Unisa AsisgnmeetCommunications

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
INTRODUCTION
THE SIX DIALECTICS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION/RELATIONSHIPs
THE CULTURAL –INDIVIDUAL DIALECTIC
THE PERSONAL-CONTEXUAL DIALECTIC
THE DIFFERENCES-SIMILARITIES DIALECTIC
THE STATIC- DYNAMIC DIALECTIC
THE HISTORY/PAST-PRESENT/FUTURE DIALECTIC
THE PRIVILEGE –DISADVANTAGE DIALECTIC

CULTURAL SPACE, CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CHANGING CULTURAL SPACE

INTERCULTURAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE SOCIAL,
INTERPRETIVE AND CRITICAL APPROACHES TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND
CONFLICTS
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH
THE INTERPRETIVE APPROACH
THE CRITICAL APPROACH

Sources Consulted

2
INTRODUCTION
Through intercultural communication we can learn a lot about other people and their cultures, and about ourselves and our own cultural background. We will also experience challenges and will seek out methods to resolving those challenges. In this assignment we will look at the six dialectics of intercultural communication and how they account for our intercultural relationships, we will then look at how cultural identity and cultural space are interlinked and how changing cultural space occurs and what it entail. Furthermore, this assignment will discuss the three approaches that are generally used to understanding intercultural relationships and communication.

THE SIX DIALECTICS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION/RELATIONSHIPS
There are to be found six dialectics that characterise intercultural communication. Namely they are the Cultural –Individual Dialectic, the Personal-Contexual Dialectic, the Differences-Similarities
Dialectic, the Static- Dynamic Dialectic, the History/Past-Present/Future Dialectic and the Privilege –
Disadvantage Dialectic.
To begin with would be beneficial to define and understand what dialectic is. According to Martin and Nakayama (2007: 71) dialectic is a method of logic based on the principle that an idea generates its opposite, leading to a reconciliation of the opposites; it is also the complex and paradoxical relationship between two opposite qualities or entities, each of which may also be referred to as a dialectic. THE CULTURAL –INDIVIDUAL DIALECTIC
According to Martin and Nakayama (2007: 71) intercultural communication is both cultural and individual, or idiosyncratic. This means that culturally we share communication patterns with members of the groups to which we belong but also exhibit communication patterns that are specific to our own individualism. For example an Italian American child might demonstrate the communication patterns of her family but at the same time possess communication patterns that are specific to her (idiosyncratic).
THE PERSONAL-CONTEXUAL DIALECTIC
Martin and Nakayama (2007:71) suggest that this dialectic involves the role of context in intercultural relationships and focuses simultaneously on the person and the context. This would mean according to (Martin & Nakayama 2007:71) that although we communicate as individuals on a personal level the context of this communication is important as well. This dialectic takes into account the various roles we fulfil and that we enact specific social roles that give meaning to our messages (Martin & Nakayama 2007:71). For example a teacher teaching in a foreign country where the social role of his/her profession is more respected than in his/her hometown might find it important to connect with his/her audience differently, for instance, in the foreign country he/she might teach from the role the respected role as a teacher whereas in his/her hometown he/she might take a more informal approach.

3

THE DIFFERENCES-SIMILARITIES DIALECTIC
This dialectic has the view that people are simultaneously similar to and different from each other
(Martin & Nakayama 2007:72). For example, according to Martin and Nakayama (2007:72),
Japanese and U.S. Americans communicate differently, just as do men and women. However, there are also many similarities in human experiences and ways of communicating. Martin and Nakayama
(2007:72) suggest that emphasizing only differences can lead to stereotyping and prejudice; and emphasizing similarities can lade us to ignore the important cultural variations that exist.

THE STATIC- DYNAMIC DIALECTIC
Martin and Nakayama (2007:72) state that this dialectic suggests that intercultural communication tends to be at once static and dynamic. This means that some cultural and communication patterns remain relatively constant, whereas other aspects of cultures shift over time (Martin and Nakayama
2007:72). Martin and Nakayama (2007:72) discuss how anti-immigrant sentiment traditionally has been a cultural constant in the United States, although the groups and conditions of discrimination have changed. Similarly in South Africa, racial stereotypes are still apparent even though the liberation of South Africa took place over two decades ago.

THE HISTORY/PAST-PRESENT/FUTURE DIALECTIC
Martin and Nakayama (2007:73) state that this dialectic emphasizes the need to focus simultaneously on the past and the present in understanding intercultural communication.
Furthermore the authors suggest that we need to be aware of contemporary forces and realities that shape interactions of people from different cultural groups while simultaneously realizing that history has a significant impact on contemporary events. For example in order to understand the current socio-political climate in South Africa we need to understand the history of where our socio
–political roots stem from.

THE PRIVILEGE –DISADVANTAGE DIALECTIC
In this dialectic Martin and Nakayama (2007:74) recognize that people may be simultaneously privileged and disadvantaged , or privileged in some contexts and disadvantaged in others. For example a tourist might be privileged to travel to a foreign country but disadvantaged in not knowing or being able to speak the local language.
It is clear from these six dialectics that there is a paradoxical relationship we experience within the opposites of messages in of our intercultural communication relationships and messages.

4

CULTURAL SPACE, CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CHANGING CULTURAL SPACE
Often we reduce our cultural spaces to the history of the regional territories we find ourselves in when in fact our earliest cultural space that we experience is our home. Thus cultural space can be defined as the particular configuration of the communication that constructs meanings of various places (Martin and Nakayama 2007:254. Furthermore, Martin and Nakayama (2007:254) identify cultural space as the social and cultural contexts in which our identity forms-where we grow up and where we live (not necessarily the physical homes and neighbourhoods, but the cultural meanings created in those places).
The development of cultural identity is influenced largely by history. We can use history and stories to make sense of our everyday lives. There are mainstream histories (ethnic and racial) as well hidden histories -gender, sexual orientation, racial, ethnic, diasporic, colonial and socioeconomic class histories (Martin and Nakayama 2008:25).
As mentioned previously our homes are our earliest cultural spaces that we experience and thus our cultural identity can be inferred to start there. Even if our home does not reflect the social class to which we aspire, it may be a place of indentification as we often model our lives on the patterns from our childhood homes. (Martin and Nakayama 2007:267). Our cultural identities are shaped by the neighbourhoods we stay in and our sense of regionalism.
Our cultural spaces change through things like travel or migration. We often change cultural spaces when we travel (Martin and Nakayama 2007:273). People also change cultural space when they relocate (Martin and Nakayama 2007: 274).

5
INTERCULTURAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE SOCIAL, INTERPRETIVE AND CRITICAL APPROACHES TO
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICTS
“Intercultural relationships are relationships between two individuals from different cultures. People in such relationships experience difficulties and also gain some rewards from such a relationship. For example, you may enter into a relationship with a person from another country who does not speak your language. The challenges you will experience is the communication problem between the two of you, but the long-term benefit will be that both of you may learn each other's language.” (Martin and Nakayama 2008:65).
In order to resolve these challenges and conflicts the authors suggest three approaches which are applicable to understanding intercultural relationships. They are: the social science approach, also known as the functionalist approach; the interpretive approach; and the critical approach.
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH
The social science approach looks at the cross-cultural differences that exist in intercultural relationships. It identifies the different ideas people have about relationships such as friendship and intimate and romantic relationships, and how relationships develop (Martin and Nakayama
2008:65). “The social science approach is based on research in psychology and sociology it assumes that: 1) there is a describable external reality. 2) Human behaviours are predictable and 3) Culture is a variable that can be measured” (Martin and Nakayama 2007:52). Martin and Nakayama (2007:53) conclude that this suggests that culture influences communication in much the same way that personality traits do and that the goal of this approach is to specifically predict how culture influences communication. The social science approach has within in it a range of theories that account for specific cultural phenomena. For example in (Martin and Nakayama 2007:53) a communication researcher named William Gudykunst found that people have certain strategies that they use to reduce anxiety or uncertainty on the first encounter with different cultures. Gudykunst found that strategies varied depending on whether people were from individualistic or collectivistic cultures. Many of the social science studies have been useful in identifying variations in communication from group to group and specifying psychological and sociological variables in the communication process, however scholars also recognize that some methods in this approach are not culturally sensitive and that researchers may be too distant from the phenomena or people there are researching (Martin and Nakayama 2007:55).
THE INTERPRETIVE APPROACH
The interpretive approach looks at how people from different cultures communicate with each other
(Martin and Nakayama 2008:65). Martin and Nakayama (2007:56) state that the aim of the interpretive approach to intercultural communication is to understand and describe human behaviour within specific cultural groups based on the assumptions that: 1)Human experience is subjective, 2) Human behaviour is creative rather than determined or easily predicted and 3) culture is created and maintained through communication. It is obvious that the interpretive approach differs from the social science approach and that it does not see human behaviour as predictable. It also emphasizes the subjectivity in human experience and relationships and aims at understanding phenomena subjectively, from within a particular cultural community or context instead of trying to search for universal generalizations (Martin and Nakayama 2007:57). The interpretive approach uses

6 three distinct methods, namely, ethnographical research, qualitative methods and participant observation (Martin and Nakayama 2007:56). Ethnographical research or ethnography examines the patterned interactions and significant symbols of specific cultural groups to identify the cultural norms that guide their behaviours (Martin and Nakayama 2007:56). Qualitative methods used in the interpretive approach attempt to capture people’s own meanings for their everyday in specific contexts. These methods use participant based observations in where a researcher or investigator will interact extensively with the cultural group being studied (Martin and Nakayama 2007:56). The interpretive approach thus provides and in depth understanding of communication patterns in particular communities because it emphasizes investigating communication in context, however the main limitation of this approach is that there are few interpretivist studies of intercultural communication and thus a lack of knowledge when it comes to understanding what happens when two groups come in contact with each other (Martin and Nakayama 2007:62).

THE CRITICAL APPROACH
The critical approach looks at the contextual influence on intercultural relationships and communication. Such contexts refer to family and neighbourhood, religious and educational contexts and the historical and political contexts and how these influence our attitudes and communication with members of other cultures (Martin and Nakayama 2008:67). Martin and
Nakayama (2007:62) eloquently describe the critical approach as a metatheoretical approach that includes many assumptions of the interpretive approach but that focuses more on macrocontexts, such as the political and social structures that influence communication. Martin and Nakayama
(2007:62) define a macrocontext as the political, social and historical situations, backgrounds, and environments that influence communication. Martin and Nakayama (2007:63) state that the preferred methods used by critical scholars is textual analyses whereby scholars will generally analyse cultural “products” such as media (television, movies, journals, and so on), as powerful voices in shaping contemporary culture. The critical approach is similar to the social science approach in that it looks at macro themes and universalized trends that influence communication, and similar to the interpretive approach in that it gauges our subjective responses to these macrocontexts but unique in that it emphasizes the power relations in intercultural interactions and the importance of social and historical contexts (Martin and Nakayama 2007:68). The limitations of the critical approach is that it does not focus on the face-to-face intercultural interactions (Martin and Nakayama 2007:68).

7
Sources Consulted

Martin, JN & Nakanyama, TK. 2007. Intercultural communication in contexts. 4th edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Martin, JN & Nakanyama, TK. 2007. Intercultural communication in contexts. 4th edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill. Only study guide for COM2603