Intercultural Or Not? Beyond Celebration Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pragmatics4:3.409 -427 InternationalPraematics Association INTERCULTURAL OR NOT? BEYONDCELEBRATION OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCESIN MTSCOMMUNTCATIONANALYSTS1 SrikantSaransi 1. Introduction The basicquestion this paper addressesis: What shouldbe the underlyingpurpose of interculturalanalysis? Is the purpose to explain conversationalmismatches in termsof cultural differencesin an abstractedway? Or is the purpose to make an attempt to understand the complex institutionalprocesses in which the shifting 'culture' natureof is embedded?As the main title suggests,I primarily addressthese issuesby focusing on what characterisesintercultural communication as '(not) intercultural'.The subtitle-'celebration of culturaldifferences in miscommunication analysis'- appliesto two aspectsof interculturalanalysis: (i) how 'culture' is used asan analyticconstruct to studymiscommunication, and (ii) how certainresearchers 'analytic indulge in the stereotyping' of intercultural encounters as mainly characterisedby the cultural differencespresent.2 The first part of this paper (comprisingsection 2) offers a by no means exhaustivecritical review of two specific types of intercultural communication analysis,i.e., one that can be situatedwithin culturalanthropology and anotherwith a more sociolinguisticand pragmaticorientation. By pointing at a dominant trend 'thematisation of of cultural differences',I offer a critiqueof an essentialistview of 'culture' in these Vpes of intercultural analysis,thus extendinga position taken earlier(Roberts & Sarangi1993). The secondpart of the paper (comprisingsections 3, 4, and 5) startswith a call for a discourseorientation to the analyticconcept of 'culture', which is followed by an analysisof situated intercultural data in the gatekeepingsituation of selectioninterviews. This leadsme to revisit the notion of 'interculturality' from a cultural-theoreticperspective, with particular referenceto migrants'experience in contemporarymulticultural societies. ' A condensedversion of this paper was first presentedat the fourth International Pragmatics 'Beyond Conference,Kobe, July 1993, under the title celebration of miscommunication: critical perspectiveson intercultural communication'. I am very thankful to Jan Blommaert, Michael Meeuwis,and Stef Slembrouck for their suggestionson an earlier draft. r 'analytic Elsewhere (Sarangi lgg}) lelaborate this notion of stereotyping'with reference to the study of native-nonnative discourse, where misunderstandings are explained by appealing to the linguistic deficiency on the part of the nonnative speakers. 4I0 Sikant Sarangi 2. Miscommunication and culture as representedin two traditions 2.I. Intercultural analysisIrom a cultural-anthropologicalperspective 'Intercultural communication' is the preferred term among some cultural anthropologiststo describethe study of interaction- generallyin the face-to-face informal setting- betweenindividuals representing ditferent 'cultures' (e.g., Asante & Gudykunst 1989;Brislin 1981;Casmir 1978;Condon & Yousef 1975;Gudykunst 1983,1997; Gudykunst & Kim 7984,1988;Prosser 1978a,1978b; Samovar & Porter 1997; Samovar et al. 1981). Asante et al. (1979) divide this tradition into two categories on the basis of the preferred research goals. The first group of researchers,whom they label 'cultural dialogists',emphasise the need to develop a humanisticview of communicationtheory and practicethat would promote world understanding.The secondschool, referred to as'culturalcriticism', is guidedby the principle of conflict and tries to identify points of conflict between individual culturesas researchableissues. These two schools,in my view, are not exclusiveto one another as both of them share an interest in the study of 'differencesacross cultures'. Although these studies acknowledge the role of language in the manifestation of cultural differences,the underlyingassumption is that cultural problemsare more significantthan linguisticproblems. As Prosser(1978a: 102) maintains: "Actually, though the individual languageand culture are tightly linked, and therefore do cause important barriers for intercultural communication and for cultural spokespersons, the language problems may be less severe than other cultural barriers; for example, perceptions,attitudes, stereotypes, prejudices, beliefs, values, and thought-patterning itself." This view suggests,on the one hand, that there is a link between culture and 'language' languagein a Whorfian sense,but on the other hand, that is to be kept analyticallyseparate from'culture'. These two assumptionsamount to sayingthat languageis contained within and reducible to culture, thus denying languageits reality-constructingrole (as will also be made clear in section3.1). Moreover, individual'cultures'areseen as unified and homogeneousentities, and, by extension,communicative difficulties are invariablyexplained in terms of cross-culturaldifferences. By equating'culture'with thoughts,feelings, values, and beliefs of individuals,and by assumingthat it existsin the headsof individuals,this notion of culture missesthe dynamicsof sociallife. According to Wuthnow et al. (1984:4), in this tradition of analysis,'culture' comes to be treated as the least observablecategory of non-behaviour: "Culture is that residual realm left over after all forms of observable human behaviour have been removed. It consists of the inner, invisible thought life of human beings either as individuals or in some difficult-to-imagine collective sense, as in notions of 'collective 'intersubjective purpose', 'shared values',and realities'.What people actually do, how they behave, the institutions they construct [...] however,are not a part of culture." This tradition can thus be said to neglectthe complexand multi-layered'cultural' outlook of individual interacting participants.Also, with its heavy reliance on examplesdrawn from hypotheticalcontact situations, it can offer very little insight Intercultural or not? 4Il into what reallygoes on in the contextof situateddiscourse. Although thesestudies claimto be concernedwith interactionsat the situatedlevel, they themselvesrather run the risk of giving rise to cultural stereotypesby overlooking individual differences and other situational variables surrounding the intercultural communicationevent. In other words,in thesestudies the individualparticipants are consideredto representtheir respective'cultures' and thus ceaseto be individuals in their own right.3Consequently, while the analysisof the intercultural event is made on a collectivescale, the creation of a hypotheticalindividual is a means towardarriving at generalisationsabout 'cultures'. 2.2.Intercultural analysisIro* sociolinguisticand pragmatic perspectives 2.2.I. The in t era c t ion aI -s o c i olingtis tic p erspe c tiv e Works by, among others, Gumperz (1978, 1982); Gumperz & Tannen (1979); Scollon& Scollon (1980, 1983)can be seenas a reactionto the above mentioned cultural-anthropologicaltradition which paysvery little attention to linguisticand interactionaldata. Two of the key assumptionswhich underlie the interactionalist researchtradition are: (i) ethnicity and different cultural backgroundsdetermine speakers'discourse strategies (different ways of speaking, different ways of structuringinformation, etc.); (ii) different discoursestrategies and communicative stylescan lie at the heart of interethnicmisunderstandings. With regard to thesekey assumptions,we notice strongresonances between this tradition and the cultural-anthropologicaltradition reviewedin section2.1, as theycontinue to sharea belief that communicativeproblems can be accountedfor in terms of cultural differences.But unlike the cultural-anthropologicaltradition which hypothesisesabout potential problems on the basis of cross-cultural differences, the interactional-sociolinguistictradition locates communicative problemsin observedlinguistic data. This tradition thus deservescredit for having producedfine-grained analyses of naturallyoccurring intercultural encounters. It is beyondthe scopeof this paper to reviewthe accusationsof ethnocentric analyticbias hauled againstthe Gumperziananalysis of miscommunication.aWhat concerns me more is the way in which this framework overemphasisesthe explanatorypower of 'contextualisationcues' in relation to understanding'culture'. Consider what Gumperz (1992: 5I-52) writes in a recent paper titled 'Contextualisation revisited': ' 'how A related paradox arises, however, as these studies lead to a proliferation of to' literature 'intercultural 'adaptation emphasising adjustment', through awareness' etc. aimed at real-life individuals. o Singh et al. (1988) and Kandiah (1990) allege that there is a strong ethnocentric bias in the interactional-sociolinguistic tradition. My impression, however, is that these critics' alternative 'cultural 'cultural explanations from the viewpoint of the other' maintain a generic principle' (for a fuller discussion, see Sarangi 1994). 4I2 Srikant Saransi "The notion of contextualizationhas significantimplications for our understandingof what culture is. Traditionally, anthropologists speak of culture in terms of shared meaning or shared interpretive practices or shared cognitive structures.Our discussion points to the importance of shared typifications that enter into the signaling and use of activity types in interaction, as well as systems of contextualization conventions. In contrast to the established,commonly acceptedidealizations, such interactivelydefined notions of culture can be studied by empirical means