跨文化大赛丨优秀案例分享第一期：公共外交主题（上海外国语大学团队）

2016年，承载着美美与共的人文交流愿景，“外教社杯”全国高校学生跨文化能力大赛在上海启航。多年来，大赛逐渐从上海走向全国，社会影响力越来越广，而今已是第九个年头。大赛列入《2023全国普通高校大学生竞赛分析报告》竞赛目录，覆盖全国26个省（区、市）近1000所高校。11月29日，第七届“外教社杯”全国高校学生跨文化能力大赛全国决赛总决赛将正式拉开帷幕。

距离全国决赛总决赛开幕还有19天，WExpress精心推出跨文化大赛冲刺系列推文，设“跨文化交际案例开发与展析”优秀案例分享专栏，提前为参赛选手与对跨文化学习感兴趣的师生答疑解惑。

案例与开发

跨文化交际案例的开发与展示是跨文化大赛复赛环节权重最大的比赛项目，要求三人小组基于自身经历，或通过阅读学习和社会观察，通过讨论交流，自主开发具有原创性的跨文化交际案例，在现场展示案例中的故事内容，并结合跨文化交际相关概念和理论，对案例中的跨文化冲突现象或成功的跨文化交际行为进行分析。

在历年跨文化大赛中，许多优秀案例视野广阔，涉及世界很多民族文化，涉及衣食住行及各个社会领域，触及社会规范、信念价值等各个文化层面，分析所用的概念和理论丰富多元，体现了选手们很强的跨文化意识和分析问题的能力。

 在后续的跨文化大赛优秀案例分享系列推送中，我们将从公共外交、商务沟通、多元文化生活三个主题中，分别精选一个历届大赛中的优秀案例进行展示，希望能够为大家的跨文化案例开发设计带来启发。每个案例分享都包含Case Description, Analysis等多个板块，并附有评委专家的详细点评，以便于广大跨文化交际学习者和教师深入理解“外教社杯”高校学生跨文化能力大赛的理念和评价标准。

今天为大家带来的是公共外交主题的A Chinese Official’s Visit to Kenya，来自上海外国语大学团队。

团队信息

学校：上海外国语大学

学生：谢松桥 熊歆 杨旭东

指导教师：孙璐 邓惟佳

上海外国语大学团队

案例开发与展析精彩瞬间回顾

案例述评

I. Case Description

China, a latecomer in high-speed rail construction, has stepped into a leading position in this technological arena in the recent decade. Comfortable compartment environment, high speed, low emission, and affordability — all these advantages help China’s high-speed rail gain the competitive edge in the global market.

For many developing countries in the world, especially for Africa, railway symbolizes the ticket to urbanization and a better life for the people. China’s railway, which is of high speed and good quality, makes it possible for these countries to get an “upgraded ticket” even at a lower cost. For China, introducing the high-speed rail technology to the world can further improve its international image and promote its public diplomacy.

2023年5月23日，在肯尼亚内罗毕，来自中国的火车驾驶员蒋立平（右）与来自肯尼亚的学员霍勒斯从一辆印有“连接国家，走向繁荣”标语的蒙内铁路机车旁走过。（新华社记者 王冠森 摄）

This case is about China’s high-speed rail diplomacy in Kenya. After the official negotiation between the two countries, China planned to launch a highspeed railway project in Kenya to help it construct public and cargo transportation systems. The 280km railway line stretching from Kakamega to Nairobi, according to the plan, would be completed within 24 months. Before the construction, a group of Chinese officials visited Kenya for a final investigation and evaluation of the local conditions for construction. It was on this trip that intercultural misunderstandings and conflicts occurred between the Chinese visitors and the local officials and residents.

Upon arrival at the airport in Nairobi, Ms. Li, the leader of the visiting Chinese delegation, was warmly greeted and welcomed by the local official, Mr. Drogba. Then, hospitable Drogba invited Ms. Li and the whole delegation to a guided tour around a local conservation park. However, to Drogba’s surprise, his invitation was turned down by Ms. Li — “We appreciate your hospitality, but due to the tight schedule, we are afraid we can’t go.” Mr. Drogba felt frustrated and even despised. He had never thought of this “embarrassing” situation, and he began to ask himself “Is this because our arrangement is not satisfying?” Ms. Li soon noticed Mr. Drogba’s confusion and explained to him that according to the “Eight-point Decision” concerning the Communist Party of China’s work style, anything unrelated, including sightseeing, is forbidden on business trip.

The next day, Ms. Li and the delegation continued their pre-construction investigation trip around the local village, accompanied by Mr. Drogba. Some of the Chinese officials got off the car, took out the camera, and began to take photos of the surroundings and the local villagers. Just at this moment, unexpectedly, these Chinese officials were attacked by stones thrown by the locals. The Chinese officials were confused and looked back at Mr. Drogba. In the nick of time, Mr.Drogba stepped forward to calm the local villagers down, apologized to the Chinese officials, and then explained why this happened …

2017年5月17日，在肯尼亚首都内罗毕，肯尼亚女火车司机肯西莉亚、温蒂、卡洛林（由左至右）跟随中国老师张程熟悉操作流程。蒙内铁路首发列车由肯尼亚历史上首批女司机驾驶。（新华社记者 孙瑞博 摄）

According to the schedule of the delegation, a hearing was to be held after the investigation. During the trip, Ms. Li asked Mr. Drogba about the time arrangement for the hearing — “Shall we have the meeting at 7 o’clock in the evening?” Upon hearing this, Drogba shook his head and advised to reschedule it to 6 p.m. since “7” means bad luck in Kenyan culture.

The hearing started on time at 6 p.m. However, to the surprise of all the Kenyan listeners in the audience seats, none of the Chinese attendees were railway technicians but the officials of the delegation. The Kenyan group did not believe that these officials could bring what they wanted to the meeting.

At the beginning of the hearing, Ms. Li, on behalf of the Chinese delegation, addressed the audience (as she always does at meetings in China) and briefly introduced and evaluated the railway construction project as “an act to strengthen the friendship between the two nations following the idea of ‘A Community of Shared Future’.” Following this, a local journalist asked a question concerning the post-construction resettlement plans for the local villagers, and the speaker of the Chinese delegation responded, “We fully respect your rights and concerns, and we would spare no efforts in our collaboration with the local government to ensure the interests of all parties involved.” It seemed that these words were not what the local participants wanted to hear — for them, they didn’t come for these “plausible” words, but for concrete plans on where to move. Some of the villager representatives became impatient and started mumbling. It was the next question from the journalist that ignited the distrust and anger of the local participants: “It is said that the construction of this railway aims at nothing but a strong assertion of Chinese political and cultural influence on our country. What do you think of this view?” The conference fell into total chaos …

2017年5月31日，由中国企业承建的肯尼亚蒙内铁路正式建成通车。在蒙内铁路蒙巴萨西站，一名肯尼亚记者和火车司机康西莉亚（中）、艾丽斯合影留念。（新华社记者 孙瑞博 摄）

II. Analysis

Section A Major Issues & Theoretical Explanation

1. The misunderstanding concerning the rejection of the invitation

·The Chinese view:

Ms. Li turned down the invitation of Mr. Drogba, explaining that it was due to the tight schedule of the trip; however, her rejection, with no offence intended, made Mr. Drogba frustrated and confused. Ms. Li soon read Mr. Drogba’s confusion and explained to him about the “Eight-point Decision” concerning the Communist Party of China’s work style. Saying “due to the tight schedule” at first, Ms. Li intended not to embarrass or offend Mr. Drogba. Nevertheless her good intention led to misunderstandings.

·The Kenyan view:

Mr. Drogba never expected that the visiting delegation would turn down a host’s well-prepared reception. Ms. Li’s explanation “due to the tight schedule” made him even more uncomfortable. He began to doubt whether it was because their invitation was too simple or unsatisfying.

·Theoretical explanation:

This misunderstanding is largely related to face concern. In daily communication, people’s face (self-image) can be categorized into positive face (a desire that one’s self-image is appreciated or approved of) and negative face (a basic claim to territories, rights to noninterference). In terms of positive and negative face, people in different cultures may vary in degree regarding which to be valued or which to be valued more. People in collectivistic cultures may be more concerned about protecting positive face, while people in individualistic cultures may be more concerned about negative face protection. Both Ms. Li (Chinese) and Mr. Drogba (Kenyan) have collectivist cultural backgrounds. Conflicts still occurred between them mainly due to misperceptions of face concern of the Chinese delegation leader. In terms of face concern in daily communication, Chinese people tend to protect both the “faces”, especially the positive one, of their own and of others. In this case, Ms. Li knew that it would cause embarrassment and offence if she responded “no” directly to the invitation. Hence, trying to protect the face of Mr. Drogba, the inviter, she explained her rejection with the excuse of a tight schedule. However, it was her explanation that made Mr. Drogba feel that he lost his positive face and his hospitality was disregarded. From another angle, for Chinese people, “face” means “superficiality” and “simplicity”. As a visitor from a different cultural background, Ms. Li was aware that the local officials would have no idea about the “Eight-point Decision” of the Communist Party of China and that it would be more difficult to explain such an issue than just saying “a tight schedule”. Chinese people tend to avoid causing inconvenience, especially that caused by their private affairs. For Ms. Li, the “Eight-point Decision” was the Chinese delegation’s “private knowledge” and it would be better to solve the problem and make the conversation go on with simple excuses, rather than spending time introducing this new concept to foreigners. To some extent, we can say that Ms. Li was protecting her own face of “simplicity”.

2. The conflicts over taking photos and scheduling the meeting

·The Chinese view:

It was normal for the Chinese officials on a pre-construction investigation trip to take photos of the local sites and people. After being attacked by the local villagers, the officials felt more baffled than offended. They could not imagine being treated so rudely in such an official diplomatic trip. As for the schedule of the hearing, the Chinese delegation thought that it would be convenient for both sides to attend the meeting at 7 p.m. However, the schedule they proposed was rejected by Mr. Drogba.

·The Kenyan view:

The Kenyan villagers saw that the Chinese officials were taking photos of them and their belongings, so they felt strongly offended. During the discussion over scheduling the hearing, Mr. Drogba refused to take Ms. Li’s advice because he considered “7” as an unlucky number.

·Theoretical explanation:

These two conflicts were caused by the difference in world views. Religious beliefs and traditional customs are constituents of culture. They are closely related to a nation’s way of life, understanding of history, and the relationship between human beings and nature. In the culture of some tribes living in developing regions, subjugation to nature is a preferred attitude, which helps to form and sustain lots of “taboos”. For local Kenyans who have unique indigenous lifestyle and still stick to the local folklores, taking photos of others and their belongings is offensive. According to their local folklore, the camera has a supernatural power to steal the spirit of the people or items aimed at. This idea triggered their hostility when they saw the Chinese visitors taking photos, so they flung stones as their protests. As for “7 o’clock”, “7” in Kenyan culture means bad luck. So, under any circumstance should the number “7” be avoided.

3. The complaint about the attendees of the hearing

·The Chinese view:

The Chinese officials highly valued this diplomatic trip concerning the highspeed rail construction project in Kenya. To show the great importance they attached to this visit, they hosted a press conference and invited all the related high-ranking Chinese officials to attend.

·The Kenyan view:

Seeing that most of the Chinese attendees of the meeting were officials, they felt fobbed off. They didn’t believe that the officials, who tended to talk big but doing nothing, would bring any concrete plan or practical benefits to the project. Instead, what they wanted were the technicians and engineers who had professional knowledge concerning the construction and resettlement.

·Theoretical explanation:

The complaint from the local people can be explained as a result of different power distances. Power distance refers to the extent to which a less powerful person, in a particular power hierarchy, accepts unequal power distribution and considers it normal. Along the continuum from high power distance culture to low power distance culture, the more high power distance is valued, the more willing people are to accept a hierarchical power distribution and the less mobility in power dynamics. On the contrary, when people prefer low power distance, they tend to place more emphasis on equality and egalitarianism. For those Chinese officials who belong to the culture more valuing high power distance than the Kenyan culture, a good way to show their stress on the hearing was to assign high-ranking cadres as attendees. However, this did not make sense to the Kenyans — from the Kenyan’s more egalitarian view, the attendees should have been the railway engineers and technical professionals who really knew well about the details of the project.

4. The conflicts during the hearing

·The Chinese view:

The Chinese speaker Ms. Li wanted to show her deep concern over the problem. However, the way she expressed her idea failed to convey her “deep concern” to the Kenyan listeners, who were eager to hear more direct responses and solutions.

·The Kenyan view:

The Kenyan listeners were already unsatisfied to see that the Chinese attendees of the hearing were all officials. Then, the response from Ms. Li made them even more impatient because they could not understand why the Chinese speaker answered their question in such an irrelevant and confusing way.

·Theoretical explanation:

The hearing gradually grew out of control and finally descended into chaos of questions and complaints. This unpleasant situation can be explained as the result of the conflict between high- and low-context cultures. Context is a concept from linguistic theories, meaning shared information or mutual knowledge between speakers. When it comes to intercultural communication, people from different cultural backgrounds show different degrees of reliance or dependence on the “context” in communication. In low-context communication, little meaning is determined by the context, and message is coded in a more explicit and literal form. On the contrary, people of high-context cultures tend to have a more implicit communication style.

During the hearing, the Chinese speaker answered the question in a typical Chinese way:

“We fully respect your rights and concerns, and we would spare no efforts in our collaboration with the local government to ensure the interests of all parties involved.”

If the listeners had been Chinese, this response would have been partially satisfactory because it implied the Chinese government’s initiative to solve the problem considering its importance not only to the local urbanization, but also to the friendship between the two nations. Also, another implied meaning of the speaker’s words was that the detailed plans concerning the construction of the railway and the resettlement of the villagers would be finally conducted by the engineers and workers, not to be explained here and now. However, the Kenyan journalists and the other local listeners who were more used to the low-context communication style could not catch these implied meanings quickly — what they wanted to hear was a direct and clear response to their questions.

Section B Resolution

Process Outline

1. A positive attitude: Each side should be aware that the conflicts are caused by intercultural misunderstandings. Though possibly being offended on some occasions, both sides should be tolerant of the ambiguity and inconvenience. A positive attitude is the pre-requisite for further in-depth communication and makes it possible for both sides to maintain openness and empathy.

2. Awareness of our identity: How we construe our own identities affects how we communicate. A high awareness of our own identities means to realize in comparison with other cultures, the common elements we share and the different points that might result in misunderstanding.

3. Consciousness of others’ identity: According to the ancient Chinese military strategies, “knowing thyself and thy enemy well helps you fight hundreds of wars without being defeated.” Although intercultural communication is, to a large extent, not comparable to fighting a war, knowing others is always important. In the case, the Chinese delegation should make adequate preparation to learn about Kenyan culture, especially the taboos, before visiting Kenya.

4. Awareness of the identity assigned to us by others: It is like putting ourselves in other people’s shoes. Usually, our own understanding of our identity is from the perspective of ourselves, so, it will be a good idea if we try to understand how our identity will be perceived in other people’s eyes. In many cases, being aware of how our identity is perceived by others helps to figure out how intercultural misunderstandings or conflicts come into being.

5. Collaboration and communication: When a conflict occurs, both sides should take constructive measures to build a platform for equal and collaborative communication. In the case, Ms. Li and Mr. Drogba set up role models for us in how to give patient explanations — Ms. Li, after seeing Mr. Drogba’s unpleasant face, quickly explained that the rejection of the invitation was due to the regulations that the Chinese officials should obey; Mr. Drogba explained to Ms. Li why “7 o’clock” would not be a proper time for the hearing.

6. Feedback and retrospection: Experiences of intercultural communication can provide us with abundant lessons. So, when we encounter intercultural misunderstandings or conflicts, what we should do after solving the problems is to sum up our feedback and retrospection, which will be of great help to us if we or our friends face similar problems in the future. For example, when the Chinese delegation returned from Kenya, they could hold an informative lecture concerning the intercultural misunderstandings and lessons learned through their trip.

Detailed Resolution

Invited by their Kenyan counterparts, the Chinese officials rejected the offer on the spot. More importantly, the Chinese personnel could do so by briefing them on Chinese officials’ code of conduct. As was discussed, the “Eight-point Decision” was not their shared knowledge. The initial rejection under the pretext of “tight schedule” was out of Ms. Li’s goodwill to protect Mr. Drogba’s positive face. However, “schedule” is of mechanical nature, while the code of conduct relates closely to the Chinese officials’ identity. Once the consensus was established, Mr. Drogba would be more likely to honour his guests by accepting the decline. The direct rejection may work better than being inappropriately “diplomatic”.

The incident at the local village was evitable and could be remedied. The resolution lies in the visiting officials’ duty as well as their interest to conduct thorough research on the host culture. The Chinese officials should behave themselves and avoid infringing on the locals’ taboos. Were there any offences made or inevitably to come, the visiting party had better apologize.

When introducing new concepts to the audience in a new cultural context, the Chinese officials should rely on elaborate illustrations instead of abstract words. Moreover, the story told must be close to the audience’s shared knowledge. The idea of “a community of shared future for mankind” was proposed by China. It’s profound implication of common development may be deeply rooted in the hearts of Chinese people, but possibly has not won popular support from Kenyans. Therefore, the Chinese delegation could tactfully frame the project as a continuation of the joint development achieved by Kenyans and Chinese.

The hearing, if dealt with properly, would not have descended into chaos. Ideally, the Chinese delegation should consist of both diplomatic bureaucrats and professional technicians or technocrats. The purpose of the hearing was to attend to any issue raised by the seated locals. The Chinese representatives were expected to respond with detailed project roadmaps and anticipated benefits or even harms. The absence of technical personnel and elusive answering may result in distrust and consequently noncooperation in this case.

Finally, there is one more pitfall on becoming “interculturally aware”. We have been constantly stressing the importance of being sensitive and conscious of “face concern”, “power distance”, “context”, etc. Like any theoretical construction, these are generalizations for our reference and reflections. In the real world, “culture” is dynamic and fluid without any definite boundary or absolute categorization. It should never be taken for granted that a person or group from a certain culture should behave in a specific manner. Do be cautious about the potential of stereotyping others. The world has become unprecedentedly interconnected. In this “A Community of Shared Future”, economy, infrastructure development, and people’s everyday life are intertwined in the context of increasingly complex intercultural communication. Therefore, it is essential, as well as rewarding, to have a good command of intercultural knowledge.

2021年11月17日，在肯尼亚蒙内铁路内罗毕站，中国与肯尼亚司机准备发车。（新华社记者 董江辉 摄）

案例点评

铁路是促进经济发展的重要基础设施。中国对此有丰富的经验、较强的生产能力，且价格相对便宜。中国对非洲的援助，是在平等互利和共赢的基础上开展的，没有任何附加条件。该案例以高铁外交为背景，具有时代性和代表性。

该案例场景多元，跨文化冲突集中，从拒绝当地官员的邀约，到对当地部落的探访，再到矛盾升级的听众会，中国代表团与当地官员、居民、记者之间发生了一系列事件。案例分析从六个角度来分析误解和冲突背后的原因，包括面子问题、宗教信仰、文化禁忌、思维方式、权力距离和高低语境，理论理解较为深入，运用合理、恰当。

在分析完案例中的跨文化冲突后，该参赛队伍还指出在运用理论时需要小心的“陷阱”，反映出该团队较强的跨文化思辨意识。他们强调分析案例时不能过于依赖“权力距离”“高低语境”等理论。他们认为这些理论视角虽然为我们解释和反思现实世界提供了参考框架，但文化是动态的、流动的，并没有明确的边界和绝对的范畴，决不能一概而论，想当然地认为某一文化的个人或团体应该以特定的方式行事。

现场展析中，三位参赛选手分别扮演、切换相关角色，并分工完成案例分析，体现了较好的团队合作意识和能力。三位选手语言流畅，表达清晰，通过他们的展析，观众能够感受到中国企业在开拓海外市场时可能遭遇的风险、挑战及其背后潜在的跨文化障碍，进而意识到跨文化视角对解决实际问题及实现有效合作的重要性。

就改进建议而言，希望该案例可以再进一步挖掘“文化是动态、流动的”细节，基于更为丰富的跨文化实践的反思会更有代表性和解释力。例如，案例中对人类命运共同体的阐释较为抽象，稍显说教意味，需要在实践中更为生动地阐述其含义和影响。除此之外，案例中还提到“八项规定”，中方官员为了避免解释的麻烦而采取回避的态度，如何向世界讲述这一具有中国特色的规定也是值得探讨的问题。