The Dynamic Interaction of Language, Communication and Culture - Essay Example

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION INTRODUCTION The modern world is marked by pluralism. And one prominent sign of this is the existence and presence of diverse languages which are utilized in the process of communicating with one another. However, language and the process of communication are not neutral. Rather, it is highly shaped and influenced by culture. Being such, differences are observable across cultures in its language and communication, thus creating boundaries or separations among and between cultures. In order to bridge this gap, our period has entered into intercultural communication wherein language, communication and cultural barriers are consistently addressed and re-assessed with the hope of reducing miscommunication and misunderstanding to bare minimum if not totally or fully eliminated. Thus, the notion of intercultural communication serves both as a challenge and as an ethos that guides our interaction with others in a pluralistic, globalised world. In light of this ideal, this paper intends to look into the dynamic interaction of language, communication and culture by looking into a case study. Likewise, we are going to use some of the principles of intercultural communication in the analysis of a case particular case, and hopefully, in the end, present some approaches or suggestions that may help in addressing the problems raised and perceived in the by the case analysis. INTERTWINED RELATION OF LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE The intertwined relation of language, communication and culture has long intrigued humanity. However, what has been undeniable is that these three factors play a very significant and important role in the understanding of the nature of a human person and their interactions. The ability to formulate language is said to be distinctively a human activity. (Fantini 1995: Hobbes 1991; Locke 1952) it is further claimed that the human ability to formulate language is claimed to be that ‘characteristic or trait’ which separates human beings from other species. (Bennett 1998). As such, the primordial importance of language in the human sphere is undeniable. Aside from being distinctively human, language in itself becomes all-embracing as language, is apprehended as a tool that “both reflects and affects one’s world view, serving as a road map to how one perceives, interprets and thinks, and expresses about the world.” (Fantini 1995, p 144) This situation is made apparent by the fact that the moment that there is no existing word or vocabulary that may aptly describe an entire experience, then, it is maintained that the entire experience is nothing.(Bennett 1998) However, when we look into the process of communication, we now move away from the individual utilization of language since the process of communication, it requires the presence of a listener who is at the same time capable of apprehending, responding to the communication that is transpiring. In this process or exchange, the integral role of culture comes to the fore. The manner, the symbols, the style, the meanings, interpretation, delivery and all cultural structures and factors that come into play as persons communicate with one another in the community or even with just one another are strongly influenced and affected by the socio-cultural dimension of human existence. (Fantini 1995, Hall 1973, Baraldi 2006) Thus, Edward Hall (1973) even claimed that Communication is culture. (p 19 as cited in Fantini 1995) As such, the intertwined relation of language, communication and culture is the coming together of what deemed essential to being human, a triumvirate acting together in the process of human interaction. Being such, the interwoveness and interconnectedness of language, communication and culture highlights the fact that there exists “reciprocity of expectations” (Jacobson & Storey 2004, p 103) which leads to truth, appropriateness and sincerity of our statements as we interact with one another. However, can the reciprocity of expectations be genuinely attained? THE CASE The case chosen for this paper is considered as one of the most controversial cases on intercultural communication. The case is the Dewey Ballantine, LLP: Cultural Stereotypes and Interoffice Email. The Dewey Ballantine, LLP is an international law firm with key offices around the world. It employs 582 attorneys worldwide and specializes in more than 40 practice areas including litigation, taxation, acquisitions, mergers, intellectual property and banking. On the afternoon of Monday of January 26, 2004, Douglas L. Getter, head of the of the merger and acquisitions practice opened his email and found in his inbox pictures of puppies for adoption. “He quickly composed a firm wide reply with the concluding line: Please don’ let these puppies go to a Chinese restaurant”(O’Rourke 2009 p 20) By clicking the reply all Getter had his hands full of irate senior partners, associate of the firm. Within minutes, the co-chairs of the firm Sanford Morhouse and Morton Pierce issued a response stating that “an offensive email has been circulated by a partner and that …it is inconsistent with the values of the firm and it will not be tolerated. We extend our apologies to the entire Dewey Ballantine community” (O’Rourke p 20) THE THEMES The email is obnoxious, discriminatory, and it explicitly shows how generalized characterization of each nationality boxes the person and become a tool of bigotry and prejudice. The interoffice email, highlights the reality on how, the ‘common’ or ‘general’ perception or identification that we attribute and attach to each nationality cam hurt other people and be the case of separation and barrier in intercultural communication. This reply to the email is offensive and distributing it to everybody is very malicious. It unlocks of the ugly side of difference - of the different way of seeing and looking at the persons of each nation. There is nothing wrong in the intrinsic difference that maybe be perceived among different peoples coming from different cultures. It only becomes wrong when people start to box people from other cultures into ‘common perception’ of who they are and what they should be. In our case, it implies that Chinese are dog eaters when in fact they are not. And that if they veer away from our general picture of their character or trait, we look at the person as deviant or people use it to show prejudice. In way, we succumb to the idea that the characterization that we have ascribed and assigned to each nationality as the defining characteristic of that nationality. This notion, basically, is what they have termed and known as the principle of essentialism in intercultural communication. By essentialism, we establish a common and essential characterization that is inherently possessed by each person who belongs to a specific nationality. Essentialism highlights unity and homogeneity as something present in each person. This may not be problematic as it connotes a common ground with which interaction among and between persons undergoing communication in a community may start and begin. However, this homogeneity creates the idea or notion of “Otherness.” This connotes the image of you and me different and separate from one another. It builds an invisible boundary that borders our interaction with other people from different countries, different nationality. It establishes an invisible wall or barrier that may act as a hindrance for an authentic interaction to transpire. In fact, Gudykunst (2005) claims that when people meet other people from different cultures they look at them as strangers, unknown. And this concern becomes more predominant as our contemporary period is marked by global movements of people, which in turn, gives rise to different languages, culture and identity encountering and meeting in a common public sphere and even private sphere. With these concerns recognized, how can the positive facets of intercultural communication be made more manifest? It can be maintained that the positive facet of intercultural communication can be clearly manifested by taking a re-look at the interconnectedness of language and identity with communication as its conduit. LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY As mentioned before, there are many thinkers like Locke, Hobbes and Hume have speculated that what distinguishes and separates human being from other species is our ability to formulate language. Its significance lies on the fact that since we can have the language that may act as a signifier for our internal experience of an object which may be external to us or even internal to us, it affords us the chance to create and re-create the experience in our memory. So much so, that the named or signified experience becomes a part of what people may claim to know. (Hobbes 1991) With this categorization of language as integral in our becoming human, the momentous functions of language in human life, our existence becomes the very foundation with which our culture is buttress. How is this possible? Language is the tool that is used in the creation of culture. (Bennett 1988). It becomes the uniting force that binds people who communicates with one another using the same language and the same means of communication. It “becomes the construct that aids the development of culture.” (Fantini 1995 p 145) And this is made concrete and perceptible by the fact that language is the “main tool to transfer ideas” (Glaser 2005, p 204). Thereby, perpetuating the same culture which is shared among the people in the community and at the same time identifies and distinguishes it – the community and its culture - from other cultures and communities. Taking this function of language step further, we can claim that language, in itself, performs a vital role in the shaping of our cultural identity. How is this feasible? Cultural identity is that which holds us together. It is supported by the recognition of intrinsic and existing similarities that are shared with and valued within the community. It is a way of being, of defining and adhering to set of values, norms and traditions with which one will identify and present oneself in a pluralist society. Boylan (2006) in his article regarding European Identity claims that cultural identity _ whether in an individual or in a nation state is no more than a social practice , founded on a will to ‘opt into’ a particular way of being, one that best mediates between the contradictory demands from within and without. Those who accept the ambiguity of their composite identities, live that social practice subjectively as a lifelong struggle for hegemony among competing instances. Those who do not, live it as perpetual guard duty. (p 288) As such, “common language, behavior patterns and values form he base upon which members of the culture exchange meaning with one another in conducting their daily affairs”.(Bennett 1988, p 1) Thus, it can be claimed that cultural identity is integral and necessary if we are to talk intelligibly of the globalised, modern and pluralist world. In this light, cultural identity becomes the paradigm with which one sees one’s being or becoming in the global world. Furthermore, as human persons accepts the reality of the globalized world, the globality of experienced (Murphy & Kraidy 2003) forms part and integrates itself in the wholeness of the human experience. In fact, in our time, we can no longer simply talk of our local experience. It is often made more beautiful and pronounced by the fact that it is enmeshed with and in a global culture, a globality of experienced. However, the connection between language and identity become more significant because the connection between the two do not remain in abstraction. Rather, their connection is made palpable in the process of communication that transpires among and between individuals who hold divergent identity and uses differing language in their expression of the human experience. COMMUNICATION IN FOCUS As have been stated earlier, the process of communication is requires the presence of another person who shares the same manner, assumptions, values, meanings, language, interpretation and understanding of the symbols and salient language as that of the speaker. In the absence of a common language and identity that may serve as a common ground for interaction between people to happen, the possibility of conflicts and misunderstandings may arise. It is in this scenario that the interplay of language, identity and communication is dynamically changing the human perspective. With this perceived change, what can be deduced? Intercultural communication in the globalised world has entered into the phase wherein occurrence of communication necessitates a sharing of a common ground. Rather in the globalised, modern and pluralist world, the underlying assumption that community and culture are static and closed has been changed with the view that culture and community are dynamic and open. Thus, changing also the nature with which communication is understood. With the appreciation of culture and community as open, emergent, contingent and performative system, communication is now appreciated as ”dialogical interaction between social practices and semiotic practices in a particular culture, it may be seen not only as a product of, but also as a metaphor for dialogic emergence and performance, maturity in language and culture” (de Souza 2006 p 111) Thus, in communications, cultural differences are respected and maintained, contradictions and conflicts between cultural forms are managed and not avoided. Therefore, the “main problem is no longer sharing and coherence but attention to coordination of conflicting diversities.” ( Baraldi, 2006 p 67) THE CASE: A RE-LOOK The case of the interoffice email has shown us one of the biggest hurdles of intercultural communication. By presenting in a very obnoxious and derogatory manner the stereotyping which is a tendency that all of us are guilty of, in one way or another, it pushes in the forefront of our interaction with others, the idea that as we affirm and attest similarities and commonalities that are inherently present in our own particular culture as a source of pride, identity and uniqueness; we are likewise asserting that the difference which marks particular culture, language, and identity as distinctive and distinguishable from other cultures in the globalised world is as important and as necessary as existing similarities. This truism, also at the same time, should remind us of the danger of bracketing people in our general perception of who and what they are, of the ugly head of bigotry lurking at every bracketing we make. We should be in constant guard of the fact that “media images are chosen not for their typicality, but for their unusualness” (Bennett 1988 p 5) Being such, we should always be vigilant against prejudice and a false sense of understanding our communication partners. In the same way, the interoffice email shows us that intercultural communication is a complex interrelationship. That dialogue should be continuously undertaken between and among culture should be undertaken even if it may resolve or dissolve into a more intricate relation. (Capurro 2005) CONCLUSION Intercultural communication is reality in our contemporary period because the globality of human experience is a celebration of diversity. The various interconnected themes with which we try to understand the case and the relation of language, identity and communication hold that as globalization has created a global community, the path to authentic interaction is not just the acceptance and assimilation of our differences but it lies in the coordination and adaptation to our existing and conflicting diversities. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baraldi, C. (2006). “New forms of intercultural communication in a globalized world”. The International Communication Gazette, Vol. 68 (1), p 53 – 69. Bennett, M. J. (1998). “Intercultural communication: A current perspective” in Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings, Ed. By Milton J. Bennett. Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press. Boylan, P. (2006). “On being European: The contribution of intercultural communication theory and pedagogy”, Language and Intercultural Communication, Vol. 3, No 3 & 4, pp 286 – 296. Capurro, R. (2005). “Privacy: An intercultural perspective”, Ethics and Information Technology, 7, pp 37 – 47. de Souza, M. (2006). “Guest editorial: Language, culture, multimodality and dialogic emergence”, Language and International Communication, Vol. 6, No 2, pp 107 – 114. Fantini, A. E. (1995). “Introduction – language, culture and world view: Exploring the nexus.” Int. J Intercultural Rel., Vol. 19, No 2, p 143 – 153. Glaser, E. (2005). “Plurilingualism in Europe: More than a means of communication”, Language and Intercultural Communication, Vol. 5, No 3 & 4, pp 195 - 214. Gudykunst, W. (2005). Theories of intercultural communication”, China Media Research, 1(1), pp 61 – 76. Hobbes, T. (1991). Hobbes: Leviathan.Ed. by Richard Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobson, T. L. & Storey, D.L. (2004). “Development of communication and participation: applying Habermas to a case study of population programs in Nepal”, Communication Theory, 14:2, pp 99 -121. Locke, J. (1952). The Second Treatise of Government. Ed. By Thomas P. Peradon. Indiannapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company. Murphy, P.D., & Kraidy, M.M. (2003). “International communication, ethnography, and the challenge of globalization”, Communication Theory,13:3, pp 304 – 323. O’Rourke, J. (2009) Intercultural Communication for Business Managerial Communication Series, Ed by Elizabeth Tuleja. Cengage Learning Academic Resource Center. Accessed at www.cengage.com on 25 August 2009. Read More