Theories of culture and their role in understanding & practicing cross-cultural management,can u giv idea plz?

Answer 1

Theories of culture can be ethnicity and postmodernism.
What we find in post-modernism is a form of art that is complicitous with the cultural dominants of our age (things such as capitalism, patriarchy, or humanism) but this is also an art which, however compromised, still wishes to retain its right to criticize that culture. That paradoxical politics of being complicitous but critical is characteristic of all forms of post-modernism.

See the links below too.

Answer 2

What an thrilling question. Theoretically this is a threat. E.g. a physicist must be engaged on some situation in physics, and are available up with a effect that thoroughly disproves some imprecise concept in astronomy or chemistry that the physicist replaced into no longer even conscious of, or never particularly understood. yet in prepare i won't be in a position to think of of an occasion the place this has ever befell. while you're asking if a *non-scientist* has ever effectively disproved an thought that they particularly got down to disprove ... without information it first ... then no, this is *particularly* no longer likely. Why? because of the fact the form you disprove an thought is via exhibiting the way it predicts something, and then exhibiting that this prediction is falsified. people who don't understand an thought, don't understand its underpinnings and assumptions ... and particularly don't understand what it predicts. you spot this each and every of the time with Creationists who attempt to "disprove" evolution making use of arguments that exhibit that they actual don't understand evolution (as understood via scientists) *in any respect*. The gist of their arguments are "if evolution is genuine, then we ought to continually see X" ... yet each and every individual who is familiar with evolution in any respect is familiar with that we would *no longer* anticipate to make certain X in any respect. So the very argument backfires! particularly than disproving evolution, they have made the thought look *greater* captivating to smart human beings via exhibiting that the thought is rejected basically via persons who the two *won't be in a position to* realize it ... or who placed the theory/rejection question *until eventually now* the question of information. the main suitable endorsement of the psychological nicely worth of an thought is the *lack* of psychological nicely worth of arguments against it. :-)

Answer 3

You can learn it by experience.