The field of Intercultural Communication has foundational ties to the disciplines of Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics, as well as Political Science, Sociology, and History. Communication between people of different cultures has always occurred, and has often been in relation to politics and international concerns. In fact, the modern study of Intercultural Communication is directly connected to international politics.
In the United States, the “official” field of Intercultural Communication dates from the early 1950s, when Edward T. Hall, a cultural anthropologist working for the United States Foreign Service Institute(FSI) after the Second World War. Because of the role of the US as a major world power after the War, government officials felt it important to devise a system for a better understanding of communication among people of various cultures. The study of cultures focused at the time primarily on nationalities and minority groups, and the goal was to gain further understanding of others and train members of the Foreign Service This training included diplomats, government officials, military personnel, and others who would serve as representatives of the United States abroad and interact with foreign businesses and dignitaries. For this reason, the studies evolved from the need to find ways of ensuring that American messages and priorities were understood in multiple cultures.
At the time, very few US officials in the Foreign Service actually spoke the language of the nations where they were stationed. This created what we can now see as obvious problems, as the role of interpretation was left to the other nations. When Congress passed the Foreign Service Act in 1946, the Foreign Service Institute was created to train US officials, predominantly in the Department of State. Hall was brought in, with others, to teach the concept of culture itself, particularly as it relates to family structures, behaviors, and other cultural norms. He quickly determined that teaching culture as a monolithic concept in that manner was not beneficial to individuals who needed training on specific cultures.
Hall’s background and exposure to academic theory focused on four specific fields: cultural anthropology, linguistics, ethology (the study of animal behavior), and Freudian psychoanalytic theory. Each of these played a role in what Hall began to formulate as training in Intercultural Communication (Hall, 1959, 1963, 1968). Drawing on the differences between communication that relies on symbolic and linguistic processes and communication that is involuntary or embodied, Hall began to focus on what he called “silent communication,” or what we today call nonverbal communication and identity performance. Working with other scholars also involved at the FSI, Hall (1959, 1963) outlined concepts for nonverbal usage of movement through space and time: proxemics (the study of the use of space), chronemics (the study of time orientation), and kinetics (the study of the use of movement relevant to objects and people). Hall argued that communication behaviors in each of these categories is culturally dependent: people from different cultures use and value space, time, and movement in different ways.
Hall's (1963) discussion of proxemics introduces four zones that categorize and define the use of space in relation to cultural norms and behaviors, additionally providing insight into the intimacy or lack therefore associated with our communication interactions. In other words, the space "bubbles" that we allow people to navigate within and through define the relationships we have with them. These four zones include:
Intimate space: usually shared with only romantic partners or close family members
Personal space: usually shared with close friends and those with whom you have regular interactions
Social space: usually shared with acquaintances and work colleagues
Public space: usually shared with people with whom you have limited or no regular interactions
These categories shift in terms of literal distance from one culture to the next. Think about the last time you were shopping at Costco or any large box or department store. What elements determined the space that existed between you and the other shoppers waiting in line to check out? Or, consider what determined you navigated sharing your space with adjacent shoppers looking at the same products. The answer is simple: cultural orientations in terms of how we define our space. These distinctions, in Hall’s discussion, lead to basic cultural stereotypes viewed as useful for understanding cultural norms and practices. Variations between cultures, including regional differences, impact our behaviors with others. This also generates stereotypical expectations during cultural interactions and can influence people's desire to integrate, also known as cultural assimilation. It can also generate potential misunderstandings or apprehension.
For example, an Italian New Yorker might use a lot of gestures while speaking, while a Japanese woman might be very reserved in her movements. Let’s say these two people were speaking to each other. A lot of motion on the part of the Italian New Yorker when speaking could be understood as threatening or rude by the Japanese woman. Similarly, standing too close to someone whose culture requires distance could also be seen as rude or invasive. And let’s take a more contemporary example of chronemics: someone who is used to being five minutes early for everything on “East Coast Time” might be confused or insulted by someone with a more relaxed attitude toward time, i.e. “Island Time.” For Hall and others in the FSI, the categorical information that would be provided by a better understanding of proxemics, chronemics, and kinesics would be an invaluable addition to their training program.
Using this approach, Hall described what we now call intercultural communication as patterned and analyzable in its microculture workings—meaning he firmly believed that if we break culture down into its components we will be able to understand the individual components themselves. Hall then applied that knowledge to understanding culture as a system. He looked at what he called kinemes (behaviors) and phonemes (utterances) to understand systemic culture, and trained his students through role play exercises using these microcultures as the basis for intercultural communication practices. Hall saw the potential for this process and began teaching it not only to members of the foreign service, but also to business travelers. As interest in the system grew, it began to be taught in US colleges and universities. As a guiding process for intercultural understanding, Hall’s system would remain in place through the 1970s, when the field would gain its official label, “Intercultural Communication” in academic journals.
By the 1980s the academic field had shifted from being the domain of the federal government and onto college campuses. The majority of intercultural research until that time had been conducted by US and Japanese scholars, with a growing focus on business and industrial relations. In 1983, William Gudykunst published the first book of Intercultural Communication theory. Incorporated into Gudykunst’s theories and models of Intercultural Communication was Geert Hofstede’s theory of Cultural Dimensions, which looks at how different cultures are structured along different systemic patterns.
Hofstede’s theory generates four types of systemic patterns of culture (note the image above illustrates two patterns later added to Hofstede's original framework):
Power Distance Index(PDI): the treatment of individuals in culture reflects their social status
low power distance means people with low social status can still contribute and expect to contribute to decision making processes
high power distance means communication regarding decision making is restricted to those at the top or severe limits are placed on the ability for those with lower status to gain a voice in the process
Collectivist v. Individualist Cultures Index (IDV): whether emphasis is placed on collective or community-based needs and freedom of expression or an individual’s needs and freedom of expression
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): cultural norms of uncertainty or anxiety management, or how people are culturally expected to respond in new or unusual situations
Masculinity Index (MAS): are masculine (rational) or feminine (emotional) values regarded more highly in the culture
In each of these patterns, there are levels of cultural adherence along a spectrum, and these levels are intended to be measurable. The majority of intercultural theories and models from this era evolve from this behavioral paradigm approach.
Building on Hofstede’s work, Berger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory, and Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory, Gudykunst developed the Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) model (1985) to explain how people adapt to cultures when faced with intercultural uncertainty. Gudykunst argued that people have to manage communication uncertainty, rather than simply reduce it, at four levels simultaneously: individual, interpersonal, intergroup, and cultural. He explained that we have boundaries at all of these levels, and if our social identities are secure at any of these levels, then we can manage our uncertainty within that level’s boundaries, but without reducing the uncertainty outside of those boundaries in the other levels. However, we sometimes need to negotiate our identities between these levels to reduce uncertainty in multiple levels. Therefore, we may take on the characteristics of a culture in order to disguise our uncertainty at the outward levels, while working to maintain our sense of self and individuality on a more private basis.
Gudykunst also promoted colleague Stella Ting-Toomey’s (1985) Face Negotiation model, which drew on the studies conducted in the US and Japan to discuss how in collectivist cultures like Japan it becomes more important for the individual to maintain their status as part of a collective and protect the collective whole from real or imagined slights.
Those who seek to save face will often do so by avoiding, obliging, or compromising rather than standing ground on an issue. These and other models form the basis of Intercultural Communication in the Behavioral Paradigm. As we progress into the last decades of the twentieth century, however, influences from the other research paradigms will dramatically change the field.
References
Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed.). (1983). Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hall, E.T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003-1026.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9. 83-108.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 2, 75-89.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
