National specificity of Russian and English cultures.

Many scientists believe that the English have lost their national identity – that there is no such a thing as ‘Englishness’. Indeed, there is such a thing as ‘Englishness’, and the reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated. The representatives of various social groups behave in accordance with the same unwritten rules – rules that define their national identity and character. This identity is continuous, it stretches into the future and the past, and there is something in it that persists, as in a living creature’.

K. Fox, in her book “Watching the English. The hidden rules of English behavior”, speaks about the ‘rules’ of Englishness. She uses a rather broad interpretation of the concept of a rule, based on four of the definitions allowed by the Oxford English Dictionary, namely: a principle, regulation or maxim governing individual conduct; a standard of discrimination or estimation; a criterion, a test, a measure; an exemplary person or thing; a guiding example; a fact, or the statement of a fact, which holds generally good; the normal or usual state of things.

When she uses the term rule in this way, she does not mean – and this is important – that all English people always or invariably exhibit the characteristic in question, only that it is a quality or behavior pattern which is common enough, or marked enough, to be noticeable and significant. Indeed, it is a fundamental requirement of a social rule – by whatever definition – that it can be broken.

When the author speaks of the unwritten rules of Englishness, therefore, she is clearly not suggesting that such rules are universally obeyed in English society, or that no exceptions or deviations will be found. Often, exceptions and deviations may help to ‘prove’ (in the correct sense of ‘test’) a rule, in that the degree of surprise or outrage provoked by the deviation provides an indication of its importance, and the ‘normality’ of the behavior it prescribes.

K. Fox uses the term “culture”, as she tries to establish the ‘grammar’ of Englishness. But given the very broad sense in which she using the term ‘rule’, her search for the rules of Englishness involves an attempt to understand and define English culture. This is another term that requires definition: by ‘culture’ she means the sum of a social group’s patterns of behavior, customs, way of life, ideas, beliefs and values.

At the same time, there is the danger of cross-cultural ‘ethnographic dazzle’ – of blindness to the similarities between the English and other cultures. When absorbed in the task of defining a ‘national character’, it is easy to become obsessed with the distinctive features of a particular culture, and to forget that we are all members of the same species. It is worth mentioning such terms as globalization and tribalization (the process of ethnic consolidation). One would think that there is no point in writing about Englishness, or indeed any other national identity, when the inexorable spread of American cultural imperialism would soon make this an issue of purely historical interest. Indeed, their influence has been exaggerated – or rather, misinterpreted.

Within Britain, despite obvious American cultural influences, there is far more evidence of increasing tribalization than of any reduction in cultural diversity. Ethnic minorities in

Britain is keen to maintain its distinctive cultural features, and the English are becoming ever more fretful about their own cultural identity crises. In England, regionalism is endemic, and escalating, and there is considerable resistance to the idea of being part of Europe, let alone part of any global monoculture.

Although England is a highly class-conscious culture, the real-life ways in which the English think about social class – and determine a person’s position in the class structure – bear little relation either too simplistic three-tier (upper, middle, working) models, or to the rather abstract alphabetical systems (A, B, C1, C2, D, E), based entirely on occupation. Every English person is aware of and highly sensitive to all of the delicate divisions and calibrations involved in such judgments.

Race is a rather more difficult issue. There are several answers to this question. The first is that ethnic minorities are included, by definition, in any attempt to define Englishness. The extent, to which immigrant populations adapt to, adopt and in turn influence the culture and customs of their host country, particularly over several generations, is a complex issue. Research tends to focus on the adaptation and adoption elements (usually lumped together as ‘acculturation’) at the expense of the equally interesting and important issue of influence. Although ethnic minorities constitute only about six per cent of the population of this country, their influence on many aspects of English culture has been, and is, considerable. Any ‘snapshot’ of English behavior as it is now, will inevitably be colored by this influence. Although very few of the Asians, Africans and Caribbean living in England would define themselves as English (most call themselves British, which has come to be regarded as a more inclusive term), they have clearly contributed to the ‘grammar’ of Englishness. Some ethnic-minority groups and individuals are more ‘English’ than others. This means that some of them, whether through choice or circumstance or both, have adopted more of the host culture’s customs, values and behavior patterns than others. Englishness is rather more a matter of choice for the ethnic minorities in this country than it is for the rest of the native English people. For those of the native English without the benefit of early, first-hand influence of another culture, some aspects of Englishness can be so deeply ingrained that they find it almost impossible to shake them off, even when it is clearly in their interests to do so. Immigrants have the advantage of being able to pick and choose more freely, often adopting the more desirable English quirks and habits while carefully steering clear of the more ludicrous ones. Immigrants can, of course, choose to ‘go native’, and some in this country become ‘more English than the English’.

Each culture is distinguished by its communicative behavior, and Russian culture is not an exception. In observing the peculiarities of Russian communicative behavior, one can see that, in Russia, the distance between people in communication is quite short. Russians usually look straight in the eyes. This is the way they show their interest and goodwill to the interlocutor. For the Russian communicative behavior it is typical not to smile. This is one of the most nationally-specific features of the Russian communication.

In the American and English communicative behavior, smile is the signal of politeness, so it is obligatory to smile when greeting people and during conversation. Russian writers have repeatedly drawn attention to the difference between Russian and American smiles, describing the American smile as artificial from the point of view of a Russian speaker. In western cultures, smile is a sign of politeness. The more a person smiles when greeting, the more he is friendly at this point, the more politeness to his companion he demonstrates by his behavior. Mutual smiles in the process of communication with the interlocutor are also signals of the politeness. It indicates that the members politely listen to each other. In the Russian communicative behavior smile 'for politeness' or 'out of politeness’ is not accepted. On the contrary, Russian speaker is usually apprehensive and hostile to a polite smile [Стернин 2000].

Life in Russia was for many centuries a hard struggle for existence, the lives of ordinary Russian man was extremely severe. A smile is reflected in these circumstances as an exception to the rule. It indicates the welfare and prosperity. Though it can be demonstrated in exceptional cases, it can cause problems, jealousy and even hostility.

It is worth mentioning that the market relations in the modern life are an incentive, on the one hand, to even a greater concern to the Russian people, but on the other hand it is a stimulus to formation of a professional, 'commercial' friendliness that would definitely affect nonverbal components of Russian communicative behavior [Стернин 2000]

According to Sternin, «in Russian communication there are situations where you can touch the interlocutor» [Стернин, 2001: 40], i.e. in Russia, friends and relatives shake hands or hug and kiss. It is also important to mention that it is typical for the Russian people to shake hands frequently, even several times a day.

Family plays an important role in Russian culture. Formanovskaya believes that it is important for Russians to communicate with family members, relatives, friends and acquaintances, as it allows them to feel relaxed, as if in a "shelter". The topics of discussion in everyday communication differ significantly from those of the foreigners. The so-called heart-to-heart conversations are typical of Russian culture. Thus, it is very difficult to explain this fact to the foreigners. Russian people do not hesitate to speak about intimate, private things; they tend to unburden their hearts even when they communicate with a stranger.
It is typical for Russians to have a negative attitude towards the secular communication. The expression "secular communication" has a disapproving and negative connotation - it means "not real", imaginary, and insincere.

Many researchers refer the opposition of "individualism - collectivism" to the fundamental ethno-cultural characteristics. Individualistic culture is the one in which individual interests of its members are more important than those of the whole group. On the contrary, collectivist culture is characterized by the interests of the group, rather than interests of an individual. According to Holfstede, the culture of English-speaking countries (UK, U.S., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) refers to the individualistic type, while the Russian culture is referred to the collectivist type.

Speaking about the Russian culture, some researchers have stressed that Russian people are typically responsive, sympathetic; they are characterized by the predominance of spiritual values over material. The basis of the English-speaking cultures is a society of free individuals, who rely only on themselves.

People in individualistic cultures often give priority to their personal goals, even when they come into conflict with the objectives of important factors (family, work). People will choose the best climate or the work regardless of whether it is close or far away from their parents. The representatives of collectivist cultures define such behavior as selfish. They prefer to live close to their parents, even if it damages their own individual interests.

People belonging to different cultures may have a different point of view on such aspect as demonstrating a person’s abilities and achievements. In individualistic cultures, demonstrating knowledge and skills is usually encouraged. In collectivist cultures this behavior can be regarded as indecent and rude.

In collectivist cultures, success is often considered as something that is achieved with the help of other people, and any failure is viewed as a result of laziness. In individualistic cultures, success is the result of personal achievements and abilities, and failure is the result of negative circumstances. In collectivist cultures, people often adapt themselves to the situation, they don’t try to change the situation; in the individualistic cultures, a person, on the contrary, tries to change the situation in his favor.

Thus, in this chapter, we have studied the essence of cultural linguistics and its cultural and linguistic components, defined its basic units of analysis and methods of research; we also have considered national specificity of English and Russian cultures.