Links Between Intercultural Communication Theories and Postcolonial Approaches1
In this chapter, Britta Kalscheuer explores the possibility of incorporating postcolonial theory into intercultural communication scholarship from a German perspective. She begins her theoretical excursion by briefly describing the development of intercultural communication as a field of study in the United States. Like Leeds-Hurwitz (Chapter 1), Kalscheuer credits Edward T. Hall for founding the intercultural communication field with his groundbreaking work on nonverbal messages and communication contexts. She then addresses some fundamental issues in intercultural communication theory and research: (1) an overemphasis on interpersonal interactions, (2) Eurocentric theoretical underpinnings, and (3) the treatment of culture as stable and homogeneous. Based on her review and critique, Kalscheuer discusses the possibility of incorporating the postcolonial approach with its emphasis on macro-analysis into conventional intercultural communication research with its focus on micro-analysis. Rather than uncritically adopting postcolonial theory, however, she recognizes the shortcoming of Homi Bhabha’s notion of “the third space,” which ironically failed to consider the impact of power on the in-between sphere of interaction, and introduces the theory of transdifference as an alternative postcolonial approach to the study of intercultural communication.
The Challenge of Intercultural Communication
In a globalized world, where intercultural contacts increase significantly because of new communication and information technologies as well as improved transport systems, intercultural communication becomes one of the major challenges. Today, more people than ever are confronted by foreigners, e.g. students, business people and tourists. This development does not only imply great opportunities but it also has potential for conflicts. While the chance to learn from people with divergent cultural backgrounds is quite obvious, a rather problematic aspect, which accompanies the learning process, is not always seen clearly: The fact that members of all cultures have to cope with people from divergent cultures may contribute to a strengthening of the boundary between oneself and the other—it is a widespread attitude to perceive the foreign as a threat for one’s own identity, which therefore needs to be defended. That’s why intercultural communication becomes so important and its main task is to make sure that cultural differences do not become a barrier to mutual understanding.
The SIETAR (Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research) was established in 1975. Since then, intercultural understanding—which marks the endpoint of the intercultural communication process as such—has become one of the most pressing tasks. To make it happen is just as important today as it was in the 1970s. Correspondingly, one can observe a continuous if not an increasing amount of publications on intercultural topics, especially intercultural communication and intercultural competence, in the course of at least the last four decades.2 Today, intercultural communication has become a standard topic of research.
In the meantime, many divergent definitions of intercultural communication and related concepts arose in the debate; there is no agreement on one singular definition though. Nevertheless, many of the intercultural approaches use the term intercultural communication in the sense outlined by the anthropologist Edward Twitchell Hall. He is generally perceived as the founder of intercultural communication research. Hall initiated it more than fifty years ago and his interpersonal approach to intercultural communication is still the predominant one in intercultural communication endeavors today. In accordance with Hall’s interpersonal approach to intercultural communication, many interculturalists define intercultural communication very broadly as communication between members of different cultures. Samovar and Porter, for example, give the following definition: ‘Whenever the parties to a communication act bring with them different experiential backgrounds that reflect a long-standing deposit of group experience, knowledge and values, we have intercultural communication.’3
The Rise of Intercultural Communication Theories in the United States
The United States was the first to become involved in intercultural communication. As Japan became especially more important in economics, some American researchers began to deal with its cultural specifics, not only in order to find out reasons for the immense economic growth, but also to prepare American business people for their encounters with the Japanese. The interest was mainly a pragmatic one; its intention was to understand cultural differences and thereby ensure that they did not become a barrier to intercultural communication (and in the end to their own economic interests).
Hall had a rather pragmatic interest in intercultural communication. He did not intend to found intercultural communication as a scientific discipline. Nonetheless, today he is seen as having done exactly this. The following brief overview of the history of intercultural communication in the United States follows the system of Chen and Starosta.4
After Hall introduced the term intercultural communication in the late 1950s, it took some time to widen the field of intercultural communication and to introduce it as a scientific discipline. But since the 1970s, the debate on intercultural communication has developed quickly. By the end of the decade Asante and Gudykunst edited the Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication.5 Two years before, the first volume of the International Journal of Intercultural Communication was published, which today is one of the most important journals on intercultural communication. Moreover, Samovar and Porter published their first reader on intercultural communication, which has been republished every few years,6 and Condon and Yousef published their introduction to intercultural communication.7 Other important works emerged during this period: Prosser’s Intercommunication Among Nations and Peoples and Dodd’s Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Communication.8 These early works on intercultural communication are still today of great importance. Overall, the 1970s central feature in the intercultural landscape was confusion.
In the 1980s, Condon and Yousef, as well as Samovar and Porter, continued to integrate intercultural communication as a scientific discipline. The debates in the United States were interdisciplinary in nature. Then another prominent representative of intercultural communication theory entered the debate: William B. Gudykunst. He is not only the author of Intercultural Communication Theory and co-editor of the volume Theories in Intercultural Communication, he is also co-editor of the Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication.9 In the 1980s, Gudykunst was one of the central figures engaged in intercultural communication. Thanks to him, intercultural communication could now be distinguished from cross-cultural, international and mass media communication. Yet, Gudykunst was not the only important person to emerge on the scientific platform. Kincaid published his Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives, which is currently one of the few and very important attempts to combine Western and non-Western concepts.10 Finally, the most important institution of intercultural communication was founded: the SIETAR (Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research). Its foundation was an important step towards the institutionalization of intercultural communication. Nowadays, it is acknowledged worldwide as an arena to discuss the questions and problems which emerge in intercultural contexts.
From the 1980s onwards, intercultural communication became self-employed. Many textbooks on intercultural communication and on intercultural training appeared. Besides, the works of some of the most important researchers in the field of intercultural communication are re-edited every few years and in the United States numerous introductions to intercultural communication theory and praxis are published.
Without doubt, the United States was the first to become involved in intercultural communication, but step-by-step the debate spread to other countries. It must not be ignored that intercultural communication endeavors are embedded in different socio-historical and cultural contexts, which place different value on it. Besides, unlike the interdisciplinary nature of intercultural communication in the U.S., it seems to be a German peculiarity that new intercultural disciplines emerged within the already established ones.
Silent Languages and Hidden Differences: The Approach of Edward T. Hall
The origin of the establishment of intercultural communication as a discipline can be traced back to Hall, who is broadly accepted as the founder of all intercultural communication endeavors.11 As early as in the 1950s—during his work at the Foreign Service Center (FSC)—Hall recognized the importance of cultural differences in cross-cultural situations, where members of different cultures meet. His intention was to describe cultural differences, which affect the communication styles, not to develop a meta-theory of culture. Hall began to publish his ideas on intercultural communication not until he had finished his engagement at the FSC. In 1959, he published the book Silent Language, in which he introduced the term intercultural communication. Other books, which summarize his work experiences on cultural differences at the FSC, followed.12
Central to Hall’s approach to intercultural communication is the assumption that all cultures have an identity of their own, which guarantees that people refer to a common set of values and beliefs. All of these form the material of the covert culture. Unlike the overt culture, elements of the covert culture are not part of individual awareness and reflection. It was Hall’s deepest conviction that cultures hide more than they reveal: ‘Each culture has a hidden code of behavior that can rarely be understood without a code breaker. Even though culture is experienced personally […], it is nonetheless a shared system. Members of a common culture not only share information, they share methods of coding, storing, and retrieving that information.’13
As long as people are not confronted with members of a different culture, their own culture seems natural and unquestioned. But Hall is quite right to ask how long one can afford to ignore one’s own cultural dimension?14 Because the members of a specific culture normally are not aware of the constituents of their own unique culture, the primary task is to understand one’s own culture, first.15 According to Hall everyone perceives the world in a specific way:
The concept that no two people see exactly the same thing when actively using their eyes […] is shocking to some people because it implies that not all men relate to the world around them in the same way. Without recognition of these differences, however, the process of translating from one perceptual world to another cannot take place. The distance between the perceptual worlds of two people of the same culture is certainly less than between two people of different cultures, but it can still present problems.16
Correspondingly, the risk that different worldviews lead to misunderstandings is even higher in cross-cultural situations. In general, different worldviews in interactions are held responsible for problems and misunderstandings:
In the briefest possible sense, the message of this book [The Hidden Dimension] is that no matter how hard man tries it is impossible for him to divest himself of his own culture, for it has penetrated to the roots of his nervous system and determines how he perceives the world. Most of culture lies hidden and is outside voluntary control, making up the way and weft of human existence. Even when small fragments of culture are elevated to awareness, they are difficult to change, not only because they are so personally experienced but because people cannot act or interact at all in any meaningful ways except through the medium of cultured.17
As soon as one has learned to think and behave in a specific way, it is very difficult to change this attitude.18 Paradoxically, in order to be an effective intercultural communicator, one is required to be in a permanent move and change of attitudes. All people tend to consider their own cultural beliefs as universal ones. The risk in intercultural communication lies in the fact that neither side accepts the cultural specifics of other cultures as equally true.
The denial of the (partial) validity of conflicting worldviews represents a great barrier in cross-cultural situations. Some of the problems that arise in intercultural contexts have to do with the fact that little is known about cross-cultural communication. When it becomes apparent that members of different cultures do not understand each other, each side blames the other one. Cultural blindness hinders the acceptance of different cultural identities. Nonetheless, Hall considers diversity as something very positive.19 The capability to extend one’s culture is a necessary one to achieve understanding in intercultural situations.20
In agreement with his argument that culture influences the communication styles, Hall searches for standards which allow a comparison (and understanding) of different cultures. In Hall’s view, cultural differences affect not only verbal, but also nonverbal communication values, beliefs and worldviews. In cooperation with his colleague Trager he developed a map of culture, which consists of ten primary message systems.21 To date, research on cultural dimensions (e.g. the classification of cultures) is a central part of all intercultural endeavors.
One way to approach cultural differences is Hall’s proxemic view. Its starting point is that all men structure their space in a unique way. Proxemics serves to learn about the ways different degrees of (spatial) nearness affect behavioral patterns.22 In this view, space (e.g. distance) is a cultural dimension which influences how people perceive the world. Differences in the distance people need to feel comfortable in an interaction sequence can lead to problems and misunderstandings.
But space is not the only dimension which is culturally specific, another one is time: ‘A complicating factor in intercultural relations is that each culture has its own time frames in which patterns are unique. This means that to function effectively abroad it is just as necessary to learn the language of time as it is to learn the spoken language.’23 His book The Dance of Life deals with the question how members of different cultures handle time: ‘It deals with the most personal of all experiences: how people are tied together and yet isolated from each other by invisible threads of rhythm and hidden walls of time. Time is treated as a language, as a primary organizer for all activities, a synthesizer and integrator.’24 According to Hall, each culture has its own rhythm. This leads him to distinguish between monochromic and polychronic cultures, two systems which differ logically and empirically and which do not mix: ‘M-time is also tangible; we speak of it as being saved, spent, wasted, lost, made up, crawling, killed and running out. These metaphors must be taken seriously. M-time scheduling is used as a classification system that orders life. The rules apply do everything except birth and death.’25 On the other hand, polychrome time is less scheduled and more spontaneous; people of polychronic cultures often do several things at once or break the rigid order of the schedule.
Finally, Hall introduces another cultural dimension, which refers to the degree of information transported through the context in the communication process. His starting point is that everything is determined by the degree of contextualization: ‘The level of context determines everything about the nature of communication and is the foundation in which all subsequent behavior rests.’26 Culture selects what is, and what is not perceived by its members:
One of the functions of culture is to provide a highly selective screen between man and the outside world. In its many forms, culture therefore designates what we pay attention to and what we ignore. This screening function provides structure for the world and protects the nervous system from ‘information overload.’ Information overload is a technical term applied to information-processing systems. It describes a situation in which the system breaks down when it cannot properly handle the huge volume of information to which it is subjected.27
In accordance to the degree that information is verbalized or not, Hall distinguishes between high and low-context cultures: While in low-context cultures almost everything has to be verbalized, high-context cultures transport a great deal of the information by the context (e.g. non-verbal codes): ‘A high-context (HC) communication or message is 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. A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e. the mass of information is vested in the explicit code.’28
The aforementioned cultural dimensions are all etic ones. Etic concepts are concepts which are viewed as universal ones. It is believed that the concepts can be used in order to measure and classify the markedness of the universal in a specific culture. Most of the cultural dimensions presented in the intercultural discourse are etic ones, for example, the dimensions of Hofstede and also the ones of Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars.29 Etic concepts are criticized for their underlying universalism, which is not regarded as the appropriate way to understand the inner logic of a foreign culture. Therefore, they have been complemented by ernic concepts, which have been developed from inside the foreign culture. They are less popular in the intercultural communication discourse but examples for the Chinese culture are the concept of face and guanxi.30
Towards a Critique of Intercultural Communication Theory
It is not the main purpose of this article to give an overview of intercultural communication theories or to formulate a broad critique. Instead, its intention is to hint at several difficulties, which are indicated in intercultural communication theories. The aim is to create a critical consciousness in order to improve further intercultural communication endeavors so that they better fulfill their purpose in the contemporary world, which is more complex than the majority of intercultural communication theory assumes. Many intercultural theories are still formulated in the tradition of the grounding father Edward T. Hall, whose approach has been presented. The interpersonal approach to intercultural communication dominates the field.
As stated before, Hall’s starting point is the assumption that all cultures are unique. Whereas communication in the monocultural field is facilitated by a system of common beliefs and values, cultural differences are visible in the intercultural field, when members of divergent cultures meet. No common set of beliefs and values exists to which people from divergent cultures can refer. This is the main reason for the problems, irritations and misunderstandings that emerge in the intercultural context. Intercultural communication is generally regarded as ‘problem solver’; its task is to avoid the way cultural differences harm the communication process between members of divergent cultures.
Paradoxically, most publications on intercultural communication evoke the impression that cultural differences are unbridgeable; on the surface of the discourse appears a cultural relativism that implies an equality of all cultures and all members of a culture. However, the relativism, which may be perceived at first glance, is deceptive: Under the cloak of this relativism and equality can be discovered a hidden universalistic tendency based on ‘Western’ normative concepts like intercultural communication, intercultural understanding, human nature and so on. Most of the approaches are deeply rooted in ‘Western’ culture and its particularity. European and American (‘Western’) values are seen as necessary and valid for all cultures. Similarly, ‘Western’ scientific concepts are viewed as valid for all cultures, too. Insofar as Miike’s question, if the intercultural field is truly intercultural is a rhetorical one: ‘Are we as intercultural communication scholars really trying to make our work intercultural?’ he asks and refers to the topics scientists pursue, the theories they build and the methodologies they employ.31 He criticizes the ‘hegemonic Eurocentrism,’ which systematically privileges theorizing and research methods of ‘Western’ origin. He detects three manifestations of Eurocentrism in intercultural communication studies: ‘1) theoretical concepts and constructs, 2) research material and methodology, and 3) otherization in theory and research.’32 Miike’s critique implies the imagination of a hidden universalism, that ignores fundamental asymmetries concerning the distribution of power; an argument that can be underlined by the fact that ‘non-Western’ cultures now have to participate in an intercultural discourse that is entirely dominated by Western concepts. One can interpret this fact as a continuation of Western imperialism. It means that intercultural communication and understanding is already prevented in the very basic foundations of most intercultural approaches.33
Many difficulties in the intercultural field already arise from the underlying concept of culture. Hofstede’s approach, for example, is very similar to Hall’s approach. Both conceptualize culture as something that can be identified in every society and that is relatively stable and homogeneous. Every culture has its uniqueness, so they argue. And Hall as well as Hofstede approach the uniqueness of a foreign culture by using cultural dimensions, which reduce cultural uniqueness to variations of an underlying universal concept—which is normally developed by Western scientists.
Hofstede argues that in each culture, one can identify a few ‘mental programs’ that are learned in early childhood and after that fully internalized and hardly to change; in the intercultural field they cause misunderstandings. Mental programs are relatively stable, because once they have been internalized, they become a central component of one’s own identity, which cannot be questioned because of the need for certainty. In his extensive analysis of IBM-employees from fifty nations, Hofstede found four dimensions of cultural differences, namely power distance, collectivism vs. individualism, masculinity vs. femininity and uncertainty avoidance.34 The underlying argument is that all cultures are confronted with a number of common problems, which are solved in a culturally specific way. Among others, Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars as well as Lewis argue similarly.35
If cultures are presented as homogeneous and stable in nature, the boundaries between different cultures seem to be very strict and unchangeable; cultural differences seem to be naturally given and unbridgeable. This impression can be traced back to the fact that recently developed concepts of culture, which emphasize the hybrid nature of cultures, are ignored.36 The consequence is that one fails to consider the reciprocal influences that cultures have on each other and the cultural diversity originating from the increasing mixture of peoples and cultures is neglected. The effect is an essentializing of cultural differences and a strengthening of the boundaries between different cultures. Chuang calls these problems in intercultural communication theories ‘the principal shortcomings of logical positivism and essentialized cultural differences.’ He finds an ‘overwhelmingly binary representation of cultural differences,’ which has been achieved by a ‘reification of a variety of dualisms.’37 In addition, he emphasizes that the positivistic approach in intercultural communication hinders the consideration of power and privilege as well as the reflection of the multiplicity of cultural identity.
This is especially evident in approaches to intercultural communication where a ‘third culture’ is introduced.38 Santiago-Valles argues that third order research is necessary in the globalized context.39 In a temporary evolving third culture one’s own cultural boundedness is loosened: Its general validity is questioned because of the confrontation with divergent cultural patterns. Intercultural communication theorists present this as enrichment: One can escape the prison of his/her own culture and learn from the foreign. The place where members of different cultures meet is presented as an in-between space of the original cultures. This space is not fixed—it is temporary and provisional. It is as a place which facilitates cultural encounters: One is open to the expectations and the wishes of the foreign. Tolerance, politeness and flexibility are underlying rules that facilitate the communication process. Thomas uses the term ‘transcultural space’ for this spatial zone between cultures:
This transient space can open before one (or under one’s feet, so to speak) to suddenly overwhelm one in misrepresentation. It can just as easily close up behind one, or draw away from one’s immediate presence, as if nothing significant had taken place, except, perhaps, the inexplicable or accidental catastrophe of one’s own injury, or death. To this type of space I have given the name transcultural space.40
But in the last instance, interculturalists fail to consider the possibility of changes, which they postulate to take place in a temporary evolving in-between space or third culture—their basic theoretical assumptions do not leave any room for a modification or renewal of cultural patterns. The fact that interculturalists ignore the permanent shifting nature of cultures, although they develop models of identity change, which are caused by the confrontation with members of divergent cultures, has to be seen as one of the principal shortcomings of intercultural communication theories. The individual may change,41 but the widening of its consciousness does not have any consequences with regard to the culture they belong to. Culture itself remains homogeneous and stable. The openness and flexibility of the in-between space or third culture seems to be temporarily restricted to the moment of cultural encounter. Once the members from divergent cultures leave each other, they again identify with the cultural patterns and values of their original culture—this is the impression one gets when studying intercultural theories.
A Plea for the Integration of Postcolonial Insights Into Intercultural Communication Theories?
It is more necessary […] to transform concepts, to displace them, to turn them against their presuppositions, to reinscribe them in other chains, and little by little to modify the terrain of our work and thereby produce new configurations […] Breaks are always, and fatally, rein-scribed in an old cloth that must continually, interminably be undone.42
In order to overcome the mentioned difficulties in intercultural communication theories, some scholars have demanded to integrate postcolonial insights into intercultural communication theory. As Hibler argues, to date, the majority of intercultural communication theory and research has failed to consider postcolonial insights.43 Collier and Young are exceptions.44 For this absence of postcolonial reasoning in the intercultural field Hibler offers three reasons: 1) intercultural researchers dominate the field who strive for prediction and effectiveness, 2) intercultural communication researchers focus on micro phenomena, postcolonialists on macro phenomena, and 3) the consideration of postcolonial insights would invalidate nearly all previous research, because it criticizes the Eurocentrism and imperialism of Western discourses. In this perspective, the neglect of postcolonial insights in intercultural communication theories is a defense of the achievements of intercultural communication.
It is true that the combination of postcolonial and intercultural communication theory would bring about some problems, one aspect of which has been already mentioned: postcolonialism primarily refers to macro, whereas intercultural communication refers to micro phenomena. The approaches also imply different concepts of culture. While interculturalists usually view culture as homogeneous and stable, as something to be attached to a coherent group of symbols and meanings, postcolonialists accentuate the fragmented character of culture: culture is a battleground, where different people compete for power, where communities of resistance emerge. These different conceptualizations of cultures cannot be easily reconciled. Nonetheless, it remains unquestioned that interculturalists could benefit from a more open understanding of culture. If they only would strive less for consistency and accept ambiguities like postcolonialists do, they would be able to become more intercultural in nature. But Hibler is quite right to argue that an integration of postcolonial insights would invalidate intercultural approaches because most of them use the traditional concept of culture as a starting point for the cultural dimensions they present.
Although it is apparent that the approaches are incompatible, Hibler nonetheless suggests informing intercultural communication by postcolonial theory: ‘A postcolonial critique of inter/cultural communication would discuss the ways that previous and current intercultural communication research perpetuates imperial domination.’45 And she quotes Shome, who poses the following question:
To what extent do our scholarly practices decide—whether they be the kind of issues we explore in our research, the themes around which we organize our teaching syllabi, or the way that we structure our conferences and decide who speaks (and does not speak), about what, in the name of intellectual practices—legitimize the hegemony of Western power structures?46
One of the advantages of a postcolonial informed theory and praxis of intercultural communication would be an increased self-reflexivity, which clarifies the scholars’ contribution to the prevalence of hegemony, e.g. imperialism. It would mean posing questions such as: ‘How does my own subject position, in terms of history, economics, race, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, sexual orientation, religion and occupation affect my research? How might these factors make my research possible? How will they affect my interactions with participants? How do they help me decide what to write and what to keep silent?’47 This would require calling one’s practice into question, in the sense Spivak and others have formulated their postcolonial critique.48 It would mean to force the critical turn in the study of intercultural communication studies, which recently began to develop.49
Although a critical turn in the mentioned sense is long overdue in intercultural communication, it is not sure that it really makes sense to integrate postcolonial insights into intercultural communication theories. Though it is doubtless that interculturalists need to increase their degree of self-reflexivity in order to become more intercultural in nature, it is doubtful that all its problems will be solved in this manner given some problems postcolonial theory still entails.
Problems With Postcolonial Theory
The term postcolonialism was introduced in the 1970s in order to criticize the power relations which were established in colonial times. One of the most important representatives in the post-colonial debate is Said, who criticized the practice of Western imperialism. In his work Orientalism he worked out the strategy of Otherization that Occidentals used to create an imaginative geography. It established a distance between Occidentals and Orientals and implied the imagination of an unequal development. Because Orientals were considered to be backwards, this practice supported the continuation of imperial power.50
Central to postcolonialism is an analysis of how power influences the representation and interpretation of the foreign. Postcolonialists stand up for the interests of marginals. Spivak for example asks if the subaltern can speak?51 Bhabha, too, concentrates on the question of what possibilities do marginals have to build communities of resistance and to be heard.52
The ‘post’ in postcolonialism stands for a critical consciousness. De Toro outlines some characteristics for post-theory in general:
The Post of Post-Theory addresses radical epistemological changes, the shifting of traditional disciplinary boundaries, and what is more important, a different organization and delivery of knowledge. What the Post-theoretical Condition entails is a radical questioning of how, today, we approach objects of knowledge. In fact, it is this probing of the what, the where and the how of current ‘epistemologies,’ that the post-theoretical thinking begins, by questioning the ontological status of knowledge […] Perhaps the best way to characterize this epistème which we have named the Post-Theoretical Condition, is by underlining what it introduces to the object and practice of knowledge: (a) the dissolution of disciplinary boundaries; (b) the simultaneous elaboration of theory from conflicting epistemologies, (c) the theoretical production from the margins; and (d) the search for a ‘beyond,’ a third theoretical space.53
In the last years, concepts of in-between spaces (e.g. border zones) have gained prominence. In-between spaces are places of permanent movement; they constantly shift in nature. Thanks to Henri Lefebvre, in-between spaces have been rediscovered.54 Soja refers to Lefebvre’s work in particular. Like Lefebvre, he introduces a third term in order to overcome the dualisms which for a long time dominated in geography: Thirdspace. Soja repeatedly accentuates the radical openness and creativity of the third space. If one reads his book Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-lmagined Places, one gets the impression that he uses the third space as an umbrella term for all new concepts, which imply a going beyond dualistic terms. Soja himself presents thirdspace as ‘rooted in just such a recombinational and radically open perspective.’ This radical openness is not only constitutive for the ‘critical strategy of thirding as othering’ but also for the concept of thirdspace itself.55
When Soja suggests the term ‘critical thirding as othering’ he does not only intend to introduce a third dimension, but to permanently strive to complement knowledge. In his opinion, the entrance in a third space enables other positions to emerge—an argument, which is also to be found in Bhabha’s argumentation. Soja as well as Bhabha argue that thirdspace as in-between space enables marginals to disorder, deconstruct and reconstitute the dominant definitions of belonging and power relations. They define thirdspace as a place where marginals build a community of resistance in order to be heard by the powerful representatives.
Let us have a closer look at Bhabha’s position. As a representative of postcolonialism, Bhabha intends to go beyond colonialism. Differences which dominated in the colonial period should lose their validity. Bhabha questions the position of self-appointed authorities who treat culture and its characteristics as something normal and natural. In his opinion the conceptualization of cultures as fixed and homogeneous entities is untenable:
It is only when we understand that all cultural statements and systems are constructed in this contradictory and ambivalent space of enunciation [i.e. the third space, BK], that we begin to understand why historical claims to be inherent originality or ‘purity’ of cultures are untenable, even before we resort to empirical historical instances that demonstrate their hybridity.56
Bhabha repeatedly stresses the hybrid nature of cultures. Even when he does not give a precise definition of hybridity, it is quite clear that he refers to the dynamics of cultures, which even make possible that existing power relations between the colonizer and the colonized can be modified: ‘[H]ybridity to me,’ he states, ‘is the “third space” which enables other positions to emerge. This third space displaces the histories that constitute it and sets up new structures of authority new political initiatives, which are inadequately understood through received wisdom.’57 Hybridity to him is the result of an identification process by others; it is understood as a recombination of elements that are rooted in different traditions and that are creatively combined in the interstitial space between cultures.
Bhabha makes use of the hybridity concept to explain how authority is questioned and thereby disrupted, what resources re-establish authority and eventually where this modification of authority fails. He strives for subverting the dominant discourse and also for putting into practice social justice. For Bhabha, hybridity is a problem of the power discourse of colonial representation. It refers to a constellation of conflicting forces, which is modified, so that the oppressed comes back to the surface and undermines the basis of the colonial authority. It is in the in-between spaces of cultures that the oppressed can come back to the surface and be rearticulated.
But how does it work? To clarify this question, Bhabha gives special attention to the processes that take place in the places between cultures. It is an ‘interstitial passage,’ which is situated between the fixed identities and their inherent hierarchies. It makes clear that ‘[t]he very concepts of homogeneous national cultures, the consensual or contiguous transmission of historical traditions, or “organic” ethnic communities […] are in a profound process of redefinition.’58 Central to Bhabha’s redefinition of these concepts is his own concept of cultural difference. He pays special attention to the ambiguity of cultural differences; cultural differences are not fixed but negotiated in the moment of enunciation. By focusing on the ambiguity and uncertainty of articulations, he situates cultures in an uncertain, unstable border zone where articulations are negotiated and cultural hierarchies can be judged anew:
The enunciative process introduces a split in the performative present of cultural identification; a split between the traditional culturalist demand for a model, a tradition, a community, a stable system of reference, and the necessary negation of the certitude in the articulation of new cultural demands, meanings, strategies in the political present, as a practice of domination, or resistance.59
For Bhabha this is a very productive space; cultural meanings permanently change.60
In this context, hybridity becomes important as an immanent characteristic of cultures; newness enters the world, questions existing structures of authorities and politics thereby establishing the preconditions for a modified relationship between the colonizer and the (oppressed) colonized. Bhabha conceptualizes the third space as a place, where marginals can alter identity and power relations. These are not fixed, but the result of negotiations. In this manner, he argues, it is made possible to go beyond the power relations, which have been established by the colonizers. In Bhabha’s opinion, which is compatible with Soja’s view, this crossing of colonialism is to be viewed as the most innovative aspect:
What is theoretically innovative, and politically crucial, is the need to think beyond narratives of originary and initial subjectivities and to focus on those moments or processes that are produced in the articulation of cultural differences. These ‘in-between’ spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood—singular or communal that initiate new signs of identity, and innovative sides of collaboration, and contestation, in the act of defining the idea of society itself.61
It remains unquestioned that Bhabha’s approach has the potential to criticize the grounding for hegemony and to change the relation between colonizer and colonized. However, when Bhabha states that ‘“people” always exist as a multiple form of identification, waiting to be created and constructed’ and thereby stresses interventions and the agency of marginals, perhaps he is too idealistic. Do marginals really have the chance to ‘set up new structures of authority’?62 Or did Bhabha forget the question that Spivak raised in 1998, namely: Can the subaltern speak? Enthusiastically, he searched for possibilities and ways for marginals to get heard; yet he forgot to prove if marginals, once they enter the third space, have a chance to be heard or not. The precondition would be that they have equal chances to articulate their interests as do the powerful representatives. Here lies the problem: although Bhabha aims to point out ways which allow marginals to become more powerful, he paradoxically fails to consider aspects of power. Marginals do not have the same chances to articulate their interests and the powerful representatives surely have an interest to keep their powerful position. It is to be expected that they do everything to break down the resistance of the marginals who would then remain ineffective. Like interculturalists, Bhabha (and other postcolonialists, too) does not pay enough attention to aspects of power and the unequally distributed chances of articulating one’s very own interests.
The Concept of Transdifference—A Way Out of the Dilemma?
An alternative approach that takes aspects of power into consideration and therefore could inform intercultural theories is transdifference, which was formulated by Breinig and Lösch. Starting from their own dissatisfaction with those concepts that either underestimate the importance of cultural differences by deconstructing them or overestimate cultural differences by formulating a new synthesis, they define transdifference as follows:
Transdifference, as we define it, denotes all that which resists the construction of meaning based on an exclusionary and conclusional binary model. While there can be no transdifference without difference—transdifference does not mean indifference—, the term refers to whatever runs ‘through’ the line of demarcation drawn by binary difference. It does not do away with the originary binary inscription of difference, but rather causes it to oscillate. Thus, the concept of transdifference interrogates the validity of binary constructions of difference without completely deconstructing them. This means that difference is simultaneously bracketed and yet retained as a point of reference. The term of transdifference refers to such areas of language, thought, and experience that are excluded by the either/or while retaining difference both in its logical and experiential aspects.63
Breinig and Lösch place transdifference on three levels: the intrasystemic, the intersystemic, and finally the individual level. A closer examination of all three levels reveals different aspects of power. On the intrasystemic level, Breinig and Lösch focus on the question of how everything is oppressed that threatens the order and how alternative possibilities to fix meaning are exorcised. By referring to Luhman’s systems theory, and especially the underlying definition of the term meaning, they argue that a reduction of world complexity is necessary to function within a given society or culture. Nonetheless, they point to opposing forces that can function to question the validity of the given order and its implication and that can be taken as a starting point for initiating resistance and for abolishing the distribution of power. In order to describe this process in more detail they use the palimpsest metaphor:
From a diachronic perspective, systems of meaning can therefore be aptly described as palimpsests: what has been excluded can never be erased, but only overwritten by what has been selected. The traced of the repressed are therefore present and the repressed alternatives can be recovered. Expanding the metaphor of the palimpsest in dynamic terms, we propose to call the reproduction of systems of meaning a palimpsestic process: in the cycles of reproduction the excluded has to be re-inscribed and overwritten again and again in order to neutralize its destabilizing threat. One could argue that this iterative moment produces transdifference, since it reintroduces world complexity by necessarily referring to other possibilities to validate its selection.64
What follows from this is that transdifference can never be completely controlled; a permanent work on transdifference has to take place in order to guarantee the maintenance of the given order. On the intrasystemic level, transdifference has to be exorcised in order to prevent anomic tendencies.
On the intersystemic level, which refers to the permanent negotiation of identities in the cross-cultural context, aspects of power also can be tackled. When members of different cultures meet, they are inevitably confronted with conflicting worldviews, values and behavioral patterns. This not only facilitates that they begin to question the universal validity of their own cultural material, but also hints at the necessity to negotiate identity in a neutral third space. In this process, boundaries become fluent and modes of inclusion and exclusion are confronted with conflicting ones. Therefore, identity has to be negotiated. In this process of negotiation transdifference is experienced:
Transdifference thus refers to moments of contradiction, tension and indecidability that run counter to the logic of inclusion/exclusion. All processes of constructing and marking difference necessarily produce transdifference insofar as they, on the one hand, highlight individual aspects of the self/other relation at the expense of others and, on the other hand, stand in contradiction to various other differences along alternative lines of inclusion/exclusion.65
At first glance, the argumentation is similar to the one of interculturalists: they also argue that people are confronted with divergent worldviews and therefore have to negotiate meanings in an in-between space. But interculturalists refer to a homogeneous and stable concept of culture, whereas Breinig and Lösch built their concept of transdifference on Clifford’s understanding of culture, which is more open and leaves room for effective modifications of culture. Similarly, important differences can also be traced with regard to transdifference and Bhabha’s concept of third space. Breinig and Lösch make out at least four differences: 1) Bhabha’s concept of third space is an emancipatory project and it implies normative judgments, whereas transdifference does not; 2) Bhabha’s concept relies on deconstruction and rejects any fixed meanings and notions of self-presence, transdifference does not; 3) because transdifference is not located in poststructuralist thinking, it can be combined with actor-oriented social science theories with their consideration of agency; and 4) while Bhabha’s approach is restricted to a specific historical and political context (postcolonialism), transdifference is not.66
The third level, on which transdifference can be identified, is the level of the individual:
As to the level of individual identity construction, transdifference denotes the mutual overlapping of contradictory aspects of belonging that arise from simultaneously being (or aspiring to be) a member of different groups, that is from situations, in which the individual is subject to at least two semantics of inclusion/exclusion. Multiple cultural affiliations, mutually exclusive ascriptions of membership, incompatible loyalty claims by those groups and the individual’s participation in different formations of social interaction employing different semantic registers produce moments of transdifference.67
To experience transdifference means to be confronted with at least two divergent systems of belongings that cannot be reconciled. The construction of a relatively stable identity is impossible. In every situation, the individual has to reflect and to choose its position—something which can be a painful experience, but which implies potentials for emancipation, too.
The advantage of the concept of transdifference is that it considers aspects of power: on the intrasystemic level, it is described how alternative constructions of meaning are ignored in order to continue the existing order. Though potentials for resistance are mentioned, it is obvious that these are hardly being heard because they threaten the existing order. On the intersystemic level, power aspects influence which mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion are effective. Finally, on the individual level, power aspects influence the positioning of the individual: when the individual is confronted with divergent mechanisms of inclusions and exclusions, in every situation it is forced to position itself. This is not only a free choice, but also a constraint.
Because in the concept of transdifference, difference is not deconstructed and transdifference introduced as its complement, it is possible to take into consideration that on the one side, people are confronted with ascribed identities (accentuation of difference), but also—this is the other side of the medal—that they can question these ascriptions and modify them (introduction of transdifference). At the same time, it is not overseen that it is not the individual’s free choice to position themselves, but also a societal constraint that they are confronted with. This fact hints at the limits of emancipation. Individuals do not exist in a power free space, in-between spaces, where aspects of power become secondary, are only temporary ones, which are supplemented very soon by spatial modes, which require fixed positions.
In my opinion, this concept could inform intercultural theories better than postcolonialism can. It hints at the potential but also the limits of intercultural communication. However, in agreement with Thurlow, I would prefer the term transcultural communication, for it better fits the ‘moving through and across cultural systems,’68 which is to be observed everywhere—even if it is influenced by existing power relations, which do not lose their relevance.
Notes
1.I would like to thank Lars Allolio-Näcke for many fruitful discussions about intercultural communication and trans-difference in the last five years. Parts of this paper have been presented at international congresses together with him. See also: Kaischeuer, Britta, and Lars Allolio-Näcke. “Why does the Debate on Interculturality Prevent the Development of Intercultural Competencies? A Critical Note on the Interculturality Discourse.” http://sietarcongress.wuwien.ac.at/docs/T6_Kalscheuer.pdf (2002).
2.Asante, Molefi Kete, Yoshitaka Miike, and Jing Yin. The Global Intercultural Communication Reader. London: Rout-ledge, 2008; Brislin, Richard W., and Tomoko Yoshida. Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 1994: Chen, Guo-Ming. Foundations in Intercultural Communication. Lanham: America UP, 2005; Gudykunst, William B., and Bella Mody, ed. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2002; Gudykunst, William B. Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2003; Hampden-Turner, Charles, and Fons Trompenaars. Building Cross-Cultural Competencies: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000; Jandt, Fred E. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2006; Kim, Young Yun. Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2000; Landis, Dan, and Rabi S. Bhagat, ed. Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second Edition. London, New Delhi: Sage, 1996; Martin, Judith N., Thomas K. Nakayama, and Lisa A. Flores, ed. Readings in Intercultural Communication: Experiences and Contexts. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2001: Martin, Judith N., and Thomas K. Nakayama. Experiencing Intercultural Communication: An Introduction. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2007; Samovar, Larry Α., and Richard E. Porter. Communication between Cultures. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2003; Ting-Toomey, Stella, and John G. Oetzel. Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2001.
3.Thurlow, Crispin (2000). “Transcultural Communication: A Treatise on Trans.” http://faculty.washington.edu/ thurlow/research/transculturalcommunication.html. Intercultural communication has to be carefully distinguished from intercultural communication; the difference lies in the degree of experienced heterogeneity. Related terms for intercultural communications are cross-cultural, multicultural, transcultural communication and others. Th ey differ in the underlying concept of culture and the context in which they are applied.
4.Chen, Guo-Ming, and William J. Starosta. Foundations of Intercultural Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.
5.Asante, Molefi Kete, and William B. Gudykunst, ed. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, London & New Delhi: Sage, 1989.
6.Latest edition: Samovar, Larry Α., Richard E. Porter, and Edwin R. McDaniel, ed. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005.
7.Condon, John C., and Fathi S. Yousef. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. New York: Macmillan, 1975.
8.Prosser, Michael H. Intercommunication Among Nations and Peoples. New York: Harper & Row, 1972; Dodd, Carley H. Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Communication. Dubuque: Kendall and Hunt, 1977.
9.Gudykunst, William B. Intercultural Communication Theory: Current Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage, 1983; Kim, Young Yun, and William B. Gudykunst. ed. Theories in Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage: 1988; Gudykunst and Mody, ed. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication.
10.Kincaid, D. Lawrence, ed. Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives. Human Communication Research Series. San Diego: Academic Press, 1987.
11.Rogers, Everett M., and William B. Hart. “The Histories of Intercultural, International, and Development Communication.” Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Ed. William B. Gudykunst and Bella Mody. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2002. 1–18.
12.Hall, Edward T. The Silent Language. New York: Anchor Books, 1990; Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books, 1990; Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books, 1989; Hall, Edward T. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Anchor Books, 1989.
13.Hall, Edward T., and Mildred Reed Hall. Hidden Differences: Doing Business With the Japanese. New York: Anchor Books, 1990, XVII.
14.Hall. The Hidden Dimension. 189.
15.Hall. The Silent Language. 29.
16.Hall. The Hidden Dimension. 65.
17.Ibid.188.
18.Hall. The Silent Language. 47.
19.Hall. Beyond Culture.
20.Hall.The Dance of Life.
21.Hall. The Silent Language. 190–191.
22.Hall, Edward T. “Proxemics.” Current Anthropology 9 (1968): 83–108.
23.Hall. The Dance of Life. 3.
24.Ibid.3.
25.Ibid.49.
26.Hall. Beyond Culture. 92.
27.Ibid.85.
28.Hall, Edward T. “Context and Meaning.” Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Ed. Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2000. 34–43. 36.
29.Hofstede, Geert.Lokales Denken, globales Handeln: Kulturen, Zusammenarbeit und Management. München: Beck, 1997; Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage, 2003; Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars. Building Cross-Cultural Competencies.
30.Ho, David Yau-fai. “On the concept of face.” American Journal of Sociology 91 (1975): 867–884; Hu, Hsien Chin. “The Chinese Concept of ‘Face.’” American Anthropologist 46 (1944): 45–64; Hwang, Kwang-Kuo. “Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game.” American Journal of Sociology 92 (1987): 944–974; Ting-Toomey, Stella, ed. The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994; Bell, Duran. “Guanxi: A Nesting of Groups.” Current Anthropology 41 (2000): 132–138; King, Ambrose Y. C. “Kuanshi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation.” Daedalus 120 (1991): 63–84; Lin, Nan. “Guanxi: A Conceptual Analysis.” Contributions in Sociology 133 (2001): 153–166; Yang, Zhong Fang. Gifts, Favours and Banquets: The Art of Social Relationships in China. Ithaca, London: Cornell UP, 1994.
31.Miike, Yoshitaka. “Beyond Eurocentrism in the Intercultural Field: Searching for an Asiaccntric Paradigm.” Ferment in the intercultural Field: Axiology/Value/Praxis (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 26). Ed. William J. Starosta and Guo-Ming Chen. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage. 2003. 243–276. 243–244.
32.Ibid.
33.This is an argument I have presented at several congresses in the last few years. The analogy between colonialism and intercultural communication refers to some common features. But, of course, it is to be understood as a metaphor; the aims of colonialism and intercultural communication are quite distinct. See Kaischeuer, Britta, and Lars Allolio-Näcke. “Intercultural Research. A New Colonial Strategy?” 15th World Congress of Sociology: The Social World in the 21st Century: Ambivalent Legacies and Rising Challenges. Brisbane (Australia), 2002.
34.Hofstede, Lokales Denken, globales Handeln; Hofstede. Culture’s Consequences. Power distance refers to the extent to which the unequal distribution of power is accepted by the less powerless members of a culture; individualism vs. collectivism refers to the extent people identify with the belonging to a group, e.g. strive for individualisation; masculinity vs. femininity refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values, and finally uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty.
35.Hampden-TurnerandTrompenaars.Building Cross-Cultural Competencies; Lewis, Richard D. When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully Across Cultures. London: Nicolas Brealey, 2000.
36.Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London, New York: Routledge, 1994; Hannerz, Ulf. “The World in Creolization.” Africa 57 (1987): 546–559.
37.Chuang, R. (2003). “A Postmodern Critique of Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication Research: Contesting Essentialism, Positivist Dualism, and Eurocentricity.” Ferment in the Intercultural Field: Axiology/Value/Praxis (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 26). Ed. William J. Starosta and Guo-Ming Chen. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2003. 24–53. 25.
38.Casmir, Fred L. “Third-Culture-Building: A Paradigm-Shift for International and Intercultural Communication.” Communication Yearbook 16 (1992): 407–428.
39.Santiago-Valles, William F. (2003). “Intercultural Communication as a Social Problem in a Globalized Context: Ethics of Praxis Research Techniques.” Ferment in the Intercultural Field: Axiology/Value/Praxis (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 26). Ed. William J. Starosta and Guo-Ming Chen. Thousand Oaks. London, New Delhi: Sage, 2003. 57–90. 66.
40.Thomas, David. Transcultural Space and Transcultural Beings. Oxford: Westview Press, 1996. 1.
41.Bennett, Milton J. “Overcoming the Golden Rule: Sympathy and Empathy.” Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings. Ed. Milton J. Bennett. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 1998. 191–214.
42.Derrida, Jacques. Positions. London: Athlone Press, 1981. 24.
43.Hibler, Kristen. “Inter/cultural Communication and the Challenge of Post-colonial Theory.” The Edge: The E-Journal of Intercultural Relations. (1998) www.hart-li.com/biz/theedge.
44.Collier, Mary Jane. Constituting Cultural Difference Through Discourse (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 23). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2000; Collier, Mary Jane. Transforming Communication about Culture: Critical New Directions (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 24). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2002; Young, Robert. Intercultural Communication: Pragmatics, Genealogy, Deconstruction. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide: Multilingual Matters, 1996.
45.Hibler. “Inter/cultural Communication and the Challenge of Postcolonial Theory.”
46.Ibid.
47.Ibid.
48.Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty “Can the Subaltern speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. London: Macmillan, 1988. 271–313; Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. The Post-colonial Critic. London: Routledge, 1990.
49.Starosta, William J., and Guo-Ming Chen, ed. Ferment in the Intercultural Field: Axiology/Value/Praxis (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2003. 3.
50.Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
51.Spivak. “Can the Subaltern speak?”
52.Bhabha. The Location of Culture.
53.Toro, Fernando de, ed. Explorations on Post-Theory: Toward a Third Space. Frankfurt am Main: Verwuert, 1999. 7.
54.Lefebvre, Henri.The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
55.Soja, Edward W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. 5.
56.Bhabha.The Location of Culture. 37.
57.Bhabha, Homi K. “The Third Space: Interview with Homi Bhabha.” In: Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. Ed. Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1990. 207–221. 211.
58.Bhabha.The Location of Culture. 5.
59.Ibid.35.
60.Bhabha.”The Third Space.” 209.
61.Bhabha. The Location of Culture. 1–2.
62.Bhabha. “The Third Space.” 220.
63.Breinig, Helmbrecht, and Klaus Lösch. “Introduction: Difference and Transdifference.” Multiculturalism in Contemporary Societies: Perspectives on Difference and Transdifference. Ed. Helmbrecht Breinig, Jürgen Gebhardt, and Klaus Lösch. Erlanger Forschungen. Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften. Erlangen: Universitäts-Bund Erlangen-Nürnberg, 2002. 11–36. 23.
64.Ibid.24–25.
65.Ibid.25.
66.Breinig, Helmbrecht, and Klaus Lösch. “Transdifference.” Journal for the Study of British Cultures 13 (2006): 105–122. 114.
67.Ibid.116.
68.Thurlow. “Transcultural Communication.”