Since first discussing the topic 3 weeks ago, I’ve been intrigued by the idea of high and low context cultures. While of course it is a spectrum, it seems to be such an informative and useful descriptor of a culture that could positively facilitate intercultural experiences.

As I said in my first post, one must know about their home culture in order to truly understand what is different about a foreign culture. Knowing whether your own culture is high or low context and in what ways seems to be a useful starting point. Rather than focusing on what is discussed in conversations, you can prepare by thinking about how communication happens. This also allows both the visitor and the member of the host culture to better understand and explain discrepancies/offenses that might occur through a conversation.

This phenomenon relates to a larger theme offered in Bennett’s reading, which is that a culture’s communication style and language composition affects the psychology of those socialized in that culture. Bennett particularly discusses how language can inform our understandings of social and physical realities. While knowing what those social and physical realities are before encountering a new culture could be useful to facilitate intercultural communications, I also (and maybe, more so) find value in simply being aware that these deep differences exist and can be traced back to norms and tools of communication.