One of the important contributions the study of intercultural communication has made is the identification of different styles, routines, orientations and guiding values for behaviour that can lead to misunderstandings. In unit 5 in particular you have learned a lot about different meanings of the supposed same symbol, word or action which may cause confusion and irritations. However, if we only think in a terms of binary categories, e.g. the British and the Mexicans, and ascribe traits or typical behaviour to them, then there is a danger of culturalism and our understanding of the situation will lack complexity. In reality, there are a large number of additional factors and influences to be taken into account.
To explain the multiplication of categories in the words of Amartya Sen:
"The same person can be, without any contradiction, an American citizen, of Caribbean origin, with African ancestry, a Christian, a liberal, a woman, a vegetarian, a long-distance runner, a historian, a schoolteacher, a novelist, a feminist, a heterosexual, a believer in gay and lesbian rights, a theater lover, an environmental activist, a tennis fan, a jazz musician, and someone who is deeply committed to the view that there are intelligent beings in outer space with whom it is extremely urgent to talk (preferably in English). Each of these collectivities, to all of which this person simultaneously belongs, gives her a particular identity. None of them can be taken to be the person´s only identity or singular membership category. Given our inescapable plural identities, we have to decide on the relative importance of our different associations and affiliations in any particular context."
Source: Sen, A. (2007, pp. XII-XIII)
Source: Based on Rathje, S. (2015). Multicollectivity – It changes everything. Key Note Speech at the SIETAR Europe Congress (SIETAR_slides_Rathje.pptx (stefanie-rathje.de), accessed on 20.9.2024)
Figure by Julia Flitta (www.julia-flitta.com)
If we take this multi-collectivity of our identities and multiple influences into account, belonging to a community can change, we can enter new communities and leave some whereas some membership remain for example with regard to our mother tongue. Those who speak the same language or join the same football club have something in common. But what about many other group belongings we have? Considering multi-collectivity indicates that through a common membership we share certain things but we cannot know for sure why a person behaves the way he or she does. Even though we can, of course, look for causes and reasons (in accordance with the natural worldview perspective), every category is ultimately a construct, as are our assumptions of cultural belonging. In fact, we do not really know what is going on. There is always the option of a “missing link” as Rathje puts it (2011), that is, there is always the possibility that we misunderstand or do not understand something. If we think the multi-collectivity approach through to the end any encounter can be intercultural as the cultural resources of two individuals hardly match and we have to deal with not knowing and the possibility of misunderstandings. This is the systemic-constructivist perspective. It leads to dealing with nescience and co-constructing and negotiating transcultural connections.
When we refer to a systemic-constructivist perspective, we acknowledge that there is no one true reason, no objective truth or reality. Everything depends on the observing individuals and their perspectives. Systemic thinking describes and differentiates in terms of relations and interdependencies. There is no 'true identity' of persons or collectives since all categories that we use for collectives are simply a matter of perspective. Systems, their components and connections exist as long as we communicate through them. There is no definitive 'cause' of social actions. We can only build hypotheses and try them out. Individuals follow patterns and rules of the game in a system, and this makes sense to them including the local one. For example, in the apartment block (as in the scenario above), we also interact as neighbours, or visitors if we do not live there. In a football team the club, the rules of the game and the club culture are key factors influencing our behaviour. From this meta-perspective, elements that do not adhere to the self-preservation principles of the system will be considered 'strange'. In order to come up with genuinely new ideas and thus enlarge the repertoire of possible reasons for a perturbation (disturbance) of the system, it is helpful to work with nescience. This means that, i.e. we need to embrace not knowing, for example by asking open questions, negotiating a third space or culture, and embarking on the process without needing to define and know the outcome.
Example:
David has recently moved to a new town with his parents. He is a passionate football player and joins the local soccer club without hesitation. He is happy that he can make friends with the other team members while playing his favourite sport. At the club there is only one topic of conversation, i.e. football: Which team played is in great form, what is happening in the various leagues, and the professional football transfer news. After a while, David realises that he has joined a very heterogenous team. Two members are from his hometown where he had grown up. They too, felt homesick at the beginning. Three of his team members are expat kids from different Asian countries, and they sometimes talk to each other in Chinese. He likes to be with the other two Jewish team members even if they are not as religious as David´s family, and one kid has diabetes just like him, so they share the common experience of making sure they eat regularly and checking their blood sugar.
One of the important contributions the study of intercultural communication has made is the identification of different styles, routines, orientations and guiding values for behaviour that can lead to misunderstandings. We have learned a lot about typical differences with regard to different meanings of the supposed same symbol, word or action. However, if we just think in a terms of binary categories, e.g. the British and the Mexicans, and ascribe traits or typical behaviour to them, then there is a danger of culturalism and our understanding of the situation lacking complexity. In reality, there are a large number of factors and influences and we can never know the “true” motivation.
Summary: the systemic-constructivist meta-perspective
Characteristics of the systemic-constructivist perspective and intercultural learning approach:
- notion of culture: systemic-constructivist
- considers several collective orientations and self-identifications, and patterns
- looks for different sources of 'confusion'
- is aware that there is always a missing link as individuals never share the whole set of collectives and if so, use the cultural resources differently
- no cause-effect thinking but interdependency
- considers situational / organizational aspects
- requires self-perception and openness from communication partners
- works with the systemic 'constructive art of nescience'
- has the potential to create commonalities and common interests
- is creative and solution oriented
- limits the problem of culturalism
Typical scholars who either combine systems theory with intercultural communication or have a multi-collective approach are:
- Jennifer Plaister-Ten ("The cross-cultural coaching kaleidoscope. A systems approach to coaching amongst different cultural influences", 2016)
- Stefanie Rathje ("The cohesion approach of culture and its implications for the training of intercultural competence", 2011)
- Steven Vertovec ("Superdiversity and its implications", 2007)
- Wolfgang Welsch ("Transculturality – the puzzling form of cultures today", 1999)
Modifié le: dimanche 6 octobre 2024, 22:13