Conceptualizing the Phenomenon "Laziness" in the Russian and Anglophone Folklore

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Conceptualizing the Phenomenon "Laziness" in the Russian and Anglophone Folklore

Introduction

Nowadays the realm of cross-cultural communication draws great attention of many scholars and academics from all around the world in response to the ongoing process of globalization. At the present time, more and more people start working for international companies, or even move to another country. Hence, they constantly have to enter a dialogue with the representatives of other cultures. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people had to face mutual misunderstandings that could incrementally escalate into cross-cultural conflict. Consequently, people could not only be limited to studying only foreign languages; thereby the need for cross-cultural communication studying has increased significantly. This tendency resulted in an urgent need for cross-cultural studies that could shed some light on the way intercultural conflicts in particular may be prevented or resolved.

Initial studies of cross-cultural differences date from the latter part of the twentieth century. Preliminary work on the conceptualization of communication from the perspective of cultural disparities was undertaken by Edward T. Hall (1976). Since then there has been a rapid rise in the use of the term “cross-cultural communication” as well as a surge in the number of studies concerning cultural differences. Many attempts have then been made (e.g., Berry et al., 2011; Hofstede, 2010; Lewis, 2006; Shore, 1996; Wierzbicka, 1992) with the purpose of improving the already existing classification of cultural differences.

Special emphasis is placed on national languages, attributable to the fact that each language possesses meaning (Wierzbicka, 1992), which is of great help to understanding the underlying cultural differences.

In accordance with the high probability of conflict in the workplace, the relevance of the chosen topic offers an opportunity for further studies in the realm of folklore that will assist in identifying people's attitude to work in general depending upon the type of culture they belong to. Therefore, this paper seeks to address the issue of how such phenomenon as laziness may be conceptualized in both Russian and Anglophone folklore. Results of the thorough analysis conducted using both Russian and English proverbs will help us to identify how the Russians and the British perceive work and laziness from both historical and contemporary perspectives.

Language analysis is fast becoming a key instrument in cross-cultural studies. Therefore, the examination of how cultural values (in our case it is the phenomenon of laziness) is of particular interest. It can thereby be later used either in the area of corporate communication or for educational purposes.

This research will primarily focus on investigating how such cross-cultural differences toward attitudes about laziness may be differently represented across cultures and how it may be studied on a cross-cultural level. This study will offer some insights into the way the Russians and the British tend to work, how they work and what is considered to be of great importance for them.

It should also be admitted that this research has two significant limitations. First of all, throughout this research paper we will analyze only the British English, therefore, the analysis of proverbs will be based on British history, culture and traditions. The second most important limitation is due to the fact that in this research we analyzed only proverbs. The methodological approach taken in this research is a methodology based on the analysis of proverbs as an integral part of folklore, culture and consequently national identity.

The object of the current study is cross-cultural differences in values. Scholars frequently present cultural values as one of the major elements that constitute people's mindset. Therefore, values will be analyzed with regard to their correlation with national identity.

The subject of this research is the phenomenon “laziness” and its Russian equivalent “len`”. This paper aims to unravel how the attitude to laziness and therefore to work in general may vary among cultures, specifically between Russian and British cultures.

The primary purpose of this paper is to identify how differently people in the United Kingdom and in Russia perceive laziness, based on the findings obtained through the literature analysis and the conducted analysis of proverbs.

In order to reach this goal, we are going to meet the following research tasks enumerated below:

1. to analyze which role laziness plays in shaping attitudes of both the British and the Russians

2. to detect how the notions of English “laziness” and its Russian equivalent of “len`” got their contemporary meanings, proceeding from the historical point of view

3. to find out how people in the United Kingdom and in Russia perceive laziness - as a positive trait of character or as a negative one

To fulfil these objectives, several methods have been applied. First of all, this paper provides a historical analysis of the notions of “laziness” and “len`”. This analysis enables us to understand how these two notions originated, how they correlate with the notions of “idleness” and “prazdnost`”, in which context these words were used and trace how they got their contemporary meanings we are used to understand nowadays. Secondly, the primary methodological approach of this research paper provides the collection and analysis of the data extracted from various Russian-English and English-Russian dictionaries of proverbs and sayings.

This paper consists of five sections, namely introduction, theoretical part, empirical part, conclusion and references.

The Introduction presents the significance and relevance of the chosen topic by giving some background information, needed for understanding the scope of the research, points out the object and the subject of the research paper, states the objectives of the study and outlines the research tasks that will be met. This section also comprises the general description of the methodology used and outlines the whole structure of the paper.

The theoretical part is divided into two chapters. The first chapter gives a brief overview of what is understood by such notions as national identity and values in the context of cross-cultural communication. It also provides a thorough examination of national identities of both Russian and Anglophone cultures as well as the analysis of main values that are specific to these two cultures. The second chapter provides an analysis of laziness both on a cross-cultural level and on the cultural level of Russia and the UK.

The forth chapter is concerned with the methodology used for the present study. This section describes the purpose of the used methods, the process of the conducted analysis and describes the findings.

The Conclusion section highlights the obtained results from both the theoretical and empirical sections and then summarizes the whole undertaken research.

The last chapter, References, will be used to provide the reader with the names of all the works used in the current study.

1.Cultural Values and National Identity

1.1 National Identity

laziness language intercultural

Research in cross-cultural communication has widely been used to study cultural variations by focusing predominantly on national identity. It is generally agreed that national identity is regarded as one of the components of a person's identity that shapes their mindset and gives them a sense of belonging to a certain nation, country or culture. However, it should also be emphasized that constancy is not inherent in national identity and consequently, the latter can alternate in course of time (Kelman, 1997, p. 171). This stems from the fact that national identity derives from the acquired awareness of cultural unity, ethnic and cultural affiliations along with the sense of belonging to a certain country, commitment to national ideas and interests.

The phenomenon of national identity has been widely studied by many researchers and scholars from different scientific fields. The concept of national identity occupies a special place not only in cross-cultural studies, but also in political science, sociology, and psychology and many other branches of human sciences. Therefore, scholars tend to have different views on the notion of national identity. For example, a Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman stated that the concept of national identity itself is relatively new and has arisen in “the crisis of belonging” (Bauman & Vecchi, 2004, p. 20). According to him, it is attributable to the fact that people have an urgent need to connect the idea of their self-identification to the reality in which they live (Bauman & Vecchi, 2004, p. 20). Other scholars emphasize that national identity generally refers to a multi-dimensional concept that equally covers such notions as historical and political identities, nationality, patriotism and culture. However, in this given context we will espouse the opposite view, namely the definition proposed by Richard Verdugo and Andrew Milne (2016). In their book “National identity: Theory and research” they made an attempt to differentiate national identity from nationalism and patriotism. National identity is defined by Verdugo and Milne as “a sense of belonging to and being a member of a geopolitical entity” (2016, p. 3).

In this context, it is worth noting that despite being a widely used term, research on national identity is presumed to be rather ambiguous. On the one hand, there are people who are convinced that national identity is largely based upon “ethnicity, blood, a common history, and other cultural markers such as language” (Bauman & Vecchi, 2004, p. 16). On the other hand, there are those who believe that national identity is “constructed, images, or invented for political reasons” (ibid., 2004, p. 16). Obviously, this divergence of views on this point would cause variation in each researcher's work.

Nevertheless, in recent years more and more people from all around the globe started expressing greater interest in cross-cultural communication. Therefore, the research continued; heightened interest in cross-cultural communication is mainly driven by the changes, through which we are living now. Nowadays these constant alterations in the way we live and communicate with each other have become particularly notable and this is attributed to the ongoing process, which is widely known as globalization. An American professor of international relations David Rothkopf (1997, p. 39), for example, holds the view that “the homogenizing influences of globalization that are most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural romanticists are actually positive; globalization promotes integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization is “a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it” (1997, p. 39).

The term “globalization” itself was coined more recently, in the twentieth century. The need for dissemination of information was finally met; cross-cultural scholars got an opportunity to go to any country in order to collect all the essential information, which they needed for conducting further research. Therefore, by the end of the twentieth century, the increased interest in the linkages between national identity and personality has become especially evident (Hofstede, 2010).

At this stage of development, therefore, it should be noted that national identity engenders stereotypes. It is attributed to the fact that in this era of globalization people are overloaded with information concerning other countries, cultures, beliefs and values, as they have never been before. Thereby, being unable to discern all the existing patterns and norms inherent in other cultures, people had to come up with simplified images of cultural identities and, consequently, more and more biased perceptions have emerged (Boster & Maltseva, 2006). However, despite admitting that partiality based on stereotypes is dangerous (Lewis, 2006), people in their judgements rely on these very stereotypes. A major drawback of any stereotype is that when one person from the very beginning form their opinions proceeding from a specific mode, they depersonalize another person (Hogg, Abrams, Otten & Hinkle, 2004, p. 254). Nevertheless, in the majority of cases we cannot allow ourselves to rely on these stereotypes. We should, first and foremost, take into consideration the values that construct a person's national identity.

1.2 Values from the viewpoint of cross-cultural communication

Values and value orientations play a prominent role not only in people's lives but rather in the society at large. Every individual makes their own choices and builds their life according to what the values, accepted in the society in which this very person lives, dictate them to do. Values construct the basis of the personality of the person's multicomponent individuality and consequently, have a significant impact on a person's behavior and conduct; their attitude to the surrounding world and themselves; their social activity and position in a society.

Owing to the fact that understanding cultural value differences is one of the elements that help to construct the process cross-cultural communication, it is worth enumerating whose works shaped the field of intercultural communication and led it to what we currently have. All the existing research, conducted by linguists, psychologists, anthropologists and cross-cultural researchers from all over the globe, relies on the studies carried out by Edward T. Hall, a preeminent American cross-cultural scholar and anthropologist. He was the first researcher whose study in the sphere of cross-cultural communication made a substantial contribution to our modern perception of cultures and cross-cultural dialogues that take place when two representatives of different cultures have to talk to each in order to exchange information. His study was designed to collect information about all the existing cultures. After the conducted analysis he introduced a cultural model according to which all cultures can be divided into two groups namely high-context and low-context cultures (Hall, 1976). E. Hall asserted that cultures are extraordinarily complex (ibid., 1976) and an individual's cultural background has a direct impact on how they perceive the world around them as well as the way they communicate with other people. He placed a special emphasis on the distinction between these two groups of cultures and described the principal features that distinguish high-context from low-context cultures. As it was one of the first steps towards the division of the cultures and provided just a general understanding without certain peculiarities, which construct cultures, this research was then further developed and improved. Moreover, with the passing of time cross-cultural characteristics were added.

Geert Hofstede, a prominent Dutch scholar, who gained his reputation for his research and contribution to the field of cross-cultural communication studies. He was one of the scholars who expanded on E. Hall division of cultures. As G. Hofstede highlighted “every person carries within him- or herself patterns of thinking, feeling, and potential acting that were learned throughout the person's lifetime” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 4). During his research of cultural diversity, he found out new elements of cultural differences. These findings he later introduced as a dimensions approach. In this division he relied on sets of characteristics that are peculiar to each culture. On the basis of the collected information he at first introduced four dimensions, namely Individualism, Masculinity, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Shortly thereafter, he added two more dimensions. They are the following: Lon-Term Orientation and Indulgence. Notwithstanding the fact, that this model helped to identify and explain new cultural particularities, this theory was not perfect, and therefore, was soon criticized. However, it still allows us to conduct a deep analysis of cultures.

The study of cross-cultural differences and similarities went on. Here it is worth noting, above all, that particular attention was drawn to comparing and contrasting of value priorities and the emphasis put on them (Schwartz, 2007).

It is generally agreed that the level of discrepancy of values tends to be strikingly high, particularly when we compare the values, possessed by people who belong to one society and those that exist between people who belong to different societies or cultures (Berry et al., 2011, p. 92).

This shows a need to be explicit about what exactly is understood by values. From the philosophical point of view, values can be explained in a broad sense, as well as in a narrow sense. In general terms, values denote the significance of various events/things and how they align with the societies needs/expectations. Therefore, people are unconsciously subject to such regulations and accepted standards of conduct (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). In a narrow sense, they are understood as requirements which are “delineated from their manifestations in social organization, practices, symbols and self-reports” (Berry et al., 2011, p. 92) and which by nature are considered to be the products of public awareness. However, the generally accepted use of the term “values” refers to certain guiding principles that have a direct impact on a person's behavior and that are closely related to one's cultural background.

Throughout this paper, we will use the term values to refer to the second explanation given in the narrow sense. In the field of philosophy and cross-cultural studies, several definitions of values can be found. According to a definition provided by an American psychologist Gordon Allport, “a value is “a belief upon which a man acts by preferences. It is a cognitive, a motor, and, above all, a deeply propriate disposition” (1961, p. 454). Many scholars agree that values are deeply rooted in a person's life experience (Williams, 1968; Schwartz, 2007). Therefore, they are considered to be the factors that strongly influence our behavior in a particular society (Lewis, 2006; Morris, 2014; Shore, 1996).

Nevertheless, recognizing the existing differences is important, as “the risk of ignoring differences is greater than the danger of naming them” (Tannen, 1990, 7). This especially concerns the situations when one person has to interact with a representative of a different culture. Ignorance of other person's values and cultural norms may even result in a cross-cultural conflict. While trying to understand the source of misunderstanding, people interpret each situation from their own perspective framed by the norms and values of a culture to which they belong. As a result, one may leave out the most crucial parts of a cross-cultural conflict. This may result in an insult that may be perceived as disrespectful to one's cultural and national identity. It is therefore safe to say that values are inextricably linked to cultural, hence national identity of a person.

This brings us to the point when we have to decide which sources of information are considered to be reliable, if we have to compare two of more cultures. As was pointed out several times, the most efficacious way to do it is to analyze native languages in order to find out how values and national traits are reflected in them. Through their native language, people can show to which group they belong to (Hofstede, 2010). But before moving on to the analysis of how the phenomenon of laziness is reflected in the Russian and Anglophone folklore, we should first and foremost understand which values are inherent in both British and Russian national identities.

1.3 British National Identity

English is to date recognized as the world's language. It is therefore not surprising that nowadays we have a vast body of literature on Anglophone culture and identity, their national traditions and values. There are books, targeted at historians and anthropologists (for example, “The Oxford History of the British Empire” in five volumes); learners of English (for instance, “Britain for Learners of English” by James O'Driscoll); those who want to get an insight into foreign culture (for example, “Watching the English” by Kate Fox) and so forth. Anna Wierzbicka, a prominent Polish linguist, wrote that an enormous number of existing studies and books mainly revolve around such concepts as “international English”, “English as a lingua franca”, “global English”, etc. (2006, p. 13). However, not all of these books study the linkages that exist between the English language and Anglophone culture (Wierzbicka, 2006, p. 3).

It is generally accepted that the English language, British historical and literary heritage are seen as the constituent elements of what is called a British cultural identity (Clark & Berkes, 2013). As history clearly shows British Empire established colonies in the West Indies, North America, and some other countries. That means that British Empire distributed its influence in various parts of the globe. As described in one of the previous chapters, we are now going through the same process called globalization. Therefore, defining British identity has always been the subject of much discussion. Many people are wondering what is meant by the term British (Clark & Berkes, 2013); whether the English language serves as an integral element in the framework of British national identity; what values characterize the British (Julios, 2008); etc.

Anna Wierzbicka, a famous Polish linguist, is one of the scholars who studied the English language. She explored the links between English and Anglophone culture, which were often neglected. In her book “English: Meaning and Culture” (2006) she pointed out that English cannot be regarded as a neutral language because it carries a certain “ideological baggage” that includes “external factors like its history as a language of colonialism” (2006, p. 312). It is worth noting here that it is generally agreed that national identity goes hand in hand with language.

But given the fact that the correlation between English and Anglophone culture was neglected, this could not but contributed to the occurrence of a great number of misleading and sometimes even negatives stereotypes. All these deeply rooted stereotypes and prejudice frequently come from stories, language textbooks, advertisement, jokes, etc. For example, a British linguist Richard D. Lewis wrote that “this powerful stereotype of the British character has been etched on other nations' minds by several generations of British films” (Lewis, 2006, p. 194). However, many people who live in the United Kingdom have very little in common with the stereotypes (ibid., 2006). Undoubtedly, these stereotypes gave rise to cultural misunderstandings. This issue was therefore thoroughly considered and studied by many cross-cultural researchers and anthropologists.

Since Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions are more frequently used in the analysis of cultures, we should also identify British cultural values in accordance with these cultural dimensions. In this paper we will look at only four dimensions, namely, power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance.

Statistical information presented in two graphs in this section and in section 2.4 “Russian National Identity” respectively, was collected from the official website (Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights).

1. Power distance

The dimension of Power Distance shows “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 61). As it is evident from the graph presented above, scoring 35, the United Kingdom displays a low score on this dimension, that is to say, the existing inequalities between people are rather low. It is also worth emphasizing that in Great Britain parents tend to treat their children as equal, thereby enabling them to act independently and take responsibility for their own actions.

2. Individualism

Individualism dimension measures the existing degree of individualism in the society. Hofstede uses the term “individualism” to refer to “societies in which the ties between individuals are loose” and the term “collectivism” to denote “societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups” (2010, p. 92). Scoring 89, Great Britain could be attributed to individualistic cultures. From early childhood, the British learn to take care of themselves, be independent.

3. Masculinity

According to Hofstede (2010), masculinity shows the degree to which people can be split into two big categories, namely humane orientation (feminine societies) and performance orientation (masculine societies). Following Hofstede's analysis, the United Kingdom can be regarded as a masculine country. British people are characterized by such patterns of behavior as striving for an opportunity to increase income; receiving recognition; aiming at getting promotions; tackling challenging work that could later be rewarded.

Moreover, although Great Britain is generally accepted as a low-context culture, the British retain some characteristics that are typical for the representatives of high-context cultures, for instance understatement. Therefore, in order to understand a British person, one should pay special attention to what exactly is said in conversation.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance

Hofstede writes that uncertainty avoidance is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 191). Scoring 35, Great Britain is among the low UAI countries. On that basis, it could be construed that the British do not feel threatened by uncertain situations. For individuals, who belong to low uncertainty avoidance type of cultures, anything different is perceived as something curious. Curiosity is therefore directly related to progress and innovation.

1.4 Russian National Identity

If we want to understand what Russian national identity is, we should first and foremost analyze the Russian language and the Russians' perception of the world and their living environment. Anna Wierzbicka (1992) is one of the linguists who studied the representation of such phenomena as national identity in various languages through the certain sets of concepts that are inherent in particular languages. She analyzed the Russian language and identified four main themes that are unique to Russian culture and language. They are the following: emotionality; irrationality or non-rationality; non-agentivity; moral passion. Each of them will be briefly described.

Firstly, emotionality. Wierzbicka has placed special emphasis on emotions and their expression. In Russian culture people tend to show their emotions, whether positive or negative ones. Unlike, for example, the Japanese, who always strive for harmony within society and who are used to hide their negative feelings, the Russians explicitly say how they feel. Mira Bergelson (2012), a Soviet linguist, who also studied Russian cultural values, stated that emotionality is reflected not only in the Russians' speech but also in the language itself. One of the characteristic features that sets Russian apart from other languages is “heavy use of “culturally loaded words” like “dusha” - “soul” (Bergelson, 2012, p. 134). The usage of nicknames in the process of communication, in the opinion of Bergelson, plays an equally important role. It shows the level of intimacy and closeness that are specific to Russian culture.

Secondly, irrationality, which is also referred to as non-rationality. According to Wierzbicka (1992, p. 395), irrationality can be defined as follows: “limitations of logical thinking, human knowledge, and human understanding”. One of the characteristics of Russian people is that they are heavily reliant on the unpredictability of the external world. It is especially noticeable when the Russians have to make a decision. In such case, they tend to rely on “avos`”. This word should be translated into English as “perhaps” (Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 2) and can as well be attributed to the above-described “culturally loaded words” (Bergelson, 2012, p. 134). In the Russian language one may also come across such expression as “na avos`”, which means “on the off-chance” (Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 2).

Thirdly, non-agentivity. Here, according to Wierzbicka (1992, p. 395), the emphasis is mainly placed in “a lack of emphasis on the individual as . . . controller of events”. It is worth noting, that non-agentivity is closely related to fatalism and hence, irrationality. However, the main difference between them is that the term “non-agentivity” is used to imply passivity. In the Russian language this state is usually described as “pokornost`”, “smireniye” or “sud`ba”. The latter, for instance, can be translated into English as “fate, destiny” (Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 465). This trait of Russian national identity becomes especially evident in cases when we have to compare Russians to people who belong to another type of culture, for instance Americans. When Americans have to make a decision, they tend to be pragmatic rather than fatalistic (Bergelson, 2012).

Finally, moral passion. The notion of “moral passion”, according to Wierzbicka, revolves around “the struggle between good and evil (in others and in oneself)” (1992, p. 395). Whenever the Russians have to judge, evaluate or assess anything, they are inclined to do it in accordance with their ethical evaluation (Bergelson, 2012). The judgments that Russian people make can be either positive or negative ones. The category of positive judgements can be illustrated with the word “prekrasnyj” which means “beautiful, fine; excellent” (Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 345). In addition, the word “negodjaj” has a much more negative connotation. It means “scoundrel, villain” (Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 233) and it therefore can be mentioned as the example of the category of negative judgements.

Now, after identifying Russian mentality we can move on to the analysis based on Hofstede's cultural dimensions (for the definitions of each of the dimensions see Section 2.3 “British National Identity”).

1. Power distance

If we compare Russia (93) to the United Kingdom (35), we will see the large difference that exists between these two countries. Russia has an income inequality and the system hierarchy in society. It is again because of the distinct role of those who have much more power than the others do. Therefore, it has a direct impact on how Russians act during the negotiation processes or business meetings with the representatives of other cultures.

2. Individualism

Scoring 39, the level of individualism in Russia is considerably lower than in Great Britain. Therefore, it is safe to state that Russia belongs to collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 2010). Drawing a parallel between national identities, it is worth noting that in Russia people usually say “we with someone/somebody.” Indeed, it is strikingly different from Anglophone national identity and the English language. In the UK, people set themselves apart by saying “someone/somebody and I”.

3. Masculinity

In Russia the level of masculinity is relatively low (36). From that it must be concluded that Russia is a feminine culture (Hofstede, 2010). Being a collectivistic culture, the Russians are used to caring for the people who surround them. Family plays an important role in a person's life. Superiority and dominance is only accepted when it comes to the chef. In other situation, people tend to explicitly show personal care, involvement and attention to other people.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance

As can be seen from the graph, Russia scored 95 for this dimension. It clearly shows that Russian people tend to avoid uncertainty. In some situations, the Russians tend to make a plan and predict the possible outcome in order to prevent any risks. Therefore, when Russian people have to achieve a certain goal, they make a detailed plan and at the same time, they highly rely on the support from their family, friends and people closest to them.

2.The Notion of Laziness

2.1 The Phenomenon of Laziness

As long as we have discussed the issues of the interrelationship between values and national character, we can now consider how such value as laziness may be reflected in cultures.

In the previous chapter, it was mentioned that values help to construct the basic framework for personality. However, it should be borne in mind that this is not the only factor that can form our personality. What stands out most conspicuously is the fact that personality is intrinsically connected with such notion as identity. Since identity is a multidimensional concept, it comprises a number of independent terms, such as “personal identity”, “cultural identity”, “national identity”, “ethnic identity” and so forth. “The sources of one's mental programs lie within the social environments in which one grew up and collected one's life experiences” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 5). Accordingly, it follows that national as well as cultural traits can be inherited at the personal level. Children learn from their parents how to behave, which patterns of behavior are accepted in the society and which are forbidden. The same goes for such cross-cultural value as laziness.

It is prudent to note here that the concept of culture is inextricably linked to the notion of personality. Understanding cultural differences is one of the elements that constitute cross-cultural communication. These differences are formed by values that people learn throughout their lives. As was emphasized in the previous section, values are an important component that construct our personality. Soviet psychologist and philosopher Alexei Nikolaevich Leontyev (1903-1979) in his book “Activity, consciousness, and personality” (1978, p. 77) pinpointed that personality cannot be regarded as something that is entirely biologically created. It is, on the contrary, is created by the social relationships that a person builds while interacting with other people throughout their life.

Laziness has always been a common issue for debate in the field of education and work. This involves students and pupils, employees and staff. Since it is believed that the way children are taught to act and behave in the society might have certain consequences later in life, some scholars state, for instance, that one of the ultimate teacher's goals is to inspire pupils to get over laziness and make them get used to disciplined work (Inglis et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, we should not forget that laziness could find its reflection not only in the classroom or at the workplace. It can also be perceived as a cultural trait or simply a value. Hence, all these notions are inextricably interlinked with each other.

The issue of laziness has always been widely discussed. Since recently, it has also been frequently raised in the media. It is primarily connected with the growing popularity of such notion as procrastination. In order to get a better understanding of what the word “to procrastinate” entails, it is worth looking it up in the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, the verb “to procrastinate” means “to put off intentionally the doing of something that should be done” (“Procrastinate”, 2020). For the two American psychologists, Jane B. Burka and Lenora M. Yuen procrastination means “not primarily a time management problem or a moral failing but a complex psychological issue” (2008, p. xii). Procrastination itself is often attributed to “laziness, lack of discipline, and moral decay” (Burka & Yuen, 2008, p. 137). For many people procrastination, in turn, is also related to laziness. As can be seen, the one thing that laziness and procrastination have in common in a lack of motivation and unwillingness to work. However, a procrastinator, unlike a lazy person, tends to complete the task sooner or later, albeit reluctantly.

To date laziness in general is perceived as something adverse and this notion is usually used to imply inactivity and disobedient behavior, again with negative connotation. Before moving on to the analysis of laziness and its representation in cultures, we should, first and foremost, define what is understood by this notion. Throughout this paper, the term “lazy” will refer to “disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous” (“Lazy”, 2020). On that basis, it could be construed that laziness can be characterized by unwillingness to work and avoidance.

Work is an indispensable part of human existence. Work as such has always been a factor that distinguishes a human being from an animal. In this regard, a man is perceived as a biological creature who possesses a number of biological characteristics. Hence, necessity for work is universal for each and every individual. The major difference lies in a person's attitude to work in general, depending on the culture to which this person belongs.

In the present context, it is appropriate now to get back to Geert Hofstede and look at his cross-cultural theory of uncertainty avoidance. As was noted by Hofstede, people who belong to strong uncertainty avoidance are usually perceived as “busy, fidgety, emotional, aggressive, or suspicious” while people from weak uncertainty avoidance cultures are described as “dull, quiet, easygoing, indolent, controlled, or lazy” (2010, p. 197). People who are not going to experience or try anything new, to change anything in their life are usually seen as lazy. Some people who are not familiar with cross-cultural communication theories attribute laziness and other negative characteristics, such as inactivity and sloth, to those who belong to weak uncertainty avoidance cultures.

2.2 Perception of Laziness in the Anglophone culture

As it has already been highlighted, the perception of laziness varies from culture to culture. There are many factors that form not only cultural identities but also people's worldview and attitudes. In order to get a better insight into Anglophone culture, it is worth paying attention to the way people from other countries perceive and describe the Britons, their character and mentality.

First and foremost, it should be noted that foreigners tend to see the British as “lazy, feckless and irresponsible” (Fox, 2004). In practice, this allegation is only half-true. As noted by James O'Driscoll (2011, p. 141), less enthusiastic and even passive attitude to work has always been one of the main characteristic features of the British nation. Notwithstanding this fact, as we know from the course of history, the value of work constructed the basis of the Western capitalism's model of a society. Therefore, in the United Kingdom laziness was, nevertheless, regarded as a socially unacceptable style of life.

It is to be noted here that this passive perception of work is deeply rooted in British history and their traditional lifestyle. In the course of history, British society has always been hierarchically divided. This class system has undergone several alterations in terminology and overall amount of classes. However, it should be born in mind that in the United Kingdom a clear class system still exists today (Lewis, 2006, p. 197) and it remains as influential as it was a few centuries ago.

In 2011, the BBC's Great British Class Survey conducted a survey on the existing social classes in Great Britain. And in a few years, on 2 April 2017, the results of the survey were published online. According to the information obtained, British scholars came up with seven new social classes (Savage et al., 2015). These are the following:

1. elite (the wealthiest social class)

2. established middle class (a social class with high income)

3. technical middle class (a social with relatively high income)

4. new affluent workers (a social class with moderately good salary)

5. traditional working class (a relatively poor social class)

6. emergent service sector (a social class with low income)

7. precariat (the poorest social class)

As we can observe, the class system still even nowadays plays a crucial role in British people's lives. However, in order to ensure a better understanding of how laziness is represented in everyday life in Great Britain, all these classes will be generally divided into two big groups, namely upper and low classes. Even the most cursory examination of the characteristics of both upper and lower classes would highlight dramatic differences. In particular, leisure, as well as entertainment, has been the hallmark of all the upper classes in the United Kingdom (O'Driscoll, 2011, p. 141). Consequently, the upper classes of British society have been inextricably related to non-manual work.

What we can observe in contemporary Britain at the present time is that people's attitude to work has not changed significantly. Between 2005 and 2009, during wave 5, a research project the World Value Survey interviewed the representatives from almost 100 countries. There were two questions that may be of particular interest in the framework of our research, namely “indicate how important leisure time is in your life” and “indicate how important work is in your life” (Inglehart et al., 2014). Findings from this survey highlighted that the British tend to give preference to leisure over work. According to the statistics, 45, 4% of all respondents from the United Kingdom see leisure time as a very “important factor”. For 43, 3% of the individuals interviewed, leisure time is “rather important”. As for the importance of work, only 35, 5% of study participants described it as “very important” and 35, 3% as “rather important”. This confirms the assertion previously made that people in the United Kingdom indeed clearly favor leisure over work.

Another important notion that will be touched upon in this section is the notion of “idleness”. In English dictionaries “idleness” is a major synonym of the word “laziness”. In broad terms, “idle” can be defined as “not occupied or employed” (“Idle”, 2020). However, these two words are not the exact synonyms and should be used very accurately. The word “lazy” is mainly used with negative judgement when a person is criticized for not working or simply not doing anything. On the contrary, the word “idle” has a much more neutral and sometimes even positive connotation. A person just makes a statement of fact when saying that a man is idle.

Idleness in general is regarded as a constant return to work on self-knowledge and self-construction which is based on people's natural attitude to life and the world around them (Savitski, 2019, p. 199). This was primarily interconnected with fact that aristocratic way of life was above all closely connected with mental rather than physical activity, inter alia, education, self-development and self-knowledge. For them idleness was equivalent to freedom, which in turn contributed to personality development (Savitski, 2019, p. 198). However, at the same time they led a very active way of life, which included attending balls, going hunting, studying music, sport and so forth. Therefore, idleness was a symbol of nobility, due to the fact that only those who belonged to the upper classes of society could allow themselves to be idle and, hence, focus on their self-development.

2.3 Perception of Laziness in the Russian culture

After the conducted analysis of the representation of laziness in British culture, we can now turn to the perception of laziness in Russian culture. First of all, it should be noted that laziness has always been considered to be one of the main features that is typical for any Russian person. The expression “Russian laziness” is as famous as a mysterious “Russian soul”. That is due in part to the fact that Russian soul comprises various traits, including laziness. Many scholars from other countries have always tried to analyze and understand the essence of Russian culture. Nevertheless, Russian culture remains a mystery for many foreigners even today.

However, what should be kept in mind is that Russian national character stems from its long history and its environment. If we take a look at the Russian history during the Tsarist aristocracy, we will notice that during that period of time people were divided into 4 classes (Llewellyn, McConnell & Thompson, 2019). They are the following:

1. upper classes

2. middle classes

3. working classes

4. peasants

What should be pinpointed here is that the lowest social class, the peasants, comprised the majority of the society, over 80% of total population. Moreover, they had to do all the work. This included agriculture, animal care, household chores, etc. At the time, the upper classes, who were also called the nobles, spent their time in idleness. They attended balls and dances, learned to play musical instruments, read and drew. A great deal of their time was dedicated to sleep and dreaming. However, it should also be remembered that dreams per se represent a resistance against reality and thereby activity (Mazin, 2019, p. 254). Sometimes excessive activity could also be regarded as unnatural and even suspicious.

This lifestyle of the upper classes was reflected in a famous Russian novel “Oblomov” written in 1859 by Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov. The plot revolves around a Russian village Oblomovka owned by Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, an ordinary representative of the upper middle class of that time, his surroundings and his way of life. Eventually he became the epitome of Russian character and turned into “a paradigmatic figure of laziness” (Mazin, 2019, p. 245). Through this character, Goncharov showed people's mindset and life in Russia. The main vice of all the representatives of the upper classes was laziness. It is also notable that laziness is regarded as a reverse side of work. Therefore, people who live in Oblomovka see laziness as their duty (Mazin, 2019, p. 243).

At the same time, this very inactivity was something people were proud of. Notwithstanding the fact, that there are no social classes in contemporary Russia, the same attitude to everyday life can be noticed in the Russian culture even today. As was once pointed by an American journalist Hedrick Smith, “Russians are prone to escapism … be the “lazy, dreamy” philosophizing of the intelligentsia” (1990). In contrast to Europeans, the Russians could not accept work as one of the main living values. The importance of work underlies national character of all European countries, which include Great Britain. However, work was not supported in a Russian man's perception. On the contrary, the Russians have always believed that happiness does not come from existence but rather from the meaning of life. If a person loses the meaning of their life, then they lose their soul, which is considered to be the most important part of any human being. Therefore, the main aim of existence for any Russian man was the endless search for meaning of life.

In section 2.4 “Russian National Identity”, it was stated that Russian people avoid any uncertainty. They would stick to traditions and habitual lifestyle rather than try anything new. This is primarily due to the fact that one of the Russian cultural values is fatalism (Bergelson, 2012, p. 134) and, therefore, passivity (Wierzbicka, 1992, p. 84). If we turn back to the novel “Oblomov” we will notice that the main character mainly relies on what Russian people call “avos`”. According to some Russian-English dictionaries (for instance, Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 2), the word “avos`” means “perhaps” and thus the phrase “na avos`” means “on the off-chance”. In this respect, as highlighted by Mazin (2019, p. 251), Oblomov tends to see any urgent or everyday matters as something that would be done by itself.

Once we have analyzed the reflection of laziness in the course of history, we can now turn to the perception of laziness in contemporary Russia. In 2005, Russia was among a number of countries, which were included in wave 5 (2005-2009) of the World Value Survey. To the first question concerning the significance of leisure time, the majority of Russian people, namely 29, 3%, identified it as “very important” and 46, 6% of the interviewed as “rather important”. As regards the question of the importance of work, 48, 4% perceive work as a “very important” part of life, while 31, 2% of Russians tend to find work as “rather important”. Modern tendency to value work over leisure is attributable mainly to political and economic situation in contemporary Russia. However, the emphasis placed on laziness resulted from leisure time still prevails.

It should be noted here that in the Russian language there are also synonyms of laziness. In the previous section is was pointed that in the English language the word “idleness” is used to denote inactivity. In the Russian language there is a word “prazdnost`” which means “1. idle; 2. fig. useless, unnecessary, idle” (Lapidus & Shevtsova, 1963, p. 339). As for the frequency of use of this word, “prazdnost`” is used very rarely and then only if the speaker wants to emphasize that an individual is not working at a point in time. Therefore, the word “idleness” has a neutral meaning, unlike “len`” which possess only a negative meaning.

As we have noticed, there are substantial differences between the notions of “laziness” and “idleness” in the Anglophone mental representation, which clearly show the peculiarities that are common to the British culture. Therefore, these terms will be compared with their Russian equivalents. The comparison of these notions will be potentially useful in the identification of new cross-cultural distinctions between Russia and the United Kingdom.