Constructing Co-Cultural Theory

An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communication

Mark P. Orbe

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 1997
• Print ISBN: 9780761910688, 9780761910671
• eBook ISBN: 9781506339245
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

How do people traditionally situated on the margins of societyùpeople of color, women, gays/lesbians/bisexuals, and those from a lower socio-economic statusùcommunicate within the dominant societal structures? Constructing Co-Cultural Theory presents a phenomenological framework for understanding the intricate relationship between culture, power, and communication. Grounded in muted group and standpoint theory, this volume presents a theoretical framework that fosters a critically insightful vantage point into the complexities of culture, power, and communication. The volume comprises six chapters; key coverage includes: a review of critique of the literature on co-cultural communication; description of how the perspective of co-cultural group members were involved in each stage of theory development; an explication of 25 co-cultural communication strategies, and a model of six factors that influence strategy selection. The final chapter examines how co-cultural theory correlates with other work in communication generally and in intercultural communication specifically. Author Mark P. Orbe considers inherent limitations of his framework and the implication for future research in this area. Scholars and upper-level undergraduate and graduate students will find that this volume covers an important topic which will be of interest to those in the fields of communication, cultural studies, and race and ethnic studies.

Chapter

1

---

An Introduction to Co-cultural Communication

Culture and communication are inextricably linked (Brislin, 1993). The ability to comprehend one concept is contingent on understanding its relationship to the other. Within the United States several domestic co-cultures exist on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, religion, abilities, affection or sexual orientation, and other unifying elements (Johnson, 1989; Orbe, 1994a). In the past, researchers have used a variety of terms to describe co-cultural communication: intracultural (Sitaram & Cogdell, 1976); subordinate, inferior, minority (Stanback & Pearce, 1981); subcultural (Pearson & Nelson, 1991); nondominant (Folb, 1994); and muted group (Kramarae, 1981). The word co-culture is used here to avoid the negative or inferior connotations of past descriptions (e.g., subculture, minority) while also acknowledging the great diversity of influential cultures that simultaneously exist in this country. Although these co-cultures exist all around us, their experiences are often made invisible by the pervasiveness of the dominant culture (Samovar & Porter, 1994).

The use of the word co-cultures is especially significant given the breadth of the theoretical framework presented in this book. Co-cultural communication theory is based on the belief that the United States is a country of many cultures, each of which exists simultaneously within and apart from other cultures. The word co-culture is embraced over other terminologies to signify the notion that no one culture in our society is inherently superior to other coexisting cultures. Co-cultures are not less important in the ways in which they affect group members’ communication, as connoted by the terms subculture and minority communication. Because an assortment of co-cultures simultaneously exists in our society, co-cultural communication theory also is grounded in the notion that over time one co-culture (that of European-American heterosexual middle- or upper-class males) has acquired dominant group status in the major societal institutions (i.e., political, corporate, religious, and legal institutions) across the land. This central position of one dominant co-cultural group has rendered other co-cultural groups as marginalized with the predominant societal structures; this does not mean, however, that other co-cultural groups’ functioning in other venues are less than effective. Co-cultural communication, in its most generic form, refers to interactions among persons from different co-cultures. The focus of the theoretical framework presented in this book, however, is on describing one specific form of co-cultural communication: the communication between dominant group and co-cultural group members from the perspective of co-cultural group members. (Chapter 4 explicates the notion of co-cultural communication in greater detail.)

Communication scholars have given significant attention to the communication strategies that different groups use during what has become regarded as intercultural interactions (Collier, Ribeau, & Hecht, 1986; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1987; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; Samovar & Porter, 1994). Other researchers, as illustrated by the works of Arendt (1986), de Certeau (1984), and Foucault (1979), have focused on how those without power communicate. Borisoff and Merrill (1992) suggest that differences between co-cultural and dominant group members’ communication are essentially differences in relative power between these two groups in a given situational context. As different underrepresented group members continue to enter new areas of association (and in greater numbers) with clear opposition to expectations for assimilation, research efforts that continue to explore the ways in which different persons communicate will become even more important in understanding the intricacies of ingroup or outgroup relations (Orbe, 1995).

Most of the existing research efforts exploring culture’s impact on communication processes have been criticized for focusing primarily on the dominant perspective (James, 1994; Orbe, 1995; Skinner, 1982). In this regard traditional research has treated the communication of dominant group members as intricately complex and diversified, while formulating a generalized universal iconography (Orbe, 1995) of the communication of co-cultural groups. From the perspective of underrepresented group members, these representations typically suffer from a strong ethnocentric bias (James, 1994). In addition, what so often gets lost in the traditional research on culture and communication is the “interplay of power relations” (Moon, 1996, p. 75), a reality that is oftentimes made invisible by white male heterosexual privilege (McIntosh, 1988). Some recent efforts, however, approach the topic from alternate (co-cultural group) perspectives (e.g., Gonzalez, Houston, & Chen, 1994; Ringer, 1994) with an inherent focus on exposing how societal power influences everyday communication. Such a variety of approaches is crucial when attempting to gain insight into the “deep structures” (Pennington, 1979, p. 392) that inform intercultural communication. In fact, Frankenberg (1993) attests that “the oppressed can see with the greatest clarity, not only their own position but … indeed the shape of social systems as a whole” (p. 8). Clearly, research that focuses on “nondominant” group communicative experiences seeks to inform the development of communication theory, explore the dynamics of power, culture, and communication, and celebrate the spirit of human ingenuity (Stanback & Pearce, 1981).

Some significant research exists from a dominant and co-cultural group perspective on the communication processes of different singular co-cultural groups. This research provides great insight into how different cultural groups within our society communicate both internally (ingroup) and externally (outgroup). For instance, some attention has been paid to the communicative experiences of women (Arliss & Borisoff, 1993; Gilligan, 1982; Kramarae, 1981), people of color (Gong, 1994; Hecht et al., 1993; Hecht, Ribeau, & Sedano, 1990; Houston, 1994; Kochman, 1990; Nakayama, 1994), persons with disabilities (Braithwaite, 1990, 1991; Jankowski, 1991), working-class communities (Lovdal, 1989; Philipsen, 1975), gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (Chesebro, 1981; Ringer, 1994; Spradlin, 1995; Woods, 1993), retired persons (Ayers, 1994; Hummert, Wiemann, & Nussbaum, 1994), and young people (Baxter & Goldsmith, 1990). The unique contribution of the ongoing research reported in this book (Ford-Ahmed & Orbe, 1992; Orbe, 1994b, in press; Roberts & Orbe, 1996) is that it explores the common patterns of communication across these different marginalized groups, something currently not extensively undertaken in the field of communication. Specifically, co-cultural theory works to create a framework that promotes a greater understanding of the intricate processes by which co-cultural group members (women, people of color, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc.) negotiate attempts by others to render their voices muted within dominant societal structures. Inherent in its analysis of co-cultural communication is attention to the commonalities and differences between and among co-cultural groups.

Constructing Co-cultural Theory is designed to present a theoretical framework that describes how those without societal power communicate with persons who are privileged within dominant structures. The layout of the book is organized in a way that informs the reader about the developmental process of co-cultural theory. In this regard, the co-cultural communication theoretical framework is displayed within a specific contextual position. This chapter includes some fundamental concepts related to co-cultural communication and an abbreviated overview of the theory. Descriptions of A Tale of “O”: On Being Different a short video on diversity that lends insight into the everyday dynamics of majority or minority relations, function as a point of introduction to this analysis.

A Tale of “O”: On Being Different

A Tale of “O”: On Being Different (Fant, Cohen, Cox, & Kanter, 1979) is a widely used diversity training tool produced by Goodmeasure, Inc., and provides a valuable point of initiation into an examination of co-cultural communication. Recounting a “familiar drama, performed every day in every place,” this short video explains ingroup or outgroup relations between those in the majority (Xs) and those in the minority (Os). According to its producers, A Tale of “O”: On Being Different describes the relational dynamics of difference on the basis of majority or minority status and is directly applicable to differences on the basis of cultural diversity (race, sex, age, etc.). Due to its insightful descriptions of dominant group or co-cultural group communicative relations, some highlights of the video are shared here as a starting point for the explication of co-cultural theory.

Intrinsic to their minority status (on the basis of sheer numbers), Os stand out more when functioning in dominant structures largely maintained by Xs. In a setting that displays remnants of Xs’ lived experiences as the norm, O’s uniqueness gets it eXtra attention.” Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the increased visibility of Os is not positively associated with their abilities; instead, their distinctiveness results in greater public scrutiny. An O may sometimes feel as if he or she is experiencing a “fishbowl syndrome” where others are constantly watching every behavior—that is magnified by the fishbowl itself—from all sides. According to Fant et al. (1979), Os may experience Overload while attempting to negotiate their minority status. Such a position typically includes striving to achieve at X’s performance level and attempting to meet X’s perceptions of a good O. These perceptions usually involve balancing the additional expectations of Os, and includes serving as the token O on committees, articulating the O’s perspective, and assuming the role of mentor for all other Os.

The mere presence of Os in structures historically populated by Xs results in a magnified ingroup solidarity. Following the appearance of one or more Os, Xs begin to recognize commonalities with other Xs that were previously not given consciousness. In addition, Xs may perceive the X culture as challenged by the existence of Os. According to the producers A Tale of “O”: On Being Different (Fant et al., 1979), “Some of what seems like prejudice against an O is really just the Xs’ discomfort of having to think about things that used to be natural.” The Xs often respond to this indirect challenge by exaggerating the mores of their (once invisible) culture while in the presence of Os to emphasize their cultural differences. In addition to the constant reminders of their outgroup status, Os must somehow also manage the existing stereotypes of Os held by many Xs.

Often an O is assumed to be something that she or he is not. Stereotyping is a natural human tendency and is elevated in situations where contact is largely unsubstantial and limited to a few group members. With general applicability across the source of their cultural difference, Os are commonly labeled along four stereotypical characteristics. First, Xs see Os as helpers. By assuming the role of “servant, supporter, or caretaker,” Os are seen as available to strengthen Xs, but their role is clearly less important than the real business of the group. A second O stereotype is that of sex object. The Os are typically seen by Xs as ones to be flirted with, fought over, or admired for their sexuality. The Xs also stereotype Os with the label of mascot. In this regard, Os operate as entertainers, cheerleaders, comedians, or song-and-dance persons. Their primary role is to enhance Xs’ self-concept as they achieve great things; Os’ possibilities for achievement are diminished as they “cheer from the sidelines.” These three stereotypes, helper, sex object, and mascot, situate an O’s existence in a distinct subordinate position. Consequently, Xs typically respond by providing protection for their O counterparts, who are perceived within existing stereotypical limits. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that, in doing so, this “protection” also shields Os from most opportunities that appear potentially dangerous, threatening, or risky (but are subsequently highly advantageous).

The final X stereotype of Os is that of militant. This label describes Os who do not attempt to blend into an existence in which their cultural differences are made invisible. The Xs perceive militant Os as self-sufficient, tough, aggressive, and dangerous—persons who must be kept at a distance. Unlike the first three stereotypical characterizations, Xs do not overwhelm militant Os with constant efforts to abet them. The Xs will not offer assistance to the militant O even when circumstances warrant such behavior. “Sorry you’re having trouble, but you didn’t want preferential treatment,” Xs reason. When militant Os, in the absence of structural support from Xs, are posed to fail they, according to Xs, “get what uppity Os deserve.”

Despite the stereotypical characterizations inherent in their outgroup status, Os, who are determined to survive and/or succeed within groups dominated by Xs, devise mechanisms to fulfill their objectives. Whereas they readily acknowledge the importance of “the old X-network in getting ahead,” some of their strategies involve associations with dominant X group members. A Tale of “O”: On Being Different relates three “choices open to Os who want to survive.” First, Os may focus their efforts toward Overachievement. Recognizing that they must seemingly work twice as hard to get half as far, Os concentrate on “doing more better and faster than any X.” Furthermore, Os are forced to compete with other minority group members for the few positions accessible to Os (that are grossly limited compared to those available to Xs). Despite this noteworthy attempt to become an “eXceptional O,” this type of charge is unfair within dominant structures that typically reward Xs who are average.

A second “choice” for Os is to converge their efforts toward the goal of assimilation into dominant structures. This alternative involves Os who attempt to act, talk, and dress like Xs. In some instances, Os may isolate themselves from other Os in attempts to set themselves apart from Ordinary Os. In fact, Os may even solidify this differentiation by leading critiques of Os and participating in Offensive jokes Xs tell about Os. Nevertheless, this strategy for survival is oftentimes questioned by Xs who wonder why Os are never content with just being themselves. Other Xs view this behavior as evidence of the existing problems of Os; they reason that “even Os see the problems of being an O.”

The final “choice” for Os, according to Fant et al. (1979), is “hiding behind an X” or “dropping out.” With this choice an O makes a conscious effort to avoid the instances that are likely to draw increased attention and assumes the role of assisting others to succeed. The decision to avoid competing for the spotlight diminishes the chances of stress, burnout, or the possibility of being overexposed. Choosing between the strategies for survival is not an easy decision for Os. Instead, many feel torn between the expectations of Xs that are important for success and their allegiance to Os.

A Tale of “O”: On Being Different is an excellent source for insight into the lived experiences of those traditionally marginalized within and outside of the dominant structures in society. The purpose of the short video is to promote understanding of others’ behaviors in environments where a majority or minority situation exists. Although the focus of the information is on “numbers only,” the video does lend insight into how dynamics of power are enacted in a majority or minority hierarchy. In fact, the concluding comments of A Tale of “O”: On Being Different make reference to this element of ingroup or outgroup relations: “Understanding why numbers make a difference is a good start to help all of us … [however] numbers alone are not the whole story” (Fant et al., 1979).

According to the producers of the film, examinations of the politics of difference must also address the following questions: How is opportunity distributed? What career and educational pathways are made accessible? Who have the jobs with power in the group? How do the structures of resources and support influence who achieves what in groups? Although these questions are not easily answered, co-cultural theory offers a theoretical framework that ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1. An Introduction to Co-cultural Communication
• 2. Foundations of Muted-Group and Standpoint Theory
• 3. Explicating Phenomenological Inquiry
• 4. Co-cultural Communicative Practices
• 5. Clarifying a Co-cultural Communication Process
• 6. Limitations, Extensions, and Future Directions
• References
• Index
• About the Author