Assignment

r:

92 CHAPTER FOUR

( l ), I Ethnocentric Affirmation : Other; Self/Not Self

l Affirming

( l_ OT_H=E_R_---< Culture B ) ( 1-- S=E=LF_ I Culture A Result: )i

:r

( Culture A affirms itself and Culture 8. Culture 8 affirms itself and Culture A. • )i,

' I

I ..

i

i!

FIGURE3

makes it possible for them to negotiate how to maintain their position (positive ethnocentrism) and allows the Other to maintain its position, as well.

Introducing the Positionality Principle

ji

!/ Now it is time to formulate our fourth principle underlying intercultural commu­

( IU ):i:

,1 J

:/; I

1 ,n

1

,i,

'

!11

:i11• I I

il

F,

I

.I.',

i

( i )!:I

' ,,

'

I·

:Jq

II

nication: the Positionality Principle. As usual, we will isolate three parts that make up this principle. Each part deals with the nature of positioning in intercultural in­ teractions. First, we will discuss the Positionality Principlein terms of grounding. Next, we will show the relationship between grounding and authority. Finally, we will present grounding as a process of intercultural engagement. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Positionality Principle as a whole.

Positionality as Grounding

At the beginning of the chapter, we set out to understand what happens to mean­ ings as they are enacted. We now know that cultures construct their systems of meanings and see the world differently because people are located in space and time. Obviously, people from different cultures cannot be located in the same place at the same time; they have to occupy different locations. It is by virtue of these different positions that cultures develop different systems of knowledge. All cultures, therefore, are characterized by different cultural loci-positions from which they view the world and their own place in it.

When we speak about meanings as our cultural maps, we must remember that our cultural knowledge is situated-that is, generated in specific situations. These situations are concrete in the sense that they provide physical settings for constructing a cultural mental framework. Based on these settings, every culture defines itself and the world from a certain point of view. Every culture looks out­ ward from its own point of view; reflected back, this look becomes its cultural gaze. Cultural gaze is a projector beam, as it were, that allows people from every culture to navigate in the world. With the help of this gaze, every culture looks both in-

i,I ..

J

( r ' )

CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 93

ward to its own identity and outward to its relation with other cultures. The better the •cultural visibility," the more successful the intercultural encounters.

Thus, intercultural communication is a matter of positionality. As cultures oc­ cupy different positions and interact, their cultural gaze makes it possible for them to see the world and their own place in it. In this process, cultural meanings are generated, or-to put it another way-each culture is grounded. Everything that we experience as a result of an intercultural encounter and find meaningful is framed and becomes part of our culture, our •common ground.• These cultural frames are constructed as a product of our perception and can be presented in terms of figure/ground effects. You might be familiar with these terms from Gestalt psychology (Koehler, 1969), where the distinction between figure and ground is usually illustrated by a visual example such as the image in Figure 4, which can be perceived either as four black squares (figure) on a white surface (ground) or as a white cross (figure) on a black surface (ground) (Koch, 2001: 203).

The figure/ground distinction is not limited, of course, to the visual realm; one can experience this effect using any other senses. Whatever senses people use, the nature of the figure/ground distinction is the same: Experiences are grouped together and either form a foundation or stand out as a figure. It is a foundation that is cultural ground. In this sense, ground is a culturally accepted system of meanings that is shared and seems so natural that it is often taken for granted. Ground is not highly visible, yet its significance cannot be overestimated. Its im­ portance is highlighted when it comes under threat-just think of such expres­ sions as •stand your ground• or 'Defend your ground" (both figuratively and literally!). Ground is what holds cultures together; it is their center. Being ethno­ centric means being grounded.

•

FIGURE4

r

94 CHAPTER FOUR

Grounding, therefore, is a process of establishing a cultural system of mean­ ings. What meanings? Recall the main cultural constructs we discussed at the be­ ginning of the chapter. Grounding of meanings begins with a perceived connection between two things-this is the way cultural beliefs are developed. Then cultural ground becomes more complex and takes the form of attitudes, val­ ues, norms, and worldview. As a result of developing these dispositions, people from different cultures position the111selves.

In intercultural encounters, the same experience can be categorized as either ground or figure, depending on cultural position. If an experience is perceived as different from your own cultural system of meaning, it is figure. Thus, 'the figure or difference ... stands against everything else (ground)• (Roth, 200 l: 31). Con­ sider the sight of someone riding a motorcycle during the day with the headlights on (Enfield, 2000: 40). In Australia, this sight is part of the cultural ground be­ cause Australian traffic authorities recommend that motorcyclists keep their head­ lights on at all times for reasons of safety. In Laos, this sight is part of the cultural figure because headlights are put on only in emergency situations when the right of way is needed. It is easy to foresee how an Australian biker might be stopped by Laotian traffic authorities and fined for riding with headlights on. In this ex­ ample, grounding takes the form of different values (safety vs. emergency) and norms (folkways vs. laws).

In other cases, grounding finds its manifestation in cultural attitudes. Mitchell and Wood (1998) report that the state authorities in Brazil have a nega­ tive attitude toward Afro-Brazilians, perceiving them as potentially more criminal than other Brazilians. As a result, they are more likely to be assaulted by police. Afro-Brazilians suffer discrimination because they stand out as figure, mostly be­ cause of their skin color.

So, all new experiences appear to us as figure; if accepted, they become part of our cultural ground. Intercultural communication can be seen as a process of trying to figure out (pun intended!) new experiences.

It must be emphasized that, even though cultural meanings arise and are grounded in specific concrete situations, they are never set in concrete. What is perceived by a certain culture at a certain point in time as figure may become part of its ground, and vice versa. For instance, people in Laos might dedde to make it

,I a norm that headlights be kept on by motorcyclists at all times, or the state au­ thorities in Brazil might change their attitude toward Afro-Brazilians and stop dis­ criminating against them. The negative attitude toward Afro-Brazilians is likely to be more difficult, yet more necessary, to change: No one likes to be discriminated

against, and so Afro-Brazilians will light to stop discriminatory practices. 1n the case of the headlights, changing a cultural position may be less pressing; it is pos­ sible to imagine, though, how safety might become a priority and the traffic regu­ lation change accordingly. In all cases, people from every culture must decide what their position on this or that issue should be. II a culture feels that it is un­ able to establish a desirable position, it will make an effort to bring about a change, whether through a new traffic rule or a new rule in the criminal justice system.

CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 95

Grounding, therefore, is a dynamic process, driven by relationships between cul­ tures and their constant search for authority. And this brings us to the second aspect of the Positionality Principle, which deals with the issues of power and control.

Positionality and Authority

Every culture tries to establish its own position in the world, or ground itself. In other words, people from every culture try to create a system of authentic or true meanings. By doing so, cultures claim authority for their vision of the world. Authority can be equated with the ability to lay claims that are accepted. In this sense, "authority is ultimately a matter of power" (Fleischacker, 1994: 84), or the ability to make decisions as to what a cultural position should be. In the example of East Timor, discussed earlier, the 'internationals" are basically creating a new order; their power, or their authority, is much greater than that of the Timorese people. These adntinistrators, consultants, police, and soldiers are making most of the decisions and having a huge impact on what the culture of East Timor shall be in the future.

So, positionality is not simply a matter of cultures establishing their specific

positions; it is a matter of power relationships between these positions. As Clifford says, "Self-other relations are matters of power and rhetoric rather than of essence" (I 988: 14). Cultures (Self and the Other) are not stable categories (essences), but shifting positions, which are determined by complex relations of power enacted by verbal and nonverbal means (matters of rhetoric).

Every culture claims authority for its vision of the world by using its cultural map to create stories, or narratives. Narrative •refers to a recounting of a se­ quence of events that is told from a particular point of view" (Hall, 2002: 71)-that is, from a particular position. In a way, every culture tells its own story of the world, or creates its own narratives. In Chapter I, we discussed the example of the heritage museum in Israel where the story about the patriarch Abraham is nar­ rated by a tour guide (Katriel, 1994: 14). We noted that to Jewish audiences this kind of story sounds like a playful elaboration of a well-known biblical tale, while to Arab audiences the strategy of renaming Abraham as the first Bedouin and en­ dowing a fantiliar agricultural object with a biblical career is an act of cultural ap­ propriation. Thus, two cultural authorities clash as a certain segment of the world is narrated from two very different positions.

There are different ways to understand the main functions of narratives. Hall discusses four teaching functions of narratives in intercultural communica­ tion. He notes that "narratives function to teach us how the world works, our place in the world, how to act in the world, and how to evaluate what goes on in the world" (2002: 73). Also, there are different ways to categorize narratives, from everyday conversations with friends to grand narratives-•stories that can give us certain knowledge of the direction, meaning and moral path of human 'devel­ opment'· (Barker, 2000: 21). It might be said that every cultural worldview can

96 CHAPTER FOUR

II

,',

I

,a I

"'t

l

,. '

''

be seen as a grand narrative. For example, Jewish culture 'is incomprehensible without the supernatural history in which it is embedded, while Christianity (per­ haps Buddhism as well) is virtually II story• (Fleischacker, 1994: 71).

Regardless of how narratives are categorized and their functions understood, two criteria for narratives can be isolated: coherence and fidelity (Fisher, 1984). First, for a cultural story to be meaningful, all parts of the narrative must fit to­ gether; then a narrative meets the criterion of coherence. Second, for a cultural story to be meaningful, the narrative must resonate with people's beliefs, atti­ tudes, values, norms, and worldviews; then a narrative meets the criterion of fi­ delity. When both criteria are met, a narrative turns 'into a tradition, something passed down from one generation to another' (Fleischacker, I994: 80), meeting the needs of, and making sense to, people from that culture.

So, •authority is a position" (Fleischacker, 1994: 82). Every culture claims authority for its vision of the world by projecting its gaze, charting out a cultural map, and creating narratives. In other words, every culture collectively claims that the world is thus and so. In this sense, all cultures can be viewed as 'just so stories." Every culture claims authority for its understandu,g of the world by cre­ ating narratives; to people from all cultures, their own stories are the authentic ones. The story of the world is told in many tongues.

Thus, to people from any culture, their cultural maps and their narratives seem true, authentic, and natural (central). It might seem that people from every culture would have the best knowledge of their own position-that is, could speak with authority about the world and their place in it. This ethnocentric view, though, is constantly tested in intercultural encounters. When a culture's gaze is blind to other cultures, that culture fails to understand what its real position is and how much authority (power) it really has. Therefore, the best way for cultures to determine their positions and power dynamics is through interaction. Positionality presupposes that different cultural positions are engaged in acts of communication.

Positionality as a Process of Engagement

The cartographic metaphor (Munshi & McKie, 200 I) sees the world in terms of a number of mental maps on which cultures see themselves occupying different po­ sitions; for example, the West sees itself occupying a superior position. These cul­ tural maps are dynamic, though. So, the essence of intercultural communication can be better represented by the kaleidoscope metaphor, :which views cultural po­ sitions as constantly changing through the process of engagement, whereby peo­ ple from different cultures present claims that their narratives represent the true vision of the world.

Cultural positions are situated (grounded), not given; they are developed through intercultural communication as complex dynamics of authority, or power relations. When people from different cultures come into contact, their positions are engaged. For instance, the U.S. position on its role in winning the Second World War is seen differently when the British and Russian perspectives are en-

-

CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 97

gaged. The U.S. position shifts, as if in a kaleidoscope, from that of a crucial player to that of a minor player in the last phase of the war.

In intercultural interactions, whether a culture's authority is a source of power depends on whether it is accepted or rejected by other cultures. The au­ thority of what a culture presents as its knowledge of the world depends on ac­ knowledgment by people from other cultures. Hence, the more others accept a culture's system of meanings, the more authority the culture has and the more ground it covers, so to speak. As a result, its position becomes more powerful. People from one culture may not accept another culture's position on some­ thing-that is, they may deny its authority. They may feel that their core values are being undermined by foreign influence such as advertising or media. As a re­ sult, resistance may become one of their main rhetorical intercultural strategies. The strategy of resistance comes into play when a culture feels that its au­ thority is being threatened or weakened by other cultures. The ethnocentric, or central, position the culture has held so naturally is now challenged; the culture starts losing ground, as it were, to other cultures whose positions may now be­ come central. establishing new ground. Interesting evidence of this phenomenon is found in the practice of self-labeling, whereby people from a certain culture identify themselves through various verbal labels. One recent study revealed re­ sistance of white Americans to self-labels such as "White" and "Caucasian" (Mar­ tin et al., 1996). Many subjects mocked the survey, and a large number of unusable responses were generated. These results illustrate that white Americans occupy a privileged (central) position; for them, this position is situated as "nat­ ural." They have more power because they make more decisions about how things should be done. They resist (consciously or not) looking at themselves from an­ other (peripheral) position because that suggests other cultures might see them differently, which would challenge their central position. In other words, white Americans do not consider--0r refuse to consider-that their whiteness (as ground) may lose its central place and be replaced by another color (another cul­ ture). Thus, resistance is a natural strategy aimed at keeping undesirable cultural positions at bay and reinforcing one's own cultural position. We will discuss the nature of resistance as a strategy of intercultural communication in more detail in

Chapter 10.

Earlier we showed how every culture aims to establish authority for its vision of the world by creating narratives. It is now clear that different cultures engage in interaction with each other, claiming their own visions of the world. Overall, "no one narrative can capture every possible aspect of a series of events, so what is told and how it is told inescapa ly express a point of view" (Hall, 2002: 71). It is not surprising, therefore, to find any grand narrative claiming universal truth at­ tacked or "deconstructed" (see Young, 1996).

"Positionality is thus determined by where one stands in relation to 'the other'" (Merriam et al., 2001: 411). It is impossible for a culture to determine its real position without engaging other cultures' perspectives. Of course, dealing with positionality as engagement is easier when intercultural encounters are successful

( I' I I ' 1 ' , , . ' I 1 • !I "I, , I . ., )•

98 CHAPTER FOUR

and people from all interacting cultures feel good about themselves. It is more difficult, yet more important, to engage other perspectives when relationships be­ tween cultures are very asymmetrical. Richard Rorty, a well-known American philosopher, reminds Americans how important it is for their national pride to re­ member the horrors of the past, such as slavery, massacres, segregation, discrimi­ nation, and wars; similar horrors can be found in many nations' histories. He advocates that Americans never engage in such behaviors again (Rorty, 1998). However, this laudable approach must be taken a step further; in addition to promising never to do it again, the United States should engage the perspectives of others, such as the descendants of the enslaved and the massacred tribes and the survivors of Vietnam. 'Without the help of the face of the other (the victim)... , the latter's perspective cannot begin to comprehend the enormity of the act" (Abdel-Naur, 2000: 223). 1n other words, people from different cultures must en­ gage each other's perspectives if they truly want to comprehend themselves, to understand their real positions. In a sense, people must face reality through inter­ cultural interactions. 1n Chapters 9 and 10, we will discuss in detail what may hap­ pen if people from different cultures go against reality and fail to see each other's positions.

Speaking of intercultural engagement, an analogy can be drawn between

learning intercultural communication and learning foreign languages (Blair, 2000: 33). It is known that a second language is easier to learn than the first one, and the reason for that may have less to do with the structure of a particular language than with a change in our relation to the native language. We come to realize that our native language is only one way of looking at the world, and not the 'key· to re­ ality! It turns out there are other views of the world, reflected in language. Once we come to terms with this fact, it becomes easier to learn and appreciate other languages. The same goes for communicating with people from other cultures. In­ tercultural communication is a matter of multiple positions, and ours, no matter how natural and authoritative it may seem, is just one of many. If we want to learn more about the world (and ourselves!), we need to engage in intercultural communication.

The Positionality Principle Defined

Let's now give a more concise formulation of the Positionality Principle, based on the above discussion of its three parts.

First, our cultural knowledge is always situated, and people from every cul­ ture look at the world and their place in it from a particular point of view. The process of establishing a specific cultural position is called grounding.

Second, positionality is not simply a matter of cultures establishing their spe­ cific positions; it is a matter of power relations between these positions. When cul­ tures establish their positions (ground themselves), they claim authority for their vision of the world. But the authority of what a culture presents as its knowledge depends on acknowledgment by other cultures. In intercultural interactions, a cul-

CHARTING OUT A CULTURAL MAP 99

ture's power depends on whether its system of meanings is accepted or rejected by other cultures.

Third, it is impossible for a culture to determine its real position without en­

gaging other cultures' perspectives. When people from different cultural groups come into contact, their positions are activated, and changes in their systems of meanings take place.

In a nutshell, the Positionality Principle can be formulated as follows:

Intercu/tural communication is a process whereby people from different cultures claim authority for their vision of the world.

The Positionality Principle is important because it reveals the nature of eth­ nocentrism as an inherent human condition, while also highlighting its dangers for intercultural communication. The Positionality Principle helps us to look at in­ tercultural communication in a more relational way. It is important to understand that our cultural knowledge is always specific-that is, relative to a particular point of view-and we cannot help engaging in intercultural communication from that particular point of view. This is true for all cultures: Their knowledge is rela­ tive to their point of view. In intercultural communication, 'it all depends!• When we communicate, our specific perspectives are engaged, and we all strive to keep our ground.

So, now we know what happens to cultural meanings as they are performed and enacted. They are grounded, helping cultures to position themselves in the world.

Summary

In this chapter, the following problem question was posed: What happens to cul­ tural meanings as they are performed and enacted? To answer that question, we looked at the process of constructing cultural meaning as charting out a cultural map.

\

( I\., )I

1I,I

rl

( I )11

I

I.

We saw that cultural maps are dynamic formations and contain such cate­ gories as beliefs, attitudes, values, norms, and worldviews. This way, people from different cultures move from sensing the world to making sense of it.

With the help of a cultural gaze, we establish our orientation in the world. The starting point of our cultural gaze is ethnocentrism as an inherent human con­ dition. Ethnocentrism was presented, first and foremost, as a central point of ref­ erence that every culture needs in order to understand the world and itself. We discussed two dangers of ethnocentrism: ethnocentric reduction and ethnocentric negation. It was shown that effective intercultural communication, based on pos­ itive ethnocentrism, requires treating people from other cultures as both Self and Not-Self at the same time.

Based on these ideas, intercultural communication was presented as a mat­ ter of positionality. We demonstrated that cultures occupy specific positions.

100 CHAPTER FOUR

When they interact, their cultural gaze makes it possible for them to see the world and their own place in it. In this process, cultural meanings are generated; that is, our culture is grounded. Everything that we experience as a result of an intercul­ tural encounter and find meaningful is framed and becomes part of our culture, our •common ground.•

Also, we saw that positionality is not simply a matter of people from differ­ ent cultures establishing their specific positions; it is a matter of power relations between these positions. Intercultural encounters were presented as sites of power distributions. Every culture claims authority for its understanding of the world by creating narratives. To people from all cultures, their own stories are authentic. However, the real power of every culture depends on whether its system of mean­ ings is accepted or rejected by people from other cultures. That is why it is impos­ sible for a culture to determine its real position without engaging other cultures'. perspectives.

Based on these ideas, the Positionality Principle was !ormulated.

You might be wondering how, if everything in intercultural communication is a matter of a specific point of view, it is possible for cultures to communicate. Can cultures engage in interaction at all? There must be something general that people from all cultures can relate to-some common ground. We will discuss this question in the next chapter. We will try to find out whether there are any gen• era!standards that make intercultural communication possible.

i"

I .