F. Assign.

( 36 CHAPTER TWO two notebooks, coincide? The answer of course is that the two will not be identi­ cal. The reason fm this discrepancy is dearly not due to the nature ol the event, but rather to the fact that the observers were different, psychologically and culturally. So, as Heisenberg would have suggested, the true nature of the event is indeter­ minable. (1999: 64) )In every intercultural interaction, we try to capture and represent meaning so that we can use it in the future. In a way, we approach every situation of in­ tercultural interaction as if it consisted of 'things,• or small particles, and srrive to discover their exact meaning; this approach is found in the objective view of knowledge. But, as you remember, every situation is dynamic because "things• re­ late to other things, creating continual motion like that of a wave; this approach is found in the subjective view of knowledge. Thus, it is possible to discover the exact meaning of something with only a degree of certainty, which implies a de­ gree of uncertainty as well.

Introducing the Uncertainty Principle

( l )Now, on the basis of the discussion above, we can introduce the second principle underlying intercultural communication: the Uncertainty Principle. There are three parts to this principle, and each deals with the nature of our knowledge about our interactions with people from other cultures. First, we will discuss im­ certainty in terms of horizon of knowledge. Next, we will present intercultural communication as a process of dis-closure. Finally, we will show how uncertainty is linked to order. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Un- certainty Principle as a whole. ·

Uncertainty and Horizon of Knowledge

Uncertainty refers to our cognitive inability to predict or--explain •our own or others' feelings and behaviors in interactions• (Chen & Starosta, 1998: 122). Two kinds of uncertainty are often isolated: predictive and explanatory. Predictive uncertainty is the inability to predict what someone will say or do, while explanatory uncertainty is the inability to explain why people behave as they do (Martin & Nakayama, 2000: 210).

Uncertainty usually evokes anxiety, which is considered to be its affective equivalent (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 329). Higher levels of uncertainty and anx­ iety directly correlate with increased communication apprehension (Neuliep & Ryan, 1998).

The Uncertainty Management Theory (Gudykunst, 1995; Gudykunst & Lee, 2002) sees the goal of intercultural communication as seeking information to re­ duce uncertainty and increase the predictability of our interactions with the Other. Ideally, it seems, uncertainty would be eliminated from our intercultural interac­ tions, but can it be? Can we be absolutely confident that our knowledge is certain

1

L

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 37

and complete? Can we honestly say that the way we have predicted or explained something excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future? We can try to know everything there is to know about our­ selves, about people from other cultures, and about how to interact with them, but can we succeed?

Earlier, it was shown that the line between objective reality and its subjec­ tive interpretation is always uncertain. Now let's take this thesis a step further and look at intercultural communication, using a modification of the Johari Window model (Luft, 1970). Our model consists of four areas of awareness (or 'window panes') in the context of interaction (see Figure 3).

The first area, the Open Window, contains the information that others know about you and that you are aware of. The second area, the Closed Window, con­ tains the information that you know about yourself, but others do not know about you. The third area, the Blind Window, contains the information that other peo­ ple know about you, but you do not know. And the fourth area, the Unknown Window, contains the information that is unknown to both you and others.

In their interactions, people from different cultures share some information about themselves (Open Window). At the same time, people from one culture keep to themselves some information that people from the other culture are not aware of (Closed Window) and are unaware of some information that people from the other culture have about them (Blind Window). Intercultural commu­ nication takes place against the backdrop of some information that is not known to people from either culture (Unknown Window).

Consider the following situation (see Cohen, 1999: 224). Two persons, one from an Asian culture and the other from a Western culture, are engaged in busi­ ness negqtiations. At some point it becomes obvious to both parties that the ne­ gotiations are leading nowhere, yet the Asian suggests that a document be signed, presenting the negotiations as a success. The Westerner might view this behavior as frustrating or even ethically questionable. The Westerner might take offense and withdraw from the negotiations or, on the contrary, vow not to go away and insist that the negotiations continue. That behavior, in tum, might be perceived by the Asian as unnecessarily unpleasant and excessively persistent. To the Asian, accord is essential, to preserve appearances and maintain the impression that the

( I Open 11 Blind I Closed 11 Unknown I )Known to self Known to others

Known to others

Not known to othersI

FIGURE 3 Applkation of Johar! Window to Intercultural Communication

38 CHAPTER TWO

I ,I

1

I

negotiations have concluded on a basis of mutual respect and equal standing. Be­ sides, there is always a hope that, in the future, things might change and tum out all right.

First, these two people share some information about themselves: The Asian suggests that a document be signed, and the Westerner objects. This part of the in­ tercultural exchange forms its Open Window. Second, each person holds some in­ formation that the other is not aware of: The Asian wants to preserve appearances, while the Westerner wants to be straightforward. This part of the intercultural ex­ change forms its Closed Window. Third, both parties are unaware of some infor­ mation about them held by the other: The Asian is unaware that he or she is coming across as lazy or unethical, while the Westerner is unaware that he or she is coming across as stubborn and inconsiderate. This part of the intercultural ex­ change forms its Blind Window. Fourth, there is always the possibility that this situation may change, taking a new twist. Thus, this exchange contains informa­ tion that is not known to either party (Unknown Window).

Figure 4 shows intercultural interactions in terms of the areas of awareness discussed above. The shared area in the middle represents the Open Window; the areas on the left and right represent the Closed Window (Self's view of Self) and the Blind Window (Other's view of Self); and the background area represents the Unknown Window.

Every situation of intercultural interaction appears before us like a horizon: It seems to stand still, but in reality it does not. We move closer trying to reach it, and it moves away. Thus, the picture we see is always somewhat different-and limited to our view. What we have in front of us, in fact, is a viewing window. We try to see more of what is behind the left edge, and we inevitably lose some infor­ mation on the right. We try to see more of what is behind the right edge, and we

inevitably lose some information on the left. And something always remains un­

1 knowable. We must stress 'the function of the unknown· because "concerned as

we are with what we do, we cannot forget that we are all limited individuals, most interested in those facts relevant to the course of our lives, having to make deci­ sions before we have all the information a pure seeker alter knowledge would re­ quire• (Fleischacker, 1994: 50-51).

FIGURE4

L

, I

I

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE !N !NTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 39

Thus, every situation of intercultural communication is characterized by a

horizon of knowledge-that is, a different degree of reach of knowledge. Like a

horizon, knowledge in intercultural communication is never completely reached. 'i

In other words, seemingly static cultural realities are, in fact, dynamic by nature I I

and always open to new interpretation. One of Gary Larson's cartoons makes this point very well. In the cartoon, an ostrich, sitting in a bar holding a cocktail glass, is saying to the woman next to him, "Well, according to the dictionary, I'm just a large, flightless bird from East Africa But believe me, Doris-once you get to

( I )know me, you'll see I'm much, much more than that.• 'I

So, we cannot be absolutely confident that our understanding is certain and complete; intercultural communication is inherently variable and subject to rein• terpretation. We can never say that the way we have predicted or explained some­ thing excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future. We must acknowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication.

Since uncenainty in intercultural communication cannot be avoided, we must deal with it. That is to say, we must share information with others and un· derstand their information ourselves. As a result, intercultural communication can be seen as a process of dis-closure.

Uncertainty and Dis-closure

Disclosure is usually defined as the process of 'regulation of information flow be· tween the self and the outer world" (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 188). Often, this process is also labeled "self-disclosure' (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 333).

'Self-disclosure occurs among people of all cultures• (Lustig & Koester, 2003: 284), although there are cultural differences in the breadth, depth, valence, and targets of the self-disclosure (for more information, see Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 333-334; Lustig & Koester, 2003: 284-285; Ting-Toomey, 1999: 188-189). Breadth refers to the range of topics of self-disclosure-for example, whether they include interests, tastes, financial matters, and physical condition. Depth refers to the level of information revealed in the process of self-disclosure-superficial or intimate. Valence refers to whether the information revealed in the process of self­ disclosure is positive (favorable to self} or negative (unfavorable to self). The tar• get of self-disclosure is the person to whom information is given, such as a same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, spouse, or acquaintance. -

When people engage in self-disclosure, they aim to open up their cultural identity, as it were, and share it with people from other cultures. In this respect, disclosure can be viewed as a process of opening up all the windows of awareness. During this process, people from each culture share information about themselves, which varies in terms of its breadth, depth, valence, and targets. However, as we saw earlier, they can never be confident that this information is cenain and com­ plete. First, people from one culture keep to themselves some information that people from the other culture are not aware of (Closed Window}. Second, there is always some information that people from one culture are unaware that people

40 CHAPTER TWO

from the other culture have about them (Blind Window). Third, in every inter­ cultural situation there is some inJormation that is not known :o people from ei­ ther of the interacting cultures (Unknown Window). So, disclosure always contains some missing information for people from another culture. From this perspective, intercultural communication between Self and the Other can be rep­ resented as shown in Figure 5.

Now, let's see how the Other reacts to information revealed by Self. In this process, three strategies for dealing with uncenainty can be isolated-passive, ac­ tive, and interactive (Berger, 1979):

The passive strate9y entails reflective observations concerning the verbal and non­ verbal performance of the individual whom you are interested in getting to know. The active strate9y refers to seeking out information from a third person about the in­ terests and hobbies of the individual of interest. Lastly, the interactive strate9y refers to the direct interaction between yourself and that person. (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 189)

( 7 ) ( ' )Using these three strategies, people from another culture (the Other) try to un­ derstand the new information they receive, based on the previous knowledge they have. This way, people aim to build a bridge between what they know and what they want to know. When a connection between the two is made, a pattern is es­ tablished; that is, closure is reached. Closure involves a process of li!ling in missing information. In other words, closure is a process for dealing with uncenainty whereby an incomplete stimulus is perceived to be complete (d. Bernstein et al.,

( I )I 1988: 632). It is as ii people tried to close the windows of awareness, thereby re­ ducing uncenainty in intercultural interactions. However, as we saw earlier, uncer­

l tainty cannot be completely removed from intercultural interactions; we can never

reach the horizon, and the windows of awareness cannot be shut down once and for all. Thus, closure is a process of closing down windows of awareness that always contains some missing information. From this perspective, intercultural communi­ cation between Self and the Other can be represented as shown in Figure 6.

! FIGURE 5 lntercultural Communication from the Perspective of Disclosure

L.

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 41

FIGURE 6 Intercultural Communication from the Perspective of Closure

In intercultural communication, every culture acts as both Self and the

Other; sending and receiving information and thus using both disclosure and clo­ t sure. So, overall, intercultural communication can be presented as a process of l dis-closure (see Figure 7). !'

In this process, people from different cultures together construct knowledge '

of their own and each other's identities and how to interact with each other. This

knowledge must be viewed like a giant dynamic puzzle, in which some pieces are always missing. You remember that disclosure was defined as a process of open­ ing up the windows of awareness that always contains some missing information, while closure was defined as a process of closing down the windows of awareness that always contains some missing information. Notice that, in both cases, some information is always missing-the knowledge constructed in the process of dis­ closure always contains some uncertainty.

This view of interactions between people from different cultures seems to be quite pessimistic. It is tempting, on the one hand, to fight this view with full de­ termination to find all missing pieces, aiming to complete the giant puzzle of in­ tercultural communication. As we saw earlier, however, this extreme approach is unproductive because it leads to a predetermined order. On the other hand, it is tempting to give in to this view, allowing the giant puzzle of intercultural

FIGURE7

42 CHAPTER TWO

communication to break into countless pieces and dealing with each piece indi­ vidually. As we saw earlier, however, this extreme approach is also unproductive because it leads to chaos.

So, what should we do with the uncertainty that is built into all intercultural interactions?

Order out of Uncertainty

The view of intercultural communication as a process of dis-closure with a hori­ zon of knowledge is not really pessimistic. We must not equate uncertainty with impossibility of intercultural communication. In fact, the opposite is true! We must acknowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural commu­ nication and, because it is unavoidable, deal with it. The rich history of intercul­ tural communication shows eloquently how people, over the centuries, have dealt

with uncertainty.

( l )Recall the example cited earlier of the North American and Tagalog scientists observing the same event and taking notes. It continues as follows:

So, as Heisenberg would have suggested, the true nature ol the event is indeter­ minable, although it can be investigated further, paradoxically, on the basis of the notes taken by these two scientists. (Danesi & Perron, 1999: 64; italics added)

Not only can it be, but it must be! For that is the only way to communicate-by comparing your notes or, figuratively, your perspectives of the same event from your respective •viewing windows,· In Chapter 5, we will discuss in depth how and why different cultures compare their perspectives. Right now, let's emphasize that knowledge-in spite of or thanks to its unavoidable uncertainty-must be seen as a basis for intercultural communication. Order is created out of uncer­ tainty.

You might be having mixed feelings about the Uncertainty Principle, think­

ing that it sounds too philosophical, too academic, and too impractical. True, a per­ son with an uncertainty approach to intercultural communication might be seen as lacking self-confidence and unable to make decisions. Uncertainty values are not always encouraged, especially by Western cultures. But •humans should rec­ ognize that the possibility of certainty or complete predictability is an illusion and that believing this possibility is a product of an erroneous Western attempt to con­ trol nature" (Bradac, 2001: 546). We should also remember that ·indeterminate organisms possess expandable or 'open' boundaries that enable them to continue to grow and alter their patterns indefinitely" (Hoffmeyer, 1999: 337). Uncertainty opens a free space for change and evolution; it is the major force of creativity.

In this dynamic world, to be always certain might not be to your advantage. When you go beyond the boundary lines of your culture, you will discover, sooner or later, that the world cannot always be relied upon to meet your expectations. Being always certain often leads to intolerance, prejudice, and violence. To recog-

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCIJLTIJRAL COMMUNICATION 43

nize the Uncertainty Principle means to encourage humility and creativity and to take responsibility for your actions, admitting errors and seeking improvement. Without a degree of uncertainty, there would be no advancement of knowledge. Remember that 'the development of self requires a kind of 'enlightened indeter­ minacy'-a willingness to embrace ambiguity and uncertainty as an integral part of everyday life' (Eisenberg, 2001: 534).

So, think of the Uncertainty Principle in a positive sense. Think of it the way Mary Bateson does. In her book Full Circles, Overlapping Lives: Culture and Generation in Transition, she has this to say:

We live with strangers. Those we love most, with whom we share a shelter, a table, a bed, remain mysterious. Wherever lives overlap and flow together, there are depths of unknowing. Parents and children, partners, siblings, and friends repeat­ edly surprise us, revealing the need to learn where we are most at home. We even surprise ourselves in our own becoming, moving through the cycles of our lives. There is strangeness hidden in the familiar. (2000: 27)

So-let themystery be!

The Uncertainty Principle Defined

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

First, we cannot be absolutely confident that our understanding of intercul­ tural interactions is certain and complete. Intercultural communication is inher­ ently variable and subject to reinterpretation; in other words, our interpretations of new cultural experiences have a degree of uncertainty. We can never say that

!)le way we have predicted or interpreted something excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future. We must ac­ knowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication. Second, intercultural communication can be presented as a process of dis­ closure, or simultaneous opening up and closing down of the windows of aware­ ness. In this process, people from different cultures together construct knowledge of their own and each other's identities (Self and the Other) and how to interact with each other. This knowledge is like a giant dynamic puzzle with some pieces

always missing.

Third, different interpretations of the same experiences form the basis of in­ tercultural communication, as shared order is created out of uncertainty.

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

Intercultural communication is a process whereby people from different cultures constantly search for knowledge of how to interact with one another against the background of uncertainty.