Perfection as viewed by different cultures
I have been reading Clotaire Rapallie’s excellent book “The Culture Code”, about how each nation and each culture forms different associations (“codes”) around various things. The “code” is mostly subconscious, and is formed through culture. One example of a code is for instance, the automobile, which in American culture is associated (coded) with freedom, but in Germany is associated with engineering.
That is why German and American auto executives have such a hard time seeing eye to eye, and when marketing, the Germans try to market the engineering aspects of a car, and see the car as a piece of great engineering, whereas the Americans try to market the car as a symbol of freedom. The codes do not support one another.
Regarding the notion of perfection, different cultures view it very differently, according to Rapaille. In Japan, a traditional society that has very little free space and thus little room to grow and little time or patience for mistakes (because they are vastly more costly than in a country with vast resources), perfection is striven for and is the highest goal. Sushi chefs attempt to create the “perfect” sushi dish, using perfect techniques. Lexus strives for zero errors in manufacturing its cars an SUVs.
One very interesting notion in the book is that Americans do not value perfection, even in theory. As a pioneer culture with lots of land and thus lots of room for errors that can be quickly corrected, American culture emphasizes learning from mistakes, trial and error, and constant innovation. A pioneer culture with vast land and resources means that errors are less costly than in Japan, for instance.
Americans are uneasy with the notion of perfection. To Americans, perfection = death, because if you were to attain perfection, it would mean that there is no room for growth and no room for innovation, and America is about innovation and re-definition. Americans feel that perfection cannot be attained “on earth”, and it should not be the goal, even. Americans thus like the notion of “designed redundancy”. Sure, we know the Iphone or latest gadget will have some bugs, but we still want it now, and we know that there will be the “1.2 version”. Continuous improvement and innovation.
That is why American products and houses for example are built the way they are. The notion is not that one will stay in the house forever, but will get a new, better house. So it need not be “perfect”.
The same is true for any product from an electric shaver (incredible to me how ugly, plain and purely functional my American Wahl electric shaver is, compared to my German Braun electric shaver, which is ornate, complex, and all about nice design) up to automobiles and software.
The German mentality seems to be: build it to engineering standards of perfection, packaged in an appealing European design. The American way of design is: make it functional so that it works, and I don’t care if it is plain or even ugly.
I might add that this mentality had real historical effects. Whereas the Germans spent 350,000 man hours to manufacture every single “Tiger” tank in World War II in their factories outside Stuttgart, the Americans churned out cheap tanks that were “good enough” and that worked (the Russians also did that). We all know the result. Perfection vs. “good enough”. “Good enough” won, every time.
So what might this mean for translation and translators ? For one thing, Americans don’t like even the idea of perfection, and that is helpful to know. They vastly prefer great service than a product that is “perfect”. This was clear in Rapaille’s interviews with Americans. Americans want a “good enough” product, but when problems inevitably occur, they want great service.
The Germans, I think are the opposite: they want perfection in the product, and don’t care as much about service (indeed, the German mentality seems to be: why would you even want or need service, if the product is perfect to begin with ?). This explains software design: the American software CEO announcing his company’s new product before it even exists, and then ordering it to be built, vs. the European CEO, who presents a “perfect” product, the result of 5+ years of development and testing. Perfection vs. time to market.
I am not trying to claim that Americans have it right, and Germans have it wrong. But we should be aware of this basic cultural distinction.
Taken to the world of clients, here would seem to be the advice:
For dealing with Germans: Try to make the product as “perfect” as possible, even if it takes a bit longer, because follow-up service is not nearly as important to Germans. “Do it right the first time”.
For dealing with Americans: Get it done “good enough” up front, but be ready to provide outstanding service if something needs to be tweeked or fixed. Be fast and be friendly and be there when they call or mail you. Don’t strive for some notion of perfection which is not there, but be very, very good at service and “aftercare”.
