High-Context versus Low-Context Cultures and How Relative Should One's Values be?

There are two pieces of the discussion that was held last week that I would like to touch upon in my blog. The first piece deals with the article by Edward and Elizabeth Hall entitled, “Why Cultures Collide?” and the second deals with the discussion on universalist values versus ones that are more relative.
In regards to the article by Edward and Elizabeth Hall, I found his discussion about high-context cultures particularly interesting. Although this is not something that was explicitly touched upon in class to my memory, nonetheless, I believe it was one of the more important notions that we read about for that particular class. The reason why I found this whole notion of contextual situations so interesting is because I am an SIS student who is focusing his studies on a rising China. Looking at the potential for conflict with the U.S. in the coming years, it behooves me to better understand Chinese culture so as to better understand Chinese foreign policy.
China, as described by the Halls, falls into the category of a high-context society, which they describe as a society that has less mobility, that is harder to reform, and that has a lot of other characteristics. In contrast, the United States as well as many other Western nations falls under the category of a low-context society, which is mostly opposite. This is an interesting dichotomy to draw because this argument does accurately explain both the U.S. and China’s current political climate in which the former handles change much more fluidly than the latter. With this knowledge in mind, one can expect China to continue to be slow in adopting change which, in my mind, alters perceptions about the possibility of China being a revisionist power if it rises to pre-eminence.
The other interesting point that I wanted to bring up in this week’s blog pertains to the heated discussion about judging different cultures and whether one should look at these different societies through a universalist lens or a more relative lens. During the discussion, the debate evolved to the point in which people were talking about whether or not international aid organizations (that are mostly Western) have the right to challenge certain cultural practices in countries which appear to be gross violations of human rights. However, this debate does not only touch upon what should be considered good and what should be considered wrong, but also on how much value people should place on any particular culture. It seems to me that people have gotten it into their head that foreigners should be prudent in the ways they go about engaging other cultures so as not to disrupt or even damage the distinct cultural practices of different regions.
My own feelings could not be further from this point of view. I think cultures, like political or economical ideologies, should be open to challenges and if people who are introduced to new and foreign ideas want to change, they should be able to. I think that cultures are constantly in flux, that historically cultures have clashed before and left imprints on each other, and that this should not be shied away from. So, if an international aid organization wants to try to impose a certain kind of view on the world, I would say let them, and let the inhabitants of the area that is receiving the aid decide for themselves what is best for them. I think in our efforts to treat these people like human beings with distinct cultures, we, more or less, end up treating them like children who do not have the intellectual capacity to make their own choices.