Looking Forward

As the global interface of individuals of differing cultural traditions continue, so does the question of identity as a signifi­cant topic for academic inquiry. Given this prospect, the six approaches and associated theories identified in this overview serve as a groundwork and an intellectual guide for future studies.

For now, the theories identified in this work reveal a clear link between the level of an individual’s identity exclusivity and identity insecurity and the likelihood to experience intercultural conflict. That is, the more strongly and rigidly our identities are tied to our cul­tural in-groups and the more defensive and protective we are of our in-group identities, the more conflict we are likely to experience when interacting with culturally dissimilar others. Conversely, the more individuated and secure we are in identity orientation, the more cooperative we are likely to be interculturally. This general insight suggests that to minimize conflict and maximize intercultural coopera­tion and relationship building, we need to ori­ent ourselves toward each other less in terms of our respective cultural categories and more in terms of our individual characteristics, to be more adaptable so as to embrace and accom­modate each other’s personal particularities including the ones that are rooted in culture, and to help each other feel assured and com­fortable in our communicative relationships.

The present overview also reveals a more nuanced understanding of intercultural con­flict. We need to move beyond the com­monly held view of intercultural conflict as almost exclusively a negative experience to be avoided or minimized. While this view accurately reflects the stress we experience in the face of conflict, we also need to acknowl­edge the long-term positive consequences that intercultural conflict experiences can bring to intercultural communicators. As much as conflict can bring tension in intercultural rela­tionships, it also serves as a force that invites and compels a new stage of awareness, adap­tation, and identity development as explained in the theory of ethnic identity development and the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation. This insight into the dual nature of intercultural conflict can be applied to understanding the long-term consequences of intergroup conflicts at the macrosocietal level, as suggested in the works of critical scholars. As such, determinations as to whether a given intercultural conflict is “good” or “bad” must rest not only on how it feels to a particular individual or group at a particular point in time, but also on the long-term changes it engenders in individuals, in relationships, in society, and beyond.

In the end, the present overview, with its focus trained on intercultural interactions of individuals at the grassroots level, points to the freedom and choice each individual can exer­cise to help shape what Toffler (1980) aptly describes as a project of “building a remark­able new civilization from the ground up” (p. 44). It is, after all, up to individual communi­cators to decide for themselves as to how they wish to orient themselves to culturally dis­similar others. Whether at home or in a foreign soil, numerous people the world over are being challenged to undergo at least some experi­ences of intercultural conflict and coopera­tion. To those who are nostalgic for the age of certainty, permanence, and a fixed and unitary cultural identity, this rapidly changing environ­ment can represent an unsettling discontinuity and malaise. They may refuse to admit the new social condition but only at the cost of the immense effort of resisting or denying it. Such an exclusive and insecure identity posture may help them to “feel better” about themselves, at least temporarily. Yet it is also possible that they are going to engender a further refusal to strive for a more constructive way of living in an increasingly intercultural world—a world in which culture in its “pure” form has become more a nostalgic concept than a reality.