Тема 4.

Lecture 4 Microcultures of Heritage and Group Attitudes

The Communication Milieu Associated with Perception and Heritage Cultures

The term "heritage cultures" describes the perceived difference concerning eth­nic and racial groups. The term represents a social matrix as a member of an eth­nic or racial coculture and the pride and worth associated with one's cultural birth heritage. The term also opens a discussion of marriage or adoption into a heritage involving ethnic or racial group membership.

Ethnic groups are identifiable bodies of people noted for their common her­itage and cultural tradition, usually national and/or religious.

Racial groups are defined by genetically transmitted and inherited traits of physical appearance.

The Process of In-group/Out-group Communication

Group memberships play an important role in shaping a person's social behav­ior. Heritage cultures represent significant group identification. Considering a modality point of view, minority group membership sometimes predicts group patterns, although we must recognize many individual differences. From a per­son's identification with a heritage culture (and some people do not identify but have actively or passively rejected their heritage) how do cultural members draw upon their cultural roots in a way that influences intergroup communication. The communication behaviors we see in others can re­flect personality, culture, or perception of a particular relationship. We cannot lay every difference at the feet of culture.

Social Categorisation

The process of intergroup communication proceeds through several stages, as the model in figure 1 reveals. The first part of the process is actually a series of stages that occur called social categorization (Gudykunst and Gumbs 1989). It is like stereotyping. We put people in different boxes, and, unfortunately, build fences around the boxes. These boundaries lead to in-groups and out-groups.

The model highlights stereotypes concerning out-groups. That is, people project various traits, emotions, roles, abilities, and interests of out-group mem­bers.

As it turns out, these social stereotypes operate mostly if we perceive a per­son as typical of a social group. If the person is not typical, another set of dy­namics emerges, dynamics involving attribution concerning the other person. Social stereotyping, for the typical members, leads further into the process, a process affected by two kinds of internal perceptions: those about self and those about others.

Self- and Role Schemata

Perceptions about self in intercultural communication are called self-schemata (Gudykunst and Gumbs 1989). It is very similar to the idea of self-concept, but it refers to two specific identity issues. The first identification factor is called social identity—my perception of my identity in relation to belonging to a group. If a group, for instance, is very positive for me, and I choose to identify with that group, then I would have a very high social identification in my self-schemata. A second aspect of the self in interpersonal terms is my personal identity. This has to do with the question of personal capabilities or personal competence. These two identity issues of the self-schemata answer the questions, "Who am I in relation to my group in this communication situation?" and "What can I ex­pect of myself in this communication situation?"

A second dimension, called role-schemata, however, overlaps at this point. Role-schemata answers the questions, "Who is the other group?" and "What can I probably expect from a person in this group?"

Communication Accommodation

Based on the cumulative processing of this out-group member, (that is, stereo­types about the person, perceptions about specific attributes, what I can expect from him or her, what I can expect from myself), there is a motivation to engage in communication accommodation and communication performance. If social and personal identification are positive, we expect positive communication performance.

Factors Altering the Social Categorization Model

There are some factors that could easily prevent this model from being active. First, positive results will not occur if what is called ethnolinguistic vitality (the perceived prestige of a language group) were to result in arrogance on the part of one of the interactants. Second, if anxiety or uncertainty remains high following the stereotyping process, then that, too, would preclude effective communica­tion. Third, certain personality factors could mediate the process and lead to in­effective outcomes. For example, a person who is highly rigid (high dogmatism, low category width), a person who adjusts poorly to communication needs in various communication settings (low self-monitoring skills), or a person who lacks judgment in discerning interpersonal relationships (low in cognitive com­plexity) can render communication ineffective. Fourth, the more we develop in­timacy, knowledge about the other, friendship, and experience positive contact, the differences initially perceived become less important.

In-group and Out-group Communication Applied to Heritage Culture communication

The characteristics common to interracial communication and interethnic communication may broadly apply to many intergroup interactions. While far more information exists about these specialized forms of communication, the following areas (suspicion, stereotypes, solidarity, separation) reflect the rhetori­cal and communication phenomena often related to heritage cultural communi­cation differences.

Suspicion

Some situations are frequently marked by mutual suspicions of group A toward group B. The erupting racial tension in schools, cities, and the workplace in the United States illustrates the intense feelings marking not just poor communica­tion, but avoidance and hostility. The level of suspicion aroused is clearly irra­tional in most cases and is fueled by specific features, such as the "we-they" syndrome and mistrust.

We-They dichotomy. An accompanying characteristic of suspicion in the interracial and interethnic context is the distinction between "we" and "they." Such a distinction clearly heightens a sense of loyalty and group identity, both of which are necessary for social change.

Mistrust. Suspicion is also aroused by attitudes of mistrust. Unfortunately, since contacts are often limited, people selectively perceive racial and ethnic groups that contrast with their own in such a way as to create mutual mistrust. The mistrust, however, is often predicated upon not only selective perception but also upon negative, erroneous stereotypes.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes develop as a way of organizing our world. Categorizing is a neces­sary part of daily functioning. However, stereotyping categories of people is often misleading, since all people within a category are not alike and since we may not always fully understand what we perceive.

1. Experimental studies confirm anecdotal notions of stereotypes and specify the ways in which those stereotypes operate.

Solidarity

A third characteristic of heritage cocultures and their communication is the group's solidarity, often corresponding to a group's self-identity.

1. In-group code. By using a code system that only in-group members under­stand, a sense of belonging and uniqueness can result, facilitating solidarity.

2. In-group symbols. To the extent that the group encourages high levels of solidarity, use of symbols such as colors, musical lyrics, slogans, and signif­icant objects, also foster solidarity.

3. In-group expectations. Solidarity also results from clear expectations. Whether one is a member of the group or not, norms and performance stan­dards often are known.

4. In-group enemies. The racial tensions of our age starkly remind us of in­stances where in-groups portray out-groups in negative, hostile, enemy-like terms. For example, Broome (1990) explains the strong Greek cultural in-group/out-group system pointing to its intensity as well as its promises and liabilities in relationships. Outcroppings of racial and ethnic hostilities in schools, the workplace, neighborhoods, and large cities haunt our recent memories as phantoms that we thought were legislated out of existence. The daily news is filled with episodes involving in-groups of national origin, re­ligious affiliation, and racial origin who conflict with out-groups.

Separation

A final theme of in-group/out-group communication is the separation theme. Ev­idence points to isolation, exclusion, and feelings of loss among heritage cultural members. This exclusion theme is elevated when minority cultures find themselves not invited or at least disengaged within ma­jority cultural relationships and systems.

Attitudes As Barriers to Effective Interethnic and Interracial Communication

Dysfunctional attitudes arrest the development of effective intercultural commu­nication. Investigators consistently identify attitudes that block open perception, and by their nature, limit intercultural relationships.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is an evaluation of one's cul­ture as better than or superior to another culture. This attitude represents much more than technical or quantitative assessment, such as recognizing a culture has more technology or more resources than another culture. It is a cultural arro­gance, loaded with emotions, and broadly applied to many out-groups. The re­sulting "my culture is better than your culture" belief weaves its way into thoughts and actions, such as arrogance, avoidance, withdrawal, faulty attribu­tion, and faulty categorizing. Although the term normally appears in discussions comparing national and regional macrocultures, it is easy to recognize how eth­nocentrism surrounds numerous cultures of diversity. The research on this topic also links authoritarianism and dogmatism to this attitude.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes can be inaccurate. It is this area that causes many prob­lems. How does inaccuracy occur?

First, the facts may be wrong, such as incorrect knowledge and information about a culture.

Second, negative qualities and intentions, attributed to a culture, may be un­warranted by the data. For example, to say "West Africans are late to meetings," may be an accurate statement in some rural settings. To then interpret a descrip­tive statement filling in attributions going beyond the observations is shaky at best. For instance, to add "Furthermore, they are late because of disregard or bad intentions" ignores the reasons for lack of clock watching among some rural Africans and has nothing to do with bad intentions.

Third, stereotypes that lead us toward a faulty extrapolation toward individ­ual members, assuming that what is true of the group is also true of every mem­ber, violates a significant rule of logic. You cannot assume that everyone acts like the group, even if you accept the first premise about the group.

There are resulting affective or feeling components to all this that directly affects communicating between diverse cultures. The in-group/out-group hostilities are explosive and leave little doubt of the deep-seated feelings lying underneath the diversity cultures' clash.

Brislin writes excellent observations about the origins of the broader con­cept, prejudice, as a socialization process where pervasive negative stereotypes are passed on to children. If Brislin is right, the consequent intergenerational outlook is bleak. In this sense, emotion, not reason, captures our feelings of who is good and bad and how to feel about out-groups.

Intense racism. People believe or act in a way indicating their belief that certain groups were born as outcasts. Consequently, they are viewed as being of low worth. Clusters of negative beliefs surround intense racism, beliefs that dis­criminate, devalue, ignore, withdraw from, and perpetuate negative or injurious myths toward the target of racism.

Symbolic racism. Brislin uses this term referring to out-groups as deval­ued not because of inherent inferiority, but because the group is seen as blocking basic cultural goals. In many cases, individuals are not disliked, but again, the out-group is perceived as causing trouble, disrupting habits and values, or mov­ing too fast.

Tokenism. This subtle form of prejudice involves a person's small partici­pation in activities appearing nonprejudicial as self-convincing proof of not being prejudiced. As an example, Brislin indicates giving small amounts of money or limited time and effort toward minority group activities in order to make participants feel good. Actually, the feeling is superficial, and hiding be­neath the surface because of lack of involvement is a potential or latent preju­dice or racism.

Arms-length prejudice. A final category chosen from Brislin's work is the behavior where nonprejudicial actions are clearly demonstrated in public, social settings, but warmth, friendliness, and intimacy are withheld in private settings. For instance, going to a party and being nice to out-group members, but later acting uncomfortably in a one-to-one visit over coffee or ignoring roommates, neighbors, in potential interracial/interethnic friendships in any private settings.

Intercultural Marriages

Heritage cultures, as indicated early, are not just accidents of birth but sometimes occasions of choice. To marry someone from another culture is a growing choice. Where there are significant group differences that mark the marriage, we choose to call it intercultural marriage, and refer to the partners as intercultural couples.

Studies examining intercultural couples reveal a similar theme: intercultural marriage partners experience unique issues related to culture, not just marital ad­justment. Many times marital problems manifest themselves as rejection, dis­crimination, and even violence. However, cultural phenomena linked to intercultural marriage can pose problems in addition to "normal" marital problems.

The Romeo and Juliet Effect

The Romeo and Juliet effect refers to intense feelings of attraction because cou­ples are denied marriage. Certain forbidden relationships can intensify attraction, and attraction in the early stages of intercultural communication can be stronger than that of intracultural couples. Unfortunately, this intense love can be short. Over time, the intercultural couple, once so intensely in love, now face increased and unexpected criticism, unwelcome and unusual interference by parents, low acceptance among the community, and decreased trust between the couple.

Intercultural Marriage and Satisfaction

Graham, Moeai, and Shizuru (1985) compared 170 intercultural and intracul­tural couples, including Caucasian, Samoan, Hawaiian, Tongan, New Zealander, Filipino, Chinese, and Japanese people. The results indicated a general satisfac­tion with the marriage, for both the intracultural couples and the intercultural couples. However, the intercultural couples reported 63 percent negative re­sponses toward the marriage compared to 36 percent negative responses among the intracultural couples.

This research study together with other data lead to a summarization of some major factors associated with intercultural marital satisfaction:

1. Role expectations. The wives in the study experienced greater difficulty in accepting their husbands' culture than the other way around. This is because wives experience more pressure to assimilate their husbands' culture and are expected to make greater adjustments.

Baldwin found a similar result with Anglo-Hispanic couples; when the wife became "over-involved" or when other activities started tak­ing her away from home more than the husband expected, ratings on com­munication satisfaction were reduced. On the other hand, when the husband became involved with child discipline, house cleaning, and decision making (in other words, areas of family involvement), the level of communication satisfaction increased. Finally, Baldwin found a positive correlation be­tween communication satisfaction and marital satisfaction, indicating how intercultural communication impacts marriages.

2. Extended family intrusion. Problems surrounding intrusion or evaluation by the extended family also are indicated for some intercultural couples. For example, U.S. dominant cultural individuals may not recognize the signifi­cance of extended family influence in their intercultural marriage. In cul­tures that emphasize the extended family, literally dozens of family mem­bers may drop in unexpectedly and stay for long periods of time. For instance, in Papua New Guinea, we observe firsthand the won-tok system. The cultural rule is that if you "have" you are supposed to "give" to family members or friends from your home village. The feelings toward the habits and style of one's family by no means are limited to New Guinea, for differ­ent forms of extended family are seen almost everywhere.

3. Collective-individualistic cultures. Some cultures engage in a sharing/caring approach because of group commitments and group obligations, while oth­ers are more concerned with themselves and individualistic. For instance, the intercultural couples in the Graham, Moeai, and Shizuru study revealed a strong extended-family pattern for all the South Pacific (Polynesian) groups, which was described as a sharing culture. The interpersonal com­mitments of those from the sharing culture toward their extended family be­came an economic drain upon the family finances. Such a value system was a direct clash with their marriage partners who were from the "keeping" val­ues of U.S. dominant nuclear families. Since a large percentage of the sam­ple in this study involved American, Caucasian wives married to Samoans, it is easy to see why the sharing-keeping cultural clash predominated the findings in the study.

4. Language and misunderstanding. When two languages were spoken in an intercultural marriage, conflicts obviously resulted, particularly in instances of literal misunderstanding in language or wording, a psychological power struggle over who is going to control the household, and a question of which language will be used at home. According to Graham, Moeai, and Shizuru, when two languages are spoken in intercultural marriage, the chil­dren tend to learn the mother's tongue more fluently when the wife retains the dominant influence over the child or when she does not adjust as quickly to the husband's language or both. However, if the wife is bilingual, speaking her husband's language as well as her own, and the child is ex­posed to both languages, then the child is slower in language acquisition and comprehension. Furthermore, the authors reported that if the child is forced to decide his cultural identity, he will most likely follow the mother.

5. Conflict styles. Differences in styles of conflict resolution also mark a sig­nificant point of departure for intercultural couples. We can anticipate that directness-indirectness, high context-low context cultures, monochronic-polychronic styles, and power distance are also fac­tors related to conflict in intercultural marriage.

6. Child rearing attitudes and practices. Attitudes toward children and child-rearing methodologies represent another difference between the intercul­tural couples. Some cultures are much stricter with rules than other cultures, creating a value difference and a difference in the way values should be communicated and reinforced with children.

It seems that the major sources of conflict for many intercultural couples go beyond expected marital issues. Culture places still additional demands on the couple for optimal intercultural marital satisfaction.

Intercultural Marriage and Attribution. In a study by Bizman 549 subjects were asked to evaluate a carefully devised description of three conditions of Jewish intercultural and intracultural marriages: a western Jew married to a western Jew, an eastern Jew married to an eastern Jew, a western Jew married to an eastern Jew. The conclusions indicated that for intercultural marriages (East-West) there was significantly less percep­tion of compatibility and durability than for the intracultural couples. The re­spondents projected a 25 percent less chance of marital success for the heteroge­neous couple than for the homogeneous couple.

Intercultural Marriage and Communication. If communication is a significant issue, then what are the particular inter­cultural adjustment options? Rohrlich describes a continuum from one ex­treme, in which a partner gives up his or her culture to adopt the ways of the other, to the other extreme, where both partners give up something of their old culture, producing still a new culture between the two of them. Consider the options for adjustment: 1) One-way adjustment: one partner adopts the cultural pattern of the other; 2) Alternative adjustment: at times one cultural pattern is consciously chosen and at other times the other is chosen; 3) Midpoint compromise: partners agree on a solution between their respective positions; 4) Mixing adjustment: a combination of both cultures is consciously adopted; 5) Creative adjustment: partners decide to give up their respective cultures in favor of a new behavior pattern.

Communication also relates to decision making and power in the relation­ship. For example, Ting-Toomey argues for different levels of satisfac­tion within the marriage based on the amount of power struggle. She says that intracultural couples are more likely to form intimate bonds than intercultural couples, simply because the former have a common basis for marital communi­cation, decision making, and negotiation of everything from daily operations to important decisions in the family. Even in cultures that stress power distance, there is a continual defining of the boundaries of marital influence. Within Japanese culture, wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands and compliant in fulfilling their wifely roles. Within those marriages, however, there is a subtle and sometimes nagging insistence in a search for power in a house­hold domain, according to Ting-Toomey.

When it comes to decision making and power in the family, ambiguity, lack of role definition, and uncertainty produce much greater discomfort than a mar­riage where the roles are not under some kind of change or attack.

To marry an individual from another culture is to marry that culture. Lack of interest on the part of the spouse in the other's culture is damaging. To as­sume that the spouse is attached to the new culture is a serious mistake. The fun­damental theme of the culture must be raised, discussed, and valued, if not shared, by both parties.