文化休克：你适应新环境了吗？

Culture shock is a condition that affects people who travel to a country different from their own. The term describes a travelers feelings of bewilderment1 when the environment and culture change from the one that he or she is familiar with. The unfamiliar surroundings, foreign language and strange habits of a new country can all contribute to culture shock.

Culture shock is not just suffered by those who travel and live abroad. Any change in surroundings can bring about the feeling of culture shock. If a person leaves home for the first time and goes to college, then the new environment and new experiences may be a shock to the system2.

Actually it is a malady which afflicts most of us to some degree.3 We might almost call culture shock an occupational disease of many people who have been suddenly transplanted abroad.4 Culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing all familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse.5 These signs are the thousand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations of daily life: when to shake hands and what to say when we meet people, when and how to give tips, how to make purchases, when to accept and when to refuse invitations, when to take statements seriously and when not.

These cues, which may be words, gestures, facial expressions, customs, or norms are acquired by all of us in the course of growing up and are as much a part of our culture as the language we speak or the beliefs we accept.6 When an individual enters a strange culture, all or most of these familiar cues are removed. He or she is like a fish out of water; no matter how broad-minded or full of good will he may be.

This is followed by a feeling of frustration and anxiety. People react to the frustration in much the same way. First they reject the environment which causes the discomfort: “the ways of the host country7 are bad because they make us feel bad.”

For example Americans who are in a strange land get together to grouse about8 the host country and its people, you can be sure they are suffering from culture shock. The “dollar grasping American” and the “indolent Latin American” are samples of mild forms of stereotypes.9 The use of stereotypes may salve the ego of someone with a severe case of culture shock but it certainly does not lead to any genuine understanding of the host country and its people.10

In the course of time, an individual makes this adjustment. You do what is essential about water, food, and the other minutiae11 of daily life. In short, the environment does not change. What has changed is your attitude towards it. Somehow it no longer troubles you; you no longer project12 your discomforts onto the people of the host country and their ways. You get along under a new set of living conditions.

In an effort to get over culture shock, there is value in knowing something about the nature of culture and its relationship to the individual. In addition to living in a physical environment, an individual lives in a cultural environment consisting of manmade physical objects, social institutions, and ideas and beliefs.

An individual is not born with culture but only with the capacity to learn it and use it. There is nothing in a new born child which dictates13 that it should eventually speak Portuguese, English, or French, nor that he eat with a fork in his left hand rather than in the right, or use chop sticks. All these things the child has to learn. The culture of any people is the product of history and is built up over time largely through processes which are, as far as the individual is concerned, beyond his awareness. It is by means of

culture that the young learn to adapt themselves to the physical environment and to the people with whom they associate.

But once learned, culture becomes a way of life, the sure, familiar, largely automatic way of getting what you want from your environment and as such it also becomes a value.

People have a way of accepting their culture as both the best and the only way of doing things. This is perfectly normal and understandable. To this attitude we give the name ethnocentrism14, a belief that not only the culture but the race and nation form the center of the world.

Individuals identify themselves with their own group and its ways to the extent that any critical comment is taken as an affront15 to the individual as well as to the group. If you criticize my country, you are criticizing me. If you criticize me, you are criticizing my country.

Along with this attitude goes the tendency to attribute all individual peculiarities as national characteristics. For instance, if an American does something odd or anti-social in a foreign country which back home would be considered a purely individual act, it is now considered a national trait. Instead of being censured16 as an individual, his country is censured. It is best to recognize that ethnocentrism is a characteristic of national groups. If a national criticizes some aspect of his own culture, the foreigner should listen but not enter into the criticism.

Another important point worth considering is the attitude of others to a person suffering from culture shock. If you are frustrated and have an aggressive attitude to the people of the host country, they will sense this hostility and in many cases respond in either a hostile manner or try to avoid you.

Culture shock is lessened as the visitor succeeds in getting some knowledge of the language and begins to get around by himself. This is the beginning of his adjustment to the new cultural environment. The visitor still has difficulties but he takes a “this is my cross17 and I have to bear it” attitude. Usually in this stage the visitor takes a superior attitude toward people of the host country. His sense of humor begins to exert itself.18 Instead of criticizing he makes jokes about the people and even cracks jokes19 about his or her own difficulties. He or she is now on the way to recovery. And there is still the poor devil who is worse off than yourself whom you can help, which in turn gives you confidence in your ability to speak and get around.

Once you realize that your trouble is due to your own lack of understanding of other peoples cultural background and your own lack of the means of communication rather than the hostility of an alien20 environment, you also realize that you yourself can gain this understanding and these means of communication. And the sooner you do this; the sooner culture shock will disappear.

1. bewilderment: 困惑。

2. system:此处指人的身心。

3. malady: 病，疾病（尤指慢性病），此处喻指“社会或心理层面的顽疾”；afflict:使苦恼，折磨。

4. occupational: 职业引起的；transplant: 使迁移，使移居。

5. precipitate:（突如其来地）使发生，促成；social intercourse: 社交。

6. cue: 暗示，信号；norm: 规范，准则。

7. host country: 东道国，这里指与祖国相对的你所去的国家。

8. grouse about:〈口〉抱怨，发牢骚。

9.“紧抓着美元不放的老美”和“懒洋洋的拉美人”这类说法都是表达偏见的温和实例。

10. salve: 宽慰，安慰；ego: 自我。

11. minutiae: 为minutia的复数形式，指“琐事，小事”。

12. project: 【心】把（自己的感情等）投射给（别人）。

13. dictate: 发号施令地规定，专横地强加（规则、条款等）。

14. ethnocentrism: 种族（或民族）中心主义。

15. affront: 公开侮辱，有意冒犯。

16. censure: 指摘，责备。

17. cross: 磨难，苦难。

18. 他的幽默感开始发挥作用。

19. crack joke: 说笑话。

20. alien: 陌生的。

阅读感评

一位曾在香港工作和生活了多年的加拿大心理学家Michael Bond在其著作《难以捉摸的中国人》（1993）中说：“我来香港已过第15个年头了，但我仍然感到像一个初来乍到、被中国人所包围的外国人。日常社交活动中，有许多出乎我意料的事，就连在此的老年同行也还时而吃惊，时而高兴，时而愤怒，时而感到困惑。”香港自鸦片战争［1840—1842］后逐步被英国侵占，受其殖民统治达一个半世纪，其实还算是比较西化的，在此生活的西方人尚且有如此感受，内地对他们的冲击就更可想而知了。其实，在香港感觉不适应的不仅是西方人，有时即便是内地人去了也未必就能感觉自在。笔者曾在香港与台湾因访学各呆过一两个月，发现两地确有一些方面是我们刚开始时很难适应的。例如，在那边乘公交地铁，即便候车的仅两三人，也总要排队上车。另外，公车与地铁上明令禁止饮食，而且也绝少有人一味地与同伴聊天、打电话，倒是常见他们看书读报或闭目养神，而我们在内地总是把坐车当作神聊或打电话的良机，到了港台还是我行我素，旁若无人，结果不是招来鄙视就是引发与当地人的冲突。在那边，我也曾参加他们组织的聚会，包括老师召集的，但如果是下馆子，总是采取AA制，席间很少劝酒、喧哗，但气氛也不差。所谓的文化休克（culture shock）指的是种种在异文化环境中不适应的症状（美国人类学家Oberg于1954年首次提出），而这异文化应该包括异族文化与同族异地的文化两方面。香港之于西方人以及我们大陆客，可算是比较典型的例证。

由于异族文化在语言、环境、习俗乃至价值观上差别更大，文化休克一般也更明显、更严重。笔者大约十年前赴美参加学术活动，访问了一位在中国认识的美国朋友。这位美国朋友更早的时候曾来访我家，并住了几宿，当时我是按中国的待客传统，把家里最好的房间让给了他，自己搬到了一间较简陋的房间。这次他很热情地邀请我到他家去，却把我安置在了客厅的沙发上过夜，即便他女儿不在家，那房间是空着的。中国人往往以客为先，要面子，注重礼尚往来，而美国人有较强的个人主义意识，你我分得比较清楚，自家卧榻，怎容他人酣睡？我学英文出身，算是对西方文化有所了解，但心里还是有点失落。类似的情况在国内也有。听长辈讲，上世纪70年代我们有位邻居到上海办事，准备住亲友家，于是带了不少土特产作为见面礼。但出乎他们意料的是，这家上海亲友虽然曾在回乡探亲时住过他家，可这次接到他们后却把他们安置在了旅馆里，这让他们很不爽，气得连土特产都不送了。上海人当时住房极为拥挤，把客人安置在旅馆实属无奈，但小地方来客却认为即便有一寸地板也应该让他们睡，否则即为怠慢。我们往往期望别人和我们的想法、做法一样，但别人毕竟是别人，与我们是并不相同的，这样文化冲突就出现了。如果对他人的习俗、文化、价值观有一定的了解，虽然失落感也未必能完全避免，但还可能会设身处地地予以理解；否则，就可能引起愤怒、恐惧或其他极端反应。

17、18世纪的英国旅华游记中，有一部英国海军准将安逊的《环球航海记》，以强烈抨击中国著称，这在我看来也与安逊本人在广州遭遇的文化休克有关。在其历数的关于中国的弊端中，排外、爱欺诈、缺乏好奇心、办事拖拉不守时等是他最为痛恨的。皇权时期的中国政府一贯执行华夷之辩、内外有别的政策，对西方人尤其顾忌，对其在中国境内的行动有严格的限制，与中国人的交往更是禁忌。中国政府对于外贸持与西方人完全不同的看法。当时的中国基本上是个自给自足的国家，对于外部的货物几无需求，而西方却需要我们的茶叶、瓷器、丝绸等特产。因此，我们把外贸看作是给予他们的恩赐，至于在外贸中以诚信树立品牌的观念是没有的。至于说中国人缺乏好奇心、办事拖拉不守时更是不难理解了。按启蒙时代欧洲的标准，现代人应该具有较强的求知欲及对未知世界的好奇心，然而，康乾盛世时期的中国人有着文化优越感，比较保守，对于外来的“雕虫小技”无动于衷也就在情理之中了。中国官僚主义严重，在这里要办成事首先要忍耐，放下架子，心急吃不了热豆腐，但安逊以在英国的习惯，认为约好的时间就得遵守，期望中国人办事同样高效率，稍有等待拖拉就极度不耐烦甚至要动粗。难怪他在广州区区数月处处不如意，心情越来越糟糕，严重的“文化休克”直接导致了他在旅行记中对中国的态度。其实，启蒙时代的西方人对中国官僚作风的不适应，就如同19世纪下半叶旅欧的中国使节对于西方世界女性的穿着以及参与社交的不认同，都说明了民族中心主义（ethnocentrism）是多么的普遍，而入乡随俗说着容易做起来又是多么艰难！

来到异域感觉不适应，应该有三个层面的问题。有像气候、环境、饮食等物质方面的因素，所谓的“水土不服”即是；也有像语言、习俗及社交规则方面的，如中国人往往喜欢熟人扎堆，送礼偏向于重礼，请客讲究丰盛，而西方人往往是反其道而行之。对此，要克服文化休克，就必须花时间学习与适应。相比之下，要真正了解、接受乃至获得另一种文化的价值观，是极为困难的。钱钟书先生说：“东海西海，心理悠同。”然而，在跨文化交际中，以为对方与自己没有什么两样是一大忌讳，因为要获得成功的跨文化对话，就必须不断提醒自己，人家有着不同的文化、迥异的习俗以及可能与自己冲突的价值观。本文开头提到的那位加拿大心理学家，在香港生活的时间不可谓不长，对其语言、习俗应该较为熟悉了，但还是感觉像“初来乍到”一样，说明他可能仍然不理解或不认同香港人价值观中的某些部分。然而，要克服“文化休克”，真正做到“宾至如归”，物质、语言、习俗、价值观的适应或获得恐怕是缺一不可的。