Intercultural Communication as a Dominant Paradigm
Intercultural Communication as a Dominant Paradigm
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Communications, Victoria University of Wellington
Matthew Scott and Grant Sherson April 1999
Introduction
To begin an overview of intercultural communication it is important to attempt to clarify the concepts of communication and culture.
What Is Communication?
For this paper we will use a definition that communication is:
“that behaviour which happens whenever meaning is attributed to behaviour or to the residue of behaviour. When someone observes our behaviour or it’s residue and gives meaning to it, communication has taken place regardless of whether our behavior was conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional” (Samovar 1997, p16).
This definition does not encompass all elements of communication as Casmir points out it is “impossible to develop one single definition or methodological approach” (Casmir, 1989, p. 279).
What Is Culture?
Of all the concepts buried in “intercultural communication”, by far the most difficult and contested is “culture”. In order to “ground” the bewildering array of theories of intercultural communication, it is important to see how this notion is being used. Conceptions of culture vary in the literature according to how broadly it is defined, and how much explanatory power it is allowed to wield.
Breadth: what does “culture” include?
Many researchers treat culture less as a concept with intrinsic meaning than as a fence to be erected about other concepts. Almost every author, in each new piece of research, erects the fence in a slightly different place, and in so doing, redefines the parameters of the field. However, two broad groupings can be identified, and one historical hangover.
The hangover is a preoccupation with ethnicity as a key delineator of cultural groups. This is undoubtedly an artefact of the anthropological roots of the field. Importantly, it has meant that until
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Communications, Victoria University of Wellington
Matthew Scott and Grant Sherson April 1999
Introduction
To begin an overview of intercultural communication it is important to attempt to clarify the concepts of communication and culture.
What Is Communication?
For this paper we will use a definition that communication is:
“that behaviour which happens whenever meaning is attributed to behaviour or to the residue of behaviour. When someone observes our behaviour or it’s residue and gives meaning to it, communication has taken place regardless of whether our behavior was conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional” (Samovar 1997, p16).
This definition does not encompass all elements of communication as Casmir points out it is “impossible to develop one single definition or methodological approach” (Casmir, 1989, p. 279).
What Is Culture?
Of all the concepts buried in “intercultural communication”, by far the most difficult and contested is “culture”. In order to “ground” the bewildering array of theories of intercultural communication, it is important to see how this notion is being used. Conceptions of culture vary in the literature according to how broadly it is defined, and how much explanatory power it is allowed to wield.
Breadth: what does “culture” include?
Many researchers treat culture less as a concept with intrinsic meaning than as a fence to be erected about other concepts. Almost every author, in each new piece of research, erects the fence in a slightly different place, and in so doing, redefines the parameters of the field. However, two broad groupings can be identified, and one historical hangover.
The hangover is a preoccupation with ethnicity as a key delineator of cultural groups. This is undoubtedly an artefact of the anthropological roots of the field. Importantly, it has meant that until