 4 years? Are you still Dutch? I think identity is
very, very important. You need to know who and what you are. And what do you think isn't trying
not so sound Dutch a little like denying your Dutch identity (if you still think you have one?)...”
Silke Vehlow’s boyfriend would probably stay French in Germany or elsewhere in the face of
adversity, or sink into a more cosmopolitan European identity, if the setting is favourable.
By and large, “giving somebody a conflict” does not disprove the idea of fluid plural
identities, borders notwithstanding. Armenians, Ukrainians, Russian, Russian Jews, Germans and
Poles, etc. all know the same children’s songs in Russian – they had the same conditioning as
children but there are different compartments, as it were, in their identity make-up. Multiple
identities are a common phenomenon. They might be somewhat similar to matryoshkas, the Russian
folding dolls, embedded one inside the other. Proceeding from the concept of noosphere propounded
by the Russian Academician Vladimir Vernadski as an explanation of socio-geographical progress,
Lev Goumilev introduced the term supra-ethnos to describe the most comprehensive ethnic
hierarchy taxon opposed to other large entities of this kind. ( Goumilev, 1993) . A supra-ethnos is
composed of several ethnoses consolidated by integral mentality and possessing cultural integrity.
Another suitable term to describe the plurality of identities is an umbrella nationality, or an
overarching identity (Eriksen, 1993, 141). For example, Croats living in Australia will be both
Croats and Australians (in a varying degree, depending on the generation and individual
characteristics); second generation Turks in Germany speak native German and in many ways feel
German2 though not forgetting their Turkish roots.. In other words, we are what we identify with, not
2
It is a moot point, though., how ‘German’ they will be perceived by ethnic Germans.
what we really are, as quite often, the latter is far from clear. The identity bottom-line is the ultimate
sharing of collective identity, being part of ‘we’ vs. ‘they’, the Other. Sifting through the layers of
“they” may be hard and based on ingrained culture-specifics. Different diasporas have their own
differentiations between ‘we’ vs. ‘they’ which may be very intricately layered. The term “degrees of
foreignness”, which I have already mentioned, applies with nearly mathematical precision: a case in
point would be a study of the degrees of adjustment and adaptation of different arrivals in terms of
chronology. My research of some Russian diasporas in the USA, Canada and Bulgaria showed
varying degrees of cultural assimilation, which, however, had no effect on the individuals’ selfconcept as Russians. Thus a 3rd generation Russian, whose ancestors left Russia after the 1917
revolution, may assume the trappings of the geographical culture he/she has been imbibing as part of
his spatial/temporal bubble but will still regard himself as Russian. The more recent immigrants see
the earlier immigrants as ‘they’ and consider their Russian identity diluted and doubtful: thus, in
Bulgaria, White Russians have taken on the peculiarities of Bulgarian culture, easily observable by
later arrivals. These features involve greater structural regimentation and higher uncertainty
avoidance index compared to the Russian culture. More specifically, these Russians would introduce
themselves in a typically Bulgarian manner as ‘Eng. Dr Ivanov’, which would be an alien concept for
more recent Russian immigrants likely to leave out the professional identification bits. Consequently,
the descendents of the White Guards become ‘they’ for recent arrivals in their own in-group, but they
would be part of the same collective identity as opposed to Bulgarians.
The flexibility and
multidimensionality of ethnic identity viewed in the generational context was shown in a research
conducted at the University of Auckland which studied a particular Croatian community from a
social psychological perspective (Jankovic and Vaughn, 2004 )
By and large, identifying one’s niche becomes difficult when people move. Cf. this
dialogin.com forum posting:
“This
is
somewhat
related
to
identity
and
culture...
”I am from Canada and have been living in Germany for the past six years. I visited Canada over
Christmas. I realized something about myself. When I speak to Canadians about Germans, I refer to
Germans as 'they'. When I speak to Germans about Canadians, I have started referring to Canadians
as
'they'
as
well!
I related this story to a few people and the Germans tried hard to convince me that it is sad for me
that it is not easy to pigeon-hole me anymore.The threat of not belonging was too frightening for
them! The Canadians just shrugged and said, 'Yeah, that can happen.' “ (Sandra Jurcic).
Some places are more conducive to the emergence of multiple identities than others. It is a
well-known fact, for instance, that there is no such thing as a typical neighbourhood in New York –
all of them are ethnically based - shaped by immigrants of different ethnicity.
In other places “old” identities are kept hidden, for instance, for fear of persecution, and
become prominent only among those they are shared with and those who can be trusted. Conversely,
identity may be a matter of challenge and pride. In the context of A.Maslow’s needs analysis, some
identities may become salient when they meet the needs of acceptance. Other identities come to the
fore
to
meet
the
need
of
self-actualization3.
Melting pot or salad
By Europe people tend to mean the new supranational unit, the European Community which
originally stood for Western Europe, rather than the entire continent. It is generally accepted that
some kind of new allegiance is already in existence, and old nation-states owe their loyalty to it.
“European” is gradually becoming an umbrella nationality. French farmers increasingly produce
for Europe, not for France; “made in Europe”, not in Germany or France, seems to be doctor’s
orders. Standardisation of legislation is taking place everywhere. The moot point is whether there is
such a thing as a universal Europe and a European identity, or whether the task is to take many
generations - with uncertain outcome. Also, it remains to be seen what kind of identity it is likely to
be. It has often been claimed that America is a melting pot of cultures, nations, etc., but the melting
pot approach is now out-of date even in the USA (Eriksen 1993: 139). It is argued that the USA is
ethnically heterogeneous: people still live in their own communities, and possibly share part of the
“universal” values only. At best, different communities may be described as salad components, and
not just because of ‘unmeltable” blacks and Indians alone (Ibid: 143). As an internet community
forum intermundo.com participant points out describing multiculturalism in Australia: “A tossed
salad is fresh and whilst it is in one 'bowl' the flavours are distinct! The whole notion of a melting pot
frightens me somewhat. It seems to suggest that individual culture is lost in some sort of generic
soup!” However, in a sense “[….] the melting pot phenomenon did occur in that diverse immigrant
groups acquired the same basic values and the same language and intermarried to some degree, but
they still draw resources –symbolic, political, material from ethnic identification” (Eriksen,141).
Their ‘historical culture’ is submerged but not melted, often resulting in a new awareness of roots
and origins
– pilgrimages to perceived ancestral lands, family trees, emerging cultural self-
consciousness, and cultural uniqueness. Most immigrants still live in “ghettoes”. Even advertising in
In 1954 Abraham Maslow put forward a hypothesis of a hierarchy of common needs (lower and higher) –
1.physiological; 2. safety, security; 3.acceptance, affiliation; 4.self-actualization
3
US is often specifically targeted to ethnic groups – i.e. Jews, Italians, blacks etc., and consequently
uses very different appeals.
Europe is even further away from the one-time ideal of the melting pot. Negative (and
positive) stereotypes applying to “other” Europeans as well as to Americans are still mundane. How
foreign and different do we seem to each other? Some examples culled from G. J. Hofstede’s book
(2003), C. Storti (2001), R.Gibson (2002), F.Trompenaars and Ch.Hampden Turner (1997), K.
Dunkerley and Robinson (2002) and on-line sources (G.Asselin, P.Schmidt,
dialogin.com and
intermundo.com forums) follow:
Americans are sociable , open and friendly; strangers on a bus getting together for a few
moments are likely to exchange personal information; achievement counts for a lot more than
affiliation; positive feedback and self-esteem building are of utmost importance, rules of political
correctness - respect for minorities and women – reign supreme. Nobody can be described as
“dumb”; rather than “poor” people want to be thought of as “pre-rich”; lots of superlatives are used;
time often takes second place and quality is generally more important than quantity (different attitude
to time management and goals setting). On the other hand, in France it is a good thing to limit the
amount of personal information, notions of savoir-vivre and savoir-faire and family affiliation are
much more important. These factors give rise to stereotypping: “Americans are shallow” in France
and “the French are cold and aloof” in the USA.
Germans are direct; their hierarchies are rigidly structured. A British employee of a German
state institute attached to a government ministry was frustrated at the time it took for decisions to be
made. To speed things up he faxed documents to his counterpart at the ministry directly. When the
head of department found out, he was extremely annoyed and demanded that all faxes be shown to
him before being sent to the ministry. For the German employee the respect for the hierarchy and
authority was of utmost importance, for the British employee – getting the job done. Discussing
problems in a pub (like in the UK) is a no-no in Germany. These cultural differences are known to
result in managerial failures and unsuccessful mergers (a classic example is Rover and BMW). In
general, Germans are perceived as prepared for all eventualities, mapping out the future from the
moment of birth (according to Geert Hofstede, they have a very high uncertainty avoidance index4).
The 2003 film “Good Bye Lenin directed by Wolfgang Becker is highly indicative of these qualities:
after the collapse of East Germany a son tries to protect his dying mother from the novelty-induced
Hofstede’s dimensions have been criticized as too simple, stereotypic and ethnocentric. It has been argued that
dimensions and indices refer not to societies but nations which also consist of different cultures and subcultures. The
individual factor and its variations are not to be ignored either. At the same time, in terms of tendencies the idea may be
considered as quite viable.
4
shock by creating the false illusion of stasis and familiarity (no unification has taken place, the Berlin
Wall is still intact, GDR is still in existence). To this end, he takes great pains to make her feel secure
and safe by rustling up goods which no longer exist - such as Spreewald pickles and other food and
drink items in familiar East German jars.
The British culture is that of implicature and indirectness. As a comparative study shows
(Dunkerley and Robinson, 2002), Americans and Britons have very different discourse codes and in
many ways are indeed two countries divided by a common language. Americans are said to value
acquired characteristics rather than those that are inherited (achieved over ascribed), the British are
seen as the opposite. Questions, rather than direct commands seem to be the order of the day. “For
example, to expect an outsider to interpret “not bad at all” as meaning “Very good indeed” […..] is to
expect too much, [….] just as the interpretation of “It might be an idea, if you were to do x” as an
urgent imperative requires long acculturation to decode (Ibid). One doesn’t say “Do it, but rather …”
Would you mind …. ?” Conversely, Americans are much more willing to be direct and risk conflict.
The British find American optimism annoying and American directness rude. It is not surprising that
Americans are perceived as very individualistic, pushy, aggressive, while the British are perceived as
indirect, hypocritical.
The situation is even more complicated when one deals with people coming from other parts
of the world and is bound to result in even more misconceptions and negative stereotypes. Thus,
Asians do not view avoidance negatively and are loath to say “no”; silences have different
significance in different cultures, and turn-taking is culture-specific. For example, according to
Richard Brislin (2003) conversation is linear in Scandinavian countries and simultaneous in Italy,
which means a lot of interruptions.
Bulgaria vs. the West
The advent of foreign companies has given rise to a host of problems and misunderstandings
both from the expatriate angle and the Bulgarian perspective.5
a) Expatriates about Bulgarians:
- They have no initiative - people do not want to think because their managers haven’t given them
an express order to do so.
- They have no motivation, no prioritizing: they come 5 minutes late, leave 2 minutes early; in
many cases a task is not fulfilled within the allotted time; important and not so important tasks are
The sources used are Bulgarian periodicals, mostly Kapital and “Dnevnik and other local publications, as well as
personal information .
5
not differentiated; there is no sense of confidentiality – information is freely divulged to one’s wife,
friends, etc. Telephone numbers of colleagues are often given to strangers without their permission.
- They use impolite body language, e.g. there is no eye contact during interviews, they nod when
they want to say ‘no’ and not ‘yes’.
- Company time and private time is treated equally: employees phone friends and relatives from the
office.
- When a Bulgarian says: ‘no problem,’ it means there are a lot of problems. There is too much
blah-blah and chest-thumping6.
A British expatriate also noted that Bulgarian employees want to become rich overnight and
buy a big black car.
At the same time some of these qualities are occasionally perceived as good: people spend a
lot of time together after work, have fun and often discuss work-related issues. There is no
compartmentalization.
b) Bulgarians about expatriates:
- Sometimes they are too arrogant.
- They are hypocrites because they smile too much.
- They adopt a missionary attitude and do not take the point of view of the locals into consideration.
- It is not clear what the expatriate managers want - there is no feed-back and communication
failure is routine.
It should of course be noted that both groups are likely to be surprised to hear these remarks,
which, of course, do not reflect on their respective values as individuals.
Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe
The above findings are similar to the results of western managerial studies of former
Socialist countries which are now part of the EC. In the 3 countries surveyed by Finnish researchers
(Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) Finland expatriate managers were found to have different
leadership styles, the teamwork of the locals was not very successful, and consequently, the main
problems involved the functioning of the organisation (Suutari and Riusala, 2002). There were
similar findings in Estonia and Russia, with even more nostalgia and wishful thinking in the latter
case. “How does it feel to work for AGA?” workers at Balashikha plant near Moscow recently
bought by AGA company were asked in a research into the differences in organisational behaviour.
6
It should be noted that some of these characteristics are deemed as common Balkan traits.
They replied”-We don’t work for AGA .We work for the Balashikha plant. The foreigners are just
investors, not owners.”(Fey and Denison, 2000: 26) The most important problems noted by
expatriates in Suutari and Riusala’s study involved
human resource management (50%),
bureaucracy (interaction with public authorities (27%), changes in legislation (25%), corruption
(11%) and inadequate preparation of companies (11%) (Op. cit., 14). Human resource management
implies different leadership styles, less strict time perceptions, (e.g. it is claimed that sometimes
employees fail to understand that time is a limited resource); work environment issues, such as role
conflict On the other hand, the locals complain of colonial attitude and work environment issues, e.g.
role conflict because of misunderstanding of the expatriate’s task and
lack of clear feed-back.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of culture shock, a clash between self-affiliated and ascribed identities and
therefore, a lot of disappointment on both sides. To achieve their goals both managers and locals
need to compromise. Thus, western managers claim they had to make their style more authoritative
in Eastern Europe. The whispered statements of post-totalitarian employees are: “don’t rock the boat;
do as I say, not as I do; keep peace at any price; don’t express your feelings openly and directly”
(Bassan, 2004). This philosophy may be traced back to the culture of distrust and secrecy of the
totalitarian times. Conversely, the advice given to expatriates wishing to work in Eastern Europe is
rather in the region of wishful thinking: be patient, try to adapt yourself to local culture, learn the
local language, don’t behave like a great Western master, obtain culture-related training and
information, have an open and positive attitude. (Suutari and Riusala, 2002: 18)
Hence it is easy to see where Bulgarians stand on cultural values and dimensions, if we refer
to the criticism of expatriate managers directed to their Bulgarian employees (See also Minkov,
2002). Bulgaria is a relationship culture, rather than a facts and figures culture (unlike USA), and a
boss is often treated as a “father figure”, infallible by definition. Using Edward T. Hall’s terms, it is
poly-chronic, rather than mono-chronic (several roles at a time vs. one role at a time). This is why,
typically, company time and individual time are often mixed together and personal tasks, such as.
telephoning relatives, may be undertaken during office hours. On power distance and uncertainty
avoidance Bulgaria should have a rather high index7. Like other European countries, Bulgaria is a
classic example of a short term orientation culture with no tradition of long-term planning and
allowing for considerations of the future. Some of these claims are evidenced by classroom and work
place addresses, such as Здравейте момчета и момичетa, Г-н директор, Инженер Янков,
Проф. Д-р, (‘Hello boys and girls’, ‘Mr. Director’, ‘Eng. Yankov’, ‘Prof. Dr. Petrov’). These
7
Bulgaria is included in very few surveys of cultural dimensions. Even though as noted by Minkov (2002) the exact
indices are very difficult to calculate and individual variations may make this daunting task useless we are justified in
outlining several degrees of these dimensions – from very low to quite weak (312-317)
addresses seem to indicate a respect for hierarchical and regimented society, not unlike Germany and
Italy. First names in the contacts between, say, students and teachers lack solidarity – teachers may
use the students’ first names, but the opposite is unacceptable, unlike USA and increasingly the UK.
In the classroom, few teachers dare to say “I don’t know” (power distance and uncertainty avoidance
indexes are fairly high). At the same time I would like to reiterate that it is an over-simplification to
talk about a single ethnic mentality. Moreover, it should be noted that lately in view of the emergence
and growth of multicultural companies (and ergo, the organizational and behavioural rules created by
them) corporate culture is often more important than the ethnic background of individuals. (Hutchins
et al, 2002: 22).
Invented countries (high and low status cultures)
By and large, the western culture (German, British, American, etc.) is thought of highly
(often collectively) in Eastern Europe, indeed more highly than it is realistic. It is regarded as a
culture of power, a high status culture. According to Eriksen, the idea of superior and inferior
races (and by extension – cultures – IP) has replaced the aristocrat-commoner dichotomy in French
society (Eriksen, 1993: 530). In my view, this tendency applies to Europe at large, with degrees of
superiority or inferiority, or status. A similar evaluation was evidenced in a questionnaire, with Irish
and Bulgarian students as respondents (Stankeva, 2003) where Bulgarians tended to be less critical of
the Irish than the Irish of Bulgarians, as well as in some joint Russo-Finnish studies. In the latter –
Finns, Americans, Germans were evaluated by Russian schoolchildren and got a very high rating,
whereas the Russians fared a lot worse with the Finnish schoolchildren (Andreeva, 2000: 331). It has
been noted, however, that this view is advocated by a more “stable” group, by those who apparently
regard stability as a virtue and possibly consider western societies as stable. As a global society with
clear-cut values, USA ranks high with some groups. My own survey conducted at the University of
National and World Economy (UNWE) also seems to indicate that most students regard Americans
and American values highly (in so far as they perceive them to be inherent to Americans), and are
critical of their compatriots. Another questionnaire I was using to survey several groups of students
(80 Ist to IVth year students of the University of National and World Economy in Sofia) involved
ranking several qualities which they consider relevant, irrelevant, or neutral, with regard to the
Bulgarian psyche. About 75% think of Bulgarians as individualistic, anarchistic and proud, almost
everybody considered Bulgarians as
tolerant, 70% - as nihilistic and fatalistic. Only 4 students
thought that “collectivism” is an important Bulgarian value (however, two students considered both
collectivism and individualism as part of the Bulgarian mental make-up). Nobody regarded
Bulgarians as law-abiding. Conversely, about 95% considered UK and USA as law-abiding countries
(Perianova, 2005: 122 -123).
A psychological explanation of these surveys involves the desire to be included in the
“admired” group, which implies doing our perceived best to have our behaviour interpreted as proper
and appropriate by members of, in our case, a foreign culture. This behaviour is akin to the concept
of accommodation. Howard Giles, who created the term, suggests that we alter our style of speech
depending on who we are talking to. If we approve of someone our speech becomes more like theirs
– we converge on the style of the other. If we disapprove, we move away from their style – we
diverge. The convergence or divergence can be seen at all levels of language: accent, tone, speed of
delivery, choice of vocabulary and even grammar – the use of standard and non-standard forms.
Convergence can also be seen on the non-verbal level, i.e. repeating gestures. (Giles, 1969: 125-35)
.This is the reason why signs in English and English names are quite common in Sofia and other big
cities in Bulgaria, sometimes absurdly so. There is a transition to a culture of trust: students are now
taught that we are surrounded by neighbours, not enemies, and this fact conjures up one of the best
known Ronald Reagan’s phrases: “a stranger is a friend you have yet to meet”. Addresses have
changed in the past 14 years – г-жа, г-н, or г-ца (Mr., Mrs., Miss), the latter - to a young girl, or
when one wants to be insulting, replaced другар/ка (‘comrade’). Nobody stands up when the teacher
comes into the classroom as was the practice back in the 1970-ies. These novelties seem to indicate a
change in the cultural dimensions compared to totalitarian years, a transformation from a culture of
secrecy to a culture of trust, from a culture of alleged collectivism to individualism, as well as a drop
in the power distance index due to the advent of investors from the west, amongst other factors.
Moreover, in many ways, for Bulgarians the USA, for example, is an invented country – not what it
is, but what it is deemed to be, or rather what it is desired to be – a means of escape from the reality
they do not like. This estimate underlies the locals’ expectations of expatriates which often fail to
materialize. The expatriates are also quite frequently frustrated by unforeseen communication
failures, a situation which by no means applies to Eastern Europe alone. No wonder some scientists
propound the impossibility of transferring managerial know-how because “[…] different national
cultural characteristics make the hypothesis that it is possible to transfer management ideas, concepts
and theories usefully between nations highly questionable “ (Brown and Humphreys, 1995: 5).
The main reason for these failures is different behavioural codification in cultures. The social
message of behavioural differences is easily misunderstood and results in lack of trust. “Why do the
Dutch eat sandwiches with milk? The causes are a complex mix of historical and symbolic reasons,
including value pattern tending towards egalitarianism and not wanting to show off as well as the
availability of milking cows” Gert Jan Hofstede points out in his paper Conflict resolution across
cultures at dialogin.com e-conference. “It gives an example of work ethic which seems highly
unusual to an Italian or French but not to an American” ( Hofstede, Gert Jan, 2004). The French
would, of course, prefer wine. To a Bulgarian, eating sandwiches with milk would also seem weird.
The differences are often accounted for by “the value zone” – Protestant, Catholic, Confucian, etc.,
not just the country. Furthermore, it is now claimed, that in the context of the divergent values of
self-expression and survival “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus” (Economist,
Jan. 2003) and “the values gap between America and European countries seems to be widening”
(Ibid). Although the meaning of different values and stereotypes may change for individuals and
cultures, their very nature as regulators and predictors of behaviour, and generators of common
stereotypes can hardly be denied. At the same time stereotypes are not always negative, deplorable
or reprehensible. In a way, they are default values, the backbone to people’s existence: things are
done in a certain manner because they have always been that way. At any given moment there are
several interacting basic mentalities in a society8, with different behavioural stereotypes and
changing relative share. Hence, even though there are a lot of emerging symbols and new icons, the
old ones linger on, a force to be reckoned with.
No matter which of the existing systems of values or cultural dimensions (Hofstede’s,
Trompenaar’s, Schwartz’s etc.) is used, there is no denying that European countries cover quite a
range of them. In view of the existence of different sets of cultural dimensions in Europe, a common
European umbrella nationality may still be perceived as a construct. However because of the
globalization and the tendencies it involves, such as increasing contacts with representatives of
different cultures, as well as the advent of new technologies, it should be regarded as a construct with
rather blurred edges. Currently, the existence of ‘European’ nationality in many parts of Eastern
Europe, including Bulgaria, is wishful thinking. However, the changing reality presupposes an
emergence of new stereotypes, and it is a global fact . At this point I’d like to emphasize that the idea
that culture is a set of stable and static dimensions, a monolith, is a throwback to mid-20th century.
“Modern anthropology and sociology see culture as the result of interaction and confrontation
between the groups and not as a set of defining traits and features of groups” (Irrmann, 2002), or
basic mentalities, as in the Russian tradition. “If we see culture as a monolithic independent variable,
then we predict that an American person will always behave like a typical American person, and we
go on looking for fixed traits that describe that way of behaving. If we see culture as a short hand for
a very complex emergent process, then we predict that American pilots potentially have many ways
8
In Russia, these are described as individualistic capitalist, collectivistic, socialist, Orthodox Christian, criminal and
fragmented reality (Semionov, 200:486)
of making their behaviour meaningful in the flight deck setting“, note Hutchins et al. in a Boeing
sponsored research (2002: 27).
Facilitating communication – in-between space
As I have already noted, because of the new cultural contacts and the changing reality,
Bulgaria, as well as other East European countries, is becoming more individualistic, its power
distance – lower, compared to the totalitarian time. To a great degree, the indisputable cultural
changes (see for example, Fernandez, 1997) are due to successful communication. This
communication often takes place in an in-between space, facilitated by people who know the host
culture and the visitor culture. The global phenomenon of the so-called TCK (Third Culture Kids)
who often feel at home in an alien culture and frustrated in their own, was investigated by David
Pollock and Ruth Van Reken (2000).
Another category of trans-border crossers are the people whom I would call the new
janissaries. At the time of the Ottoman empires Christian villages had to pay tax in human kind to
the Turks and send their young boys to be brought up by the Turks as Moslems. Later on, already as
adults, these converts returned as interpreters (creators of in-between space). I have no ambition to
elucidate the janissaries’ historical role in its entirety and contradictoriness, but in the present-day
East European context the new janissaries are western graduates and returnees from the West.
While intercultural trainers play the role of facilitators in the west, in Eastern Europe, and
more specifically, Bulgaria, the job is still very much an unknown quantity and even psychological
consultations involving intercultural communication are few and far between. This may be one of the
reasons why the number of divorces among couples of mixed ethnicity is greater than in ethnically
homogenous groups. Some workshops I did with Russian women married to Bulgarians revealed a
great extent of stereotyping, misinterpretation and misunderstanding with regard to certain national
and cultural traits of the mainstream ethnos, even though most of these women have lived in the
Balkans for many years. It doesn’t mean that Bulgarian husbands are any better on this score - but
being a majority they undoubtedly feel self-righteous and secure.
Foreign companies, which are now active in Bulgaria, snap up several categories of locals
who undoubtedly serve the purpose of successful intercultural communication. These are the new
janissaries in corporate management, who cross the borders of identities (and often possess
conflicting identities of their own coming to the fore within the appropriate context). In many ways
they are like third-culture kids who have assumed a certain part of alien identity, somehow less
foreign, easier to understand for the ex-pats, and regarded as conductors of western influence. These
are:
- Foreign graduates;
- Children of cross-cultural marriages,
- People who lived in the west for many years.
I should mention that Russian companies are no different in this respect. They have their own
‘conductors’, their own janissaries. The new janissaries have much more awareness of the hidden
messages and agendas of both sides and often face problems identifying with one collective identity
only, i.e. for them ‘we’ and ’they’ are a fluctuating category.
At the same time some research seems to indicate that making employees act in accordance
with what multinationals (erroneously) consider to be universal values is a very difficult task.
Superficial learning of behavioural codes and adjustment, rather than awareness and ability to
interpret the intercultural situation correctly, appears to be the case in many companies. It is a moot
point whether all national cultures determine the possibility of learning to act in accordance with
those (e.g. Hutchins et al, 2002). These issues call for more research and in-depth analysis.
. Conclusion
Our identity is fluid and shifts in different social contexts, e.g. public and private. To a great
degree, identity is conditioned by the culture/s we were born into, i.e. it is a function of the culture of
our parents or ancestors, our historical culture (or rather what we know of it). At the same time our
adopted culture/s and personal individual choice are also intertwined with identity. In the complex
relationship with ‘the other’ some nationalities seem ‘less foreign’ to us than others. Plurality of
identities seems to be the norm in our globalized world. The umbrella of the so-called “overarching
identity” (Eriksen, 2003) embraces our different egos. These identity layers, as it were, become
submerged or salient depending on the circumstances – meeting the needs of acceptance or selfactualization. On the one hand, our identity may equal self-concept or self-affiliation, on the other
hand, - our ascribed identity, the way we are perceived by an observer, with all imaginable
stereotyping, is real enough for the observer. Thus, communication, especially intercultural
communication often involves negotiating the differences between self-affiliated and ascribed
identity.
References
(Books, articles, on-line and the web sources)
Andreeva G.M. (Андреева Г.М). “Конструирование образа социального мира в условиях
социальной нестабильности”, Социальная психология в трудах отечественных психологов,
“Питер” Санкт Петербург, 2002.
Asselin, Gilles. Cultural Differences: Myth or reality. Reflection on Life in America. Accessed at:
http//dialogin.com/security/member_publication/search_results.php?3:id=18.
Barth, Frederik. Ethnic Groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference,
Boston: Little, Brown, 1969.
Bassan, Ivan. Expatriate Management vs. False Self in Post-totalitarian Business Environments.
AUBG, 2004 (MBA essay, unpublished).
Brislin, Richard, Silence carries culturally influenced meanings. February 16, 2003 , Honolulu StarBulletin, 2005; accessed at: http://starbulletin.com.
Brown A. and M.Humphreys, “International cultural differences in public sector management.
Lessons from a survey of British and Egyptian technical education managers”. International Journal
of Public Sector Management, vol.8, No.3, 1995.
Collier Mary J. “Cultural Identity and Intercultural Communication”, in Samovar, L.A. and Porter,
R.E. (eds.) Intercultural Communication: a Reader, Wadsworth: Belmont CA, 1994.
Dunkerley K. and W.P. Robinson. “Similarities and Differences in Perceptions and Evaluations of
the communication styles of American and British managers”, Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, vol.21 No.4, December, 2002.
.Encyclopædia
Britannica
from
Encyclopædia
Britannica
Online.
<http://search.eb.com/eb/article-11965> [Accessed March 11, 2006].
Fernandez, Denise. et al. “Hofstede’s Country Classification 25 Years Later”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, 1997.
Eriksen, Th... Ethnicity and Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto Press, 1993.
Fey, C. and D.Denison. Organisational Culture and Effectiveness: the Case of Foreign Firms in
Russia. Accessed at: http://swoba.hhs.se/hastba/papers/hastba2000.
Giles H. “Evaluative Reactions to Accents”, Educational Review, vol. 22, 1969.
Goumilev L.N. (1993) Гумилев Л.Н. Этносфера. История людей и история природы. М:
Экопрос.
Hall E.T. The Silent Language. NY: Anchor, 1981.
Hall E.T. Beyond Culture. NY: Doubleday Anchor books, 1976.
Hofstede, Geert. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hill, 1991.
Hofstede, Gert Jan, P.Pederson and G.Hofstede . Exploring Culture. Exercises, Stories and Synthetic
Cultures. Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press, 2002.
Hofstede, Gert Jan Conflict resolution across cultures. Dialogin.com e-conference, 2004. Accessed
at: http://wwww.dialogin.com/security/foren/read.php3?num=38&id.
Hutchins Edwin et al. Culture and Flight Deck Operations. University of California San Diego,
Sponsored Research Agreement 22-5003. Accessed at: http// dialogin.com/security/community
start/news.html?cat=Randd&id=421.
Irrmann, Olivier. Organisational Culture and Identity Strategies in International Management: an
interdisciplinary
28th
review
EIBA
conference,
Athens.
Accessed
at:
http:’’www.aueb.gr/deos/EIBA2002.files/PAPERS/c63.pdf.
Jankovic, Judita and Graham Vaughn. Multidimensional Ethnic Identity: Croatians in New Zealand.
University
of
Auckland.
Accessed
at:
http//
dialogin.com/security/community
start/news.html?cat=Randd&id=660.
Economist.
Living
with
a
superpower
2nd
Jan.
2003.
Accessed
at:
www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1511812.
Maslow, Abraham. Motivation and Personality. Second Ed. NY: Harper, 1970.
Minkov, Минков, Михаил. Защо сме различни. Междукултурни различия в семейството,
обществото и бизнеса. София . Класика и стил, 2002.
Perianova, Irina. “Is Globalism Skin Deep?” In Danova Madeleine (ed.) The Transatlantic and the
Transnational in a Changing Cultural Context. BSBS/BASA, Sofia: Polis, 2005.
Pollock, David and Ruth E.Van Reken. Third Culture Kids. The Experience of Growing Up among
Worlds, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2000.
Polyak,
Ildiko
Gap
or
Chasm?
Accessed
at:
http//dialogin.com/security/community
start/news.html?cat=Randd&id=310.
Schmidt,
Patrick.
Non
Conventional
Truths
about
US
and
German
Business
http//dialogin.com/security/ member_publication/search_results.php?3: id=89.
Semionov, (Cеменов В .Е). ‘Типология российских менталитетов и имманентная идеология
России’, Социальная психология в трудах отечественных психологов, “Питер” Санкт
Петербург, 2000.
Stankeva, Tanya. To Be Young in Ireland and Bulgaria, 8th International Conference of Bulgarian
Society for British Studies (BSBS), Sofia October 2003.
Storti, Craig . Old World, New World. Bridging Cultural Differences: Britain, France, Germany and
the U.S. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 2001.
Suutari, Vesa and Kimmo Riusala. Managing Business Operations in Central and Eastern Europe:
Problems
Faced
by
Western
Expatriate
Managers.
2002.
http//dialogin.com/security/community start/news.html?cat=Randd&id=336.
Accessed
at: