Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2

H ow uni que i s Japanese cul ture? A cri ti cal revi ew of the di scourse i n i ntercul tural communi cati on l i terature

Hiroko Noma School of Management University of South Australia Hiroko.Noma@unisa.edu.au A bstract Literature and textbooks about intercultural communication and management often feature cultural differences rather than similarities. Japanese culture is frequently distinguished in business and management contexts from Western culture. This process arguably leads to an overemphasis of the uniqueness of Japanese culture. A review of relevant literature, however, reveals that the tendency to overemphasise the uniqueness of Japanese culture is one shared by both Western and Japanese scholars. This paper discusses how the discourse has emerged in business and intercultural literature by tracing the influence of historical and economic factors. It also explores the implications of describing Japanese business culture in relation to practices in the West for both managers and students internationally. International students of business, who are grappling with intercultural communication literature as it pertains to Japan and the West, need to engage in critical ways with the discourse adopted in the literature. The intention therefore of the paper is to illuminate how a differences-focused approach in texts could promote a stereotypical and potentially facile view of Japanese culture rather than one that encourages a more meaningful and informed understanding that appreciates the context in which the uniqueness of Japanese culture has hitherto been presented. K eyw ords Intercultural communication, Japanese culture, business education.

I ntroducti on
As a Japanese scholar studying and teaching intercultural communication in business contexts in Australia, I often come across examples and cases which tend to feature the uniqueness of Japanese culture. The discourse of such texts tends to give a view of how Japanese culture is different from Western or more particularly, American culture. When concepts or theories such as collectivism, high context culture and indirect communication styles are described, examples and cases in the literature sometimes overemphasise these aspects of Japanese culture and do not always include similarities with Western cultures. Some writers have perceived this tendency as a reflection of Western bias (Chen 2006; Miike 2003, 2007) though the emphasis on uniqueness of Japanese culture in relation to Western cultures has also been embraced by a number of Japanese scholars (e.g. Doi 1973; Tsunoda 1978; Nakane 1967). These observations raise questions about why Japanese scholars also collaborate in the process of emphasising difference and uniqueness for the purpose of cultural comparison in ways that seem to create understandings about Japan that lack a sense of relevance for those who know it well. It is a process indeed that appears to have robbed it of its true identity. How did this discourse emerge and in what contexts and why? These are questions for both academics working in areas of intercultural 2

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 communication and international students of business grappling with the implications of cultural theory and literature in critical ways.

The stereotypical view of a particular culture is apparent in some undergraduate textbooks. Munshi and McKie (2001) reviewed the textbook that they used in their course at a university and argued that some examples and cases in the textbook could give readers a view of homogenised national cultures within a Western versus non-Western framework implicitly encouraging Western readers to learn non-Western cultures to be successful in intercultural communication and business. Internationalisation of business evidently urges students and business persons to learn how to communicate and do business with people from different cultural backgrounds. However, literature about intercultural communication in management often focuses more on cultural differences rather than similarities (Ofori-Dankwa & Ricks 2000) and implies that those differences are potentially problematic intercultural issues (Munshi & McKie 2001). From time to time the literature overemphasises the uniqueness of Japanese culture by using Japanese words such as amae (interdependency) (Doi 1973; Beamer & Varner 2008), wa (group harmony) (Hall & Hall 1987), and nemawashi (consensus building) (Beamer & Varner 2008; Hall & Hall 1987). The differences-focused approach can also be found in literature involving Japanese culture authored by Japanese writers and sometimes entails extreme examples and cases emphasising its uniqueness. A typical example might be Tsunodas (1978) publication claiming that the differences between Japanese and Western people were derived from the differences in structures of right and left brain hemispheres. This type of publication is described as nihonjinron or discussion about the uniqueness of Japanese culture. Although the nihonjinron publications received a lot of criticism as an ethnocentric view from inside as well as outside of Japan (e.g. Dale 1986; Kawamura 1982; Sugimoto 1999; Sugimoto & Mouer 1982; Yoshino 1992), it is considered that those publications influenced intercultural communication literature involving interfaces with Japan (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002; Yoshino 1992). In fact, some concepts discussed in nihonjinron were developed to explain characteristics of a high context communication and culture (Feldman 1997; Ito 2000; Kawamura 1994). One concern raised in the literature is that some cultural concepts applied to intercultural communication literature are taken at face value and may have a considerable impact given that high/low context theory has been one of the most commonly acknowledged theories in the literature of intercultural communication in business (Cardon 2008). Considering the discourse emphasising the uniqueness of Japanese culture, the discussion of this paper aims to make sense of how and why it has emerged in the field of intercultural communication and to explore the implications for the extant intercultural communication literature. The present paper firstly reviews the foundation of the intercultural communication scholarship and its development in the United States (US) as the major works contributed to foster the field has also influenced on the perception about how Japan is different from the US or Western countries. Secondly, it addresses intercultural communication research in Japan referring to the influence of study in the US. Thirdly, it explores the relationship between nihonjinron and intercultural communication study in Japan and also gives specific attention to the study concerning business contexts. Finally, some critiques of differencesfocused approaches in intercultural communication study and the discussion to overcome the issue are addressed. By reviewing the history of the intercultural communication field, this paper addresses some of these contextual issues in exploring the reason for concepts and 3

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 theories used in the extant literature concerning intercultural communication that appear to involve cultural stereotyping.

Foundati on of the i ntercul tural communi cati on schol arshi p

As the starting point of the intercultural communication scholarship, often acknowledged is the contribution of Edward T Hall and the framework developed at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the US Department of State (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990; Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). FSI was initially established to give linguistic training to American diplomats who were expected to complete overseas assignments (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990). Along with the linguistic training, it was also agreed that they needed to understand the cultural contexts of the countries where those assignments took place (Hall 1955; Leeds-Hurwitz 1990). Halls role at FSI was to give an anthropological-based training to those people and his challenges were how to make an effective application of the anthropological concepts to contribute to the practical world at intercultural interfaces (Hall 1955; Leeds-Hurwitz 1990; Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). To apply anthropological insight to the practical matters, Hall focused on intercultural issues; how one culture impacted on another. Traditionally, anthropologists paid attention to a macro-level culture and investigated internal patterns within a certain culture at a time and did not usually employ a comparative approach between more than two cultures (LeedsHurwitz 1990). However Hall addressed these contents with a micro-level approach by focusing on interactions between people of different cultures (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990; Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). In other words, Hall tried to include a communication essence into the anthropological training at FSI, which was one of the crucial milestones in terms of the foundation of intercultural communication scholarship (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Considering effective training for people who handle cultural differences such as American diplomats, Hall and his colleagues claimed the necessity to pay attention to the actual process of interactions in the practical situations (Hall & Whyte 1960). Hall viewed a culture as a communicative process (1968, p. 89) and intercultural phenomena as intercultural tensions or problems that have been emerged as major intercultural research topics today (Hall 1950). Consequently it is now commonly agreed that Hall is the founder of the new academic field called intercultural communication (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990; Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Hall (1955, p. 90) suggested that the role of anthropologist in training for people who would go overseas for assignments was to open their eyes and sensitize them to the subtle qualities of behaviour, which includes nonverbal aspects such as tone of voice, gestures, space and time relationships. This is a process of building a frame of reference and important to discover cultural differences in interactions (Hall 1955). These aspects were emphasised in his publication, The Silent Language, which was presented as the complete theory of culture as communication (Hall 1959, p. 41) and was referred to as the founding document of the intercultural communication scholarship (Gudykunst 1985, 1988; LeedsHurwitz 1990; Rogers & Steinfatt 1999; Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002).

D evel opment of i ntercul tural communi cati on f i el d

In the 1970s and 80s, reflecting the expansion of the intercultural interfaces between America and Japan in international business settings, more research on interactions between people from the two countries had been conducted than between any other two cultures (Ito 1992). The internationalisation that occurred in business encouraged the intercultural scholars to investigate the intercultural interactions between American and Japanese people by stressing the differences in their behavior and communication styles in relation to individualism/collectivism, self-disclosure (Condon & Saito 1974), and high/low 4

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 communication for example (Hall & Hall 1987). The research on the intercultural communication between the two countries has grown enormously since that time (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). One of the criticisms of the early days of intercultural communication study was that the intercultural communication field had been advanced without theoretical elaboration but involved only numerous examples (Winkin cited in Leeds-Hurwitz 1990, p. 262). The focus of primary intercultural communication literature was the identification of communication barriers and on description and application rather than theory-building (Nwanko 1979, p. 329). Rogers, Hart and Miike (2002) pointed out that the intercultural communication scholars in the early days drew on their own experiences in their publications. Scholars who had personal experiences involving American-Japanese interfaces include John C. Condon, William B. Gudykunst, and Clifford Clark who made numerous contributions to the development of the field. Condon taught at a university in Tokyo for many years from the 70s to 90s, Gudykunst was in charge of intercultural communication at a US Navy base in Japan, and Clarke was raised in Japan by his parents who were American missionaries (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Until the publication Intercultural communication theory: current perspectives edited by Gudykunst in 1983, there had not been much emphasis on the theoretical foundation of the intercultural communication field (Gudykunst 1983). Nonetheless, it may be an unsurprising consequence proved given that the origin of the field lay in establishing a practical means to train diplomats rather than creating a new academic field (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990).

I ntercul tural communi cati on research i n Japan

A series of Edward T Halls work also had a strong intellectual influence on conceptualisations of nonverbal communication and sharing the field of intercultural communication in Japan (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Previous to Halls publication, the major concern for Japanese business people was to master the English language (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). It was believed that if a person could master English, he or she could become a successful communicator in such situations. Accordingly, early research was conducted on the assumption that intercultural communication for Japanese meant interaction with English-speaking people who were usually American (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). This was partly due to the intercultural communication scholarship in Japan developed from translating and introducing publications of scholars in the US (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Halls publications, including The silent language, The hidden dimension and Beyond culture were introduced in Japan in the 60s and 70s and fostered awareness of intercultural communication study in nonverbal aspects. Particularly Halls high and low context communication theory in Beyond culture had a great influence on the intercultural communication scholarship in Japan. High context communication is described as one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message whereas low context communication is one where information is conveyed primarily via the explicit code (Hall 1976, p. 79). He observed Japan as a high context culture and the US as a low context culture. Hall and Hall (1987) also described some concepts of Japanese culture in relation to high/low context communication theory in which some work of Japanese scholars were referred to. As Japanese people who worked with English-speaking people at that time already began to realise, mastering English was not enough to be successful in international and intercultural communication. Halls theory attracted the people who were concerned with these intercultural issues. Masao Kunihiro, who was an interpreter and anthropologist, certainly felt that Halls framework could meet the unmet needs in relation to these intercultural issues. He co-translated Halls The silent language and introduced it in Japan. 5

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 Also, these scholars took notice that some English words did not have equivalent words in Japanese and vice versa (Ito 2000).

Motivated by Halls work, Japanese scholars started to describe and discuss characteristics of Japanese patterns of communication. From a Japanese point of view, various concepts have been explored, intending to contribute to effective intercultural or international communication as these concepts were assumed to be understood fully only by native speakers (Feldman 1997; Ito 2000; Kawamura 1994). The concepts including amae (Doi 1973), wa, honne-tatemae (translated as formal appearance-inner feeling by Doi (1991)) and kanjinsyugi (Nakane 1967) and nemawashi were explored in the original Japanese words within the high/low context communication framework as well as in nihonjinron. These concepts and discussions have impacted on the intercultural communication study especially in the early days because there is it assumed that there are no equivalent words in English (Ito 2000) and it illuminated the characteristics of high context communication in Japan (Hall & Hall 1987). These concepts of Halls and the emphasis on nonverbal aspects of communication contributed to raise awareness of the impact of culture in intercultural and international communication in Japan primarily with English-speaking people (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Although some concepts were considered to be related to nihonjinron, the discussions using Halls framework have provided some potential future research areas for intercultural communication. In this regard, the introduction of Halls work brought an interdisciplinary approach to the issue of international and intercultural interactions with Japanese people (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). In this context, the difficulties in translating some concepts of Japanese into English were considered as unique aspects of Japanese culture (Ito 2000).

N i honj i nron and i ntercul tural communi cati on study i n Japan

The way that culture was taught in the anthropology seminars at FSI has been one of the milestones of the intercultural communication field. Each cultural group of people was believed to have their own uniqueness (Hall 1955, 1976; Hall & Hall 1987). How Hall viewed other cultures was influenced by cultural relativism and the view that cultural differences should be respected (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). This viewpoint was strongly influenced by Benedict (1946) who also had great influence on identified uniqueness of Japanese culture in her publication The chrysanthemum and the sword: patterns of Japanese culture. Benedict (1946) described On and Giri to describe Japanese obligations and reciprocals which identified some characteristics of Japanese culture and illustrated the differences from Western or American culture. She argued differences should exist and the differences should be respected (Benedict 1946, p. 15). Responding to her publication, Japanese scholars also identified what is unique to Japanese culture and communication style from a native perspective, and differences-focused study has become the dominant approach in the intercultural communication study (Barnlund 1998). In the postwar period at that time, it was vital for Japan to build a new national identity as a modern and industrialised nation in order to contribute to the international community (Sugimoto 1999). This historical context was an important factor to promote the discussion about characteristics of Japanese culture, which developed as a genre called nihonjinron. Nihonjinron literally means discussions about the Japanese, which refers to the vast array of literature which thinking elites have produced to define the uniqueness of Japanese culture, society and national character (Yoshino 1992, p. 2). 6

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 In nihonjinron, the uniqueness or the peculiarities of Japanese culture was actively discussed by the scholars and others inside Japan as well as outside Japan. The nihonjinron discussion appeared in various publications extensively in the late 70s and continued in the 80s (Yoshino 1992). As with early intercultural communication studies, the majority of the nihonjinron discussion did not employ theoretical approaches but described and discussed concepts by using illustrative materials of everyday episodes, contemporary news, travelogues, folklore materials for example (Yoshino 1992, p. 3) and sometimes overemphasising differences (Befu 2001; Yoshino 1992). There were largely two kinds of motivation involved for intellectuals involved in nihonjinron: one was to establish a Japanese national identity in a positive way in the postwar world and the other was to contribute to better communication between Japanese and non-Japanese people by identifying the special features of Japanese culture as a possible communicative barrier (Dale 1986; Sugimoto 1999; Yoshino 1992). Although nihonjinron has been criticised by later scholars (e.g. Befu 2001; Dale 1986; Kowner, Befu & Manabe 1999; Sugimoto 1999; Yoshino 1992), it had a great influence on the study of intercultural communication involving Japan (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002; Yoshino 1992). Sugimoto (1996) argued the development of nihonjinron in five phases: the first phase ran from 1945 to 1955, the second 1955 to 1965, the third 1965 to 1975, the fourth 1975 to 1985, and the fifth 1985 to 1995. Each phase illustrated how nihonjinron was delivered and perceived, and Sugimoto also described what influence each had been from the perspective of intercultural communication. In the first period, from 1965 to 1955, the most influential nihonjinron work was The chrysanthemum and the sword: patterns of Japanese culture written by Ruth Benedict (1946). Benedict described peculiarities of Japanese culture through On and Giri based on the observations of the behaviour of military officers during World War II. Benedicts book was translated into Japanese and published in 1948, which had a large effect on the subsequent Japanese studies (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002; Sugimoto 1996; Yoshino 1992). Interestingly, Leeds-Hurwitz (1990) suggested that Ruth Benedict (1941) was one of the early scholars who used the term intercultural before Hall to address issues between people of different cultural groups. Although Benedicts work received some criticism including the limitation of data source and overgeneralisation (Bennett & Nagai 1953), it also provided some concepts that later scholars could explore (Yoshino 1992). The second phase was from 1955 to 1965 where the focus was on Japans modernisation and industrialisation. In this period, Japan tried to restructure itself after the war and its effort to achieve modern industrialisation was perceived positively. In the subsequent period from 1965 to 1975, the third phase in Sugimotos (1996) nihonjinron discussion, a lot of concepts were described by Japanese nihonjinron writers, which include amae or the attempt to deny the fact of separation that is such an inseparable part of human existence and to obliterate the pain of separation (Doi 1973, p. 75) as a key concept to discuss relationships among Japanese people. Another concept frequently appeared in nihonjinron was groupism (group orientation) (Nakane 1967), which has been supplemented by Dois work. Along with the concept of groupism, the term shudanshugi also described the group orientation of Japanese people particularly in the business contexts within Japanese organisations (Nakane 1967). The intensive development of nihonjinron was partly due to Japans emergence as an economic power. The Japanese cultural system was perceived as the basis of the rapid economical growth. This period was also important for the establishment of the intercultural communication field in Japan because the origin of the field could be traced back to the time when Halls publication The silent language was translated into Japanese and published in 1966. The attention of the Japanese scholars to the intercultural communication study 7

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 expanded in the following years. The attempts at exploration allowed Japanese scholars to contribute to the field internationally from a native perspective and along with the Halls publications it enhanced the recognition of the intercultural communication field in Japan (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). From 1975 to 1985, the fourth phase, the focus of nihonjinron was characterised by the discussion about the Japanese management style. The focus was more on the business contexts in this period and the evaluation for Japanese culture and management turned strongly positive. As some aspects of the Japanese management were assumed to be implementable to other countries, so that learn from Japan theories appealed to the public. This would be best described in Ezra Vogels (1979) publication Japan as number one. At the same time, the criticism of nihonjinron also became noticeable (Yoshino 1992). Such criticism referred to a lack of rigorous methodology and that the many of nihonjinron concepts were discussed by using convenient examples which often involved personal experiences or illustrative episodes of everyday life (Dale 1986; Sugimoto & Mouer 1982; Yoshino 1992). Kawamura (1982) argued that nihonjinron was an ideological discussion which emphasised a homogenous view and neglected subcultures inside of Japan. The last phase, from 1985 to 1995, illustrates conflicts between US and Japan. By this time Japan had grown to one be of the largest economic powers in the world and the trade conflicts between the two countries had developed into cultural conflicts. In this context, the peculiarity of Japanese culture was again emphasised as a cause of the conflicts. In the 80s with the expansion of international business, practical issues of intercultural communication in international business settings emerged among large multinational companies in Japan. Reflecting the economic situation, the majority of the study involved Japanese-American interactions in business settings (Ito 1992). In terms of the impact of nihonjinron on the intercultural communication study, Yoshino (1992) gave particular attention to the literature written by the members of leading companies for business persons and students who were interested in international communication in the business contexts. Based on the analysis of the literature, he suggested that this kind of literature has expanded nihonjinron discussion because the literature illustrated many untranslatable Japanese expressions, business and management practices, and company mens everyday lifestyle which emphasised and popularised the uniqueness or peculiarities of Japanese culture in the practical settings (Yoshino 1992, p. 172). This type of publication included a wide range of aspects of language and communication patterns as well as business and management issues such as decision-making process, employment practices, and industrial relations (Yoshino 1992, p. 173). Yoshino also mentioned that the literature was fundamentally business persons interpretation of academics nihonjinron due to the fact that it has largely mentioned the nihonjinron literature often drawing on the work of Nakane Chie, and Doi Takeo for example. As discussed above, the publications about Japanese culture written by Japanese scholars extensively increased in the 1970s. However due to the explosion of the interest to nihonjinron, some scholars criticised that nihonjinron largely picked up on attention-catching key concept of the characteristics of Japanese culture (Yoshino 1992, p. 3) and was the commercialise expression of modern Japanese nationalism (Dale 1986, p. 14) so that the publications possibly draw more attention from the public. Interestingly, the discussion of nihonjinron was not often their differences but was our differences. The Japanese nihonjinron writers actively discussed our differences and the concepts they used in their publications were used in the study of intercultural communication by non-Japanese scholars as well (e.g. Hall & Hall 1987; Condon & Saito 1974). One of the reasons that they 8

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 needed to emphasise our differences was in order to reassert Japanese identity in the historical context at the time (Dale 1986; Sugimoto 1999; Yoshino 1992), which could be criticised as ethnocentrism (Kowner, Befu & Manabe 1999; Sugimoto 1999; Yoshino 1992). That being said, most of the Japanese nihonjinron writers had rather hoped to promote better communication and mutual understanding with non-Japanese people. Ironically, the impact of the uniqueness resulted in claiming communication barriers by emphasising the distinctiveness (Yoshino 1992, p. 37). In this sense, intercultural communication studies particularly involving Japan and the nihonjinron could be two sides of the same coin (Yoshino 1992, p. 12). In fact, the first international communication conference held in Japan in 1972 included Takeo Doi and Chie Nakane who are nihonjinron scholars (Condon & Saito 1974). The conference was held at International Christian University in Tokyo where John C. Condon and Mitsuko Saito taught and it also included scholars of Japan as well as the US from various disciplines including politics, anthropology, linguistics, filmmaking, business, sociology, physics, journalism, psychology (Condon & Saito 1974). This illustrates the interdisciplinary nature of the intercultural communication field and the proceedings of the conference was published as Intercultural encounters with Japan: communication contact and conflict edited by Condon and Saito. After the conference, several important conferences and workshops of intercultural communication scholarship were also held in Japan where scholars from the US and Japan gathered to discuss the new emergent field. These conferences, workshops and publications brought the attention to scholars and business persons dealing with international business that it was necessary to understand cultural differences in addition to the English speaking skill (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). The expansion of international business between the US and Japan has contributed to the development of the intercultural communication field in Japan. Influenced by Halls work, the attention of the intercultural communication scholars has been given to the nonverbal aspects of communication an essential factor to be successful at international and intercultural settings in addition to learning English. The theories and concepts about nonverbal communication as well as nihonjinron discussion have matched to describe and explain the manners in Japanese society. Also the emerged needs for intercultural communication study that could be applied to the practical settings in international contexts encouraged the development of intercultural communication scholarship. Derived from the history of the intercultural communication field, intercultural communication courses are offered in departments of English or in business schools in Japan, which demonstrates that the Japanese people perceive that the skills of both English language and intercultural communication are essential for communicating with non-Japanese people in international business contexts (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002).

N i honj i nron and i ntercul tural communi cati on study i n busi ness
In the 1980s, the intercultural communication study between the US and Japan was the dominant combination since the two countries had the largest economic influence. Along with the rapid growth of Japanese economy, study of the business and management styles of Japanese companies also came to the fore in this period. The management styles that many Japanese companies employed were perceived as unique to Japanese culture from a Western or the US point of view (Vogel 1979). In this sense, Japanese our differences were also considered as their differences from a Western or American perspective. In the 90s, the focus of the influential work regarding intercultural communication study was involved in international business and management. The publications written by Western academics were translated into Japanese and introduced to the Japanese scholars and business persons. For example, Gary P. Ferraros The cultural dimension of international 9

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 business was introduced in Japan in 1992, Nancy J. Adlers International dimensions of organizational behaviour in 1992, Robert T Moran and William G. Stripps Dynamics of successful international business negotiations in 1994 and Geert Hofstedes Cultures and organizations: software of the mind in 1995. These publications were published and became popular under the growth of international business and intercultural interfaces. The development of the intercultural communication field in this period was led by the expansion of the literature concerned with international business. The literature of intercultural communication in business settings, particularly the early work in the 80s, often included critical incidents as examples which seem to emphasise unique or peculiar aspects of a particular culture. Unlike nihonjinron, it was sometimes criticised for adopting a perspective of largely the Western we and largely non-Western they, which imply the Western lens toward the research (Munshi & McKie 2001). Munshi and McKie (2001) suggested that critical incidents used to explain bipolar cultural dimensions created by Hofstede (1980) could illuminate what the cultural groups were supposed to stand for. As intercultural communication research developed, the bipolar approach of Western versus non-Western was criticised and discussed in terms of methodology, method (Aycan 2000; Fischer, Ferreira, Assmar, Redford & Harb 2005; Gudykunst & Antonio 1993) and conceptual issues (Yeganeh & Su 2006). The concepts discussed in nihonjinron could be useful to support some cultural dimensions as typical examples about some characteristics of Japanese culture, in terms of communication and management styles to some extent.

Beyond the di scourse associ ated w i th the uni queness of Japanese cul ture
The review of the history of the intercultural communication field revealed how some aspects of Japanese culture and communication style have described and emphasised the uniqueness of the culture and the background reason for it. In terms of the research involving Japan, it is reasonable to say that the result of the large discussion about uniqueness of Japanese culture has greatly influenced differences-focused approaches intercultural communication and the endeavour to explore commonality between Japan and non-Japanese has been absent. To date, little research has focused on cultural similarities (Ofori-Dankwa & Ricks 2000), especially between Japan and other Asian countries (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Ofori-Dankwa and Ricks (2000) pointed out that the research with difference-based questions or hypothesis has difference-oriented lens which could serve as a perceptual filter. This could influence forms of question, information or data and their interpretation and overlook important similarities that may also exist (Ofori-Dankwa & Ricks 2000). The unawareness of similarity-based intercultural communication research appeared to be one of the core grounds that enhanced the discourse of uniqueness of Japanese culture and could be perceived as a barrier for effective communication between people from Japan and other cultures (Rogers, Hart & Miike 2002). Intercultural communication researchers in Asian contexts are already beginning to address the issues of Western bias and seek to go beyond the East vs. West framework in the inter- or cross-cultural research (Chen 2006; Miike 2003, 2007).

Concl usi on
This paper revisited the starting point of intercultural communication scholarship and reviewed how the field has been developed in relation to the literature involving Japanese culture. It has revealed that the discourse associated with the uniqueness of Japanese culture has been an underlying scheme of intercultural communication study involving Japanese people and culture typically in the early period of the field of intercultural communication. This has been influenced by the inter-disciplinary nature of the field and the nihonjinron boom in the 70s. Even though many concepts of nihonjinron have been 10

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2 developed by Japanese scholars, the literature has emphasised its uniqueness distinguishing it from the West or the US without giving necessary attention to similarities with the cultures of those countries and other non-Western countries. In consequence of the expansion of international business, the discourse has embedded in the literature of intercultural communication in business and management. Since it is imperative for students and business persons to learn intercultural communication in order to be successful in todays culturally diverse business environment, it is crucial that they are able to critically evaluate cultural discourse at face value and give rise to a stereotypical view of a particular culture. Understanding, reviewing and discussing the expansion of the intercultural communication field including the context in which it has emerged could provide useful insights for future researchers and business students around the world who need to develop critical perspectives towards academic texts concerned with culture and communication.

Ref erences
Aycan, Z 2000, Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology: contributions, past developments, and future directions, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 110128. Adler, NJ 1992, (International dimensions of organizational behaviour), translated by , and IBI, , Tokyo. Barnlund, DC 1998, Communication in a global village, in Basic concepts of intercultural communication: selected readings, ed MJ Bennett, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME, pp. 3551. Beamer, L & Varner, I 2008, Intercultural communication in the global workplace, 4th edn, McGrawHill, New York. Befu, H 2001, Hegemony of homogeneity: an anthropological analysis of nihonjinron, Trans Pacific Press, Rosanna, Vic. Benedict, R 1941, Race problems in America, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 216, pp. 7378. Benedict, R 1946, The chrysanthemum and the sword: patterns of Japanese culture, The World Publishing, Cleveland, Ohio. Bennett, JW & Nagai, M, 1953, The Japanese critique of the methodology of Benedicts Chrysanthemum and the word, American Anthropologist, New Series, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 404 411. Cardon, PW 2008, A critique of Halls contexting model: a meta-analysis of literature on intercultural business and technical communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 22, pp. 399428. Chen, GM 2006, Asian communication studies: what and where to now, The review of Communication, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 295311. Condon, JC & Saito, M (eds.) 1974, Intercultural encounters with Japan: communication-contact and conflict, The Simul Press Inc., Tokyo. Dale, PN 1986, The myth of Japanese uniqueness, Croom Helm, London. Doi, T 1973, Anatomy of dependence, Kodansha International, Tokyo.

11

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2
Doi, T 1991, Formal appearance and inner feeling: tatemae and honne, in Transcending stereotypes: discovering Japanese culture and education, eds B Finkelstein, AE Imamura & JJ Tobin, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME, pp. 1216 Feldman, O 1997, Culture, society and the individual: cross-cultural political psychology in Japan, Political Psychology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 327254. Ferraro, GP 1992, , translated by , and , , Tokyo. Fischer, R, Ferreira, MC, Assmar, EML, Redford, P & Harb, C 2005, Organizational behaviour across cultures: theoretical and methodological issues for developing multi-level frameworks, Cross Cultural Management, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 2748. Gudykunst, WB (ed.) 1983, Intercultural communication theory: current perspectives, Sage, CA, Beverly Hills. Gudykunst, WB 1985, Intercultural communication: current status and proposed directions, in Progress in communication sciences, vol. 6, eds B Dervin & MJ Voigt, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp. 146. Gudykunst, WB 1988, Uncertainty and anxiety, in Theories in intercultural communication, eds YY Kim & WB Gudykunst, Sage, Newbury Park CA, pp. 123156. Gudykunst, WB & Antonio, PS 1993, Approaches to the study of communication in Japan and the United states, in Communication in Japan and the United States, ed WB Gudykunst, Albany, New York, pp. 1850. Hall, ET 1950, Military government on Turk, Human Organisation, vol. 9, pp. 2530. Hall, ET 1955, The anthropology of manners, Scientific American, vol. 192, pp. 8559. Hall, ET 1959, The silent language, Doubleday and Company, Garden City, NY. Hall, ET 1968, Proxemics, Current Anthropology, vol. 9, pp.83108. Hall, ET 1976, Beyond culture, Doubleday, New York. Hall, ET & Hall, MR 1987, Hidden differences: doing business with the Japanese, Doubleday, New York. Hall, ET & Whyte, WF 1960, Intercultural communication: a guide to men of action, Human Organization, vol. 19, pp. 512. Hofstede, G 1980, Cultural consequences: international differences in work related values, Sage, Beverly Hills. Hofstede, G 1995, (Cultures and organizations: software of the mind) translated by and , , Tokyo. Ito, Y 1992, Theories on intercultural communication styles from a Japanese perspective: a sociological approach, in Comparatively speaking: communication and culture across space and time, eds J Blumiler, J Mcleod & K Rosengren, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 238268.

12

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2
Ito, Y 2000, What causes the similarities and differences among the social sciences in different cultures? Focusing on Japan and the West, Asian Journal of communication, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 93123. Kawamura, N 1982, (The environs of the theories on Japanese culture), (Ningen no Kagakusha), Tokyo. Kawamura, N 1994, Sociology and the society of Japan, Kegan and Paul, London/New York. Kowner, R, Befu, H & Manabe, K 1999, The human profile of Japanese nationalism: a study of nihonjinron followers, Journal Komunikasi, vol. 15, pp. 7396. Leeds-Hurwitz, W 1990, Notes in the history of intercultural communication: the Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 76, pp. 262 281. Miike, Y 2003, Beyond Eurocentrism in the intercultural field: searching for an Asiancentric paradigm, in Ferment in the intercultural field: axiology, value, praxis [special issue]. International and Intercultural communication Annual vol. 26, eds WJ Starosta & GM Chen, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 243276. Miike, Y 2007, An Asiancentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory, Communication monographs, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 272278. Moran, RT & Stripp, WG 1994, Dynamics of successful international business negotiations, translated by , ,Tokyo. Munshi, D & McKie, D 2001, Toward a new cartography of intercultural communication: mapping bias, business, and diversity, Business Communication Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 922. Nakane, C 1967,: , Tokyo. Nwanko, RL 1979, Intercultural communication: a critical review, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 65, pp. 324346. Ofori-Dankwa, J & Ricks, DA 2000, Research emphases on cultural differences and/or similarities: are we asking the right questions?, Journal of International Management, vol. 6, pp.173186. Rogers, EM & Steinfatt, TM 1999, Intercultural communication, Prospect Heights, Waveland, IL. Rogers, EM, Hart, WB & Miike, Y 2002, Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural communication: the United States and Japan, Keio Communication Review, no. 24, pp. 326. Sugimoto, Y 1996, , /23, , pp. 738. Sugimoto, Y 1999, Making sense of nihonjinron, Thesis Eleven, vol. 57, no. 81, pp.8196. Sugimoto, Y & Mouer, R 1982, : (Toyo Keizai Shinbunsya), Tokyo. Tsunoda, T 1978, , , Tokyo. Vogel, EF 1979, Japan as number one: lessons for America, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

13

Journal of I nt ernat i onal Educat i on i n Busi ness

vol. 2 no. 2
Yeganeh, H & Su, Z 2006, Conceptual foundations of cultural management research, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 361376. Yoshino, K 1992, Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan: a sociological enquiry, Routledge, London.

14