gaz.sagepub/ Gazette International Communication
gaz.sagepub/content/68/1/53The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/1748048506060115 2006 68: 53International Communication Gazette Claudio Baraldi New Forms of Intercultural Communication in a Globalized World Published by:
www.sagepublications can be found at:
International Communication Gazette Additional services and information for
gaz.sagepub/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
gaz.sagepub/subscriptions Subscriptions:
www.sagepub/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
www.sagepub/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: gaz.sagepub/content/68/fs.html Citations:
The International Communication Gazette
COPYRIGHT © 2006 SAGE PUBLICATIONS
LONDON, THOUSAND OAKS & NEW DELHI 1748-0485 VOL 68(1): 53–69
DOI: 10.1177/1748048506060115
gaz.sagepub
NEW FORMS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN A GLOBALIZED
WORLD
Claudio Baraldi
Abstract/ Communication is the basic concept in explaining globalization. Globalization can be observed as the worldwide expansion of a functionally differentiated European society through intercultural communication. In this society, since the 17th century, intercultural communication has assumed the form of a modernist ethnocentrism based on values such as knowledge, pluralism and individualism. During the 20th century, historical changes created the necessity for new forms of intercultural communication. In the last decade of that century, a transcultural form of communi-cation
based on dialogue was proposed as a basis for cross-cultural adaptation, a creation of multi-cultural identities and a construction of a hybrid multicultural society. However, this transcultural form creates paradoxes and difficulties in intercultural communication, mixing the preservation of cultural difference with the search for synthesis. Consequently, a new form of intercultural dialogue, dealing with incommensurable differences and managing conflicts, is needed to create coordina-tion among different cultural perspectives.
Keywords/ dialogue / ethnocentrism / globalization / intercultural communication / transcultural approach
Introduction
This article starts from the observation that the social phenomenon that we call globalization can be explained only through a communication theory that legit-imizes its cultural interpretation. In the past, communication theories were used to explain one of the most important aspects of globalization, i.e. the function of mass media in creating a world system of information and their consequences in other fields. This use of communication theory appears reductive if we think of globaliz-ation in its complex cultural sense.
Adopting a general sociological approach based on a communication theory (Baraldi, 2003; Luhmann, 1984, 1986; Luhmann and de Giorgi, 1992), and expand-ing the widely diffused idea in intercultural relationships studies that communication is a central feature in cross-cultural processes (Kim and Gudykunst, 1988; Kim, 2001), it is possible to explain the most significant social processes observable in a globalized world, i.e. the most significant intercultural processes. This approach
54THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION GAZETTE VOL. 68 NO. 1 seems particularly appropriate to future explorations in the fields of world politics, international understanding and planning, peace and security.
The Communicative Meaning of Globalization and Glocalization
Globalization is a process creating interdependence among societies and cultures that were previously separated. Interdependence and intensity of relations in the world are the key terms in understanding how globalization has been observed by sociologists. Robertson (1992) defines globalization as the structure of the world as a unique set of meanings. Giddens (1990) observes that globalization gives an extraordinary intensity to social relations at a world level, resulting from different types of processes and creating interdependence in the world. Even if the expan-sion of economic markets and capitalism
in the world has been the primary aspect underlined in globalization, it has quickly become clear that this aspect is combined with other processes, without linear causal relationships. Consequently, a more general ‘cultural’ understanding of globalization has been promoted by the majority of sociologists (Bauman, 1998; Beck, 1997; Giddens, 1990; Pieterse, 2004; Robertson, 1992; Tomlison, 1999).
The cultural perspective emphasizes the problematic connection between cultural innovation and the conservation of cultural traditions. Globalization means openness to cultural change and creates new opportunities for dialogue, but it also threatens the survival of cultural traditions. On the contrary, closure to cultural contamination maintains the plurality of cultures, but it prevents any meaningful dialogue among them. Both openness and closure create the value of diversity but at the same time they threaten the source of diversity. Both supporters of globaliz-ation and its sceptics look at the relationship between global cultures and local cultures, which Robertson calls ‘glocalization’.
Glocalization derives from a societal evolution from a previously non-globalized condition. It is the result of a confrontation between previously non-globalized societies, starting from separated or non-globalized societal structures, not an internal affair of a particularly powerful society, primarily the European empires and the United States of America. The foundation of glocalization is confrontation b
etween societies, i.e. glocalization has an intercultural meaning and is created through communication. In other words, glocalization is a product of intercultural communication(Bennett, 1998; Kim and Gudykunst, 1988; Samovar and Porter, 1997; Ting-Toomey, 1999).
Communication is intercultural if and when different cultural perspectives prevent the creation of a single, shared culture (Carbaugh, 1990, 1994), i.e. if and when it presents contradictions (and potential conflicts) on the level of shared symbols, as this produces different cultural orientations. Glocalization is the result of a systematic intercultural communication, involving participants socialized in differently structured societies. It is produced by a communicative confrontation between specific cultural forms of differently structured societies. Which societies are involved in this communication process?
BARALDI: NEW FORMS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION55 Using Luhmann’s social systems theory (Luhmann and de Giorgi, 1992), globalization can be explained as an expansion of a functionally differentiated society, that is a society that is primarily differentiated in communicative subsystems with specific functions, like economics, politics, law, science, education, mass media, health, religion and the family. This kind of society appeared in Europe in the 17th century and has developed internally up until the present day. Globaliz-ation is based upon the cultural forms produced in relevant communications within a functionally differentiated society, which were expanded through c
olonialism and were then considered universally valid by the European states and their former colonies (like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), achieving an internal func-tional differentiation.
These cultural forms are a multiple codification of different values, like money, power, empirical truth, love, information, health, etc.), the primacy of knowledge, learning and innovation) and the relevance of individual role performances and of the comparative evaluation among individuals based on these performances) (Baraldi, 2003). They became successful in a functionally differentiated society, which produces a plurality of values, great interest in change and innovation and a new, autonomous and unpredictable form of individuality. Pluralism, modernism and individualism became the principal cultural forms produced in the main communication processes in Europe and their former colonies and were used to fix criteria for the evaluation of degrees of civiliz-ation throughout the world. They increasingly became both the values to follow in order to achieve a satisfying standard of civilization and the main orientations in intercultural communication between the European functionally differentiated society and other forms of societies.
The long process of their establishment in the functionally differentiated societies promoted the perception that they were indispensable to the evolution and existence of society. In this way, pluralism, modernism and individualism became the basic cultural values exported through globalizatio
n of functional differentiation, as they work in all the function systems: economics, politics, edu-cation, science, mass media and so on. Globalization is a form of glocalization because it exists in a communicative confrontation between these cultural forms and different cultural forms, arising in differently structured societies.
Forms of Ethnocentric Communication
To sum up, globalization exists only in specific forms of intercultural communication, giving empirical evidence to the phenomenon called glocalization.
In a functionally differentiated society, globalization is meaningful as a gener-alization of values such as democracy, individual freedom, free enterprise, human rights, education and health systems, which are considered indicators of a ‘civilized’cultural output, in the name of pluralism, modernism and individualism. However, these values are not generalized in a world that features evident diversities among societies: basic pluralist, individualist and modernist values do not succeed in becoming stable structures throughout the whole world. This means that we cannot
56THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION GAZETTE VOL. 68 NO. 1 empirically observe a single world society, although we can observe multiple world interdependencies.
Centuries of colonialism, a long period of imperialism and some decades of support in the development of Southern countries were not sufficient to create the structure of a world society on the basis of the European model of functional differentiation. This failure can be read as an indication that there is no evolutionary trend that inevitably creates a unified functionally differentiated society throughout the world. In these conditions, insensitivity towards alternatives to the mainstream cultural forms creates important communication problems in the functionally differentiated society.
Despite centuries of struggle, functional differentiation continues to face strati-fied societies (Luhmann and de Giorgi, 1992), in which the hierarchical relationship between dominating and dominated groups and the corresponding assumption of group belonging as a source of individual status constitute the main structure. In these kinds of societies, which have also been called collectivist societies (Hofstede, 1980), group relationships are basic and group belonging is the only possible way of giving meaning to individual identities. In stratified societies, individual identity and social identity overlap and cultural forms created in communication are assumed as unavoidable integrative factors. In a stratified society, group belonging works as a basic structure of society: in this model of society it is impossible to ensure free decision-making, choice, responsibility, roles within the framework of political democracy, free economic markets, modernist education, positive rights and so on.
The idea that it is impossible to give up belonging to social groups is largely shared among social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and other scholars dealing with intercultural communication. For example, one of the mainstream authors in this field writes:
The only bases we have for communicating with strangers is their group memberships and our stereotypes about the group. Strangers’ communication may be based on any (or more) of their social identities. To communicate effectively, we need to understand which social iden-tities are influencing strangers’ behaviour and how they define themselves with respect to these identities. (Gudykunst, 1994: 70)
In spite of these assumptions, it is clear that in a functionally differentiated society, group belonging is not the basis of the most important decisions, choices, responsibilities and roles in primary subsystems: in this form of society, political, economical, educational, juridical and scientific roles do not require belonging to a group. A functionally differentiated society tends to be indifferent to notions of group belonging and group distinctions.
This structural difference creates relevant cultural differences, which are reflected in communication when individuals socialized in these different societies meet for political, economical, educational, intim
ate or juridical reasons. Through this communication, the pluralist coding of the functionally differentiated society is structurally coupled to the hierarchical coding of stratified societies: this is the general meaning of intercultural communication as we know it in a functionally differentiated society.
BARALDI: NEW FORMS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION57 The difference between collectivist and individualist societal structures (Hofstede, 1980) is the product of the fundamental difference between functional differentiation and stratification. The conflict between these two forms of societal structures is basic: consequently, within them the meaning of a cultural diversity is different, as functional differentiation promotes differences among the communi-cation systems in which individuals must and can express themselves and assume responsibilities, while stratification promotes differences among groups and at best allows for negotiation among them. In a functionally differentiated society, group belonging and differences are tolerated as long as they respect individual rights, for example through multiculturalist policies (Colombo, 2002; Kymlicka, 1995; Wieviorka, 2000), while in a stratified society they are the basic structure.
In stratified and collectivist societies, ethnocentrism is the most important form of communication (Pearce, 1989). Ethnocentrism means the interpretation and evaluation of another’s behaviour using one’s own standard, i.e. distinguishing between a positive Us and a negative Them. Ethnocentrism is a
form of diversity treatment. The insensitivity of a functionally differentiated society to group belong-ing and differences has created alternative forms of diversity treatment, such as pluralism (different coding), individualism (the value of individual role performances) and modernism (the value of change). Their main problem is their unavoidable reference to the cultural forms of the functionally differentiated society. This society assumes the positive value of these cultural forms (pluralism, individualism, mod-ernism) and the negative character of any other cultural forms that threatens them (hierarchies, collectivism, normative stability). In this way, intercultural communi-cation is culturally (and not interculturally) conditioned.
This produces a form of modernist ethnocentrism(Baraldi, 2003), which is a form of communication creating a contradiction between the positive values of pluralism, individualism and modernism and the negative values of hierarchy, col-lectivism (or group belonging) and normative stability. Ethnocentrism becomes ‘modernist’ because this contradiction is not based on prejudices, but favours openness, knowledge and development. Intercultural communication is based on knowledge and consequent evaluation of development. Knowledge legitimizes evaluation and rejection of any cultural form perceived of as a threat to personal freedom, economic initiatives, democracy, human rights, individual health and safety and so on. Modernism encourages both change in and appreciation of the Us, leadin
g to the rejection of the different Them. This process produces a para-doxical effect; functional differentiation creates conditions of conservation in spite of a modernist attitude to change: functional differentiation adopts an Us-perspective (ethnocentrism) fixing rigid boundaries of inclusion and exclusion.
Modernist ethnocentrism arose in Europe, during the passage from stratifi-cation to functional differentiation, between the 17th and 19th centuries. During this passage, the ethnocentric form of communication, although no longer useful and effective in these new conditions, could not suddenly disappear: the emerging social systems had to take into account its reproduction, although it was no longer essential in them. Cognitive expectations were used to absorb ethnocentric effects without high risks: a cognitive culture could know and evaluate cultural forms as
豫公网安备41160202000603
站长QQ:729038198
关于我们
投诉建议