Question

Krizan (1996) alerted that the classification of low and high-context cultures was an oversimplification, and people should be more aware of the differences within cultures.

Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Justify your point of view, and give supporting evidences in 200 – 250 words (minimum 200 words – maximum 300 words). In case you need to refer to external sources, you shall include in-text citation following APA format.

Answer 1

Yes I agree to this point that it is not that crystal clear that what are the differences between high and low context cultures, what all we know is superficial but we need go in depth and understand the mentality of the people as well that how a low culture group behaves versus a high culture group, how do their opinions differ and how much they value things. The current definition makes it over simplified which in reality is not, a lot of other parameter should also be considered while segregating both these two.

In high context culture the communication is implicit and not every information has to be passed by explicitly, some things are tacitly understood based on the context, such communications are seen in inter-personal relationships or among colleagues who have spent a lot of time together, on the other hand if we talk about low context culture then because of lack of a solid foundation every communication is explicit and every information is told without the scope of any assumption. A lot of verbal connect can be seen in low context cultures whereas lesser verbal connect is seen in high context culture. Hence Krizan idea is correct that we have superficially defined these terms and it requires further study.