In this article, we draw on a postcolonial sensibility to deconstruct how culture is discussed in mainstream international business textbooks. Through this deconstruction we show: (1) how the initial disclaimers that call for cultural sensitivity can be seen as pointing to the opposite of what they claim, which leads us to question the cultural sensitivity notion from ethical and political standpoints; (2) how the cultural dichotomies that form the core of the discussions always tend to silence the suppressed 'other' features on each side, which leads us to point to the much more ambivalent nature of culture and the hybrid spaces that can be created through cultural translation; (3) how (colonial) history is conspicuously absent from the arguments about 'cultural' underdevelopment and thus haunts the text. We conclude the article by suggesting the development of alternative types of international business textbook material on culture.

No abstract

Purpose -Embedded in Western scientific rationality, Hofstede's model on national culture is constructed on a quantitative method, which among other things is characterized by its carefully selected sample consisting of a group of well educated white "men" from the middle classes working for the same company and sharing identical or similar occupations. The appointment of well educated men from the middle classes as the norm for national culture might mislead one to believe that Hofstede perceives of culture as equally distributed among men and women and that there are no differences in regard to the possession of power. However, considering that he has dedicated one of his five dimensions to gender and constructed his model on a bipolar distinction between masculinity and femininity this is clearly not the case. The purpose of the paper is to show that Hofstede's masculine/feminine dimension unveils a distinct perception of gender differences, even though women's voices were kept silent in his survey. Design/methodology/approach -The paper approaches Hofstede's masculine/feminine dimension from a postcolonial angle, and focuses on how he discursively makes use of a gender dichotomy in his construction of national culture. Findings -The analysis supports the argument that Hofstede's masculine/feminine dimension contributes to reproducing a collective and prejudiced understanding of both culture and gender. Originality/value -The value of the paper is in its attempt to urge for a relocation of research on culture and gender from logocentrism and dichotomies to a discourse that take local variations and multiplicity into consideration.

No abstract

No abstract