Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication

Implications for Theory and Practice

Min-Sun Kim

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN: 9780761923510, 9780761923503
• eBook ISBN: 9781506320595
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

What it means to be a self - and a self communicating and being in a particular culture - are key issues interwoven throughout Min-Sun Kim?s impressive text, Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication. Going beyond cultural descriptions or instructions on adapting to specific cultures, the author interrogates the very core assumptions underlying the study of human communication and challenges longstanding individualistic, Western models on which much intercultural research is based. Kim proposes a non-western way of conceptualizing identity, or the "self" - the cornerstone of cultural research -- illuminating how traditional western and non-western views can be blended into a broader, more realistic understanding of cultures and communication. Grounding her work in a thorough knowledge of the literature, she challenges students and researchers alike to reexamine their approach to intercultural study.

Features:

• Interrogates embedded assumptions about the traditional [Western] study of human communication with stunning, thought-provoking insight

• Illuminates issues surrounding culture and identity formation and challenges the reader to examine not only the study of human communication, but its engagement in everyday life
• Informs complex academic theory with stellar writing, poignant examples, and careful analysis

• Invites scholars and students to explore and integrate a long overdue multicultural perspective on human communication.

 

 

About the Author:

Min-Sun Kim (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is Professor in the Department of Speech at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her research focus is the role of cognition in conversational styles among people of different cultural orientations. She is currently serving as an Associate Editor for Communication Reports and also as a reviewer for various communication journals.

II

U.S.-Centrism

Cultural Relativity of Communication Constructs and Theories

The individualistic model of the self that provides the infrastructure for traditional Western theories and models of communication, as well as for most of the social sciences, may seem an obvious and natural one. However, it is not the only model of how to be a person or the only answer to “What is a person?” Another model of the self that is significantly different from individualism in many of its assumptions, yet very widely held, suggests that persons are not independent entities but are instead fundamentally interdependent with one another (see Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Mainstream communication theories, for the most part, have largely ignored this model by assuming an autonomous, bounded, temporally stable and consistent person who can first be identified by means of an assortment of personality inventories and, only subsequently and secondarily, put back into the social milieu.

In the chapters that follow, I underscore how most current theories of human communication are rooted in Western philosophical presumptions about persons and in layers of practices and institutions that reflect and promote these presumptions. Most other ontologies and ideologies of personhood have yet to be reflected in the literature on human communication, and analyzing human communication in a cultural context will bring some of these alternative ways to light (see Markus & Kitayama, 1998, for a similar argument on personality research).

Given its original orientation to social context, the field of human communication could have come to recognize that culture is the most basic and far-reaching context in which communicative processes are engaged and thus formed. Yet communication research in the last half century has largely failed to develop these insights of its founders so as to include the cultural perspective in its modern conceptual frameworks. Recently, similar arguments have been made in social psychology, child development, and counseling, as well as in other social sciences (for discussion of this issue, see Berry, 1983; Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998; Kagitcibasi, 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1998). For instance, the value implications of psychological concepts, particularly those in the areas of personality, social, and developmental psychology, have been traced back to the sociohistorical context of emerging individualism (Buss, 1975; Hogan & Emler, 1975; Riegel, 1972). Gergen (1973) suggests that the current terminology reflects an arbitrary labeling based on Western value preferences: “For example, high self-esteem could be termed egotism; need for social approval could be translated as need for social integration; creativity as deviance; and internal control as egocentricity” (p. 312).

Similarly, LeVine (1973) introduced “The Japanese problem,” referring to challenges Japan poses to Western psychoanalytic theories. He argues that psychoanalytic theorists must revise their conceptions of what is normal, necessary, and adaptive in the psychic development structure and functioning of humans. In other words, Japan can function for Americans as a powerful tool to destabilize the taken-for-granted assumptions about psychoanalytic theories. According to Tobin (2000), “The Japanese problem” does not have to be about Japan. In theory, any culture could play this role of calling into question the ethnocentricity of our commonsense understandings and our social scientific theories. It presents a challenge not only to psychoanalytic theories, but more generally to our basic assumptions about interpersonal relations and communication patterns. In short, Japan (the useful other) for Americans presents a fundamental challenge to both our scholarly and conventional understandings of the nature of person.

Although current descriptions of the largely independent and autonomous self could be argued to be reasonably adequate for European-American selves, a growing body of evidence suggests that they are simply not valid for many other cultural groups. Furthermore, at least in the United States, the analysis of the selves of those groups in society that are marginalized—women, members of nondominant ethnic groups, the poor, the unschooled—reveals a more obvious interdependence between the self and the collective when compared with other societal groups. For example, many women describe themselves in relational terms, and they do not reveal the typical preference for being positively unique or different from others (Gilligan, 1982; Lykes, 1985). Gilligan (1982) voiced her criticism that the separate self is predominantly a male perspective, whereas women’s conception is one of self-in-relationships. The individualistic view of the self may be more descriptive of men in U.S. society than of women in U.S. society. Many theorists have echoed this view (e.g., Belenski, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Chodorow, 1989). For instance, Jordan (1991) argued that the “Lone Ranger” model of the self simply does not fit many women’s experience because women’s sense of self seems to involve connection and engagement with relationships and collective. Findings also suggest that those with power and privilege are those most likely to internalize the prevailing European-American cultural frame to naturally experience themselves as autonomous individuals (Markus & Kitayama, 1994).

Heine, Lehman, Markus, and Kitayama (1999) also point out that it is perhaps most accurate to view the vast amount of self research amassed over the past few decades largely as a reflection of contemporary North American culture. Unfortunately, because the cultural specificity of social psychological theories is rarely highlighted, often the implicit assumption is that these theories reflect pancultural psychological processes. Hogan (1975) also suggested that “much American psychology can plausibly be described as theoretically egocentric” (p. 534).

Similarly, human communication theories of the self focused on the individuated self-concept—that is, the person’s sense of unique identity differentiated from others. Cross-cultural perspectives, however, have brought a renewed interest in the social aspects of the self and the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of their relationships to others and to social groups. Central to this new perspective is the idea that connectedness and belonging are not merely affiliations or alliances between the self and others but entail fundamental differences in the way the self is construed. Increasingly throughout social sciences, including the field of human communication, there are indications that the individualistic model of the self is too narrow and fails to take into account some important aspects of communication phenomena. I will illustrate the process whereby cultural views of self are transformed into psychological tendencies and then into communication styles.

The aim of Part II, which consists of 11 chapters, is to emphasize the relationship between fact and value within the field of communication and thereby help to make communication scholars more self-conscious of the implications their research has with respect to creating a specific image of humans and society. Values and social sciences are intimately interlocked, and this interdependent relationship must be made explicit and understood (Buss, 1975). Both cultural perspectives on human communication are powerful and viably animate their respective worlds. The point, however, is not to argue for one or the other. Instead, my goal is to underscore how cultural frameworks structure both everyday and scientific understandings of human communication.

4

Communication Apprehension

Deficiency or Politeness?

Those who talk do not know. Those who do not know talk.

— Lao Tzu

He who converses not knows nothing.

— John Ray, English Proverbs, 1670, p. 5

Few things are more basic to an individual’s communication style than the amount that she or he talks. Simply describing an unknown person as either quiet or talkative will evoke very different images in people’s minds. Research that employs such descriptions has found dramatically different perceptions of the persons described. A substantial body of cross-cultural research exists in the area of verbal communication predisposition. Studies indicate that significant differences exist both cross-culturally and intraculturally in regard to communication approach and avoidance. However, the role that communication motivation plays in intercultural communication is virtually unknown.

Although talk is probably a vital component in interpersonal communication and the development of interpersonal relationships in all cultures, people differ dramatically from one another in the degree to which they actually value talk. This variability in talking behavior among people is alleged to be rooted in “willingness to communicate” (McCroskey and Richmond, 1987). Studies on verbal communication skills have focused on the perceptual impact of reticence or apprehension without specific regard to the cultural factors associated with the communication receiver or object of her perception. Yet cross-cultural communication research clearly demonstrates the norms for verbal behavior, as well as the consequent perceptions associated with these norms, which vary to an extraordinary degree from one culture to the next.

Research on communication motivation, like many other branches of communication, was born and nourished by the philosophical foundations of individualism. We now discover that individualism is not a universal, but rather a culture-specific, belief system (Greenfield, 1994). The view of communication motivation from interdependenceoriented societies can help to balance the ethnocentric picture of the individualistic value placed on communication approach. In the individualistic culture, talk is considered positive and is generally rewarded. Many other cultures do not place as high a premium on the amount or frequency of talk as does the U.S. culture. This analysis of verbal communication motivation implies the necessity of reformulating theories in this and related areas.

The work in this area has been biased by the individualistic assumption that confrontation is more desirable than avoidance, which limits a full understanding of the dispositional communication motivation. Given the general assumption of the desirability of direct confrontation of matters, it is not surprising that researchers have conceptualized the avoidance styles as generally destructive and reflective of low concern for self as well as for the other. This assumption is taken so much for granted in individualistic cultures that it has rarely been stated explicitly. Similarly, some researchers consider argument (direct confrontation of matters) to be a beneficial and prosocial mode of conflict resolution and view avoidance as less socially acceptable (e.g., Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984; Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985). According to Miike (2000), people from Asian cultures are, in general, one-sidedly labeled by Western communication researchers as “passive communicators.” And in most cases, the connotation associated with this label is that Asians are less communicatively competent than Westerners and need to be trained to communicate better.

Notably, most cross-cultural research on communication disposition has explored how it applies and operates in the U.S. culture in comparison to other cultures. Because culture shapes human communication behavior, the amount of talking in which a person engages is dependent, at least in part, on that person’s cultural orientation (Barraclough, Christophel, & McCroskey, 1988). For instance, it is likely that different cultures perceive, manifest, and respond (reward and sanction) differently to communication approach and avoidance (Olaniran & Roach, 1994). This chapter reviews and critically synthesizes, from a cultural standpoint, research on people’s predispositions toward avoiding social interaction.

MOTIVATION TO AVOID VERBAL COMMUNICATION

Lustig and Andersen (1991) argue that “No communication variable has been examined more during the past two decades than has communication apprehension” (p. 299). Communication apprehension (CA) is “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Previous cross-cultural studies on communication apprehension have focused on comparisons of other cultures as either higher or lower in communication motivation (e.g., CA and argumentativeness) than the U.S. culture (McIntyre, Mauger, Margalit, & Figueiredo, 1989; Prunty, Klopf, Ishii, 1990; Watson, Monroe, & Atterstrom, 1989).

Recently, Kim (1999) reviewed cross-cultural variations in general levels of communication apprehension. The cross-cultural research reviewed clearly demonstrates that the norms for verbal behavior, as well as the consequent perceptions associated with these norms, vary to an extraordinary degree from one culture to the next. The overall results of past research indicate that samples from collectivistic cultures, such as China and Japan, display higher levels of verbal communication apprehension than comparable samples in individualistic cultures, such as Australia and the mainland United States. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) contend that the finding that members of collectivistic cultures have higher levels of communication apprehension than members of individualistic cultures should not be taken to imply that communication apprehension is a problem in collectivistic cultures; in fact, the opposite is probably true.

This line of argument is consistent with the view that high-context communication predominates in collectivistic cultures and, therefore, high scores on communication apprehension are to be expected in collectivistic cultures (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Hence, without information about a culture’s general predisposition toward verbal communication, research on communication apprehension in a given culture may not be very useful. The amount of talk and the degree of quietness endorsed by a culture may have an overpowering impact on the communication motivation of most people in that culture. Given findings reporting significant cross-cultural differences, it is critical to be careful when generalizing about the nature of communication apprehension and other related communication orientations. The present review suggests that such relationships may be extremely culturebound and nongeneralizable from one culture to another.

McCroskey (1977) outlined three general propositions regarding the effects of high apprehension about communication: (a) People who experience high apprehension about communication will withdraw from and seek to avoid communication when possible; (b) As a result of withdrawal from and avoidance of communication, people who experience high apprehension about communication will be perceived less positively than people who experience lower apprehension about communication by others in their environment; and (c) As a result of their withdrawal and avoidance behaviors, and in conjunction with the negative perceptions fostered by these behaviors, people who experience high apprehension about communication will be negatively affected in their economic, academic, political, and social lives. Indeed, individuals with high levels of CA were found to withdraw from and avoid communication whenever possible, to be perceived less positively than individuals with low levels of CA, and to experience negative consequences in various aspects of their daily lives (McCroskey, 1982). Results from numerous studies conducted in the United States indicate that communication apprehension plays a negative role in the process of interaction.

Specifically, those with high CA, reticence, unwillingness to communicate, and so on, have been found to talk less (Burgoon, 1976), disclose less (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987), and engage in less information seeking (Burgoon, 1976) than those with low CA. Numerous researchers have reported that people described as uncommunicative are perceived to be less attractive than their verbal counterparts on a host of dimensions, including social and task attraction (e.g., Daly, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1977) and perceived sexuality (e.g., McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Cox, 1975).

Early research in communication apprehension suggested that individuals with high public speaking apprehension would experience high levels of negative thinking in anticipation of presenting a speech as well as during the delivery (Meichenbaum, 1977). Recent studies support the assumption that individuals high in public speaking anxiety report more negative thoughts prior to speaking than individuals low in public speaking anxiety, and the latter report more positive thoughts than the former as they anticipate delivery of a speech (Buhr, Pryor, & Sullivan, 1991; Daly, Vangelisti, Neel, & Cavanaugh, 1989).

Perhaps the most striking feature of the body of research based on the communication apprehension framework is that the outcomes of communication apprehension and avoidance are solely negative. Researchers have found that individuals who are low on emotional maturity, adventurousness, self-control, self-esteem, and tolerance for ambiguity are more inclined to exhibit communication apprehension (McCroskey, Richmond, Daly, & Falcione, 1977). Individuals with high levels of CA were perceived as less competent, less attractive, less sociable, and less composed than those with lower levels (McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Cox, 1975). There is also evidence that ot...

Table of contents

• Cover page
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• I: INTRODUCTION
• II: U.S.-CENTRISM: CULTURAL RELATIVITY OF COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTS AND THEORIES
• III: TOWARD A BIDIMENSIONAL MODEL OF CULTURAL IDENTITY
• IV: CONCLUSION
• Postscript
• References
• Index
• About the Author