Intercultural Communication: A Dialectical Approach
Intercultural communication 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 intercultural communication, because when we think dialectically, we think relationally. This means we look at the relationship between aspects of intercultural 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 (Marin & 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. I argue that a dialectical approach is useful in studying intercultural 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. Specifically, we can better understand intercultural communication by examining six dialectics (see Figure below “Dialectics of Intercultural Communication”) (Martin & Nakayama, 1999).
Figure 3.2: Dialectics of Intercultural Communication. Source: Adapted from Judith N. Martin and Thomas K. Nakayama, "Thinking Dialectically about Culture and Communication," Communication Theory 9, no. 1 (1999): 1-25.
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 (Martin & Nakayama, 2022). This dialectic is useful because it helps us account for exceptions to cultural norms. For example, earlier we learned that the United States is said to be an individualistic culture, where the rights and needs of the individual are prioritized (Hofstede et al., 2010). Conversely, Guatemala is said to be a collectivistic culture, which values group needs over individual ones. However, you can find people in the United States who intentionally put the needs of the group over their individual needs, perhaps because they have great care and concern for harmonious relations with others. Does that mean we come from a collectivistic culture? Does the Guatemalan man who pursues his own dreams and goals at the expense of group goals come from an individualistic culture? The answer to both questions is no.
Individual choices or behaviors, especially when they are situational or represent a small percentage of the population, do not define a cultural pattern. Recognizing the cultural-individual dialectic allows us to appreciate the complexity of identity and avoid oversimplifying people based on national or cultural labels.
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 businesswoman may prefer to communicate with her employees in an informal and laid-back manner. When she is promoted to manage a department in her company’s office in Malaysia, she may again prefer to communicate with her new Malaysian employees the same way she did with those in the United States. In the United States, we know that there are some accepted norms 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 large power distance (Hofstede, 1991). So while the American manager may not know how to adapt to the new context unless she has 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.
The differences-similarities dialectic allows us to examine how we are simultaneously similar to and different from others (Martin & Nakayama, 2022). As was noted earlier, it’s easy to fall into a view of intercultural communication as “other oriented” and set up dichotomies between “us” and “them.” When we overfocus on differences, we can end up polarizing groups that actually have things in common. When we overfocus 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 (Gray, 1992) famously portrays men and women as if they come from entirely different planets.The media is quick to include a blurb from a research study indicating again how men and women are “wired” to communicate differently. However, the overwhelming majority of current research on gender and communication finds that while there are differences between how men and women communicate, there are far more similarities (Allen, 2011). Even the language we use - like “opposite sex” - reinforces unnecessary and limiting dichotomies. That’s why I encourage students to use the term other gender instead. The word opposite suggests that men and women are fundamentally incompatible, when in reality, people of all genders share far more similarities than differences. Perhaps a better title than Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus would be Women and Men Are Both from Earth - a reminder that gender differences are nuanced, not absolute, and that communication is shaped by many factors beyond biology.
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.
The history/past-present/future dialectic reminds us to understand that while current cultural conditions matter - and our actions now will shape the future - they’re also rooted in the past (Martin & Nakayama, 2022). We don’t view history in isolation; we interpret it through the lens of our current values and experiences. A powerful example of this is the legacy of slavery in the United States. When topics like reparations or racial equity come up, some people respond with, “I’ve never owned slaves. Why should I have to care about this now?” While that statement may be factual, it overlooks how the effects of slavery continue to shape society today. Black Americans continue to face disparities in wealth, education, and opportunity - inequities rooted in historical injustices like slavery and Jim Crow laws (Althoff & Reichardt, 2023). A Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans, especially Black adults, believe slavery still affects Black communities today. These effects are embedded in social systems and don’t disappear easily. In summary, this dialectic reminds us that cultural issues aren’t just about the present - they’re shaped by the past and influence the future (Martin & Nakayama, 2022)
The privileges-disadvantages dialectic helps us understand how unearned advantages and systemic barriers operate across our different identities. In society, dominant and nondominant groups exist, and our cultural backgrounds, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and socioeconomic status all shape the privileges or disadvantages we experience. To understand this dialectic, we must view culture and identity through a lens of intersectionality, which asks us to acknowledge that we each have multiple cultures and identities that intersect with each other, and no one is entirely privileged or entirely disadvantaged (Crenshaw, 1991). Because our identities are complex, no one is completely privileged and no one is completely disadvantaged. For example, a white, heterosexual male may benefit from racial and gender privilege, but if he comes from a low income background or lives with a disability, he may face significant challenges that others don’t. On the other hand, a Latina college student may experience racial and gender-based disadvantages, but if she’s able-bodied and comes from a financially stable family, she may have access to resources that others lack. These overlapping identities shape how we move through the world. Students often struggle with this concept because they point to high-profile individuals - like Beyonce or Elon Musk - as proof that identity doesn’t limit success. But these are exceptions, not the rule. While someone like Beyonce has achieved immense success, her experience doesn’t erase the systemic barriers that many Black women continue to face in education, employment, and healthcare (Pew Research Center, 2023). Thus, understanding privilege and disadvantage at the cultural level means looking beyond individual stories and recognizing the broader systems that shape opportunity. It’s not about guilt or blame - it’s about awareness. When we acknowledge these dynamics, we’re better equipped to engage in meaningful conversations about equity and inclusion.
As these dialectics reiterate, culture and communication are complex systems that intersect with and diverge from many contexts. A dialectical approach to studying intercultural communication is useful because it allows us to think about culture and identity in complex ways, avoiding dichotomies and acknowledging the tensions that must be negotiated. A better understanding of all these dialectics helps us be more critical thinkers and competent communicators in a changing world.
What Else Determines a Culture?
The study of cultural values and dialectics presented in this chapter provide a framework for a comparative analysis between cultures and the relational tensions that occur within them. Additionally, there are other external factors that also constitute a culture—identities, language, manners, media, relationships, and conflict, to name a few. Coming chapters will help us to understand how more cultural traits are incorporated into daily life.
