Narita: Site of Intercultural Interaction - Case Study Example

Narita: Site of Intercultural Interaction Introduction This essay examines a plainly obvious site of intercultural interaction, the Narita International Airport located near Tokyo, Japan. Narita is the main international airport for the Tokyo area, one of the world’s largest cities, as well as being a major transfer point for flights between North America, Asia, and Australia. In that sense the airport is a very good site to study intercultural interaction, because it is a place where cultures meet and interact in a common context. This essay examines three key ideas in intercultural interaction. The first is place, which describes the various physical, social, and culture features that establish the environment of the site (Kramsch, 2010; Clayton, 2012). The second idea is adaptation, which has two parts; first, the cognition or interpretation of the culture of the site, and second, the ways in which people respond to it (Russell, 1994; Mitchell, Smith, Seawright & Morse, 2000; Kim, 2009). The third idea is otherisation, or the cultural image people form of others, which can often be negative, as a result of their adapting to culture as experienced in a specific site or context (Holliday, Kullman & Hyde, 2004). The Site as a Place Clayton (2012) describes “place” by describing the interactions of ethnic youth in the city of Leicester in England, which has relevance to Narita Airport in a very basic way in that most of the people who spend time there are strangers to that location; either international travellers, or Japanese from other parts of the country. Clayton implies “place” has two dimensions; first, it represents a physical location. The physical location is defined by cultural characteristics such as language, ethnicity, and purpose (Kramsch, 2010, 359). Thus, “place” has a second dimension, the degree of ‘belonging’ to the physical place a particular individual may have, or put another way, the strength of the mutual acceptance of cultural environment and the individual. From the individual’s perspective, he would think of it as “my place” (or not, as the case may be), and from the perspective of the people who define that place’s cultural environment, the individual would “have a place” in the environment, or “be out of place” (Clayton, 2012, 1677-1679). An airport is a familiar environment to most people, so that makes it a bit easier to visualise the “place” of Narita Airport. Narita is, first of all, very large and crowded; the sheer size of the airport and the large number of people encourages a degree of anonymity, unless the individual wishes or needs to interact with others. This characteristic is not unique to Narita, but probably all airports; the activity of travelling makes one’s stay at the airport very short under normal circumstances. Second, the airport is in Japan; since it is the ‘gateway’ to the country for many visitors, there are obvious reminders of Japanese style and culture all over the place – photos of famous Japanese attractions, traditional Japanese art and other decorations, and most importantly, the other people, travellers and airport workers alike. Presumably, the Japanese “atmosphere” of the airport, to whatever extent it is specifically designed, serves two purposes, both to showcase the country for the benefit of foreign visitors and to make the large number of Japanese travellers ‘feel at home’. Along with this, however, there is a very international character to the airport. There are many non-Japanese travellers moving about, and familiar sights such as Starbucks, McDonalds, the Apple Store, and Virgin Records. Information signs are posted in a number of languages, and interestingly, most have English as the first language rather than Japanese. Most airport shops and restaurants accept many different currencies. Airport workers seem to all speak English fluently as well. A typical experience for a long-distance traveller is to arrive at Narita, disembark from one plane and spend a little time in the vast terminal interacting in various ways with other travellers and airport workers, then board another plane to continue the journey. Because the “Japanese” cultural features – the people working at the airport, the decorations, the second language on the signs, the text on packages of treats in the gift shop, the language spoken in announcements over the public address system – do not really require the traveller to significantly change his approach to the environment at the site, the experience is in many ways the same as in any other large international airport. Cultural Adaptation A theory that describes how people adapt to different cultures is Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory. Cross-cultural adaptation is a process of seeking equilibrium; it is a natural human urge to “feel comfortable” in a new environment, to find ways to understand what is going on around the individual based on, or at least compared to what is familiar (Kim, 2009, 2). Much of the process of finding equilibrium is based on communication, and fortunately for people, some basic meanings are universally understood, such as facial expressions; even if two people do not have a common language, emotions such as happiness, fear, surprise, anger, or sadness can be instantly and clearly communicated between them (Russell, 1994, 102; Kim, 2009). The concept of place is related to this because the place provides a common context, in effect giving the people who are interacting a “common language” (Leydesdorff, 2000; Kramsch, 2010). The people at Narita Airport are all there for a common reason; their activities are in some way related to travelling by plane, and consequently, all their communications will be related to that in some way. It is the same principle by which people in a diverse group can adapt to one another in a work environment; their interaction is based on the one context, the workplace and the tasks it requires, that they all have in common (Scollon, 2001, 135-136). Once the context is established, the ways in which people use it to interact can be described by two similar theories, Interaction Adaptation Theory and Social Cognition Theory (Mitchell, et al., 2000; Berger, 2005). Interaction adaptation theory explains that people assess their communications with others by comparing their own needs, desires, and expectations with their perceptions of those things in others. If they perceive that the other person’s orientation is similar to their own, the communication will be reciprocal and productive (Berger, 2005, 418-420). Using the airport as an example, two travellers would interact based on how they feel the other should respond were their places reversed. For instance, in a crowded departure lounge one may very likely move his bags from the seat beside him to let another sit down, since that would be his expectation if he was the one on his feet. The traveller who becomes angry and shouts at the ticket counter attendant does so because his expectations were not met; even though the problem was with a transaction, and may not even be the attendant’s fault, the angry traveller is responding with the opposite of reciprocation, because what was communicated to him was the opposite of what he needed, desired, or expected to hear, no matter in what manner it was communicated to him. Social cognition theory provides greater details about the processes of communication, or rather, the process of how a person decides to communicate. Social Cognition Theory states that the behaviours and actions of an individual are guided by two pairs of factors; one pair is cognition and motivation, and the other is the person and the circumstances (Mitchell, et al., 2000, p. 975). These pairs of factors work according to three conditions. The first is the frame, which is the environment or site of the interaction (the circumstances), and the person or people interacting. The second condition is the schema, which is the knowledge framework the person uses to interpret and understand information; this guides the cognition factor. The third condition is the script, which is the action or reaction the person chooses as a result of processing the information and the circumstances (Leung, et al., 2005, 367). There are two kinds of intercultural interactions at Narita Airport: travellers with airport workers, and travellers with each other. In both instances the frame is the same; that is what makes the site of the interaction. In the first kind of interaction, the schema is the traveller’s knowledge of what should result from a communication; for example, exchanging currency. The script is largely provided by the airport worker, although the traveller does play an important part: A Simple Script In the second kind of interaction, between travellers, the schema is the travellers’ knowledge and expectations of what the ‘routine’ of travelling is. This is where interaction adaptation permits the travellers to mutually (and most likely unconsciously) develop the script. Two experienced travellers know that travelling is a tiring and sometimes frustrating endeavour, and is only improved when people are pleasant and accommodating to one another. By the same token, two inexperienced travellers have the shared experience of finding themselves in a new situation. Experienced and inexperienced travellers interacting with one another, however, may not get along so well. The Risk of “Otherisation” One of the benefits of a clearly-defined “place” in intercultural interaction is that it confers an identity on the people in it. For example, students at the University, even though they come from many different places and cultures, can identify themselves as students, as integral parts of the site the University represents. The same is true of the airport; everyone passing through can be identified and identify themselves as a “traveller”. This provides a context in which they can be comfortable, where other cultural differences do not matter and thus do not present obstacles to communication. The people who work in the airport, from the above perspective, ought to be considered part of the site. Their context for interaction is to provide services for the travellers and engage in the activities that keep the airport functioning properly. Of course, it is difficult to think of people as mere objects or components of a place, particular when they do engage in personal interaction. As was described earlier, the function of Narita Airport as a place to welcome visitors to Japan and “put the country’s best foot forward,” so to speak, is rather obviously pursued. “Otherisation” refers to the tendency to reduce people’s culture to the denominator represented by a limited number of cues or indicators, or in the case of places, ascribe to a larger culture the less-detailed culture created in a site (Holliday, et al., 2004, 21-23). Otherisation at Narita Airport, for example, would be to assume that all Japanese speak English; if one were to leave the airport and spends a day in nearby Tokyo, he would quickly discover that is certainly not the case, nor are the Japanese, though a courteous people, quite as enthusiastic about meeting foreigners as their countrymen at the airport might lead one to believe. Otherisation can also be applied to other travellers from different cultures. Because of the common context of the site, it is possible to assume that others are more alike than they really are. While in the site or place, the otherisation does not matter, or at least does not matter as much, because the site environment creates a common culture that overrides most everything else. The risk comes from the person adopting the otherisation as part of his schema, the knowledge framework described earlier. If the frame changes, the schema is no longer accurate, and the script by which the person engages with someone from a different culture will be wrong. Conclusion This essay has briefly discussed how some important concepts of intercultural interaction and communication can be seen in a very large site of intercultural exchange, the Narita International Airport in Japan. The function of the physical location, and the intercultural adaptation aims of the people in it create a distinct “place,” providing a common context in which people of different cultures can interact. Because it works so effectively, however, there is a risk of “otherisation,” or assuming that the specific culture created by the site accurately represents cultures outside of it. References Berger, CR, 2005, “Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Perspectives, Future Prospects”, Journal of Communication, vol. 55, no. 3, 415-447. Clayton, C 2012, “Living the multicultural city: acceptance, belonging and young identities in the city of Leicester, England”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 35, no. 9, 1673-1693. Holliday, A, Kullman, J, and Hyde, M, 2004, Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge. Kim, YY, 2009, “Theory Reflections: Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory”, NAFSA – Association of International Educators, 2009. http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/ _/theory_connections_crosscultural.pdf. Kramsch, C 2010, “The Symbolic Dimensions of the Intercultural”, Second International Conference on the Development and Assessment of Intercultural Competence, Tuscon, Arizona, 10 January 2010. Leung, K, Bhagat, RS, Buchan, NR, Erez, M, and Gibson, CB, 2005, “Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 36, 357–378. Leydesdorff, L, 2000, “Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 17, no. 3, 273-288. Mitchell, RK, Smith, B, Seawright, KW, and Morse, EA, 2000, “Cross-Cultural Cognitions and the Venture Creation Decision”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 5, 974-993. Russell, JA, 1994, “Is There Universal Recognition of Emotion From Facial Expression? A Review of the Cross-Cultural Studies”, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 115, no. 1, 102-141. Scollon, R, 2001, Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Read More