3 Culture and Communication: Understanding Differences

Ask yourself, “Who am I?” Our identities are shaped by reflections from parents, friends, teachers, and media. While this begins at birth, adolescence in Western societies marks a period of self-reflection due to maturing cognitive abilities and social awareness, initiating a lifelong exploration of self (Tatum, B. D., 2000). Our identities, crucial to our self-concept, can be categorized into three main areas: personal, social, and cultural identities. (see examples in graphic below).

Personal identities can change frequently with new experiences, while social identities are more stable, requiring deeper investment. For example, joining a MMORPG community can transform a personal interest into a social identity.

Cultural identities are based on socially constructed categories and include expectations for behavior (Yep, 2002). They are the least changeable due to historical roots, as seen in the evolution of African American identities since the civil rights movement (Collier, 1996). Acculturation involves learning and using recognizable codes within cultural groups.

Identities can be Ascribed identities (assigned by others) or avowed identities  (claimed by oneself) (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Misalignment between these can cause friction, but they can also align positively. The “nerd” label, once negative, has been reclaimed by a subculture, exemplified by MC Frontalot in the nerdcore hip-hop movement (Shipman, 2007). Ascribed and avowed identities can change and sometimes align over time.

Identities can be permanent, but their salience—or awareness—changes with context. For instance, an African American may avow her identity more intensely as president of her college’s Black Student Union. Studying abroad in Africa, she might be ascribed the identity of “American” by locals, highlighting national identity. Biracial individuals may shift racial identification during identity exploration. Yep (2002) describes his journey from repressing his Chinese identity in Peru to embracing it in the U.S., illustrating national identity fluctuation.

Throughout history, cultural influences have defined Dominant identities and non-dominant identities groups (Allen, 2011). Dominant identities have more resources and influence, while non-dominant ones have less. These distinctions exist at the societal level, with exceptions not altering the overall trend. Dominant groups enjoy privileges, while non-dominant groups face institutionalized discrimination, such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism. Privilege and disadvantage are not absolute.  There are obviously exceptions, with people in groups considered non-dominant obtaining more resources and power than a person in a dominant group. However, the overall trend is that difference based on cultural groups has been institutionalized, and exceptions do not change this fact. Because of this uneven distribution of resources and power, members of dominant groups are granted privileges while non-dominant groups are at a disadvantage.

Identity Development

There are multiple models for examining identity development. Given our focus on how difference matters, we will examine similarities and differences in nondominant and dominant identity formation. While the stages in this model help us understand how many people experience their identities, identity development is complex, and there may be variations. We must also remember that people have multiple identities that intersect with each other. So, as you read, think about how circumstances may be different for an individual with multiple nondominant and/or dominant identities.

Nondominant Identity Development

When we encounter others, we notice similarities and differences, often emphasizing differences, which can lead to communication issues. We categorize people into in-groups and out-groups based on perceived differences, reacting to them based on group traits rather than individual characteristics (Allen, 2011). This can lead to stereotypes and prejudice influencing communication. Understanding why differences matter enhances communication competence. Conversely, ignoring differences by viewing everyone as the same overlooks their historical and cultural significance. Instead of dismissing differences, we should understand their social and cultural impact and how they continue to affect us today.

Culture and identity are intricate, raising questions about how some groups became dominant while others remained nondominant. These distinctions are not inherent but have evolved over time. An ideology of domination suggests that power imbalances are natural, although early human societies likely did not operate this way (Allen, 2011). Understanding these inequalities is crucial for fostering a more just society. Additionally, demographic shifts and changing interaction patterns underscore the importance of recognizing differences. As demographics evolve, acknowledging differences becomes increasingly significant in addressing unequal treatment and promoting social justice.

In the United States, the population of people of color is growing and diversifying, along with increased visibility for gay, lesbian individuals, and those with disabilities. The 2010 Census revealed that Hispanic and Latino/a populations became the second-largest group, growing by 43% since 2000 (Saenz, 2011). By 2030, racial and ethnic minorities are expected to make up one-third of the population (Allen, 2011). Legal and social changes have fostered a more inclusive environment for sexual minorities and individuals with disabilities, directly impacting interpersonal relationships. In the workplace, changing demographics are crucial, prompting organizations to comply with laws by implementing policies for equal access and opportunity. Some organizations go beyond compliance, creating inclusive climates where diversity is valued for its interpersonal and economic benefits.

We can now see that difference matters due to the inequalities that exist among cultural groups and due to changing demographics that affect our personal and social relationships. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles that may impede our valuing of difference (Allen, 2011). Individuals with dominant identities may not validate the experiences of those in nondominant groups because they do not experience the oppression directed at those with nondominant identities. Further, they may find it difficult to acknowledge that not being aware of this oppression is due to privilege associated with their dominant identities. Because of this lack of recognition of oppression, members of dominant groups may minimize, dismiss, or question the experiences of nondominant groups and view them as “complainers” or “whiners.” Recall from our earlier discussion of identity formation that people with dominant identities may stay in the unexamined or acceptance stages for a long time. Being stuck in these stages makes it much more difficult to value difference.

Members of nondominant groups may struggle to value differences because of negative experiences with dominant groups, such as having their experiences invalidated. Both groups might be hesitant to discuss differences due to political correctness norms, fearing they might be perceived as insensitive or racist. These obstacles are common and valid. However, cultivating intercultural communication competence can help us gain new perspectives, enhance mindfulness in our communication, and address these negative cycles effectively.

It might be surprising to learn that all humans, regardless of racial classification, share 99.9% of their DNA. This discovery by the Human Genome Project supports the view that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality. The American Anthropological Association concurs, stating that race results from “historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances” (Allen, 2011). Thus, race can be defined as a socially constructed category based on differences in appearance, which has historically been used to establish hierarchies that privilege some individuals while disadvantaging others.

Race emerged as a socially and culturally recognized marker during European colonial expansion in the 1500s. As Western Europeans explored unfamiliar parts of the world and encountered people different from themselves, a racial hierarchy developed, placing lighter-skinned Europeans above darker-skinned individuals. Newly developing fields in natural and biological sciences began examining these new regions, including their plant and animal life, natural resources, and native populations. Over the next three centuries, flawed, biased, and racist scientific theories legitimized ideas that native populations were less evolved than white Europeans, often labeling them as savages. Some scientific debates even questioned whether native populations should be considered human or animal. Racial distinctions were primarily based on phenotypes, such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features. Western “scientists” used these differences as “proof” of native populations’ inferiority, justifying colonial expansion, enslavement, genocide, and exploitation on a massive scale (Allen, 2011). Although experts agree that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality, it undeniably holds significant meaning in society and impacts individuals as though it were “real.”

Given that race is one of the first things we notice about someone, it’s important to know how race and communication relate (Allen, 2011). Discussing race in the United States is difficult for many reasons. One is due to uncertainty about language use. People may be frustrated by their perception that labels change too often or be afraid of using an “improper” term and being viewed as racially insensitive. It is important, however, that we not let political correctness get in the way of meaningful dialogues and learning opportunities related to difference. Learning some of the communicative history of race can make us more competent communicators and open us up to more learning experiences.

Racial classifications in the United States, both in governmental use and everyday communication, have evolved frequently, underscoring the social construction of race. Currently, the main racial groups are African American, Asian American, European American, Latino/a, and Native American. However, the US Census Bureau’s definitions of race have varied significantly over time; for instance, in the 1900s alone, there were twenty-six different racial categories used on census forms (Allen, 2011). Communication about race in daily interactions has also shifted, with many individuals still hesitant to discuss race due to fear of using “the wrong” vocabulary.

History and personal preference also influence how we communicate about race. Culture and communication scholar Brenda Allen notes that when she was born in 1950, her birth certificate included an N for Negro. Later she referred to herself as colored because that’s what people in her community referred to themselves as. During and before this time, the term black had negative connotations and would likely have offended someone. There was a movement in the 1960s to reclaim the word black, and the slogan “black is beautiful” was commonly used. Brenda Allen acknowledges the newer label of African American but notes that she still prefers black. The terms colored and Negro are no longer considered appropriate because they were commonly used during a time when black people were blatantly discriminated against. Even though that history may seem far removed to some, it is not to others. Currently, the terms African American and black are frequently used, and both are considered acceptable. The phrase people of color is acceptable for most and is used to be inclusive of other racial minorities. If you are unsure what to use, you could always observe how a person refers to himself or herself, or you could ask for his or her preference. In any case, a competent communicator defers to and respects the preference of the individual.

The label Latin American typically refers to individuals from Central American countries, though the region’s inhabitants are now quite diverse due to historical colonization by Spain. People in these areas may trace their lineage to indigenous peoples, a mix of Spanish and indigenous ancestry, or other combinations including European, African, and/or indigenous heritage. In the United States, many prefer the terms Latina and Latino over Hispanic to reflect their South and/or Central American and Caribbean lineage. Scholars often use Latina/o to acknowledge both genders (Calafell, 2007). In verbal communication, “Latina” refers to a female, “Latino” to a male, and “Latinas and Latinos” can be used for gender inclusivity. While the US Census uses Hispanic, it primarily denotes Spanish origin, overlooking the diverse backgrounds of many Latinos/as and emphasizing the colonizer’s influence, which can erase important indigenous histories. Some individuals identify culturally as Hispanic but racially as white. Specific labels like Puerto Rican or Mexican American might also be used to indicate regional or national origins. As with other cultural groups, if unsure, it’s best to ask and respect an individual’s preferred label.

The history of immigration in the United States also ties to the way that race has been constructed. The metaphor of the melting pot has been used to describe the immigration history of the United States but doesn’t capture the experiences of many immigrant groups (Allen, 2011). Generally, immigrant groups who were white, or light skinned, and spoke English were better able to assimilate, or melt into the melting pot. But immigrant groups that we might think of as white today were not always considered so. Irish immigrants were discriminated against and even portrayed as black in cartoons that appeared in newspapers. In some Southern states, Italian immigrants were forced to go to black schools, and it wasn’t until 1952 that Asian immigrants were allowed to become citizens of the United States. All this history is important, because it continues to influence communication among races today.

Interracial Communication

When meeting a newborn, we often ask if it’s a boy or girl, highlighting gender’s role in organizing social lives and relationships. A Canadian family sparked controversy by choosing not to disclose their baby Storm’s gender, wanting the child to experience life without gender boundaries (Davis & James, 2011). In contrast, many parents “code” their newborns with gendered symbols, like pink for girls and blue for boys, reflecting societal associations with masculinity and femininity. Although colors aren’t inherently gendered, they gain meaning when linked to gender traits. Like race, gender is a socially constructed category. While biological differences exist between those labeled male and female, societal interpretations of these differences impact daily life. These interpretations vary globally, revealing that gender classification isn’t as natural or stable as perceived. Some cultures, such as Native American and South Central Asian, historically appreciate individuals who cross gender lines.

The term gender refers to an identity based on internalized cultural notions of masculinity and femininity, constructed through communication and interaction. Gender identity is formed through socializing institutions, and gender expression is how we convey this identity in interactions. Sex is based on biological characteristics like genitalia, sex organs, chromosomes, and hormones (Wood, 2005). While biological differences between men and women exist, societal meanings attached to these differences are significant. Cultural variations in these meanings show the arbitrary nature of “our way of doing things.” For instance, in some African cultures, boys are encouraged to be nurturing by caring for babies (Wood, 2005).

Gender has been politically constructed over centuries, often favoring men in terms of power. Various academic fields attempted to “prove” natural differences between genders, presenting “proof” that is now seen as sexist and inaccurate. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, craniometrists claimed men were more intelligent due to larger brains. Sociology and psychology argued women were less evolved than men, likening them to “children and savages” (Allen, 2011). Women’s menstrual cycles were used to label them as irrational, barring them from voting, higher education, or leadership roles. This knowledge empowered men and disempowered women, rooted in patriarchy, a system maintaining male values and interests (Wood, 2005). Patriarchy’s invisibility perpetuates it, treating men as the “generic” human, ignoring their gender. Masculinities studies challenge this by examining how masculinities are performed.

Challenges to gender construction have emerged since the 1960s, with scholars and activists questioning traditional gender roles. The women’s rights movement began in the 1800s, with the first convention in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848 (Wood, 2005). While led by white, middle-class women, there was overlap with the abolitionist movement. Leaders faced risks, especially black women like Sojourner Truth, who delivered the famous “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech in 1851 (Wood, 2005), highlighting layers of oppression faced by black women.

Feminism, as an intellectual and social movement, advanced women’s rights and understanding of gender. Despite its negative portrayal in media and politics, feminism seeks a more equitable society for all. Gender scholar Julia Wood notes students are hesitant to identify as feminists due to word connotations, yet many support gender equity (Wood, 2005).

I would never call myself a feminist, because that word has so many negative connotations. I don’t hate men or anything, and I’m not interested in protesting. I don’t want to go around with hacked-off hair and no makeup and sit around bashing men. I do think women should have the same kinds of rights, including equal pay for equal work. But I wouldn’t call myself a feminist.

It’s important to remember that there are many ways to be a feminist and to realize that some of the stereotypes about feminism are rooted in sexism and homophobia, in that feminists are reduced to “men haters” and often presumed to be lesbians. The feminist movement also gave some momentum to the transgender rights movement. Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression do not match the gender they were assigned by birth. Transgender people may or may not seek medical intervention like surgery or hormone treatments to help match their physiology with their gender identity. The term transgender includes other labels such as transsexual, transvestite, cross-dresser, and intersex, among others. Terms like hermaphrodite and she-male are not considered appropriate. As with other groups, it is best to allow someone to self-identify first and then honor their preferred label. If you are unsure of which pronouns to use when addressing someone, you can use gender-neutral language or you can use the pronoun that matches with how they are presenting. If someone has long hair, make-up, and a dress on, but you think their biological sex is male due to other cues, it would be polite to address them with female pronouns, since that is the gender identity they are expressing.

Gender identity significantly impacts education and work, often reflecting societal hierarchies. Schools, as primary socialization grounds, unintentionally perpetuate these inequalities (Allen, 2011). For example, teachers tend to give boys more attention and feedback, implying they are more valuable than girls. Girls are often encouraged to focus on emotions and appearance, leading to body image anxieties, while boys are pushed towards competition and achievement. Administrative roles in schools also show gender disparity, with men holding more authority despite women comprising 75% of the educational workforce; only 22% of superintendents and 8% of high school principals are women. In higher education, women account for only 26% of full professors. These educational inequalities mirror broader workforce issues, where women face a glass ceiling and a persistent pay gap. In 2010, women earned about seventy-seven cents for every dollar earned by men (National Committee on Pay Equity, 2011). Equal Pay Day, initiated by the National Committee on Pay Equity, highlights this gap; in 2011, it was on April 11, signifying that women need to work over three months extra to match men’s annual earnings (National Committee on Pay Equity, 2011).

Sexuality

While race and gender are immediately noticeable, sexuality is often considered personal and private, yet it permeates public discourse through media and culture. Sexuality, like race and gender, extends beyond orientation, encompassing cultural and identity aspects (Allen, 2011). It is both social, involving communication about sexuality, and biological, relating to physiological functions like puberty and pregnancy. It connects to public health concerns such as STIs, sexual assault, and teen pregnancy, and political issues like abortion, sex education, and LGBTQ rights.

Sexual orientation, a key aspect of identity, refers to a person’s primary physical and emotional attraction, categorized as heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual. While “sexual preference” implies choice, “sexual orientation” is more appropriate. Terms like “gay” are preferred over “homosexual” due to the latter’s clinical connotations and historical misuse in medical contexts.

The gay and lesbian rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and continues today, with groups like the Human Rights Campaign advocating for LGBTQ rights. These communities, often grouped as GLBTQ, differ in visibility and focus. Gays and lesbians are the most visible, while bisexuals and transgender issues receive less attention. “Queer” has been reclaimed as a positive term by activists, despite its past derogatory usage, representing diverse identities with a critical stance on sexual categories.

Sexuality as an identity category emerged in the late 1800s, previously viewed in physical or spiritual terms. The evolution of this cultural identity over the past 3,000 years highlights its social construction and the diversity within sexual minorities, similar to variations in race and gender.

Source: Adapted from Brenda J. Allen, Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2011), 117–25; and University of Denver Queer and Ally Commission, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer History,” Queer Ally Training Manual, 2008.

There is resistance to viewing ability as a cultural identity due to the medical model of disability, which treats it as an individual medical issue rather than a social one. While distinctions between able-bodied and disabled individuals are rooted in science, there are significant sociocultural dimensions. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities, includes a history of such impairment, or is perceived by others as such (Allen, 2011). This definition highlights the social aspect, where life activities are limited, and the relational aspect, where perception can lead to classification as disabled. Mislabeling someone as disabled can be problematic, impacting their social and cultural identity, as seen in cases where non-English speakers were placed in special education.

Ability, like other cultural identities, carries institutional privileges and disadvantages. Ableism is the belief system that defines physical and mental norms as “normal” and labels deviations as abnormal, resulting in unequal treatment (Allen, 2011). Ability privilege refers to unearned advantages for those meeting cognitive and physical norms. Ability can fluctuate; temporary impairments like a broken leg or illness can reduce ability, but recovery may restore privilege. Most people will experience reduced abilities as they age.

People with disabilities form the largest minority group in the U.S., with about 20% of those five years or older living with a disability (Allen, 2011). Medical advances have enabled longer, more active lives for some, increasing the number of people with disabilities. This trend may continue as veterans return with physical and psychological impairments, such as PTSD, from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As disability has been constructed in US history, it has intersected with other cultural identities. For example, people opposed to “political and social equality for women cited their supposed physical, intellectual, and psychological flaws, deficits, and deviations from the male norm.” They framed women as emotional, irrational, and unstable, which was used to put them into the “scientific” category of “feeblemindedness,” which led them to be institutionalized (Carlson, 2001). Arguments supporting racial inequality and tighter immigration restrictions also drew on notions of disability, framing certain racial groups as prone to mental retardation, mental illness, or uncontrollable emotions and actions. See the graphic below for a timeline of developments related to ability, identity, and communication. These thoughts led to a dark time in US history, as the eugenics movement sought to limit reproduction of people deemed as deficient.

Intercultural communication is inherently complex and contradictory, making it challenging to study. A dialectic is a relationship between two opposing concepts that constantly push and pull one another (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). A dialectical approach, which involves understanding the relationship between opposing concepts, helps capture its dynamic nature (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). This perspective is valuable for intercultural communication as it encourages relational thinking, considering the interplay between different cultural aspects rather than viewing them in isolation. Intercultural communication exists in a dynamic in-betweenness that transcends individual encounters, creating something unique.

For some Westerners, adopting a dialectical perspective can be difficult because it involves holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously, contrasting with traditional educational teachings. Thinking dialectically unveils the complexity of culture and identity by avoiding Dichotomies, such as good/evil, wrong/right, and male/female, which limit our perception of the nuances between concepts. Although these dichotomies often underpin thoughts on ethics and culture, they are not the only way to think (Martin & Nakayama, 1999).

Many Eastern cultures accept that seemingly opposite concepts are interdependent and complementary. A dialectical approach is beneficial for studying intercultural communication as it challenges familiar ways of thinking. Since understanding culture and identity involves self-reflection, using an unfamiliar lens can provide insights that familiar perspectives may not. By examining six dialectics, we can deepen our understanding of intercultural communication (Martin & Nakayama, 1999).

Cultural-Individual Dialectic

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. 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 a low-context culture, which means that we value verbal communication as our primary, meaning-rich form of communication. Conversely, Japan is said to be a high-context culture, which means they often look for nonverbal clues like tone, silence, or what is not said for meaning. However, you can find people in the United States who intentionally put much meaning into how they say things, perhaps because they are not as comfortable speaking directly what’s on their mind. We often do this in situations where we may hurt someone’s feelings or damage a relationship. Does that mean we come from a high-context culture? Does the Japanese man who speaks more than is socially acceptable come from a low-context culture? The answer to both questions is no. Neither the behaviors of a small percentage of individuals nor occasional situational choices constitute a cultural pattern.

Personal-Contextual Dialectic

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 power distance (Hofstede, 1991). So while the American manager may not know 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.

Differences-Similarities Dialectic

The differences-similarities dialectic allows us to examine how we are simultaneously similar to and different from others. 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 over-focus on differences, we can end up polarizing groups that actually have things in common. When we over-focus 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 makes it seem like men and women aren’t even species that hail from the same planet. 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 to describe the genders sets up dichotomies. That’s why I suggest that my students use the term other gender instead of the commonly used opposite sex. I have a mom, a sister, and plenty of female friends, and I don’t feel like any of them are the opposite of me. Perhaps a better title for a book would be Women and Men Are Both from Earth.

Static-Dynamic Dialectic

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, we have already discussed how 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.

History/Past-Present/Future Dialectic

The history/past-present/future dialectic reminds us to understand that while current cultural conditions are important and that our actions now will inevitably affect our future, those conditions are not without a history. We always view history through the lens of the present. Perhaps no example is more entrenched in our past and avoided in our present as the history of slavery in the United States. Where I grew up in the Southern United States, race was something that came up frequently. The high school I attended was 30 percent minorities (mostly African American) and also had a noticeable number of white teens (mostly male) who proudly displayed Confederate flags on their clothing or vehicles.

I remember an instance in a history class where we were discussing slavery and the subject of repatriation, or compensation for descendants of slaves, came up. A white male student in the class proclaimed, “I’ve never owned slaves. Why should I have to care about this now?” While his statement about not owning slaves is valid, it doesn’t acknowledge that effects of slavery still linger today and that the repercussions of such a long and unjust period of our history don’t disappear over the course of a few generations.

Privileges-Disadvantages Dialectic

The privileges-disadvantages dialectic captures the complex interrelation of unearned, systemic advantages and disadvantages that operate among our various identities. As was discussed earlier, our society consists of dominant and nondominant groups. Our cultures and identities have certain privileges and/or disadvantages. 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. Because our identities are complex, no one is completely privileged and no one is completely disadvantaged. For example, while we may think of a white, heterosexual male as being very privileged, he may also have a disability that leaves him without the able-bodied privilege that a Latina woman has. This is often a difficult dialectic for my students to understand, because they are quick to point out exceptions that they think challenge this notion. For example, many people like to point out Oprah Winfrey as a powerful African American woman. While she is definitely now quite privileged despite her disadvantaged identities, her trajectory isn’t the norm. When we view privilege and disadvantage at the cultural level, we cannot let individual exceptions distract from the systemic and institutionalized ways in which some people in our society are disadvantaged while others are privileged.

As these dialectics reiterate, culture and communication are complex systems that intersect with and diverge from many contexts. A better understanding of all these dialectics helps us be more critical thinkers and competent communicators in a changing world.

Intercultural Communication and Relationships

Intercultural relationships are formed between people with different cultural identities and include friends, romantic partners, family, and coworkers. Intercultural relationships have benefits and drawbacks. Some of the benefits include increasing cultural knowledge, challenging previously held stereotypes, and learning new skills (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). For example, I learned about the Vietnamese New Year celebration Tet from a friend I made in graduate school. This same friend also taught me how to make some delicious Vietnamese foods that I continue to cook today. I likely would not have gained this cultural knowledge or skill without the benefits of my intercultural friendship. Intercultural relationships also present challenges, however.

The dialectics discussed earlier affect our intercultural relationships. The similarities-differences dialectic in particular may present challenges to relationship formation (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). While differences between people’s cultural identities may be obvious, it takes some effort to uncover commonalities that can form the basis of a relationship. Perceived differences in general also create anxiety and uncertainty that is not as present in intracultural relationships. Once some similarities are found, the tension within the dialectic begins to balance out and uncertainty and anxiety lessen. Negative stereotypes may also hinder progress toward relational development, especially if the individuals are not open to adjusting their preexisting beliefs. Intercultural relationships may also take more work to nurture and maintain. The benefit of increased cultural awareness is often achieved, because the relational partners explain their cultures to each other. This type of explaining requires time, effort, and patience and may be an extra burden that some are not willing to carry. Last, engaging in intercultural relationships can lead to questioning or even backlash from one’s own group. I experienced this type of backlash from my white classmates in middle school who teased me for hanging out with the African American kids on my bus. While these challenges range from mild inconveniences to more serious repercussions, they are important to be aware of. As noted earlier, intercultural relationships can take many forms. The focus of this section is on friendships and romantic relationships, but much of the following discussion can be extended to other relationship types.

Intercultural Friendships

Motivation

Initially, a person’s motivation for communicating with people from other cultures must be considered. Motivation refers to the root of a person’s desire to foster intercultural relationships and can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Put simply, if a person isn’t motivated to communicate with people from different cultures, then the components of ICC discussed next don’t really matter. If a person has a healthy curiosity that drives him or her toward intercultural encounters in order to learn more about self and others, then there is a foundation from which to build additional competence-relevant attitudes and skills. This intrinsic motivation makes intercultural communication a voluntary, rewarding, and lifelong learning process. Motivation can also be extrinsic, meaning that the desire for intercultural communication is driven by an outside reward like money, power, or recognition. While both types of motivation can contribute to ICC, context may further enhance or impede a person’s motivation to communicate across cultures.

Members of dominant groups are often less motivated, intrinsically and extrinsically, toward intercultural communication than members of nondominant groups, because they don’t see the incentives for doing so. Having more power in communication encounters can create an unbalanced situation where the individual from the nondominant group is expected to exhibit competence, or the ability to adapt to the communication behaviors and attitudes of the other. Even in situations where extrinsic rewards like securing an overseas business investment are at stake, it is likely that the foreign investor is much more accustomed to adapting to United States business customs and communication than vice versa. This expectation that others will adapt to our communication can be unconscious, but later ICC skills we will learn will help bring it to awareness.

The unbalanced situation I just described is a daily reality for many individuals with nondominant identities. Their motivation toward intercultural communication may be driven by survival in terms of functioning effectively in dominant contexts. Recall the phenomenon known as code-switching discussed earlier, in which individuals from nondominant groups adapt their communication to fit in with the dominant group. In such instances, African Americans may “talk white” by conforming to what is called “standard English,” women in corporate environments may adapt masculine communication patterns, people who are gay or lesbian may self-censor and avoid discussing their same-gender partners with coworkers, and people with nonvisible disabilities may not disclose them in order to avoid judgment.

While intrinsic motivation captures an idealistic view of intercultural communication as rewarding in its own right, many contexts create extrinsic motivation. In either case, there is a risk that an individual’s motivation can still lead to incompetent communication. For example, it would be exploitative for an extrinsically motivated person to pursue intercultural communication solely for an external reward and then abandon the intercultural relationship once the reward is attained. These situations highlight the relational aspect of ICC, meaning that the motivation of all parties should be considered. Motivation alone cannot create ICC.

Self and Other-Knowledge

Knowledge supplements motivation and is an important part of building ICC. Knowledge includes self- and other-awareness, mindfulness, and cognitive flexibility. Building knowledge of our own cultures, identities, and communication patterns takes more than passive experience (Martin & Nakayama). We learn who we are through our interactions with others. Developing cultural self-awareness often requires us to get out of our comfort zones. Listening to people who are different from us is a key component of developing self-knowledge. This may be uncomfortable, because we may realize that people think of our identities differently than we thought. For example, when I lived in Sweden, my Swedish roommates often discussed how they were wary of befriending students from the United States. They perceived US Americans to be shallow because they were friendly and exciting while they were in Sweden but didn’t remain friends once they left. Although I was initially upset by their assessment, I came to see the truth in it. Swedes are generally more reserved than US Americans and take longer to form close friendships. The comparatively extroverted nature of the Americans led some of the Swedes to overestimate the depth of their relationship, which ultimately hurt them when the Americans didn’t stay in touch. This made me more aware of how my communication was perceived, enhancing my self-knowledge. I also learned more about communication behaviors of the Swedes, which contributed to my other-knowledge.

The most effective way to develop other-knowledge is by direct and thoughtful encounters with other cultures. However, people may not readily have these opportunities for a variety of reasons. Despite the overall diversity in the United States, many people still only interact with people who are similar to them. Even in a racially diverse educational setting, for example, people often group off with people of their own race. While a heterosexual person may have a gay or lesbian friend or relative, they likely spend most of their time with other heterosexuals. Unless you interact with people with disabilities as part of your job or have a person with a disability in your friend or family group, you likely spend most of your time interacting with able-bodied people. Living in a rural area may limit your ability to interact with a range of cultures, and most people do not travel internationally regularly. Because of this, we may have to make a determined effort to interact with other cultures or rely on educational sources like college classes, books, or documentaries. Learning another language is also a good way to learn about a culture, because you can then read the news or watch movies in the native language, which can offer insights that are lost in translation. It is important to note though that we must evaluate the credibility of the source of our knowledge, whether it is a book, person, or other source. Also, knowledge of another language does not automatically equate to ICC.

Developing self- and other-knowledge is an ongoing process that will continue to adapt and grow as we encounter new experiences. Mindfulness and cognitive complexity will help as we continue to build our ICC (Pusch, 2009). Mindfulness is a state of self- and other-monitoring that informs later reflection on communication interactions. As mindful communicators we should ask questions that focus on the interactive process like “How is our communication going? What are my reactions? What are their reactions?” Being able to adapt our communication in the moment based on our answers to these questions is a skill that comes with a high level of ICC. Reflecting on the communication encounter later to see what can be learned is also a way to build ICC. We should then be able to incorporate what we learned into our communication frameworks, which requires cognitive flexibility. Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to continually supplement and revise existing knowledge to create new categories rather than forcing new knowledge into old categories. Cognitive flexibility helps prevent our knowledge from becoming stale and also prevents the formation of stereotypes and can help us avoid prejudging an encounter or jumping to conclusions. In summary, to be better intercultural communicators, we should know much about others and ourselves and be able to reflect on and adapt our knowledge as we gain new experiences.

Tolerance of Uncertainty

Motivation and knowledge can inform us as we gain new experiences, but how we feel in the moment of intercultural encounters is also important. Tolerance for uncertainty refers to an individual’s attitude about and level of comfort in uncertain situations (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Some people perform better in uncertain situations than others, and intercultural encounters often bring up uncertainty. Whether communicating with someone of a different gender, race, or nationality, we are often wondering what we should or shouldn’t do or say. Situations of uncertainty most often become clearer as they progress, but the anxiety that an individual with a low tolerance for uncertainty feels may lead them to leave the situation or otherwise communicate in a less competent manner. Individuals with a high tolerance for uncertainty may exhibit more patience, waiting on new information to become available or seeking out information, which may then increase the understanding of the situation and lead to a more successful outcome (Pusch, 2009). Individuals who are intrinsically motivated toward intercultural communication may have a higher tolerance for uncertainty, in that their curiosity leads them to engage with others who are different because they find the self- and other-knowledge gained rewarding.

Cultivating Intercultural Communication Competence

How can ICC be built and achieved? This is a key question we will address in this section. Two main ways to build ICC are through experiential learning and reflective practices (Bednarz, 2010). We must first realize that competence isn’t any one thing. Part of being competent means that you can assess new situations and adapt your existing knowledge to the new contexts. What it means to be competent will vary depending on your physical location, your role (personal, professional, etc.), and your life stage, among other things. Sometimes we will know or be able to figure out what is expected of us in a given situation, but sometimes we may need to act in unexpected ways to meet the needs of a situation. Competence enables us to better cope with the unexpected, adapt to the nonroutine, and connect to uncommon frameworks. I have always told my students that ICC is less about a list of rules and more about a box of tools.

Three ways to cultivate ICC are to foster attitudes that motivate us, discover knowledge that informs us, and develop skills that enable us (Bennett, 2009). To foster attitudes that motivate us, we must develop a sense of wonder about culture. This sense of wonder can lead to feeling overwhelmed, humbled, or awed (Opdal, 2001). This sense of wonder may correlate to a high tolerance for uncertainty, which can help us turn potentially frustrating experiences we have into teachable moments. I’ve had many such moments in my intercultural encounters at home and abroad. One such moment came the first time I tried to cook a frozen pizza in the oven in the shared kitchen of my apartment in Sweden. The information on the packaging was written in Swedish, but like many college students, I had a wealth of experience cooking frozen pizzas to draw from. As I went to set the oven dial to preheat, I noticed it was strange that the oven didn’t go up to my usual 425–450 degrees. Not to be deterred, I cranked the dial up as far as it would go, waited a few minutes, put my pizza in, and walked down the hall to my room to wait for about fifteen minutes until the pizza was done. The smell of smoke drew me from my room before the fifteen minutes was up, and I walked into a corridor filled with smoke and the smell of burnt pizza. I pulled the pizza out and was puzzled for a few minutes while I tried to figure out why the pizza burned so quickly, when one of my corridor-mates gently pointed out that the oven temperatures in Sweden are listed in Celsius, not Fahrenheit! Despite almost burning the kitchen down, I learned a valuable lesson about assuming my map for temperatures and frozen pizzas was the same as everyone else’s.

Discovering knowledge that informs us is another step that can build on our motivation. One tool involves learning more about our cognitive style, or how we learn. Our cognitive style consists of our preferred patterns for “gathering information, constructing meaning, and organizing and applying knowledge” (Bennett, 2009). As we explore cognitive styles, we discover that there are differences in how people attend to and perceive the world, explain events, organize the world, and use rules of logic (Nisbett, 2003). Some cultures have a cognitive style that focuses more on tasks, analytic and objective thinking, details and precision, inner direction, and independence, while others focus on relationships and people over tasks and things, concrete and metaphorical thinking, and a group consciousness and harmony.

Developing ICC is a complex learning process. At the basic level of learning, we accumulate knowledge and assimilate it into our existing frameworks. But accumulated knowledge doesn’t necessarily help us in situations where we have to apply that knowledge. Transformative learning takes place at the highest levels and occurs when we encounter situations that challenge our accumulated knowledge and our ability to accommodate that knowledge to manage a real-world situation. The cognitive dissonance that results in these situations is often uncomfortable and can lead to a hesitance to repeat such an engagement. One tip for cultivating ICC that can help manage these challenges is to find a community of like-minded people who are also motivated to develop ICC. In my graduate program, I lived in the international dormitory in order to experience the cultural diversity that I had enjoyed so much studying abroad a few years earlier. I was surrounded by international students and US American students who were more or less interested in cultural diversity. This ended up being a tremendous learning experience, and I worked on research about identity and communication between international and American students.

Developing skills that enable us is another part of ICC. Some of the skills important to ICC are the ability to empathize, accumulate cultural information, listen, resolve conflict, and manage anxiety (Bennett, 2009). Again, you are already developing a foundation for these skills by reading this book, but you can expand those skills to intercultural settings with the motivation and knowledge already described. Contact alone does not increase intercultural skills; there must be more deliberate measures taken to fully capitalize on those encounters. While research now shows that intercultural contact does decrease prejudices, this is not enough to become interculturally competent. The ability to empathize and manage anxiety enhances prejudice reduction, and these two skills have been shown to enhance the overall impact of intercultural contact even more than acquiring cultural knowledge. There is intercultural training available for people who are interested. If you can’t access training, you may choose to research intercultural training on your own, as there are many books, articles, and manuals written on the subject.

Reflective practices can also help us process through rewards and challenges associated with developing ICC. As we open ourselves to new experiences, we are likely to have both positive and negative reactions. It can be very useful to take note of negative or defensive reactions you have. This can help you identify certain triggers that may create barriers to effective intercultural interaction. Noting positive experiences can also help you identify triggers for learning that you could seek out or recreate to enhance the positive (Bednarz, 2010). A more complex method of reflection is called intersectional reflexivity. Intersectional reflexivity is a reflective practice by which we acknowledge intersecting identities, both privileged and disadvantaged, and implicate ourselves in social hierarchies and inequalities (Jones Jr., 2010). This method brings in the concepts of dominant and nondominant groups and the privileges/disadvantages dialectic we discussed earlier.

While formal intercultural experiences like studying abroad or volunteering for the Special Olympics or a shelter for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (GLBTQ) youth can result in learning, informal experiences are also important. We may be less likely to include informal experiences in our reflection if we don’t see them as legitimate. Reflection should also include “critical incidents” or what I call “a-ha! moments.” Think of reflection as a tool for meta competence that can be useful in bringing the formal and informal together (Bednarz, 2010).