11.
The paper addresses the general socio‐cultural consequences of economic and political globalisation. With regard to the dispute between “universalists” and “culturalists” it holds the view that—contrary to expectations of cultural convergence and the emergence of universal values and institutions‐‐the “universal grip” of globalisation has produced a mirror effect of “localisation”; it has strengthened old boundaries and created new ones between religions, ethnic groups, regions or nations. This is the background against which the present communication between East and West Europeans is explored in the paper.
For Europe, globalisation has some additional effects, such as the collapse of the Soviet system in Eastern Europe. There, (a) globalisation coincides with the painful process of political and economic transformation and (b) revitalises the pre‐socialist context of the West‐East dichotomy. It shows that the East European variety of the opposition global‐local acquires additional drama due to being superceded by the opposition West‐East: the defensive reactions against globalisation are sharper and more powerful—and they are largely perceived and experienced as an East‐West controversy.
The paper explores the new mental barriers between West and East, the “wall in the heads”, and presents them as a major obstacle to the effective interpersonal communication in post‐socialist Europe. It is based on field research in Russia and Germany and uses the concept of “otherness” (Fremdheit) and the related ingroup‐outgroup category as key instruments for the interpretation and understanding of intercultural situations. The strengthening of the “us vs. them” boundary largely determines the communication process: it creates potential for conflict and has a negative effect on the motivation for cross‐cultural learning. Some implications for cross‐cultural educators and trainers are pointed out. 相似文献
