The Different Dimensions of Cultural Backwardness and the Stereotypes that follow them

• Author: Erion Avllazagaj
• Position: University 'Aleksandër Xhuvani', Elbasan
• Pages: 124-127

Vol. 4 No. 1

March, 2018

Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences

IIPCCL Publishing, Graz-Austria

ISSN 2410-3918

Acces online at www.iipccl.org

124

The Di erent Dimensions of Cultural Backwardness and the Stereotypes that

follow them

PhD (C.) Erion Avllazagaj

University “Aleksandër Xhuvani”, Elbasan

Abstract

In the context of human di erences, it is always said that they are shaped by their di erent

cultural socialization instances (important people, such as the parents or important

institutions, such as the school and by individual characteristics e.g temperament). In this

way, every human being is a very special mixture. Nonetheless, for the sake of simplicity, it can

be assumed that two people who have passed through the same socializing institution are not

alike, but are similar in this respect because they have adopted common views and pa erns

of action. At least statistically speaking, people from a common cultural socialization instance

are more similar than people from di erent socialization bodies, for example the context of

other countries.

Keywords: socialization, di erences, characteristic, Dimensions.

Introduction

This question becomes important and arises again and again in the intercultural

context. Now, the human orientation in the everyday world is generalizing and

typifying and correspondingly, people whom we encounter for the fi rst time are

classifi ed socially; “To be able to act”. If no one can a ord to view the aspects of

the world permanently with maximum di erentiation, then the tendency to fi rst

classify unknown and multi-layered areas into rough categories is a fundamental

characteristic of human perception (Gudykunst/Lee, 2002, 36-40).

For the classifi cation, people have access to cultural, educated social categories

that help them quickly understand what kind of other they are dealing with. These

include in particular “gender”, “ethnicity”, “status”, “religion” and others. These

categories become especially relevant when fi rst contact with strangers. By exploring

the respective category a liation, starting points for a conversation and a wide range

of pathogenic specifi c background knowledge about the communication partners

opened up. This background knowledge feeds on own experiences, second hand

experiences and - in the case of ethnic groups - on cultural dimensions.

In this sense, categorization represents a potential for communication (Adler, E &

Beverly C, 1991). Specially Adler, characterizes this as “fi rst-best-guess about a person or

a situation”. If you look at the individuals of a culture from afar, their behavior seems

almost identical: if you go closer, your individual di erences will increasingly come

into view.

Cultures and thus their ascriptions are constantly in fl ux, so that at the latest, if one

has to deal with foreign cultures for a longer time, it is necessary to take away the

view of the traits regarded as typical and instead to the production of pa erns of