This book addresses the wider implications of intercultural communication in the background of widening gaps between self/other along axis of citizenship, inequality and cultural hegemony . Indeed, as events unfold in contemporary global politics, it is perhaps time to take stock and reflect on the nature of intercultural communication as an academic discipline. Amidst the large number of methodological and theoretical approaches that characterise this field, this book endeavours to present the ideas of contamination and interdisciplinary connections as invaluable theoretical resources for intercultural researchers in challenging and shifting times. The adoption of the ethics of Levinas has a twofold implication in this book: first, it offers a framework for the dialogic reconceptualisation of interculturalism based on the interaction between self and other , and second it allows the recognition of the other not as an abstract entity but in terms of a corporeal, or embodied self, enmeshed in networks of power and hegemony . Both reposition intercultural communication within a new paradigm that challenges static interpretations of self and other adopted in the models of competence analysed critically in this book.

Chapter 2 illustrates current approaches to critical intercultural communication and it engages with the theoretical presuppositions in the work of leading critical interculturalists. The interdisciplinary approach adopted in this appraisal of critical intercultural frameworks foregrounds the philosophical concerns underpinning research in this field, exemplified in the work of Jensen (2003), Monceri (2003, 2009), Dervin (2011), Holliday (2011, 2013) and Guilherme (2002). The aim of this chapter is to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of these critical intercultural frameworks that are paradigmatic of perspectivism (Nietzsche 1968), social constructivism (Bauman 2000) and emancipatory critique (Horkheimer 1982; Habermas 1984). This critical reading problematizes two of the constructs that are more commonly employed in intercultural communication: the role of tolerance in shaping the relation between self and other , and the idea of intercultural awareness as a narrative of reconciliation and final erasure of all differences. This chapter discusses the categories of class and gender to further develop the distinction established by Holliday (2011) between Western and non-Western cultural worlds, or Centre and Periphery , employed as lenses through which it is possible to analyse the politics of cultural hegemony , in reference to the notion of the privileged subject and the subaltern other (Spivak 1988, 1999, 2004). Building on this critical reading, the chapter argues that narratives of reconciliation of difference and acquisition of awareness follow a Hegelian dialectical model, which accounts for the tendency in intercultural research to search for a final moment of understanding in which all conflicts are resolved. The negative dialectic of Adorno is introduced as the alternative theoretical framework that underpins the conceptualisation of the intercultural as incompleteness and open-endedness proposed in this book. Following from the discussion in Chap. 2, and adopting the theoretical framework delineated therein, Chap. 3 provides an illustration of the ethics of Levinas and its relevance for intercultural communication. It discusses the notion of subjectivity as it is formulated by Levinas (1969, 1998), which provides an account of the relationship between self and other that informs an ethical conception of intercultural dialogue in the form of presence to one another as corporeal, embodied subjects who co-construct meanings. This chapter rests on an alternative understanding of intercultural interaction that relies on a dialogic idea of communication closely connected to the experiential sphere and the bodily aspects of lived human subjectivity. This largely theoretical chapter is followed by the critique of three models of competence in Chap. 4: Deardorff’s pyramid model (2011a, b), the ICOPROMO project (Glaser et al. 2007) and Phipps’ notion of intercultural competence in terms of dwelling (2007). This chapter considers the ethical implications of Levinas’s reflection on the nature of language and on the relationship between self and other for the development of a framework that addresses the limitations of current conceptualisations of competence in intercultural communication. In particular, Chap. 4 enters in a productive confrontation with Phipps and her notion of intercultural competence as dwelling. Phipps utilises the Heideggerian metaphor of language as a dwelling place and the activity of learning another language as preparation to dwell in a new place. As intended by Phipps, dwelling in a language represents the result of an intercultural experience that provides the language learner with a sense of the fleeting and fragile nature of communication between people who may not share the same cultural perspective. Due to Heidegger’s conservative view of the inextricable bond between culture , language and soil as markers of a shared identity, this chapter proposes an alternative notion of the intercultural in terms of sojourning (Cavell 1996, 2005), as more apt to describe the condition of precarity and ‘messiness’ of intercultural living.

This book reflects the state of flux and theoretical development of intercultural communication research, particularly in the formulation of non-essentialist approaches to the conceptualisation of intercultural understanding and of ethical responsibility in communication. This situation in research is exemplified by Martin and Nakayama (2010) who argue that this particular field of research has currently not achieved a unified methodological approach. For this reason, intercultural communication remains open to new theoretical interventions, particularly in redefining the role of culture in underpinning the dynamics of intercultural interaction:

After ten years, revisiting the contemporary terrain of Intercultural communication seems warranted. The field has exploded in many different directions that have opened up the very notion of ‘intercultural’ communication. In some ways, the term itself, ‘intercultural’, tends to presume the interaction between discrete and different cultures. (…). Ten years later, the very problem of conceptualising ‘intercultural communication ’ remains as vibrant and relevant as ever. (Martin and Nakayama 2010, p. 59)

Orbe (2007) summarises the limitations of traditional empirical methodological frameworks in capturing the complexity entailed in intercultural interaction as:

It is suggested in this book that a methodological approach for intercultural communication should include the following: