Convergence of Ideas

Despite the differing perspectives, foci of interests, and knowledge claims described above, many of the theories examined in this work share three basic ideas with respect to collective and individuated identity, iden­tity adaptability, and identity security and their relationships to intercultural conflict and cooperation.

First, the theories are generally in agreement in suggesting that individual communicators can better achieve intercultural cooperation and relationship building through an identity orientation that is more individuated and less exclusively tied to their cultural group. Conversely, as communicators interact with culturally dissimilar others with a categori­cal “us-and-them” identity posture, they are likely to focus more on group stereotypes and perceived cultural differences that tend to lead to conflict experiences. This idea is most explicitly identified as “interpersonal/ intergroup orientation” in the communica­tion accommodation theory. In the contextual theory of interethnic communication, it is rep­resented in the construct, “identity inclusivity/ exclusivity,” which is one of the eight contex­tual factors influencing, and being influenced by, the associative/dissociative behaviors of individual communicators. Also, in the writ­ings of critical scholars, there is a presumption of intercultural conflict between individu­als whose collective identities reflect unequal intergroup power inequality. In speech codes theory, intercultural conflict is suggested as occurring when the interactants are unwilling or unable to understand and accommodate each other’s cultural group identity reflected in his or her communication practices.

Second, all theories commonly acknowl­edge, at least, some degree of adaptability if an individual’s identity is recognized as a fac­tor that contributes to reducing intercultural conflict and fostering intercultural cooperation.

Third, a number of theories converge in suggesting that a secure identity orientation contributes to promoting intercultural coop­eration and minimizing intercultural conflict. This idea is suggested in the realistic conflict theory, the uncertainty-identity theory, and the contextual theory of interethnic com­munication. Directly or indirectly, each of these theories identify an individual’s identity security as a factor that facilitates intercultural association and deters intercultural conflict. Similar ideas are indicated in the identity negotiation theory and the identity manage­ment theory, as these two theories discuss the importance of being respectful and mindful and thereby assuring the identity of the inter­acting partner. Identity security, as such, is an inner resource for interpersonal empathy and accommodation without compromising one’s own personal integrity. The idea that identity security is a constructive force in intercultural communication becomes even clearer when secure identity is understood as a “metamotivation” (Maslow, 1969, p. 35) or “ego-strength” (Lazarus, 1966)—a kind of self-trust that allows individuals not to cripple themselves with irrational feelings of inferi­ority or defensiveness and, instead, to seek more practical and adaptive alternatives when interacting with others, particularly with those with culturally dissimilar backgrounds.

The above-identified three convergent ideas are consistent with an extensive amount of empirical evidence documented in the literature (see Kim, 2005a, 2009a, 2009c). For example, each of the three identity char­acteristics fostering intercultural cooperation and relationship building—inclusivity, adapt­ability, and security—is indicated in a recent case study by Ybema, Vroemisse, and van Marrewijk (2012) of a Dutch international nongovernmental organization working in development aid. In describing how staff members of the organization build and main­tain partnerships across cultures in their identity discourse, the investigators report that instead of polarizing differences between themselves and their “Southern” partners in their identity talk, they are able to “smooth out, trivialize, upend differences,” and cre­ate an atmosphere of assurance and trust by adopting a “thin” notion of cultural identity, constructing an inclusive identity of “we” in talk of personal relationships.