South by Southwest: Does the U.S. have a clue?

Until we more fully understand the most important "nonverbals" of the Middle Eastern culture, our nation's leaders will continue to stumble along, clueless.

Shoes as symbols -
For example, we in the West do not understand the symbolism of shoes to Mid-Easterners. Professor Faleh Jabar explains it in a story in BBC News story April 10, 2003:

Decoding Iraq's symbols of celebration
There was rich symbolism in the way Iraqis celebrated the fall of Baghdad - some hurled shoes while others brandished small clay discs. What do these actions and symbols represent?
Hitting with shoesThe whereabouts of the man himself may be a mystery, but locals vented their anger at Saddam Hussein by attacking effigies of the man - with their shoes. The imagery is strong - shoes are a symbol of "dirt and degradation" in the Arab world, says Professor Faleh Jabar, a writer on Iraqi culture.
"Going into someone's house or a mosque, you would always take your shoes off first. Shoes are used to beat servants, thieves, prostitutes; it indicates servility. Were you to beat your children, this would be done with a stick or the hand, but never shoes."

Fear of inferioriority - If you want to get under a guy's skin, just imply that he is weak. He might feel that his very manhood has been threatened. Biologically prepared at a primitive level to defend and protect family and territory, any weakness detected could feel like a threat to carrying out that biological imperative. These primitive responses sometimes quickly turn into return threats, blustering, and excalation of the conflict. And all those in conflict "lose face" in the process.

Understanding "face" is absolutely key -
Right not the Middle East is careening towards and all-out war involving possibly several countries. How has it come to this? Did our lack of understanding contribute to the crisis?

Worse since OCP (Our Current President) - It started decades ago but has gotten much worse under the Bush administration. As an example, this story from April of this year expands on the dilemma in Iran concerning the UN demands that they suspend uranium-enrichment activities. We can understand the psychological issues by quoting a few related phrases from a story at Asia Times Online,

serious incentives that would make it politically feasible for the Iranian government to respond positively.
. . . as part of a "differentiated response" that would be distinctly different from the present zero-sum approach.
. . . Iran and the IAEA could deepen their cooperation with respect to the "outstanding issues",
. . . partly symbolic of Iran's sovereignty and unwillingness to capitulate to outside pressure,
. . . "voluntary and non-legally binding" confidence-building measures and, simultaneously, going beyond thoseresolutions, as called for in Sawers' letter, and insist on them as a "mandatory requirement".
. . . de-escalating the Iran nuclear crisis, then an important prerequisite is occasionaly to put themselves in Iran's shoes and analyze the crisis and its potential ramifications from Iran's vantage point. John Bolton,the US envoy to the UN, has recently claimed to be "incredibly flexible", and now the onus is on him and other US decision-makers to prove themselves accommodating to a realistic formula, whereby Iran's chief concern of reliable and sustained nuclear fuel supply would be addressed. In the absence of a greater US willingness to go beyond vacuous rhetoric and commit itself forcefully to satisfying Iran's need, it is virtually guaranteed that the nuclear impasse will continue.
. . . play an effective catalytic role in crisis prevention -

Understanding the dynamics of "Face" - Either our military and diplomatic leaders are ignorant about "face," or they consciously ignore it. There is no other explanation. And Islamic extremists do not understand us Westerners any better, operating as they do from their own "face" biases. Sarah Rosenberg's 2004 article in the Beyond Intractibility website is very instructive. To quote,

(Stella)Ting-Toomey defines face as "the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation." Specific to face-negotiation theory, face is understood as the image one projects of oneself or one's national image in a public forum. . .
To understand the relevance of face in different cultures, one must learn how to identify low-context and high-context societies and what types of characteristics they each imply, especially in negotiating behavior.
. . . In general, the U.S. and other Western countries are considered low-context societies. This means that verbal communication is most often direct, and that there is very little concern or need for nonverbal cues in order for people to understand each other. Raymond Cohen, a respected researcher on culture and negotiation, explains that at the core of a low-context society is the belief in the freedom of the individual, hence the term "individualistic" societies. . .
High-context societies include countries such as Korea, China, and Japan in Asia, Middle-Eastern countries such as Egypt and Iran, and Latin American countries. Sometimes, these cultures are referred to as collectivistic, or interdependent. Very often, these high-context cultures are hierarchical and traditional societies in which the concepts of shame and honor are much more important than they are in low-context societies.
In high-context cultures, group harmony is of utmost importance. People in these cultures dislike direct confrontation, and for the most part avoid expressing a clear
"no." Evasion and inaccuracy are preferred in order to keep appearances pleasant. There is a danger of losing face simply by not reaching an agreement with another person or group, if that was the goal. Being humiliated before the group, or losing face before one's constituents, can be a fate worse than death in some cases. Ways in which one can lose face include:

a rebuffed overture

exposure to personal insult

exposure to a derogatory remark or disregard for one's status

being forced to give up a cherished value

making what may later be seen as an "unnecessary" concession

failure to achieve goals

revelation of personal inadequacy

damage to a valued relationship.

The key difference to remember here is that high-context cultures want to repair or build relationships while low-context cultures most often desire to simply problem-solve and move on.
. . . during negotiation, there are two simultaneous face processes going on. Although much more attention has been given in the past to face-threatening behaviors, face-honoring processes also occur. She argues that diplomats must learn that face-maintenance is the key to successful inter-group negotiation. By face-maintenance, she means "the desire to project an image of strength and capability, or conversely, to avoid projecting an image of incapability, weakness, or foolishness."
. . . Although countries are changing and modernizing all the time, face issues can be very important, especially in intergroup negotiating processes. However, even in
same-culture conflict resolution or negotiating, it seems likely that a shared attitude of mutual face concern will yield more successful results than aggressive confrontation and face-threatening behaviors. It may also be important to include a mutually respected third party to assist when face issues between two parties are difficult to solve.

Peace vs. war - Our space program may be funded at less than an optimal level, but it is working better than our diplomatic program in the Middle East. Could it be that it is better to focus on peace and progress for all of humankind, rather than the blustering and threatening associated with too many insecure people afraid of losing face?
References: