Identity as Cultural Communication System and a Source of Intercultural Conflict

Compared with the primary emphasis placed on categorical, collective dimension of identity in the writings of critical researchers, a more individuated, although largely collec­tive, identity conception underlies studies of “cultural communication.” Aimed at a deep understanding of communication symbols and practices unique to specific cultural communi­ties, the main perspective taken in these stud­ies emphasizes the inseparable and communal nature of the relationship between culture and the identity of individual members within a cultural group.

Grounded in the traditional representa­tional and value-neutral social scientific tradi­tion, researchers of cultural communication have employed an emic (or “insider”) perspec­tive exemplified in the speech codes theory (Philipsen, 1992, 1997; Philipsen, Coutu, & Covarrubias, 2005). Applying Geertz’s (1973) framework of the interpretation of culture, Philipsen and his associates have developed an interpretive theory of cultural communication to provide a framework for identifying and illuminating the essential features of com­munication unique to a given culture. In a recent rendition of this theory (Philipsen et al., 2005), speech codes are defined as “constructs that observer-analysts formulate explicitly in order to interpret and explain communicative conduct in a particular speech community” (p. 57). The six general propositions address the principles of the inseparable connectedness of culture and speech codes in a given cul­tural community.

Directly or indirectly, the speech codes theory has served as a significant intellectual foundation for an extensive body of original field studies that commonly employ qualita­tive research methods such as ethnographic field observations, conversational analysis, discourse analysis, and textual/rhetorical anal­ysis. The theory and associated studies have contributed to deepening understanding of the shared patterns of communication practices unique to a given cultural community. Among the notable works are an examination of the culturally shared meaning of the word com­munication in some American speech (Katriel & Philipsen, 1990), recognizable Indian ways of speaking in Native American communities (Pratt, 1998; Wieder & Pratt, 1990), Russian “cultural pragmatics” in Russian-American encounters (Carbaugh, 1993), Finnish silence and third-party introduction (Carbaugh, 2005), the second-person pronoun Sie among Germans (Winchatz, 2001), and interpersonal communication and relationship patterns in Columbia (Fitch, 1998), to name a few.

Studies such as these offer insights into the communally shared identities of individu­als affiliated with specific cultural groups by describing their unique communication prac­tices. Although the issue of intercultural con­flict is not addressed directly or explicitly, the communal identity as conceived in the cul­tural communication approach suggests poten­tial intercultural conflicts arising from the interface of individuals of dissimilar cultural backgrounds who are unaware of, and unac­customed to, each other’s cultural communi­cation rules and practices. The classic study by Gumperz (1978) provides an illustration of how intercultural conflicts arise from dif­ferences in cultural communication systems.