back an accurate understanding of that person’s identity. In other words, a competent communicator must be able to deal with diverse people in various situations.
Psychological Adjustment.
Competent intercultural communicators must be able to acclimate to new environments. They must be able to handle the feelings of culture shock, such as frustration, stress, and alienation in ambiguous situations caused by new environments.
Cultural Awareness.
To be competent in intercultural communication, individuals must understand the social customs and social system of the host culture. Understanding how peoples think and behave is essential for communication with them.
In Chapter 1, you read that the definition of communication itself reflects the culture defining it. In a like manner, the understanding of intercultural communication competence reflects the culture defining it. Consider how it might be defined in high-context, collectivistic cultures. C. M. Chua (2004) showed that intercultural communication competence in collectivistic Malaysian culture differs from Western definitions in that in Malaysia there is more emphasis on relational issues. Komolsevin, Knutson, and Datthuyawat (2010) explain this by showing that people in high-context cultures are hesitant to engage in communication—that is, they are reserved and silent—until they have sufficient information to encode messages appropriate for the receiver. So being quiet and reserved in Malaysia and Thailand is a necessary first step for the competent intercultural communicator. But that same behavior might be evaluated negatively in more individualistic cultures.
Rhetorical sensitivity (R. P. Hart & Burks, 1972) refers to a communicator’s attitudes about how to encode messages for the best receiver understanding and effect. The theory of rhetorical sensitivity describes three types of communicators (Darnell & Brockriede, 1976):
1 Noble selves—view themselves as the primary basis for communication choices; egotism and individualism communicating messages with little regard to the effect on the receiver
2 Rhetorical reflectors—view the desires and needs of the others as the primary basis for communication choices; display behavior believed to be desirable by the receiver
3 Rhetorical sensitives—combine concern for self with concern for others to encourage engagement in making decisions as to how to communicate
Komolsevin and colleagues (2010) use this theory to explain that Thais use rhetorical reflection to build rhetorical sensitivity. In Thai culture, the development of the relationship contributes to intercultural communication competence.
Intercultural Communication Ethics
As a branch of philosophy, ethics addresses the question of how we ought to lead our lives or what is right or wrong. The question to consider is whether there is an ethical standard that can be applied to all cultures or whether each culture has its own ethical standards of what is right and wrong.
Kenneth E. Andersen (1991) makes clear that ethical theories tend to reflect the culture in which they were produced and, therefore, present challenges in intercultural communication. Western ethics tend to focus on the individual and individual freedoms and responsibilities (Fuse, Land, & Lambiase, 2010). Other ethics focus more on community. As described in Chapter 1, Confucianism supports a just, orderly society with rituals for relationships that create a harmonious society. Interpersonal relationships and the concept of face are central to Confucianism. Confucian ethics revolve around the concept of li, or the social norms, rituals, and proprieties that characterize an orderly society. A recent study demonstrated that Confucian ethics guide people’s lives today. Zhong (2008) found that U.S. students display a strong sense of individualism, while Chinese students tend toward collectivism. Confucianism is an example of ethics that privilege the community and society, as opposed to Western ethics that focus on individuals and rights.
What, though, guides the interactions of people from cultures with diverse ethical perspectives?
Closely related to intercultural communication competence is ethics. We saw that the understandings of communication and of intercultural communication competence are specific to culture. Are there ethics that transcend all cultures, or are all ethics, too, specific to culture?
Focus on Culture 2.1 is an example of how identity can raise ethical questions.
Focus on Culture 2.1 Identity Ethics
In 2012, Elizabeth Warren (originally from Oklahoma of working-class upbringing) was elected the first woman to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. During her career as a Harvard Law School professor, she had listed herself as Native American in law school directories. Challenged to provide proof of her ancestry by her Republican opponent, Warren said her family lore was that she had an Indian ancestor.
President Donald Trump often mocked Warren’s claims of Cherokee heritage, referring to her as “Pocahontas.” She later did DNA testing to prove her ancestry. The results suggested she did have a distant American Indian ancestor in her lineage dating back 6 to 10 generations.
It was later revealed by the Washington Post that she had claimed American Indian as her race on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas. In response, Senator Warren apologized for claiming American Indian identity privately to the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation and later publicly.
The secretary of state of the Cherokee Nation wrote in an opinion column in the Tulsa World that culture and kinship create tribal membership—not blood. “It offends us when some of our national leaders seek to ascribe inappropriately membership or citizenship to themselves” (Hoskin, 2019).
Are there global values to guide intercultural interactions? Kale (1997) argues that peace is the fundamental human value. The use of peace applies not only to relationships among countries but to “the right of all people to live at peace with themselves and their surroundings” (p. 450). From this fundamental value, he developed four ethical principles to guide intercultural interactions:
1 Ethical communicators address people of other cultures with the same respect that they would like to receive themselves. Intercultural communicators should not demean or belittle the cultural identity of others through verbal or nonverbal communication.
2 Ethical communicators seek to describe the world as they perceive it as accurately as possible. What is perceived to be the truth may vary from one culture to another; truth is socially constructed. This principle means that ethical communicators do not deliberately mislead or deceive.
3 Ethical communicators encourage people of other cultures to express themselves in their uniqueness. This principle respects the right of expression regardless of how popular or unpopular a person’s ideas may be.
4 Ethical communicators strive for identification with people of other cultures. Intercultural communicators should emphasize the commonalities of cultural beliefs and values rather than their differences.
Developing ethical principles to guide intercultural interactions is a difficult task. Even though Kale’s principles may be more acceptable in some cultures than in others, they are certainly a beginning step.
Focus on Theory 2.1 Is the Academic Discipline of InterculturalCommunication Intercultural?
Is the intercultural communication field of
