An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. Fred E. Jandt
in Minneapolis, who is she? In the United States, can she identify herself as any one of these? As all of these? Will others most likely identify her first as Hispanic?
A postethnic perspective recognizes that each of us, like the Minneapolis attorney, lives in many diverse groups and so we aren’t confined to only one group. Angela Davis (1992) used the image of “a rope attached to an anchor”: While we may be anchored in one community, our “ropes” should be long enough to permit us to move into other communities.
Hollinger (1995) describes a postethnic perspective as a challenge to the “right” of our grandparents to establish our primary identity. Postethnicity “prefers voluntary to prescribed affiliations, appreciates multiple identities, pushes for communities of wide scope, recognizes the constructed character of ethno-racial groups, and accepts the formation of new groups as a part of the normal life of a democratic society” (p. 116). Postethnicity recognizes that groups based on affiliations are as substantive and authentic as groups based on blood and history.
In one sense, postethnicity is an idealistic attempt to redefine groups rigidly based on ethnicity into groups based on voluntary interests. However, if viewed from the perspective of dominant U.S. cultural values—particularly individualism—postethnicity is a reaffirmation of individuals’ right to define themselves by individual interest and not by heritage. Postethnicity in the United States may be an extension of extreme individualism. A postethnic perspective does not assume that everyone is the same. Rather, it recognizes our interdependent future and stretches the boundaries of we. Using the rhetorical sensitivity theory, some will argue that postethnicity is an example of noble selves.
It’s important to recognize the criticism of postethnicity: that it is idealistic to assume that others will not continue to label some people as members of a group and communicate with them as members of that group and not as individuals.
Barriers to Intercultural Communication
LaRay M. Barna (1997) developed a list of six barriers to effective and appropriate intercultural communication: anxiety, assuming similarity instead of difference, ethnocentrism, stereotypes and prejudice, nonverbal misinterpretations, and language. Her categories of barriers are used here when discussing problems that can arise in intercultural encounters. The first four kinds of barriers are discussed in this chapter. Nonverbal misinterpretations and language are discussed separately in following chapters. Taking these common mistakes into account can help you improve your intercultural communication skills.
Anxiety
The first barrier is high Anxiety. When you are anxious due to not knowing what you are expected to do, it’s only natural to focus on that feeling and not be totally present in the communication transaction.
For example, you may have experienced anxiety on your very first day on a new college campus or in a new job. You may have been so conscious of being new—and out of place—and focused so much of your attention on that feeling that you made common mistakes and appeared awkward to others. Sugawara (1993) surveyed 168 Japanese employees of Japanese companies working in the United States and 135 of their U.S. coworkers. Only 8% of the U.S. coworkers felt impatient with the Japanese coworkers’ English. While 19% of the Japanese employees felt their spoken English was poor or very poor and 20% reported feeling nervous when speaking English with U.S. coworkers, 30% of the Japanese employees felt the U.S. coworkers were impatient with their accent. Almost 60% believed that language was the problem in communicating with the U.S. coworkers. For some, anxiety over speaking English properly contributed to avoiding interactions with the U.S. coworkers and limiting interactions both on and off the job.
The German sociologist Georg Simmel’s (1858–1918) concepts of “the stranger” and “social distance” were precursors to C. R. Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) anxiety/uncertainty reduction theory (Rogers, 1999). This theory assumes that during the initial phase of interaction with another person, your primary communication goal is to reduce your uncertainty about that person. Thus, you are attempting to discover information about the other person and to share information about yourself.
Gudykunst and his colleagues (see, e.g., Gudykunst, 1983, 1985) have applied this theory to intercultural communication by further developing the concept of the stranger. Strangers are people who are members of other groups who act in ways different from one’s own culture. When encountering strangers, one experiences uncertainty and anxiety and is unsure how to behave. Uncertainty means not knowing what the reactions of strangers will be and not knowing how to explain the reactions of strangers. Anxiety arises when a person is apprehensive about initial interactions. When anxiety is high, we tend to avoid interactions, and when it is too low, we tend not to care what happens in the interaction.
Assuming Similarity Instead of Difference
The second barrier is assuming similarity instead of difference. A middle-class Angolan teenager may purchase a CD of American music. Does that demonstrate that all teenagers like the same music? The cultural difference may be in how teenagers listen to that music: The Angolan teenager probably will play the music in communal fashion for several people to listen, dance, and sing along. Most probably in the United States, the teenager will listen to the music alone with earbuds. Four Spaniards may meet at a McDonald’s in Madrid. They may order Big Macs®, french fries, and milkshakes. Does that demonstrate that we all like the same food? The cultural difference may be in the rituals of dining together in Spain. Most probably the Spaniards will not rush their meal, and the person who invited the others will pay as it is very unlikely each will pay for individual portions. When you assume similarity between cultures, you can be caught unaware of important differences.
When you have no information about a new culture, it might make sense to assume no differences exist, to behave as you would in your home culture. But making that assumption could result in miscommunication. A Danish woman left her 14-month-old baby girl in a stroller outside a Manhattan restaurant while she was inside. Other diners at the restaurant became concerned and called the police. The woman was charged with endangering a child and was jailed for two nights. Her child was placed in foster care. The woman and the Danish consulate explained that leaving children unattended outside cafés is common in Denmark. Pictures were wired to the police showing numerous strollers parked outside cafés while parents were eating inside. The Danish woman had assumed that Copenhagen is similar to New York and that what is commonly done in Copenhagen is also commonly done in New York.
School districts in the United States have been accused of assuming similarity by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Muslims pray five times a day and require space to unfurl a prayer rug, face Mecca, and touch their head to the floor. Muslim parents have asked schools to recognize difference and become more accommodating to Muslim students.
Each culture is different and unique to some degree. Boucher (1974), for example, has shown how cultures differ in terms of to whom it is appropriate to display emotions. If you assume that display of emotions is similar to your culture, you might see people of different cultures in certain circumstances as lacking emotion and people in other circumstances as displaying emotions inappropriately.
The inverse can be a barrier as well. Assuming difference instead of similarity can lead to one not recognizing important things that cultures share in common.
It’s better to assume nothing. It’s better to ask, “What are the customs?” than to assume they are the same—or different—everywhere.
Ethnocentrism
The third barrier to effective intercultural communication is Ethnocentrism, or negatively judging aspects of another culture by the standards of one’s own culture. To be ethnocentric is to believe in the superiority of one’s own culture. Everything in a culture is consistent to that culture and makes sense if you understand that culture. For example, assume that climate change is a fact and, as a result, assume that summers in the United States average 43°C (109°F). It would be logical to make adjustments: Rather than air-conditioning