Co-Cultural Theory: A Framework for Future Research and Practical Applications
Co-cultural theory, as described by Orbe (1998a), assists in understanding the ways that people who are traditionally marginalized in dominant societal structures communicate in their everyday lives (see also Orbe & Spellers, 2005).
It assumes that communicative behavior is inextricably linked to both cultural standpoints and societal power dynamics. Grounded in muted group (e.g., Kramarae, 1981) and standpoint theories (e.g., Smith, 1987), co-cultural theory is derived from the lived experiences of a variety of “nondominant” groups, including people of color, women, persons with disabilities, gays/lesbians/bisexuals, and those from a lower socioeconomic background. Two epistemological assumptions ground the theory: (1) although representing a widely diverse array of lived experiences, co-cultural group members will share a similar positioning that renders them marginalized within society and (2) to negotiate oppressive dominant forces and achieve any measure of success, co-cultural group members adopt certain communication practices and orientations in their everyday interactions (Orbe, 1998a). While the theory purports to address marginalized group members generally, it has depended largely on the lived experiences of people of color in the United States (e.g., Orbe, 1996).According to co-cultural theory, six factors influence the strategic selection of different communication practices: (1) field of experience, (2) perceived costs and rewards, (3) abilities, (4) preferred outcomes, (5) communication approaches, and (6) situational context. The core concept of the theory incorporates these factors and is best summarized as follows:
Situated within a particular field of experience that governs their perceptions of the costs and rewards associated with, as well as their ability to engage in, various communicative practices, co-cultural group members will adopt certain communication orientations—based on their preferred outcomes and communication approaches—to fit the circumstances of a specific situation.
(Orbe, 1998a, p. 13)According to the theory, no one particular communication style or set of strategies exists for any particular co-cultural group. Instead, co-cultural theory explores the various ways in which all individuals enact certain strategies depending on the negotiation of the six co-cultural factors.
Since its inception, communication researchers have utilized co-cultural theory to study the communication of different co-cultural groups based on race/ethnicity (e.g., Buzzanell, 1999; Gates, 2003; Matsunaga & Torigoe, 2008; Orbe, 1996, 1998b; Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008). In different contexts, the theory lends insight into the process by which co-cultural group members negotiate their “cultural differentness” with others (with others both like, and unlike, themselves). Such a framework, as noted by Allen (2007), appears especially relevant to the study of interracial/interethnic conflict and the possibility for interracial/ interethnic dialogue (see, e.g., Bashir, 2009; Camara & Orbe, 2010; MacLennan, 2011; Miura, 2001; Orbe, 2004). First, co-cultural theory provides a mechanism to gain insight into how racial/ethnic minority group members perceive interracial/interethnic conflict. It also presents the opportunity to situate majority group members (e.g., European Americans) as co-cultural group members in certain settings (Harris, Miller, & Trego, 2004). Second, the theoretical framework allows researchers and practitioners to explore how power, explicitly and implicitly, is manifested within interracial and interethnic conflict situations. Power, in this regard, can be situated as both a negative and positive power force (Hammond, Anderson, & Cissna, 2003). Third, and most important, given the existing work on inter- racial/interethnic conflict, co-cultural theory represents a holistic theoretical framework that captures how the selection of certain communicative practices (i.e., strategies) is negotiated around six different factors (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007). Unlike much of the current literature, it does not presume a unidimensional relationship between race/ethnicity and conflict style. Instead, it purports to understand the multiple factors that potentially have the greatest saliency during interracial/interethnic conflict episodes without ignoring the larger societal structures that frame them.