In class this week we discussed what the differences between high and low context cultures are. One of the things that is very interesting about the differences comes in the forms of humor and history. For example, the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France were over a perceived slight to the Muslim faith in the humor magazine's front page spreads that take Muhammad and put him in various states of nudity and make him say things like, "100 lashes if you don't die laughing". These slights to the Muslim faith were seen as satirical and humorous to the group that published Charlie Hebdo weekly and were taken as such by those who read it. However, the differences in culture and religion that exist between people caused the attackers to kill many people over the perceived offense to their religion and subsequently, their culture.
I had never really considered the idea of humor to be a part of the culture at large. This attack and our discussion has lead me to realize that the different types of humor that exist in the microcosms that exist even in the United States are just as complex and large as the macrocosms of the world. Edward Hall exposes this idea of studying the smaller, microcosms that exist as opposed to trying to connect these larger, unrelated communities to one another. Culture exists on the most basic form of human interaction, which is communication. In doing this type of closer look, I began to realize that by making the smaller connections between communities we can trace the links to the culture-at-large and make inferences and deductions about how that culture operates and works.
In terms of high context and low context, I'd like to draw a link to the macrocosm/microcosm dichotomy that seems to emerge with yet another contextual example. In the United States as a whole our culture is seen as "American" and that we all operate within the same type of culture. However, on the micro level the United States is split between high context and low context cultures. The Southern United States is classified as a high context culture moreso than the Northern United States. Why is that? I'm not 100% sure, but having grown up in Mississippi I can only figure that there is a completely separate history between the two halves of the US. The South is steeped in history, hospitality, and stories. A lot of the references and identities that make up the South are entrenched in the mystical and sometimes mythical history of the South after the Civil War and during Reconstruction. In this way, a lot of the references and communication we make have a higher contextual meaning because there are such deep ties to the past. Where does all of this context come from? In Mississippi, we are taught the South's history (although many times it is slanted, because rhetoric). We are taught about Reconstruction, the evils of slavery, the way that the opulent South operated before the Civil War. Many times, even when mentioning the Reconstruction to Texans, I found that they were never taught it. They learned about another history completely. These are just some ramblings and ideas I have as to why the South may be higher context than the North. The South is always "othered" in relation to the country as a whole and just shows that the macro/microcosm are two separate categories, one not existing without the other.
In regards to ELS, I think that the grammar of context is going to be a huge hurdle for me to overcome. I'm a high context communicator in an everyday context, but a low context when I teach. I like to elucidate what I'm trying to say and be very direct with what I expect and how I expect it. I think that when it comes to teaching ELS and communicating with other students of different cultures I'll have to conform to some different standards. I think one way to bypass this is find out as much as I can about the culture dynamic of the group before jumping in to things. I want to be able to adapt to their culture while exposing our culture and expectations as an American university, much like Liz said in our meeting.
