Intercultural Communication
“Today the world we live in is “a global village” where no nation, group or culture can remain anonymous” (Samovar & Porter, 1991 in Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010).
The world has become smaller, especially aided by rapid travel and modern communications technology and so we are interacting with people from many cultures different from our own, a difficult task if we do not know how.
“Fundamental to intercultural communication is the belief that it is through culture that people learn to communicate.” As a member of any cultural group we learn to communicate within that group. So Australians, Chinese, Lebanese and Sudanese learn to communicate like other Australians, Chinese, Lebanese and Sudanese. Our behaviours convey meaning because they are learned and shared within our cultures and hence are cultural. “Thus, the ways in which people communicate, their language patterns, style, and nonverbal behaviours are all culturally determined” (Klopf & Park, 1982). (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
What is Culture ?
“Culture can be defined as human creation (Freire, 1970). It is the human part of the environment (Wang, Brislin, Wang, Williams, & Chao, 2000).” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010). Culture is the non-biological aspects of life.
Culture is :
Singer (1998) defined culture as:
a pattern of learned, group-related perceptions – including both verbal and nonverbal language, attitudes, values, belief systems, disbelief systems and behaviours that is accepted and expected by an identity group (Singer, 1998:5) (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Cultures:
Facilitating communication between cultures
“As Paige, (1993) has pointed out, cultures have an internal logic and coherence and hence their own validity. However, in order to facilitate communication between cultures it is necessary to understand human reality as socially constructed (Berger & Luckman 1967 cited in Paige 1993).” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Culture is made up of the shared values and assumptions of a particular group of people.
Culture may be fundamental, yet it is not innate. It can often be seen as ‘common sense’, taken for granted and therefore not discussed, analysed or critiqued and considered ‘normal’ because of the shared values and assumptions. This may mean the ways of behaviour and things valued are considered ‘right’ and ‘true’ for everyone.
Yet different groups may have different values, ways of communicating, customs, conventions and assumptions. They may conflict with our own understandings and assumptions, yet it does not necessarily mean that they are ‘inferior’, ‘wrong’ or ‘rude’. (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Defining intercultural communication
(Baldwin,2013) posits: ‘People have defined intercultural communication in different ways. More and more, people see cultures not as nations but as groups of people that share a similar set of values, beliefs, etc. –or the set of values, beliefs, etc. shared by the group of people. With that in mind, some have said that all communication is intercultural, even if you are communicating with the person next door who looks and sounds very much like you. Others have said that communication is only intercultural if we perceive it to be intercultural.
But we believe that culture could be impacting our interactions to some degree, even if we are not aware of it. We do not need to notice culture’s impact on our communication for it to be important. At the same time, we often communicate with others—even those from other nations or more obviously different “cultures” in situations where culture really is not that relevant to the interaction.
With that in mind, we define intercultural communication as “communication in which cultural differences are large enough to impact the production or consumption of messages.” This is distinct from intergroup communication, which occurs when our perception of our own or the other person’s social identity (e.g., race, regional, religious, etc.) is impacting the communication, even if there are no real cultural differences. That is, in intergroup communication, we are interacting with others not on individual terms, but in terms of “in-groups” and “out-groups”.’ (Baldwin, 2013)
This definition is similarly suggested in “Samovar & Porter (1997) who point out that as cultures differ from one another, the communication practices and behaviours of people will inevitably vary as a result of their different perceptions of the world. Intercultural communication, more precisely then, is defined as the study of communication between people whose “cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough” to alter their communication (Samovar and Porter, 1997: 70)” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
A model of intercultural communication
“In their model of intercultural communication, Samovar and Porter (1997) illustrate the process of how the meaning of a message changes when it is encoded by a person in one culture and decoded by a person in another culture in the context of his or her own cultural background. In some cases, the message may be interpreted to carry a different meaning than was intended.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Intercultural Communication Model by Samovar and Porter
“Today the world we live in is “a global village” where no nation, group or culture can remain anonymous” (Samovar & Porter, 1991 in Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010).
The world has become smaller, especially aided by rapid travel and modern communications technology and so we are interacting with people from many cultures different from our own, a difficult task if we do not know how.
“Fundamental to intercultural communication is the belief that it is through culture that people learn to communicate.” As a member of any cultural group we learn to communicate within that group. So Australians, Chinese, Lebanese and Sudanese learn to communicate like other Australians, Chinese, Lebanese and Sudanese. Our behaviours convey meaning because they are learned and shared within our cultures and hence are cultural. “Thus, the ways in which people communicate, their language patterns, style, and nonverbal behaviours are all culturally determined” (Klopf & Park, 1982). (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
What is Culture ?
“Culture can be defined as human creation (Freire, 1970). It is the human part of the environment (Wang, Brislin, Wang, Williams, & Chao, 2000).” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010). Culture is the non-biological aspects of life.
Culture is :
- A process of generating and sharing meaning within a social system.
- A social system is comprised of values, norms and ways of behaving
- The ways we interact, behave and communicate with one another.
- Learned from parents, schools, media and the broader community.
Singer (1998) defined culture as:
a pattern of learned, group-related perceptions – including both verbal and nonverbal language, attitudes, values, belief systems, disbelief systems and behaviours that is accepted and expected by an identity group (Singer, 1998:5) (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Cultures:
- Are not fixed
- Are interconnected
- Change, though maybe slowly or irregularly
- Are dynamic as they are created and recreated through shared interactions (Gudykunst, 1983).
Facilitating communication between cultures
“As Paige, (1993) has pointed out, cultures have an internal logic and coherence and hence their own validity. However, in order to facilitate communication between cultures it is necessary to understand human reality as socially constructed (Berger & Luckman 1967 cited in Paige 1993).” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Culture is made up of the shared values and assumptions of a particular group of people.
Culture may be fundamental, yet it is not innate. It can often be seen as ‘common sense’, taken for granted and therefore not discussed, analysed or critiqued and considered ‘normal’ because of the shared values and assumptions. This may mean the ways of behaviour and things valued are considered ‘right’ and ‘true’ for everyone.
Yet different groups may have different values, ways of communicating, customs, conventions and assumptions. They may conflict with our own understandings and assumptions, yet it does not necessarily mean that they are ‘inferior’, ‘wrong’ or ‘rude’. (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Defining intercultural communication
(Baldwin,2013) posits: ‘People have defined intercultural communication in different ways. More and more, people see cultures not as nations but as groups of people that share a similar set of values, beliefs, etc. –or the set of values, beliefs, etc. shared by the group of people. With that in mind, some have said that all communication is intercultural, even if you are communicating with the person next door who looks and sounds very much like you. Others have said that communication is only intercultural if we perceive it to be intercultural.
But we believe that culture could be impacting our interactions to some degree, even if we are not aware of it. We do not need to notice culture’s impact on our communication for it to be important. At the same time, we often communicate with others—even those from other nations or more obviously different “cultures” in situations where culture really is not that relevant to the interaction.
With that in mind, we define intercultural communication as “communication in which cultural differences are large enough to impact the production or consumption of messages.” This is distinct from intergroup communication, which occurs when our perception of our own or the other person’s social identity (e.g., race, regional, religious, etc.) is impacting the communication, even if there are no real cultural differences. That is, in intergroup communication, we are interacting with others not on individual terms, but in terms of “in-groups” and “out-groups”.’ (Baldwin, 2013)
This definition is similarly suggested in “Samovar & Porter (1997) who point out that as cultures differ from one another, the communication practices and behaviours of people will inevitably vary as a result of their different perceptions of the world. Intercultural communication, more precisely then, is defined as the study of communication between people whose “cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough” to alter their communication (Samovar and Porter, 1997: 70)” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
A model of intercultural communication
“In their model of intercultural communication, Samovar and Porter (1997) illustrate the process of how the meaning of a message changes when it is encoded by a person in one culture and decoded by a person in another culture in the context of his or her own cultural background. In some cases, the message may be interpreted to carry a different meaning than was intended.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Intercultural Communication Model by Samovar and Porter
(Achmad, 2012)
“In this model, the three people are three different individuals.
This model has three simple points... :
Cultures vary in how different they are from each other.
This is illustrated by both the distance of the shapes (top two,- A,B) are closer than bottom, C), but also in similarity of shapes (top two – A,B are more similar geometrically than 3rd -C).” (Baldwin, 2013)
Individuals are not the same as cultures.
In each case, the individual person (figure within the figure) does not look exactly like the influencing parent culture (outer figure). However, individuals are shaped to varying degrees by their cultures. The shape of the person is somewhat different from that the parent culture since we are all shaped by our culture, but are also influenced by other factors as well (e.g. age, gender, class, race, etc.). (Some of us look more like our “culture” than others do) Also, within any culture there is internal variation. (Baldwin, 2013) (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Cultures (and individual perception) shape the way we process and create messages.
“Even if we hear a message from another culture, because we often do not have the symbols or meanings to understand it, we have the tendency (or need?) to “shape” it by our own culture to understand it” (Baldwin, 2013)
Messages
“The series of arrows connecting the figures represents the production, transmission, and interpretation of messages across cultures.
“In this model, the three people are three different individuals.
This model has three simple points... :
Cultures vary in how different they are from each other.
This is illustrated by both the distance of the shapes (top two,- A,B) are closer than bottom, C), but also in similarity of shapes (top two – A,B are more similar geometrically than 3rd -C).” (Baldwin, 2013)
Individuals are not the same as cultures.
In each case, the individual person (figure within the figure) does not look exactly like the influencing parent culture (outer figure). However, individuals are shaped to varying degrees by their cultures. The shape of the person is somewhat different from that the parent culture since we are all shaped by our culture, but are also influenced by other factors as well (e.g. age, gender, class, race, etc.). (Some of us look more like our “culture” than others do) Also, within any culture there is internal variation. (Baldwin, 2013) (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Cultures (and individual perception) shape the way we process and create messages.
“Even if we hear a message from another culture, because we often do not have the symbols or meanings to understand it, we have the tendency (or need?) to “shape” it by our own culture to understand it” (Baldwin, 2013)
Messages
“The series of arrows connecting the figures represents the production, transmission, and interpretation of messages across cultures.
- When a message leaves culture A, for example, it carries the content of the message as it is intended.
- When it reaches culture B, the message changes because the new culture influences how the message is interpreted and hence its meaning.
- Also, the greater the differences between the cultures, the more likely the message will be changed. For example, the change that occurs between cultures A and B is much less than the change between cultures B and C. This is because there is greater similarity between cultures A and B and the message is interpreted more nearly like it was originally intended.
- Culture C, on the other hand, is quite different from cultures A and B and the message is interpreted differently there and becomes more like the pattern of culture C.
- Samovar and Porter’s model shows the possibility of misunderstandings that always exist in intercultural communication, especially if there is great variation in cultural differences
- As their model illustrates, the amount of influence a culture has on communication between cultures clearly depends on the similarity of the cultures.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
(Achmad, 2012)
Cultural differences, perceptions, beliefs and values
“The more the cultures are alike, the less influence culture will have on communication. For example, in intercultural communication situations involving Americans and Canadians, culture would not have a strong impact as the two cultures have much in common (e.g. language, geography, religion, political system, etc.). On the other hand, we can expect culture to have great impact when a German communicates with a Chinese as the two cultures differ greatly (e.g. physical appearance, language, religion, concept of self, etc.) “ (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
“When communicating with someone from a different culture, we can therefore expect cultural differences to have an influence. Cultural differences stem from our differing perceptions, which in turn determines how we communicate with people of other cultures. By understanding how people perceive the world, their values and beliefs, we can better understand what they say and can anticipate potential cross-cultural misunderstandings. Let’s now look more closely at what we mean by perceptions, beliefs and values in the intercultural context.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Perception
“Perception is defined as “the internal process by which we select, organise and interpret information” from the outside world (Klopf & Park, 1982:26).
In other words, our perceptions of the world are what we tend to
As a result, no two of us perceive our surroundings in exactly the same way.
This is especially the case if we interact with people who come from cultures very different from our own.
The way in which each one of us perceives the world is learned and is part of our cultural experience.
We all react to different events in the way that our culture has taught.
Our perceptions are culturally determined and in turn influence the way we communicate with others.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Beliefs
“ Beliefs are the judgments we make about what is true or probable. They are usually linked to objects or events that posses certain characteristics that we believe to be true with or without proof (Samovar & Porter, 1997).
For example, we have beliefs about
According to Price (2000), most of our beliefs are ideas about:
Many of our beliefs are also concerned with providing an explanation for things which would otherwise be unpredictable or inexplicable, such as the weather, death and romance.
Like our perception, our beliefs are determined by our cultural backgrounds and experiences. We are taught very early on what to believe based on what our culture considers worthy and true.
Subsequently, our belief systems form the basis of our values, which determine in large measure how we behave and relate to others.”
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Values
“Values are defined as “an enduring set of beliefs that serve to guide or direct our behaviour” (Klopf & Park, 1982).
They represent the norms of a culture and specify, for instance,
In other words, they provide us with a set of rules for behaving, making choices and reducing uncertainty. Like our perceptions and beliefs, values are learned and hence subject to interpretation.
When we interpret behaviour, an object, or an event, we are applying value judgments, which reflect our particular culture.
The relative importance of values within each culture can also be revealed through sayings, such as
Such sayings impart values that are important in each culture and can provide us with a better understanding of others’ cultural beliefs.”
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
A criticism of discussions of intercultural communication
. “One of the criticisms of discussions of intercultural communication is that it can be said to generalise about cultures.
...When thinking about communication between cultures, rather than thinking of them as entirely separate and static it is more useful to consider them as dynamic and interconnected. However, it is also important to consider that for particular characteristics (for example individualist/collectivist – covered later), while individuals in each culture will be found across the spectrum, in any one culture people will be clustered around a certain point. Although people are clustered around a certain point, there is also an area of overlap where they may share some similarities.”
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Intercultural Communication in practice
“ Intercultural communication takes place when individuals influenced by different cultural communities negotiate shared meanings in interaction.
'In intercultural communication, as compared to interpersonal or inter-group communication,
cultural differences are large enough to impact the production or consumption of messages.'(Baldwin,2013)
What counts as intercultural communication depends in part on what one considers a culture, and the definition of culture itself is quite contestable.
Some authorities limit the term “intercultural communication” to refer only to communication among individuals from different nationalities. Other authorities, in contrast, expand the notion of intercultural communication to encompass inter-ethnic, inter-religious, and even inter-regional communication, as well as communication among individuals of different sexual orientations.
In this sense, all interactions can be arrayed along some continuum of “interculturalness.” Interactions are most highly intercultural when individuals’ group identities are most salient in determining the values, prejudices, language, nonverbal behaviours, and relational styles upon which those individuals draw.
To the degree that interactants are drawing more on personal or idiosyncratic values, personality traits, and experiences, the interaction can be characterized as more interpersonal than intercultural.
When individuals from different cultural backgrounds become more intimate, their interactions typically move along the continuum from more intercultural to more interpersonal, though intercultural elements may always play a role.
For casual or business communication, sensitivity to intercultural factors is key to success.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Communication and Group Identity
“ Traditional theories of group identity recognize two types of group identity:
1. Ascribed identity is the set of demographic and role descriptions that others in an interaction assume to hold true for you. Ascribed identity is often a function of one’s physical appearance, ethnic connotations of one’s name, or other stereotypical associations.
2. Avowed identity is comprised of the group affiliations that one feels most intensely. For example, if an individual is assimilated into a new culture, then the values and practices of that destination culture will figure importantly in her avowed culture. A related concept is reference group. A reference group is a social entity from which one draws one’s avowed identity. It is a group in which one feels competent and at ease.
Ascribed and avowed identity are important for understanding intercultural communication, because a person from another culture usually communicates with you based on your ‘ascribed identity’; that is how you are being perceived by that other person.
But sometimes your avowed identity—the groups with which you really feel a sense of comfort and affiliation—diverges from that ascribed identity. In such cases, the interaction is bound to be frustrating for both parties.
Recently, many identity theorists have moved toward a Communication Theory of Identity (CTI) or related ideas. According to this perspective, your cultural group membership is not a static label or fixed attribute. Rather, cultural identities are enacted or performed through interaction.
Communication Theory of Identity (CTI)
One enacts identity through choice of language, nonverbal signs such as gesture and clothing, and discourse strategy.
Depending on the situation and on your goals, you may enact identity in very different ways on different occasions. Cultural identity performances can vary along three dimensions:
1. Scope of Identity Performance—How many aspects of one’s behaviour express cultural identity? For example, one may choose to eat a few ethnic-related foods, but reject ethnic dress. Or one may allude to national myths or sagas in speaking just with co-nationals, or may tell such stories at diverse occasions among diverse listeners.
2. Intensity of Identity Performance—How powerfully does one enact one’s identity? One may note in passing one’s national origin, or one may make a point of proclaiming the centrality of national origin at every opportunity.
3. Salience of Identity Performance—How obvious are the cultural elements of identity in one’s daily routines? Ethnic dress, insistence on using one’s first language over the host national language, or reliance solely on ethnic mass media are all ways in which one asserts identity.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Intercultural Communication Competence and Ethnocentrism
“What does it mean to be a competent communicator across cultures, and what are the elements or components of that competence?
Some authorities link intercultural competence with identity;
the competent communicator is the person who can affirm others’ avowed identities.
Other notions of intercultural competence focus on the communicator’s goal attainment;
the competent communicator is the person who can convey a sense of communication appropriateness and effectiveness in diverse cultural contexts.
Certainly proficiency in the host culture language is valuable for intercultural competence. But it is not enough to know the grammar and vocabulary of that language;
the competent communicator will also understand language pragmatics like how to use politeness strategies in making requests or how to avoid giving out too much information.
Equally important, competent communicators are
sensitive to nonverbal communication patterns in other cultures. In addition to avoiding insults and gaffes by using gestures that may mean very different things in a host culture as opposed to one’s home culture,
competent communicators understand how to
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Traits that make for competent intercultural communicators include
The foundation of intercultural communication competence is the capacity to avoid ethnocentrism.
“Bennett (1993:30) defines ethnocentrism as ‘assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central to all reality’. Said (1978) has described the ways in which the West has polarised East and West so that the West possesses positive characteristics (strength, activity, reliability) whereas the East is depicted as having opposing characteristics (fragility, passivity, wily unreliability).” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Ethnocentrism is the inclination to view one’s own group as natural and correct, and all others as aberrant. We tend to think prescriptively, that all groups should behave as our own group behaves. And we are naturally proud of our own group and distrustful of others.
Obviously a person who is highly ethnocentric cannot adapt to diverse people, and cannot communicate in an inter-culturally competent manner.
Some authorities hold that some degree of ethnocentrism is inevitable, and even functional for the preservation of distinct cultural groups.
Competent communicators simply learn to suppress their natural ethnocentric reactions in order to better understand others on their own terms.
Alternatively, it may be possible for individuals to evolve beyond ethnocentrism, to become ethno-relativistic.
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) postulated by Bennett (1993) has proposed a developmental sequence towards intercultural sensitivity. This model is frequently used in intercultural training and assessment to chart individuals’ progress toward ethno-relativism.
The model posits six stages:
1. Denial—The individual refuses to acknowledge cultural differences.
‘A person confronted with cultural difference avoids or denies the existence of any difference. This can happen in two ways, through isolation or separation.
Isolation occurs if a population is both physically separated and homogenous. In such cases, it is possible to deny the existence of any cultural differences or consider them unimportant in one’s own world.
Separation is the intentional construction of barriers that create distance between cultures. This separation facilitates denial. Bennett points out that one of the dangers of separation is that another culture becomes seen as less than human.
An extreme example of separation was the apartheid system in South Africa, however there are many examples of a ‘compound’ mentality in which people physically separate themselves from those they consider different in order to maintain their own denial.’ (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
2. Defense—The individual begins to see cultural differences and is threatened by them.
‘This strategy occurs as a way to counter the impact of cultural differences which are perceived as threatening. A person does this as a way of maintaining the integrity of their own worldview. The defence stage has three forms; denigration, superiority and reversal.
Denigration or negative stereotyping involves attributing undesirable characteristics to everyone in a particular cultural category. The Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan are extreme versions of this form of defence but there are countless other examples of negative stereotyping.
Superiority is another form of defence. It is a positive evaluation of one’s own culture which does not necessarily involve denigrating others. The example that Bennett gives is that of modernisation, which tends to assume Western superiority and assumes that the aim of all developing nations is to follow the Western model.
The third form of defence is reversal, which is the flip-side of superiority. It is the denigration of one’s own culture and an assertion of the superiority of the other.’
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
3. Minimization—While individuals at this stage do acknowledge cultural differences, they see human universals as more salient than cultural distinctions.
‘In this stage, people will seek to hide difference under cultural similarities. Part of minimisation is an assumption of universal characteristics shared by all humanity. However this assumption is usually made by the dominant culture. Bennett suggests that people tend to use their own worldview to interpret other’s behaviour and that the idea of a ‘universal truth’ is usually based on one’s own values.’ (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
4. Acceptance—The individual begins to accept significant cultural differences first in behaviours, and then in values.
5. Adaptation—The individual becomes more adept at intercultural communication by shifting perspectives to the other’s cultural world view.
6. Integration—Individuals at this stage begin to transcend their own native cultures. They define their identities and evaluate their actions in terms of multiple cultural perspectives.” (Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Communicating Across Diverse World Views and Values
“To communicate competently across cultures, individuals must understand some of the ways in which cultures diverge in their world views. The pioneer in pointing out the practical implications of differing world views was the anthropologist Edward Hall.
For example, Hall explained that some cultures are
The most frequently utilized of cultural world views in intercultural communication studies was developed originally by surveying IBM employees in 50 nations (and later supplemented with additional data).
In this taxonomy, cultures can be arrayed along five dimensions:
Of these six dimensions, collectivism/individualism receives the greatest attention. Sometimes the gulf between the two orientations seems immense.
Because collectivist thought is literally so foreign to many Westerners, researchers have promulgated a set of recommendations for individualists interacting with collectivists.
Culture Shock and Adaptation
“ Culture shock is a common stress reaction that individuals have when they find themselves immersed in an unfamiliar culture.
One’s sense of identity as a mature and efficacious adult can be severely challenged when one can’t even figure out how to pay bus fare in a foreign transit system. For relatively short term sojourners in a new culture—for example exchange students, aid workers, or corporate executives on temporary assignment—the pattern of adjusting to a new culture often follows a predictable pattern from elation to depression to adjustment. Moreover, when the sojourn comes to an end, returnees often experience re-entry shock when they return home. Overall, sojourners may expect to traverse through seven stages:
1. Honeymoon—Newcomers are elated about all the exotic sights and experiences and by the friendliness with which they are greeted.
2. Hostility—As the welcome wears thin and more quotidian tasks are expected of the sojourner, disorientation and frustration set in. Those lacking in communication skills may either abort their visit or else retreat into isolation.
3. Humour—Sojourners are able to see their various challenges and faux pas in perspective.
4. In-Sync—Having achieved a sense of comfort and competence in their host culture, sojourners may even serve as mentors for other newcomers.
5. Ambivalence—As the end of their sojourn approaches, individuals are torn between the joy of an anticipated homecoming and the disappointment of seeing their overseas adventure coming to an end.
6. Re-entry Culture Shock—The sojourner is shocked by the lack of interest and support among those who remained behind in the home culture. Often, the stress of re-entry may exceed the original stress of encountering the host culture.
7. Re-socialisation—As individuals adjust to being back in their home cultures, three patterns are common.
For immigrants, refugees, or émigrés, the long-term counterpart of culture shock is acculturation or adaptation. For them, there is to be no re-entry to their home cultures. Communication plays a key role in the adjustment of these individuals to their new home culture.
Important communication components that will determine the quality of cross-cultural adaptation include
(a) a critical mass of same-culture immigrants to provide community support and mass media,
(b) the receptivity of the host culture to non-native populations, and
(c) opportunities for immigrants and refugees to participate in interpersonal interaction with host nationals.
If these communication factors are absent or out of balance, there is a danger that immigrants or refugees may either lose their native cultural identities and assimilate, or that they may isolate themselves from their host culture and fail to participate fully. The goal of communication for adaptation is the establishment of integrated bi-cultural (or multi-cultural) identity.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Cultural differences, perceptions, beliefs and values
“The more the cultures are alike, the less influence culture will have on communication. For example, in intercultural communication situations involving Americans and Canadians, culture would not have a strong impact as the two cultures have much in common (e.g. language, geography, religion, political system, etc.). On the other hand, we can expect culture to have great impact when a German communicates with a Chinese as the two cultures differ greatly (e.g. physical appearance, language, religion, concept of self, etc.) “ (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
“When communicating with someone from a different culture, we can therefore expect cultural differences to have an influence. Cultural differences stem from our differing perceptions, which in turn determines how we communicate with people of other cultures. By understanding how people perceive the world, their values and beliefs, we can better understand what they say and can anticipate potential cross-cultural misunderstandings. Let’s now look more closely at what we mean by perceptions, beliefs and values in the intercultural context.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Perception
“Perception is defined as “the internal process by which we select, organise and interpret information” from the outside world (Klopf & Park, 1982:26).
In other words, our perceptions of the world are what we tend to
- notice,
- reflect upon
- and respond to
As a result, no two of us perceive our surroundings in exactly the same way.
This is especially the case if we interact with people who come from cultures very different from our own.
The way in which each one of us perceives the world is learned and is part of our cultural experience.
We all react to different events in the way that our culture has taught.
Our perceptions are culturally determined and in turn influence the way we communicate with others.” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Beliefs
“ Beliefs are the judgments we make about what is true or probable. They are usually linked to objects or events that posses certain characteristics that we believe to be true with or without proof (Samovar & Porter, 1997).
For example, we have beliefs about
- religion (there is a God),
- events (the meeting was successful),
- other people (she is friendly)
- or even about ourselves (I am hard-working).
According to Price (2000), most of our beliefs are ideas about:
- how things work,
- why things are the way they are,
- and where things come from.
Many of our beliefs are also concerned with providing an explanation for things which would otherwise be unpredictable or inexplicable, such as the weather, death and romance.
Like our perception, our beliefs are determined by our cultural backgrounds and experiences. We are taught very early on what to believe based on what our culture considers worthy and true.
Subsequently, our belief systems form the basis of our values, which determine in large measure how we behave and relate to others.”
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Values
“Values are defined as “an enduring set of beliefs that serve to guide or direct our behaviour” (Klopf & Park, 1982).
They represent the norms of a culture and specify, for instance,
- what is good or bad,
- right or wrong,
- rude or polite,
- appropriate or inappropriate.
In other words, they provide us with a set of rules for behaving, making choices and reducing uncertainty. Like our perceptions and beliefs, values are learned and hence subject to interpretation.
When we interpret behaviour, an object, or an event, we are applying value judgments, which reflect our particular culture.
- For instance, an English person who values personal space very highly may consider it rude when a Mexican stands too close.
- A Japanese who values conformity may find it inappropriate when an American expresses too much of his or her own opinions.
The relative importance of values within each culture can also be revealed through sayings, such as
- “Time is money” (American),
- “A zebra does not despise its stripes” (African)
- or “No need to know the person, only the family” (Chinese).
Such sayings impart values that are important in each culture and can provide us with a better understanding of others’ cultural beliefs.”
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
A criticism of discussions of intercultural communication
. “One of the criticisms of discussions of intercultural communication is that it can be said to generalise about cultures.
...When thinking about communication between cultures, rather than thinking of them as entirely separate and static it is more useful to consider them as dynamic and interconnected. However, it is also important to consider that for particular characteristics (for example individualist/collectivist – covered later), while individuals in each culture will be found across the spectrum, in any one culture people will be clustered around a certain point. Although people are clustered around a certain point, there is also an area of overlap where they may share some similarities.”
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Intercultural Communication in practice
“ Intercultural communication takes place when individuals influenced by different cultural communities negotiate shared meanings in interaction.
'In intercultural communication, as compared to interpersonal or inter-group communication,
cultural differences are large enough to impact the production or consumption of messages.'(Baldwin,2013)
What counts as intercultural communication depends in part on what one considers a culture, and the definition of culture itself is quite contestable.
Some authorities limit the term “intercultural communication” to refer only to communication among individuals from different nationalities. Other authorities, in contrast, expand the notion of intercultural communication to encompass inter-ethnic, inter-religious, and even inter-regional communication, as well as communication among individuals of different sexual orientations.
In this sense, all interactions can be arrayed along some continuum of “interculturalness.” Interactions are most highly intercultural when individuals’ group identities are most salient in determining the values, prejudices, language, nonverbal behaviours, and relational styles upon which those individuals draw.
To the degree that interactants are drawing more on personal or idiosyncratic values, personality traits, and experiences, the interaction can be characterized as more interpersonal than intercultural.
When individuals from different cultural backgrounds become more intimate, their interactions typically move along the continuum from more intercultural to more interpersonal, though intercultural elements may always play a role.
For casual or business communication, sensitivity to intercultural factors is key to success.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Communication and Group Identity
“ Traditional theories of group identity recognize two types of group identity:
1. Ascribed identity is the set of demographic and role descriptions that others in an interaction assume to hold true for you. Ascribed identity is often a function of one’s physical appearance, ethnic connotations of one’s name, or other stereotypical associations.
2. Avowed identity is comprised of the group affiliations that one feels most intensely. For example, if an individual is assimilated into a new culture, then the values and practices of that destination culture will figure importantly in her avowed culture. A related concept is reference group. A reference group is a social entity from which one draws one’s avowed identity. It is a group in which one feels competent and at ease.
Ascribed and avowed identity are important for understanding intercultural communication, because a person from another culture usually communicates with you based on your ‘ascribed identity’; that is how you are being perceived by that other person.
But sometimes your avowed identity—the groups with which you really feel a sense of comfort and affiliation—diverges from that ascribed identity. In such cases, the interaction is bound to be frustrating for both parties.
Recently, many identity theorists have moved toward a Communication Theory of Identity (CTI) or related ideas. According to this perspective, your cultural group membership is not a static label or fixed attribute. Rather, cultural identities are enacted or performed through interaction.
Communication Theory of Identity (CTI)
One enacts identity through choice of language, nonverbal signs such as gesture and clothing, and discourse strategy.
Depending on the situation and on your goals, you may enact identity in very different ways on different occasions. Cultural identity performances can vary along three dimensions:
1. Scope of Identity Performance—How many aspects of one’s behaviour express cultural identity? For example, one may choose to eat a few ethnic-related foods, but reject ethnic dress. Or one may allude to national myths or sagas in speaking just with co-nationals, or may tell such stories at diverse occasions among diverse listeners.
2. Intensity of Identity Performance—How powerfully does one enact one’s identity? One may note in passing one’s national origin, or one may make a point of proclaiming the centrality of national origin at every opportunity.
3. Salience of Identity Performance—How obvious are the cultural elements of identity in one’s daily routines? Ethnic dress, insistence on using one’s first language over the host national language, or reliance solely on ethnic mass media are all ways in which one asserts identity.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Intercultural Communication Competence and Ethnocentrism
“What does it mean to be a competent communicator across cultures, and what are the elements or components of that competence?
Some authorities link intercultural competence with identity;
the competent communicator is the person who can affirm others’ avowed identities.
Other notions of intercultural competence focus on the communicator’s goal attainment;
the competent communicator is the person who can convey a sense of communication appropriateness and effectiveness in diverse cultural contexts.
Certainly proficiency in the host culture language is valuable for intercultural competence. But it is not enough to know the grammar and vocabulary of that language;
the competent communicator will also understand language pragmatics like how to use politeness strategies in making requests or how to avoid giving out too much information.
Equally important, competent communicators are
sensitive to nonverbal communication patterns in other cultures. In addition to avoiding insults and gaffes by using gestures that may mean very different things in a host culture as opposed to one’s home culture,
competent communicators understand how to
- use (or avoid) touch,
- proximity in physical space,
- and para-linguistic sounds to convey their intended meanings.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Traits that make for competent intercultural communicators include
- “flexibility and the ability to tolerate high levels of uncertainty,
- reflectiveness or mindfulness,
- open-mindedness, sensitivity, adaptability
- and the ability to engage in divergent and systems-level thinking.
The foundation of intercultural communication competence is the capacity to avoid ethnocentrism.
“Bennett (1993:30) defines ethnocentrism as ‘assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central to all reality’. Said (1978) has described the ways in which the West has polarised East and West so that the West possesses positive characteristics (strength, activity, reliability) whereas the East is depicted as having opposing characteristics (fragility, passivity, wily unreliability).” (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
Ethnocentrism is the inclination to view one’s own group as natural and correct, and all others as aberrant. We tend to think prescriptively, that all groups should behave as our own group behaves. And we are naturally proud of our own group and distrustful of others.
Obviously a person who is highly ethnocentric cannot adapt to diverse people, and cannot communicate in an inter-culturally competent manner.
Some authorities hold that some degree of ethnocentrism is inevitable, and even functional for the preservation of distinct cultural groups.
Competent communicators simply learn to suppress their natural ethnocentric reactions in order to better understand others on their own terms.
Alternatively, it may be possible for individuals to evolve beyond ethnocentrism, to become ethno-relativistic.
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) postulated by Bennett (1993) has proposed a developmental sequence towards intercultural sensitivity. This model is frequently used in intercultural training and assessment to chart individuals’ progress toward ethno-relativism.
The model posits six stages:
1. Denial—The individual refuses to acknowledge cultural differences.
‘A person confronted with cultural difference avoids or denies the existence of any difference. This can happen in two ways, through isolation or separation.
Isolation occurs if a population is both physically separated and homogenous. In such cases, it is possible to deny the existence of any cultural differences or consider them unimportant in one’s own world.
Separation is the intentional construction of barriers that create distance between cultures. This separation facilitates denial. Bennett points out that one of the dangers of separation is that another culture becomes seen as less than human.
An extreme example of separation was the apartheid system in South Africa, however there are many examples of a ‘compound’ mentality in which people physically separate themselves from those they consider different in order to maintain their own denial.’ (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
2. Defense—The individual begins to see cultural differences and is threatened by them.
‘This strategy occurs as a way to counter the impact of cultural differences which are perceived as threatening. A person does this as a way of maintaining the integrity of their own worldview. The defence stage has three forms; denigration, superiority and reversal.
Denigration or negative stereotyping involves attributing undesirable characteristics to everyone in a particular cultural category. The Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan are extreme versions of this form of defence but there are countless other examples of negative stereotyping.
Superiority is another form of defence. It is a positive evaluation of one’s own culture which does not necessarily involve denigrating others. The example that Bennett gives is that of modernisation, which tends to assume Western superiority and assumes that the aim of all developing nations is to follow the Western model.
The third form of defence is reversal, which is the flip-side of superiority. It is the denigration of one’s own culture and an assertion of the superiority of the other.’
(Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
3. Minimization—While individuals at this stage do acknowledge cultural differences, they see human universals as more salient than cultural distinctions.
‘In this stage, people will seek to hide difference under cultural similarities. Part of minimisation is an assumption of universal characteristics shared by all humanity. However this assumption is usually made by the dominant culture. Bennett suggests that people tend to use their own worldview to interpret other’s behaviour and that the idea of a ‘universal truth’ is usually based on one’s own values.’ (Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne, 2010)
4. Acceptance—The individual begins to accept significant cultural differences first in behaviours, and then in values.
5. Adaptation—The individual becomes more adept at intercultural communication by shifting perspectives to the other’s cultural world view.
6. Integration—Individuals at this stage begin to transcend their own native cultures. They define their identities and evaluate their actions in terms of multiple cultural perspectives.” (Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Communicating Across Diverse World Views and Values
“To communicate competently across cultures, individuals must understand some of the ways in which cultures diverge in their world views. The pioneer in pointing out the practical implications of differing world views was the anthropologist Edward Hall.
For example, Hall explained that some cultures are
- monochronic. They regard time as segmentable, an almost tangible commodity. Monochronic cultures value schedules and can evolve efficient bureaucracies.
- Polychronic cultures, on the other hand, regard events as embedded in more of a simultaneous matrix of occurrences. Little value is placed on demarcating work time as opposed to socialization time, for instance. People in polychromic cultures are little concerned with promptness or deadlines.
The most frequently utilized of cultural world views in intercultural communication studies was developed originally by surveying IBM employees in 50 nations (and later supplemented with additional data).
In this taxonomy, cultures can be arrayed along five dimensions:
- Individualism/Collectivism—Are individuals defined by their unique attributes or by their group memberships? Is individual achievement and gratification most important, or is group harmony?
- Uncertainty Avoidance—Is it preferable to tread well-known traditional paths, or is risk taking and experimentation prized?
- Power-Distance—Should status differences be kept to a minimum, or are strict social hierarchies preferred?
- Masculine/Feminine—Does the culture cultivate competition or cooperation? Acquisitiveness or sharing?
- Short-Term Orientation/Long-Term Orientation (also known as Confucian Dynamism)—Are immediate outcomes and personal dignity most important, or should long-term perspectives and social order be emphasized?
Of these six dimensions, collectivism/individualism receives the greatest attention. Sometimes the gulf between the two orientations seems immense.
- While individualists are most concerned with doing what must be done to succeed at a task, collectivists may be attuned to avoiding conflict and assuring harmony.
- While individualists believe in direct and honest talk, collectivists may choose to communicate indirectly, through metaphor or through an intermediary, in order to avoid losing face oneself or causing others to do the same.
Because collectivist thought is literally so foreign to many Westerners, researchers have promulgated a set of recommendations for individualists interacting with collectivists.
- Recognize that collectivists pay attention to group memberships and predict behaviour thereby.
- Recognize that collectivists change their behaviours when they change group membership.
- Don’t force equality of status—vertical hierarchies are ok.
- Avoid overt competition—emphasize harmony and cooperation instead.
- Avoid threatening another person’s “face”—help them save face when necessary.
- Recognize that collectivists do not separate criticism of an idea or action from criticism of the person.
- Avoid overt confrontation—use a strategy of indirection—or just let go of the conflict.
- Cultivate long-term relationships.
- Behave more formally than usual in initial interactions.
- Follow the collectivists’ lead in self disclosure.”
Culture Shock and Adaptation
“ Culture shock is a common stress reaction that individuals have when they find themselves immersed in an unfamiliar culture.
One’s sense of identity as a mature and efficacious adult can be severely challenged when one can’t even figure out how to pay bus fare in a foreign transit system. For relatively short term sojourners in a new culture—for example exchange students, aid workers, or corporate executives on temporary assignment—the pattern of adjusting to a new culture often follows a predictable pattern from elation to depression to adjustment. Moreover, when the sojourn comes to an end, returnees often experience re-entry shock when they return home. Overall, sojourners may expect to traverse through seven stages:
1. Honeymoon—Newcomers are elated about all the exotic sights and experiences and by the friendliness with which they are greeted.
2. Hostility—As the welcome wears thin and more quotidian tasks are expected of the sojourner, disorientation and frustration set in. Those lacking in communication skills may either abort their visit or else retreat into isolation.
3. Humour—Sojourners are able to see their various challenges and faux pas in perspective.
4. In-Sync—Having achieved a sense of comfort and competence in their host culture, sojourners may even serve as mentors for other newcomers.
5. Ambivalence—As the end of their sojourn approaches, individuals are torn between the joy of an anticipated homecoming and the disappointment of seeing their overseas adventure coming to an end.
6. Re-entry Culture Shock—The sojourner is shocked by the lack of interest and support among those who remained behind in the home culture. Often, the stress of re-entry may exceed the original stress of encountering the host culture.
7. Re-socialisation—As individuals adjust to being back in their home cultures, three patterns are common.
- Assimilators try to fit back into old patterns and forget that they had ever experienced another culture.
- Alienators are never quite satisfied with what they find at home. They may feel restless until they can accept another overseas assignment.
- Transformers are change agents who use their recently acquired intercultural knowledge to help vitalize their home relationships and organizations.
For immigrants, refugees, or émigrés, the long-term counterpart of culture shock is acculturation or adaptation. For them, there is to be no re-entry to their home cultures. Communication plays a key role in the adjustment of these individuals to their new home culture.
Important communication components that will determine the quality of cross-cultural adaptation include
(a) a critical mass of same-culture immigrants to provide community support and mass media,
(b) the receptivity of the host culture to non-native populations, and
(c) opportunities for immigrants and refugees to participate in interpersonal interaction with host nationals.
If these communication factors are absent or out of balance, there is a danger that immigrants or refugees may either lose their native cultural identities and assimilate, or that they may isolate themselves from their host culture and fail to participate fully. The goal of communication for adaptation is the establishment of integrated bi-cultural (or multi-cultural) identity.”
(Communication for Governance and Accountability Program, n.d)
Bibliography Achmad, Z. (2012, October 1). Intercultural Communication week 2. Retrieved from Slide Share: http://www.slideshare.net/ZulkarnaenBlankOn/intercultural-communication-week-2
Baldwin, J. R. (2013, May 21). Approaches to Intercultural Communication. Retrieved from John R. Baldwin: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/372/Models.htm
Communication for Governance and Accountability Program. (n.d). Intercultural Commweb. Retrieved from World Bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGOVACC/Resources/InterculturalCommweb.pdf
Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne. (2010). Study_intercultural_comms. Retrieved from University of Sydney, Business School: http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/90351/Study_intercultural_comms.pdf
Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne. (2010). Study_intercultural_comms1. Retrieved from The University of Sydney Business School: http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/90350/Study_intercultural_comms1.pdf
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Seabury.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1983). Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives. Berverly Hills: Sage.
Jandt, F. E. (2001). Intercultural communication: An introduction (third ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Klopf, D. W., & Park, M. (1982). Cross cultural communication: An introduction to the fundamentals. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Price, F. (2000). The naked Australian: The valuable Australian. Melbourne: Workshop.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (1997). Intercultural communication: A reader (eighth ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Wang, M. M., Brislin, R., Wang, W., Williams, D., & Chao, J. H. (2000). Turning bricks into jade: Critical incidents for mutual understanding among Chinese and Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Baldwin, J. R. (2013, May 21). Approaches to Intercultural Communication. Retrieved from John R. Baldwin: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/372/Models.htm
Communication for Governance and Accountability Program. (n.d). Intercultural Commweb. Retrieved from World Bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGOVACC/Resources/InterculturalCommweb.pdf
Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne. (2010). Study_intercultural_comms. Retrieved from University of Sydney, Business School: http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/90351/Study_intercultural_comms.pdf
Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Melbourne. (2010). Study_intercultural_comms1. Retrieved from The University of Sydney Business School: http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/90350/Study_intercultural_comms1.pdf
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Seabury.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1983). Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives. Berverly Hills: Sage.
Jandt, F. E. (2001). Intercultural communication: An introduction (third ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Klopf, D. W., & Park, M. (1982). Cross cultural communication: An introduction to the fundamentals. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Price, F. (2000). The naked Australian: The valuable Australian. Melbourne: Workshop.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (1997). Intercultural communication: A reader (eighth ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Wang, M. M., Brislin, R., Wang, W., Williams, D., & Chao, J. H. (2000). Turning bricks into jade: Critical incidents for mutual understanding among Chinese and Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.