In a world that is becoming increasingly complex due to globalization, every individual is shaped by many factors one of the most powerful of which is culture. Anthropologists Kevin Avruch and Peter Black explain the importance of culture this way: “…One’s own culture provides the “lens” through which we view the world; the “logic”… by which we order it; the “grammar”… by which it makes sense”. (Avruch and Black, 1993) In other words, culture is central to what an individual perceives, how he interprets it and how he expresses himself. People generally acquire their norms and rules of interpersonal conduct within the webs of their culture. In this context, culture refers to “a meaning system that is shared by a majority of individuals in a particular community” (Gudykunst, 237).
On a general level, culture can refer to a set way of living of a group of people who share similar traditions, beliefs, values, norms and behaviors. More specifically, cultural values and norms shape the expectations that a person holds in the development of interpersonal relationships through communication. Thus culture can be seen as the root of most communication challenges. In the film “The Last Samurai” communication between Nathan Algren, an American and the Japanese offers interesting study. Thesis: This paper analyzes the film “The Last Samurai” in the context of interpersonal communication and examines how the film expands on the meaning of the terms “high context versus low context communication styles”, “ethnocentrism” and “relational dialectics”.
The film “The Last Samurai” portrays an American’s integration into the Japanese way of life. Set in 1876, Tom Cruise plays Captain Nathan Algren, a bitter, alcoholic veteran of many battles. He carries a deep pain in his heart over a native American Indian massacre in which he had taken part. Algren arrives in Japan to help in modernizing the army of the young Emperor of Japan, who does not value his samurai warriors. In the very first skirmish with the samurai warriors, Algren is wounded and taken captive. As he spends more time with the Japanese samurai warriors and their group, Algren begins to appreciate their ways of living and soon becomes respectful and loyal towards them. Within a year, Algren and Katsumoto become allies in the war against the modern armies that Algren was supposed to train. The theme of the movie thus involves two different cultures: the American culture, and the Japanese Samurai culture.
A high context communication style refers to “an indirect and undetailed way of speaking that conveys meanings implicitly rather than explicitly; typical of collectivist cultures” (Wood, 2008). On the contrary, low context communication style refers to “language that is very explicit, detailed, and precise; generally used in individualistic cultures” (Wood, 2008). A collectivist culture refers to a culture in which there is a deep networked feeling among the members and they feel connected to their families, their communities and groups they belong to. Their social identity is stronger than their sense of individual identity. On the contrary, an individualistic culture is one in which each person is viewed as “distinct from other people, groups, and organizations” (Wood, 2008). William B. Gudykunst says that there are two broad communication styles used in the mainstream U.S. individualistic culture and Asian collectivistic cultures and these styles are low context and high context communication styles Low context communication tends to be direct, explicit and precise while high context communication tends to be indirect and sometimes ambiguous. In the latter case listeners must interpret what is being said in the light of their knowledge of the situation or cultural information they have internalized (Gudykunst, 2000).
Chan (1992) has affirmed that problems in intercultural communication are partly due to the difference in communication styles. He explains that Asians have developed the high context style of interpersonal communication that is elaborate, subtle and complex and designed to meet their communication goals – viz. “to avoid causing shame or loss of face to themselves and other, maintaining harmonious relations between the parties involved in the dialogue” (Marsella, 2008). In “The Last Samurai”, there is a particular scene in which Algren is seen following the Silent Samurai through the village. Algren asks the Silent Samurai where they were going but he gets no answer. He asks again if they are going to a bar, or probably to San Francisco. There is no answer. The Silent Samurai leads Algren into the compound. Algren says, “You’re one hell of a conversationalist, aren’t you? Do you talk at all? Or was it something I said?” There is still no answer. Algren now interprets this silence as one due to anger -.”You’re angry because they make you wear a dress.” Without a word, Algren is led up the steps towards a gold Buddha statue. Katsumoto talks from the shadows. He introduces himself as Katsumoto and asks for the name of the American. To this question, Algren replies with a taut silence.
Katsumoto thinks maybe his English was not good. “Are my words not correct? I will practise my English with you.” This breaks the silence between them and Algren asks Katsumoto what he wants, to which Katsumoto replies “To know my enemy”. Algren is dumbstruck as these were his own words and wonders how Katsumoto could have known them. He is also surprised at the meaning implied by the words. This scene amply illustrates the cross-cultural differences at play. Algren does not understand that Samurais, belonging to a collectivist culture are silent people who do not indulge in small talk. They use the high context communication style that is often indirect. Algren, coming from an American individualistic culture is unable to understand the silence and hence wrongly interprets it as one due to anger. The Silent Samurai too does not understand that it is disrespectful not to answer a question – to someone coming from an individualistic culture. But despite the conflict, the silence of the Samurai helps to maintain harmony in this situation though Algren is angry. Next, Algren in his conversation with Katsumoto asks him the direct question of what he wants. This is in low context communication style – direct and explicit and Katsumoto replies in high context communication style that is indirect and ambiguous when he says “to know my enemy”. This scene thus illustrates the meaning of the terms high context and low context communication styles.
The term “Ethnocentrism” refers to the tendency to assume that one way of life is normal and superior to other ways of life (Wood, 2008). According to Stewart and Bennett (1991), ethnocentrism is often the root cause of problems in intercultural communication. When a person considers his own culture to be central to all reality, he is likely to consider it superior to all others and thereby consider that his own values, assumptions and behavioral norms are far superior to those of others coming from other cultures. Ethnocentrism is marked by three main characteristics: it helps in shaping a social sense of identity that is narrow and defensive; it leads to the perception of members of other cultures in terms of stereotypes; and, it allows comparisons to be made between one’s culture and other cultures assuming that one’s own is natural and normal. Hence ethnocentrism can lead to difficult cross-cultural communication as patterns of other cultures may be ignored or treated as deviations compared to one’s own. Steward and Bennett (1991) say that Americans often consider their own culture superior to others.
American culture promotes individualism and egalitarianism and Americans are most often “inclined to act on the false assumption that all people consider themselves autonomous individuals, that all people desire maximum material gain, or that all people value social mobility” (Steward and Bennett, 1991, p. 161). Such assumptions can create misunderstandings in a cross-cultural context. Ethnocentrism is best illustrated in the conversation between Algren and Katsumoto at the Buddha temple. Katsumoto begins the conversation that the statement that the temple was built by his family a thousand years ago. He then introduces himself by name and asks for the name of Algren. Algren does not reply and Katsumoto asks him if his words are not right and declares that he will practice his English with Algren. Algren asks “You will?” and these words give the first indication that Algren is ethnocentric and considers his language superior. Katsumoto on the other hand, is not ethnocentric. He places Algren on a pedestal and says humbly “if you would honor me”. Algren is furious with Katsumoto for what he did to his enemies and declares that it is not in American culture “to cut the heads off defeated men on their knees”. This clearly illustrates the ethnocentrism of Algren and how he considers the American culture to be superior in its qualities of humane compassion.
Katsumoto gently explains that a Samurai cannot stand the shame of defeat and that it was his honor to have cut the head of General Hasegawa and thereby help him end his life as he had requested. Algren is unable to believe that such a thing can ever be accepted in any society anywhere and Katsumoto has to explain to him that many of the Samurai customs seem strange to him just as his American customs seem strange to the Samurais. “For example, not to introduce yourself is considered extremely rude, even among enemies”. Here Katsumoto shows what a gentleman he is by subtly hinting at the fact that Algren is yet to answer his question as to what his name is. Likewise when Katsumoto says that Algren can ask his questions later, Algren must have obeyed him considered the high rank and authority Katsumoto held within the Samurai community. But Algren forces Katsumoto to respond to his questions. Algren is impatient and does not respect much about how disrespectful he is being to someone of Katsumoto’s rank and authority. Katsumoto patiently responds and tells him that the man Algren killed was his brother-in-law, Hirotaro and the woman who cared for him was Taka, Hirataro’s wife. It shocked Algren to hear that he is being looked after by a woman, who had been widowed by him. When he asks “I killed her husband?” Katsumoto replies “It was a good death”. These are things that Algren cannot understand because of his ethnocentric perception.
Relational dialectics refers to “the tensions between opposing forces or tendencies that are normal parts of all relationships: autonomy/connection, novelty/predictability, and openness/closedness” (Wood, 2008). According to the relationship dialectics theory, interpersonal relationships are characterized by “ongoing tensions between contradictory impulses” (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, 230). Ongoing communication between the two must be used to manage the tension between the two ends of the dialectic poles. The dialectics of autonomy and connection deals with the idea that one desires the opportunity of being free and not dependent on friends or relations while at the same time there is a desire to be connected meaning a desire to be dependent. The dialectic of novelty versus predictability refers to the conflict between the need for stability in friendship and the novelty of change. While one likes to be able to count on friends, if things become predictable, then the relationship becomes stagnant and boring.
The dialectic of openness and closedness is about the desire to open one’s feelings to another person and the desire to be closed and secretive. Relational dialectics “is a theory in the sense of a coherent vocabulary and a set of questions to bring to the understanding of communication” (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, p. 236). Leadership and spirituality literature indicate that these dialectics are also found in leader-follower relationships. There is a tension for leaders and followers to both standout and be behind others, to be receptive to other views and to control the views of others, etc. Frye et al (2007) suggest that leader-follower relational dialectics can be managed through dialogue. Greene and Raney have explained that each ‘utterance’ in a conversation expresses multiple voices and represents “a link in a chain of preceding and future dialogues” (Greene and Burleson, 2003, p. 30). This means, the meaning of the utterance is clear only in relation to immediately prior utterances or only after a response is given. For example, “I feel the same way” can be interpreted only if the reader knows what was said earlier. Such an utterance, according to Greene and Burleson (2003) can manage the opposing tensions: “echoes the past at the same time that it contributes something new in the present” (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, p. 28).
Apart from multivoiced, dialogism is another way of resolving relational dialectism. Dialogism refers to an ongoing exchange of utterances that is unrealizable and never-ending in ultimate truths and never exhausting all possibilities. Before saying I love you to another person for the first time, an individual may consider the larger societal expectations invoked by this declaration and enter into a self-dialogue that includes society. According to Michael Bakhtin, a Russian philosopher, the uncertainty associated with dialogism liberates people from oppressive nomological belief systems such as those of religion or state or individual (Greene and Burleson, 2003). In the film “The Last Samurai”, relational dialectics are most evident in the communication between Taka and Algren. Taka rarely talks, but her body language and expressive face communicate very well. In the scene where Taka enters, carrying the rice, Algren offers to help her by taking it. But Taka says no please in Japanese. Algren insists that she allows him to help and she says “Hai” and allows him. When they are alone, Taka says in Japanese language “Japanese men do not help with this” to which Algren replies “I am not Japanese” in Japanese. They now look at each other and Algren, knowing that Taka does not understand English chooses to say “You’re always so polite. What must you be thinking [feeling]? [Do you miss him that much?] Was he good to you? I hope he was”.
Taka watches him uncomfortably and though she cannot understand what he is saying, she understands that something different is happening. Algren says “I’m sorry. Gomen n’sai” and when looks bewildered, he explains “.Gomen n’sai… Your husband, Hirotaro” apologizing to Taka for killing her husband in combat. Taka’s eyes fill with tears and she is totally taken off guard by this reference to the past and replies: “He did his duty. You did your duty”. Algren is unable to understand this response and asks her what she means and she replies “I accept your apology”. This scene is full of relational dialectics and the conversation is charged with opposing emotions. Though Algren cares about her and wishes to help her, he also carries the guilt of having killed her husband. Likewise, even though Taka is upset about the death of her husband, she likes Algren for his gentle helping nature and politeness.
There is a tension in Taka between the desire to be open with Algren and the desire to be closed. It is evident in the manner in which she first refuses his help and then later accepts it. Her words “Japanese men do not help with this” can be understood only when the viewer has seen what the ‘this’ refers to – carrying the bag of rice. Likewise, Algren’s words “I am not Japanese” can be understood only in the light of Taka’s previously uttered words. True to the findings of Baxter and Montgomery, Algren’s apologetic ‘utterance’ in Japanese “Gomen n’sai” meaning “I am sorry”, is one that “echoes the past at the same time that it contributes something new in the present” (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, p. 28). The past is the killing of Taka’s husband by Algren in combat and the new contribution is Algren’s desire to be apologized by Taka. Such relational dialectism makes interesting viewing on the silver screen.
An understanding of interpersonal communication is very important to build good relationships and building good relationships is the foundation to success – both at home and at work. Communication is often intertwined with culture and hence understanding their interaction helps in making interpersonal communication more effective in varied situations. The terms high context and low context communication styles, ethnocentrism and relational dialects are important concepts in interpersonal communications and do have cross-cultural significance. An analysis of the film “The Last Samurai” helps in illustrating these terms clearly. Thus, through the characters of Algren who is American and Katsumoto and Taka who are Japanese, the film underscores varied facets of interpersonal communication – cross-cultural and cross-gender.
Bibliography
Avruch, Kevin and Black, W. Peter (1993). Anthropologists in Conflictland: The Role of Cultural Anthropology in an Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 16 (3), 29-38.
Baxter, A. Leslie and Montgomery, Barbara (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. The Guildford Press. 1996.
Chan, J. M. (1992). Communication research in Hong Kong: Problematics, discoveries and directions. Asian Journal of Communication, 2, 134-167.
Frye, Joshua; Kisselburgh, G. Lorraine and Butts, David (2007). Embracing Spiritual Followership. Communication Studies, 58 (3), p. 247+.
Greene, O. John and Burleson, Raney Brant (2003). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
Gudykunst, B. William (1996). Communication in personal relationships across cultures. SAGE Publishers, 1996.
Gudykunst, B. William (2000). Asian American ethnicity and communication. SAGE Publishers, 2000.
Marsella, J. Anthony (2008). Ethnocultural Perspectives on Disaster and Trauma: Foundations, Issues, and Applications. Springer Publications, 2008.
Stewart, C. Edward and Bennett, J. Milton (1991). American cultural patterns: a cross-cultural perspective. Intercultural Press, 1991.
Wood, T. Julia (2008). Communication Mosaics: An Introduction to the Field of Communication. Thomson Wadsworth Publishers, Belmont, California.