Identity as Conflictive, Cooperative, and Evolving Entity
Against the backdrop of these broad trends, the author has identified six different conceptual and methodological perspectives on identity in the context of intercultural communication and theories that are representative of each perspective.
These six approaches and associated theories range from those that focus exclusively on the collective dimension of identity to those emphasizing the individuated and unitary nature of identity in which the collective dimension is only a part. Taken together, these six groups of theories offer a full spectrum of ideas that directly or indirectly address the two basic questions that were initially posed to help guide this work:(1) How does an individual’s identity influence intercultural conflict and cooperation? and
(2) How do intercultural conflict experiences influence an individual’s identity over time?
With respect to the first question, a dual role of identity in intercultural communication is revealed from the six groups of theories between identity and intercultural conflict: conflictive and cooperative. The conflictive role of identity is explained, for example, by critical scholars associated with the first identified approach (“Identity as Collectivity, Power Inequality, and Intercultural Conflict”). Based on a group-level identity conception, critical scholars view identity as being essentially conflictive whenever power inequality exists between the interactants’ respective in-groups, particularly from the perspective of traditionally nondominant or marginalized groups. Built on this basic idea, the cocultural theory (Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Spellers, 2005) proposes a typology of differing strategies nondominant group members employ when interacting with dominant group members, while the cultural identifications theory (Collier, 2005) provides an interpretive framework with which to examine the dynamics of cultural identity positioning and negotiation between dominant and nondominant group members.
The potentially conflictive role of collective identity is suggested in all other theories examined earlier, including the speech codes theory (Philipsen, 1992, 1997; Philipsen et al., 2005) associated with the second approach (“Identity as Cultural Communication System and a Source of Intercultural Conflict”). Whereas the critical theories place their focus on the condition of relative power inequality between cultural groups, the speech codes theory suggests the differences between cultural communication systems and the lack of understanding and appreciation of such cultural differences as the main potential source of conflict, as demonstrated in Gumperz’s (1978) conversational analysis of intercultural communication between an Asian Indian and a native Londoner.
Likewise, collective cultural identity is regarded as a source of intercultural conflict the three theories associated with the third approach (“Culture-Based and Individually Flexible Identity as a Source of Intercultural Conflict”). Each of the three theories—the face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2005a), the identity negotiation theory (Ting- Toomey, 2005b), and the identity management theory (Imahori & Cupach, 2005)—is built on the premise that an individual’s collective cultural group identity is likely to lead to intercultural conflict. Unlike the critical theories and the speech codes theory, however, these theories go beyond intercultural conflict to recognize individual differences in their ability or willingness to prevent or mitigate intercultural conflicts. In addition, these theories highlight the importance of recognizing and respecting each other’s face concerns, in the case of the identity negotiation theory, or by working through a dialectic process toward forming and maintaining a relational identity between the communicators, in the case of the identity negotiation theory and the identity management theory.
Along with the conflictive role, the cooperative role of identity is addressed in the theories associated with the fourth approach (“Identity as Subjective In-Group Identification and a Source of Intercultural Conflict”): the social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987), the integrative theory of intergroup conflict (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and the communication accommodation theory (Gallois et al., 1988; Gallois et al., 2005).
In these social-psychological theories, the focus of emphasis is shifted away from the collective social category to the subjective identifications of individuals with a cultural or social group. Built on the basic human tendency to categorize people into discrete groups and to favor one’s in-group over an out-group, these theories account for individual differences in degrees of subjective in-group identification as a key factor in explaining intercultural conflict, particularly under the condition of a real or perceived competition or threat to in-group identity, thereby suggesting greater possibilities of intercultural cooperation by individuals with lower levels of in-group identification. The communication accommodation theory, in particular, explicitly explains the likelihood of individuals to act cooperatively toward outgroup members.The dual role of identity is most explicitly captured in the theories associated with the fifth approach (“Identity as Unitary Personhood and a Source of Intercultural Conflict”). The contextual theory of interethnic communication (Kim, 2005a, 2009a) links two identity orientations, identity inclusivity/ exclusivity and identity security/insecurity, as exerting a reciprocal influence on associative and dissociative behaviors and actions between individuals of differing ethnicities. Incorporating related concepts and ideas from a number of social psychological theories, including the realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) and the uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2000, 2007; Hogg et al., 2010), Kim’s contextual theory explains that the more an individual’s identity is exclusively tied to the collective in-group identity, and the more insecure he or she feels about his or her identity, the more likely he or she experiences conflict in intercultural interactions. Conversely, the more the individual regards himself or herself inclusively as part of a greater community that includes out-group members, the more likely he or she acts to facilitate cooperation and relationship building with out-group members.
Moving beyond the link between identity and intercultural conflict/cooperation, the theories associated with the last approach identified in this overview (“Identity as Unitary Personhood, Intercultural Conflict, and Identity Development”) address the second guiding question regarding the role intercul- tural conflict experiences play in influencing the nature of an individual’s identity over time. Emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of identity, the two theories associated with this approach—the ethnic identity development theory (Phinney, 1993; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992) and the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2005b, 2008, 2009b)—regard intercultural conflict as an important underlying social- psychological force influencing the course of an individual’s identity change. These theories are unlike all other theories examined in this work, in that they uniquely regard intercul- tural conflict not as an outcome of individual identity orientations but as a main driving force behind an individual’s identity development and change. In the case of the ethnic identity development theory, the internal psychological conflicts that ethnic minority adolescents experience are the very condition under which their self-conceptions as members of an ethnic group are formed through the developmental process. Similarly, in the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation, the continuing evolution of an individual’s identity beyond conventional cultural categories is explained as being brought about owing to the long-term, cumulative experiences of stress and the internal psychological experience of disequilibrium.
Altogether, the six groups of theories provide a comprehensive understanding of the varying degrees of emphasis scholars have placed on the collective dimension of identity and the corresponding knowledge claims about its role in intercultural conflict and cooperation and the influence of intercultural conflict experiences over a prolonged period on the development and evolution of the individual’s identity beyond the boundaries of a single culture. These theories further identify a set of conditions under which identity serves as a conflict- or cooperation-inducing factor in intercultural communication—from the group-level power inequality and cultural communication systems to the characteristics of each communicator, including the degree to which his or her identity is tied to a cultural group. In addition, intercultural conflict is presumed as the main condition under which the collective dimension of an individual’s identity is formed in adolescents, in the case of ethnic identity development theory, and a nonnative individual’s identity is transformed further beyond the ascribed monocultural boundaries toward a more individuated and universalized intercultural identity.