China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

Xiao-Dong Dai Shanghai Normal University Abstract: This paper investigates how intercultural personhood interacts with identity negotiation. Firstly, it defines the concept of intercultural personhood; secondly, it maps out the developing process of intercultural personhood, and finally addresses how intercultural personhood shapes identity negotiation competence. Intercultural persons unique qualities lie in their openness to cultural others, the flexible and reflexive thinking, the willingness to negotiate differences, the ability to integrate diverse cultural elements into a coherent whole, as well as the potential to achieve identity extension. Intercultural personhood develops to maturity through three stages: the unconscious, the conscious and the creative. Conscious intercultural personhood constitutes the threshold from which intercultural persons endeavor to go beyond ethnocentrism. In the creative stage, intercultural persons experience a shift of paradigmfrom ethnocentric to intercultural, and finally accomplish self-transformation. Mature intercultural persons are competent and creative intercultural negotiators, who can recognize, validate and extend communicators identities and enhance mutual growth. [China Media Research. 2009; 5(2):1-12] Keywords: intercultural personhood, identity negotiation, intercultural agreement, identity extension, intercultural competence Introduction Intercultural communication takes place between different cultural members. Identity negotiation constitutes one of the basic dimensions of intercultural communication process and significantly shapes its result. Whether people can achieve mutual understanding and establish reciprocal intercultural relationship is largely determined by their identityorientation. The notion that identity is given, fixed and non-contextual has long been rejected; while the idea that identity is negotiated, constructed and constantly recreated has been generally accepted (Hegde, 1998). The proliferation of identity negotiation research in the past decade (e.g., Collier, 2000; Diggs & Clark, 2002; Fisher, 1998; Hecht, 1998; Imahori & Cupach, 2005; Moss & Faux, 2006; Ting-Toomey, 1999; 2005) not only highlights the importance of the issue in intercultural communication, but also lays a solid foundation for further studies. There are two major theories to address intercultural identity negotiation, one is Identity Management Theory (IMT) and the other is Identity Negotiation Theory (INT) (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003). IMT developed by Cupach and Imahori (1993; Imahori & Cupach, 2005) mainly focuses on face and face-work. They argue that the maintenance of face is a natural and inevitable condition of human interaction, and the ability to negotiate mutually accepted images makes up the essential element of communication competence. INT formulated by Ting-Toomey (Ting-Toomey, 1988; 1998; 1999; 2005) elaborates on identity negotiation principles. According to Ting-Toomey, effective identity negotiation produces dynamic balance between five dichotomous but complimentary forcesidentity security/identity vulnerability, identity inclusion /identity differentiation, identity predictability/identity unpredictability, identity connection/identity autonomy and identity consistency/identity change; the essence of identity negotiation competence lies in creative communication episode. INT attaches importance to intercultural knowledge and negotiating skills; while IMT emphasizes face maintenance and intercultural relationship. Both recognize the value of commonality in intercultural communication, but fail to explain how intercultural personhood shapes identity negotiation competence. Intercultural communication refers to the interaction between members with different cultural identities. Anyone who wants to make identity negotiation effective has to satisfy two basic needs cultural convergence and cultural differentiation. Hence, how to harness the tension between unity and diversity, and turn it into a productive force becomes the key to success. Intercultural personhood can help us bridge cultural differences, negotiate intercultural agreement and achieve mutual growth. In this paper, we will first define and explain the concept of intercultural personhood; secondly, we will map out its developing process; and thirdly, we will demonstrate how it affects identity negotiation competence. The Concept of Intercultural Personhood The concept of intercultural personhood is interpreted as intercultural identity in this paper. Identity defines the qualities that a self might assume which distinguish one from others (Ct & Levine, 2002). It manifests personal or group attributes and expresses specific memberships. Basically, there are two kinds of identities: the individual and the collective. Individual

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

identity refers to self as distinct from other people as defined in terms of specific relationships with other individuals; collective identity refers to commonalities of people within a group and differences between people in different groups; both forms of selfconceptualizations are socially constructed and grounded (Hogg, 2003). Cultural identity belongs to one of the collective identities. It is the identification with a perceived acceptance into a group that has shared systems of symbols and meanings as well as norms/rules for conduct (Collier, 1988), expressing peoples cultural affiliation, demonstrating common qualities among group members and differences across cultures. Until now, only a few scholars have addressed the meaning of intercultural identity, leaving many loopholes to be patched up. The concept of intercultural identity reminds us of a number of similar terms, for example, multicultural man, universal man, international man, cosmopolitan communicator, mediating person, etc. (Kim, 2001, p.195). All of these terms imply a non-dichotomous and non-rigid definition of self and other. Adler directly equates intercultural person with multicultural man. Kim (2001) disagrees on Adlers categorization. She claims that intercultural personhood is a special kind of personal orientation which possesses internal attributes that are not defined rigidly by any single culture. It is hard-won through many moments of crisis, representing a high degree of psychic evolution. Intercultural person, in her understanding, is someone who has internalized different cultural elements, whose identity becomes broader than the original, and is open to further transformation. Adlers definition embodies a cosmopolitan spirit. Cosmopolitanism not only ignores historically embedded differences among cultures, but also fails to grasp their asymmetrical developments and hardly reflects reality (Geertz, 2000). Kims interpretation makes better sense. But there is a serious loophole in her explanation. She argues that an intercultural person is produced by individualization and universalization (Kim, 2001; 2008). On the one hand, individualized identity pursues intimate personal relationship through tolerance, acceptance and cooperation; on the other hand, universalized identity seeks universal aspects of human nature through non-dualistic, metacontextual and synergic ways of experiencing cultural differences. Although Kim admits that the emergence of intercultural personhood does not imply the disappearance of cultural differences, she neglects that both individualization and universalization demand thorough removal of cultural boundaries. It seems that individualization and universalization can change intercultural communication into interpersonal interaction. But every culture, in essence,

is a patterned way of life, reflecting collective consciousness, collective preference and identification. It is fostered by specific historical experiences and social conditions, and can be, by no means, reduced to individual traits, nor universalized to general qualities across cultures. An intercultural person plays the role of cultural bridge which promotes dialogue between or among cultures. The effective way to construct intercultural identity is through cultural extension. Geertz (2000) contends that each culture moves on its own track, at its own speed, and in its own direction. People who come from different cultures can talk to each other due to more or less accidental overlap of belief system and way of life. In most intercultural encounters, participants find similarities as well as differences (Evanoff, 2006). When the overlaps or commonalities increase with the development of intercultural communication, mutual ties become established and strengthened. L. E. Sarbaugh (1988) in his Intercultural Communication, identifies seven levels of interculturalness, ranging from pure heterogeneous lever to pure homogeneous level that form an interculturalness continuum. To enhance mutual understanding, we need to accumulate intercultural sharing and reach more consensuses. In this paper, intercultural personhood is not conceptualized as a special product of advanced stage in intercultural communication or an ideal competent communicator, but rather as a human mechanism that operates in the whole process of intercultural communication. We hold that intercultural persons are extensions of cultural-selves whose qualities lie in their openness to cultural others, their willingness to negotiate differences, the ability to reach intercultural agreements, the ability to integrate diverse cultural elements, as well as the potential to achieve identity extension and mutual growth. To be open to cultural others implies that intercultural person rejects an essentialist stance of treating culture as given, fixed and being out there, but rather takes it as an unfinished and open-ended process through which participants negotiate with others and construct their mutually accepted selfimages. Culture is a living system that tends to maintain equilibrium. As any system does, when being in contact with foreign things and challenged, especially when its core values being threatened, it will strive to keep away alien things and keep its own balance. To be open suggests that intercultural person treats culture as an open system that is affected by factors and processes outside of it; and is oriented toward life and growth (Littlejohn, 2003). An openminded communicator interacts actively with strangers and never excludes other possibilities beyond the established cultural boundary. The openminded communicator also tries to take every chance

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

to participate in their world and enrich each others cultural inventory. Effective intercultural communication requires both the openness to cultural others and the willingness to negotiate differences. To negotiate differences means that intercultural person tries to give up cultural stereotypes, prejudices or ethnocentrism, and aims at conducting dialogue with others on equal footing. Interlocutors who approach others with stereotypes tend to generalize cultural traits, they often neglect individual variability and frequently produce misunderstandings. Those with prejudices tend to stigmatize differences and underestimate the value of other cultures and seldom make any objective judgment. Ethnocentric communicators, who only view things from their own perspective, can hardly reach any true intercultural consensus. As cultural differences among human interactants presupposes a need for coordination manifested in cultural contracts (Cronen et al., 1988), intercultural identity negotiation should be interpreted as a coordinated process of mutual informing, mutual learning and mutual compromising, in which negotiators endeavor to reach intercultural agreements. Intercultural persons negotiate in an equal, mindful and patient way. Equality suggests that participants recognize each other as equal beings who have equal chance to express opinions and articulate arguments. They make decisions together, without being forced, manipulated or dominated (Pasquali, 1997). Genuine conversation, as other actual fulfillments of relation between men, requires acceptance of otherness. Reciprocal respect, necessarily for constructive dialogue, enables us to engage others in true partnership (Tu, 2001). It constitutes the basis of fair and constructive negotiation. Ting-Toomey (2005) explains the importance of mindfulness in identity negotiation. She deems that mindfulness means the readiness to shift ones frame of reference, the motivation to use new categories to understand cultural or ethnic differences, and preparedness to experiment with creative avenues of decision making and problem solving. In contrast, mindlessness is reflected in the heavy reliance on familiar frames of reference, old patterns or categories, which may lead to inappropriate behavior, incorrect interpretation and even communication failure. To be a mindful communicator, individuals need to explore new way of identity construction and prepare to perceive and understand communication behavior from others standpoint. Besides, due attention should be paid to the complex interactions among past, present and future. Peoples sense of identity often includes a perception of who they were, who they are, and who they will be (Ross & Buehler, 2004). In negotiating differences, cultural tradition, social reality and mutually acceptable goals are all to be taken into account.

Intercultural negotiation is a long process that requires the negotiators patience. There are no shortcuts to intercultural relationships, no vicarious ways to learn how to relate to people of another culture; only actual contact with individuals over an extended period of time begins to build intercultural understanding (Huston, 1994). In negotiation, communicators should keep themselves open to criticism and opposing opinions. Intercultural persons seek shared meaning and cultural agreements. They produce them through continual readiness to examine and reexamine all of the claims (Arens, 1997, p.59). Intercultural person has the potential to bring forth intercultural agreements. Every social interaction is a coming together not only of roles and identities, but also of shared realities due to the existence of intersubjectivity. People with diverse cultural backgrounds, in contrast, see different worlds that are often incommensurable to each other (Foley, 2001). For example, monochronic time oriented people would find it hard to understand polychronic time oriented people; high-context cultural members would also find it difficult to comprehend the information sent by lowcontext cultural members. Intercultural person breaks up rigid cultural boundaries, through which symbols from different cultures gradually penetrate into each other and form a new overarching system. While intersubjectivity strengthens socialization and interpersonal ties; intercultural personhood enhances interactions between cultures and intercultural relationships, playing an important part in transforming culturally autonomous selves into culturally interrelated selves. It helps people become re-socialized into a larger intercultural community and enable them to negotiate meanings with a shared frame of reference, hence facilitates mutual understandings and intercultural agreements. Willingness to negotiate differences does not necessarily produce fruitful communication, the key lies in the ability to integrate diverse cultural elements into a coherent whole, and the ability achieve identity extension. Common understanding is important in communication, but it only makes up the first step to cultural growth. Critical integration paves the way for mutual growth. Critical integration implies that intercultural person thinks reflexively upon the strength and weakness of their own and others cultures. Reflexive projection of the self consists of sustaining coherent, yet continuously revised, biographical narratives. It is far more than just getting to know oneself better; it is an endeavor to build and rebuild a more inclusive and more rewarding sense of identity (Giddens, 1991). It helps us perceive the similarities and differences between us and others (Ashmore, 1989); recognize what is special, what is universal, what is rational and what is insensible, in order to work out new

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

and creative cultural scripts that produce synergy and harmony. Competent identity negotiator emphasizes the importance of creatively integrating knowledge and positive attitudinal factors, as well as putting them into practice in everyday intercultural interactions (TingToomey, 2005). Integrating new elements into ones own cultural script is an effective way to achieve identity extension. Cultural identity defines what is appropriate or acceptable in a society (Collier & Thomas, 1988, p.113). When foreign elements or ideas are incorporated into a local culture, peoples horizon will be broadened, and consequently they will acquire new cultural attributes. As the overlaps increase, people from different cultures begin to live in each others world. What is foreign will become localized; what is strange will become familiar; what is inappropriate or unacceptable may become acceptable or even popular. For instance, sexy, which was not appreciated or even used by Chinese when to remark about an attractive girl several decades ago, has now become a highly popular and flattering word in social greetings. Chinese medicine, which was once almost taken as the synonym of quacks in the west, has recently begun to gain popularity and is being applied to various medical treatments. There are more telling examples: Buddhism which constitutes one of the tripartite of Chinese cultural values, actually came from India; Christian belief which constitutes one of the pillars of western civilization, stemmed from Judaism. Inclusion of other in our own self enables us to share others perspective and resources, which leads to identity extension (Aron et al., 2004). In integrating diverse cultural elements, tensions certainly will arise. But due to that there is extensive connection and comprehensive harmony in nature and human society, conflicts can be harmonized and transformed into reciprocal and creative forces (Fang, 1980). In Book of Change, a Chinese thinker reveals that the cosmos comprises two basic forces: Yin and Yang; although sometimes they run into conflicts, they are not fundamentally contradictory to each other. In essence, they are complementary, interchangeable, and work together to create the world. Bakhhtin also demonstrates that in dialogue individuals are interdependent, different voices can co-exist and new meanings are created on the border zone between different and opposed positions (cf Hermans, 2002). Intercultural persons play the role of mediator and transformer, capable of promoting cultural integration, cultural transformation and mutual growth. Individuals in a specific culture may have different levels of intercultural personhood. Some people are conscious, well-developed, mature intercultural persons, some are developing selfawareness and becoming grown-up; while others are

unconscious, underdeveloped and never try to construct intercultural identity. Since cultural identity is a product of both interpersonal and intercultural communication, it must be viewed as an integrated synthesis of identification that possesses personal particularity within cultural unity (Adler, 1985). Thus, we treat intercultural personhood as a continuum, ranging from the underdeveloped to the well-developed. In the following part, we discuss its developing process in intercultural encounters. The Development of Intercultural Personhood Being the very product of encounters between cultures, intercultural personhood is at work throughout the whole process of intercultural communication. As soon as people are exposed to other cultures, intercultural personhood begins to germinate. Some individuals are willing to cultivate intercultural personhood; while others may reject it, making huge efforts to keep their own tradition and refusing to identify with other cultures. Kim (2001) argues that people may not be aware of the development of intercultural personhood in the whole process of intercultural adaptations. Her observation does not grasp the developing situation in globalization. With the deepening of globalization, the world is shrinking and cultural boundaries are becoming increasingly fuzzy, many people come to realize the limit of traditional cultural identity and seek to have more open and more inclusive memberships, endeavoring to strengthen intercultural ties. This trend has also been illustrated by the rise of multiculturalism and identity politics in the late 20th century. Generally speaking, the development of intercultural personhood can be divided into three stages: unconscious stage, conscious stage and creative stage. Intercultural personhood starts to develop, usually without being noticed by people, when intercultural experiences gradually accumulate. With the development of intercultural identity, ethnocentrism thaws away. Ethnocentrism might well be the characteristic that most directly relates to intercultural communication (Samovar et al., 2000). Milton Bennett (1993) proposed his Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity in which he identified six linear stages: denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration, three of the beginning stages were ethnocentric; three of the advanced stages were ethnorelative. This trend was also illustrated by Berry (2005). Ethnocentrism is the belief that our own culture is superior to all other cultural groups; it becomes a barrier when it prevents us from even trying to see others point of view through others prescription lens (Martin & Nakayama, 2001). When encountering other cultures for the first time, most people can recognize differences,

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

but they usually interpret them negatively from their own frame of reference. In most cases, people are willing to experience foreign things, adjust their value orientations and have the potential to understand foreign ideas. With the passage of time and more exposure to new culture, some people may develop the basic intercultural communication skills and acquire a certain degree of intercultural personhood, but they may not be aware of it. The most striking characteristic of this stage of intercultural personhood development is shown in a monocultural way of thinking. Communicators interpret all things with their own cultural perspective and feel uncomfortable with differences (Greenholtz, 2005). Monocultural thinking is also reflected in such cultural orientations as ethnocentrism or cultural narcissism. Narcissism is a preoccupation with the self which prevents individuals from establishing valid boundary between self and the external world. It relates outside events to the needs and desires of the self, asking only what this means to me (Giddens, 1991, p.170). Cultural narcissists are preoccupied with self-fulfillment, without relating values to communication with members from other cultures. Both ethnocentrism and cultural narcissism produce stereotypes, prejudices, misunderstandings and failures in intercultural communication. The pressure of conformity demands that those people move into a new society and make cultural adaptations. In the early stage of adaptation, they may experience great psychological stress, anxiety or even crisis due to various difficulties encountered in intercultural interactions. Generally there are four response styles in dealing with the problem of acculturation: assimilation, separation, marginalization and integration. Assimilation means that individuals give up their cultural tradition and become absorbed into the host society. Separation suggests that individuals reject new culture and retreat back to their native culture. Marginalization refers to a situation in which individuals feel hesitant and have little interest in establishing relations with others. Integration implies that different groups maintain their respective cultural identities while at the same time merging into the host society. The result of cultural integration is biculturalism or multiculturalism (Berry, 2005; Ward, 2006). The typical reactions of those with little awareness of intercultural personhood in acculturation can be categorized into two kinds of radical behaviors: One is taking the values acquired early in their lives as absolute truth and refuse to make change; the other is completely coming to terms with the host society, embracing the new culture and abandoning his own. The first reaction mainly seeks refuge in cultural enclaves such as family or ethnic community, those who adopt this strategy more often

than not become highly isolated in the society. The second group of people frequently adopt instrumentalismto learn foreign language or culture for performing various tasks rather than for developing mutual ties, intercultural agreements and selftransformation. A few of the unconsciously selfcentered people may adopt marginalization, but few of them seek integration. In this sense, strong family or ethnic support may produce obstacles to acculturation and impede the development of intercultural identity. While some communicators fail to transcend a monocultural way of thinking, others are able to extend their frame of reference and further the development of intercultural personhood. When they acquire more knowledge about other cultures, they begin to recognize the possibility and validity of other ways of representing reality. Instead of viewing all things from their own perspective and denying the value of other culture. Some intercultural communicators tend to make critical evaluation on both his own and other cultures, making systematic comparisons between them and trying to identify differences and similarities. Once they intentionally make mutual adaptations and enhance intercultural agreements, they become conscious intercultural persons. This stage of intercultural communication is characterized by flexible, reflexive thinking and an extended frame of reference. Conscious intercultural person may still interpret things from his/her own perspective, but no longer take it for granted. He/She shows more empathy toward cultural others and begins to recognizes both his/her and others cultural strengths and weaknesses. In this stage of development, intercultural communicators have not achieved paradigm shiftthe fundamental change of worldview defined by Thomas Kuhn (1970). They still try to defend their tradition and resist foreign penetrations that may have serious conflicts with their core values, but they are willing to draw upon other cultures and make substantial adaptations. Navas et al. (2005) points out that intercultural adaptation is complex and relative; cultural groups would agree in the peripheral domains (e.g. Work and economic), while conflicts will occur in the more symbolic domainshard core (e.g. Family, religious belief and ways of thinking). The conscious stage of intercultural personhood is a threshold that is difficult to go beyond. In this stage, people begin to realize that there are systematic differences between the foreign and their own. They also come to realize that intercultural adaptation means comprehensive selftransformation. People always cherish their own values and symbols, it is not easy for them to make any essential compromise in intercultural negotiation. They will employ every possible means to legitimize and preserve their belief and way of life. For monocultural persons,

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

major adaptations may never take place due to their narrow-mindedness. But it is possible for conscious intercultural persons to reshape or even challenge their own values. Because they have acquired flexible and reflexive thinking, and become more rational and tolerant than those unconscious and self-centered interlocutors. This unique quality opens up the possibility of emancipating themselves from the bondage of cultural centrism and developing intercultural perspective. When individuals come to comprehend the necessity of breaking up rigid cultural boundaries and begin to integrate diverse elements in order to achieve more effective and fruitful intercultural communication, they will go beyond this stage and become matured intercultural persons. The conscious stage is vitally important in the development of intercultural personhood. Some people would choose to retreat to a monocultural cocoon and reject intercultural memberships when consciously realizing the development of intercultural personhood; but others would determine to move on to strengthen their intercultural awareness and construct intercultural identity. Self-awarenessthe ability to monitor or to be aware of ourselves is required in implementing competent behaviors in social communication (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Intercultural awareness refers to the understanding of our and others cultures which affect how people think and behave. This includes the comprehension of commonalities of human behaviors and differences of cultural patterns (Chen & Starosta, 1996). It not only smoothens intercultural communication but also facilitates identity extension and mutual growth. In the first place, intercultural awareness encourages us to explore the distinct characteristics of other cultures and consciously reshape our value orientation. Secondly, it urges us to learn to appreciate differences, enlarge our frame of reference, work out effective ways to deal with various problems and construct intercultural agreements. Thirdly, intercultural awareness helps liberate us from ethnocentrism and further develop intercultural ties and intercultural identity. The third stage is the creative stage characterized by intercultural ways of thinking and identity extension. The key difference between monocultural ways of thinking and intercultural orientation lies in their frames of reference. Monocultural communicators simply employ local knowledge to interpret communication behaviors, taking the local value as legitimate and appropriate, while taking the foreign as illegitimate and undesirable. Innovative intercultural persons, in contrast, make use of both local and foreign knowledge in comprehending communication behaviors. They no longer interpret things merely from one cultural perspective; but rather view things from both their own and others cultural lens, and try to synthesize the local

and the foreign knowledge into an extended intercultural frame of reference. When intercultural persons cultural inventory expands into bi-cultural or intercultural one, their mind has changed from ethnocentric into interculturala Copernican revolution in thinking. To be a creative intercultural person means to embark on a trip to cross ones own cultural boundary and to open up new possibilities. Intercultural persons take their own culture as the platform from which they seek intercultural agreements and aim at promoting mutual understanding, mutual identification and mutual growth. They believe in relative autonomy of their culture but at the same time fully recognize the significance of interactions among cultures. On the one hand, they spare no effort to reach intercultural agreements; on the other hand, they strongly commit to maintaining their own uniqueness. Intercultural competence entails the ability to control and modify our self-presentation (Chen & Starosta, 1998). Intercultural identity negotiation competence is typically embodied in the ability to negotiate effectively in a novel communication episode (Ting-Toomey, 1993). The creative stage marks the maturity of intercultural personhood during which people achieve final self-transformation and become truly productive communicators. Just as intersubjective dialogues constitute the most constructive area of social interaction, dialogues with intercultural persons makes up the most fruitful part of intercultural communication because new ideas or meanings are usually generated from the interface of differences. Mature intercultural persons improve identity negotiation competence with their broadened horizon, resourcefulness, win-win communication orientation, creative management of identity dynamics and synthesizing potential. They maintain an optimal sense of balance and grace as they waltz through the maze of identity chaos and identity discovery process (Ting-Toomey, 2005, p.230). It should be noted that to be an intercultural person does not suggest that individual will equally identifies with any culture he/she is exposed to. Adler (1985) states that multicultural persons identity is based, not upon a belongingness which implies being owned by culture, but on a style of self consciousness that is capable of negotiating ever new formations of reality. He/she is neither a part of nor totally apart from his/her culture, he/she lives, instead, on the boundary. Adlers multicultural person actually has a neutralized identity, thus would lose the true sense of belonging, bound to become a cultural exile. Mendoza (2002) reveals that identity construction and reconstruction are shaped by both macro level structural (historical, social and political) situations and by micro levelinteractions among cultural members. In our opinion, intercultural persons identity is

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

embedded in his social life and historical experiences. It is further shaped by intercultural encounters. He/she is more an extended person than a person who lives on the border. Members of a culture become enculturated into another host culture when they begin to acquire a bicultural tendency to cultural situations as the members of the host culture would, while still retaining the behavioral pattern prevalent in their culture of origin (Kashima et al., 2002; Ward, 2006). In the wake of intercultural adaptation, communicators may transform his/her cultural identity into intercultural identity, but the original culture will not disappear and usually coexists with the acquired one. Generally, the cultural values of the society in which he/she lives life or the society chosen to identify with constitutes the salient part of the identity. Other cultural scripts will only be activated when he/she is placed in the relevant cultural contexts. The most effective way to transcend local vision and achieve mutual growth is cultural integration. In integrating diverse cultural elements, intercultural persons localize the foreign, make the local intercultural and bridge cultural gaps. Thus, in enriching the original cultural inventory and transforming its values, intercultural persons share more common ground with others and assume a new extended identityidentity-in-unity (Yoshikawa, 1987, p.143). This new identity offers people from diverse cultures a platform to negotiate differences and establish reciprocal relationships. In order to break up cultural boundaries and facilitate productive communications, intercultural persons have to finish two basic tasks: the first is to make their cultural uniqueness known, recognized, understood and appreciated by cultural others; the second is to absorb wholesome elements from other cultures and express them in their own way. Vaclav Havel states that it logically follows that, in todays multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion. It must be rooted in self transcendence. Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners, to human community (quoted in Kim, 2000, p.65). Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation Competence In intercultural communication, each individual approaches the cultural other with his own patterned way of thinking and unique vision of the world. Communication will break down if two parties fail to establish a common ground and develop a mutually beneficial relationship. Identity negotiation in intercultural communication is a complex process influenced by many factors such as value orientation,

ethnic background, educational experiences and sociopolitical status. It refers to a transactional process whereby individuals in an intercultural situation attempt to assert, define, modify, challenge, and/or support their own and others desired self-images (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Successful identity negotiation requires intercultural competence. Chen and Starosta (1996, p.355) hold that intercultural competence is the ability to negotiate cultural meanings and to appropriately execute effective communication behaviors that recognize each others multiple identities in a specific environment. Ting-Toomey (2005) contends that competent intercultural communicators are resourceful individuals who are attuned to both self-identity and other-identity negotiation issues. We define intercultural identity negotiation competence as the ability to recognize, to validate, to transform and to extend communicators own and their counterparts identities. A person with bicultural or multicultural skills is more likely to be used to connect two culturally different groups (Yum, 1988, p.251). Intercultural person facilitates intercultural negotiation process by his/her unique qualities. In the first place, intercultural persons are in a better position to recognize and confirm interlocutors identities, and establish mutual trust. Every individual wants to be recognized and respected. When people from different cultures engage in a dialogue, they usually treat each other as strangers. Strangers possess the contradictory qualities of being both near and far at the same time, they represent both the idea of nearness in that they are physically close and the idea of remoteness in that they have different values and ways of doing things (Gudykunst, 2005). Ethnocentric individuals tend to categorize strangers in terms of skin color, dress, accents, the cars they drive, and so forth (Gudykunst, 1995). In other words, they usually classify people with stereotypes. As a consequence, strangers identity is often frozen, misjudged or ignored. Intercultural person has acquired the knowledge of other culture and understands their own and others cultural values and patterns of behavior. This promotes a capacity to identify similarities and differences between cultures. Therefore, in communicating with intercultural persons, people seldom find situations in which their identities are misrecognized or neglected. Gudykunst (1995) demonstrates that our social identities are derived from a tension between the need to be seen as similar to and fit in with others and the need to be seen as unique people. According to Hall (1990, p.226), cultural identity is framed by two axis: the axis of similarity and continuity and the axis of difference and rapture. In intercultural communication, individuals want to be recognized and included, but they also want to be autonomous and differentiated so that both self and mutual identification can be achieved. If

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

individuals attach too much importance to similarity and only adopt convergence strategy without differentiating themselves from cultural others, one result will be overaccommodation; the other will be assimilation, none of which produces reciprocal relationship. Overaccommodation makes people feel that they are treated as inferior or incompetent; assimilation makes people feel that they are imposed upon or suppressed. People demand both inclusion and differentiation in identity validation. Brown and Levinson (1978) identify two distinct face wants that people have: positive face and negative face. Positive face refers to the desire for acceptance and approval from others; negative face refers to the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition. Intercultural person is well versed in their own and others culture. They are at once similar to and different from the cultural other, thus capable of both including and differentiating from others and ultimately satisfying their positive and the negative identity needs. In recognizing and validating others identities, intercultural persons help to establish mutual trust. Ting-Toomey (1999) holds that dialectics of identity security and identity threat constitute the basis of intercultural identity negotiation. All communicators want their desired identity to be supported and affirmed. Only after they feel that their identities are secured can they have a positive attitude toward communication. When communicating with strangers, people usually experience anxiety and uncertainty. Because the immediate psychological result of encountering a cultural other is the lack of familiarity and predictability. In some extreme cases, they feel so anxious and fail to manage the situation that they simply avoid any further communication (Duronto et al., 2005). Intercultural persons can create communication context that is familiar to others, respond to their counterparts with familiar cultural scripts, making them feel at home. When others find that their identities have been recognized and validated, they experience identity trust. Once interlocutors gain confidence and establish mutual trust, they will take a positive attitude toward each other, and communication will be furthered more effectively. Secondly, intercultural persons are capable of promoting self-transformation, identity extension as well as mutual growth. As an integral part of identity negotiation process, intercultural transformation is a long struggle, through which individuals change their cultural orientations, redefine their self-images and enrich their cultural scripts. Intercultural persons think reflectively in identity negotiation. Viewing things from intercultural perspective, they are able to be critical of their own and others culture. Being constantly exposed to foreign values, they have more opportunities to learn and improve themselves. In self-transformation, people

need to acquire new values and develop new patterns of behaviors, while at the same time giving up some of the old or the irrational ones. Kim (2001, p.268) claims that the self-altering and creative capacity can be place at the heart of intercultural competence as metacompetence which is equivalent to Ting-Toomeys creative communication episode. We argue that the key element of evaluating individuals identity negotiation competence lies in identity extension. Identity extension concerns how to strike a balance between legacy maintenance and self-transformation, which makes up the critical part of the identity negotiation process. Identity validation helps people keep their cultural tradition, but this process will run into stagnation without identity change. Only when communicators endeavor to go beyond identity maintenance and draw upon each other can they have synergic interaction and accomplish more constructive intercultural communication. Ethnocentric individuals tend to see the world from local perspective. More often than not, they are unable to find the weakness of their own culture and appreciate others strength. They often harbor prejudices against cultural others, which prevents them from venturing into foreign domains, incorporating others ideas and improving themselves. Intercultural persons never take their own cultural values for granted. Their thinking is more flexible and reflective. With a broadened horizon, they will see what ethnocentric persons are unable to see, experience what ethnocentric persons are unwilling to experience and develop a way of life that embraces and incorporates seemingly divergent cultural elements into ones own unique worldview (Kim, 2000, p.63). In integrating foreign elements and extending their identities, intercultural persons enhance mutual growth. Ethnocentric persons incline to live in the monocultural cocoon (Chen, 2005, p.6). They fail to realize the value of cultural diversity. Whether people can integrate diverse cultural identities and co-construct more common ground shapes the way in which they survive and develop. Differences do not disappear with the development of intercultural communication, and they may become a source of conflict. But with the establishment of positive relationship, differences can be turned into valuable sources of cultural creation, for we learn more from people who are different from us than from those who are similar to us (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, p.4). Hall (1976) asserts that both language and culture are human extensions. Extensions make possible the sharing of human talents, enable humans to evolve much faster than any other animal and establish their dominant position on the earth. He identifies spoken language as the primary extension and written language as the second-generation extension. We further argue that ethnocentric vision is the first stage

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

of cultural extension, and intercultural vision is the second stage of development. In the first stage, people mainly share knowledge and wisdom with members from the same community, race, ethnic group or nation. When people transcend ethnocentrism and evolve into the second developing stage, they share more values and more behaviors with members from other cultures. More sharing with other cultural members significantly enriches intercultural interlocutors communicative scripts, helps to build up reciprocal relationship, and greatly accelerates human development. In establishing mutually beneficial ties and producing more agreements, intercultural persons also pave the way for the healthy and sustainable growth of human universals. Intercultural personhood plays a key part in developing identity negotiation competence, but it sometimes produces negative impacts. The major ones are identity ambiguity and identity marginalization. Extension is a principal source of alienation (Hall, 1976). Intercultural persons identify with more than one culture, rejecting rigid cultural boundaries. They are often accused of being like a chameleonchanging identities contextually without fully identifying with any specific culture. Since joining mainstream society entails a high degree of assimilation, intercultural persons are confronted with the challenge of being marginalized by their own society. For an individualist culture that attaches less importance to ingroup/outgroup difference, intercultural identification is more easily accepted. For collectivist culture that puts emphasis on ingroup/outgroup difference, it is more difficult to be legitimized. It seems that there is no final solution to the problem, but the development of globalization makes it easier for us to accept and legitimize intercultural identity. For globalization fosters global connectivity and strengthens intercultural ties. In a global era, cultural hybridization has become a mundane and commonplace social phenomenon. The interconnectivity and proximity of world cultures will certainly make us reexamine our traditional sense of cultural membership, extend our cultural attributes and redefine the meaning of identity (Chen & Starosta, 2000). Compared with other alternatives, such as multicultural man or global citizen, intercultural identity provides us a more workable solution to the dilemma produced by the paradox of identity continuity and identity change. It builds up a bridge across cultural gaps and helps us to gain equilibrium between cultural identification and identity extension. Conclusion The world has never perfectly united nor completely disintegrated, and interculturalness best reflects cultural reality and intercultural relations. Effective intercultural

communications presuppose intercultural personhood. It does not equate to an idealized communicators qualities but rather embodies the ontological openness of cultural identity, self-reflexivity, the willingness to negotiate differences, the ability to integrate diverse cultural values, as well as the potential to achieve identity extension and mutual growth. In expressing group membership, intercultural persons transcend the traditional sense of identity, and endeavor to develop more sharing with members from other cultures. In the early stage of development, communicators may not be aware that they possess intercultural personhood. The moment when they begin to acquire the attributes of intercultural identity and consciously develop intercultural ties, communication will be much easier and more constructive. After intercultural person finally shifts their way of thinking and accomplishes self-transformation, he/she grows into maturity and becomes both creative and productive. Intercultural personhood proves to be one of the most fundamental and indispensable links in intercultural communication. Just like culture and communication, intercultural personhood is also a complex and puzzling phenomenon. In this paper, we have only roughly discussed its definition, the developing process and how it shapes identity negotiation competence, leaving many questions unanswered. For example, what role does intercultural person play in managing intercultural conflicts? In what way does ethnicity affect the development of intercultural identity? Presently, globalization has significantly accelerated cultural integration. In dealing with the ramifications of globalization, people have never found it so necessary and so urgent to negotiate and reconstruct their identities. Cultural integration does not lead to cultural homogeneity but rather the expansion of interculturalness and more complicated intercultural relations, both of which merit systematic and in-depth investigations on intercultural personhood. Correspondence to: Dr. Xiao-Dong Dai 100 Guilin Road, Foreign Languages College Shanghai Normal University Shanghai, China, 200234 Email: xddai@shnu.edu.cn References Adler, P. S. (1985). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicultural man. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp.410-425). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2004). Selfexpansion model of motivation and cognition in

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

close relationships and beyond. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp.99-123). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Arens, E. (1997). Discourse ethics and its relevance for communication and media ethics. In C. Christians & M. Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and universal values (pp.46-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ashimore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Writing sociology of scientific knowledge, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A development model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp.21-71) (second edition), Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural. Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage, London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. Intercultural Communication Yearbook, 19, 353383. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). Communication and global society: An introduction. In G. M. Chen & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp.1-16). New York: Peter Lang. Chen, G. M. (2005). A model of global communication competence , China Media Research, Vol. 1, No.1, 3-11. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Collier, M. J. (2000). Reconstructing cultural diversity in global relationships: Negotiating the borderland. In G. M. Chen & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp.215-236). New York: Peter Lang. Ct, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cronen, V. E., Chen, V., & Pearce, W. B. (1988). Coordinated management of meaning: A critical theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.66-98). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence in intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp.112-131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Diggs, R. C., & Clark, K. D. (2002). Its a struggle but worth it: Managing identities in an interracial friendship. Communication Quarterly, Vol. 50, No.3&4 (Special Issue Part II), 368-390. Duronto, M. et al. (2005). Uncertainty, anxiety, and avoidance in communication with strangers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 549-560. Evanoff, R. J. (2004). Universalist, relativist, and constructivist approaches to intercultural ethics. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 439-458. Fang, T. H. (1980). The Chinese view of life: The philosophy of comprehensive harmony. Taipei: Linking. Fisher, G. (1997). Mindset: The role of culture and perception in intercultural relations. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural. Foley, W. A. (2001). Anthropological linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research. Gallois, C. et al. (2005). Communication accommodation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.121-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Geertz, C. (2000). Available light: Anthropological reflections on philosophical topics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Greenholtz, J. F. (2005). Does intercultural sensitivity cross cultures? Validity issues in porting instruments across languages and cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 73-89. Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp.8-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gudykunst W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (fourth edition). New York: The McGraw-Hill. Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of strangers intercultural adjustment. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.419-457). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books.

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

10

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: community, culture and difference (pp.222-237). London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart. Hecht, M. L. (1998). Communicating prejudice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hecht, M. L. et al. (2005). A Communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.257-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hegde, R. S.. (1998) Swinging the trapeze: The negotiation of identity among Asian Indian immigrant women in the United States. In D. V. Tanno & A. Gonzlez (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures (pp.34-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hermans, H. J. (2002). The dialogical self: One person, different stories. In Y. Kashima et al. (Eds.), Self and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic (pp.7199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary et al. (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp.462479), New York: The Guilford. Houston, M., & Davis, O. I. (1994). When black women talk with white women: Why dialogues are difficult. In A. Gonzalez et al. (Eds.), Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity, and communication (pp.187-194). Cary, NC: Roxbury. Imahori, T. T., & Cupach, W. R. (2005). Identity management theory: Facework in intercultural relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.195-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kashima, Y. (2002). Culture and self: A cultural dynamical analysis. In Y. Kashima et al. (Eds.), Self and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic (pp.207-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kim, Y. Y. (2000). On becoming intercultural. In Myron, W. L. & Jolene, K. (Eds.), Among us: Essays on identity, belonging, and intercultural competence (pp.59-67). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and crosscultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 359-368. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago University Press. Littlejohn, S. W. (2003). Theories of human communication (seventh edition). Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2001). Experiencing intercultural communication: An introduction. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Mendoza, S. L, et al. (2002). Moving the discourse on identities in intercultural communication: Structure, culture, and resignifications. Communication Quarterly, Vol.50, No. 3&4 Summer-Fall, 312-327. Moss, K., & Faux, W. V. (2006). The Enactment of cultural identity in student conversation on intercultural topics. The Howard Journal of Communications, 17, 21-37. Navas, M. et al. (2005). Relative acculturation extended model (RAEM): New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21-37. Pasquali, A. (1997). The moral dimension of communicating. In C. Christians & Michael Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and universal values (pp.24-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ross, M., & Buehler, R. (2004). Identity through time: Constructing personal pasts and futures. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp.25-51). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Samovar, L. A. et al. (2000). Communication between cultures (third edition). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education. Sarbaugh, L. E. (1988). Intercultural communication. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shusterman, R. (1998). Understanding the selfs others. In C. Gupta & D. P. Chattopadhyaya (Eds.), Cultural otherness and beyond (pp.107-114). Leiden, MA: Brill. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation theory. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp.72-111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

11

editor@chinamediaresearch.net

China Media Research, 5(2), 2009, Dai, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation

intercultural communication (pp.211-234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tu, W. (2001). The context of dialogue: Globalization and diversity. In Giandomenico Picco et al. Crossing the divide: Dialogue among civilizations (pp.51-96). South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University Press. Ward, C. (2006). Acculturation, identity and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. International Journal

of intercultural Relations, 30, 243-259. Yoshikawa, M. J. (1987). Cross-cultural adaptation and perceptual development. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. XI, 140148. Yum, J. O. (1988). Network theory in intercultural communication. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.239-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

http://www.chinamediaresearch.net

12

editor@chinamediaresearch.net