Most Westerners get confused about when a “Yes” means “Yes” when interacting with people from the East. Now, it seems there is more to get confused about, with a study revealing that even facial expressions can be a source of confusion too. This time it is the East Asians who have a tendency to misinterpret more than Westerners.

It would appear that people from different cultural groups observe different parts of the face when trying to interpret expressions and this leads to the misinterpretation. East Asians tend to focus on the eyes of the other person, while Western subjects take in the whole face, including the eyes and the mouth. Westerners tend to correctly identify the emotions in both white and Asian faces. East Asians are more likely than Westerners to read the expression for “fear” as “surprise”, and “disgust” as “anger”.

This is even reflected in the differing “emoticons” – typographical characters used to create rudimentary faces in emails or text messages – used by the two cultures. Eastern versions focus on the eyes, and western ones change the mouth to depict varying emotions.

The findings suggest that the communication of emotions is more complicated than had previously been believed. Rachael Jack, the psychologist who led the study, said: “Understanding facial expressions of emotion is an essential skill for effective human interaction and although many consider facial expressions to be the universal language of emotion, our research questions this and highlights the true complexities of cross-cultural communication.”

However, it is important to highlight here that in eastern cultures it is less socially acceptable to display negative emotions so they are not atuned to interpret negative facial expressions as they are rarely seen. Western societies are very individualistic, allowing us to express personal opinions explicitly – good or bad.  This is not acceptable in the East.

All in all, the study adds weight to what interculturalists have known for years: that what have always been considered to be “universal” expressions (by those in the West) do not take into account cultural differences.

The Study: Researchers at Glasgow University compared the way 13 Western Caucasians and 13 Korean, Japanese and Chinese participants interpreted the same set of facial expressions depicting seven main facial expressions: happy, sad, neutral, angry, disgusted, fearful and surprised. They used eye movement trackers to monitor where the participants were looking when interpreting the expressions. A computer programme given the same information from the eyes as the East Asian observers was similarly unable to distinguish between the emotions of disgust and anger, and fear and surprise.

The paper, entitled “Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions are Not Universal,” is published today in the journal Current Biology. It states that the Eastern participants used a culturally specific decoding strategy that was inadequate to reliably distinguish the universal facial expressions of fear and disgust. It concluded that information from the eyes is often ambiguous and confusing in these expressions, with consequences for cross-cultural communication and globalisation.

If you are invited to a wedding where the rites and rituals are different from your norms, would you leave?  Well, a minister of the UK Government, Jim Fitzpatrick, did exactly that.  The minister for food and farming and his wife abruptly left a wedding in the East London Mosque in Whitechapel when he was told that it was an orthodox Muslim ceremony where men and women would be segregated.  His excuse for leaving?   He said: “The segregation of men and women didn’t used to be as much of a strong feature. We’ve been attending Muslim weddings together for years but only recently has this strict line been taken. It is an indication of the stricter application of rules that is taking place.” In other words, he was being judgemental: segregation isn’t right and it is especially NOT right in the UK. What he is saying is this practice interferes with social cohesion. It’s wrong!

I find it very hard to understand how an MP is so ignorant of the many practices that go on in this country. It is not just Muslims who might practise segregation at a wedding. Doesn’t he know that orthodox Jewish weddings practise segregation and it is also to be found at Hindu and Sikh weddings, amongst others? He’d better do his homework before he accepts another invite and, frankly, dishonours his hosts. Then, to speak of his anger afterwards seems the height of rudeness. He obviously took offense – but has now given it too.

Personally, I have always taken an invitation to an occassion like this as a great honour and a priviledge. The invitation demonstrates acceptance of me as a person even though I may be ‘different’ and it gives  me a wonderful opportuntity to experience someone else’s culture, traditions and religions. It gives me an opportunity to learn. Jim Fitzpatrick should be tolerant enough to be respectful of others and their practices especially at occasions like these. Why like these? Well, especially for marriages, people often like to celebrate these occasions in a way that has been traditionally handed down – this style of ceremony was the family’s choice and has probaly been in their families for generations..   This was not the occasion to make political statements. May the happy couple be blessed with a happy marriage without the fuss.

However, there are aspects of what Jim Fitzpatrick has said that we all ought to take account of. Evidence exists that shows there is a rapid encroachment of Islamic fundamentalist leaning in specific areas of London, Birmingham and Manchester. The influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) is seen as distrubing as it appears to be enforcing its views on the local Muslim population. Muslims in Britain have come from so many different sects and countries that their religious faith and practices are as diverse as those within the Christian religion.  We readily accept that there is a huge difference between a Jehova’s Witness and a Baptist – so to in the Islamic faith. We cannot homogenise Muslims into just one group.

There are two specific expanding followings of extremely hardline muslims groups energetically operating in this country, to spread their particular ways; the Wahhabi sect (Saudi Arabia), and the Deobandis sect, (India). A lot of money is pouring into this country backing them. Fitzpatrick seems to be nudging us to open our eyes and take stock. Not against Muslim people at large, far from it, but at the political movements out to further their own ends. The Government Minister said he believed the East London Mosque was being influenced by the Islamic Forum of Europe, seen as a backer of Sharia law. “I think the stranglehold influence of the IFE is present more than ever. We are trying to build social cohesion in a community but this is not the way forward.”

Our culture in the UK, evolved through Protestantism, believes that everyone was born equal in the eyes of God and Man so segregation of any desription is a No-No. This issue is not about a right to choose to segregate, but about whether we tolerate the whole idea of segregration. Afterall, it’s not such a big leap between male and female segregration and between black and white – and I think we can all agree, that was plainly unjust.

Footnote: Muslim weddings I have been to usually have the main wedding ritual segregated. In one room , the priest deals with the groom asking him 3 times if he takes the woman as his wife. Then he goes to the other and asks the bride 3 times if she takes the man as her husband. After that, there are prayers and the ceremonial ritual is over. Then, men and women have mingled in the same room.  Segregation at weddings isn’t laid down by Islamic law.

Turkish girls are demanding more autonomy from their parents citing they want to choose their own friends and how they spend their free time. It seems that nowadays these young woman will accept less interference about their lives and are striving for more independence.  They are also becoming more vocal in their choice of careers.

It seems a small revolution is quietly taking place in Turkey among young women and their parents. Girls are becoming more self-confident and well integrated and will defend their points of view to their parents, becoming more outspoken than any generation before them.

A study by the University of Würzburg has disproved the sterotypical image that Germans have about Turkish girls which sees Turkish girls obediently doing what their parents tell them to do and eagerly awaiting to play their role as stay-at-home moms. Girls, it appears, are being more pushy than the boys. The Würzburg study outlines the image of a young and self-confident generation of Turkish girls who have a very clear concept of what they want to do in their spare time and how they plan their future.

The study was performed on the basis of interviews with 400 girls and 430 boys of Turkish origin by Prof. Dr. Heinz Reinders between 2005-8, with the results just published.

For the first time in the whole history of the world we face the phenomenon of, not just globalisation, but CULTURAL GLOBALISATION. But does it really exist and, if so, so what?

Undoubtedly cultural values and identities are being shaped and reshaped with the media playing a significant role in our daily lives. Many of our ideas about the world, our understanding of what is happening everyday and, it can be argued, even our values come from beyond our personal experience – they are formed by what we see and hear via the media.

We receive ideas about the world as ‘packaged’ or ‘bite-sized’ versions of events and issues straight from the media and we just know this has a strong influence on individuals and ultimately society as a whole. With the spread of the media to even remote places on the planet, its influence brings out important issues concerning the affect on national or local cultures and their responses. Young people of the MTV generation around the world probably have more in common with each other than with their parents. But MTV reflects the attitudes and values of western countries, especially America, and is argued to be contributing to the homogenisation of global culture – which, according to research, is expanding rapidly.

Cultural globalisation is a result of the economic activites in developed countries of news and entertainment – the media that produce televison programmes, music and movies and distribute them across the world. This happens because THEY can, whilst other nations can’t. American dominance in this respect is uppermost because of a powerful economy and because of the English language. Even the statistics on book translations shows the number of American books translated from English far out weighs those being translated into English. However, this American dominance would not have come about without the economic power of the big corporations.

In some countries, American television constitues 50% of the programs as the host country does not have the resources to fund the cost of production and distribution of their own. Expensive, blockbuster American movies have been a dominant force but are seen to represent ‘a type of homogenous, uniform culture permeated by western capitalistic values… full of elaborate technical effects and focus on stunts, action, and violence instead of character and emotion’.  Undoubtedly, action movies are more easily understood in non-English speaking , diverse cultures  – in other words they can travel.

To a large extent CULTURAL GLOBALISATION is happening by default – because of econimc advantage. That of the US.  However, all is not lost. India has become the world’s leading producer of fiction films, with Bollywood circulating films to Indian Asia, Indian Africa and the UK. France, too, has retained a strong film industry which has received Government subsidies.

If Cultural Globalisation is an accident of econmic power then we can argue that as other countries rise in economic power Westernisation or Americanisation will lessen and the world will be treated to a greater variety of media input.

When is a gift not a gift?
When it’s unwelcome of course!
And that’s the warning that western marketers should take heed of.

In the western commercial world, marketers often use pleasant surprises to influence consumers’ brand evaluations and purchasing decisions, but surprises are not always held to be pleaurable in some cultures. Marketing across cultures is a minefield and anyone in this line of business should be wary of different cultural responses to promotional gifts, especially the unexpected ones.

 However nice the gift may be, the surprise element can make some recipients feel uneasy – and its nothing to do with thoughts of bribery and corruption. East Asians genuinely feel their emotional balance has been disrupted because an unexpected gift indicates imbalance and prophesises bad fortune. People in the Nordic countries tend to feel suspicious. Americans, on the other hand, are delighted.

A new cross-cultural study of consumer response has recently been published which suggests that East Asians’ enjoyment of  ‘surprise’ gifts is much increased  when the gift is attiributable to luck.  So, for example, it is far more acceptable to have consumers enter a “Lucky Game” to win the gift. Undoubtedly, marketing activities across borders must accomodate cross-cultural differences.

 About the study: Ana Valenzuela, Barbara Mellers, and Judi Strebel. “Pleasurable Surprises: A Cross-Cultural Study of Consumer Responses to Unexpected Incentives.” Journal of Consumer Research: February 2010 (published online July 15, 2009).The authors conducted four studies in which participants received a gift as a token of appreciation for participating in a survey. Some of the participants knew about the gifts before participating, while others were surprised.

Being an interculturalist is one of the most fascinating professions –
you learn something new everday. Interestingly, I was speaking to an anthropologist friend of mine recently and learned that in her professions anthroplogists aren’t considered true anthropologists until they spend five years in the community that they study. As an interculturalist I can quite understand why that is…

 A nation is enriched by the people within it.  The more diverse they are the more we are enriched as a whole, and the more we grow as individuals. I firmly believe that cultural diversity is our biggest asset – but then how can it also be a liability? The answer really is simple – in trying to help people retain their cultural heritage or ethnic identity we manage to lose the message about UNITY.

UNITY is something we – as a nation – apparently strive for, but it’s the one goal we consistently fail to achieve. The UK Government searches desperately to identify what is “Britishness” so that it can bring a sense of belonging and UNITY to the nation. It has consistently failed to do so. I believe that is because, in spite of searching for our distinctive core values, they have not dug deep enough into the values of the nation and fundamentally do not understand about our Cultural Code.

Why is it that the French are very secure in who they are and why do Americans pride themselves on taking the oath of allegiance and flying the flag?  Why is it they seem to have UNITY – at least to the concept of nationhood – and we do not? That’s because they are French or American before they are anything else. 

A photographic competition promoting the cultural diversity and universal values of childhood is taking place to increase awareness of the health and living conditions of children around the world. The competiton which is being run by the International Vaccine Institute is open until August 12th.

In a recent documentary, Newt Gingrich states that American children are falling behind many other nations’ children in respect of their academic prowess.  He argues that they compare most unfavourably with Chinese and Indian children.  To add weight to this argument, a recent McKinsey report emphasises that the lagging performance of America’s school pupils, particularly its poor and minority children, is wreaking more devastation on the economy than the current credit crunch and recession.  American children, it seesms, are ill-equipped to compete and perform poorly in international educational test.

So, what seems to be the cause of this state of affairs? American academics put it down to ‘the summer learning loss’ over the long summer holidays and argue its exacerbating social inequalities. In addition to the longer summer holidays that the children receive, American kids seem to work fewer days in the year, have a shorter school day and only about an hour’s homework a night. Compared to European and Asian schedules, it appears that American kids lose out on 180 days of school (an entire year) over the course of their schooling.

On learning about a young Saudi boy not seeing his father for about ten months due to his dad’s busy international business schedule, I was rather saddened. However, I was surprised to learn from his mother’s comments that the poor lad was unlikely to have seen his father even if he were at home because he would have been busy with business commitments there.  This rather suggests that there is no room for fathers to develop strong emotional links with their children – or even their spouses.

I believe much of this goes back to the segregation of the sexes and the very conservative nature of Saudi families. Women and children of the family and extended family live together in a closed community. Children are unlikely to see their Saudi mother and father hugging, kissing or even holding hands. These are actions which typically take place in private with the husband and wife behind closed doors. This is very much unlike Western countries where affection is widely and broadly shown and demonstrated. A real cultural difference! The showing of affection is very much a part of our Western life and, nowaday, is seen as an important part of our emotional upbringing and well-being.  But my husband was brought up in an England where demonstrative affection between father and son was ‘not cricket’ – and that is not so many years ago. I’m glad our society has changed enough so that my husband feels able to show and tell his sons that he loves and cares for them. But I say that from the context of having a Dad who loved to be hugged and cuddled, as do I.

I know from a friend of mine, who worked as a governess for one of the Royal families in Saudi, that the male children of the household live with the women until almost puberty. This engenders a stronger bond between mothers and children than between fathers and their offspring. And, probably expalins why most of the Saudi gentlemen of my acquaintaince always claim that their wives rule the roost!  It would be unfair to say that this segregation leads mothers to be more emotionally attached to their children than their husbands, but as an armchair psychologist one might think so.  However, I refer back to my friend who said that the Prince and Princess were deeply in love and would spend as much time together as his busy scheduled and her household commitments allowed.

There’s no right or wrong – just difference. C’est la vie!