Please write a 3- 4 typed and double- spaced paper (750- 1000 words) that discusses a current Intercultural communication issue/ situation that is happening or has happened/ either globally/ nationally/ locally.
Format:
· Describe the issue/ situation
· How it was/ is being solved
· Thoughts on its solution
· Describe at least 4 Principles that “fit” the issue/ situation
I have attached copies from the book of the principles that need to be included in the answer to the question (Must use at least 4 Principles)Thanks.
16 CHAPTER ONE
I
ntroducing the Punctuation Principle
Let’s now formula!e, based on the discussion above, the first principle of intercul tural communication: the Punctuation Principle. We will isolate three parts that make up this principle. Each part deals with intercultural communication as a process of drawing boundary Jines between groups of people. First, we will present boundary Jines in intercultural communication as conceptualizations. Next, we will look at constructive and destructive boundary lines. Finally, we will discuss the goal of intercultural communication as a process of looking for a boundary fit.
After discussing each part separately, we will formulate the Punctuation Principle as a whole.
Boundary Lines as Conceptualizations
The Concept of “Punctuation.” You may be wondering what punctuation has to do with intercultural communication. It must be said right away that the Punctuation Principle is not about punctuation marks, even though the word punctuation has the same origin in the case of punctuation marks and in the case of the Punctuation Principle. Etymologically, punctuation is derived from the Latin punctuare and means to break or to mark with a point (Morris, 1982: 1060). This is exactly what traditional punctuation marks do-they break the stream of writ ing into separate elements and tell us what the divisions between these elements are. Punctuation marks help us to understand the correct meaning; as we all know, a simple comma, put in the wrong place, can change meaning dramatically. But the term punctuation can also be applied to communication in general, not just writing (see Bateson & Jackson, I 964; Watzlawick, I 984). ‘In the study of communication, punctuation is a process of perception through which people or ganize their ongoing interactions into recognizable openings, closings, causes, and effects’ (Anderson & Ross, 2002: 147).
Intercultural communication can be viewed from the same perspective. In intercultural communication, as shown above, we find marks such as skin color and land and water borders. Our experiences are·divided through such marks, or boundary lines, into different cultures with their own identities. In essence, the Punctuation Principle is the Principle of Boundary Lines.
If you were asked now ‘What is a boundary line?” you would probably give examples such as land borders, sea lines, shared language, or shared beliefs and values. And you would be absolutely correct: All these are examples of boundary lines. But think how these boundaries change as we move from skin color to land borders to sea lines to shared beliefs and values..They become less and less tangi ble, and more and more difficult to detect. You can (literally) put your linger on a land border, but how can you grasp lines in the universe of beliefs and values? What about people who have the same skin color and yet do not communicate at all or, even worse, are ready to kill each other? Where does the boundary line be tween these people lie? What is a boundary line, first and foremost?
I
I
L”
CREATING CULTURAL BOUNDARIES 17
A Boundary Line as an Idea. Earlier, Barker was quoted as saying “What we think of as our identity is dependent on what we think we are nor (2000: 195). The word think, used twice in the quote, is the key to the origin of boundary lines: They are, above all our thoughts, perceptions, and expectations. Boundary lines are born in people’s minds, as conceptualizations, and later turn into borders,
walls, lines in the water, language barricades, and such. There is a wonderful short film called Boundary Lines, directed and written by Philip Stapp in 1946. In this film, we see two friendly neighbors peacefully settling a dispute over a little fence. But we also see an arrow shot by a primordial hunter flying across time and turning into various types of weapons, eventually ending as an atomic bomb, ready to descend on a city. The film makes a powerful statement about the con ceptual nature of boundary lines.
Of course, sometimes nature pushes us, allowing us to draw boundary lines
more readily-by giving us different skin pigmentation, for instance. But even then, as we saw earlier in the example of race, our thoughts affect the process of identity construction. For example, in the 2000 U.S. Census, almost half of all His panic respondents refused to identify themselves as belonging to any of the five racial categories on the form: white, black, Asian, American Indian or Alaska na tive, or native of Hawaii or the Pacific Islands. Forty-two percent of all Latino re spondents marked the box labeled “some other race· and wrote in such identities as Mayan, Tejano, and mestizo (Navarro, 2003). So, even skin color is a moving target, and the North American construct of race is making room for new groups of people.
It is people who create boundary lines, for better or for worse. A boundary line, first and foremost, is an idea, or conceptualization.
Constructive and Destructive Boundary Lines
Identity Confirmation and Dlsconflrmation. During intercultural commu nication, people present their identity by taking a line. Naturally, people try to take an appropriate line, aiming to project the image that they desire. People from other cultures may respond to our self-presentation positively, or they may re spond negatively. Positive responses can be equated with identity confirmation, the •process through which individuals are recognized, acknowledged, and en dorsed” (Laing, 1961: 83). Identity-confirming messages may include showing empathy toward others and using supportive language. Negative responses can be equated with identity disconflrmation, “the process through which individuals do not recognize others, do not respond sensitively to dissimilar others, and do not accept others’ experiences as valid” (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 47). Identity disconfirming messages may include ignoring others and using racist language. People ·can suffer real damage, real distortion• if people from another culture “mirror back to them a confining, or contemptible picture of themselves” (Taylor, 1992: 25),
Confirming or disconlirming messages affect the process of cultural identifi cation. If people can freely take the line they want-that is, use the verbal and
18 CHAPTER ONE
nonverbal behaviors they want-their identity as a self-construal is confirmed. In this case, people achieve their goals, and boundary lines are perceived as con structive. If people take a line, using certain verbal and nonverbal behaviors, but their identity as a self-construal is disconfirmed, they do not achieve their goals, and boundary lines are perceived as destructive.
Destructive Boundary Lines. When most people hear the words boundary lines and boundaries, their first image is of separation and L.eakdown in commu nication; hence, boundary lines are perceived as negative and destructive. Unfor tunately, this view is supported by numerous real-life examples. In fact, many illustrations discussed in this text are examples of intercultural failures due to de structive boundary lines. Boundary lines are destructive when they fail to help people realize their goals and define themselves-that is, construct their cultural identities (see Figure 4).
Any boundary that physically separates people from different cultures, pre venting them from taking their line in interacting with each other, is an example of a destructive boundary line; the Berlin Wall was one such boundary. People from different cultures can also be separated by other destructiv boundary lines for example, those of language. In the Texas town of Amarillo, two women who were fluent in Spanish and English were fired from their jobs because they chat ted in Spanish in their workplace. The owner of the company asked the women to speak only English while at work; the owner allegedly even demanded that they sign a pledge not to speak Spanish. Both women refused, and they lost their jobs (see Verhovek, 1997). It is clear that the boundary line in this intercultural in teraction was destructive: The owner was perceived by the women as overstepping his boundary, while the two women were perceived by the owner as uncoopera tive and lacking flexibility.
Constructive Boundary Lines. Let us not forget that without boundary lines there would be no cultures, so boundary lines cannot be all badl Besides, the Latin root of punctuation refers simply to·marking with points,· and the Latin root
(
i
)Destructive
’61 I \:Y
I
FIGURE4
CREATING CULTURAL BOUNDARIES 19
of boundary refers to ·a field within limits.• Nowhere do we find any evaluation; the meanings of the words punctuatian and boundary are neutral. Boundary lines could be perceived as negative and destructive, or they could (and should!) be per ceived as positive and constructive. Boundary lines are constructive when they make it possible for people to take a certain line in communication and define (construct) their cultural identity, regulating interaction with others. If the cul tures involved in communication see the boundary lines as serving them well, then the boundary lines are perceived as constructive and positive. The idea of constructive boundary lines is highlighted in Figure 5.
Take the example of St. Martin, the smallest parcel of land in the world ruled by two sovereignties. Part French and part Dutch ever since the partition treaty was signed back in 1648 (for more information, see Jermanok, 1999), the island even has two names-St. Manin and Sint Maarten. People from both cul tures have merged to create arguably the most cosmopolitan island in the Caribbean. The island’s inhabitants are proud of their peaceful coexistence for over 350 years. A boundary line running from Cupecoy Bay in the west to Cor talita Beach in the east apportioned 21 square miles to the French and 16 square miles tc;> the Dutch. Legend has it that two soldiers, one Dutch and one French, were chosen to divide the island in half. They started back to back and began walking. However, the Dutch soldier stopped to have a drink, while the French soldier remained sober and continued his duty, hence the difference in size. (More likely, though, the French received 21 square miles because of their superior naval presence in the region when the treaty was signed.) Today, one is free to cross sides without a passport.
Thus, the nature of boundary lines is two-fold. A boundary line can cause disputes and even wars; then a boundary line is perceived as destructive and does not lead to effective intercultural interactions. Or a boundary line can create peaceful borders (think of a fence between two friendly neighbors); then it is per ceived as constructive and leads to effective intercultural communication. Again, the origin of boundary lines is in people’s minds, and so it ls people who make those boundary lines destructive (dysfunctional, negative) or constructive (func tional, positive).
Constructive
(
.
): I
I
FIGURES
20 CHAPTER ONE
Boundary Fit as the Goal of Intercultural Communication
The main goal of intercultural interactions is to make sure boundary lines are re spected and agreed upon-that is, are perceived as constructive by people from all cultures engaged in the interaction. Then all cultures can function successfully, reaching a boundary fit in their interactions. A boundary flt is an agreement among people from interacting cultures on the function of a boundary line between them. An example of a successful boundary fit would be the relationship between
the Amish and people from the Anglo-Saxon culture. Although interactions be tween the Amish and Anglo-Saxons are not perfect, the Amish have managed to fulfill their philosophy of maintaining cultural separateness and still succeed in their businesses and be accepted and respected by the Anglo-Saxon culture (Petronio et al., 1998).
But now look at another example-an excerpt from a guided tour of one of the so-called heritage museums in Israel:
(
-,
)I’ll tell you a story, do you remember the story about the Patriarch Abraham? Oh, he was quite a man! Phee (Wow), he had lots of cows and sheep and lots of peo ple working for him, and he used to wander from place to place, and he lived in the desen. He was the first Bedouin, the Bedouins weren’t there yet, but he was there already. He was sitting in a tent, what was his wife’s name? Sara, Sara sat with him in the tent, and three angels are coming, they are going around in the desert, and they see some old man sitting with a young and beautiful woman, so they say:
(
l
)•Let’s go visit them,• so they come, and Abraham says to them: •refadalu, please, come in and be our guests,” so he says, what does he say to Sara? He whispers a loud whisper in her ear: “Go get three measures of flour (seot kemah).• Here are the measures (pointing to the wall), from the Bible straight here on this wall. You see, this is what they used to measure in, imagine, the Patriarch Abraham in his time. How many years already? Oh, it’s impossible, I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, your parents weren’t there, and he was already using this to measure with this. (Katriel, 1994: 14)
To Jewish audiences, this kind of story sounds like a playful elaboration of a well-known biblical tale. To Arab audiences, however, the strategy of renaming Abraham as the first Bedouin and endowing a familiar agricultural object (the measure) with a biblical career is an act of cultural appropriation-the taking away of symbolic resources. It might be that the Israeli crossed an imaginary line
here, or it might be that the Arabs simply overreacted. Whatever the case, it is hardly possible to speak of a true boundary fit in this intercultural interaction.
Or take the example of a dramatic change in the boundary lines in the former Yugoslavia, where people from the same communities suddenly saw themselves as members of different ethnic groups. The aggressive behavior of former neighbors, friends, and even spouses, which the international community found difficult to understand, was the consequence of a changed boundary fit (Petronio et al., 1998). Sometimes it seems that the boundary line between people from different cultures is so negative and deeply engraved that no boundary fit is possible. How-
r:
92 CHAPTER FOUR
(
l
),
I
Ethnocentr
i
c Affirmation : Other; Self/Not Self
l Affirming
(
l_ OT_H=E_R_—<
Culture B
) (
1
— S=E=LF_
I
Culture A
Result:
)i
:r
(
Culture
A
affirms
itself
and
Culture
8.
Culture
8
affirms
itself
and
Culture
A.
•
)i,
‘
I
I .
.
i
i!
FIGURE3
makes it possible for them to negotiate how to maintain their position (positive ethnocentrism) and allows the Other to maintain its position, as well.
Introducing the Positionality Principle
ji
!/ Now it is time to formulate our fourth principle unde
rl
ying intercultural commu
(
IU
):i:
,1
J
:/; I
1 ,n
1
,i,
‘
!11
:i11• I I
il
F,
I
.
I.
‘,
i
(
i
)!:I
‘ ,,
‘
I·
:Jq
II
nication: the Positionality Principle. As usual, we will isolate three parts that make up this principle. Each part deals with the nature of positioning in intercultural in teractions. First, we will discuss the Positionality Principlein terms of grounding. Next, we will show the relationship between grounding and authority. Finally, we will present grounding as a process of intercultural engagement. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Positionality Principle as a whole.
Positionality as Grounding
At the beginning of the chapter, we set out to understand what happens to mean ings as they are enacted. We now know that cultures construct their systems of meanings and see the world differently because people are located in space and time. Obviously, people from different cultures cannot be located in the same place at the same time; they have to occupy different locations. It is by virtue of these different positions that cultures develop different systems of knowledge. All cultures, therefore, are characterized by different cultural loci-positions from which they view the world and their own place in it.
When we speak about meanings as our cultural maps, we must remember that our cultural knowledge is situated-that is, generated in specific situations. These situations are concrete in the sense that they provide physical settings for constructing a cultural mental framework. Based on these settings, every culture defines itself and the world from a certain point of view. Every culture looks out ward from its own point of view; reflected back, this look becomes its cultural gaze. Cultural gaze is a projector beam, as it were, that allows people from every culture to navigate in the world. With the help of this gaze, every culture looks both in-
i,
I ..
J
(
r
‘
)
CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 93
ward to its own identity and outward to its relation with other cultures. The better the •cultural visibility,” the more successful the intercultural encounters.
Thus, intercultural communication is a matter of positionality. As cultures oc cupy different positions and interact, their cultural gaze makes it possible for them to see the world and their own place in it. In this process, cultural meanings are generated, or-to put it another way-each culture is grounded. Everything that we experience as a result of an intercultural encounter and find meaningful is framed and becomes part of our culture, our •common ground.• These cultural frames are constructed as a product of our perception and can be presented in terms of figure/ground effects. You might be familiar with these terms from Gestalt psychology (Koehler, 1969), where the distinction between figure and ground is usually illustrated by a visual example such as the image in Figure 4, which can be perceived either as four black squares (figure) on a white surface (ground) or as a white cross (figure) on a black surface (ground) (Koch, 2001: 203).
The figure/ground distinction is not limited, of course, to the visual realm; one can experience this effect using any other senses. Whatever senses people use, the nature of the figure/ground distinction is the same: Experiences are grouped together and either form a foundation or stand out as a figure. It is a foundation that is cultural ground. In this sense, ground is a culturally accepted system of meanings that is shared and seems so natural that it is often taken for granted. Ground is not highly visible, yet its significance cannot be overestimated. Its im portance is highlighted when it comes under threat-just think of such expres sions as •stand your ground• or ‘Defend your ground” (both figuratively and literally!). Ground is what holds cultures together; it is their center. Being ethno centric means being grounded.
•
FIGURE4
r
94 CHAPTER FOUR
Grounding, therefore, is a process of establishing a cultural system of mean ings. What meanings? Recall the main cultural constructs we discussed at the be ginning of the chapter. Grounding of meanings begins with a perceived connection between two things-this is the way cultural beliefs are developed. Then cultural ground becomes more complex and takes the form of attitudes, val ues, norms, and worldview. As a result of developing these dispositions, people from different cultures position the111selves.
In intercultural encounters, the same experience can be categorized as either ground or figure, depending on cultural position. If an experience is perceived as different from your own cultural system of meaning, it is figure. Thus, ‘the figure or difference … stands against everything else (ground)• (Roth, 200 l: 31). Con sider the sight of someone riding a motorcycle during the day with the headlights on (Enfield, 2000: 40). In Australia, this sight is part of the cultural ground be cause Australian traffic authorities recommend that motorcyclists keep their head lights on at all times for reasons of safety. In Laos, this sight is part of the cultural figure because headlights are put on only in emergency situations when the right of way is needed. It is easy to foresee how an Australian biker might be stopped by Laotian traffic authorities and fined for riding with headlights on. In this ex ample, grounding takes the form of different values (safety vs. emergency) and norms (folkways vs. laws).
In other cases, grounding finds its manifestation in cultural attitudes. Mitchell and Wood (1998) report that the state authorities in Brazil have a nega tive attitude toward Afro-Brazilians, perceiving them as potentially more criminal than other Brazilians. As a result, they are more likely to be assaulted by police. Afro-Brazilians suffer discrimination because they stand out as figure, mostly be cause of their skin color.
So, all new experiences appear to us as figure; if accepted, they become part of our cultural ground. Intercultural communication can be seen as a process of trying to figure out (pun intended!) new experiences.
It must be emphasized that, even though cultural meanings arise and are grounded in specific concrete situations, they are never set in concrete. What is perceived by a certain culture at a certain point in time as figure may become part of its ground, and vice versa. For instance, people in Laos might dedde to make it
,I a norm that headlights be kept on by motorcyclists at all times, or the state au thorities in Brazil might change their attitude toward Afro-Brazilians and stop dis criminating against them. The negative attitude toward Afro-Brazilians is likely to be more difficult, yet more necessary, to change: No one likes to be discriminated
against, and so Afro-Brazilians will light to stop discriminatory practices. 1n the case of the headlights, changing a cultural position may be less pressing; it is pos sible to imagine, though, how safety might become a priority and the traffic regu lation change accordingly. In all cases, people from every culture must decide what their position on this or that issue should be. II a culture feels that it is un able to establish a desirable position, it will make an effort to bring about a change, whether through a new traffic rule or a new rule in the criminal justice system.
CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 95
Grounding, therefore, is a dynamic process, driven by relationships between cul tures and their constant search for authority. And this brings us to the second aspect of the Positionality Principle, which deals with the issues of power and control.
Positionality and Authority
Every culture tries to establish its own position in the world, or ground itself. In other words, people from every culture try to create a system of authentic or true meanings. By doing so, cultures claim authority for their vision of the world. Authority can be equated with the ability to lay claims that are accepted. In this sense, “authority is ultimately a matter of power” (Fleischacker, 1994: 84), or the ability to make decisions as to what a cultural position should be. In the example of East Timor, discussed earlier, the ‘internationals” are basically creating a new order; their power, or their authority, is much greater than that of the Timorese people. These adntinistrators, consultants, police, and soldiers are making most of the decisions and having a huge impact on what the culture of East Timor shall be in the future.
So, positionality is not simply a matter of cultures establishing their specific
positions; it is a matter of power relationships between these positions. As Clifford says, “Self-other relations are matters of power and rhetoric rather than of essence” (I 988: 14). Cultures (Self and the Other) are not stable categories (essences), but shifting positions, which are determined by complex relations of power enacted by verbal and nonverbal means (matters of rhetoric).
Every culture claims authority for its vision of the world by using its cultural map to create stories, or narratives. Narrative •refers to a recounting of a se quence of events that is told from a particular point of view” (Hall, 2002: 71)-that is, from a particular position. In a way, every culture tells its own story of the world, or creates its own narratives. In Chapter I, we discussed the example of the heritage museum in Israel where the story about the patriarch Abraham is nar rated by a tour guide (Katriel, 1994: 14). We noted that to Jewish audiences this kind of story sounds like a playful elaboration of a well-known biblical tale, while to Arab audiences the strategy of renaming Abraham as the first Bedouin and en dowing a fantiliar agricultural object with a biblical career is an act of cultural ap propriation. Thus, two cultural authorities clash as a certain segment of the world is narrated from two very different positions.
There are different ways to understand the main functions of narratives. Hall discusses four teaching functions of narratives in intercultural communica tion. He notes that “narratives function to teach us how the world works, our place in the world, how to act in the world, and how to evaluate what goes on in the world” (2002: 73). Also, there are different ways to categorize narratives, from everyday conversations with friends to grand narratives-•stories that can give us certain knowledge of the direction, meaning and moral path of human ‘devel opment’· (Barker, 2000: 21). It might be said that every cultural worldview can
96 CHAPTER FOUR
II
,’,
I
,a I
“‘t
l
,. ‘
”
be seen as a grand narrative. For example, Jewish culture ‘is incomprehensible without the supernatural history in which it is embedded, while Christianity (per haps Buddhism as well) is virtually II story• (Fleischacker, 1994: 71).
Regardless of how narratives are categorized and their functions understood, two criteria for narratives can be isolated: coherence and fidelity (Fisher, 1984). First, for a cultural story to be meaningful, all parts of the narrative must fit to gether; then a narrative meets the criterion of coherence. Second, for a cultural story to be meaningful, the narrative must resonate with people’s beliefs, atti tudes, values, norms, and worldviews; then a narrative meets the criterion of fi delity. When both criteria are met, a narrative turns ‘into a tradition, something passed down from one generation to another’ (Fleischacker, I994: 80), meeting the needs of, and making sense to, people from that culture.
So, •authority is a position” (Fleischacker, 1994: 82). Every culture claims authority for its vision of the world by projecting its gaze, charting out a cultural map, and creating narratives. In other words, every culture collectively claims that the world is thus and so. In this sense, all cultures can be viewed as ‘just so stories.” Every culture claims authority for its understandu,g of the world by cre ating narratives; to people from all cultures, their own stories are the authentic ones. The story of the world is told in many tongues.
Thus, to people from any culture, their cultural maps and their narratives seem true, authentic, and natural (central). It might seem that people from every culture would have the best knowledge of their own position-that is, could speak with authority about the world and their place in it. This ethnocentric view, though, is constantly tested in intercultural encounters. When a culture’s gaze is blind to other cultures, that culture fails to understand what its real position is and how much authority (power) it really has. Therefore, the best way for cultures to determine their positions and power dynamics is through interaction. Positionality presupposes that different cultural positions are engaged in acts of communication.
Positionality as a Process of Engagement
The cartographic metaphor (Munshi & McKie, 200 I) sees the world in terms of a number of mental maps on which cultures see themselves occupying different po sitions; for example, the West sees itself occupying a superior position. These cul tural maps are dynamic, though. So, the essence of intercultural communication can be better represented by the kaleidoscope metaphor, :which views cultural po sitions as constantly changing through the process of engagement, whereby peo ple from different cultures present claims that their narratives represent the true vision of the world.
Cultural positions are situated (grounded), not given; they are developed through intercultural communication as complex dynamics of authority, or power relations. When people from different cultures come into contact, their positions are engaged. For instance, the U.S. position on its role in winning the Second World War is seen differently when the British and Russian perspectives are en-
–
CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 97
gaged. The U.S. position shifts, as if in a kaleidoscope, from that of a crucial player to that of a minor player in the last phase of the war.
In intercultural interactions, whether a culture’s authority is a source of power depends on whether it is accepted or rejected by other cultures. The au thority of what a culture presents as its knowledge of the world depends on ac knowledgment by people from other cultures. Hence, the more others accept a culture’s system of meanings, the more authority the culture has and the more ground it covers, so to speak. As a result, its position becomes more powerful. People from one culture may not accept another culture’s position on some thing-that is, they may deny its authority. They may feel that their core values are being undermined by foreign influence such as advertising or media. As a re sult, resistance may become one of their main rhetorical intercultural strategies. The strategy of resistance comes into play when a culture feels that its au thority is being threatened or weakened by other cultures. The ethnocentric, or central, position the culture has held so naturally is now challenged; the culture starts losing ground, as it were, to other cultures whose positions may now be come central. establishing new ground. Interesting evidence of this phenomenon is found in the practice of self-labeling, whereby people from a certain culture identify themselves through various verbal labels. One recent study revealed re sistance of white Americans to self-labels such as “White” and “Caucasian” (Mar tin et al., 1996). Many subjects mocked the survey, and a large number of unusable responses were generated. These results illustrate that white Americans occupy a privileged (central) position; for them, this position is situated as “nat ural.” They have more power because they make more decisions about how things should be done. They resist (consciously or not) looking at themselves from an other (peripheral) position because that suggests other cultures might see them differently, which would challenge their central position. In other words, white Americans do not consider–0r refuse to consider-that their whiteness (as ground) may lose its central place and be replaced by another color (another cul ture). Thus, resistance is a natural strategy aimed at keeping undesirable cultural positions at bay and reinforcing one’s own cultural position. We will discuss the nature of resistance as a strategy of intercultural communication in more detail in
Chapter 10.
Earlier we showed how every culture aims to establish authority for its vision of the world by creating narratives. It is now clear that different cultures engage in interaction with each other, claiming their own visions of the world. Overall, “no one narrative can capture every possible aspect of a series of events, so what is told and how it is told inescapa ly express a point of view” (Hall, 2002: 71). It is not surprising, therefore, to find any grand narrative claiming universal truth at tacked or “deconstructed” (see Young, 1996).
“Positionality is thus determined by where one stands in relation to ‘the other'” (Merriam et al., 2001: 411). It is impossible for a culture to determine its real position without engaging other cultures’ perspectives. Of course, dealing with positionality as engagement is easier when intercultural encounters are successful
(
I’
I
I
‘
1
‘
,
,
.
‘
I
1
•
!I
“I,
,
I
.
.,
)•
98 CHAPTER FOUR
and people from all interacting cultures feel good about themselves. It is more difficult, yet more important, to engage other perspectives when relationships be tween cultures are very asymmetrical. Richard Rorty, a well-known American philosopher, reminds Americans how important it is for their national pride to re member the horrors of the past, such as slavery, massacres, segregation, discrimi nation, and wars; similar horrors can be found in many nations’ histories. He advocates that Americans never engage in such behaviors again (Rorty, 1998). However, this laudable approach must be taken a step further; in addition to promising never to do it again, the United States should engage the perspectives of others, such as the descendants of the enslaved and the massacred tribes and the survivors of Vietnam. ‘Without the help of the face of the other (the victim)… , the latter’s perspective cannot begin to comprehend the enormity of the act” (Abdel-Naur, 2000: 223). 1n other words, people from different cultures must en gage each other’s perspectives if they truly want to comprehend themselves, to understand their real positions. In a sense, people must face reality through inter cultural interactions. 1n Chapters 9 and 10, we will discuss in detail what may hap pen if people from different cultures go against reality and fail to see each other’s positions.
Speaking of intercultural engagement, an analogy can be drawn between
learning intercultural communication and learning foreign languages (Blair, 2000: 33). It is known that a second language is easier to learn than the first one, and the reason for that may have less to do with the structure of a particular language than with a change in our relation to the native language. We come to realize that our native language is only one way of looking at the world, and not the ‘key· to re ality! It turns out there are other views of the world, reflected in language. Once we come to terms with this fact, it becomes easier to learn and appreciate other languages. The same goes for communicating with people from other cultures. In tercultural communication is a matter of multiple positions, and ours, no matter how natural and authoritative it may seem, is just one of many. If we want to learn more about the world (and ourselves!), we need to engage in intercultural communication.
The Positionality Principle Defined
Let’s now give a more concise formulation of the Positionality Principle, based on the above discussion of its three parts.
First, our cultural knowledge is always situated, and people from every cul ture look at the world and their place in it from a particular point of view. The process of establishing a specific cultural position is called grounding.
Second, positionality is not simply a matter of cultures establishing their spe cific positions; it is a matter of power relations between these positions. When cul tures establish their positions (ground themselves), they claim authority for their vision of the world. But the authority of what a culture presents as its knowledge depends on acknowledgment by other cultures. In intercultural interactions, a cul-
CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 99
ture’s power depends on whether its system of meanings is accepted or rejected by other cultures.
Third, it is impossible for a culture to determine its real position without en
gaging other cultures’ perspectives. When people from different cultural groups come into contact, their positions are activated, and changes in their systems of meanings take place.
In a nutshell, the Positionality Principle can be formulated as follows:
Intercu/tural communication is a process whereby people from different cultures claim authority for their vision of the world.
The Positionality Principle is important because it reveals the nature of eth nocentrism as an inherent human condition, while also highlighting its dangers for intercultural communication. The Positionality Principle helps us to look at in tercultural communication in a more relational way. It is important to understand that our cultural knowledge is always specific-that is, relative to a particular point of view-and we cannot help engaging in intercultural communication from that particular point of view. This is true for all cultures: Their knowledge is rela tive to their point of view. In intercultural communication, ‘it all depends!• When we communicate, our specific perspectives are engaged, and we all strive to keep our ground.
So, now we know what happens to cultural meanings as they are performed and enacted. They are grounded, helping cultures to position themselves in the world.
Summary
In this chapter, the following problem question was posed: What happens to cul tural meanings as they are performed and enacted? To answer that question, we looked at the process of constructing cultural meaning as charting out a cultural map.
\
(
I\.,
)I
1I,I
rl
(
I
)11
I
I.
We saw that cultural maps are dynamic formations and contain such cate gories as beliefs, attitudes, values, norms, and worldviews. This way, people from different cultures move from sensing the world to making sense of it.
With the help of a cultural gaze, we establish our orientation in the world. The starting point of our cultural gaze is ethnocentrism as an inherent human con dition. Ethnocentrism was presented, first and foremost, as a central point of ref erence that every culture needs in order to understand the world and itself. We discussed two dangers of ethnocentrism: ethnocentric reduction and ethnocentric negation. It was shown that effective intercultural communication, based on pos itive ethnocentrism, requires treating people from other cultures as both Self and Not-Self at the same time.
Based on these ideas, intercultural communication was presented as a mat ter of positionality. We demonstrated that cultures occupy specific positions.
100 CHAPTER FOUR
When they interact, their cultural gaze makes it possible for them to see the world and their own place in it. In this process, cultural meanings are generated; that is, our culture is grounded. Everything that we experience as a result of an intercul tural encounter and find meaningful is framed and becomes part of our culture, our •common ground.•
Also, we saw that positionality is not simply a matter of people from differ ent cultures establishing their specific positions; it is a matter of power relations between these positions. Intercultural encounters were presented as sites of power distributions. Every culture claims authority for its understanding of the world by creating narratives. To people from all cultures, their own stories are authentic. However, the real power of every culture depends on whether its system of mean ings is accepted or rejected by people from other cultures. That is why it is impos sible for a culture to determine its real position without engaging other cultures’. perspectives.
Based on these ideas, the Positionality Principle was !ormulated.
You might be wondering how, if everything in intercultural communication is a matter of a specific point of view, it is possible for cultures to communicate. Can cultures engage in interaction at all? There must be something general that people from all cultures can relate to-some common ground. We will discuss this question in the next chapter. We will try to find out whether there are any gen• era!standards that make intercultural communication possible.
i”
I .
(
36
CHAPTER
TWO
two
notebooks,
coincide?
The
answer
of
course
is
that
the
two
will
not
be
identi cal.
The
reason
fm
this
discrepancy
is
dearly
not
due
to
the
nature
ol
the
event,
but
rather
to
the
fact
that
the
observers
were
different,
psychologically
and
culturally.
So,
as
Heisenberg
would
have
suggested,
the
true
nature
of
the
event
is
indeter minable. (
1
999:
64)
)
I
n every intercultural interaction, we try to capture and represent meaning so that we can use it in the future. In a way, we approach every situation of in tercultural interaction as if it consisted of ‘things,• or small particles, and srrive to discover their exact meaning; this approach is found in the objective view of knowledge. But, as you remember, every situation is dynamic because “things• re late to other things, creating continual motion like that of a wave; this approach is found in the subjective view of knowledge. Thus, it is possible to discover the exact meaning of something with only a degree of certainty, which implies a de gree of uncertainty as well.
Introducing the Uncertainty Principle
(
l
)Now, on the basis of the discussion above, we can introduce the second principle underlying intercultural communication: the Uncertainty Principle. There are three parts to this principle, and each deals with the nature of our knowledge about our interactions with people from other cultures. First, we will discuss im certainty in terms of horizon of knowledge. Next, we will present intercultural communication as a process of dis-closure. Finally, we will show how uncertainty is linked to order. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Un- certainty Principle as a whole. ·
Uncertainty and Horizon of Knowledge
Uncertainty refers to our cognitive inability to predict or–explain •our own or others’ feelings and behaviors in interactions• (Chen & Starosta, 1998: 122). Two kinds of uncertainty are often isolated: predictive and explanatory. Predictive uncertainty is the inability to predict what someone will say or do, while explanatory uncertainty is the inability to explain why people behave as they do (Martin & Nakayama, 2000: 210).
Uncertainty usually evokes anxiety, which is considered to be its affective equivalent (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 329). Higher levels of uncertainty and anx iety directly correlate with increased communication apprehension (Neuliep & Ryan, 1998).
The Uncertainty Management Theory (Gudykunst, 1995; Gudykunst &
L
ee, 2002) sees the goal of intercultural communication as seeking information to re duce uncertainty and increase the predictability of our interactions with the Other. Ideally, it seems, uncertainty would be eliminated from our intercultural interac tions, but can it be? Can we be absolutely confident that our knowledge is certain
1
L
CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 37
and complete? Can we honestly say that the way we have predicted or explained something excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future? We can try to know everything there is to know about our selves, about people from other cultures, and about how to interact with them, but can we succeed?
Earlier, it was shown that the line between objective reality and its subjec tive interpretation is always uncertain. Now let’s take this thesis a step further and look at intercultural communication, using a modification of the Johari Window model (Luft, 1970). Our model consists of four areas of awareness (or ‘window panes’) in the context of interaction (see Figure 3).
The first area, the Open Window, contains the information that others know about you and that you are aware of. The second area, the Closed Window, con tains the information that you know about yourself, but others do not know about you. The third area, the Blind Window, contains the information that other peo ple know about you, but you do not know. And the fourth area, the Unknown Window, contains the information that is unknown to both you and others.
In their interactions, people from different cultures share some information about themselves (Open Window). At the same time, people from one culture keep to themselves some information that people from the other culture are not aware of (Closed Window) and are unaware of some information that people from the other culture have about them (Blind Window). Intercultural commu nication takes place against the backdrop of some information that is not known to people from either culture (Unknown Window).
Consider the following situation (see Cohen, 1999: 224). Two persons, one from an Asian culture and the other from a Western culture, are engaged in busi ness negqtiations. At some point it becomes obvious to both parties that the ne gotiations are leading nowhere, yet the Asian suggests that a document be signed, presenting the negotiations as a success. The Westerner might view this behavior as frustrating or even ethically questionable. The Westerner might take offense and withdraw from the negotiations or, on the contrary, vow not to go away and insist that the negotiations continue. That behavior, in tum, might be perceived by the Asian as unnecessarily unpleasant and excessively persistent. To the Asian, accord is essential, to preserve appearances and maintain the impression that the
(
I
Open
11
Blind
I
Closed
11
Unknown
I
)Known to self
Known to others
Known to others
Not known to othersI
FIGURE 3 Applkation of Johar! Window to Intercultural Communication
38 CHAPTER TWO
I ,I
1
I
negotiations have concluded on a basis of mutual respect and equal standing. Be sides, there is always a hope that, in the future, things might change and tum out all right.
First, these two people share some information about themselves: The Asian suggests that a document be signed, and the Westerner objects. This part of the in tercultural exchange forms its Open Window. Second, each person holds some in formation that the other is not aware of: The Asian wants to preserve appearances, while the Westerner wants to be straightforward. This part of the intercultural ex change forms its Closed Window. Third, both parties are unaware of some infor mation about them held by the other: The Asian is unaware that he or she is coming across as lazy or unethical, while the Westerner is unaware that he or she is coming across as stubborn and inconsiderate. This part of the intercultural ex change forms its Blind Window. Fourth, there is always the possibility that this situation may change, taking a new twist. Thus, this exchange contains informa tion that is not known to either party (Unknown Window).
Figure 4 shows intercultural interactions in terms of the areas of awareness discussed above. The shared area in the middle represents the Open Window; the areas on the left and right represent the Closed Window (Self’s view of Self) and the Blind Window (Other’s view of Self); and the background area represents the Unknown Window.
Every situation of intercultural interaction appears before us like a horizon: It seems to stand still, but in reality it does not. We move closer trying to reach it, and it moves away. Thus, the picture we see is always somewhat different-and limited to our view. What we have in front of us, in fact, is a viewing window. We try to see more of what is behind the left edge, and we inevitably lose some infor mation on the right. We try to see more of what is behind the right edge, and we
inevitably lose some information on the left. And something always remains un
1 knowable. We must stress ‘the function of the unknown· because “concerned as
we are with what we do, we cannot forget that we are all limited individuals, most interested in those facts relevant to the course of our lives, having to make deci sions before we have all the information a pure seeker alter knowledge would re quire• (Fleischacker, 1994: 50-51).
FIGURE4
L
, I
I
CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE !N !NTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 39
Thus, every situation of intercultural communication is characterized by a
horizon of knowledge-that is, a different degree of reach of knowledge. Like a
horizon, knowledge in intercultural communication is never completely reached.
‘i
In other words, seemingly static cultural realities are, in fact, dynamic by nature I I
and always open to new interpretation. One of Gary Larson’s cartoons makes this point very well. In the cartoon, an ostrich, sitting in a bar holding a cocktail glass, is saying to the woman next to him, “Well, according to the dictionary, I’m just a large, flightless bird from East Africa But believe me, Doris-once you get to
(
I
)know me, you’ll see I’m much, much more than that.• ‘I
So, we cannot be absolutely confident that our understanding is certain and complete; intercultural communication is inherently variable and subject to rein• terpretation. We can never say that the way we have predicted or explained some thing excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future. We must acknowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication.
Since uncenainty in intercultural communication cannot be avoided, we must deal with it. That is to say, we must share information with others and un· derstand their information ourselves. As a result, intercultural communication can be seen as a process of dis-closure.
Uncertainty and Dis-closure
Disclosure is usually defined as the process of ‘regulation of information flow be· tween the self and the outer world” (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 188). Often, this process is also labeled “self-disclosure’ (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 333).
‘Self-disclosure occurs among people of all cultures• (Lustig & Koester, 2003: 284), although there are cultural differences in the breadth, depth, valence, and targets of the self-disclosure (for more information, see Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 333-334; Lustig & Koester, 2003: 284-285; Ting-Toomey, 1999: 188-189). Breadth refers to the range of topics of self-disclosure-for example, whether they include interests, tastes, financial matters, and physical condition. Depth refers to the level of information revealed in the process of self-disclosure-superficial or intimate. Valence refers to whether the information revealed in the process of self disclosure is positive (favorable to self} or negative (unfavorable to self). The tar• get of self-disclosure is the person to whom information is given, such as a same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, spouse, or acquaintance. –
When people engage in self-disclosure, they aim to open up their cultural identity, as it were, and share it with people from other cultures. In this respect, disclosure can be viewed as a process of opening up all the windows of awareness. During this process, people from each culture share information about themselves, which varies in terms of its breadth, depth, valence, and targets. However, as we saw earlier, they can never be confident that this information is cenain and com plete. First, people from one culture keep to themselves some information that people from the other culture are not aware of (Closed Window}. Second, there is always some information that people from one culture are unaware that people
40 CHAPTER TWO
from the other culture have about them (Blind Window). Third, in every inter cultural situation there is some inJormation that is not known 😮 people from ei ther of the interacting cultures (Unknown Window). So, disclosure always contains some missing information for people from another culture. From this perspective, intercultural communication between Self and the Other can be rep resented as shown in Figure 5.
Now, let’s see how the Other reacts to information revealed by Self. In this process, three strategies for dealing with uncenainty can be isolated-passive, ac tive, and interactive (Berger, 1979):
The passive strate9y entails reflective observations concerning the verbal and non verbal performance of the individual whom you are interested in getting to know. The active strate9y refers to seeking out information from a third person about the in terests and hobbies of the individual of interest. Lastly, the interactive strate9y refers to the direct interaction between yourself and that person. (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 189)
(
7
) (
‘
)Using these three strategies, people from another culture (the Other) try to un derstand the new information they receive, based on the previous knowledge they have. This way, people aim to build a bridge between what they know and what they want to know. When a connection between the two is made, a pattern is es tablished; that is, closure is reached. Closure involves a process of li!ling in missing information. In other words, closure is a process for dealing with uncenainty whereby an incomplete stimulus is perceived to be complete (d. Bernstein et al.,
(
I
)I 1988: 632). It is as ii people tried to close the windows of awareness, thereby re ducing uncenainty in intercultural interactions. However, as we saw earlier, uncer
l tainty cannot be completely removed from intercultural interactions; we can never
reach the horizon, and the windows of awareness cannot be shut down once and for all. Thus, closure is a process of closing down windows of awareness that always contains some missing information. From this perspective, intercultural communi cation between Self and the Other can be represented as shown in Figure 6.
! FIGURE 5 lntercultural Communication from the Perspective of Disclosure
L.
CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 41
FIGURE 6 Intercultural Communication from the Perspective of Closure
In intercultural communication, every culture acts as both Self and the
Other; sending and receiving information and thus using both disclosure and clo t sure. So, overall, intercultural communication can be presented as a process of l dis-closure (see Figure 7). !’
In this process, people from different cultures together construct knowledge ‘
of their own and each other’s identities and how to interact with each other. This
knowledge must be viewed like a giant dynamic puzzle, in which some pieces are
always missing.
You remember that disclosure was defined as a process of open ing up the windows of awareness that always contains some missing information, while closure was defined as a process of closing down the windows of awareness that always contains some missing information. Notice that, in both cases, some information is always missing-the knowledge constructed in the process of dis closure always contains some uncertainty.
This view of interactions between people from different cultures seems to be quite pessimistic. It is tempting, on the one hand, to fight this view with full de termination to find all missing pieces, aiming to complete the giant puzzle of in tercultural communication. As we saw earlier, however, this extreme approach is unproductive because it leads to a predetermined order. On the other hand, it is tempting to give in to this view, allowing the giant puzzle of intercultural
FIGURE7
42 CHAPTER TWO
communication to break into countless pieces and dealing with each piece indi vidually. As we saw earlier, however, this extreme approach is also unproductive because it leads to chaos.
So, what should we do with the uncertainty that is built into all intercultural interactions?
Order out of Uncertainty
The view of intercultural communication as a process of dis-closure with a hori zon of knowledge is not really pessimistic. We must not equate uncertainty with impossibility of intercultural communication. In fact, the opposite is true! We must acknowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural commu nication and, because it is unavoidable, deal with it. The rich history of intercul tural communication shows eloquently how people, over the centuries, have dealt
with uncertainty.
(
l
)Recall the example cited earlier of the North American and Tagalog scientists observing the same event and taking notes. It continues as follows:
So, as Heisenberg would have suggested, the true nature ol the event is indeter minable, although it can be investigated further, paradoxically, on the basis of the notes taken by these two scientists. (Danesi & Perron, 1999: 64; italics added)
Not only can it be, but it must be! For that is the only way to communicate-by comparing your notes or, figuratively, your perspectives of the same event from your respective •viewing windows,· In Chapter 5, we will discuss in depth how and why different cultures compare their perspectives. Right now, let’s emphasize that knowledge-in spite of or thanks to its unavoidable uncertainty-must be seen as a basis for intercultural communication. Order is created out of uncer tainty.
You might be having mixed feelings about the Uncertainty Principle, think
ing that it sounds too philosophical, too academic, and too impractical. True, a per son with an uncertainty approach to intercultural communication might be seen as lacking self-confidence and unable to make decisions. Uncertainty values are not always encouraged, especially by Western cultures. But •humans should rec ognize that the possibility of certainty or complete predictability is an illusion and that believing this possibility is a product of an erroneous Western attempt to con trol nature” (Bradac, 2001: 546). We should also remember that ·indeterminate organisms possess expandable or ‘open’ boundaries that enable them to continue to grow and alter their patterns indefinitely” (Hoffmeyer, 1999: 337). Uncertainty opens a free space for change and evolution; it is the major force of creativity.
In this dynamic world, to be always certain might not be to your advantage. When you go beyond the boundary lines of your culture, you will discover, sooner or later, that the world cannot always be relied upon to meet your expectations. Being always certain often leads to intolerance, prejudice, and violence. To recog-
CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCIJLTIJRAL COMMUNICATION 43
nize the Uncertainty Principle means to encourage humility and creativity and to take responsibility for your actions, admitting errors and seeking improvement. Without a degree of uncertainty, there would be no advancement of knowledge. Remember that ‘the development of self requires a kind of ‘enlightened indeter minacy’-a willingness to embrace ambiguity and uncertainty as an integral part of everyday life’ (Eisenberg, 2001: 534).
So, think of the Uncertainty Principle in a positive sense. Think of it the way Mary Bateson does. In her book Full Circles, Overlapping Lives: Culture and Generation in Transition, she has this to say:
We live with strangers. Those we love most, with whom we share a shelter, a table, a bed, remain mysterious. Wherever lives overlap and flow together, there are depths of unknowing. Parents and children, partners, siblings, and friends repeat edly surprise us, revealing the need to learn where we are most at home. We even surprise ourselves in our own becoming, moving through the cycles of our lives. There is strangeness hidden in the familiar. (2000: 27)
So-let themystery be!
The Uncertainty Principle Defined
Let’s now give a more concise formulation of the Uncertainty Principle, based on the above discussion of its three parts.
First, we cannot be absolutely confident that our understanding of intercul tural interactions is certain and complete. Intercultural communication is inher ently variable and subject to reinterpretation; in other words, our interpretations of new cultural experiences have a degree of uncertainty. We can never say that
!)le way we have predicted or interpreted something excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future. We must ac knowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication. Second, intercultural communication can be presented as a process of dis closure, or simultaneous opening up and closing down of the windows of aware ness. In this process, people from different cultures together construct knowledge of their own and each other’s identities (Self and the Other) and how to interact with each other. This knowledge is like a giant dynamic puzzle with some pieces
always missing.
Third, different interpretations of the same experiences form the basis of in tercultural communication, as shared order is created out of uncertainty.
In a nutshell, the Uncertainty Principle can be formulated as follows:
Intercultural communication is a process whereby people from different cultures constantly search for knowledge of how to interact with one another against the background of uncertainty.
60 CHAPTER THREE
cons
i
stent with the so-called performative approach in social studies (K
,
apchan,
1
995; Schechner, 2002; Warren 2001). According to this approach, to perform is to carry something into effect; hence, intercultural communication can be viewed as a process of carrying meaning, or cultural identity, as such, into effect.
When we speak of performativity or performance in intercultural communi cation, we must remember that
“
performance is the manifestation of performa tivity. This is to say, performativity refers to the reiterative process of becoming, while performance refers to the materialization of that process-the individual acts by human players in the world” (Warren, 2001: 106; boldface added)
The performative approach suggests that intercultural communication is per formed, like music. There are a variety of verbal and nonverbal elements (notes), with which people create various language games (music). Some games are quite simple (a routine greeting), while others are more complex (business negotia tions).
I
n all cases, though, meanings are performed; that is, they are created and re-created in the process of interaction. People perform various activities repeat edly, and through repetition these movements become symbolic resources making up cultural identity. In intercultural interactions, to use Nietzsche
‘
s expression, “the deed is everything” (quoted in Butler, 1990: 25).
,11
I
“I
I
,,
‘l
I,
Introducing the Performativity Principle
Looking at intercultural communication as performance, we will formulate our third principle of intercultural communication: the Perfo.rmativity Principle. There are three parts to this principle, and each deals with intercultural communication as creating and enacting meaning in the process of interaction. First, we will dis cuss the dramaturgy of intercultural performativity, or how people move from rules to roles. Next, we will present intercultural communication as a reiterative process. Finally, we will show the structure of intercultural communication as per formance. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Performa tivity Principle as a whole.
The Dramaturgy of Performativity:
From Rules to Roles
Communication as Drama. When people communicate with one another, they try to reach their goals by using various language means. Every act of com munication is a performance whereby people lace each other (either literally or in a mediated fashion, such as via the telephone or the Internet) and, as if on stage, present themselves-their very identities-dramatically to each other.
The theatrical or dramaturgical metaphor for communication does not sug
gest that people perform actions according to predetermined scripts or that per formances are insincere and deceitful. Nor does the theatrical metaphor suggest that people think of themselves as actors, always conscious of performing on stage. What the dramaturgical view of performativity states is that all people engage in
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 61
role enactment, playing out their identities. The premise of this view is that “peo ple are not, originally and in some factlike way, ‘mothers,’ ‘surgeons,’ or ‘crazy.
‘ I
nstead, they are cast into these roles by themselves and by others” (Brown, 1977: 199). In other words, all roles are created in the process of communication. Even in the most mundane situations, such as a casual conversation with a friend, the inieractlon is always a performance, a process of playing a certain role and pre senting a certain impression, or “face.”
Performance and Face. The concept of face refers to the cultural identity we present to others (Goffman, 1959). Our cultural face embodies all meanings with which we identify, and, obviously, we want to present it according to our goals. Naturally, people from other cultures want to present their face according to their goals. In this light, intercultural communication can be seen as facework-an elaborate process whereby people from different cultures present their identities to each other, trying to play a language game together and accomplish their tasks. In this process, roles are enacted and impressions of identities are managed. In fact, there is a special theory-Identity Management Theory-that discusses how peo ple from different cultures manage face in their encounters (Cupach & Imahori, 1993). This theory argues that cultural identities are revealed through the pre sentation of face and that “the maintenance of face is a natural and inevitable con dition of° human interaction” (Cupach & Imahori, 1993: 116). Therefore, “intercultural communication competence involves successfully managing face” (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 120). If people fail to present the face that they desire, a role fails to be enacted, and intercultural communication as a performance can not be consid,;red successful.
Performance and Frames. So, in every intercultural encounter, people from one culture present a certain image of themselves and act so that this image is un derstood by people from another culture. This is done by using various forms of verbal and nonverbal language, as we discussed earlier-“insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age, and racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech pat terns; facial expressions; bodily gestures; and the like” (Goffman, 1959: 13). As a result, every intercultural encounter is framed; a frame is a definition or an in terpretation of what a certain situation means (Goffman, 1974). People from var ious cultures have their own frames for such interactions as weddings, job interviews, and lectures. Every cultural frame can be viewed as a language game played according to certain rules. Naturally, if the same situation is framed differ ently by people from different cultures, intercultural communication as perfor mance cannot be effective. The offer oi a cup of coffee discussed earlier is one such situation; what was meant (framed) as an invitation to establish a friendly rela tionship was interpreted (framed) as a mere offer of a beverage.
Cultural identities spotlight every act of communication as performance. In other words, people find themselves in the spotlights provided by their respective cultures. This area, illustrated in Figure 5, constitutes the stage where intercultural performances take place and roles are enacted.
II
Ii
(
11
)I
I.
II
62 CHAPTER THREE
•
FIGURES
Thus, the drarnaturgical view of performance shows us that intercultural communication is a process of playing out our identities by moving from rules to roles. We must emphasize that this enacting of roles is a process and takes time and effort.
Performativity as a Reiterative Process
We will begin this section by looking at intercultural communication in two ways. We will view it first as an ethnographic encounter and second as culture shock. We will then explain what both views have in common and how it all re lates to the concept of perlormativity.
Intercultural Communication as an Ethnographic Encounter. Ethnog raphy is •a method of interpreting actions in a manner that generates under standing in the terms of those performing the actions” (Wood, 2000: 130). Ethnographers “study the diversity and urtity of cultural performance as a uni versal human resource for deepening and clarifying the meaningfulness of life” (Conquergood, 1985: 1). Interpretation of different cultural experiences is not only the province of trained ethnographers; it is what all people do when they meet one another. In this respect, intercultural commurtication can be viewed as a constant series of ethnographic encounters.
What are the main steps Sell takes as it interacts with the Other? Let’s look at a simple example of an intercultural encounter. Suppose you, a person from England, find yourself in Saudi Arabia and want to buy a Valentine’s Day gilt for a friend.
You go into a store and ask a simple question, “Where can I buy Valentine’s
Day gilts?” To your surprise, the salesperson is horrified and quickly disappears. Obviously, your intercultural encounter was not successful, and your ethno graphic experience produced a negative result. But why did you act that way in
·1
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 63
the first place? Because you assumed that Valentine’s Day was celebrated every where and expected to perform such a routine business transaction as buying a gilt without any difficulty. This first step you took on your way to understanding the Other can be called ‘introspection.’ Introspection refers to using one’s own frame of reference in dealing with others. In our intercultural encounters, we cannot help relying on our own working models and expectations, and we be come aware of cultural differences when they are brought to light by an unsuc cessful encounter. Introspection is our default mechanism, so to speak, and it is activated each time we have an intercultural encounter.
You might have failed to buy a Valentine’s Day gift, but you have not given up on buying one-and gaining more knowledge about the culture of Saudi Ara bia. So you decide to stay in the store; you want to see if other buyers will have more luck. Soon another customer comes in, and another salesperson, who seems
to be more perceptive and less scared, shows him a large selection of Valentine .1
items and sells him a Valentine’s Day gilt. Now you know that Valentine’s Day
gifts are available in Saudi Arabia, and you are proud of having gained this piece of cultural knowledge. This step can be called observation-paying attention or noting a phenomenon. This is exactly what you did; you acted as an observer (by not stepping out of the store), and it paid off.
Now you know that Valentine’s Day gilts are available in Saudi Arabia, but you are still far from understanding the meaning of the behaviors you have ob served. You decide to dress in your best Western clothes and try another store. You strike up a conversation with a salesperson, telling him you come from Eng land and want to send your friend a Valentine gift. Your guess is that the sales person will h1tve nothing to fear and will be eager to help you. You guess right, and minutes later you walk out of the store with a nice teddy bear, with “Love” and “Me” traced on two paws. The step you just took can be called experiment examining the validity of a hypothesis. This is exactly what you did; you came up with a guess, set up the situation, and confirmed your guess. The result is the teddy bear-and another insight into the culture of Saudi Arabia.
However, you still cannot quite see the practice of buying a Valentine gilt in Saudi Arabia from the point of view of those native to that culture-salespeople and customers, whose encounters seemed to you like a well-choreographed dance. You feel that something is still missing, and you cannot be sure that your next intercultural encounter in a similar situation will be successful. Fortunately, you are on your way to meet a young person from Saudi Arabia who had stayed at your house back in England as an exchange student. He speaks good English and seems to be very open-minded and eager to talk. So you describe your shop ping adventure to him and ask for an explanation. This is how you find out that officially Valentine’s Day is prohibited in Saudi Arabia, but it is difficult to ban peo ple, especially young people, from celebrating the holiday. You learn that the feared muttawa, or religious police, visit stores to try to ensure that everyone obeys the law. You also learn that salespeople can usually tell real buyers (espe cially those dressed in Western clothes or obviously from other cultures) from undercover religious police. Finally, you are told that stores usually sell the gilt
64 CHAPTER THREE
items weeks in advance; as February 14 gets closer, it becomes more difficult to find Valentine gifts in stores because the religious police begin looking for any thing suggesting the holiday. You are amazed to learn all this information and feel that now you can really understand the meaning of the cultural practices associ ated with Valentine’s Day from the point of view of the people native to Saudi Arabia. This last step that you took can be called interview, for this is exactly what you did-you asked questions, as in an interview.
With each step, you have come closer to the Other (culture of Saudi Arabia). You have become more actively involved in intercultural communication, moving from simply using your own frame of reference (introspection) to passively look ing at the situation (observation) to setting up a situation and validating your guess (experiment) to asking questions (interview). As a result of this ethnographic en counter, you have gained important knowledge about the people of Saudi Arabia, and you should be able to communicate with them more successfully the next time you find yourself in that country and need to buy a Valentine gift. Thus, in your ethnographic encounter, you have taken several important steps, coming back to Self and changing your own frame of reference (see Figure 6).
Intercultural Communication as Culture Shock. When people act as ethno graphers in intercultural communication, they may find -it difficult to adjust to new situations. For example, one might react to the situation described above with a variety of thoughts (‘Why did that salesperson refuse to talk to me?’), emotions (“This is very frustrating!”), and behaviors (“
I’
m leaving this country tonight!’). As was mentioned earlier in the book, culture shock, as the name suggests, is people’s reaction to an attempt to adjust to new situations (Oberg, 1960). lntercultural communication is a process of constantly dealing with culture shock.
Culture shock can be viewed as a process involving several stages (see Fumhan & Bochner, 1986; Winkelman, 1994). Let’s break down your experience in Saudi Arabia into its main stages.
First of all, even before getting to Saudi Arabia, you formed some expecta tions about people from that culture and how to interact with them. This first stage of culture shock can be called the preliminary stage; it sets the tone for your in tercultural journey.
‘ll
(
‘
)’• .”,
I
I
(
Observation
)FIGURE 6 Ethnographic Encounter
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 65
As soon as you got to Saudi Arabia, you became excited about all the new things you encountered in the culture. You were fascinated by the exotic foods, beautiful architecture, and peculiar dress. This stage of culture shock can be called the “honeymoon” stage. Back home in England, you had done your home work, read travel books, and formed your expectations. And now, finally, you were in Saudi Arabia for the first time, and of course you were very excited!
Then you remembered that February 14 was coming up and decided to send your friend back home a gift for Valentine’s Day. You stepped into a store and asked that simple question: “Where can I buy Valentine’s Day gifts?” To your sur prise, the salesperson was horrified and quickly disappeared. Naturally, you were puzzled and frustrated. You felt confused and rejected. This is the crisis stage of culture shock. As the name suggests, it is a critical stage; either you give up and leave the store (and perhaps the country) or you try to find out what is going on. Fortunately, you started to observe other customers and then decided to set up an experiment. As a result, you learned that Valentine’s Day gifts are available in Saudi Arabia, and you felt better about your stay there.
Later, you spoke with your Saudi friend about your experience, learning much more about Valentine’s Day in that culture. Your confusion and feelings of hostility and rejection disappeared. You decided you could live with the cultural practices associated with Valentine’s Day. This is the adjustment stage of culture shock.
When you plan your next trip to Saudi Arabia, you will keep these travel ex
periences in mind. The next time you need to buy a Valentine gift there, you will be able to accomplish that task successfully, without as much shock. Thus, in deal ing with culture shock, you went through several important stages, coming back to Self and changing your preliminary expectations (see Figure 7).
Intercultural Communication as a Hermeneutic Circle. What is common to viewing intercultural communication as an ethnographic encounter and as cul ture shock? Both views show how Self goes through certain steps, or stages, in order to understand how to interact with the Other. In both cases, Self moves closer and closer to understanding the Other and then goes back to square one (one’s own frame of reference). Thus, in this complex process, Sell operates
I.
,
‘I
“,I
(
•
Honeymoon
Crisis
)
FIGURE 7 Stages of Culture Shock
I,
66 CHAPTER THREE
I•
II
I !I
‘Ii.’
between two extremes-identifying with the Other and keeping distant from the Other. This process of understanding meaning is sometimes described as a hermeneutic circle, where distance-experiences and near-experiences are in constant rotation (Geertz, 1983). First, Self looks at the Other from a distance (distance-experience). Then Self gets closer to the Other, trying to understand its meanings from within (near-experiences). These meanings, however, can be un derstood only if Self steps back and checks how these new experiences fit his or her own frame of reference (distance-,:xperiences). But then Self must again move back closer to the Other (near-experiences), and the cycle continues.
In this process, Self has to balance two roles: those of insider and outsider, or actor and spectator. If Self completely identifies with the people from the other culture-that is, becomes an actor-Self ceases to see how she or he is different from the Other and thereby loses the framework from which to approach the Other. As a result, Self can no longer be a spectator of the language game being created and is no longer able to evaluate the intercultural experience and decide what meanings should and should not be enacted. This scenario of intercultural interactions can be viewed as assimilation, in which individuals disregard their own cultural tradition in favor of the tradition of another culture. Of course, if Self chooses to completely distance himself or herself from contact with the Other, no intercultural communication takes place. Then Self is merely a spectator, unable to act together with the Other and create meanings. This scenario of intercultural interactions can be viewed as separation, in which individuals tend to favor their own cultural tradition and disregard the tradition of a new culture. The best way to balance the roles of insider and outsider, or actor and spectator, is through in tegration, in which individuals have a truly bicultural identity. (We will discuss the nature and value of intercultural integration in Chapters 8, 9, and 10.)
The hermeneutic circle can be viewed as the stage where all intercultural performances take place. It is important to remember, however, that no spectators exist separately from the actors on that stage; people are both actors and specta tors. As actors, people simultaneously write and perform their script together, cre ating and re-creating their world. As spectators, people watch the results of their creations. But they exist on the same stage, in the same world. Remember Shake speare-‘A/1 the world’s a stage• (italics added)? Only people who interact with one another can take care of their world and write a good script in which every body tries to get along with everybody else.
For the sake of the example, we have assumed that you as Self are comfort able with the role you have enacted in the intercultural performance-that of a Western customer willing to perform, in essence, an illegal act in order to show af fection for your friend back in England. However, your performance could take a different route; for instance, you might decide to insist that a Valentine gift be sold to you openly, thus acting in defiance of the existing cultural practices. In this sce nario, another role is enacted-that of a critic of the existing cultural order. Sales people, on their part, will need to decide on their roles in this intercultural performance: Do they support you and let you have your way, go against your
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 67
Near experience
,
Self, Other
Distance experience
FIGURE 8 Hermeneutic Circle of lntercultural Communication
wishes, or take some other course of action? In this scenario, intercultural tensions are much higher, causing more severe culture shock and leading to a serious con flict. There are a number of models describing the types of identity change that can be related to role enactment (see Ting-Toomey, 1999: 254-256). Overall, our ex periences in understanding people from other cultures in terms of the hermeneu tic circle are shown in Figure 8.
Thus, enactment of meanings that constitute cultural identity is a reiterative process. We all want to be part of a culture-that is, belong to a certain culture. However, belonging is not simply a matter of be-ing, but of longing, and hence be longing (Bell; 1999: I). Belonging is always an achievement, an effect performa tively produced. But cultural identity can never be achieved once and for all; in a way, we can never simply “be” (completely identify with) Self or the Other. We can only repeatedly work on the construction of cultural identities; that is, we can only ‘long for” cultural identities. Thus,
Perlormativity denies, in some fundamental ways, the stability of identity, moving toward a notion of repetition as a way of understanding that those markers used to describe one’s identity (i.e., gender, class, race, sexuality) get constructed through the continual pe,formance of those markers. (Warren, 200 I: 95; italics added)
The view of performativity as a reiterative process is not pessimistic at all; on the contrary, it is liberating. It suggests that any identity can be constructed as long as Self and the Other go through the hermeneutic circle-as many times as is neces• sary for meaning to be enacted. •
But how many times? How do we know when meaning is enacted? We need
to learn about the structure of performativity to answer this question.
The Structure of Performativity
The following discussion of the structure of intercultural performance is based on the ideas of the
Activity
Theory initiated in Russia in the I920s and 1930s (for more information, see Leont’ev, 1978; Wertsch
, I
998). A simple example will help us to understand how any activity is performed.
(
I
)’i 68 CHAPTER THREE
, I
I
I’
LI
I ‘ ‘
Levels of Performance. Suppose you are visiting the United States and your American friends invite you to attend a baseball game. Their friendship is impor tant to you, and you are determined to show them that you enjoy this entertain• men! experience as much as they do. Having formulated for yourself the cultural frame (‘sports entertainment”) and the motive (“enjoying the game together with one’s friends”), you must successfully attain a variety of specific goals. Some of the actions you must take to achieve those goals include purchasing your ticket, hand· ing it to the gatekeeper, following tll.e score, and visiting the concession stand. Some of these actions are relatively simple (purchasing the ticket); some are more complex (following the score).
Suppose your friends are willing, and even happy. to introduce you to the game and teach you as much as possible about this popular American sport. They do their best to explain to you the rules of the game and how to keep score, and they provide a lot of other useful information about the overall performance. What impact will all this have on your future interactions in a similar intercultural situation? Obviously, you will feel much more comfortable performing all the necessary actions. Even more importantly, you will think less about how to, say, purchase a ticket or hand it to the gatekeeper. The activity of
attending a baseball game
will have flown through actions to operations; in other words, the activity will have become operationalized. A5 a result, you will start performing this ac tivity almost automatically.
So, the structure of performativity can be analyzed in”terms of three levels:
1. The first level is called the activity level; it is performance driven by a cer tain motive. This level focuses on a certain culturally defined context, or
•I frame, as discussed earlier. The activity in our example can be framed as
I “sports entertainment,” and the motive is “enjoying the game together with
I one’s friends” (someone else might have a different motive for performing
l· this activity, such as obligation or to please a boyfriend or girlfriend).
‘ ,,,,
2.
Every activity can be carried out only through actions; hence, the second level of behavior is the actions level. Actions are performances directed to- ward specific goals. In our example, you must purchase your ticket, hand it
to the gatekeeper, and so forth.
3. Finally, the third level is the operations level because every activity can be performed through different operations, depending on conditions. Opera tions adjust actions to current conditions. In our example, you may bring along an umbrella, if it is a
rainy day
, or binoculars, if your seats are too far from the field. Without such adjustments you cannot realize your main mo· tive-enjoying the game.
Thus, the structure of your performance takes on the form shown in Figure 9.
Every performance can be seen as an activity that is carried out through ac tions and results in the formation of operations (skills). In other words, successful communication as performance requires knowledge of why an encounter takes place, what goals must be attained through what actions, and how they can be ac-
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING
ii
69 I
Activity
attending a baseball game
(
it
)Action
..,. Motive
enjoying game with your friends
Goal
handing your ticket to gatekeeper
Operation
bringing umbrella
getting into ball park
Conditions
rainy day
FIGURE?
complished under specific conditions. Thus, every performance is seen at the high est level as an activity, at the intermediate level as a series of actions, and at the lowest level as a number of concrete operations. It is important to emphasize that these three levels can be isolated only for the sake of analysis; in real life, every in tercultural encounter is one whole performance.
At the highest level, intercultural communication is framed, to use the term discussed earlier; that is, it takes place within certain culturally defined contexts. For communication to be successful, people must, first of all, understand what the frames are and what motivates people to behave in a certain way. If one fails to identify the appropriate frame and to see the motive for other people’s behavior, intercultural communication may be unsuccessful.
In his ethnographic descriptions of the Western Apache culture, Basso tells about a young Apache woman who, while attending a girl’s puberty ceremony, had her hair in pink plastic curlers. Here is how Basso describes what happened to that young woman at a birthday party two weeks later:
When the meal was over casual conversation began to flow, and the young woman seated herself on the ground next to her younger sister. And then— 1 It became clear to the ethnographer that the girl’s grandmother had told her a moralistic story (arrow) to teach her a lesson and to remind her that, at puberty ceremonies, hair should be worn loose to show respect for Apache customs. Basso describes this Western Apache cultural frame as ‘stalking with stories”-telling a moralistic historical narrative. At first, however, the ethnographer was unable to identify the frame and understand the motives for the girl’s and the grandmother’s •
70 CHAPTER TIIREE
I II’ “‘
behavior; as he admits, he was “uncertain of what had happened.” When he found out what had happened, all their actions made sense to him. So, the outcome of intercultural communication depends on how successfully we can understand meanings of other people’s behavior. If we do not understand why people from a different culture behave in a certain way, we need to go back to our ethnographic drawing board, so to speak, and gather more information.
The Flow of Performance. The flow of every performance is from activity through actions to operations and back to activity. In this flow, roles of intercul tural performance are constantly enacted and re-created. Why is it important for our performances to become operationalized? The simple answer is •so we can focus on more important things.· You could hardly enjoy a baseball game if you were constantly thinking about how to keep score or how to purchase a beverage at the concession stand. However, if we started per forming our intercultural interactions only as operations, then we as actors would become no different from robots, simply going through the motions. We must never forget about our other role-that of spectators. We must always evaluate our performance and, if we feel we are only going through the motions, create · new meanings, whatever they might be. Our performances become operational ized only to give us more freedom to be creative and come.up with new motives and new meaningful activities. The flow of intercultural communication as enact ment of meaning is from activity through actions to operations and then back to activity. That is why the arrows in Figure 9 go from the activity level down to the level of operations and back up to the level of activity. Communication as perfor mance is always a loop-a reiterative process of enactment of meaning. Now we know that meaning is enacted when our performance is opera tionalized. How long or how much effort it takes depends on the complexity of the performance. If the goal is simply to greet a fellow student, this meaning can be enacted fairly quickly. If, however, you need to act as a chief negotiator, working with people from another culture on a joint business project, the enactment of your role will take much more time and effort. The Performativity Principle Defined Let’s now give a more concise formulation of the Performativity Principle, based on the above discussion of its three parts. First, intercultural communication is a process of playing out our identities by moving from rules to roles. In every intercultural encounter, people from one culture present a certain image of themselves and act so that this image is under stood by people from another culture. This is done by using various verbal and nonverbal language means. As a result, every intercultural encounter is framed or defined in a certain way. ,,
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 71
Second, enactment of meanings that constitute cultural identity is a reitera tive process. In this process, Self and the Other go through the hermeneutic circle as many times as is necessary for meaning to be enacted. Third, the structure of intercultural communication as performance is as fol- lows: from activity through actions to operations and then back to activity. In a nutshell, the Performativity Principle can be formulated as follows:
Intercultural communication is a reiterative process whereby people from different cultures enact meanings in order to accomplish their tasks.
Thus, intercultural communication is a joint effort of creating and enacting meanings. Summary In this chapter, the following problem question was posed: What is the means to meaning in intercultural communication? We began the chapter by presenting language as a means of communication. We showed that both verbal and nonverbal means are used to create certain lan guage games, which constitute cultural identities. The overall process of using language was presented as a performance. Thus, performance was shown to be the main means to meaning in intercultural communication. Based on these ideas, we discussed the dramaturgical nature of intercultural communication as a process of moving from rules to roles. In this process, people from different cultures act and create meanings together. Thus, we defined per formativity as a process of enactment of meaning. Next, we showed that the process of enactment of meaning is reiterative. We looked at the reiterative nature of intercultural communication, using the exam ple of a hermeneutic circle as an interplay between distance-experiences and near experiences. In this process, people constantly balance the roles of actors and spectators, together creating and re-creating their world. Cultural meanings are enacted through a reiterative and ongoing process of performance. Finally, we presented the structure of intercultural performativity. We showed that the fiow of performativity is from activity through actions to opera tions and back to activity. Based on these ideas, the Performativity Principle was formulated. We now know that intercultural communication is always a joint effort, an activity performed by Self and the Other. As a result of this activity, cultural mean ings are enacted. But what happens to cultural meanings as they are enacted? This question will be answered in the ne•xt chapter. ·’, ‘
‘ I
,,
”
I
i