2.1 Interactional incongruity/congruity

Even though individual participants themselves often fail to recognize it, the interactional state in which the participants are “in sync” or “out of sync” occur in intercultural encounters in varying degrees and shapes. More often than not, at least some interactional incongruity takes place whenever the participants differ in their respective habitual communication behaviors, creating the uncomfortable feeling of being forced into unfamiliar and unaccustomed conversational configurations and rhythms. In extreme cases, the incongruous state can be serious enough to prevent the real communication from ever emerging.

An early insight into interactional incongruity in intercultural encounters was provided by cultural anthropologist Hall (1976: 153) in his discussion of “synchrony,” a coherent enmeshing of the “complex hierarchies of interlocking rhythms comparable to fundamental themes in a symphonic score, a keystone in the interpersonal processes between mates, co-workers, and organizations of all types on the interpersonal level.” In communication, Burgoon and Hubbard (2005) have combined and extended the expectancy violation theory (Burgoon 1983) and the interaction adaptation theory (Burgoon, Stern, and Dillman 1995; see Chapter 10, Burgoon, Dunbar, and White) to intercultural contexts, and posit that, because cultures vary in expectancy norms in terms of content, rigidity, and evaluations, such cultural differences are likely to create interactional incongruity in intercultural interactions.

Interactional incongruity has been also a major interest in social psychological studies of interethnic relations. Gumperz’s (1978) classic study, for example, illustrates interactional incongruity in an interaction that ended in a heated exchange between a male immigrant from India and a female staff member in an industrial language-teaching unit in London. This analysis details paralinguistic and prosodic mismatches in the two individuals’ manners of speaking, along with frequent interruptions, poor listening, and the experiences of frustration and anger. Many other studies have been conducted to capture similar incongruities stemming from differences between communicators in their culturally-shaped communication patterns, some of which are discussed in the next section when addressing cultural influences on the intercultural communication process.

Whereas most of these studies are focused on interactional incongruity, a number of studies offer some indications that congruence can, and does, occur in intercultural encounters. For example, Miller’s (1991) analysis of naturally-occurring conversations between Japanese and American coworkers shows how interactional congruity is achieved by some Americans in their interactions with Japanese coworkers. Miller reports that, whereas most American coworkers engage in the American cultural modes of expressing their listening by making minimal verbal responses, thereby failing to create cohesion in interacting with the Japanese, one American skillfully adapts his listening to the Japanese mode of more active and frequent vocalizations and nodding. Congruity has also been observed in intercultural encounters in studies documenting adaptation patterns such as “alignment talk” (Hopper 1986) and “meaning negotiation” with the use of “conversational repair” and “understanding checks” (Chen 1997).

These and other various specific behaviors identified in the literature as engendering incongruous and congruous intercultural interactions are incorporated into a bipolar continuum of behaviors of association and dissociation in Kim’s (2005a) contextual theory of interethnic communication. In this continuum, behaviors vary in the extent to which they facilitate mutual understanding, affinity, and cooperation – the coming-together of the involved persons (association) – or cause misunderstanding, distance, and divergence – the coming-apart of the communicative relationship between the participants (dissociation). Among the behaviors characterizing the association end of the continuum are the cognitive patterns of individuation, particularization, and decategorization (Billig 1987), while their dissociative counterparts include category accentuation (Oddou and Mendanhall 1984), depersonalization (Tajfel 1970), prejudiced talk (Van Dijk 1987), and various non-verbal expressions of communicative distance (Lukens 1979).

2.2 Stress/adaptation

Interactional incongruity/congruity in intercultural encounters induces, and is induced by, the experiences of stress/adaptation. The stress experience refers to the feelings of tension, discomfort, or anxiety when the interactants find themselves in a state of psychological disequilibrium. Such experiences of stress are highlighted in Gudykunst’s (1988, 2005) anxiety/uncertainty management theory. Extending Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) uncertainty reduction theory to intercultural contexts, Gudykunst maintains that the ability to manage these two psychological experiences is essential to achieving effectiveness in intercultural communication. Substantial empirical evidence exists to show the causal relationship between each of the two core stress-related psychological experiences, uncertainty and anxiety, and the outcome factor, communication effectiveness (e.g., Hammer et al. 1998; Neuliep 2012).

The stress experience in intercultural encounters has been also addressed in a separate line of studies, mainly in cross-cultural psychology, investigating “culture shock” experiences of temporary international sojourners. Defined originally by Oberg (1960: 177) as the “anxiety that results from losing all of our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse,” the term, culture shock, accentuates the stressful nature of interacting with members of an unfamiliar cultural environment. In one of the early culture shock studies, Taft (1977) identified a number of common reactions to cultural dislocation, or “cultural fatigue,” manifested in irritability, insomnia, and other psychosomatic disorders, a sense of loss arising from being uprooted from one’s familiar surroundings, rejection by the individual of members of the new society, and a feeling of impotence stemming from being unable to deal with an unfamiliar environment.

Even as participants in intercultural encounters experience stress, they often engage in adaptive behaviors, that is, conscious or unconscious attempts to regain their internal equilibrium. An early articulation of such adaptive responses was offered by Adler (1972/1987), who described culture shock as a phenomenon leading to profound learning, growth, and self-awareness. Similarly, Ruben (1983) questioned the problem-focused approaches in discussing an earlier study of Canadian technical advisors and their spouses on two-year assignments in Kenya (Ruben and Kealey 1979). In this study, the magnitude of initial culture shock was found to be positively related to the individuals’ subsequent social and professional effectiveness. Based on this finding, Ruben (1983) conjectured that culture shock experiences might, in fact, be responsible for (rather than impeding) their adaptation.

Integrating both stressful and adaptive experiences of intercultural communication, Kim’s (1988, 2001, 2005b), in her integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation, describes an unfolding of the “stress – adaptation – growth dynamic.” Grounded in an open-systems perspective, Kim explains that stress is a natural response to the state of internal disequilibrium, that stress is a necessary condition that triggers parts of the individual’s internal organization to undergo adaptive modifications, and that, to the extent that stress is responsible for internal duress, it is also to be credited as a necessary impetus for new learning and personal development.

3.1 Emic studies of cultural communication systems

From the perspective of cultural relativism emphasizing the uniqueness, completeness, and relative stability of each culture, emic studies take an “insider” perspective in identifying the essential features of a single culture or sub-culture as they are experienced by its members. With respect to understanding communication patterns from this perspective, the speech code theory (Philipsen 1997; Philipsen, Coutu, and Covarrubias 2005) has served as an intellectual grounding for many ethnographic field studies. Built on Geertz’s (1973) framework of the interpretation of culture, this theory explains the interrelatedness of culture and communication and provides a framework for identifying and illuminating culturally distinctive codes of communication practices.

Even though the main focus of emic research is placed on the communication system within a single culture or sub-culture, findings from these studies are at least implicitly comparative, in the sense that the information generated from these studies provide a frame of reference for comparison with cultures other than the one being studied. Carbaugh’s studies of Russian (Carbaugh 1993) and Finnish (Carbaugh 2005) “cultural pragmatics,” for example, are framed in the context of Russian-American and Finnish-American encounters, rendering comparative insights. Other studies are more explicitly comparative, as exemplified by Katriel’s (1986) comparison of dugri (“straight talk”) speech that members of the Israeli Sabra culture use as a conscious form of communication with musayra speech common in typical Arabic communication; and Egner’s (2006) comparison of the speech act of promising in Western and African cultures.

3.2 Etic studies of cross-cultural comparisons

In contrast with the relativistic and insider perspective taken in emic studies of cultural communication systems, investigators of etic studies have taken the universalistic perspective of an objective “outsider” for the explicit aim of comparing two or more cultural or subcultural groups. The main aim in etic studies is to obtain systematic insights into cross-cultural variations along one or more theoretical dimensions. The theoretical dimensions examined below have been among the most extensively utilized in intercultural communication research.

4.1 Intercultural communication competence

Individuals come to an intercultural encounter with differing levels of the capacity to deal with the previously discussed challenges of interactional congruity and stress, and to act and react in a way that fosters a cooperative relationship with their interaction partners. Generally referred to as intercultural communication competence (and other similar terms such as intercultural competence, intercultural effectiveness, and even “cultural intelligence”), many different approaches, theories, and models have been proposed for guiding investigations or training programs of intercultural communication competence, as noted in a number of articles and books (e.g., Chen and Starosta 1996; Spitzberg 2012; Spitzberg and Changnon 2009).

For example, one of the most widely utilized training-oriented model, the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett and Bennett 2004) with its assessment tool called “intercultural development inventory,” is aimed at cultivating a relativistic understanding and appreciation of cultural differences. As such, attitudinal components such as non-judgmental acceptance of cultural differences comprise the core of an individual’s intercultural communication competence. In a more theoretically-oriented approach to intercultural communication competence, Ting-Toomey’s (2012: 285–291) conflict face negotiation model emphasizes the importance of “competent facework” in intercultural interactions. Defining “face” in terms of an individual communicator’s desired social self-image in relation to a culturally dissimilar others, Ting-Toomey’s model offers a conception of intercultural communication competence that is specifically aimed at preventing or minimizing conflict between intercultural interactants. In a more broadly conceived systems-theoretic model, Kim (1991) offers a more generic, culture-general, and situation-general conception of intercultural communication competence as an individual’s overall self-altering adaptive capacity that invites alternations in the interaction partner.

Despite differing conceptions of intercultural communication competence such as these, almost all existing models are broadly in agreement on the fact that individuals are differently predisposed to the challenges of intercultural encounters and that, by cultivating a certain set of motivation, knowledge, and/or skills, they can help enhance the overall quality of intercultural interactions. Kim, for example, applies the above-mentioned general model of intercultural communication competence (Kim 1991) to the context of cross-cultural adaptation of immigrants and sojourners. Employing the concept, “host communication competence,” Kim identifies a number of key cognitive (e.g., knowledge of the host language and cultural norms), affective (e.g., motivation to adapt, positive attitude toward the host society), and operational (e.g., ability to engage in daily interactions with members of the host society). Many of these specific components of host communication competence have been found to be positively correlated with indicators of psychological and functional adaptation in studies of sojourners and immigrants, such as South Korean expatriates working in the United States and their American counterparts in South Korea (Y. S. Kim and Kim 2007) and Hispanic adolescents in the United States (McKay-Semmler 2010).

4.2 Identity Orientations: Inclusivity/Exclusivity and Security/Insecurity

In addition to intercultural communication competence, participants in intercultural encounters often differ in the basic identity orientations with which they approach culturally or ethnically dissimilar others. Systematic inquiry into identity orientations can be traced back to psychologist Erikson’s (1950, 1959/1980) ground-breaking work, in which identity was explained as the core of a personhood, namely a person’s unified “essence” that underpins his or her self- other orientation. According to Erikson, identity emerges during a person’s formative years and continues to evolve throughout one’s life. This continuous process of identity development is regarded as being shaped by the person’s unique personal experiences, as well as the experiences of significant social group(s) with whom the person interacts.

Since Erikson’s formulation of identity as a unitary and dynamic psychological concept, however, there has been an increase in emphasis on the collective dimension of an individual’s identity. The traditional notion of self as an individuated and unique person has been largely replaced by a more categorical one emphasizing the collective group membership. Such as been particularly the case in studies of intercultural and interethnic communication, in which the term, identity, has been employed by many investigators interchangeably with group-based terms such as cultural identity and ethnic identity. In the words of Turner (1987: 50), there has been “a shift towards the perception of self as an interchangeable exemplar of some social category and away from the perception of self as a unique person.”

The emphasis given to the collective dimension of identity is reflected in a number of communication theories in which identity is explained as a source of conflict between the individuals who participate in intercultural encounters. For instance, collective cultural identity is regarded as a source of intercultural conflict in the identity negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey 2005b) and in the identity management theory (Imahori and Cupach 2005). Both of these theories highlight the importance recognizing and respecting each other’s culturally-based concerns of “face” reflecting cultural identity. Likewise, in several interrelated theories in intergroup psychology that are grounded in the social identity theory (Tajfel 1974), such as the integrative theory of intergroup conflict (Tajfel and Turner 1979), self-categorization theory (Turner 1985), and communication accommodation theory (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005; see Chapter 2, Dragojevic and Giles), a stronger “intergroup” identity orientation (i.e., more rigid ingroup-outgroup categorization) is linked to a greater likelihood of dissociative “intergroup behavior,” whereas a stronger “interpersonal” identity orientation (i.e., more fluid ingroup-outgroup categorization) is linked to a greater likelihood of associative “interpersonal behavior.”

These opposite roles of interpersonal versus intergroup identity orientations are integrated into a single conceptual frame in the contextual theory of interethnic communication (Kim 2005a). Employing the term, “identity inclusivity/exclusivity,” Kim posits that there is a reciprocal influence between identity inclusivity/ exclusivity and associative/dissociative interethnic communication behaviors. An extensive body of empirical research in social psychology has produced findings that support the linkage between identity inclusivity and associative intercultural and interethnic behavior. Verkuyten and Thijs (2002), for example, have reported that Turkish adolescents in the Netherlands who identify most strongly with their ethnic group express the lowest levels of interest in relating to Dutch people and Dutch society at large.

Kim’s (2005a) contextual theory of interethnic communication identifies a second identity orientation, “identity security/insecurity,” as a factor that influences, as well as is influenced by, associative/dissociative interethnic communication behavior. That is, when an individual comes into an interethnic encounter with a secure sense of identity, the more he/she is likely to act associatively. As a broad, integrative concept, identity security/insecurity incorporates in it an array of social psychological concepts such as “status anxiety” (De Vos 1990), “perceived threat” (Giles and Johnson 1986), and “identity uncertainty” (Hogg, Meehan, and Farquharson 2010). In many empirical studies, these and related concepts have been found to be linked to various forms of dissociative behavior such as: stereotyping (e.g., Francis 1976), negative attitudes toward outgroups (e.g., Butz and Yogeeswaran 2011), and radicalism (e.g., Hogg, Meehan, and Farquharson 2010).

5.1 Personal network integration

A long line of studies of long-term adaptation of immigrants has documented that the level of cultural integration in personal network structure reflects the extent to which individuals go through the experience of interacting with people outside his or her original cultural group. For example, in an early study of international students in the United States, Selltiz et al. (1963) reported that, in addition to increase over time in the size of personal relationships with Americans, those students with more personal relationships with Americans were more satisfied in their sojourn experience and perceived the American society and people more favorably. The same pattern has been observed in studies of ethnic minorities such as American Indians in Oklahoma (Kim, Lujan, and Dixon 1998), in which higher levels of integration of non-Indians in personal networks of relationships are reported to be positively associated with higher levels of income and occupational status.

As such, personal network integration is identified as one of the key factors of the cross-cultural adaptation process in Kim’s integrative theory (1988, 2001, 2005b). Kim argues that it is in, and through, personal relationships that individual immigrants, sojourners, or native-born ethnic minorities participate in interpersonal activities outside their cultural or ethnic communities that provide them with opportunities for new cultural learning and for engaging in “corrective exchanges” with respect to the use of the host or mainstream communication system, including its verbal and nonverbal codes. The same personal network integration factor is also identified in Kim’s (2005a) contextual theory of interethnic communication as one of the key factors that are reciprocally linked with an individual’s associative communication behaviors when interacting with ethnically dissimilar others.

More recently, the positive theoretical connection between intercultural interactions and personal network integration has been found to extend to the relationships non-native individuals form through the Internet-based interactions. Chen and Magazine (2012), for example, have reported that American Internet use among Chinese international students in the United States directly and positively influences their sociocultural and psychological adaptation. Also, in a study of non-native residents in the United States, Kim and McKay-Semmler (2013) have found that higher levels of native-born Americans incorporated in their personal networks remain a primary factor in their psychological and functional well-being, despite their increased reliance on computer-mediated communication channels to keep in touch with family members and friends in their countries of origin.

In a separate line of inquiry, a number of social psychological theories of intergroup relations provide further insights into the cultural/ethnic integration of an individual’s personal network and its relationship to his or her engagement in interethnic communication activities. The contact hypothesis (Amir 1969) and its subsequent fledging theories of intergroup relations such as the intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew 1998) have generated numerous empirical studies to provide a detailed understanding of the psychological effects interethnic communication experiences are likely to have in decreasing intergroup prejudice and increasing more positive attitudes toward outgroups and more mixed interethnic social contacts (Pettigrew and Tropp 2011).

In addition, because persons who share a friend are more likely to become friends themselves, an effect called “transitivity” in network studies (Wasserman and Faust 1994; see Chapter 17, Parks and Faw), studies have shown that multiracial persons are likely to foster cross-race friendships between persons in their personal network. Of special interest is the related phenomenon of “secondary transfer effect of contact” (Pettigrew 2009), that is, the effect of interethnic contact spreading to non-contacted outgroups.

5.2 Personal development beyond culture

Closely linked to personal network integration of culturally and ethnically diverse relationships are the changes occurring in the internal conditions of an individual. As Rogers and Kincaid (1981: 45) observed: “The uniqueness of an individual’s personal network is responsible for the uniqueness of his meaning. The codes and concepts available to interpret information are based on each individual’s past experiences which may be similar … to another individual’s.”

Early insights into the transformative nature of intercultural communication experiences were provided in the psychological studies of sojourners in an alien cultural environment. Oberg (1960), for example, identified the four stages of adaptive changes in individuals during a sojourn: (1) a honeymoon stage characterized by fascination, elation, and optimism; (2) a stage of hostility and emotionally stereotyped attitudes toward the host society and increased association with fellow sojourners; (3) a recovery stage characterized by increased language knowledge and ability to get around in the new cultural environment; and (4) a final stage in which adjustment is about as complete as possible, anxiety is largely gone, and new customs are accepted and enjoyed. These four stages constitute what some investigators have since called a “U-curve hypothesis” (e.g., Brein and David 1971; Furnham 1988).

A broader range of adaptive changes has been identified in studies of long-term changes taking place in immigrants, and is formally articulated in Kim’s (1988, 2001, 2005b) integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation. As previously noted, Kim employs in this theory the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic to explain that each stressful experience is a natural response to a temporary setback, which, in turn, activates adaptive energy to reorganize and reengage in the activities of cultural learning and internal change. Accordingly, the experience of stress serves as the very impetus for a new self-reintegration – a gradual and largely unconscious evolution taking place in the individual’s internal conditions.

Specifically, Kim posits that the internal transformation process manifests itself in three interrelated facets: (1) increased “functional fitness” in relation to a cultural environment that is different from one’s originally internalized culture; (2) increased “psychological health,” or a subjective sense of well-being; and (3) an emergent “intercultural identity” orientation with its two interrelated processes of “individuation” and “universalization” in self-other orientation, based on which one is better able to see oneself and others on the basis of unique personal qualities and the common humanity beyond conventional cultural or ethnic categories.

Ample empirical evidence from a long line of research among various immigrant groups across social science disciplines demonstrates the increase over time in functional and psychological adaptation. In a study of Japanese-Americans (Marmot and Syme 1976), for example, the better adapted immigrants were found to experience initially a somewhat greater frequency of stress-related symptoms (such as anxiety and a need for psychotherapy) than the less adapted group. Likewise, as previously noted, a study of Canadian technical advisors and their spouses on two-year assignments in Kenya (Ruben and Kealey 1979) revealed that those advisors whose initial culture shock experiences were most severe tended to be more effective in carrying out their subsequent social and professional activities.

With respect to the two sub-processes of intercultural identity development, individuation and universalization, a number of studies have offered empirical evidence including Pitts’s (2007) 15-month ethnographic fieldwork among American exchange students studying in a college in France. In this study, Pitts described how, at various stages of the sojourn, the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic was unfolding in the college students’ intercultural experiences during their sojourn, leading to an increased sense of personal growth beyond the parameters of their identity as Americans. Also, in the previously noted study of American Indians in Oklahoma (Kim, Lujan, and Dixon 1998), the majority of the 182 interviewees not only identified themselves inclusively as both an American and an Indian, they also expressed an intercultural identity orientations through comments such as “we are all humans,” “people are people,” and “there are good people and bad people in all groups.” In addition, a recent meta-analysis by Nguyen and Benet-Martinez (2013) of 83 studies involving over 23,000 immigrants and ethnic minorities to test the relationship between “biculturalism” (an inclusive identity orientation) and various indicators of psychological and social adaptation revealed similar results. Similar findings have also been reported in studies of international college students studying in Japan (Milstein 2005), Hispanic youth in the United States (McKay-Semmler 2010), and Bosnian refugees in the United States (Cheah et al. 2011).

Empirical indications of intercultural identity development can be also found in a variety of publicly available first-hand personal accounts told in biographical stories. One such account is an essay written by a Japanese-born American academic, Muneo Yoshikawa (1978: 220), in which he reflects on his personal intercultural transformation: “… something beyond the sum of each [cultural] identification took place, and that it became something akin to the concept of ‘synergy’ – when one adds 1 and 1, one gets three, or a little more. This something extra is not culture-specific but something unique of its own, probably the emergence of a new attribute or a new self-awareness.”

6.1 Key challenges and opportunities in intercultural encounters

When we interact with people of dissimilar cultural or ethnic background, not only are we expected to encounter unfamiliar culturally shaped communication behaviors, we may also find ourselves (and our interaction partners) engaging in covert and overt dissociative behaviors that are not conducive to a cohesive interaction. We may be seeing our interaction partners mindlessly along the lines of group categories, accentuate intergroup differences, rather than searching for interpersonal similarities, and unwittingly wear nonverbal expressions that reveal feelings of unease or uncaring. Uncertainty and anxiety created by cultural differences and dissociative behaviors, in turn, are likely to render interactional incongruity – a condition that often creates a sense of confusion and even a desire to withdraw from the interaction altogether.

Despite, or rather because of, its potential difficulties, the process of intercultural communication spurs adaptive efforts in individual participants. Consciously or unconsciously, we are likely to find ourselves making adjustments in our habitual verbal and nonverbal behaviors, so as to help create a sense of congruence vis-à-vis the interaction partner. We may also make an effort to individuate our communication behaviors by being attentive to the particularities of the interaction partner, rather than relying on the stereotypes we might have have about his or her group. To the extent that we are willing and able to make adjustments, our interactions are likely to be more in sync and our experiences more satisfying. Conversely, as long as we are unwilling or unable to adapt to the demands of intercultural encounters, we are likely to experience symptoms of stress as our interactions remain incongruous.

Together, interactional congruity/incongruity and the experiences of stress/ adaptation, make intercultural communication a double-edged phenomenon – a phenomenon that is, at once, troublesome and potentially enriching. Despite, or rather because of, such difficulties, we may find opportunities for new learning and adaptive changes, which, over time, foster a broadening of the horizon of our awareness of ourselves and others, and an increased capacity to deal with the challenges of intercultural communication we may yet to encounter.

6.2 Cultural and individual influences on the interactional process

Because intercultural encounters, by definition, entail an interface of differing cultural habits of perceiving, thinking, feeling, acting, and reacting, one of the ways to facilitate understanding each other’s messages and interactional congruity between the participants is to learn about each other’s culture. In this regard, the available information and insights generated from various emic studies of cultural communication systems can be valuable. As well, the many etic studies of cross-cultural comparison of communication systems offer systematic, comparative insights into various cultural differences, particularly along the dimensions of individualism-collectivism, high- and low-context communication, Hofstede’s four dimensions of cultural variability (individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity), and the theory of face-negotiation theory, among others.

Along with better understanding of cultural differences, individual communicators can, and do, make a difference in the process of intercultural communication, for better or for worse. It is individual people, after all, who are communicating, with each bringing something to an intercultural encounter. Individuals with a highly developed intercultural communication competence – the cognitive, affective, and behavioral capabilities to recognize, absorb, and adapt to the challenges and stresses of intercultural encounters, are more likely to engage in associative behaviors and foster interactional congruity. As such, those of us who are relatively inexperienced in intercultural communication could make an effort to cultivate such capabilities by gaining more personal experiences through actively participating in interactions with culturally or ethnically dissimilar individuals around us.

When we are engaged in intercultural interaction with people of differing cultural or ethnic backgrounds, we may try cognitively to put aside our preconceived stereotypical notions about their cultural or ethnic groups. Instead, we need to be attentive to the particularities of each person’s verbal and nonverbal messages. Affectively, we could increase our emotional and motivational capacity to absorb and manage the uncertainty and anxiety by affirming our interest in engaging themselves openly and fully in the intercultural encounter. Operationally, we could strive to strengthen our ability to act with flexibility in search of a creative way to modify some of our internalized cultural habits, so as to help foster consonance with the cultural habits of our interaction partners.

We could further enhance the overall quality of our intercultural interactions by cultivating an identity orientation that is inclusive and secure. The less rigidly our individual self-conceptions and our conceptions of culturally and ethnically dissimilar others are bound up with a psychological posture of “us” and “them,” the better we are likely to open ourselves up to our interaction partners with an attitude of accommodation, instead of defensiveness. In this way, we can help minimize interactional incongruence and maximize the possibility of building a positive intercultural relationship in the spirit of cooperation and mutuality.

6.3 Willingness to be changed

As we undergo an extensive amount of the often stressful experiences of intercultural encounters, we are likely to be changed by the experiences, even though we may not recognize any obvious change taking place in ourselves. The change- producing nature of intercultural communication has been amply demonstrated in the robust research of psychological adjustment patterns of temporary sojourners and of the long-term adaptation of immigrants, as well as in the equally strong research tradition in social psychology dealing with various social and psychological issues pertaining to interethnic relations within a society.

On the one hand, cumulative experiences of stress and adaptation are likely to bring about a gradual development in the social sphere of our life, in the form of an increased integration of culturally and ethnically dissimilar individuals into our networks of personal relationships. Such diverse personal relationships reflect, as well as foster, the development of our psychological and functional efficacy in our increasingly intercultural social milieu. Of equal significance is the internal change within ourselves in terms of an emerging identity orientation that is less categorical based on cultural or ethnic membership, but more individuated based on a self-definition and definition of others as singular individuals. Furthermore, this emerging intercultural identity orientation is likely to entail a universalized self-other orientation, a mindset that allows us to see ourselves and others on the basis of the shared humanity rather than the differences we acquire as members of a particular culture or ethnic group.

As we move forward in this ever-globalizing world, the above-discussed existing knowledge claims about the nature of intercultural communication will need to be continually reexamined and updated. New research questions will need to be posed, as Shuter (2012) has noted, in light of the rapidly spreading activities of computer-mediated communication activities across cultural and ethnic group boundaries (see Chapter 23, Walther and Lee). Meanwhile, the inherent nature of intercultural communication experiences portrayed in this overview is likely to remain unchanged, and even grow in its relevance and significance. The essential ideas gleaned in this overview are likely to continue to be viable, both in theory and in practice, as long as substantial collective cultural differences remain in human communities and individuals of dissimilar cultural backgrounds engage interpersonally in communication activities. More than likely, these current ideas about the nature of intercultural communication will continue to help us recognize and understand the potential perils inherent in intercultural encounters. Perhaps more importantly, these ideas will continue to reveal the opportunities our intercultural encounters can render for our personal and social development, to the extent that we are able to move away from excessive claims of cultural identity and to form diverse interpersonal ties that can help to hold together, integrate, and elevate differing cultures and ethnicities.

Many of these ideas derived from the literature on intercultural communication echo the meaning of “cosmopolitanism” presented by Kwame Anthony Appiah, one of today’s leading philosophers. In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers (2006), Appiah notes that we have grown accustomed to thinking of the world as divided among warring cultural identities. Appiah presents this philosophical argument, drawing on his own experiences of growing up as the child of an English mother and a father from Ghana in a family spread across four continents and as many creeds. The foreignness of foreigners, the strangeness of strangers – these things are real enough, but Appriah suggests that intellectuals and political and social leaders have wildly exaggerated their significance. He challenges us to redraw these imaginary boundaries, reminding us of the powerful ties that connect people across religions, cultures, and nations.

In the end, then, intercultural communication can be understood as a human activity that presents each of us with choices. Those of us who are more successful in it are likely to be the ones who choose to engage themselves fully in the often stressful intercultural encounters and are willing to be changed by the experiences. The possibilities of transcending conventional cultural categories, both personally and interpersonally, speak to a uniquely human plasticity to form new habits – “our relative freedom from programmed reflexive patterns … the very capacity to use culture to construct our identities” (Slavin and Kriegman 1992: 6).