Theories of Culture, Groupness, and

Intercultural Communication

Prosem 422 (Baldwin)

Culture

• Baldwin additions to reading (slides 2-6)• Culture: “The traditions, customs, norms,

beliefs, values, and thought patterning which are passed down from generation to generation” (Prosser, 2003).

• Some thoughts about this definition – Ignores organizational and other “short-term”

cultures

– Treats culture as “static,” unchanging (compared to “process” definitions of culture, gender, diversity)

– Ignores the “power” component.

Culture as Both Form & Function

• Form– Culture as community– Culture as conversation– Culture as code

• Function– Performance script/schema for daily life– Way of organizing/interpreting experience– Integrates cultural members separated by time and

space

An Iceberg Model of Culture

http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/svp05-0151B/iceberg-OP.jpg

Wrestling with Terms

Culture versus Co-culture: “Cultures” are often treated as corresponding with nations, with “co-cultures” being groups within those nations but who share the same national border.

Q: Are the similarities within a nation such as the U.S. greater or smaller than differences between two nations, say the U.S. and Canada?

Ways to Study Values

EmicStudies behavior from within system, with terms, constructs coming from culture instead of theorist“Cultural” Communication

EticStudies behavior from outside of system, with theorist providing framework or theory

Cross-Cultural Communication

Speech Codes Theory

• Ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3p6KSVcN8&feature=related

• Speech Codes Theory (SCT) developed by Philipsen and colleagues

• Takes the approach of culture as code

• Developed through emic research (observation and interaction with cultural members—axiom of particularity)

• And etic (axiom of generality)

Speech Codes Theory:Formative Influences

• SCT influenced by Bernstein– Elaborated code– Restricted code

• SCT influenced by Hymes encouraging “ethnography of speaking”

• Led Philipsen to conclusion that “communicative conduct is an activity that is radically cultural—practiced and formulated distinctively across speech communities and cultures.”

Speech Codes Theory:Seminal Research

• Philipsen’s first study regarding speech codes was an investigation of “Teamsterville,” a south side neighborhood in Chicago

• Philipsen found that there were distinctive ways of “talking like a man” in Teamsterville (contrasted to Nacirema)

Speech Codes Theory:Current Propositions

• Proposition One: Distinctiveness of Speech Codes– Where there is a distinctive culture, there will be a

distinctive speech code

• Proposition Two: Multiplicity of Speech Codes• Proposition Three: Substance of Speech Codes

– For a given culture, the speech code implicates a particular:

• Psychology (identity)• Sociology (social structure/hierarchy)• Rhetoric (what is true/important as in honor)

Propositions cont.

• Proposition Four: Meaning of Speech Codes– Provide constitutive meaning to communication; that is,

defines what a particular utterance should count as (teasing vs. dissing; compliment vs. insult)

• Proposition Five: Site of Speech Codes– “terms, rules, and premises of a speech code are

inexplicably woven into speaking itself”– Analysis: analyze interaction

– Examine rituals, cultural myths, and social dramas

– Examine metacommunicative vocabulary

Propositions (cont.)

Proposition Six: The Discursive Force of Speech Codes

Speech codes shape interaction in a cultural community– People tend to behave in ways consistent with the

code– Discursive force can be seen in meta-

communication of members (e.g., totemizing rituals, cultural myths, social dramas)

The Notion of Cultural Difference

Approaches to Cross-Cultural Comm.

Code (words spoken), context (relationship, rules, roles), and meaning (ascribed by participants)Some cultures look more to context for meaning and others more to the actual words spoken. (Hall,1976)

Low Context High Context

Meaning is in “explicit code”—that is, people tend to look to words for meaning or believe that meaning is “in the words.”

Meaning is “internal to communicators”—that is, in roles, situation, relationship (contexts) not spelled out

http://www.genderwork.com/images/orgdev_heads.gif

Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture

Individualism/ Collectivism

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Masculinity/ Femininity

Long-Term Orientation

(Also discussed on p. 300, Miller)

Want to read more? https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMTIN.PDF

Hofstede’s Dimensions

Japan

Collectivistic

Individualistic

Low Power Distance

High Power Distance

JamaicaMexico

Turkey

IndiaArgentina

Denmark

Germany

United States

Italy

Venezuela

MalaysiaHong Kong

Costa Rica

Theories of Face and Facework:The Concept of Face• Face can be traced to Chinese distinction

between lien (moral conduct) and mien-tzu (inappropriate interaction)

• Goffman—face is the positive image we seek to maintain during interaction– Face can be lost, maintained, enhanced, or

repaired during interaction– Dramaturgical perspective

Politeness Theory

• Brown & Levinson distinguish between positive face (desire to be valued and included) and negative face (need for autonomy and freedom from imposition)– Face threatening acts (FTAs) are unavoidable

during interaction so all languages have politeness features to soften face threats.

• Ignore first paragraph on p. 302

Relating Face to Culture

• Face is a universal concept that cuts across all cultures

• Face may have different implications in different cultures– Individualistic cultures may be most concerned

with negative face (autonomy)– Collectivistic cultures may be concerned about

both autonomy and connection

Facework

• Face threats occur when desired identity in an interaction is threatened (FTAs)

• Threats are managed through facework that can be either preventive or corrective

• Culture influences facework– Preventive facework: disclaimers and politeness– Corrective facework: apologies, accounts (excuses

& justifications), avoidance, humor, and remedial efforts

Predictions about conflict strategies?

Individualistic Culture

Collectivistic Culture

High

Low

HighLow

Concern for Own Goals

Concern for Others’ Goals

Competing (dominating)

Compromising

Avoiding (withdrawing)

Obliging (Yielding)

Collaborating (integrating)

Theories of Co-Cultural Groups

• These frameworks consider experiences of women and other marginalized cultural groups

• Theories have roots in feminist thought, but have been expanded

• Two specific theories will be considered:– Standpoint Theory– Muted Group Theory

Co-Cultural Theories based on Power Structures

• Main Point: While groups may create their own identities (CTI), these identities are created within structures of power relations—the creation of a group’s identity (e.g., Deaf) can only be understood in terms of the group’s relation to dominant culture.

• Co-cultures: Groups that exist and have an identity within a larger, privileged cultural group, whose norms and values serve to structure the reality of the less privileged group

Key Theories within this Perspective

• Standpoint Theory: Co-cultural groups each have their own view of the social world that is different from that of the dominant culture

• Muted Group Theory: Dominant cultures structure the linguistic system of a society. Co-cultural members must find their own ways of speaking (e.g., “chick flick”).The ways of speaking of co-cultural members with dominant culture members always reflect some relationship of the co-culture

member’s relation to dominant culture’s power.

Specific strategies can be explained by looking at aspects of context and the individuals involved (while predictions could be made, Orbe is descriptive, and uses only open-ended methods)

Explaining specific strategies (p. 168)

Separation Accommodation Assimilation

Nonassertive AvoidingMaintaining interpersonal barriers

Increasing visibilityDispelling stereotypes

Emphasizing commonalitiesDeveloping positive faceCensoring selfAverting controversy

Assertive Communicating selfIntragroup networkingExemplifying strengthsEmbracing stereotypes

Communicating selfIntragroup networkingUsing liaisonsEducating others

Extensive preparationOvercompensatingManipulating stereotypesBargaining

Aggressive AttackingSabotaging others

ConfrontingGaining advantage

DissociatingMirroringStrategic DistancingRidiculing Self

Application: People with disabilities

• How might co-cultural theory (or the theoriest that contribute to it) apply to other co-cultural groups?

• Specifically, how do Cohen & Avanzino (2010) do their research to apply CCT to people with disabilies?

• What are their key findings?

• Evaluation:– Is CCT scientific, humanistic, or critical?– What are its strengths and limitations?

“Radical” or Critical Approaches

• Whiteness (social and linguistic construction of whiteness)

• Critical Race Theory (how white power structures oppress minorities and how it can be changed)

• Postcolonial (gender, class, and race oppression at global level through historical process of colonization)– Modernity

• Ambivalence of colonized toward colonizers• Appropriation• Hybridity