Assignment

60 CHAPTER THREE

consistent with the so-called performative approach in social studies (K,apchan, 1995; Schechner, 2002; Warren 2001). According to this approach, to perform is to carry something into effect; hence, intercultural communication can be viewed as a process of carrying meaning, or cultural identity, as such, into effect.

When we speak of performativity or performance in intercultural communi­ cation, we must remember that "performance is the manifestation of performa­ tivity. This is to say, performativity refers to the reiterative process of becoming, while performance refers to the materialization of that process-the individual acts by human players in the world" (Warren, 2001: 106; boldface added)

The performative approach suggests that intercultural communication is per­ formed, like music. There are a variety of verbal and nonverbal elements (notes), with which people create various language games (music). Some games are quite simple (a routine greeting), while others are more complex (business negotia­ tions). In all cases, though, meanings are performed; that is, they are created and re-created in the process of interaction. People perform various activities repeat­ edly, and through repetition these movements become symbolic resources making up cultural identity. In intercultural interactions, to use Nietzsche's expression, "the deed is everything" (quoted in Butler, 1990: 25).

,11

I

"I

I

,,

'l

I,

Introducing the Performativity Principle

Looking at intercultural communication as performance, we will formulate our third principle of intercultural communication: the Perfo.rmativity Principle. There are three parts to this principle, and each deals with intercultural communication as creating and enacting meaning in the process of interaction. First, we will dis­ cuss the dramaturgy of intercultural performativity, or how people move from rules to roles. Next, we will present intercultural communication as a reiterative process. Finally, we will show the structure of intercultural communication as per­ formance. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Performa­ tivity Principle as a whole.

The Dramaturgy of Performativity:

From Rules to Roles

Communication as Drama. When people communicate with one another, they try to reach their goals by using various language means. Every act of com­ munication is a performance whereby people lace each other (either literally or in a mediated fashion, such as via the telephone or the Internet) and, as if on stage, present themselves-their very identities-dramatically to each other.

The theatrical or dramaturgical metaphor for communication does not sug­

gest that people perform actions according to predetermined scripts or that per­ formances are insincere and deceitful. Nor does the theatrical metaphor suggest that people think of themselves as actors, always conscious of performing on stage. What the dramaturgical view of performativity states is that all people engage in

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 61

role enactment, playing out their identities. The premise of this view is that "peo­ ple are not, originally and in some factlike way, 'mothers,' 'surgeons,' or 'crazy.' Instead, they are cast into these roles by themselves and by others" (Brown, 1977: 199). In other words, all roles are created in the process of communication. Even in the most mundane situations, such as a casual conversation with a friend, the inieractlon is always a performance, a process of playing a certain role and pre­ senting a certain impression, or "face."

Performance and Face. The concept of face refers to the cultural identity we present to others (Goffman, 1959). Our cultural face embodies all meanings with which we identify, and, obviously, we want to present it according to our goals. Naturally, people from other cultures want to present their face according to their goals. In this light, intercultural communication can be seen as facework-an elaborate process whereby people from different cultures present their identities to each other, trying to play a language game together and accomplish their tasks. In this process, roles are enacted and impressions of identities are managed. In fact, there is a special theory-Identity Management Theory-that discusses how peo­ ple from different cultures manage face in their encounters (Cupach & Imahori, 1993). This theory argues that cultural identities are revealed through the pre­ sentation of face and that "the maintenance of face is a natural and inevitable con­ dition of° human interaction" (Cupach & Imahori, 1993: 116). Therefore, "intercultural communication competence involves successfully managing face" (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 120). If people fail to present the face that they desire, a role fails to be enacted, and intercultural communication as a performance can­ not be consid,;red successful.

Performance and Frames. So, in every intercultural encounter, people from one culture present a certain image of themselves and act so that this image is un­ derstood by people from another culture. This is done by using various forms of verbal and nonverbal language, as we discussed earlier-"insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age, and racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech pat­ terns; facial expressions; bodily gestures; and the like" (Goffman, 1959: 13). As a result, every intercultural encounter is framed; a frame is a definition or an in­ terpretation of what a certain situation means (Goffman, 1974). People from var­ ious cultures have their own frames for such interactions as weddings, job interviews, and lectures. Every cultural frame can be viewed as a language game played according to certain rules. Naturally, if the same situation is framed differ­ ently by people from different cultures, intercultural communication as perfor­ mance cannot be effective. The offer oi a cup of coffee discussed earlier is one such situation; what was meant (framed) as an invitation to establish a friendly rela­ tionship was interpreted (framed) as a mere offer of a beverage.

Cultural identities spotlight every act of communication as performance. In other words, people find themselves in the spotlights provided by their respective cultures. This area, illustrated in Figure 5, constitutes the stage where intercultural performances take place and roles are enacted.

II

Ii

( 11 )II.

II

62 CHAPTER THREE

•

FIGURES

Thus, the drarnaturgical view of performance shows us that intercultural communication is a process of playing out our identities by moving from rules to roles. We must emphasize that this enacting of roles is a process and takes time and effort.

Performativity as a Reiterative Process

We will begin this section by looking at intercultural communication in two ways. We will view it first as an ethnographic encounter and second as culture shock. We will then explain what both views have in common and how it all re­ lates to the concept of perlormativity.

Intercultural Communication as an Ethnographic Encounter. Ethnog­ raphy is •a method of interpreting actions in a manner that generates under­ standing in the terms of those performing the actions" (Wood, 2000: 130). Ethnographers "study the diversity and urtity of cultural performance as a uni­ versal human resource for deepening and clarifying the meaningfulness of life" (Conquergood, 1985: 1). Interpretation of different cultural experiences is not only the province of trained ethnographers; it is what all people do when they meet one another. In this respect, intercultural commurtication can be viewed as a constant series of ethnographic encounters.

What are the main steps Sell takes as it interacts with the Other? Let's look at a simple example of an intercultural encounter. Suppose you, a person from England, find yourself in Saudi Arabia and want to buy a Valentine's Day gilt for a friend.

You go into a store and ask a simple question, "Where can I buy Valentine's

Day gilts?" To your surprise, the salesperson is horrified and quickly disappears. Obviously, your intercultural encounter was not successful, and your ethno­ graphic experience produced a negative result. But why did you act that way in

·1

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 63

the first place? Because you assumed that Valentine's Day was celebrated every­ where and expected to perform such a routine business transaction as buying a gilt without any difficulty. This first step you took on your way to understanding the Other can be called 'introspection.' Introspection refers to using one's own frame of reference in dealing with others. In our intercultural encounters, we cannot help relying on our own working models and expectations, and we be­ come aware of cultural differences when they are brought to light by an unsuc­ cessful encounter. Introspection is our default mechanism, so to speak, and it is activated each time we have an intercultural encounter.

You might have failed to buy a Valentine's Day gift, but you have not given up on buying one-and gaining more knowledge about the culture of Saudi Ara­ bia. So you decide to stay in the store; you want to see if other buyers will have more luck. Soon another customer comes in, and another salesperson, who seems

to be more perceptive and less scared, shows him a large selection of Valentine .1

items and sells him a Valentine's Day gilt. Now you know that Valentine's Day

gifts are available in Saudi Arabia, and you are proud of having gained this piece of cultural knowledge. This step can be called observation-paying attention or noting a phenomenon. This is exactly what you did; you acted as an observer (by not stepping out of the store), and it paid off.

Now you know that Valentine's Day gilts are available in Saudi Arabia, but you are still far from understanding the meaning of the behaviors you have ob­ served. You decide to dress in your best Western clothes and try another store. You strike up a conversation with a salesperson, telling him you come from Eng­ land and want to send your friend a Valentine gift. Your guess is that the sales­ person will h1tve nothing to fear and will be eager to help you. You guess right, and minutes later you walk out of the store with a nice teddy bear, with "Love" and "Me" traced on two paws. The step you just took can be called experiment­ examining the validity of a hypothesis. This is exactly what you did; you came up with a guess, set up the situation, and confirmed your guess. The result is the teddy bear-and another insight into the culture of Saudi Arabia.

However, you still cannot quite see the practice of buying a Valentine gilt in Saudi Arabia from the point of view of those native to that culture-salespeople and customers, whose encounters seemed to you like a well-choreographed dance. You feel that something is still missing, and you cannot be sure that your next intercultural encounter in a similar situation will be successful. Fortunately, you are on your way to meet a young person from Saudi Arabia who had stayed at your house back in England as an exchange student. He speaks good English and seems to be very open-minded and eager to talk. So you describe your shop­ ping adventure to him and ask for an explanation. This is how you find out that officially Valentine's Day is prohibited in Saudi Arabia, but it is difficult to ban peo­ ple, especially young people, from celebrating the holiday. You learn that the feared muttawa, or religious police, visit stores to try to ensure that everyone obeys the law. You also learn that salespeople can usually tell real buyers (espe­ cially those dressed in Western clothes or obviously from other cultures) from undercover religious police. Finally, you are told that stores usually sell the gilt

64 CHAPTER THREE

items weeks in advance; as February 14 gets closer, it becomes more difficult to find Valentine gifts in stores because the religious police begin looking for any­ thing suggesting the holiday. You are amazed to learn all this information and feel that now you can really understand the meaning of the cultural practices associ­ ated with Valentine's Day from the point of view of the people native to Saudi Arabia. This last step that you took can be called interview, for this is exactly what you did-you asked questions, as in an interview.

With each step, you have come closer to the Other (culture of Saudi Arabia). You have become more actively involved in intercultural communication, moving from simply using your own frame of reference (introspection) to passively look­ ing at the situation (observation) to setting up a situation and validating your guess (experiment) to asking questions (interview). As a result of this ethnographic en­ counter, you have gained important knowledge about the people of Saudi Arabia, and you should be able to communicate with them more successfully the next time you find yourself in that country and need to buy a Valentine gift. Thus, in your ethnographic encounter, you have taken several important steps, coming back to Self and changing your own frame of reference (see Figure 6).

Intercultural Communication as Culture Shock. When people act as ethno­ graphers in intercultural communication, they may find -it difficult to adjust to new situations. For example, one might react to the situation described above with a variety of thoughts ('Why did that salesperson refuse to talk to me?'), emotions ("This is very frustrating!"), and behaviors ("I'm leaving this country tonight!'). As was mentioned earlier in the book, culture shock, as the name suggests, is people's reaction to an attempt to adjust to new situations (Oberg, 1960). lntercultural communication is a process of constantly dealing with culture shock.

Culture shock can be viewed as a process involving several stages (see Fumhan & Bochner, 1986; Winkelman, 1994). Let's break down your experience in Saudi Arabia into its main stages.

First of all, even before getting to Saudi Arabia, you formed some expecta­ tions about people from that culture and how to interact with them. This first stage of culture shock can be called the preliminary stage; it sets the tone for your in­ tercultural journey.

'll

( ' )'• .",

I

I

( Observation )FIGURE 6 Ethnographic Encounter

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 65

As soon as you got to Saudi Arabia, you became excited about all the new things you encountered in the culture. You were fascinated by the exotic foods, beautiful architecture, and peculiar dress. This stage of culture shock can be called the "honeymoon" stage. Back home in England, you had done your home­ work, read travel books, and formed your expectations. And now, finally, you were in Saudi Arabia for the first time, and of course you were very excited!

Then you remembered that February 14 was coming up and decided to send your friend back home a gift for Valentine's Day. You stepped into a store and asked that simple question: "Where can I buy Valentine's Day gifts?" To your sur­ prise, the salesperson was horrified and quickly disappeared. Naturally, you were puzzled and frustrated. You felt confused and rejected. This is the crisis stage of culture shock. As the name suggests, it is a critical stage; either you give up and leave the store (and perhaps the country) or you try to find out what is going on. Fortunately, you started to observe other customers and then decided to set up an experiment. As a result, you learned that Valentine's Day gifts are available in Saudi Arabia, and you felt better about your stay there.

Later, you spoke with your Saudi friend about your experience, learning much more about Valentine's Day in that culture. Your confusion and feelings of hostility and rejection disappeared. You decided you could live with the cultural practices associated with Valentine's Day. This is the adjustment stage of culture shock.

When you plan your next trip to Saudi Arabia, you will keep these travel ex­

periences in mind. The next time you need to buy a Valentine gift there, you will be able to accomplish that task successfully, without as much shock. Thus, in deal­ ing with culture shock, you went through several important stages, coming back to Self and changing your preliminary expectations (see Figure 7).

Intercultural Communication as a Hermeneutic Circle. What is common to viewing intercultural communication as an ethnographic encounter and as cul­ ture shock? Both views show how Self goes through certain steps, or stages, in order to understand how to interact with the Other. In both cases, Self moves closer and closer to understanding the Other and then goes back to square one (one's own frame of reference). Thus, in this complex process, Sell operates

I.

,

'I

",I

( • Honeymoon Crisis )

FIGURE 7 Stages of Culture Shock

I,

66 CHAPTER THREE

I•

II

I !I

'Ii.'

between two extremes-identifying with the Other and keeping distant from the Other. This process of understanding meaning is sometimes described as a hermeneutic circle, where distance-experiences and near-experiences are in constant rotation (Geertz, 1983). First, Self looks at the Other from a distance (distance-experience). Then Self gets closer to the Other, trying to understand its meanings from within (near-experiences). These meanings, however, can be un­ derstood only if Self steps back and checks how these new experiences fit his or her own frame of reference (distance-,:xperiences). But then Self must again move back closer to the Other (near-experiences), and the cycle continues.

In this process, Self has to balance two roles: those of insider and outsider, or actor and spectator. If Self completely identifies with the people from the other culture-that is, becomes an actor-Self ceases to see how she or he is different from the Other and thereby loses the framework from which to approach the Other. As a result, Self can no longer be a spectator of the language game being created and is no longer able to evaluate the intercultural experience and decide what meanings should and should not be enacted. This scenario of intercultural interactions can be viewed as assimilation, in which individuals disregard their own cultural tradition in favor of the tradition of another culture. Of course, if Self chooses to completely distance himself or herself from contact with the Other, no intercultural communication takes place. Then Self is merely a spectator, unable to act together with the Other and create meanings. This scenario of intercultural interactions can be viewed as separation, in which individuals tend to favor their own cultural tradition and disregard the tradition of a new culture. The best way to balance the roles of insider and outsider, or actor and spectator, is through in­ tegration, in which individuals have a truly bicultural identity. (We will discuss the nature and value of intercultural integration in Chapters 8, 9, and 10.)

The hermeneutic circle can be viewed as the stage where all intercultural performances take place. It is important to remember, however, that no spectators exist separately from the actors on that stage; people are both actors and specta­ tors. As actors, people simultaneously write and perform their script together, cre­ ating and re-creating their world. As spectators, people watch the results of their creations. But they exist on the same stage, in the same world. Remember Shake­ speare-'A/1 the world's a stage• (italics added)? Only people who interact with one another can take care of their world and write a good script in which every­ body tries to get along with everybody else.

For the sake of the example, we have assumed that you as Self are comfort­ able with the role you have enacted in the intercultural performance-that of a Western customer willing to perform, in essence, an illegal act in order to show af­ fection for your friend back in England. However, your performance could take a different route; for instance, you might decide to insist that a Valentine gift be sold to you openly, thus acting in defiance of the existing cultural practices. In this sce­ nario, another role is enacted-that of a critic of the existing cultural order. Sales­ people, on their part, will need to decide on their roles in this intercultural performance: Do they support you and let you have your way, go against your

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 67

Near experience

,

Self, Other

Distance experience ­

FIGURE 8 Hermeneutic Circle of lntercultural Communication

wishes, or take some other course of action? In this scenario, intercultural tensions are much higher, causing more severe culture shock and leading to a serious con­ flict. There are a number of models describing the types of identity change that can be related to role enactment (see Ting-Toomey, 1999: 254-256). Overall, our ex­ periences in understanding people from other cultures in terms of the hermeneu­ tic circle are shown in Figure 8.

Thus, enactment of meanings that constitute cultural identity is a reiterative process. We all want to be part of a culture-that is, belong to a certain culture. However, belonging is not simply a matter of be-ing, but of longing, and hence be­ longing (Bell; 1999: I). Belonging is always an achievement, an effect performa­ tively produced. But cultural identity can never be achieved once and for all; in a way, we can never simply "be" (completely identify with) Self or the Other. We can only repeatedly work on the construction of cultural identities; that is, we can only 'long for" cultural identities. Thus,

Perlormativity denies, in some fundamental ways, the stability of identity, moving toward a notion of repetition as a way of understanding that those markers used to describe one's identity (i.e., gender, class, race, sexuality) get constructed through the continual pe,formance of those markers. (Warren, 200 I: 95; italics added)

The view of performativity as a reiterative process is not pessimistic at all; on the contrary, it is liberating. It suggests that any identity can be constructed as long as Self and the Other go through the hermeneutic circle-as many times as is neces• sary for meaning to be enacted. •

But how many times? How do we know when meaning is enacted? We need

to learn about the structure of performativity to answer this question.

The Structure of Performativity

The following discussion of the structure of intercultural performance is based on the ideas of the Activity Theory initiated in Russia in the I920s and 1930s (for more information, see Leont'ev, 1978; Wertsch, I998). A simple example will help us to understand how any activity is performed.

( I )'i 68 CHAPTER THREE

, I

I

I'

LI

I ' '

Levels of Performance. Suppose you are visiting the United States and your American friends invite you to attend a baseball game. Their friendship is impor­ tant to you, and you are determined to show them that you enjoy this entertain• men! experience as much as they do. Having formulated for yourself the cultural frame ('sports entertainment") and the motive ("enjoying the game together with one's friends"), you must successfully attain a variety of specific goals. Some of the actions you must take to achieve those goals include purchasing your ticket, hand· ing it to the gatekeeper, following tll.e score, and visiting the concession stand. Some of these actions are relatively simple (purchasing the ticket); some are more complex (following the score).

Suppose your friends are willing, and even happy. to introduce you to the game and teach you as much as possible about this popular American sport. They do their best to explain to you the rules of the game and how to keep score, and they provide a lot of other useful information about the overall performance. What impact will all this have on your future interactions in a similar intercultural situation? Obviously, you will feel much more comfortable performing all the necessary actions. Even more importantly, you will think less about how to, say, purchase a ticket or hand it to the gatekeeper. The activity of attending a baseball game will have flown through actions to operations; in other words, the activity will have become operationalized. A5 a result, you will start performing this ac­ tivity almost automatically.

So, the structure of performativity can be analyzed in"terms of three levels:

1. The first level is called the activity level; it is performance driven by a cer­ tain motive. This level focuses on a certain culturally defined context, or

•I frame, as discussed earlier. The activity in our example can be framed as

I "sports entertainment," and the motive is "enjoying the game together with

I one's friends" (someone else might have a different motive for performing

l· this activity, such as obligation or to please a boyfriend or girlfriend).

' ,,,,

2. Every activity can be carried out only through actions; hence, the second level of behavior is the actions level. Actions are performances directed to- ward specific goals. In our example, you must purchase your ticket, hand it

to the gatekeeper, and so forth.

3. Finally, the third level is the operations level because every activity can be performed through different operations, depending on conditions. Opera­ tions adjust actions to current conditions. In our example, you may bring along an umbrella, if it is a rainy day, or binoculars, if your seats are too far from the field. Without such adjustments you cannot realize your main mo· tive-enjoying the game.

Thus, the structure of your performance takes on the form shown in Figure 9.

Every performance can be seen as an activity that is carried out through ac­ tions and results in the formation of operations (skills). In other words, successful communication as performance requires knowledge of why an encounter takes place, what goals must be attained through what actions, and how they can be ac-

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING

ii

69 I

Activity

attending a baseball game

( it )Action

..,. Motive

enjoying game with your friends

Goal

handing your ticket to gatekeeper

Operation

bringing umbrella

getting into ball park

Conditions

rainy day

FIGURE?

complished under specific conditions. Thus, every performance is seen at the high­ est level as an activity, at the intermediate level as a series of actions, and at the lowest level as a number of concrete operations. It is important to emphasize that these three levels can be isolated only for the sake of analysis; in real life, every in­ tercultural encounter is one whole performance.

At the highest level, intercultural communication is framed, to use the term discussed earlier; that is, it takes place within certain culturally defined contexts. For communication to be successful, people must, first of all, understand what the frames are and what motivates people to behave in a certain way. If one fails to identify the appropriate frame and to see the motive for other people's behavior, intercultural communication may be unsuccessful.

In his ethnographic descriptions of the Western Apache culture, Basso tells about a young Apache woman who, while attending a girl's puberty ceremony, had her hair in pink plastic curlers. Here is how Basso describes what happened to that young woman at a birthday party two weeks later:

When the meal was over casual conversation began to flow, and the young woman seated herself on the ground next to her younger sister. And then---<JUietly, deftly, and totally without warning-her grandmother narrated a version of the historical tale about the forgetful Apache policeman who behaved too much like a white man. Shortly after the story was finished, the young woman stood up, turned away wordlessly, and walked off in the direction of her home. Uncertain of what had happened, l asked her grandmother why she had departed. Had the young woman suddenly become ill? 'No,· her grandmother replied. '! shot her with an arrow.· (Basso, 1990: 122)

1

It became clear to the ethnographer that the girl's grandmother had told her a moralistic story (arrow) to teach her a lesson and to remind her that, at puberty ceremonies, hair should be worn loose to show respect for Apache customs. Basso describes this Western Apache cultural frame as 'stalking with stories"-telling a moralistic historical narrative. At first, however, the ethnographer was unable to identify the frame and understand the motives for the girl's and the grandmother's

•

70 CHAPTER TIIREE

I

' I

II'

"'

behavior; as he admits, he was "uncertain of what had happened." When he found out what had happened, all their actions made sense to him.

So, the outcome of intercultural communication depends on how successfully

we can understand meanings of other people's behavior. If we do not understand why people from a different culture behave in a certain way, we need to go back to our ethnographic drawing board, so to speak, and gather more information.

The Flow of Performance. The flow of every performance is from activity through actions to operations and back to activity. In this flow, roles of intercul­ tural performance are constantly enacted and re-created.

Why is it important for our performances to become operationalized? The simple answer is •so we can focus on more important things.· You could hardly enjoy a baseball game if you were constantly thinking about how to keep score or how to purchase a beverage at the concession stand. However, if we started per­ forming our intercultural interactions only as operations, then we as actors would become no different from robots, simply going through the motions. We must never forget about our other role-that of spectators. We must always evaluate our performance and, if we feel we are only going through the motions, create · new meanings, whatever they might be. Our performances become operational­ ized only to give us more freedom to be creative and come.up with new motives and new meaningful activities. The flow of intercultural communication as enact­ ment of meaning is from activity through actions to operations and then back to activity. That is why the arrows in Figure 9 go from the activity level down to the level of operations and back up to the level of activity. Communication as perfor­ mance is always a loop-a reiterative process of enactment of meaning.

Now we know that meaning is enacted when our performance is opera­ tionalized. How long or how much effort it takes depends on the complexity of the performance. If the goal is simply to greet a fellow student, this meaning can be enacted fairly quickly. If, however, you need to act as a chief negotiator, working with people from another culture on a joint business project, the enactment of your role will take much more time and effort.

The Performativity Principle Defined

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

First, intercultural communication is a process of playing out our identities

by moving from rules to roles. In every intercultural encounter, people from one culture present a certain image of themselves and act so that this image is under­ stood by people from another culture. This is done by using various verbal and nonverbal language means. As a result, every intercultural encounter is framed or defined in a certain way.

,,

,,

"

I

i

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS ENACTMENT OF MEANING 71

Second, enactment of meanings that constitute cultural identity is a reitera­ tive process. In this process, Self and the Other go through the hermeneutic circle as many times as is necessary for meaning to be enacted.

Third, the structure of intercultural communication as performance is as fol-

lows: from activity through actions to operations and then back to activity. In a nutshell, the Performativity Principle can be formulated as follows:

Intercultural communication is a reiterative process whereby people from different cultures enact meanings in order to accomplish their tasks.

Thus, intercultural communication is a joint effort of creating and enacting meanings.

Summary

In this chapter, the following problem question was posed: What is the means to meaning in intercultural communication?

We began the chapter by presenting language as a means of communication.

We showed that both verbal and nonverbal means are used to create certain lan­ guage games, which constitute cultural identities. The overall process of using language was presented as a performance. Thus, performance was shown to be the main means to meaning in intercultural communication.

Based on these ideas, we discussed the dramaturgical nature of intercultural

communication as a process of moving from rules to roles. In this process, people from different cultures act and create meanings together. Thus, we defined per­ formativity as a process of enactment of meaning.

Next, we showed that the process of enactment of meaning is reiterative. We

looked at the reiterative nature of intercultural communication, using the exam­ ple of a hermeneutic circle as an interplay between distance-experiences and near­ experiences. In this process, people constantly balance the roles of actors and spectators, together creating and re-creating their world. Cultural meanings are enacted through a reiterative and ongoing process of performance.

Finally, we presented the structure of intercultural performativity. We showed that the fiow of performativity is from activity through actions to opera­ tions and back to activity.

Based on these ideas, the Performativity Principle was formulated.

We now know that intercultural communication is always a joint effort, an activity performed by Self and the Other. As a result of this activity, cultural mean­ ings are enacted. But what happens to cultural meanings as they are enacted? This question will be answered in the ne•xt chapter.

·',

'