7.7 Power-reflexive practice

Source: Nazarkiewicz, K. (2016).
Figure created by Kirsten Nazarkiewicz for this course

Up to this point, we have treated cultural resources as if they were always considered as being of equal value. Scholars in the field of critical intercultural communication criticize a notion of culture that deals with habits and values and overlooks power asymmetries related to group memberships. They view the talk of culture as obscuring inequalities and injustice. In fact, from this meta-perspective, culture is seen to cover and hide the struggle for power. Power in this context is not necessarily meant in the sense of ‘I am using my power to influence the other’ but more as a hidden domination of the prevailing asymmetrical social structures.

If we consider the pre-existing conditions that underlie most situations, we can see that privileges are already distributed unequally. Consequently, everything we associate with intercultural communication in our natural worldview – from this meta-perspective – falls short and is ideology. The conception of particular cultural characteristics is used to define a person, which is often a form of orientalism, sexism or neo-colonialism. Holliday/Hyde/Kullmann (2004) call this "otherization". When there are misunderstandings, as they show using the example of French Tunisian lovers, a multiplicity of related background influences and all play a part (e.g. being European, Western, being of a particular age, having a certain level of education). Also, the particular culture in which the couple met, the fact that she is a tourist and the fact that he is a local worker living from tourism all influence their 'intercultural encounter'. Some scholars even think that the term cross-cultural communication is part of the world´s problems since we are too obsessed with talking about 'harmless' differences. Culture from this perspective is an arena where there is a battle for resources and belonging, and sometimes even for the very right to exist, if we consider the "Black Lives Matter" movement, for example.

This meta-perspective takes the global, macro influences on people's identities and their interaction into consideration and includes political dimensions. Due to circumstances for which we are not responsible, we have different resources e.g. whether we are a person who is of colour (PoC) or not, a male, female or diverse person, with or without handicap, gay or heterosexual, old or young, married or unmarried, has children or not, is well-educated or not etc. All these categories (some of them known as diversity categories), mostly pairs and poles, involve asymmetric relationships. With regard to people's opportunities to take part in economic success, asymmetrical positions are reproduced structurally as global positions. In any given context there is a mainstream, seen as 'normality'. Those who join the mainstream usually enjoy greater power, opportunities and resources. This approach is called power-reflexive practice because while speaking we re-construct or de-construct these power positions. Every practice of knowing, thinking, interpreting, and speaking relates to dominant patterns of discourse. The knowledge and words we use carry the asymmetries as hidden meanings and values and addressing them is delicate. This meta-perspective is called "practice" because we can find it in the discourse and speech acts, we are using. Hence, these power influences and daily practices may co-exist with equality laws or laws against discrimination.

Summary: the power-reflexive meta-perspective

Characteristics of the power-reflexive perspective and learning approach:

• notion of culture: cohesive, difference and diversity oriented, hence "culture" is an arena of power battles
• culture is considered as ideology (what is "normal"?)
• considers the inequality inherent in diversity factors (such as gender, race, age, physical abilities, sexual orientation) and other relevant influences like education, religion, immigration status, non-native/native, parental status etc.
• attempts to identify "power" and asymmetrical power relationships from global macro influences as (interfering) factors
• power differences are unnoticed prerequisites for interaction and identity
• has a political dimension: deconstructs discourses
• aims at equal opportunites for participation and justice
• reflects premises and aims at reducing domination when speaking and acting

Typical scholars of the critical intercultural communication theories are:

• Edwin Hoffman & Arjan Verdooren ("Diversity competence. Cultures don't meet, people do", 2019)
• Adrian Holliday, Martin Hyde & John Kullmann ("Intercultural communication an advanced resource book", 2004)
• Thomas K. Nakayama & Rona Tamiko Halualani (Editors of "The handbook of critical intercultural communication (Handbooks in communication and media)", 2010)
• Guido Rings & Sebastian Rasinger ("The Cambridge introduction to intercultural communication", 2023)
• Kathryn Sorrells ("Intercultural communication. Globalization and social justice", 2013)

Before answering these questions, please watch an interview with each of the following two bestseller book authors:

• Robin DiAngelo, author of the book "White Fragility. Why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism" (2018)
• Reni Eddo-Lodge, who, in the UK, published the book "Why I'm no longer talking to white people about race" (2018)

Video suggestions:

Robin DiAngelo on White Fragility, Amanpour and Company [10 minutes]

Reni Eddo-Lodge: Why I'm no longer talking to white people about race [12 minutes]