Главная Случайная страница


Категории:

ДомЗдоровьеЗоологияИнформатикаИскусствоИскусствоКомпьютерыКулинарияМаркетингМатематикаМедицинаМенеджментОбразованиеПедагогикаПитомцыПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРазноеРелигияСоциологияСпортСтатистикаТранспортФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияХоббиЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника






A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION

* Three approaches to studying intercultural communication (social science, interpretive, critical) *A dialectical approach to studying culture and communication * Its emphasis * Six dialectics of intercultural communication: cultural-individual, personal-contextual, differences-similarities, static-dynamic, history/past – present/future, privilege-disadvantage * Keeping a dialectic perspective

 

Key words:

Assumptions, changeable, communication accommodation theory, contradictory, creative, critical approach, cross-cultural misunderstandings, dialectic, dialectical approach, dichotomy, dichotomous thinking, equivalence of measures, external, face-to-face interaction. functionalist, holistically (holistic approach), human behavior, idiosyncratic, intercultural competence, internal, interpretive approach, paradigm, particular social roles, predictable, processual, quantitative, questionnaire, relational aspect, similarities and differences, social science approach, static and dynamic, stereotyping and prejudice, variable.

 

 

Three Approaches to Studying Intercultural Communication

Three contemporary approaches to studying intercultural communication are: the social science (sometimes called functionalist) approach, the interpretive approach, and the critical approach (Table 6). These approaches are based on different fundamental assumptions about human nature, human behavior, and the nature of knowledge (Burrell & Morgan). Each one contributes in a unique way to our understanding of the relationship between culture and communication. We can learn from each one while recognizing its limitations. These approaches vary in their assumptions about human behavior, their research goals, their conceptualization of culture and communication, and their preferred methodologies.

 

 

Table 6. Three Approaches to Intercultural Communication

Social science (or functionalist) Interpretive Critical
Discipline on which approach is founded   Psychology Anthropology, sociolinguistics Various
Research goal Describe and predict behavior   Describe     Change
Assumption of reality External and describable Subjective   Subjective and material  
  Assumptions of human behavior Predictable Creative and voluntary   Changeable
  Method of study Survey, observation Participant observation, field study   Textual analysis of media  
  Relationship of culture and communication   Communication influenced by culture   Culture created and maintained through communication   Culture as a site of power struggles  
Contribution of the approach   Identifies cultural variations; recognizes cultural differences in many aspects of communication, but often does not consider context     Emphasizes that communication and culture and cultural differences should be studied in context   Recognizes the economic and political forces in culture and communication, that all intercultural interactions are characterized by power

To examine these three approaches, let us start with a situation that illustrates a communication dilemma. In the early 1990s, Walt Disney Corporation opened its European Disneyland near Marne-la-Vallee, just outside of Paris. This corporate venture was plagued with problems from the beginning; by 1994 it was deeply in debt:

Euro Disney has fallen far short of the dream. A stunning 19 million people have visited the park since it opened, a fact the company trumpets with devotion. But it isn't enough. The guests don't spend enough time or money at the park, and no one will buy the hotels Euro Disney had built and planned to sell. Euro Disney is drowning in debt, and its stock has plunged. (Newsweek, February 14, 1994, p. 34)

Many explanations were offered for the problems at Euro Disney, now called Disneyland Paris. Analysts attributed the troubles to everything from lack of sunshine in this part of France to cross-cultural misunderstandings and French resistance to the cultural imperialism of the U.S. Disney conglomerate. Although the problem was due in part to a failing economy (a recession occurred just after the park opened), a significant part of the problem was culture based.

Three approaches will be used to analyze the situation and explain the problem. The contributions and limitations of each perspective to the study of intercultural communication will also be discussed.

The Social Science Approach

 

The social science approach(also called the functionalist approach)was most popular in the 1980s. It is based on research in psychology and sociology. This approach assumes a describable external reality. It also assumes that human behavior is predictable and that the researcher's goal is to describe and also predict behavior. Researchers who take this approach often use quantitative methods.Usually they gather data by questionnaire, but sometimes they observe subjects firsthand.

Social science researchers assume that culture is a variablethat can be measured. Culture influences communication much the same as a personality trait does. The goal of this research, then, is to predict specifically how culture influences communication.

Methods. To understand the Disneyland Paris fiasco, social science researchers would try to identify cultural differences between French and U.S. communication and then predict success or failure based on these cultural differences. Let's see how this might work. There are many examples of how cultural patterns collided in the operation and management of the theme park. Disney manage­ment and French employees differed in their approach to rules and regula­tions. Disney has a strictly regulated corporate culture: Employees cannot wear heavy makeup, grow beards or mustaches, or let their fingernails grow longer than 0.2 inch (0,5 cm); employees are encouraged to smile. Also, Disney management requires that lines waiting for rides should be orderly and that grounds be very well maintained. Finally, there was the issue of eating and drinking. According to one journalist's account, the French were stunned to discover that there was no beer or wine at the theme park. Also, unlike Americans, who will wander around, hot dog in hand, Europeans seemed determined to eat at a set time.

The rules and cultural patterns imposed by Disney clash with French values — a singular distrust of conformity, a disrespect for mandated procedures, and a love of style and “savoir faire” (know how to do things without being told). As E. T. Hall and M. Hall explain:

The French are impatient with conformity because they don't like to follow the crowd. . . . Procedures are taken less seriously in France than in the United States. . . . Procedures tend to bore the French; they think they inhibit their creativity and impinge on their individuality. They tend to be disrespectful of the law. (Hall & Hall, 1990, p. 106)

On the other hand, some things — like eating and drinking well — do require the proper form.

A French meal is a work of art, a composition not unlike a painting. Everything must fit together to create a perfect arrangement: the different courses of the meal, the cuisine, the wines, the service, the flowers, the setting. (Hall & Hall, p. 107)

Formal meals are not a Disney priority. The theme park is not set up to accommodate the dining expectations of French patrons.

Finally, there is the notion of smiling. U.S. service industries value smiling more than the French do. French reporters from the French newspaper Liberation noticed this curious phenomenon of smiling, which, they said, made French visitors uneasy. One of the French staff said that foreigners are used to being smiled at, but the French don't understand it. They think they are being taken for idiots.

Many social science studies explain how communication styles vary from culture to culture. D. Barnlund and M. Yoshioka compared Japanese and U.S. communication styles. They identified many differences, including how members of the two groups give compliments and apologies. Although people in both countries seem to prefer a simple apology, U.S. residents tend to apologize (and compliment) more often, and Japanese prefer to do something whereas Americans tend to explain as a way to apologize.

Another group of social science studies investigated how travelers adapted overseas. Researchers tried to predict which travelers would be the most successful. They found that a variety of factors – including age, gender, language, preparation, and personal characteristics – influenced how well someone adapted (Y. Kim).

 

Strengths and Limitations.Many of these social science studies have been useful at identifying how communication varies from group to group. They also have identified some of the psychological and sociological variables in the communication process. However, this approach is limited. Many scholars now realize that human communication is often more creative than predictable, and that reality is not just external but that humans also construct reality. We cannot identify all of the variables that affect our communication. Nor can we predict exactly why one intercultural interaction seems successful and others do not.

Scholars also recognize that some methods used in this approach are not culturally sensitive; sometimes researchers are too distant from the phenomena or from the people they are researching. In other words, researchers may not really understand the cultural groups they are studying.

To overcome these kinds of problems, social scientists have developed strategies for achieving equivalence of measures. One of the leading cross-cultural psychologists Richard Brislin has written extensively on guidelines for cross-cultural researchers. He has identified several types of equivalencies that researchers should establish, including translation equivalenceand conceptual equivalence.For example, when conducting cross-cultural studies literal translations are inadequate. To establish translation equivalence, research materials should be translated several times, using different translators. Materials that proceed smoothly through these multiple steps are considered translation equivalent.

Researchers can establish conceptual equivalence by making sure that the notions they are investigating are similar at various levels. For example, the notion of problem solving is one aspect of intelligence that may be conceptually equivalent in many cultures. Once this equivalence is established, researchers can identify culture-specific ways in which problem solving is achieved. Establishing these equivalencies allows the researcher to isolate and describe what distinguishes one culture from another.

The Interpretive Approach

 

The interpretive approachgained prominence in the late 1980s among communication scholars. One interpretive approach, founded in sociolinguistics, is the ethnographyof communication (D. Hymes). Ethnographers of communication are devoted to descriptive studies of communication patterns within specific cultural groups. Interpretive researchers assume that reality is not just external to humans but also that humans construct reality. They believe that human experience, including communication, is subjective. They also believe that human behavior is creative, not determined or easily predicted.

The goal of the interpretive researchers is to understand and describe human behavior. (Predicting behavior is not a goal.) They see culture as created and maintained through communication (Carbaugh, 1996). This type of research uses qualitative methodsderived from anthropology and linguistics: field studies,observations, and participant observations.

The interpretive research approach usually focuses on understanding communication patterns from the inside of a particular cultural community or context. Researchers try to describe patterns or rules that individuals follow in particular contexts. They tend (though not always) to be more interested in describing cultural behavior in one community, rather than in making cross-cultural comparisons.

Methods.How would an interpretive researcher investigate the Disneyland Paris context? One such study was conducted by a team of communication researchers, headed by Professor John Jarvis (1995). The researchers obtained permission to live at the theme park for a month. They trained as new employees (called "castmembers") and conducted informal interviews and conversations with employees. Their goal was to try to see the meanings Euro Disney employees were making of their experience in the Park as clearly as possible from their own perspective. They also supplemented their participant observations with formal interviews, They discovered serious workplace conflicts between U.S. and non-U.S. corporate culture at Disneyland Paris. Through their interviews and participant observations, they found that management and workers operated with conflicting values. They found that the French workers resented the U.S. Disney "culture" being forced on them – being told they had to smile and be enthusiastic. Workers also resented the assumption that management and workers could be friends. France has a long history of bad relations between workers and bosses.

Strengths and Limitations. The utility of the interpretive approach is that it provides a deep understanding of communication patterns in specific communities because it emphasizes investigating communication in context. The limitation of this approach is that there are few studies of intercultural communication. A second limitation is that scholars often are outsiders to the communities, which means that they may not represent accurately the communication patterns as seen by the members of that community.

The Critical Approach

 

A third approach includes many assumptions of the interpretive approach; researchers who use the critical approachbelieve in subjective (not objective) and material reality. They also emphasize the importance of studying the context in which communication occurs – that is, the situation, background, or environment in which it occurs. However, critical researchers usually focus on macrocontexts –for example, the political and social structures that influence communication. Critical scholars, unlike most social science and interpretive scholars, are interested in the historical context of communication (Putnam & Pacanowsky).

Critical scholars are always interested in understanding the power relations in communication. Identifying cultural differences is important only in relation to power differentials. In this perspective, culture is seen as a site of struggle, a place where multiple interpretations come together, but where there is always a dominant force. The goal of critical researchers is not only to understand human behavior but to change the lives of everyday communicators.

Researchers assume that by examining and writing about how power functions in cultural situations, the average person will learn how to resist forces of power and oppression.

The methods preferred by critical scholars are usually textual analyses,which sometimes occur within the economic contexts of the culture industries that produce these texts. That is, the scholars generally analyze cultural "products," such as media (TV, movies, journalistic essays) rather than observing or participating in face-to-face interactions or conducting surveys.

Methods. In analyzing the Disneyland Paris situation, a critical scholar might see the theme park as a site of cultural struggle. On the one hand, the Disney leadership considers the exportation of Disney icons (Mickey Mouse; Donald Duck; Main Street, U.S.A.; Fantasyland and so on) as a good international trade that represents the American Dream and originality. On the other hand, many French see Disneyland Paris as the worst example of cultural imperialism, a "cultural Chernobyl." They feel as if the Disney icons are imposed on them, as if Disney is taking over and replacing existing French cultural values such as love of literature, the French style of savoir faire, savoir vivre (know how to live). It would even seem that French cultural values and Disney values are diametrically opposed.

The French newspaper Le Figaro described Disneyland Paris as this horror of cardboard, plastic, atrocious colors, solidified chewing gum. constructions, and idiotic folk stories that come straight out of cartoon books for fat Ameri­cans. It is going to wipe out millions of children . . . mutilate their imagination.

Michael Eisner, president and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Disney, quoted the late French premier Georges Clemenceau who once stated that “America is one nation in history that has gone miraculously directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.”

Critical scholars might also analyze public relations of Disney. According to some French journalists, Disney's approach was very heavy handed; they cite as evidence the fact that the Disney people controlled access to information, rarely returned phone calls, and maintained strict regulations about interviews, requiring that interview requests be made in writing and that a representative from the Disneyland Paris communication team always be present.

 

Strengths and Limitations. The critical approach emphasizes the power relations in intercultural interactions and the importance of social and historical contexts. However, one limitation is that it does not focus on face-to-face intercultural interaction. Such studies may have less practical results.

 

A DIALECTICAL APPROACH

Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-06-10

lectmania.ru. Все права принадлежат авторам данных материалов. В случае нарушения авторского права напишите нам сюда...