Culture-Based and Individually Flexible Identity as a Source of Intercultural Conflict

The above-described conception of iden­tity as a communally shared cultural com­munication system further underlies some of the etic (or objective-outsider) approaches to cross-cultural comparisons of communica­tion patterns.

At the cultural group level, the theory pres­ents 12 propositions (e.g., “Members of indi­vidualistic cultures tend to express a greater degree of self-face maintenance concerns than members of collectivistic cultures”; “Members of collectivistic cultures tend to express a greater degree of other face concerns than members of individualistic cultures”). At the individual level, the theory offers 10 proposi­tions linking independent and interdependent self-construal to individual communicators’ patterns of face concern and conflict style (e.g., “Independent self is associated positively with self-face concern”; “Interdependent self is associated positively with other-face/mutual- face concern”).

Underlying the face negotiation theory is a culture-based communal conception of identity that is situationally and individu­ally enacted, and, accordingly, a potential source of conflict when individuals of differing cultural backgrounds interact. Ting-Toomey (2005b) makes this conflict-prone nature of identity the main focus of her identity negotia­tion theory. Applying the core concept in the face negotiation theory, facework, to the con­text of intercultural interaction, Ting-Toomey (2005b) in the identity negotiation theory characterizes communicating with individuals of dissimilar cultural identities as potentially face-threatening. Based on this premise, Ting- Toomey explains that an individual’s ability to negotiate his or her culture-based iden­tity is a key factor for effective intercultural communication, and she defines such ability in terms of communicative resourcefulness (Ting-Toomey, 1993) and facework compe­tence (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).

Ting-Toomey’s conception of identity as culture-based as well as individually enacted and situationally negotiable is shared by Imahori and Cupach (2005) in their identity management theory. In both the theories, intercultural conflict is addressed in terms of the relational tension that arises from intercul- tural communication experiences that are face threatening to individual participants’ culture­based identities. Both theories further argue that an individual’s ability to negotiate or manage such identity-threatening situations is essential to effective intercultural communica­tion and relationship development. Based on these premises, Imahori and Cupach explain in their identity management theory that indi­viduals’ identities, derived mainly from their cultural interpretive framework, are revealed through the presentation of face in intercul- tural interactions.

Specifically, Imahori and Cupach (2005) explain that, once culturally dissimilar indi­viduals are engaged in a communicative rela­tionship, they are likely to experience dialectic tension, or psychological and relational con­flict, since they find themselves having to make a “choice between supporting one’s own face and the other’s face” (p. 200). Imahori and Cupach further explain that such tension can be competently managed as the rela­tionship between intercultural communicators undergo the three-phased cycles of relation­ship development: (1) the “trial-and-error” phase of finding identities on which they share some similarities, (2) the “enmeshment” phase in which their identities come together in “a mutually acceptable and convergent relationship identity,” and (3) the subsequent “renegotiation” phase involving their con­tinuing search of an optimal balance between the conflicting needs for maintaining one’s culture-based identity and, at the same time, supporting the partner’s culture-based identity.