F. Assign.
16 CHAPTER ONE
Introducing the Punctuation Principle
Let's now formula!e, based on the discussion above, the first principle of intercul tural communication: the Punctuation Principle. We will isolate three parts that make up this principle. Each part deals with intercultural communication as a process of drawing boundary Jines between groups of people. First, we will present boundary Jines in intercultural communication as conceptualizations. Next, we will look at constructive and destructive boundary lines. Finally, we will discuss the goal of intercultural communication as a process of looking for a boundary fit.
After discussing each part separately, we will formulate the Punctuation Principle as a whole.
Boundary Lines as Conceptualizations
The Concept of "Punctuation." You may be wondering what punctuation has to do with intercultural communication. It must be said right away that the Punctuation Principle is not about punctuation marks, even though the word punctuation has the same origin in the case of punctuation marks and in the case of the Punctuation Principle. Etymologically, punctuation is derived from the Latin punctuare and means to break or to mark with a point (Morris, 1982: 1060). This is exactly what traditional punctuation marks do-they break the stream of writ ing into separate elements and tell us what the divisions between these elements are. Punctuation marks help us to understand the correct meaning; as we all know, a simple comma, put in the wrong place, can change meaning dramatically. But the term punctuation can also be applied to communication in general, not just writing (see Bateson & Jackson, I 964; Watzlawick, I 984). 'In the study of communication, punctuation is a process of perception through which people or ganize their ongoing interactions into recognizable openings, closings, causes, and effects' (Anderson & Ross, 2002: 147).
Intercultural communication can be viewed from the same perspective. In intercultural communication, as shown above, we find marks such as skin color and land and water borders. Our experiences are·divided through such marks, or boundary lines, into different cultures with their own identities. In essence, the Punctuation Principle is the Principle of Boundary Lines.
If you were asked now 'What is a boundary line?" you would probably give examples such as land borders, sea lines, shared language, or shared beliefs and values. And you would be absolutely correct: All these are examples of boundary lines. But think how these boundaries change as we move from skin color to land borders to sea lines to shared beliefs and values..They become less and less tangi ble, and more and more difficult to detect. You can (literally) put your linger on a land border, but how can you grasp lines in the universe of beliefs and values? What about people who have the same skin color and yet do not communicate at all or, even worse, are ready to kill each other? Where does the boundary line be tween these people lie? What is a boundary line, first and foremost?
I
I
L"
CREATING CULTURAL BOUNDARIES 17
A Boundary Line as an Idea. Earlier, Barker was quoted as saying "What we think of as our identity is dependent on what we think we are nor (2000: 195). The word think, used twice in the quote, is the key to the origin of boundary lines: They are, above all our thoughts, perceptions, and expectations. Boundary lines are born in people's minds, as conceptualizations, and later turn into borders,
walls, lines in the water, language barricades, and such. There is a wonderful short film called Boundary Lines, directed and written by Philip Stapp in 1946. In this film, we see two friendly neighbors peacefully settling a dispute over a little fence. But we also see an arrow shot by a primordial hunter flying across time and turning into various types of weapons, eventually ending as an atomic bomb, ready to descend on a city. The film makes a powerful statement about the con ceptual nature of boundary lines.
Of course, sometimes nature pushes us, allowing us to draw boundary lines
more readily-by giving us different skin pigmentation, for instance. But even then, as we saw earlier in the example of race, our thoughts affect the process of identity construction. For example, in the 2000 U.S. Census, almost half of all His panic respondents refused to identify themselves as belonging to any of the five racial categories on the form: white, black, Asian, American Indian or Alaska na tive, or native of Hawaii or the Pacific Islands. Forty-two percent of all Latino re spondents marked the box labeled "some other race· and wrote in such identities as Mayan, Tejano, and mestizo (Navarro, 2003). So, even skin color is a moving target, and the North American construct of race is making room for new groups of people.
It is people who create boundary lines, for better or for worse. A boundary line, first and foremost, is an idea, or conceptualization.
Constructive and Destructive Boundary Lines
Identity Confirmation and Dlsconflrmation. During intercultural commu nication, people present their identity by taking a line. Naturally, people try to take an appropriate line, aiming to project the image that they desire. People from other cultures may respond to our self-presentation positively, or they may re spond negatively. Positive responses can be equated with identity confirmation, the •process through which individuals are recognized, acknowledged, and en dorsed" (Laing, 1961: 83). Identity-confirming messages may include showing empathy toward others and using supportive language. Negative responses can be equated with identity disconflrmation, "the process through which individuals do not recognize others, do not respond sensitively to dissimilar others, and do not accept others' experiences as valid" (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 47). Identity disconfirming messages may include ignoring others and using racist language. People ·can suffer real damage, real distortion• if people from another culture "mirror back to them a confining, or contemptible picture of themselves" (Taylor, 1992: 25),
Confirming or disconlirming messages affect the process of cultural identifi cation. If people can freely take the line they want-that is, use the verbal and
18 CHAPTER ONE
nonverbal behaviors they want-their identity as a self-construal is confirmed. In this case, people achieve their goals, and boundary lines are perceived as con structive. If people take a line, using certain verbal and nonverbal behaviors, but their identity as a self-construal is disconfirmed, they do not achieve their goals, and boundary lines are perceived as destructive.
Destructive Boundary Lines. When most people hear the words boundary lines and boundaries, their first image is of separation and L.eakdown in commu nication; hence, boundary lines are perceived as negative and destructive. Unfor tunately, this view is supported by numerous real-life examples. In fact, many illustrations discussed in this text are examples of intercultural failures due to de structive boundary lines. Boundary lines are destructive when they fail to help people realize their goals and define themselves-that is, construct their cultural identities (see Figure 4).
Any boundary that physically separates people from different cultures, pre venting them from taking their line in interacting with each other, is an example of a destructive boundary line; the Berlin Wall was one such boundary. People from different cultures can also be separated by other destructiv boundary lines for example, those of language. In the Texas town of Amarillo, two women who were fluent in Spanish and English were fired from their jobs because they chat ted in Spanish in their workplace. The owner of the company asked the women to speak only English while at work; the owner allegedly even demanded that they sign a pledge not to speak Spanish. Both women refused, and they lost their jobs (see Verhovek, 1997). It is clear that the boundary line in this intercultural in teraction was destructive: The owner was perceived by the women as overstepping his boundary, while the two women were perceived by the owner as uncoopera tive and lacking flexibility.
Constructive Boundary Lines. Let us not forget that without boundary lines there would be no cultures, so boundary lines cannot be all badl Besides, the Latin root of punctuation refers simply to·marking with points,· and the Latin root
( i )Destructive
'61 I \:Y
I
FIGURE4
CREATING CULTURAL BOUNDARIES 19
of boundary refers to ·a field within limits.• Nowhere do we find any evaluation; the meanings of the words punctuatian and boundary are neutral. Boundary lines could be perceived as negative and destructive, or they could (and should!) be per ceived as positive and constructive. Boundary lines are constructive when they make it possible for people to take a certain line in communication and define (construct) their cultural identity, regulating interaction with others. If the cul tures involved in communication see the boundary lines as serving them well, then the boundary lines are perceived as constructive and positive. The idea of constructive boundary lines is highlighted in Figure 5.
Take the example of St. Martin, the smallest parcel of land in the world ruled by two sovereignties. Part French and part Dutch ever since the partition treaty was signed back in 1648 (for more information, see Jermanok, 1999), the island even has two names-St. Manin and Sint Maarten. People from both cul tures have merged to create arguably the most cosmopolitan island in the Caribbean. The island's inhabitants are proud of their peaceful coexistence for over 350 years. A boundary line running from Cupecoy Bay in the west to Cor talita Beach in the east apportioned 21 square miles to the French and 16 square miles tc;> the Dutch. Legend has it that two soldiers, one Dutch and one French, were chosen to divide the island in half. They started back to back and began walking. However, the Dutch soldier stopped to have a drink, while the French soldier remained sober and continued his duty, hence the difference in size. (More likely, though, the French received 21 square miles because of their superior naval presence in the region when the treaty was signed.) Today, one is free to cross sides without a passport.
Thus, the nature of boundary lines is two-fold. A boundary line can cause disputes and even wars; then a boundary line is perceived as destructive and does not lead to effective intercultural interactions. Or a boundary line can create peaceful borders (think of a fence between two friendly neighbors); then it is per ceived as constructive and leads to effective intercultural communication. Again, the origin of boundary lines is in people's minds, and so it ls people who make those boundary lines destructive (dysfunctional, negative) or constructive (func tional, positive).
Constructive
( . ): I
I
FIGURES
20 CHAPTER ONE
Boundary Fit as the Goal of Intercultural Communication
The main goal of intercultural interactions is to make sure boundary lines are re spected and agreed upon-that is, are perceived as constructive by people from all cultures engaged in the interaction. Then all cultures can function successfully, reaching a boundary fit in their interactions. A boundary flt is an agreement among people from interacting cultures on the function of a boundary line between them. An example of a successful boundary fit would be the relationship between
the Amish and people from the Anglo-Saxon culture. Although interactions be tween the Amish and Anglo-Saxons are not perfect, the Amish have managed to fulfill their philosophy of maintaining cultural separateness and still succeed in their businesses and be accepted and respected by the Anglo-Saxon culture (Petronio et al., 1998).
But now look at another example-an excerpt from a guided tour of one of the so-called heritage museums in Israel:
( -, )I'll tell you a story, do you remember the story about the Patriarch Abraham? Oh, he was quite a man! Phee (Wow), he had lots of cows and sheep and lots of peo ple working for him, and he used to wander from place to place, and he lived in the desen. He was the first Bedouin, the Bedouins weren't there yet, but he was there already. He was sitting in a tent, what was his wife's name? Sara, Sara sat with him in the tent, and three angels are coming, they are going around in the desert, and they see some old man sitting with a young and beautiful woman, so they say:
( l )•Let's go visit them,• so they come, and Abraham says to them: •refadalu, please, come in and be our guests," so he says, what does he say to Sara? He whispers a loud whisper in her ear: "Go get three measures of flour (seot kemah).• Here are the measures (pointing to the wall), from the Bible straight here on this wall. You see, this is what they used to measure in, imagine, the Patriarch Abraham in his time. How many years already? Oh, it's impossible, I wasn't there, you weren't there, your parents weren't there, and he was already using this to measure with this. (Katriel, 1994: 14)
To Jewish audiences, this kind of story sounds like a playful elaboration of a well-known biblical tale. To Arab audiences, however, the strategy of renaming Abraham as the first Bedouin and endowing a familiar agricultural object (the measure) with a biblical career is an act of cultural appropriation-the taking away of symbolic resources. It might be that the Israeli crossed an imaginary line
here, or it might be that the Arabs simply overreacted. Whatever the case, it is hardly possible to speak of a true boundary fit in this intercultural interaction.
Or take the example of a dramatic change in the boundary lines in the former Yugoslavia, where people from the same communities suddenly saw themselves as members of different ethnic groups. The aggressive behavior of former neighbors, friends, and even spouses, which the international community found difficult to understand, was the consequence of a changed boundary fit (Petronio et al., 1998). Sometimes it seems that the boundary line between people from different cultures is so negative and deeply engraved that no boundary fit is possible. How-