How do you define culture?
How deep does culture go?
What are the influences that shape culture?
What do the stereotypes tell us?
What part does genetics play?
Do Europeans have anything in common?
Will the differences die out in time?
What cultural differences matter most in business?
How do people acquirecross-cultural competences?
How can you prove these things scientifically?

How do you define culture?

Culture is the product of the collective programming of human minds. It starts at birth - maybe before, according to some theorists - and continues through our formative years and, eventually, through life. We are talking about nurture, not nature : genetics has nothing to do with the process, quite the contrary. The problem is that the 'acculturation' process is so subtle that we are often unaware of its consequences.

How deep does culture go?

It goes very deep. We tend to become aware of cultural differences because of superficial phenomena like the way people speak, eat and dress. But it goes much deeper than that. Culture determines the way we react differently from others to a shared experience, leading to assumptions, predispositions and ultimately prejudices. It also shapes the way we think - some cultures are cartesian, others empirical - and, in the final analysis, our value systems.

What are the influences that shape culture?

Just about everything. It started with simple physical realities like climate and diet : at a time when survival was the only issue, how we took shelter and fed ourselves was a formative influence. Later, other things took over - social organisation, inheritance systems, legal and educational systems, and so on. Two 'chicken-and egg' factors stand out from the others : language and religion. Did they shape cultures, or did the cultures determine them?

What do thestereotypes tell us?

More than you might think. It is easy to pooh-pooh stereotypes : they are blunt instruments and readily open to misuse by ill-intentioned people. But they should not be dismissed. They are, after all, the product of accumulated folk-wisdom. Moreover the autostereotypes (what people think about themselves) are often as strong as, or even stronger than, the stereotypes. The problem is that they only tell you part of the truth - and this part is often distorted.

What part does genetics play?

None at all. The best way to refute the 'Supermensch' approach is to take the case of Yugoslavia (literally 'the land of the South Slavs'). The Serbs and Croats have, for political reasons, chosen to present themselves as separate peoples, and certainly different from the Muslims of Bosnia. Yet all these people are genetically linked, with the exception of the people of Turkish or Albanian stock. The difference is cultural, and essentially a question of history and religion : the schism between the western and eastern Christian churches. Even the languages (Serbo-Croat) are essentially the same.

Do Europeans have anything in common?

Although a series of major historical developments characterise the European experience - the classical civilisations, Judaeo-Christianity, feudalism, the monastic movement, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc -they are not relevant to all European cultures. The Roman Empire failed to take in much of northern and eastern Europe, and Finland and most of Sweden and Norway were untouched by feudalism. The best answer is the one formulated by a French historian, Jean-Baptiste Duroselle : "No region in Europe can be fully understood in isolation from the rest".

Will the differences die out in time?

I think not. Right now, there are signs of regression from allegiance to the nation-state to regional consciousness, even localism. Clearly, the Big Mac and Coke factor has to be reckoned with, but it only affects the most superficial levels of culture, the tip of the iceberg. What's more, my experience of previous generations is that, after doing their own thing in the first forty years of their lives, they then revert to type. That's human nature, for better or worse.

What cultural differences matter most in business?

There are some almost freudian things like attitudes to time and hierarchy, which can differ alarmingly from one culture to another. But the most important, precisely because they are the most difficult to detect, are differences in ways of reasoning and value systems. Anglo-Saxons tend to reason empirically from experience, Latins tend to have a cartesian, more theoretical approach. On value systems, what seems entrepreneurial to a Brit may be brutal for a Spaniard, and so on. But the most obvious area for cultural divergence is in negotiations, where everybody tends to have a different approach.

How do people acquire cross-cultural competences?

There are three stages in the process : awareness, knowledge and skills. The first is the most critical and applies regardless of the culture you are relating to. It involves not only being sensitive to the differences, but being aware of where you yourself are situated, i.e. understanding your own culture in the first place. Then comes knowledge of the other culture, learning its history, traditions, customs, achievements, etc. Finally comes the acquisition of skills : speaking the language, observing the protocol, achieving empathy.

How can you prove these things scientifically?

There is no scientific way of proving them. The only method available to us is opinion/attitude surveys, but the results of these are more likely to hinder than help understanding, precisely because they tend to perpetuate the prejudices of well-meaning but uninformed people. The only viable input is structured personal observation, based on one's own findings and those of other privileged observers, not just trained sociologists and anthropologists but anyone involved in day-to-day dealings with groups of different nationalities, i.e. international businessmen, diplomats, association executives, government officials, and so on.