Anyone who gives presentations, negotiations or sales talks in front of a foreign cultural audience, or simply wants to persuade people in general, should be aware of the fundamental cultural differences in argumentation.
In 1983, Johan Galtung formulated four different styles of argumentation in "Structure Culture and Intellectual Style": the Saxon, Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponese. He did not want to specify in which countries these styles of thought and argumentation are represented, whether in pure form or even in rudimentary form, but noted that the respective centers are probably in the UK/USA, Germany, France and Japan. At the same time, he also pointed out that the individual styles may have converged as a result of globalization. Nevertheless, I believe that it can be helpful in one (professional) situation or another to know the basic approaches of the different styles. In addition, his humorous remarks made me smile, which I would like to share with you. The directly quoted passages are therefore highlighted in quotation marks and italics.
Dealing with debates and discourse
The saxonian style promotes and encourages debates and discourses by focusing on pluralism and allowing as many different positions as possible to have their say. In communication, care is taken at the beginning by praising the previous speaker with words of appreciation. However, the rest of the speech may then contain "many piercing points and biting remarks", while the conclusion should be conciliatory again. According to Galtung, this is particularly true for the UK, whereas in the USA, "even in the most miserable presentation, an attempt is made to find that little grain of gold which, that when polished, still produces a credible shine." The American would therefore always look for the positive, while the Brit puts the speaker in a defensive position, but with a conciliatory ending.
In contrast, in Teutonic or Gallic discussions, the diversity of opinion is narrower and the audience more homogeneous. Polite phrases at the beginning or end of the speech are rather superfluous, especially if the previous speaker has a different opinion. There is also no searching for the spark of gold, but rather directly for the weak point which is then "taken apart with a dissecting knife". "Presumably the debate will be largely devoted to such aspects, and in the end there will be few, if any, soothing words to restore the accused as a human being; no attempt will be made to mop up the blood and patch up the bruised ego. Contrary to the saxsonian custom of humor and back-slapping on such occasions, here the look is rather cool, the expression fixed and there may be a trace of scorn and derision in the corners of the eyes."
The Nipponese discussion differs considerably from this, as the top priority is to maintain social relations. Instead, what is said here is classified, assigned to a school, a master or a school of thought, which are then placed in relation to each other.
Dealing with differences of opinion
In the Saxsonian American debate, differences tend to be glossed over. The British Saxsonian debate at least tries to achieve a "general mood of agreement".
In Teutonic and Gallic cultures, however, there is no concession. Here, people insist that their opinion is more correct than the other. That is why they do not debate with interlocutors who are too far removed from their own position, because "to take part in such a debate would be a waste of time... (One does not debate with half-humans, primitives or barbarians)".
What is the foundation of the arguments
The saxonian style relies on collected data, facts and statistics. Personal convictions do not play any role and what counts as a usable fact is clearly defined.
The Teutonic and Gallic approaches, on the other hand, love good theories. Here, data is used more for illustration than for proof. True to the motto: don't trust any statistics that you haven't falsified yourself. A contradiction between theory and data is therefore not necessarily a threat to the theory. Instead of doubting the theory, doubts are first cast on the data, which was then collected incorrectly or is irrelevant. The developed theory, on the other hand, is the "real reality" and, as an ideal type, is free from the "impurities of empirical reality". The theory itself consists of a small number of premises which, through logical reasoning, finally arrives at an incontestable truth, which at the same time ties reality into a tight corset that no longer allows any deviations. However, since deviations are to be expected more frequently than the theory would allow, the Teutonic thinker speaks of the ideal type. The Gallic thinker, on the other hand, tries to look at the theory from all possible angles using elegantly chosen words, such as ambiguities, until he can ultimately identify poles that are in opposition to each other and in the middle of it he can let his theory hover in balance.
The fact that theories take such a clear position and do not allow ambiguity is contrary to the Nipponese approach and is incompatible with Hindu, Buddhist and Daoist thinking. Their holistic approach does not break reality down into individual parts in order to form a theory. "You cannot recognize - and thus comprehend - one element without recognizing or comprehending the others." Therefore, "absolute, categorical statements are avoided; they prefer vagueness even for trivial things."
Why the Teutonic thinker must not allow himself any mistakes
Finally, I would like to refer to another quote that gives an idea of the major impact something as inconspicuous as the style of reasoning can have on the way we live. Or has lifestyle shaped the style of argumentation? One probably determines the other and if one aspect of it changes, everything will change. What is your opinion? Do we still correspond to pure styles or has a mutual adaptation already taken place? But now to the promised quote:
"Should anything prove invalid, should a thesis be falsified, should a proposition arrived at however it may have been arrived at prove untenable for whatever reason - this does not lead to any major catastrophes in the other three styles. For the Sachsonian intellectual, at most a single pyramid is destroyed, and he can immediately begin to construct another small pyramid from the rubble. The Nipponese intellectual has, if anything, an extremely flexible wheel that turns through all kinds of facts. The Gallic intellectual will usually be able to conceal his difficulties behind another elegant formulation that is ambiguous enough and perhaps a little pompous, but in the end earns him the certificate "votre presentation magistrale". The purely Teutonic intellectual is not in such a fortunate position: he bears the risk of possibly having to watch his pyramid fall to pieces. It is therefore no wonder that he tackles his work with a certain inner nervousness, expressed in tense muscles and a face from which the last trace of humor and distance has disappeared. No anecdote, no analogy, no euphony and no playful juggling of meanings - nothing can disguise the disaster that can befall a Teutonic pyramid; and if it collapses, the intellectual investment of an entire lifetime can fall with it."
Comments