While millions tune in to watch a championship competition between two elite football teams, millions more watch to see how creatively and humorously advertisers can pitch their products. Some of these advertisements have transformed both products and spokespeople into cultural icons, from Budweiser and Apple computers to Betty White and the Old Spice Man.
A name provides an identity, we all know, and as such the use of the term 'intercultural communication' as a name for a particular set of scientific objects and approaches to these objects confers an identity to them.
The usual effect of such a name-and-identity-giving process is that people tend to Cultural approaches to communication they know what exactly what they talk about.
The truth of the matter is, however, that very often the name and the identity suggested by that name obscure a precise understanding of the target-object.
My own experience is this: I have agreed to talk about different approaches to the study of intercultural communication. To me, an anthropological linguist and sociolinguist, communication means 'real' communication, that is, what people actually do when they engage in an exchange of meaningful semiotic symbols.
I have been reared in a tradition that states its preference for looking at facts first, take stock of what is observable and attestable in these facts, and only afterwards extrapolate in the direction of categories, types and structures of communication. Stating this is not stating the obvious.
As I said before, the study of empirical cases is not at the core of what many people understand by studies on intercultural communication.
Quite a few well-known and widely read books on intercultural communication do not provide a single real case analysis, not even a single example of real-life data of people talking to one another or writing to one another, for that matter.
But to be very clear right from the start: It is from that point of view that I will engage on a brief set of comments on the 'mainstream' tradition on intercultural communication a fairly well-established tradition by now. After that, I will add a number of recently voiced observations on intercultural communication from within the tradition in which I like to situate myself.
The hypostasis of culture and difference Let me start by quoting the introduction of a book on intercultural communication written in Dutch, and very influential in the Dutch-speaking world Pinto After having introduced the notion of cultural difference labeled 'cultural relativity' by Pinto and having illustrated it by reference to phenomena such as negotiation strategies, respect, ways of questioning and so on, Pinto summarizes: The greater and deeper the differences, the greater the risk of the abovementioned errors.
It starts from a rather traditional idealist notion of culture, consisting of a 'core' values and norms related to b a complex of behavioral patterns derived from customs and expectations in turn anchored into these core values and norms. I have discussed this notion of culture on various other occasions Blommaert, see also Sarangi for a broader discussionand I can only repeat what I said before.
This notion of culture imposes a linear and static grid on empiry. It suggests a direct connection between a set of stable, immutable essences -- the core values and norms -- on the one hand and all kinds of observable behavior on the other. If a Japanese does not directly say 'no' when a business proposal is unacceptable to him, then that must be a consequence of his cultural principles of indirectness and politeness and not, for instance, of the fact that he is not entitled to say either 'no' and 'yes' then and there, or that he needs to consult other people before deciding, and so forth.
Remarkably, though, whereas the intercultural object -- the 'Other' -- is usually pictured as caught in a web of age-old essential and inflexible values and customs, those who have identified the other claim to be free of such determinism.
Their values are immutable, static, always valid and in action. We, on the contrary, have been able to develop 'intercultural awareness' Pinto Our intercultural training programs attempt "to develop the qualities of effectiveness identified by scholars interested in adjustment to other cultures" Brislin You can’t “do” culture change to your organization.
Culture arises from the beliefs and underlying assumptions held by the people in the organization.
Trying to change culture by decree or through training programs won’t affect people’s beliefs. One way to change the culture is to fire a. This essay attempts to describe the process of cultural approach to communication with the help of dance as a communication process. This face-to-face upper division course examines the role of culture in health communication and decision-making.
Students learn about the most popular theories and concepts related to this topic, including cultural health competence, the Culture-Centered Approach (CCA), and the PEN-3 model of cultural competence, as well as health and healing issues specific to different cultural groups.
Critical and cultural studies have proliferated internationally, with distinct perspectives and approaches characterizing their various national, political, and societal contexts. The project of critical and cultural studies of communication is tied to praxis.
Cultural competence is defined as the ability of providers and organizations to effectively deliver health care services that meet the social, cultural, and linguistic needs of patients.1 A culturally competent health care system can help improve health outcomes and quality of care, and can contribute to the elimination of racial and ethnic.
Whereas the culture-centered approach emphasizes culture as a shifting, contextually embedded, complex web of meanings, the cultural sensitivity approach seeks to fine-tune communication materials to specific cultural needs such that these communication materials and .