Nepal as a Culture with a High Context

Anthropologist Edward T. Hall differentiates culture regarding whether they are high context or low context cultures. Conventionally, despite the fact that the elements of high context and low context is related with the correspondence practices in various societies, this characterization can be utilized to recognize culture in a wide manner. A high context culture is a type of culture where communication is not immediate however considers the unpretentious settings that exist while conveying the correspondence. In a low setting society, the message is expressed clearly. In a high context culture, the correspondence is not expressed directly, are precisely planned and non-verbal. (Hall 1959.)

In the view of communication, a high context culture is separated from low context culture in numerous different perspectives. For instance, individuals dress so as to communicate socio-cultural roles in a high context culture and in a low context culture, it is utilized to communicate achievement. Even the culinary inclinations in the high context culture are considered as social event whereas in a low context culture, these are generally for quick conveyance. Feeling of self and space is also unique over these cultures. Though formal motions, for example, bows and hugs can be seen in a high context culture, casual handshake are seen in a low context culture. Support on harmony is the main concern in a high context culture while confrontation and struggle may be viewed as important and normal in a low context culture. (Hall 1960.)

The origination of time is additionally unique in these two types of cultures: as punctual, reliability and linear time is embraced in a low context culture whereas in a high context culture, it is either circular or polychronic. As far as family is concerned, low context culture esteems young people and live in a nuclear family unit whereas in a high context culture, elder members of the family are regarded, and people frequently live in a joint family. In terms of cultural qualities, low context cultures can be seen on those which show the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities which probably do not exist in most of the high context cultures. At a point when business setting is considered, high context culture shows relationship as a major aspect of the business culture, though the low setting society may be errand and deals centred. (Corridor 1960.)

According to Hall’s classification, (Hollensen 2011) has categorized different countries into this taxonomy which is reproduced in Figure 1 in slightly adapted manner. According to Hall's classification, (Hollensen 2011) has classified various nations into this scientific classification which is imitated in Figure 1 in somewhat adjusted way. According to this classification, Nepal is quite clearly situated as a high context culture whereas Finland is quite comfortably situated as a low context culture. As per this characterization, Nepal is plainly arranged as a high setting society while Finland is easily arranged as a low setting society.

As per (Hofstede 1983) culture can be understood by different dimensions and among which, Individualism is one. Individualism manages the degree to which individuals in a culture value individual objectives/aims over the group objectives and in which group harmony is expected over the individual achievement of objectives. More unequivocally, individualism refers mainly to the level of interdependce a society keeps among its individuals (Hofstede Insights 2018). In an individualistic nation, individuals characterize their mental self-image through 'I' than 'we' and individuals in collectivist nations belong a place with different in-group through which people are treated in a good way with exchange of society.

In terms of this dimension, Nepal scores 30 and Finland scores 63 (Hofstede Insights 2018). As far as this measurement, Nepal scores 30 and Finland scores 63 (Hofstede Insights 2018). This signifies that Nepal is a highly collectivist country in comparison to Finland where the individualism score is pretty high. This would propose that in Nepal, distinguishing proof with the aggregate objectives and gathering ID is the standard. This would suggest that in Nepal, identification with the collective goals and group identification is the norm. It would also suggest that in comparison to Finland, Nepalese society is structured around extended family values

where the collective opinion is important to consider. It would likewise recommend that in contrast with Finland, Nepalese society is organized around more distant family esteems where the aggregate conclusion is essential to consider.

The second criteria that is focussed in understanding the distinctions in culture is power distance. This is characterized as how much power contrasts and imbalances in the society is acknowledged as normal (Hofstede Insights 2018. A powerful distance culture is progressive in nature where the contrasts between individuals of different strata of the community is high.

In terms of power distance dimension, Nepal scores 65 and Finland scores 33 (Hofstede Insights 2018). Regarding power distance measurement, Nepal scores 65 and Finland scores 33 (Hofstede Insights 2018). This signifies that Nepal has highly unequal distribution of power in comparison to Finland. This implies Nepal has profoundly inconsistent dispersion of intensity in contrast with Finland.

The society is likewise organized regarding order of hierarchy doled out for the individuals of the society.

In that aspect, Finland is a much more egalitarian countries where it can be assumed to have equal distribution of power. In that viewpoint, Finland is a substantially more populist nations where it very well may be accepted to have equivalent dissemination of intensity. In terms of businesses, it would suggest that there is a wider gap between the subordinates and leaders and that the role of status is more important in Nepal than in Finland. As far as organizations, it would propose that there is a more extensive hole between the subordinates and pioneers and that the job of status is more significant in Nepal than in Finland.

The third criteria of national culture as featured by (Hofstede 1983) is Masculinity. This criterion is characterized as how much people in a society need to be the best (masculine) or like to do what they like the best (feminine) (Hofstede Insights 2018). In a masculine society accomplishment and achievement are organized over caring and thinking about others. In such a manner, status is of higher priority than the personal satisfaction.

In this dimension, Nepal scores 40 and Finland scores 26. In this measurement, Nepal scores 40 and Finland scores 26. In that respect, both of the societies are considered to be espousing femininie or nurturing values although it is much more predominant in Finland than in Nepal. In that regard, both of the social orders are viewed as embracing femininie or sustaining values despite the fact that it is significantly more dominating in Finland than in Nepal. This signifies that both of the culture emphasizes well being and caring of the other members of the society rather than working hard for achievement, status and material gain. This connotes both of the way of life accentuates prosperity and minding of different individuals from the general public as opposed to buckling down for accomplishment, status and material addition.

The fourth criterion portrayed by (Hofstede 1983) is Uncertaintly avoidance. The degree to which a society feels awkward with unpredictable circumstances and attempts to maintain a strategic distance from those circumstances through different methods is characterized as uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede Insights 2018). A few societies might feel undermined by uncertain circumstances and are very risk opposed. These societies attempt to set up rules and guidelines to avoid from such awkward circumstances In a low uncertainty avoidance cultures, individuals are eager to face challenges and are available to unpredicatble circumstances as a major aspect of life.

In this dimension, Nepal scores 40 and Finland scores 59 (Hofstede Insights 2018). In this measurement, Nepal scores 40 and Finland scores 59 (Hofstede Insights 2018). This shows that Nepalese culture is much more open towards unpredictability of everyday situations and are more risk-takers. This shows Nepalese culture is considerably more open towards unusualness of regular circumstances and are more daring people. Whereas, Finnish culture, being high in uncertainty avoidance prefers to avoid uncertainty through structured rules and developed norms in the society. While, Finnish culture, being high in vulnerability evasion likes to keep away from vulnerability through organized standards and created standards in the general public.

The last dimension portrayed by (Hofstede 1983) is the Long-Term Orientation. According to (Hofstede Insights 2018), it is the degree to which a culture keeps and maintains a connection with the past in managing the present and the future. While some culture keeps up the connection with the past and find it is hard to split away from customs, other cultures have a long-term orientation towards future and gets ready for the future with proper planning in advance. Lately, Hofstede has likewise presented a sixth criterion which concerns the aspects of indulgence and restraint. A few societies prioritize for checking requirements for satisfaction of wants while in other cultures, prompt delight of wants is believed to be normal. The criterions proposed by Hofstede are without any doubt important in analyzing cultural characteristics systematically.

In the long-term orientation dimension, Finland scores 38 and there are no comparative scores available for Nepal. In the drawn-out direction measurement, Finland scores 38 and there are no near scores accessible for Nepal. Similalry, in the Indulgence dimension, Finland scores 57 and there are no scores available for Nepal. Similalry, in the Indulgence measurement, Finland scores 57 and there are no scores accessible for Nepal. In the long-term orientation dimension Finland scores lower which means that Finland is more of a short-term oriented culture. (Hofstede Insights 2018.) In the drawn out direction measurement Finland scores lower which implies that Finland is to a greater degree a transient situated culture. (Hofstede Insights 2018.) The Indulgence dimension shows that Finland has medium indulgence which means that short term gratification is not that emphasized. The Indulgence measurement shows that Finland has medium guilty pleasure which implies that transient satisfaction isn't so underscored. Although, the scores for Nepal for both of these dimensions are not provided, it can be safely assumed that Nepal has more long-term orientation and restraint in comparison to Finland. In spite of the fact that, the scores for Nepal for both of these measurements are not given, it tends to be securely expected that Nepal has all the more long haul direction and restriction in contrast with Finland. In the Nepalses culture, there is much more emphasis for traditional values and how that impacts future. In the Nepalses culture, there is substantially more accentuation for conventional qualities and how that impacts future.

People are also generally more focused toward saving, working and planning for the future rather than seeking instant gratification. . Individuals are additionally commonly progressively centered toward sparing, working and making arrangements for the future as opposed to looking for moment satisfaction. Long term orientation and restraint is built into the cultural values rooted in religious values which is predominantly Hindu community. Long haul direction and limitation is incorporated with the social qualities established in strict qualities which is prevalently Hindu people group. Figure 2 shows Hofstede illustration of the cross-cultural comparison by using this approach. The figure compares Nepal and Finland in these dimensions. Figure 2 shows Hofstede outline of the diverse examination by utilizing this methodology. The figure thinks about Nepal and Finland in these measurements. 

Cite this page