1. Theoretical approaches to research

The study of the effectiveness of the practice of obtaining education abroad from the point of view of perception, assimilation and reproduction by recipients of socio-cultural and institutional norms and rules concentrates on the study of such social phenomena as: intercultural communication; sociocultural adaptation of an individual in a group alien to him; variability of a person's social and normative consciousness; the group's perception of a stranger who came from outside; the individual's attitude to his former environment after gaining experience of interaction with a society alien to him at the normative, cultural, psychological level.

The phenomenon of intercultural interaction, the problem of assimilation of norms and cultural patterns and adaptation of a person in a different environment have received comprehensive coverage in theoretical sociology. Let us consider some theoretical concepts that interpret the situation of an individual who finds himself in another country in terms of his social and cultural interaction, and which can be used as theoretical and methodological categories of analysis.

The study of the assimilation of Western norms and cultural patterns is directly related to the phenomenon of intercultural communication, since assimilation as such is the result of the process of intercultural communication between an individual in a foreign environment and the local community.

The concept of "intercultural communication" was introduced into scientific circulation by American researchers E. Hall and D. Trager in 1954 in the book "Culture as Communication: Model and Analysis". In their work, intercultural communication was considered as a special area of \u200b\u200bhuman relations. Later, in his work "Silent Language", E. Hall develops ideas about the relationship between culture and communication and for the first time brings this problem to the level of not only scientific research, but also an independent academic discipline. E. Hall developed an iceberg-type culture model, where the most significant parts of the culture are “under water”, and what is obvious is “above water”. That is, it is impossible to "see" the culture itself. In other words, to understand and learn another culture, observations alone are not enough. A full-fledged study can occur only through direct contact with another culture, which in many ways means interpersonal interaction. The author believes that the value orientations of individuals (regarding actions, communication, situational environment, time, space, etc.) regulate communicative actions in a particular situational context, and thus a certain exchange of experience occurs between people from different cultures. It should also be noted that E. Hall became the founder of intercultural communication as a separate discipline.

The study of intercultural communication is often carried out using a systematic approach (T. Parsons, K.-O. Apel, N. Luhmann, K. Deutsch, D. Aston, S. Kuzmin, A. Uemov). According to this approach, in sociology, the object of sociology is declared to be diverse social systems, that is, one way or another ordered set of relationships between people, including such a social system as society. Intercultural communication in this case is the interaction of two or more systems. Interaction can be carried out in different ways, but one way or another it is a kind of exchange of elements of systems, which can be both individuals and information, knowledge, cultural values \u200b\u200band social norms. Unlike E. Hall and D. Trager, who see intercultural communication as a special area of \u200b\u200bhuman relations, a number of other researchers mean by this phenomenon the interaction of systems where people are not representatives of cultures, but only their elements.

The theory of cultural relativism (I. Gerder, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, W. Samner, R. Benedict, N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. N. Leontiev, L. N. Gumilyov) insists on the independence and usefulness of each culture, where the success of intercultural communication is associated with the stability of cultural subjects and the rejection of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe universality of the Western sociocultural system. In other words, this theory criticizes the assimilation process as such, and the uniqueness of each culture is put at the head of intercultural communication. That is, the difference between the norms, cultures, lifestyles of communicating people from different countries should in no way become a stumbling block for the success of this communication. The interchange of cultural practices in this case is more likely a negative than a positive phenomenon.

Studying the interaction of an individual with a foreign environment, his adaptation to it are also one of the main problems of ethnosociology. Ethnosociologists place a special emphasis on the process taking place with a person in a new group, the stages and phases of changes in the human sense of group belonging. Russian researcher S.A. Tatunts in his work "Ethonosociology" considers the problem of interaction between representatives of different cultures, paying special attention to the adaptation of a person who has fallen into an alien established environment with its own rules, norms and cultural patterns.

In ethnosociology, the process of finding a representative of one country in another country alien to him, the process of his interaction with an alien environment is usually called socio-cultural adaptation. Sociocultural adaptation in a different environment occurs in two forms - assimilation and acculturation. In the first case, a person (group) accepts (voluntarily or forcibly) the values \u200b\u200band norms of the host ethnic environment. In the new environment, migrants, immigrants seem to dissolve. Then neither they themselves nor the host environment perceive them as "outsiders" or "foreign minority". As the author writes, in the opinion of most scientists, complete assimilation, dissolution can occur only in the second, third generation. In another case, their main ethnocultural characteristics are preserved, but minorities accept the norms and values \u200b\u200bof the new sociocultural environment and follow them.

Depending on the goals of a person, adaptation can have a different temporal character: short and long. With short-term adaptation, a person, while maintaining belonging to his cultural group and explicating it, masters a new language for himself, establishes contacts and communication. It is believed that such adaptation lasts up to two years, and more than two years, being in a new ethnic environment, it is necessary to show greater involvement and activity.

In the structure of sociocultural adaptation, S.A. Tatunts distinguishes three components:
situation, need, ability. It is assumed that the migrant must go through three mandatory stages. The first stage is a device that includes the search for and finding housing, work. At the second stage of adaptation, adaptation to the language, natural and ecological environment, confession and social life takes place. The third stage - assimilation is associated with the elimination of the entire complex of uncomfortable aspects through the acquisition
new identity when the former migrant becomes part of the host ethnic environment.

The success of socio-cultural adaptation depends on the correct balance of individual human needs and the requirements of the host ethnocultural environment. This balance, in turn, depends on the individual, who must have a high degree of self-control and comply with the generally accepted regulatory requirements of the new environment.

If we transfer the above to the problems we are studying, then it can be noted that, firstly, the problem of language acquisition and complex discomforts due to the loss of “ground underfoot” in the form of familiar social guidelines may be especially acute for a young person who finds himself abroad , rules and regulations.

Another researcher, K. Dodd, studying intercultural interaction in the ethnosociological aspect, in turn, pays attention to an individual who finds himself in a foreign environment. In the work "Dynamics of intercultural communication" the author examines in detail the problem of human interaction with an alien environment.

According to K. Dodd, a person, finding himself in a foreign environment, first of all experiences a "culture shock", in other words, this is a feeling of discomfort, helplessness, a state of disorientation, anxiety due to the loss of familiar symbols and signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. Cultural shock is, first of all, a socio-psychological phenomenon, the reasons for which can also be the difficulties of initial contact with the new ethnocultural environment, a state of uncertainty, etc.

Dodd identifies three main categories of culture shock symptoms:

psychological (insomnia, persistent headaches, indigestion
etc.);

emotional (irritability, anxiety, homesickness, sometimes turning into paranoia);

communicative (isolation, difficulties in relationships even with loved ones, constant discontent, frustration).

A period of cultural shock for an individual who finds himself in a foreign country undoubtedly hinders intercultural communication. Because of poor health, both physical and mental, a person begins to "close" and avoid a new environment. Overcoming this period is one of the main tasks of the emigrant on the way to a normal existence among strangers to him.

1. Arriving in another, as a rule, prosperous country, the emigrant experiences joyful excitement. Dodd interprets this state as satisfaction with the rightly received
decision to move to this beautiful place. The visitor likes literally everything that surrounds him, he is in a state close to euphoria. Dodd calls this stage "honeymoon." Indeed, the duration of such a state can vary depending on the nature of the individual, from a short period of time to a month.

2. The second stage indicates the end of the honeymoon. Faced with many problems, a person begins to realize that the anticipation of happy expectations is just an illusion, embellished with the impressions of a honeymoon and intensified by the euphoria of the first days of being in a new place, and begins to realize that he was mistaken when he came here. According to Dodd, this stage is called "everything is terrible."

3. Overcoming culture shock - the process of so-called adaptation, "living" in a new environment, which can take place in different ways for different individuals and have different results in essence.

K. Dodd tried to consider the process of interaction in a more structured way
an individual with a new environment for him and identify four possible lines of behavior of a person who finds himself in a foreign country for him.

The first model of behavior is "Fligt": flight, or passive autarchy. This is an attempt to avoid direct contact with foreign culture. Migrants create their own microcosm, in which “their own” tribesmen live and their own ethnocultural environment is present. This model of behavior is also called "ghetto". Ghettoization is characteristic of ethnic minorities who turned out to be settlers and refugees, those who live in large industrial capitals and megalopolises. So, there are the Turkish quarter of Kreuzberg in Berlin, the Russian-speaking Brighton Beach in New York, Arab quarters in Paris, Armenian ones in Los Angeles. Here they speak a reflective language, observe the customs and traditions of their ethnic group.

The second model is "Fight": fighting, or aggressive autarchy. Ethnocentrism is actively manifested among migrants. The new reality is perceived inadequately, the new culture is criticized. Migrants are trying to transfer their ethnic stereotypes and patterns of behavior to a new environment.

The third model is “Filter”: separation, or filtration. It manifests itself as a multidirectional strategy: 1) a complete rejection of the new culture and a firm commitment to their culture; 2) full perception of the new culture and rejection of the old one.

The fourth model is "Flex": flexibility, flexibility. The migrant realizes the need to adopt a new code of culture - language, gestures, norms, habits; new ethnic frame. In other words, a person adapts to a new environment, follows its attitudes, norms, etc., but at the same time does not abandon the old, retains the value of the past for himself and, on occasion, can return to the previous way of life.

The first two strategies of behavior are due to the loss of familiar symbols, signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. They complicate interethnic interaction. Choosing the third model, when adherence to his culture is maintained, a person identifies himself with his ethnic group, propagandizes and spreads his culture, in fact contributes to the dialogization of cultures, overcoming isolationism.

The fourth model of behavior changes the cultural identity of a person, he fully accepts the new and follows a new ethnic frame. This process can manifest itself both at the level of external observable behaviors and at the level of social perception: a person forms new attitudes, views, assessments, and values.

The third and fourth models represent a way out of the crisis of interethnic interactions.

An interesting look at the relationship of a foreigner with local residents can be found in the work of the German sociologist R. Shtihwe in his work "Abivalence, indifference and sociology of the alien." The author examines the social phenomenon of the "alien" and puts forward his theses about its interaction with the environment at different levels. Mentioning the provisions of this work seems appropriate to us, since it gives a view of the problem under study from the other side, that is, from the position of a society in which foreign individuals are included, and we have the opportunity to better understand the nature of the studied interaction.

The perception by society of a stranger, a newly arrived individual and interaction with him, according to Shtihwe, is quite versatile and difficult. The main idea that the author expresses is that the image of a stranger in society can take different forms.

The first such form is characterized by the fact that a stranger, having appeared in a certain place, on the one hand, is someone else, different from the given society according to a number of criteria, such as its social and cultural attitudes, norms of behavior, knowledge and skills. In this sense, he is perceived precisely as a stranger, whom people avoid and shy away from due to the fact that with his differences he brings a certain concern to the established order of a particular group. At the same time, a stranger is a certain innovation and a reason for society to think about its own order and the course of life. Knowledge, skills, a different view of social norms and foundations - that which can serve the group in which he found himself, for development and change. As Shtihwe writes, "the alien embodies rejected or illegitimate possibilities, which through him inevitably return to society." The alien provides, for example, the possibility of hierarchy, the supreme power of a leader or monarch, which explains why in traditional African societies at the beginning of the New Age and in the 19th century. shipwrecked Europeans often became chieftains or monarchs. Or he embodies the inevitable for economic reasons the possibility of usury, which is not combined with many widespread value orientations, and therefore is forced out into the figure of a stranger. With examples of this type, it becomes clear that society in the figure of a stranger creates for itself disturbances that are necessary for its further evolution and in fact are not unexpected. The author makes a reservation that often society itself forms such a figure of an alien in order to justify the changes undertaken in it. That is, the first form of ambivalence in relation to a stranger can be called “stranger-renegade and stranger-innovator”.

The second form of ambivalence of attitudes towards the alien is associated with the conflict between institutionalized normative expectations and the structural possibilities of their realization. On one side is the inevitable limited resources of almost every society, which forces a strategically prudent, hostile-colored treatment of everyone who does not belong to a close family circle or a certain community of people, where everyone is somehow interconnected. But this pressure of limited resources is resisted by the institutionalized motives of reciprocity, widespread in all societies, which introduce help and hospitality towards strangers into the norm. In other words, there is a contradiction in relation to someone else's. On the one hand, he is perceived as an enemy seeking to absorb and use part of the resources of the society in which he finds himself, be it material wealth, cultural values, information or knowledge and skills. On the other hand, a stranger is at the same time a guest who came from another country, which requires a certain treatment with him in connection with the norms of hospitality, for example, such as the friendliness of local residents, willingness to provide assistance, starting with the problems of navigating in a foreign environment and ending with physical assistance. As the author writes, the hesitation in the understanding of "alien" between the guest and the enemy is clearly associated with the conflict of the named structural and normative imperatives: limited resources and the obligation of reciprocity. In other words, this form of ambivalence of the attitude towards a stranger is “stranger-enemy and stranger-guest”.

Then the author writes about tendencies in relation to the alien in modern societies. Along with the aforementioned forms of ambivalence in the perception of someone else's, a tendency has emerged, which is that society seeks to somehow nullify the very existence of the category of “alien”. Since the existence of a stranger carries a certain social tension, it is not surprising that people tend to somehow neutralize this tension in one way or another. The author identifies several such methods.

1. "Invisibility" of a stranger. An alien is perceived as something that has a negative color, as a person who carries a threat, but this attitude does not apply to specific people who have come from other countries, but rather to “mythical,” as the author puts it, bastards. That is, the category of the alien becomes something invisible, discussed among individuals, but at the same time, such an attitude does not manifest itself towards certain and specific people. Their "alienation" is either ignored or taken for granted.

2. Universalization of strangers. This is the so-called nullification of the category of the alien in the minds of people, as the author puts it - "parting with the alien", which is carried out in different ways. In other words, the alien as an integral phenomenon ceases to exist in society.

3. Decomposition of the alien. It consists in the fact that the whole personality of the stranger breaks up into separate functional segments that are much easier to overcome. In modern society, there are more and more short-term interactions, interaction partners therefore remain strangers to each other, the integrity of the personality in all its disturbing aspects recedes behind the very act of interaction. In this sense, we are dealing with an evolving differentiation of personal and impersonal relationships. And it is the stranger who is the protagonist of such a differentiation. In other words, a person as a single person ceases to exist, he begins to be perceived in his different hypostases in the corresponding different communities. Personal and impersonal connections precisely determine the nature of the perception of someone else. At the level of personal connections, such as friendship, informal communication, a stranger can act annoyingly on others, intensify the feeling of alienation. But, being in society, a foreigner more and more often has to go exactly to the impersonal level of communication, where it is about social aspects of communication, such as business negotiations, and here if a stranger remains a stranger to someone, then this quality becomes expected and normal, ceases to bother and no longer causes the need to somehow process the alien.

4. Typing someone else's. This aspect of the loss of the meaning of the category of alien lies in the importance of typifications and categorizations in the processes of interaction. While ties with close people are based on sympathy, include the individualities of both parties, a stranger is perceived only through typing, through attribution to a social category. This clearly assumes successful overcoming of the initial uncertainty. The stranger is no longer a cause of uncertainty; it can be more precisely defined by categorical assignment. It was characteristic of the position of a stranger in earlier societies that he was often on one side of distinctions in which a third possibility was clearly not provided. Thus, there remained either a rigid assignment to one of the two sides, or for none of the participants a pre-calculated fluctuation between both sides. One of these distinctions is kin / alien. Now the so-called third status appears. This category can be described as follows: people belonging to it are neither friends, nor enemies, nor relatives, nor strangers. The dominant attitude of those around them in relation to them is indifference. The place of hospitality or hostility is replaced by the figure of indifference as a normal attitude towards almost all other people.

Problems of interaction of an individual with representatives of a society alien to him are considered by G. Simmel in his work "Excursion about the alien" Simmel analyzes the concept of a stranger - a person who finds himself in a group that differs from him according to various criteria. A stranger is a stranger who comes from outside. He, therefore, is precisely spatially alien, since the group identifies itself with a certain space, and space, "soil" - with itself. The stranger, Simmel defines, is not the one who comes today to leave tomorrow. He comes today to stay tomorrow. But while remaining, he continues to be a stranger. The group and the outsider are heterogeneous, but in general they form a kind of broader unity in which both sides must be taken into account. In history, a stranger was a trader, and a trader was a stranger. The outsider is objective because he is not entangled in intragroup interests. But because he is also free, and therefore suspicious. And often he not only cannot share with the group its sympathies and antipathies, and therefore seems to be a person who wants to destroy the existing order, but also really takes the side of "progress", against the prevailing customs and traditions.

Simmel's key criterion for defining a stranger is the "unity of proximity and distance" of a stranger in relation to the group (and at first this criterion is perceived as spatial). Such unity can mean distance, border, mobility, fixedness. These concepts help define the specifics of the interaction of a stranger with a group. The essence of this specificity is the "freedom" of the stranger, the consequences of which for the group and for the stranger himself are mainly occupied by Simmel. To clarify the meaning of this freedom, it is necessary to understand what the aforementioned "remoteness" is, a distance that has a well-defined starting point - a group, but is not defined either by the end point or by the length. For the group, these last parameters are insignificant in the characteristics of the stranger; what is important is that he moves away from the group and moves away from this particular group; his presence in it is significant only because it allows fixing this process of moving away or returning to a given group. The group does not observe or control the intruder throughout the distance, so his alienation is not deprivation or schism. Rather, it is the position of the observer, when there is an object of observation - a group, and when observation constitutes the essence of the relationship of the stranger with the group, the leitmotif, the tension and dynamics of this relationship.

The "stranger" is definitely not associated with any group, he is opposed to all of them; this attitude is not just non-participation, but a certain structure of the relationship between remoteness and closeness, indifference and involvement, within which it is conceivable, albeit reprehensible, "with one's own charter in a strange monastery." The objectivity and freedom of a stranger also determine the specific nature of intimacy with him: relations with a stranger are abstract, only the most common features can be shared with him, those that unite any person with anyone. The process of estrangement, "alienation", transformation into a stranger is shown by Simmel as a process of universalization. The commonality of traits between people, as it spreads to a large population, alienates them from each other. The more unique what connects them, the closer the bond. The more this common extends beyond their relationship, the less close this relationship. This kind of community is universal and can connect with anyone: the basis of such relations can be, for example, "universal human values" and, perhaps, the most "universal" of them - money. The universality of the community reinforces the element of chance in it, the connecting forces lose their specific, centripetal character.

The work of A. Schütz “Stranger.” Is devoted to theoretical consideration of the situation when a person seeks to understand the cultural samples of a social group with which he wants to get closer. Essay on Social Psychology ". By "outsider" the author understands "an adult individual of our time and our civilization, trying to achieve constant recognition or, at least, a tolerant attitude towards himself from the group with which he is getting closer." Schütz analyzes how this convergence occurs, comparing the acceptance of cultural models by a person born in a given group and a person who is “alien” to it.

Schütz believes that everyone born or raised in a group adopts a predefined, standardized cultural pattern handed down to him by his ancestors. This scheme is not questioned and acts as a guide in all situations that arise in the social world. Knowledge that fits the cultural pattern is taken for granted until proven otherwise. This knowledge allows, avoiding undesirable consequences, to achieve the best results in any situation with minimal effort. Thus, the function of the cultural model is to exclude, eliminate labor-intensive research, and provide ready-made guidelines.

The fact is that in everyday life a person is only partially interested in the clarity of his knowledge, that is, a complete understanding of the connections between the elements of his world and those general principles that govern these connections. He does not ask himself how, for example, his car works and what laws of physics make it possible for him to function. A person, Schutz believes, takes it for granted that another person will understand his thought, if it is expressed in clear language, and will react to it accordingly; however, he is not at all interested in how it is generally possible to explain this "miraculous" event. Moreover, he does not strive for the truth at all and does not require certainty: "all he needs is information about the probability and understanding of the chances and risks that are introduced by the current situation into the future result of his actions."

Meanwhile, the stranger, due to his personal crisis, does not share the above assumptions. In fact, he becomes a person who has to question almost everything that the members of the group with which he is close seems certain. The cultural model of this group does not have authority for him, if only because he was not involved in the living historical tradition that formed this model. Of course, the outsider knows that the culture of this group has its own special history; moreover, this story is available to him. However, it never became the same integral part of his biography as the history of his native group was for him. For each person, the customs, according to which his fathers and grandfathers lived, become elements of the way of life. Consequently, writes A. Schütz, a stranger joins another group as a neophyte . At best, he may be ready and able to share with the new group in living and immediate experience a common present and future; however, under all circumstances, he remains excluded from a similar shared experience of the past. From the point of view of his host group, he is a man with no history.

The cultural model of the native group still continues to be for the outsider the result of continuous historical development and an element of his biography; and therefore this model as was, and remains for his "relatively natural worldview" an unquestioned reference scheme. Consequently, the outsider naturally begins to interpret the new social environment in terms of habitual thinking.

Finding that much in his new environment is very different from what he expected to see when he was at home is often the first shock to a stranger's belief in the value of habitual "ordinary thinking." Besides the fact that the outsider has difficulty in adopting cultural patterns, he is faced with the fact that he does not have the status of a member of the social group to which he would like to join, and that he cannot find a starting point for orientation.

A significant obstacle, a barrier on the way to assimilation of cultural samples, becomes for a foreign language, which is spoken in a given social group. As a schema of interpretation and expression, language is not simply composed of linguistic symbols cataloged in a dictionary and syntactic rules. The former are translatable into other languages, the latter are understandable through their correlation with the corresponding or deviating rules of the non-problematic mother tongue. However, there are a number of other factors:

1. Around every word and every sentence, to use the term of W. James, there are "peripheries" that surround them with a halo of emotional values, which in themselves remain ineffable. These "peripheries," Schütz writes, are like poetry: "they can be set to music, but they cannot be translated."

2. In any language there are words with several meanings, which are also given in the dictionary. However, in addition to these standardized connotations, each element of speech acquires a special secondary meaning, derived from the context or social environment in which it is used, as well as, in addition, a special connotation associated with the specific circumstances of its use.

3. Each language has special terms, jargon and dialects, the use of which is limited to special social groups, and their meaning can also be assimilated by a stranger. However, in addition to this, each social group, no matter how small it may be, has its own private code, understandable only to those who participated in the common past experiences in which it arose.

All of the above specific subtleties are available only to members of the group itself. And they all relate to their expression scheme. They cannot be taught or learned in the same way as vocabulary. To freely use language as a scheme of expression, a person must write love letters in this language, must know how to pray in it. Of course, language problems make it difficult for the “alien” to assimilate norms and cultural patterns.

Applying all this to the cultural pattern of group life as a whole, one can say that a group member grasps at a glance the normal social situations in which he finds himself and immediately fishes out a ready-made recipe suitable for solving the problem at hand. His actions in these situations show all the signs of habituation, automatism and semi-awareness. This is made possible by the fact that the cultural model provides with its recipes typical solutions to typical problems available to typical actors.

For the outsider, however, the pattern of the group he is approaching does not guarantee an objective probability of success, but rather a purely subjective probability that must be tested step by step. That is, he must make sure that the solutions proposed by the new scheme will also lead to the desired result in his position as an outsider or a novice who grew up outside the system of this cultural model. He must first of all determine the situation. Therefore, he cannot stop at an approximate acquaintance with a new sample, he needs explicit knowledge about its elements, asking not only WHAT, but also WHY.

In other words, the cultural pattern of the group is a problematic field for the outsider that needs to be explored. All these facts explain two features of the alien attitude towards the group, to which almost all sociologists who dealt with this topic have paid attention: objectivity stranger and his dubious loyalty .

The main reason for a stranger's objectivity lies in his experience of the narrowness and limitations of "habitual thinking", which taught him that a person can lose his status, his life orientations and even his history, and that a normal way of life is always much less unshakable than it seems. Therefore, the outsider notices the imminent crisis that can shake the very foundations of the "relatively natural worldview", while all these symptoms go unnoticed by the group members who rely on the inviolability of their usual way of life.

Quite often, accusations of dubious loyalty are born from the surprise of group members that the outsider does not accept its entire cultural pattern as a whole as a natural and correct way of life and as the best possible solution to any problem. The outsider is reproached for ingratitude because he refuses to admit that the proposed cultural model gives him shelter and protection. However, these people do not understand that a stranger who is in a state of transition does not at all perceive this sample as a shelter, and even giving protection: "for him it is a labyrinth in which he has lost all sense of orientation."

It is important to note that Schütz refrained from studying the process of assimilation itself, focusing on the problem of rapprochement prior to assimilation. The adaptation of a stranger to a group that at first seems strange and unfamiliar to him is an ongoing process of exploring the cultural pattern of this group. If the research process is successful, this sample and its elements will become self-evident for the novice, turn into an unproblematic lifestyle for him. In this case, a stranger will cease to be a stranger.

Another aspect of the process of interaction of an individual with an environment alien to him is considered by A. Schutz in the work "Returning Home". “Returning home” in this case is defined as a person who returns to his native environment forever after staying and interacting with another group.

The returnee's installation is different from the alien's installation. The one returning home expects to return to the environment that he always knew and, as he thinks, still knows from the inside, and which he must only accept for granted, in order to determine the line of his behavior in it. A house, according to Schütz, is a specific way of life, consisting of small and important elements to which a person treats with love. Life at home follows a well-organized pattern; it has its own definite goals and well-established means of achieving them, consisting of a multitude of traditions, habits, institutions, routines of all kinds of activities, etc.

The return home believes that in order to finally reconnect with the abandoned group, he must only turn to the memories of the past. And since everything happens a little differently, he experiences something akin to shock.

For an individual who has returned to his former environment, life at home is no longer directly accessible. Schütz writes that, even while striving home, a person always feels a desire to bring into the old model something from new goals, from new means of achieving them, from skills and experience acquired abroad. Such an individual, to one degree or another subject to changes in a foreign land, or, at least, who has acquired a certain amount of new information for him, considering it important and useful, tries, as he believes, to bring benefits in his native environment. But people from his previous environment, due to the lack of such experience, perceive the information coming from him through their usual prism of correlating it with their everyday life. Explaining this, the author gives the example of a soldier who returned from the war. When he returns and talks about his experience as unique, he notices that the audience does not understand its uniqueness and tries to find familiar features, summing it up with their pre-formed ideas about the soldier's life at the front. There is a gap between the uniqueness and the exceptional importance that the absent person attributes to their experiences, and their
pseudotyping by people at home; this is one of the biggest obstacles to the mutual restoration of the broken "we - relationship". Unfortunately, Schütz states, one can hardly hope that behaviors that have proven themselves in one social system will be just as successful in another.

In general, the considered concepts served as a theoretical and methodological basis for the research undertaken by us, devoted to the study of the assimilation and reproduction of the Western way of life, socio-cultural and institutional norms and rules by the Russian youth who studied abroad. In particular, the provisions of the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schütz, in that part of it, where, within the framework of the general theory of interpretation, it is said about the "alien" and "returning home", is most applicable to the comprehension of our materials.

An article by the Deloitte transition laboratory is devoted to the mechanism of organizational culture change. The article in detail, step by step, proposes a sequence of specific actions to implement the changes, and especially emphasizes the place and role of the CEO, owner and / or shareholders in this difficult process.

Culture is like an iceberg. Much of this, the underwater part, involves shared beliefs and assumptions that often form over generations, and can sometimes punch a hole in the Titanic of corporate initiatives.

That is why changing organizational culture can be one of the priority challenges.

I often ask executives who visit transition labs about the constraints that dominate a company's growth. Surprisingly, this limitation is usually not something external to the company; Indeed, executives often cite company culture as the dominant constraint. To be successful, newly appointed leaders must quickly diagnose and either work with what is, or start breeding cultural changes if they want to improve organizational performance. However, I believe that many senior executives are not sufficiently trained to systematically diagnose, articulate, and catalyze cultural change to improve performance.

In this essay, I will describe the ways that leaders can diagnose the prevailing culture and, if necessary, the ways that they can work through the leaders to implement cultural change.

While the cover of the April Harvard Business Review reads, “You can't fix your culture. Just focus on your business and the rest will follow you, ”I disagree. A lack of a systemic understanding of culture and the direction of change can undermine successful leadership and corporate performance.

Breaking Down Culture: Beliefs, Behaviors, and Outcomes

Many leaders find it difficult to articulate and deal with culture accurately. Indeed, Deloitte's 2016 Global HR Trends Report, based on a survey of more than 7,000 organizations and HR leaders, showed that 82% of respondentsview culture as a “potential competitive advantage”, while only 28% believe they “understand their culture well” and 19% believe that their organization has a “right” culture. No wonder. Culture can be compared to an iceberg or a reef, most of which is underwater and could punch a hole in the Titanic of corporate initiatives. Part of the culture seen above the water is sporadic behaviors and results that can sometimes surprise and sometimes upset newly appointed leaders.

The submerged and “silent” part of the iceberg in culture is the “shared beliefs and assumptions in the organization”, which have been formed over many generations and they, in fact, are the real stimuli of behavior. In short, what we often see and perceive as a challenge are more artifacts and consequences of culture than the values, beliefs and assumptions that define and stimulate the behaviors and outcomes that we observe.

Changing culture, therefore, requires changes at the level of beliefs, and this is often much more difficult than changing business processes or information systems. Complicating matters further, there is often a common company culture and subcultures in different groups. Sometimes they can contradict each other.

While executives can drive cultural change across the company, CEOs can typically only support the CEO's culture change efforts, or are limited only by the ability to carry out belief changes within their specific subcultures.

Thus, most CEOs have limited authority to change outside of their functional area. However, every senior executive must be able to diagnose dysfunctional cultural traits and articulate beliefs that will help leaders at all levels to drive cultural change.

The classical model of cultural change is based on three stages: "Unfreezing" of belief in the organization through critical events; "Change" by modeling roles and establishing new behaviors and beliefs; and “Freezing” the organization to anchor a new culture (see Levin-Schein Models). Based on our hands-on lab experiences, I've adapted these steps into a series of practical steps that most executives can use:

• Diagnose, name and validate the culture of the organization;
• Reframing the cultural narrative;
• Role model and communication about cultural change;
• Strengthen a new belief system;

Each of these four steps is discussed below:

1.Diagnose, name and validate the culture.

The first step is to diagnose and identify the beliefs that define the existing culture. To do this, it is helpful to ask company leaders to think through and define the organizational results that they have observed and what they like and dislike about it. They then have to hypothesize which beliefs they believed led to those results, and then the beliefs that stimulate the behavior that led to those results. Consider two illustrative examples of the outcome of unwanted behavior in the table below. By looking more deeply at undesirable outcomes and hypotheses about behaviors that stimulate such outcomes, one can gain assumptions about the beliefs that are likely to underlie them.

results	Behavior	Beliefs
The complex interaction of ERP (enterprise resource management system) and the financial system between departments leads to increased costs and does not allow the exchange of information	Explicit or passive-aggressive resistance to efforts to create common services; each organizational unit has its own way of doing business;	“We are special and different” and no common business model can meet our needs
Delays in the execution of initiatives in relation to the market; lack of responsibility for initiatives	Endless consideration of proposals, collection of numerous signatures, indecision in assessing risks	“We have to do everything absolutely right”

Once hypotheses about the beliefs that shape culture have been formulated, they need to be tested. It begins by recognizing that existing beliefs do not arise in a vacuum, and they often served a good purpose, even if they are not useful now. In the example above, autonomy was highly rated because the company's success in the marketplace was based on disruptive products created by engineers and designers who broke existing conceptual frameworks and created a new thing. On the other hand, the autonomy of financial systems across business units does not serve the purpose of autonomy that has been important in product innovation. When you hypothesize beliefs that are no longer useful to your company, try testing it as the dominant belief in discussions with your peers and try to understand the origins and primary goals they served.

Cultures can persist for a long time. Beliefs can be traced back to different generations of leaders. For example, in a recent laboratory discussion on culture change, I was struck by the CEO's account of how he has sought collaboration and collaboration over the past decade, while the dominant company culture is characterized by a lack of communication, maximum delegation to the top, and ownership of decision making. key leaders. When we dug it up - it turned out that the previous CEO, ten years ago, was very directive, made a splash and could publicly humiliate managers. Thus, many executives did not feel safe to fully share opinion and delegated critical choices to the top to minimize personal risk. Despite the change of CEO to a friendlier CEO, the culture created by the previous CEO dominated for over 10 years. This persistence of culture and belief systems over time sometimes makes it difficult to diagnose, name, and change.

2. Reframing of existing narratives.

The second step to changing culture is to reframe the narratives that will be used to change beliefs. In order to start reframing existing beliefs, it is important to create a story that shows the meaning of a widespread belief, as well as the pitfalls and inconsistencies of such a belief in various other contexts. In the example of a high-tech company going through these changes, it was important for the CEO and CFO to partner up and create a new coherent narrative in which they both recognize the power of autonomy and “be special and different” in product creation, and also tell it would be about the limitations of this belief in other areas of business and about the costs that it imposes on the business as a whole if we do not have standardized financial and other systems.

Sometimes I find it helpful to collect beliefs, behaviors, and outcomes that are desirable, such as in the second example. The priority results are summarized in the table below.

Narratives should be processed carefully enough (and voiced) to not only confirm the new meaning, but also cancel the previous one that did not lead to the desired goals.

3. Role model and relationship of cultural change.

Although specific narratives can override existing beliefs, replacing them with targeted ones that provide the desired results, it is necessary to formulate and demonstrate behavior that supports such new beliefs.

Implementing new beliefs requires modeling new roles - showing how to do things using new beliefs and rewarding those who behave by supporting those new beliefs and delivering targeted results. The first step is to communicate what is valued not only on the level of results, but also on the level of belief. This will likely entail creating and executing a communication strategy around the culture change you want to implement. Next, as a leader, you must behave and act in accordance with the culture you want to receive. Your employees observe your behavior as a primary signal of values \u200b\u200band beliefs that will drive the organization forward. Thus, you cannot, for example, support the pursuit of excellence and innovation and appoint mediocre executives with no previous track record.

Because cultures can be held for very long periods of time, creating narratives and modeling new roles may not produce the desired result at the tipping point where general acceptance of the new culture is required. Instead, you may need to hire new leaders and employees who share new values \u200b\u200band understand what you want to help you accelerate cultural change in your organization.

4. Reinforce and articulate desired beliefs, behaviors and results.

In order to create a new set of behaviors and beliefs on a sustainable basis, it is important to rethink incentives and performance management policies and align them with the culture you want to create. For example, if you want to target individual business units for cross-selling, collaboration, and collaboration, but reward leaders solely for the results of those specific business units, you are unlikely to drive collaboration and cross-selling. Since employees tend to focus on the metrics that govern their compensation, it is critical to align compensation and performance metrics with the culture you are promoting.

At each stage of cultural change and strengthening, it is important to communicate about beliefs and expected behavior. And it's okay to explicitly articulate and reinforce the desired beliefs. Some companies create a cultural manifesto. One of my favorite examples of clearly articulating desirable beliefs is provided by Steve Jobs in his opening “Think Different” company to employees. The new campaign served not only externally, but also internally, reinforcing Apple's core values \u200b\u200band beliefs at a critical time in the company's history. Today, the use of electronic and video media can also further strengthen and expand the reach of key audiences for critical communications and narratives.

Catalyzing Cultural Change: CEO and Senior Executives (Owner and Shareholders)

The CEO (CEO) and the rest of senior executives have fundamentally different roles in catalyzing cultural change. CEOs should be the owners of the narratives and be champions and sponsors of organizational culture change across the company. At the same time, the limited nature of the actions of the rest of the leaders comes down to making changes in their areas of responsibility and supporting the CEO in implementing changes. In our transition labs, it often amazes me that culture is often defined as an annoying issue affecting corporate performance, yet lacks both the definition of culture and the desired values \u200b\u200bof that culture and the systems approach to change. Often there is not even a systematic discussion among the team leadership. Analyzing results, behavior and beliefs can be one way to hypothesize about the key elements of culture. Today, companies can go beyond analysis to use different approaches for employee research, language processing in customer reviews, and other Internet source data to accurately test and validate hypotheses about corporate culture from the perspective of key stakeholders. ...

While the CEO should have the primary leadership role in the culture change effort, I believe all other senior executives should and can play an important role in the change steps outlined in this article. They can work together to articulate and cancel beliefs that no longer benefit the company. They can work together to create robust narratives that, by changing the framework of existing beliefs, will lead to better productivity results. They can work to create new role models and translate new beliefs and patterns of behavior and communication, and reinforce these changes in behavior and communication in the workplace.

This article focuses on cultural change, but not all cultural trappings are bad. Indeed, many beliefs, such as the belief “we are special” from the example in the table, in the context of research and development (R&D - Research & Development) as well as product development have been vital in creating innovative and differentiated products that make this culture a source of competitive advantage. Thus, it is important to have a clear understanding of how to work with an existing culture to make it a source of competitive advantage before looking for something that will transform it. This is why it is important for you as leaders to diagnose the prevailing culture. Your transition priorities must either systematically fit into your existing culture and use it to create a competitive advantage, or you must develop strategies for change to effectively fulfill your priorities. In the latter case, you must decide if the costs and time frame are greater than the benefits that you plan to get from the new culture.

Dry residue

Transition periods are times when leaders must effectively diagnose the prevailing culture and then decide to create strategies or initiatives that will curb the existing culture or create a new one to support the strategies. Defining and changing a culture is a difficult thing - after all, cultures develop and exist for years. Working backwards - by observing results and beliefs, you can assume and begin to test key cultural attributes and understand meaning and origin. Strategies for changing cultural narratives, reframing beliefs through changing role models and selective recruiting, and strengthening culture by measuring and stimulating change and targeted communication can be implemented to change culture. The misunderstanding and lack of involvement in cultural change during transition can be perfectly illustrated by the phrase attributed to Peter Drucker: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast!”

This material (both text and images) is subject to copyright. Any reprints in whole or in part only with an active link to the material.

In modern humanities, the concept of "culture" is one of the fundamental. It is natural that it is central to intercultural communication. Among the huge number of scientific categories and terms, it is difficult to find another concept that would have so many semantic shades and would be used in such different contexts. For us, phrases such as “culture of behavior”, “culture of communication”, “culture of feelings”, etc., sound quite familiar. culture, but culture.

At present, there are more than 500 different definitions of culture. All these definitions were divided by Kroeber and Klakhon into 6 classes (types). 1. Descriptive definitions that interpret culture as the sum of all human activities, customs, beliefs. 2. Historical definitions that link culture to the traditions and social heritage of society. 3. Normative definitions that consider culture as a set of norms and rules that organize human behavior 4. Psychological definitions, according to which culture is a set of forms of acquired behavior arising as a result of adaptation and cultural adaptation of a person to the surrounding conditions of life. 5. Structural definitions that represent culture in the form of various kinds of models or a single system of interrelated phenomena. 6. Genetic definitions based on the understanding of culture as a result of adaptation of human groups to their environment. Culture includes everything that is created by the human mind and hands. Therefore, culture is studied by a whole range of sciences: semiotics, sociology, history, anthropology, axiology, linguistics, ethnology, etc. Each of the sciences singles out one of its aspects or one of its parts as the subject of its study, approaches its study with its own methods and ways, while formulating their understanding and definition of culture. Culture as a special sphere of human life cannot be seen, heard, felt or tasted. In reality, we can observe its various manifestations in the form of differences in human behavior and certain types of activity, rituals, and traditions. We see only individual manifestations of culture, but we never see all of it as a whole. By observing differences in behavior, we begin to understand that they are based on cultural differences, and this is where the study of culture begins. In this sense, culture is only an abstract concept that helps us understand why we do what we do and explain the differences in the behavior of representatives of different cultures. Long-term coexistence of groups of people in the same territory, their collective economic activity, defense against attacks form their common outlook, a single way of life, manner of communication, style of dress, specificity of cooking, etc. As a result, an independent cultural system is formed, which is usually called the ethnic culture of a given people. But it is not a mechanical sum of all the acts of human activity. Its core is a set of "rules of the game" adopted in the process of their collective existence. Unlike the biological properties of a person, they are not inherited genetically, but are learned only by teaching. For this reason, it becomes impossible for the existence of a single universal culture that unites all people on Earth.

The behavior of people in the process of communication is determined by a number of factors of varying degrees of significance and influence. Firstly, this is due to the peculiarity of the inculturation mechanism, according to which a person's assimilation of his native culture is carried out simultaneously both on a conscious and unconscious level. In the first case, this happens through socialization through education and upbringing, and in the second, the process of mastering a person's culture occurs spontaneously, under the influence of various everyday situations and circumstances. Moreover, this part of human culture, as shown by special studies, is no less significant and important in his life and behavior than the conscious part. In this respect, the culture can be compared to a drifting iceberg, in which only a small part is on the surface of the water, and the main part of the iceberg is hidden under water. This invisible part of our culture is mainly in the subconscious and manifests itself only when extraordinary, unusual situations arise when contacts with other cultures or their representatives. The subconscious perception of culture is of great importance for communication, since if the behavior of the communicants is based on it, then it becomes especially difficult to force the participants in the communication to create other frames of perception. They are not able to consciously determine the process of perception of another culture themselves. The image of an iceberg allows us to clearly understand that most of the models of our behavior, which are products of culture, are applied by us automatically, just as we automatically perceive the phenomena of other cultures, without thinking about the mechanisms of this perception. For example, in American culture, women smile more often than men; this type of behavior was learned unconsciously and became a habit.

Culture, firstly, can be described as "Centaur-system" , that is, a complex "natural-artificial" education. On the one hand, it is an organic whole, reminiscent of a living organism (culture reproduces itself in a sustainable way, assimilates and processes materials of nature, reacts to foreign cultural influences and changes in the natural environment), on the other hand, it represents the activities of people, communities, their desire to support traditions, improve life, bring order, resist destructive tendencies, etc. "The second characteristic of culture is set by opposing its two main subsystems: "Normative-semiotic" (it can be conditionally called the "semiotic cosmos of culture") and "Material-denotative" ("Natural space of culture"). Any culture acts as a culture only to the extent that it is reproduced in a stable way. A necessary condition for the reproduction of culture is a system of norms, rules, languages, ideas, values, that is, everything that exists in culture. This system can be called the semiotic cosmos of culture. Natural space is everything that, on the one hand, has an independent existence (natural-cosmic, biological, spiritual), and on the other hand, it is comprehended, signified, presented and normalized in the semiotic space. The opposition between the natural and semiotic cosmos of culture can be explained by the example of the birth and death of a person. The biological processes of birth and death are interpreted differently in different cultures. So, in archaic culture, they are considered as metamorphoses of the soul (the transition of the soul from this world and back). In medieval Christianity, the birth of a child is only a necessary condition for the real birth of a person in the act of baptism; accordingly, death is only a stage on the path leading to God. The third characteristic of culture can be called organismic ... In culture, diverse structures and processes do not just coexist; they are closed on each other, they are conditions for one another, while supporting or destroying each other. Culture is, if one can apply a physical analogy here, an equilibrium stable system, where, ideally, all processes should be consistent with each other, strengthen, support each other. It is to the third characteristic that the cultural problems of searching for mechanisms that ensure the stability of culture belong.

The fourth characteristic belongs to the socio-psychological sphere. Culture and_human in a way, one whole: culture lives in people, their creativity, activity, experiences; people, in turn, live in a culture. Culture, on the one hand, constantly immerses a person in contradictions and situations that he must resolve, on the other hand, it provides him with tools and means (material and symbolic), forms and methods (“culture begins with rules” with the help of which a person resists these contradictions.

"Cultural grammar" E. Hall Categories of culture Types of cultures 1. Context (information accompanying a cultural event). 1. High-context and low-context 2. Time. 2. Monochronic and polychronous 3. Space. 3. Contact and distant

The concept of context The nature and results of the communication process are determined, among other things, and the level of awareness of its participants. There are cultures in which additional detailed and detailed information is required for full communication. This is due to the fact that there are practically no informal networks of information and, as a result, people are insufficiently informed. Such cultures are called “low” context cultures.

High-context cultures In other cultures, people do not need more information. Here people need only a small amount of additional information in order to have a clear picture of what is happening, since due to the high density of informal information networks, they always turn out to be well informed. Such societies are called “high” context cultures. Taking into account the context or density of cultural information networks is an essential element of successful understanding of an event. The high density of information networks presupposes close contacts between family members, constant contacts with friends, colleagues, and clients. In this case, there are always close ties in relations between people. People from such cultures do not need detailed information about the events taking place, since they are constantly aware of everything that is happening around.

High-context and low-context cultures Comparison of the two types of cultures shows that each of them has specific characteristics. Thus, highly contextual cultures are distinguished by: unexpressed, hidden manner of speech, meaningful and numerous pauses; the serious role of non-verbal communication and the ability to "speak with eyes"; excessive redundancy of information, since the initial background knowledge is sufficient for communication; lack of open expression of dissatisfaction under any conditions and results of communication. low-context cultures are characterized by the following features: direct and expressive manner of speech; a small proportion of non-verbal forms of communication; clear and clear assessment of all discussed topics and issues; assessment of understatement as lack of competence or poor awareness of the interlocutor; open expression of discontent

High and Low Context Countries with high cultural contexts include France, Spain, Italy, the Middle East, Japan, and Russia. The opposite type of low-context cultures can be attributed to Germany, Switzerland; North American culture combines medium and low contexts.

Types of cultures (according to G. Hofstede) 1. Cultures with high and low power distances (for example, Turkish and German). 2. Collectivist and individualistic cultures (eg Italian and American). 3. Masculine and feminine (eg German and Danish). 4. With high and low level of uncertainty avoidance (Japanese and American).

G. Hofstede's theory of cultural dimensions The theory is based on the results of a written survey conducted in 40 countries of the world. Dimensions of culture: 1. Distance of power. 2. Collectivism - individualism. 3. Masculinity - Femininity. 4. Attitude towards uncertainty. 5. Long-term - short-term orientation

Power distance Power distance measures the degree to which the least empowered individual in an organization accepts and considers inequality in the distribution of power to be the norm.

Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty avoidance measures the degree to which people feel threatened by uncertain, unclear situations, and the degree to which they try to avoid such situations. In organizations with a high level of uncertainty avoidance, leaders tend to focus on private issues and details, are task-oriented, do not like to make risky decisions and take responsibility. In organizations with low level of uncertainty avoidance, leaders focus on strategic issues, are willing to make risky decisions and take responsibility.

Femininity masculinity of culture Masculinity is the degree to which persistence, assertiveness, making money and acquiring things are considered the dominant values \u200b\u200bin a society, and does not emphasize caring for people. Femininity is the degree to which relationships between people, concern for others and the overall quality of life are considered dominant values \u200b\u200bin society. Measurement is important for determining methods of motivation in the workplace, choosing a way to solve the most difficult problems, to resolve conflicts.

Long Term Short Term Orientation Values \u200b\u200bassociated with long term orientation are determined by calculating and assertive; the values \u200b\u200bassociated with short-term orientation are respect for tradition, fulfillment of social obligations and the desire not to lose face. In contrast to the previous four aspects, a difference table was not compiled for this indicator due to insufficient knowledge of this area.

individualism Explaining the differences between collectivism and individualism, G. Hofstede explains that “in an individualistic culture, people prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of any group. A high degree of individualism assumes that a person, being in conditions of free social ties in society, takes care of himself and bears full responsibility for his actions: employees do not want the organization to interfere in their personal life, avoid custody from its side, rely only on themselves, defend your interests. The organization has little effect on the well-being of its employees, its functioning is carried out with the expectation of the individual initiative of each member; promotion is carried out inside or outside the organization based on the competence and “market value” of the employee; the management is aware of the latest ideas and methods, tries to translate them into practice, stimulates the activity of subordinates; social ties within the organization are characterized by distance; the relationship between the administration and employees is based on taking into account the size of the personal contribution of each employee 1 ".

collectivism A collectivist society, according to G. Hofstede, “requires a great emotional dependence of a person on the organization and responsibility of the organization for its employees. In collectivist societies, people are taught from childhood to respect the groups to which they belong. There is no difference between members of the group and those outside it. In a collectivist culture, workers expect the organization to handle their personal affairs and protect their interests; interaction in the organization is based on a sense of duty and loyalty; promotion is carried out in accordance with the length of service; leaders adhere to traditional views on the forms of keeping subordinates active; social ties within the organization are characterized by cohesion; the relationship between management and employees is usually based on a moral basis, on the basis of personal relationships. "

typology of cultures by R. Lewis three types of cultures: monoactive, polyactive, reactive. Monoactive are cultures in which it is customary to plan your life, doing only one thing at a given time. Representatives of this type of culture are often introverted, punctual, carefully plan their affairs and adhere to this plan, are oriented towards work (task), rely on logic in a dispute, are laconic, have restrained gestures and facial expressions, etc. Polyactive are sociable, mobile peoples, accustomed to doing a lot of things at once, planning the sequence not according to the schedule, but according to the degree of attractiveness, the significance of the event at a given time. The bearers of this type of culture are extroverted, impatient, talkative, unpunctual, the work schedule is unpredictable (deadlines are constantly changing), oriented towards human relations, emotional, looking for connections, patronage, confusing social and professional, and have unrestrained gestures and facial expressions. Finally, reactive cultures are cultures that attach the greatest importance to respect, politeness, preferring to silently and respectfully listen to the interlocutor, carefully reacting to the suggestions of the other side. Representatives of this type of culture are introverted, silent, respectful, punctual, work-oriented, avoid confrontation, and have subtle gestures and facial expressions.

Parameters of culture Perception of personality Variants of value orientations A person is good There is good in a person and a Person is bad bad Perception of the world A person dominates Harmony Submission to nature Relations between people are built individually Built in a group laterally Built in a group hierarchically (everything happens) spontaneously) Time Future Present Past Space Private Mixed Public

Klukhon and F. L. Shtrotbek To measure cultural differences F. Klukhon and F. L. Shtrotbek used six parameters: personal qualities of people; their relationship to nature and the world; their relationship to other people; orientation in space; orientation in time; leading type of activity.

Personal qualities of people A person is good There is a good and bad in a person A person is bad

Relations between people Build individually Build in a group laterally Build in a group hierarchically

Leading way of activity Do (the result is important) Control (the process is important) Exist (everything happens spontaneously)

The scheme for analyzing the orientation of various cultures, developed at Princeton, the relationship to nature: man is the master of nature, lives in harmony with nature or is subordinate to nature; relation to time: time is perceived as fixed (rigid) or "current" (fluid); orientation to the past, present or future; attitude to action orientation to action or state (doing / being); The nature of the context of communication high-context and low-context cultures; Attitude to space: private or public space; Attitude towards power: equality or hierarchy; Degree of individualism: individualistic or collectivist cultures; Competitiveness: competitive or cooperative cultures; Structurality: low-structural cultures (tolerant attitude towards unpredictable situations and uncertainty, unfamiliar people and ideas; disagreement with conventional wisdom is acceptable); or highly structured cultures (need for predictability, written and unwritten rules; conflict is perceived as a threat; alternative viewpoints are not acceptable) Formality: formal or informal cultures

Acculturation is a process and result of the mutual influence of different cultures, in which representatives of one culture adopt the norms of value and traditions of another culture.

The main forms of acculturation Assimilation is a variant of acculturation in which a person fully accepts the values \u200b\u200band norms of another culture, while rejecting his own norms and values. Separation is the denial of a foreign culture while maintaining identification with one's own culture. In this case, representatives of the non-dominant group prefer a greater or lesser degree of isolation from the dominant culture. Marginalization means, on the one hand, the loss of identity with one's own culture, on the other, the lack of identification with the culture of the majority. This situation arises from the inability to maintain one's own identity (usually due to some external reasons) and the lack of interest in obtaining a new identity (possibly due to discrimination or segregation from this culture). Integration is identification with both the old and the new culture.

Mastering culture (according to M. Bennett) Ethnocentric stages. Ethnocentrism is a set of ideas about one's own ethnic community and culture as central to others. Ethnorelativistic stages. Ethnorelativism is the recognition and acceptance of cultural differences.

Ethnocentric stages 1. Denial of cultural differences between peoples: a) isolation; b) separation - the erection of physical or social barriers. 2. Protection (a person perceives cultural differences as a threat to their existence). 3. Diminishing (minimizing) cultural differences.

Ethnorelativistic stages 1. Recognition of cultural differences. 2. Adaptation (awareness that culture is a process). 3. Integration - adaptation to a foreign culture, which begins to be felt as "one of our own".

Culture shock is the stressful impact of a new culture on a person. The term was introduced by K. Oberg in 1960. To describe the mechanism of culture shock, he proposed the term U-shaped curve.

Culture shock U Good, bad, very bad, better, good Stages: 1) emotional uplift; 2) negative impact of the environment; 3) critical point; 4) optimistic attitude; 5) adaptation to a foreign culture.

Factors affecting culture shock Individual personality characteristics of a person: age, education, mentality, character, circumstances of life experience. Group characteristics: cultural distance, the presence of traditions, the presence of economic and political conflicts between countries.

Intercultural competence of IC is the ability of a person to carry out ICE based on knowledge and skills by creating a common meaning for the communicants of what is happening and to achieve a positive result of communication for both parties. Assumes that the individual has a tolerance for cultural sensitivity.

Ways of forming intercultural competence 1. By the method of teaching: didactic and empirical. 2. By the content of training: general cultural and culturally specific; 3. By the area in which they seek to achieve results: cognitive, emotional, behavioral.

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_1.jpg" \u003d "(! LANG:\u003e Culture model">!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_2.jpg" alt \u003d "surface-to-surface (! LANG:\u003e" Surface culture near the surface."> Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Непосредственно возле поверхности. Негласные правила Основаны на поведенческих реакциях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая «Глубоко под водой» Неосознаваемые правила (бессознательные) Основаны на ценностях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Глубокая культура «Неглубоко» под водой!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_3.jpg" alt \u003d "Everybody does it LANG:\u003e surface of water »Emotional load: Relatively low Food"> “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.” Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Еда * Одежда * Музыка * Изобразительное искусство* Театр * Народные промыслы * Танец * Литература * Язык * Празднования праздников * Игры Визуальные аспекты культуры, которые легко идентифицировать, имитировать и понять.!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_4.jpg" alt \u003d "(! LANG. Today is the third of November) ? In the USA in"> Сегодня третий четверг ноября. (В Америке) Что вы будете есть? В США в этот день празднуют день Благодарения. В этот день по традиции семьи могут приготовить индейку, ветчину, а могут и не готовить ничего особенного. Даже если вы не празднуете праздник, вы можете пожелать кому-нибудь“Happy Thanksgiving” («Счастливого Дня Благодарения») Культурологический пример Поверхностной культуры “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.”!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_5.jpg" alt \u003d "Thai (! Folk LANG:\u003e Buddhist craft"> Тайский народный промысел Тайский танец Архитектура буддийского храма в Таиланде Примеры Поверхностной культуры!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_6.jpg" alt \u003d "(depending on the situation * in LANG:\u003e Models "Time" * Personal"> Понятие «вежливости» * Речевые модели в зависимости от ситуации * Понятие «времени» * Личное пространство* Правила поведения * Мимика * Невербальная коммуникация * Язык тела, жестов * Прикосновения * Визуальный контакт * Способы контролирования эмоций “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?” Элементы культуры труднее заметить, они глубже интегрированы в жизнь и культуру общества. Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. «Неглубоко под водой» Непосредственно возле поверхности Негласные правила Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_7.jpg" alt \u003d "(! LANG:\u003e"> Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. В Швейцарии: опоздать на встречу - это недопустимо. В России: опоздать на встречу - не очень хорошо, но мы так все же поступаем. В Италии: опоздать на пол часа - час - ничего страшного. В Аргентине: опоздать на три часа - это прийти КАК РАЗ вовремя. (Правила поведения) Культурологические примеры уровня «Неглубоко под водой» «Негласные правила» “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?”!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_8.jpg" alt \u003d "Deep load LANG:\u003e Emotional *"> «Глубоко под водой» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Понятия Скромности * Красоты * Ухаживания * Отношение к животным * Понятие лидерства * Темп работы * Понятие Еды (отношение к еде) * Отношение к воспитанию детей * Отношение к болезни * Степень социального взаимодействия * Понятие дружбы * Интонация речи * Отношение к взрослым * Понятие чистоты * Отношение к подросткам * Модели принятия групповых решений * Понятие «нормальности» * Предпочтение к Лидерству или Кооперации * Терпимость к физической боли * Понятие «я» * Отношение к прошлому и будущему * Понятие непристойности * Отношение к иждивенцам * Роль в разрешении проблем по вопросам возраста, секса, школы, семьи и т.д. Вещи, о которых мы не говорим и часто делаем неосознанно. Основаны на ценностях данной культуры. Глубокая культура Неосознаваемые правила “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!”!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_9.jpg" alt \u003d "(“! LANG is based on its values! ”Examples"> Проявления культуры основаны на ее ценностях “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!” Примеры Неосознаваемых правил В Китае: Нельзя дарить девушке цветы (это считается позором для нее, оскорблением ее чести). В России: Нельзя свистеть в доме. Мы сидим «на дорожку». В Финляндии: Нет бездомных собак на улице. Глубокая культура!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_10.jpg" alt \u003d "Discussion questions (! LANG…\u003e we can study other aspects of culture are "deep under"> Вопросы для обсуждения… Как мы можем изучать аспекты другой культуры, которые находятся «глубоко под водой»? Как избежать стереотипов при определении поведенческих моделей и ценностей культуры? Будете ли Вы чувствовать себя комфортно, выступая в качестве представителя своей культуры? Кто должен присутствовать, если мы ведем межкультурный диалог? Можно ли по-настоящему понять другую культуру вне своей собственной? Почему (нет)? Приведите примеры каждого уровня «айсберга» из вашей культуры.!}

Src \u003d "https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_11.jpg" alt \u003d "(! LANG:\u003e Thanks for your attention! LANG:\u003e">!}