Different Cultures; Different Relationships

Maričić 1 Đorđe Maričić Communication and Culture John McCabe-Juhnke 19 August 2005

Different Cultures; Different Relationships What is culture? What is a relationship? In order to successfully discuss the difference between the two terms and the influence of culture on relationships, we need to begin with their definitions. James W. Neulip is the author of a helpful, comprehensive definition of culture: culture is an accumulated and learned pattern of values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by an identifiable group of people with a common history and a verbal and nonverbal symbol system. This implies that each culture has an intrinsic and distinct worldview; the group of people that share this worldview are interrelated. A relationship can be defined as a voluntary commitment between…individuals who are influenced by rules, relationship dialects, and surrounding contexts.1

The character of relationships and marriages has changed in the United States since the divorce boom of the 1960’s and the legalization of non-marital cohabitation in the 1970’s. “Dating” has become a common form of relationship among young people. They perceive it as an opportunity to have fun, as means of status grading, as means of socialization leading to personal and social growth, as an opportunity for companionship with members of the opposite sex, and as a means of mate sorting and selection.2 1 2

Julia T. Wood Tang, Shengming, Zuo, Jiping, page 1

Maričić 2 Taking into consideration the distinguishing characteristics of American culture such as the emphasis on individuality, the low power distance, the proximity of adolescents, the monochromic time frame, and the low uncertainty avoidance on the scale of cultural variability dimension, this perception of adolescent Americans is understandable. The way in which the American youth perceive dating is influenced by the fact that since the 60’s divorce boom, the quality of marriages has not changed significantly.3 Most youngsters see dating as a normal, intermediary step towards a longterm and meaningful relationship. A survey by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, data gathered from 1976 to 1992 shows that most Americans, while members of an individualistic and materialistic culture, also appreciate values of collectivity and cooperation between individuals. For example most Americans listed a good marriage and family life as their top priority in life.4

The same study shows that many Americans since the 1970’s are involved in relationships that involve cohabitation. Although cohabitation is not a substitute for marriage, it is considered to be evidence of a more serious commitment between people in a relationship. One of the advantages of cohabitation in the U.S. is that there are fewer legal or social pressures between the two people than in a marriage. For many, cohabitation is seen as temporary arrangement between two people that either get married or break up after two years.5 Gender roles have also changed; women are now often in a position to contribute significantly to household incomes and some men have jobs with lower compensation. This change in the economic realities of daily life in the U.S. has in 3

Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America, page 17 Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America, page 21, table 2.1 5 The Case for Marriage, pages 36-37 4

Maričić 3 turn redefined the relationship between men and women since the 1960’s. The traditional residual roles in a relationship, with the man taking care of finances and the woman raising the family, have been displaced.

Many of these changes are due to the individualism and low uncertainty avoidance features of American culture. Americans see their own self-interest as a first priority and thus they seek relationships primarily to have fun, to be recognized by others, and as a way of asserting their independence. An additional feature of relationships in the U.S. is the competitive aspect: people seek significant others based on the image that their partner will help them present. Other characteristics of the American approach to relationships include openness towards new patterns of relationship behavior, the perception of divorce as a potentially positive solution, the practice of cohabitation to avoid the anxieties associated with marriage, and acceptance of women as bread-winners in addition to their role as nurturers. As an outsider I have noticed that relationships in the US follow the same patterns. For example people that are “dating” in the US tend to go out on dates. This includes going to a movie, a restaurant, the theatre, or another socially acceptable event. Partners spend time based on plans which are often made well in advance and the physical distance separating the people tends not to be a deciding factor.

An alternative vision towards relationships would be a culture in which one socializes for personal and social growth. In this case finding the right person is a contribution to the community at large because the cooperation between the individuals is more far-reaching and synchronized. Rather than a series of activities shared, the

Maričić 4 relationship can be defined more accurately as a form of companionship. In collectivist cultures like Serbia, for example, people in relationships are much more interdependent. As a result of the polychromic time society individuals share time through impromptu meetings; “dates” are relatively rare. Although there special occasions when a couple will go on a date, like anniversaries or other celebrations, the relationship is defined as two people who spend time together regularly and have a strong commitment to one another.

In contrast to the American model, proximity is very important in collectivistic cultures like Serbia. A Serbian proverb says: away from the eyes, away from the heart. Proximity makes it possible for couples in Serbia to spend more time together which in turn is a reflection of their strong commitment. Just by looking at couples on the street in Serbia, including married couples, it is easy to notice that haptics play an important role in relationships. As in other collectivistic orientated societies like Arab countries where touching and holding hands is common practice among best friends, one shows affiliation to ones partner by holding hands. Appropriate public contact in these societies is considered an essential means to maintain the relationship in a public way.

The last example shows the way how relationships are manifested differently in different cultures; nonetheless the important structural elements of relationships remain the same across cultural boundaries. Relationships start as a result of mutual feelings between two people who share their affections, although this does not guarantee a longterm commitment which is the goal in collectivistic cultures.6 Partners everywhere face

6

Tang, Shengming, Zuo, Jiping, p. 5

Maričić 5 questions like the rules of the relationship, the level of commitment, autonomy versus dependence, novelty versus predictability, and the degree of openness in a relationship.

Nuelip’s and Wood’s text books tend to emphasize the ways that relationships are shaped by culture. However the important thing to remember is that categories for cultures such as collectivistic or individualistic are meant to be guidelines for comparison. In reality cultures have both collectivist and individualist features; the same is true of with respect to relationships. Although the U.S. is our example of an individualist society, dating patterns tend, conversely, to be predictable whereas the form that relationships take is actually more varied in a place like Serbia. In Serbia and other places where life is less structured around work than in the U.S., everyday life in a relationship is less planned and left to the whim of each partner. Since couples do not go on dates, the ways in which time shared can vary greatly. Although the everyday patterns are unpredictable, there is a high level of trust in relationships as most coupling is a direct step towards a long-term commitment, as opposed to the experimentation of dating that is common in cultures such as the U.S.

Members of a couple in the U.S. seem to respect each other’s personal privacy more than in collectivist cultures where even minor details of the individuals’ lives are shared with one another. This is perhaps because in the U.S. it is more common to engage in a short-term relationship. The uncertainty causes a high anxiety of disclosure which contrasts with the comfort of relationships in collectivistic countries which tend towards long term relationships immediately. In the U.S. it is also more common to start a

Maričić 6 relationship with a complete stranger, whereas in collectivist cultures the initial meeting is frequently through a common friend which reinforces the security of both individuals. It is understandable that complete strangers would have a lower level of instinctive trust and therefore would be more likely to end the relationship early on.

Yet another example of the influence of culture upon relationships is found in countries like China, Japan and in several African countries where arranged marriages are still common. The arranged marriage is a relationship which is designed to benefit the families rather than the individuals. In this case the couple’s relationship represents their contribution to the common wealth and welfare.7 Arranged marriages are an example of relationships that are clearly influenced by culture. Relationships are also affected by the evolution of any given culture over time. Certain European countries like Austria and Serbia had arranged marriages in the past, but due to their exposure with individualistic cultures that particular part of the societies has disappeared. Microcultures also influence relationship patterns; for example the growing immigrant population of Central and South Americans in the U.S. has influenced the dominant culture in the U.S. These immigrants are well-known for their devotion to the family and their passion in relationships.

After my first year of immersion in a new culture developing relationships with a diverse set of people I have developed a clear sense of the role culture plays in shaping the relationships that I observe and in which I take part.

7

Tang, Shengming, Zuo, Jiping, page 3

Maričić 7

References: James W. Neulip; Intercultural Communication, Second Edition 2003. Julia T. Wood; Communication Mosaics, Third Edition 2004. David Popenoe, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and David Blakenhorn; Promises to Keep, 1996. Linda J. Waite, and Maggie Gallagher; The Case for Marriage, 2001. Tang, Shengming, Zuo, Jiping; Dating Attitudes and Behaviors of American and Chinese College Students, Social Science Journal: 03623319, 2000.