Culture and communication are inseparably intertwined as “language and culture are the frameworks through which humans experience, communicate, and understand reality” (Vygostky, 1968, p.39). Culture influences our worldview, beliefs, and what we consider normal. However, as we all know from experience, many differences among cultures exist, which can often cause miscommunication and conflict. In this chapter, we will define culture and intercultural communication, explore 10 ways in which cultural groups differ, discuss how a dialectical approach can be applied to intercultural communication, and address ways to improve communication competence.

3.1.0: Defining Culture and Intercultural Communication

In this section, we will define culture and explain what culture, co-culture, and intercultural communication is.

3.1.1: Definition of Culture

For the purposes of exploring the communicative aspects of culture, we will define culture as the ongoing negotiation of learned and patterned beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors among members of a group. Unpacking the definition, we can see that culture shouldn’t be conceptualized as stable and unchanging. Culture is “negotiated,” because it is dynamic, and cultural changes can be traced and analyzed to better understand why our society is the way it is. The definition also points out that culture is learned, which accounts for the importance of socializing institutions like family, school, peers, and the media. Culture is patterned in that there are recognizable widespread similarities among people within a cultural group. There is also deviation from and resistance to those patterns by individuals and subgroups within a culture, which is why cultural patterns change over time. Lastly, this definition acknowledges that culture influences our beliefs about what is true and false, our attitudes including our likes and dislikes, our values regarding what is right and wrong, and our behaviors. smell, taste and touch is only a small part of what is actually happening. This is why it is often so difficult to say what is specifically making us feel uncomfortable or frustrated when we are in a foreign culture. Another way to think about culture is like an iceberg: one-third visible (on-stage) and two-thirds below the water (backstage). Culture is often invisible to us and we tend to take it for granted. As the saying goes, ‘fish don’t necessarily know they are in water because they are completely immersed in it.’ Our cultural environment is difficult to perceive until we are exposed to something different. Just as a fish out of water is suddenly aware of what it normally lives inside of, we gain awareness of our own culture when we are exposed to situations and people that are unfamiliar and different.

2.1.2: Culture, Co-culture, and Intercultural Communication

Intercultural communication occurs when people with different cultural and (Image: Laura B, Pixabay license) co-cultural groups interact with each other. Most people tend to think of intercultural communication in terms of communicating with someone from a different country. However, even within one geographic location, both a dominant culture and multiple co-cultural groups exist. The dominant culture is created by the group who is in power, runs the country, and makes laws and policies. The attitudes, beliefs, values, patterns of thinking, and communicative behaviors of the dominant group are the ones that have become normalized and are often viewed as ‘ideal’ or superior. For example, what is considered ‘proper’ English, acceptable hairstyles, and business attire have all been defined by the dominant group. Historically, in the U.S., this dominant group has been comprised of wealthy, white, heterosexual, Christian, males. However, other co-cultural groups exist based on race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, ableness, generation etc. Because of this, intercultural communication actually exists on a continuum. On the low end, we might be communicating with someone of the same race and social class, but they may be a different gender. On the high end, we may be communicating with someone who is from a completely different geographic location, gender, race, generation, etc. Culture and co-culture(s) influence our behaviors, values, beliefs, patterns of thinking, and perception of our environment. Cultural and co-cultural identities distinguish groups of people from one another. This is important because group differences are often what make us feel uncomfortable in interactions and can lead to miscommunication and conflict. Moreover, in all cultures, co-cultural membership based on factors like gender or race can work to either privilege or disadvantage members of that particular group. Being part of the dominant group generates certain privileges that members of the nondominant group do not get and create unequal power dynamics in our communicative interactions. However, by recognizing privilege and studying the common differences that exist across cultures in terms of beliefs, values, attitudes, and patterns of thinking, we can better reflect on our own culture and co-culture, view it through a different lens, and improve our intercultural communication competence.

3.2.0: Ten Cultural Variables

In this section, we will address ten cultural variables: control, time, action, communication, space, power, individualism/collectivism, competitiveness/cooperativeness, structure, and thinking. These major variables offer a simple frame of reference for examining culture and understanding its major characteristics.

3.2.1: Control

Different cultures approach nature, which includes both the environment and human nature, from varied perspectives. Cultures hold one of three beliefs about the physical world and our environment. The first belief is that humans have control over their environment and it is right of humans to engineer and change the environment to achieve goals. The second belief is that humans should live in harmony with nature and thus decision making should help to create harmonious relationships. The final belief is that we our controlled by their environment. Members of the latter cultures believe that is crazy to think that we have direct control over plans, schedules, goals. Cultures may also hold one of three beliefs pertaining to human nature. The first is the belief that people are basically ”good.” In these cultures, people will generally believe that you can put the right person in the right position and empower him / her to perform. The second belief is that people are basically ”bad.” These types of cultures put an emphasis on control and monitoring of people. The final belief is that people are a mixture of ”good’ and ”bad.” In these cultures, people believe personal development is possible, and investment in training and professional development is highly desirable.

3.2.2: Time

A culture’s use of time can communicate differences more profoundly than words. Three orientations to time can be seen across cultures. The first is pastorientation, where high value is placed on continuance of traditions. In these cultures, changes and plans are judged according to their fit with history and customs. The second is present-orientation, which is a short-term orientation aimed at quick results. In these cultures, changes and plans are judged on fast pay-off. Finally, future-orientation includes a willingness to trade short-term gains for long-term results. In these cultures, changes and plans are judged on expected future benefit. In addition, we also see differences in terms of single-focused and multifocused views of on how time is used and adhered to. Single-focused, also referred to monochronic, uses of time place high concentration on one task or issue and people are committed to schedules. Multiple-focused, or polychronic, uses of time emphasize on multiple tasks, with a priority on relationship building rather than on meeting deadlines.

3.2.3: Action

Cultures, like individuals, can be oriented towards activity or passivity. The first type is a doing culture, where value is placed on action, accomplishments, achieving personal goals and improving one’s standard of living. These cultures follow external standards of measurement and are motivated by promotions, raises, bonuses and recognition. Conversely, in being cultures, value is placed on working for the moment, release from stress, and experience rather than accomplishment. These cultures put emphasis on job satisfaction and are not motivated by promises of future rewards.

3.2.4: Context, Formality, and Directness

There are three variables that exist across cultures- high-context/low-context, formal/informal, and direct/indirect- that deal more directly with the way we send messages back and forth when we interact. The first variable pertains to how much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication. In low-context cultures, information is given primarily in words and meaning is expressed explicitly. In other words, you are expected to say what you mean and mean what you say. Conversely in high-context cultures, information is transmitted not just in words but also through a variety of contexts, such as voice tone, body language, facial expressions, eye contact, speech patterns, use of silence, past interactions, status, common friends, etc. Members of high-context cultures might not say something directly as they may assume other group members will understand the indirect meaning. The second pertains to how important it is to formally or informally follow rules for self-presentation and for behavior in organizations and social situations. In formal-communication cultures, importance is given to following protocol and social customs. In informal-communication cultures, people feel more comfortable doing business in a more casual way without lots of rituals and ceremonies. The final variable pertains to the level of directness people use when handling conflict and tension in interactions. Direct cultures value open handling and resolution of conflict and tension. Conflict can be handled top-down (one-way) or top-down and bottom-up (two-way). Indirect cultures value conflict avoidance and are careful not to bring contentious issues out into the open especially when the relationship is not well – established.

3.2.5: Space

Cultures also differ in regard to how they perceive and use physical spaces, specifically private and public space. In private-space cultures, personal space is valued, and clear borders and boundaries exist between one space and another. Ownership of space is important. Doors are to be closed, and knocking before entering is expected. In public-space cultures, the boundaries between personal and public spaces are weaker and more flexible. Space is shared rather than owned. Doors are to be kept open, and access is free.

3.2.6: Power Distance

The power variable pertains to how much the less powerful members of a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In high-power distance cultures, also referred to as hierarchy cultures, inequality is accepted. Structures are defined and differences in status are seen as normal. This type of culture satisfies a need for dependence and security. In professional settings, members of high-power distance cultures usually prefer groups where clear roles are assigned and there is a designated leader. In low-power distance cultures, also referred to as equality cultures, inequality is thought to be unsatisfactory. While it may be unavoidable, it is considered correct to minimize it through legal, political, and economic means. In professional settings, members of low-power distance cultures do not accept that a manager has a given right to greater power and all member can participate in decision making.

3.2.7: Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism and collectivism pertain to the extent to which countries elevate the role of the individual over the group. In individualistic cultures, the bonds between individual members are relatively loose. People are independent and expected to take care of themselves, or at most, the nuclear family. Guilt and fear of loss of self-respect are central to social control. The ”I” predominates over the ”We.” Individual identity is key, and speaking one’s mind is a sign of honesty. Individualist cultures emphasize individual expression and personal responsibility. In collectivist cultures, individual interests are placed second to group interests. Groups protect their members in exchange for loyalty and obedience. Social control is based on the fear of losing face and the possibility of shame. Identity is therefore based on the social network to which a person belongs. Harmony, rather than speaking one’s mind, is a key value. Laws and rights differ from group to group, and political power is held by interest groups.

3.2.8: Competitiveness and Cooperativeness

Competitiveness pertains to how much achievement and success dominate over caring for others and quality of life. In competitive cultures, achievement, assertiveness and competition are reinforced. In these cultures, social and gender roles also tend to be distinct. Men are expected to be assertive, tough, and driven by material success. Women, on the other hand, are expected to be modest, nurturing, and concerned mainly with the quality of life. When competitiveness is valued, the culture is predominantly materialistic, with an emphasis on assertiveness and acquisition of money, property, goods, etc. High value is placed on ambition, decisiveness, performance, speed and size. Cooperativeness characterizes cultures in which social and gender roles overlap. Everyone is expected to demonstrate modesty, nurturing, and a concern for the quality of life. Being sympathetic to one’s fellow human beings is important with an emphasis on relationships. High value is placed on consensus and intuition. In a competitive culture, people live to work. In a cooperative culture, people work to live.

3.2.9: Structure

Structure tells us how much the members of a culture experience threat or discomfort by uncertainty or unknown situations. In high-structure cultures (low tolerance for ambiguity) there is a need for predictability and rules – both written and unwritten. These cultures try to reduce ambiguity and make everything as clear and understandable as possible. Conflict is threatening and there is a need for rules and regulations. Without these, anxiety and stress are high. Cultures that are low-structure (high tolerance for ambiguity) are more tolerant of unknown situations, people and ideas. There are looser definitions of roles and responsibility and people are more willing to take risks. Anxiety levels are lower, tolerance of difference and deviance is higher, and dissent is acceptable.

3.2.10: Thinking

Thinking is a variable that shows how a culture conceptualizes things. It explains differences between the way arguments are made, events are analyzed, and plans are conducted. Specifically, there are two distinct variables in thinking across cultures: Deductive vs inductive and linear vs systemic. Deductive-oriented cultures emphasize abstract thinking. Priority is given to the conceptual world and symbolic thinking rather than to collecting facts. Appeal is made to theories principles or examples that have produced results in the past. Inductive-oriented cultures derive principles and theories from the analysis of data. Models and hypotheses are based on empirical observation. The amassing of facts and statistics is valued, and a lot of faith is placed in methodologies and measurement. Linear-oriented cultures tend to dissect a problem or an issue into small chunks that can be linked in chains of cause and effect. Systemic-oriented cultures stress an integrated or holistic approach, and emphasize the whole and its relationships.

3.3.0: Culture and Communication: A Dialectical Approach and Five Dialectics

In this section, we will discuss what a dialectical approach entails and examine five dialectics to help us better understand the link between culture and communication: Cultural-Individual, Personal-Contextual, Differences- Similarities, Static-Dynamic, and Privileges/Disadvantages.

3.3.1: A Dialectical Approach

Communication across cultures and co-cultures is complicated, messy, and at times contradictory. Therefore, it is not always easy to conceptualize or study. Taking a dialectical approach allows us to capture the dynamism of intercultural communication. A dialectic is a relationship between two opposing concepts that constantly push and pull one another (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). To put it another way, thinking dialectically helps us realize that our experiences often occur in between two different phenomena. This perspective is especially useful for communication because—when we think dialectically— we think relationally. This means we look at the relationship between aspects of communication rather than viewing them in isolation. Intercultural communication occurs as a dynamic in-betweenness that, while connected to the individuals in an encounter, goes beyond the individuals, creating something unique. Holding a dialectical perspective may be challenging for some Westerners, as it asks us to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously, which goes against much of what we are taught in our formal education. Thinking dialectically helps us see the complexity in culture and identity because it doesn’t allow for dichotomies. Dichotomies are dualistic ways of thinking that highlight opposites, reducing the ability to see gradations that exist in between concepts. Dichotomies such as good/evil, wrong/right, objective/subjective, male/female, in-group/out-group, black/white, and so on form the basis of much of our thoughts on ethics, culture, and general philosophy, but this isn’t the only way of thinking (Martin & Nakayama, 1999). Many Eastern cultures acknowledge that the world isn’t dualistic. Rather, they accept as part of their reality that things that seem opposite are actually interdependent and complement each other. A dialectical approach is useful in studying communication because it gets us out of our comfortable and familiar ways of thinking. Since so much of understanding culture and identity is understanding ourselves, having an unfamiliar lens through which to view culture can offer us insights that our familiar lenses will not. Also, as these dialectics will iterate, culture and communication are complex systems that intersect with and diverge from many contexts. A better understanding of all these dialectics helps us think more critically and communicate more competently in and with the world around us.

3.3.2: Cultural-Individual Dialectic

The cultural-individual dialectic captures the interplay between patterned behaviors learned from a cultural group and individual behaviors that may be variations on or counter to those of the larger culture. This dialectic is useful because it helps us account for exceptions to cultural norms. For example, the United States is said to be a low-context culture, which means that we value verbal communication as our primary, meaning-rich form of communication. Conversely, Japan is said to be a high-context culture, which means they often look for nonverbal clues like tone, silence, or what is not said for meaning. However, you can find people in the United States who intentionally put more meaning into how they say things rather than what they say, perhaps because they are not as comfortable speaking directly what’s on their mind. We often do this in situations where we may hurt someone’s feelings or damage a relationship. Does that mean we come from a high-context culture? Does the Japanese man who speaks more than is socially acceptable come from a lowcontext culture? The answer to both questions is no. Neither the behaviors of a small percentage of individuals nor occasional situational choices constitute a cultural pattern.

3.3.3: Personal-Contextual Dialectic

The personal-contextual dialectic highlights the connection between our personal patterns of and preferences for communicating and how various contexts influence the personal. In some cases, our communication patterns and preferences will stay the same across many contexts. In other cases, a context shift may lead us to alter our communication and adapt. For example, an American businessperson may prefer to communicate with their employees in an informal and laid-back manner. When they are promoted to manage a department in their company’s office in Malaysia, they may again prefer to communicate with their new Malaysian employees the same way they did with those in the United States. In the United States, the accepted norm is that communication in work contexts is more formal than in personal contexts. However, we also know that individual managers often adapt these expectations to suit their own personal tastes. This type of managerial discretion would likely not go over as well in Malaysia where there is a greater emphasis put on power distance (Hofstede, 1991). So, while the American manager may not know to adapt to the new context unless they have a high degree of intercultural communication competence, Malaysian managers would realize that this is an instance where the context likely influences communication more than personal preferences.

3.3.4: Diferences-Similarities Dialectic

The differencessimilarities dialectic allows us to examine how we are simultaneously similar to and different from others. It’s easy to fall into a view of intercultural communication as “other oriented” and set up dichotomies between “us” and “them.” When we over focus on differences, we can end up polarizing groups that actually have commonalities. When we over focus on similarities, we essentialize, or reduce/ overlook important variations within a group. This tendency is evident in most of the popular, and some of the academic, conversations regarding “gender differences.” The book Men Are from Mars and Women Are from Venus makes it seem like men and women aren’t even species that hail from the same planet. The media is quick to include a blurb from a research study indicating again how men and women are “wired” to communicate differently. However, gender is a social and cultural construction in which groups of people are categorized as either being a man or women. This essentializes and stereotypes people by focusing on the ways in which they are different, rather than similar, and ignores and silences those whose body, identity, and/or performance do not align with their assigned gender. Differences/Similarities: Statements like “men are from Mars and women are from Venus” create group differences by stereotyping. In addition, these socially and culturally constructed categories ignore and silence those whose body, identity, and/or performance do not align with their assigned gender.

3.3.5: Static-Dynamic Dialectic

The static-dynamic dialectic suggests that culture and communication change over time yet often appear to be and are experienced as stable. Although it is true that our cultural beliefs and practices are rooted in the past, cultural categories that most of us assume to be stable, like race and gender, have changed dramatically in just the past fifty years. Some cultural values remain relatively consistent over time, which allows us to make some generalizations about a culture. For example, cultures have different orientations to time. The Chinese have a longer-term orientation to time than do Europeans (Lustig & Koester, 2006). This is evidenced in something that dates back as far as astrology. The Chinese zodiac is done annually (The Year of the Monkey, etc.), while European astrology was organized by month (Taurus, etc.). While this cultural orientation to time has been around for generations, as China becomes more Westernized in terms of technology, business, and commerce, it could also adopt some views on time that are more short term.

3.3.6: Privileges-Disadvantages Dialectic

The privileges-disadvantages dialectic captures the complex interrelation of unearned, systemic advantages and disadvantages that operate among our various co-cultural identities. As was discussed earlier, there exists both the dominant culture and co-cultures; our co-cultural groups and identities have certain privileges and/or disadvantages. To understand this dialectic, we must view these identities through a lens of intersectionality, which asks us to acknowledge that we each have multiple cultural and co-cultural identities that intersect with each other. Because our co-cultural identities are complex, no one is completely privileged and no one is completely disadvantaged. For example, while we may think of a white, heterosexual man as being very privileged, they may also have a disability that leaves them without the ablebodied privilege that a Latina woman has. This is often a difficult dialectic for many to understand, because we are quick to point out exceptions that we think challenge this notion. For example, many people like to point out Oprah Winfrey as a powerful black woman. While she is definitely now quite privileged despite her disadvantaged identities, her trajectory isn’t the norm. When we view privilege and disadvantage at the cultural level, we cannot let individual exceptions distract from the systemic and institutionalized ways in which some people are disadvantaged while others are privileged. Group Privilege: Depending on the co-culture you belong to, you may benefit from certain privileges or advantages. According to Peggy McIntosh, privilege is like an invisible knapsack of advantages that some people carry around. They are invisible because they are often not recognized, seen as normative (i.e., “that’s just the way things are”), seen as universal (i.e., “everyone has them”), or used unconsciously. Below is a list of some of the privileges McIntosh identifies associated with white skin color. Can you think of others that are associated with other positions of privilege (such as gender, sexual orientation, or ableness)?

• When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
• Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
• I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes, or not answer letters without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
• I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
• I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
• I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color, who constitute the world’s majority, without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
• If a traffic cop pulls me over, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.
• I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.
• I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color that more or less match my skin.

(Full article: Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.”)

3.4.0: Communication Competence

In this section, we address how to improve intercultural communication competence, discuss the value of switching your communication code based on context, and reflect on intercultural relationships.

3.4.1: Efective Communication: Intercultural Communication Competence

Intercultural communication competence (ICC) pertains to your ability to appropriately and effectively communicate in cultural and co-cultural contexts. Below are five key guidelines for improving your ICC.

1. Observe the situation without making judgments. When communicating with other (co)cultures, our first judgment about ”those people” is often mistaken and/or based on stereotypes. Observing, non-judgmentally, can help us to understand others’ mindset and minimize biases and preconceptions.

2. Tolerate ambiguity. When communicating across (co)cultures, there are many situations that are ambiguous and make us feel uncomfortable. Patience and perseverance are very important qualities of the competent communicator.

3. Practice perception-flipping. All of us behave as we do because we believe our ways are valid and, often, superior. Before criticizing someone else’s behavior, we should try flipping our perception to see the other person’s point of view. In other words, put yourself in their shoes.

4. Reframe our questions. If we ask ourselves ”How can they be so rude?” ”Why are they so insensitive?!” we are expressing a negative assumption about the other person. Reframing these questions to, ”What is the reason behind their behavior?” prevents us from getting trapped in our own assumptions and allows us to explore the other’s frame of reference without bias.

5. Cultivate motivation and view communication as an opportunity for personal growth and development. This is especially important for members of dominant groups who often have more power and privilege in situations. This power creates an imbalance and it is often the members of nondominant groups who are expected to conform and adapt to the behaviors of the dominant group. Regardless of our co-cultural groups and identities, we should all develop motivation to be more competent communicators.or

3.4.2: Contextual Communication: Communication Codes

Remember that communication is contextual, and the cultural context is an important aspect of communicative interactions. Differences in culture and coculture inform beliefs, values, attitudes, and thinking, and likewise inform behaviors and ‘norms’ in our communicative interactions. Because of this, it is important to understand that there are communication codes operating in any given interaction. A code is a socially constructed, historically transmitted, system of symbols, premises, rules, and meanings pertaining to communicative conduct (Covarrubias, 2002). In other words, a code is a set of rules associated with conduct, a guideline for what is acceptable (or not acceptable) in particular situations, and for what a person should (or should not) do.

The purpose of a code is for members and individuals in a cultural/co-cultural group to communicate effectively so that they understand one another and behave in appropriate ways. Culture and co-culture inform the communicative system—or communication code—that is operating in a given interaction. Since one group may have a set of shared symbols that differs from another group, the groups may attribute different meanings to the codes. To be a competent communicator, we need to observe the cultural and co-cultural context to determine what codes should be employed to create shared meaning in an interaction.

3.4.3: Reflective Communication: Intercultural Relationships

Relationships are frequently formed between people with different cultural identities, and may include friends, romantic partners, family, and coworkers. These relationships have both benefits and challenges. For example, some of the benefits include increasing cultural knowledge, challenging previously held stereotypes, and learning new skills (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Intercultural relationships also present challenges, however. The dialectics discussed earlier affect our relationships. The similarities-differences dialectic in particular may present challenges to relationship formation (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). While differences between people’s cultural identities may be obvious, it takes some effort and reflection to uncover commonalities that can form the basis of a relationship. Perceived differences in general also create anxiety and uncertainty. Negative stereotypes may also hinder progress toward relational development, especially if the individuals are not open to adjusting their preexisting beliefs. However, by reflecting on similarities and differences, and understanding the values and dialectics mentioned in this chapter, tensions can begin to balance out, and uncertainty and anxiety can lessen.

Ethnocentrism: When engaging in intercultural communication, it is important to avoid ethnocentrism, which is the belief that your culture and your way of doing things is superior. When we do this, we view our position as normal and right and evaluate all other cultural systems against our own. Ethnocentrism shows up in small and large ways: the WWII Nazi’s elevation of the Aryan race and the corresponding killing of Jews, Gypsies, gays and lesbians, and other non-Aryan groups is one of the most horrific ethnocentric acts in history. However, ethnocentrism shows up in small and seemingly unconscious ways as well. In U.S. American culture, if you decided to serve dog meat as an appetizer at your cocktail party you would probable disgust your guests and the police might even arrest you because the consumption of dog meat is not culturally acceptable. However, in China “it is neither rare nor unusual” to consume dog meat (Wingfield- Hayes). In the Czech Republic, the traditional Christmas dinner is carp and potato salad. Imagine how your U.S. family might react if you told them you were serving carp and potato salad for Christmas. In the Czech Republic, it is a beautiful tradition, but in America, it might not receive a warm welcome. Our cultural background influences every aspect of our lives from the food we consume to which classroom curriculum is emphasized over others.

Adapted from: Interpersonal Communication Abridged Textbook (I.C.A.T.); Central New Mexico Community College; 2019; CC BY NC SA 4.0