My Friend is a Palestinian Bedouin: VI. Cultural Differences and the Intercultural Encounter

My Friend is a Palestinian Bedouin: VI. Cultural Differences and the Intercultural Encounter

Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s classification

One of the earliest classifications of value orientations was developed in the fifties by the American anthropologist Florence Kluckhohn and the social psychologist Fred Strodtbeck (Samovar et al., 2009). They saw cultures as situated on five cultural dimensions. 1) Human nature was described as being evil, good and evil or bad. 2) The relationship between the person and nature was described as humans being subject to nature, in cooperation with nature or controlling nature. 3) Time orientation was described as toward the past, toward the present or toward the future. 4) Activity orientation was described as being, being-in-becoming, or doing. 5) Social relationships were described as authoritarian, group oriented, or individualistic. Later classifications incorporated parts of these dimensions.

We can find differences on all these dimensions between Bedouin, Dutch and Israeli cultures. Especially relevant for this study are the differences in social relationships, and orientation in time and activity. In line with the culture in which I was raised, my orientation is individualistic, and tends to the future and toward doing. As we will discuss later, my friend would emphasize collectivism, and be oriented toward being in the present.

Hall’s classification

The American anthropologist Edward Hall has proposed several cultural dimensions (Hall, 1970). Two of these dimensions are most relevant in the studied friendship. The first is the differentiation between high-context and low-context cultures. In low-context cultures the meaning of provided information is in the information itself. In high-context cultures the meaning of the information is dependent on the context. The second differentiation concerns monochronic (M) time and polychronic (P) time. Hall (1970) writes:

M-time emphasizes schedules, segmentation, and promptness. P-time systems are characterized by several things happening at once. Emphasis is on involvement of people and completion of transactions rather than adhering to preset schedules. P-time is treated as much less tangible than M-time (p. 222).


Share this:

About the Author

Daniel WeishutDaniel J.N. Weishut, born in the Netherlands but living in Jerusalem, is a professional with a diverse background. He holds an MA in Clinical Psychology and an MBA in Integrative Business Administration, both from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a PsyD in Clinical and Organizational Psychology from the Professional School of Psychology (Sacramento). He has about thirty years of experience in consultation and therapy with a wide variety of clients and issues, more than twenty years of practice in group facilitation, and over fifteen years of know-how in governance and management in various organizations. Daniel Weishut offers his services as a "Partner on the Way", while taking a world-view that people are diverse but equal. He works with a variety of clients, but his special interest is in work with those who have found themselves persecuted or otherwise in conflict with their social environment, because of their culture, identity or belief system. For example: migrants, expats, refugees, Holocaust survivors, soldiers, pacifists, and individuals from religious, cultural or sexual minorities. Daniel Weishut is a social activist and in this capacity he volunteers as Chairperson of the Israeli Association of Group Psychotherapy, as Member of the Membership Appeals Committee of Amnesty International and as forensic expert for the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. He also is involved in raising awareness about the situation of Bedouins around Jerusalem; awareness which led among others to the writing of his dissertation "My friend is a Palestinian Bedouin: Challenges and opportunities in intercultural friendship".

View all posts by Daniel Weishut

Leave a Reply