The cultural criticality approach

There are two basic points of view concerning intercultural communication theory, research and practice. Supporters of these two perspectives have been called respectively: cultural critics and cultural dialogists. This dichotomy represents two approaches associated with intercultural communication and the choice of methods to serve educational goals.

Adherents of the cultural critical point of view regard cultural differences as potential barriers; they advocate understanding these barriers and respecting the differences. They promote training to bridge the inevitable cultural gap. The term 'critic' as used here refers to the emphasis upon critical or vital differences that might be sources of communication break down. The importance of difference have been made in classic statements by Whorf (1956),Hall (1973), and Singer (1975). Methods suited to such an approach are those that explain, illustrate, or exemplify culture-specific differences. Cultural criticism seeks to find points of conflict and isolate them as researchable issues in transcultural interaction. The activities of the critics are aimed at sensitising the researcher and/or learner to differences. The approach is culture-specific and focuses on a particular group.

Some authors in the field stress the importance of perceiving cultural similarity, e.g. Brislin observes that:

perceiving similarities leads to a basis for interaction; perceiving differences leads to a basis for out-group rejection. Brislin (1981: 60)

Or, as Samovar, Porter, and Jain (1981) put it:

It is our likenesses that enable us to find common ground and establish rapport.

Bennett strongly opposes this approach. He argues:

I observe in most classrooms and workshop environments that difficulties in learning the concepts and skills of intercultural communication are nearly always attributable to a disavowal of cultural differences, not a lack of appreciating similarity.  (Bennett 1993: 25)

Whilst I agree to some extent with Bennett. It is unproductive to dismiss the similarities approach for the following reasons.

First, my position is that there is benefit from understanding the failures of human communication interactions and the differences that bring about that failure. However, if the successes and the reasons for positive outcomes are ignored it will, at best, leave us half informed about the nature of intercultural communication. Second, investigating cultural similarities may provide teachers with another useful tool for investigating culture on a wide variety of levels. It may also help some learners, especially those from cultures which teach the notion of cultural exclusivity, recognise that individuals from different cultures may hold personal and individual values and perceptions which are similar to their own. It is what we have in common which may transcend national, group and individual cultural boundaries.

Another approach is offered by the cultural dialogists. Cultural dialogists are those whose research and educational efforts are directed towards the investigation of cross-cultural communication. Their concerns are with the honing of intercultural communicative skills, fostering higher levels of both self-awareness and cross-cultural awareness, and the development of personality characteristics to enhance cross-cultural communication. The cultural dialogist emphasises internationalism, world-wide communication and humanism. The activity of the dialogists is primarily concerned with overcoming differences and the approach is culture-general.

Today, few practitioners within the field of intercultural education use exclusively one approach over another. The perspectives of the cultural critic and cultural dialogists and other intercultural educators believe that the approaches should not represent an either/or proposition but rather provide a range of methodological choices, each appropriate and productive under given circumstances in given contexts for given learners.