Understanding Social Distance in Intercultural Communication英语论文.doc

Understanding Social Distance in Intercultural CommunicationVictoria Guillén NietoUniversity of Alicantevictoria.guillenua.esSince the 1950s there has been an increasing interest in intercultural communication as a field of multidisciplinary research, which has probably been strengthened by todays globalisation process, as well as by the process of European convergence and the current social phenomenon of massive immigration to the Western world. Intercultural communication focuses on face-to-face or person-to-person interaction and takes place between people who are operating within different cultural systems. The study of intercultural communication has tried to throw light on the question of how people from diverse cultural backgrounds understand one another. On the doorstep of European convergence, the issue of intercultural competence is a crucial one. In this discussion we would like to analyse in detail the underlying reasons that might explain the emergence of social distance in intercultural communicative encounters. To achieve our purpose, we will draw on three key concepts: (a) the cultural frame, (b) the cultural unconscious and (c) the silent language. Four variables are suggested as a core around which to explore the emergence of social distance: (a) time, (b) space, (c) context and (d) communication.KEY WORDS: intercultural communication, social distance, cultural frame, cultural unconscious, silent languageDesde mediados del siglo XX ha ido creciendo progresivamente el interés por el estudio de la comunicación intercultural desde una perspectiva multidisciplinar. Dicho interés académico se ha visto fortalecido por el proceso de globalización que la sociedad está experimentando hoy en día, así como por el proceso de convergencia entre los países que conforman la Unión Europea y el fenómeno social de la inmigración masiva hacia occidente. La comunicación intercultural aborda el estudio de la interacción personal, bien ésta se desarrolle cara a cara en un medio oral o de persona a persona en un medio escrito, que se produce entre interlocutores que no comparten el mismo sistema de referencia cultural. Durante más de medio siglo, las investigaciones llevadas a cabo en el campo de estudio de la comunicación intercultural han intentado arrojar luz sobre la naturaleza de los problemas comunicativos que surgen entre personas de distintas culturas. Hoy en día, en el umbral de la convergencia europea, la adquisición de una competencia comunicativa intercultural adquiere una relevancia especial. En este artículo nos gustaría analizar con detalle algunas razones que nos ayuden a explicar el modo en que la distancia social surge como una barrera cultural que entorpece la fluidez comunicativa en los encuentros comunicativos interculturales. Nuestro modelo de análisis se construye sobre la base de tres pilares conceptuales fundamentales, a saber, el marco de referencia cultural, el inconsciente cultural y el lenguaje silencioso. Asimismo, nos serviremos de cuatro variables como instrumental para definir el núcleo alrededor del cuál investigaremos el concepto de distancia social: (a) el tiempo, (b) el espacio, (c) el contexto, y (d) la comunicación.PALABRAS CLAVE: comunicación intercultural, distancia social, marco de referencia cultural, inconsciente cultural, lenguaje silencioso1. Introduction.Since the 1950s there has been an increasing interest in intercultural communication as a field of multidisciplinary research, which has probably been strengthened by todays globalisation process, as well as by the process of European convergence and the current social phenomenon of massive immigration to the Western world. Since the end of the Second World War up to the middle of 20th century, much theoretical background came from a variety of sources, especially from the USA. The US army, which had been operating in many different countries and faced numerous cultural problems, provided the first information about the significance of cultural awareness. Relevant contributions were also made by US entrepreneurs, who began to be aware of the fact that the USA needed to know more about other cultures if it was to increase its overseas trade. And finally, information came from multinational companies which began to face the problem of cultural clash in multicultural work teams. Some of the most relevant publications on intercultural communication are: the investigation done by the anthropologist E. T. Hall and published in his famous books The Silent Language (1959) and The Hidden Dimension (1966); the research conducted by another two anthropologists, F. Kluckhohn and F. Strodtbeck and published in their well-known book Variations in Value Orientations (1961); the study carried out by the Dutch social psychologist and engineer, G. Hofstede and published in his groundbreaking book Cultures Consequences (1980); E. C. Stewart and M. J. Bennetts American Patterns: An Intercultural Perspective (1991); the investigation done by other Dutch scholars, F. Trompenaars and Ch. Hampden-Turner whose findings were published in their very successful books, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism (1993) and Riding the Waves of Culture (1997); and more recently, D. Walker, Th. Walker and J. Schmitz presented their comprehensive cultural orientations model in Doing Business Internationally (2003).The study of intercultural communication has tried to throw light on the question of how people from different cultural backgrounds understand one another. «Just a few decades ago», says M. J. Bennett (1998: 1), «this question was one faced mainly by diplomats, expatriates, and the occasional international traveller. Today, living in multicultural societies within a global village, we all face the question every day». In the last few decades, multiculturalism has spread like wildfire in America, Asia, Africa, Australia and Europe. For example, in the United States, «African American, Hispanic and other ethnic groups are actively defending the validity of their identities while the Anglo population has begun to sense an urgency for understanding these perceptions». (Singer 1998: 104). In Australian society, different Anglo-Celtic, aboriginal and ethnic cultural values systems coexist. British society offers another vivid example of multiculturalism: the Anglo population lives together with Indians, Muslims, Asians, Africans, and more recently Eastern Europeans have added themselves to the list. And even Spanish society, which was preserved from foreign influence during Francos dictatorship, has been experiencing the effects of massive immigration from Northern Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and Asia since the second half of the 1990s.Cultural diversity may be experienced at two different levels by modern societies, i.e. intranational and international. For example, at an intranational level, Spanish society may face intercultural communication in a variety of ways. Firstly, we should consider intercultural communication between the different Spanish cultural groups making up the Spanish nation, i.e. Castilians, Galicians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, etc. Secondly, we should bear in mind intercultural communication between the Spanish population and the diverse groups of immigrants from Northern Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe that have settled in Spain, especially in the last two decades. Likewise, in British society, intercultural communication may occur in different ways too. On the one hand, the United Kingdom is also a multicultural nation, i.e., the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish have long been living together. On the other hand, intercultural communication also takes place between the Anglo population and the Asian, African, American, and other ethnic groups that have emigrated to the UK. Nevertheless, at an international level, cross-cultural communication will occur between the British and the Spanish. In the former example, the term intercultural communication is preferable because people live together in the same society and are in regular contact with one another. In the latter illustration, however, the word cross-cultural communication seems to be more appropriate because people are operating within two different major cultural systems and are not in regular contact with each other. The process of European convergence and the global village may contribute to peoples widening their cultural horizons more and more; therefore, the term cross-cultural communication may be replaced by that of intercultural communication in many cases in the near future.At the turn of the 20th century, when national fences in Europe were bound to disappear, we claimed in a discussion that if people, especially Europeans, did not want to be separated by cultural barriers in the future, the new challenge for language teachers and trainers was cross-cultural communication together with large doses of cooperation and agreement between countries from all over the world. (Guillén Nieto 1996: 101-104). Today, on the doorstep of European convergence, at the beginning of the 21st century, the issue of cross-cultural competence is still a crucial one, since it is difficult to say whether «the erosion of cultural boundaries through technology will bring the realization of a dream or a nightmare». (Barnlund 1998: 36). The dream projects the image of a true community of people capable of respecting cultural diversity; by contrast, the nightmare, shows the vision of «clusters of strangers living in ghettos and united only in their antipathies for others». (Barnlund 1998: 36). In this discussion we would like to analyse in detail the underlying reasons that might explain the emergence of a particular cultural barrier in intercultural encounters: social distance. This enquiry is partly based on our findings in two recent discussions: «The invisible face of culture: why do Spanish toy manufacturers believe the British are most peculiar in business?» and «Intercultural pragmatics: why does miscommunication arise between Spaniards using English as the lingua franca in business and British speakers?» (Paper proposal for the XXIII AESLA Conference, 2005). To achieve our purpose, we will draw on three key concepts: the cultural frame, the cultural unconscious and the silent language. Four variables are suggested as a core around which to explore social distance: (a) time, (b) space, (c) context, and (d) communication. Throughout this discussion, we will try to answer the following research questions: a) What does intercultural/cross-cultural communication involve? b) How does cultural diversity affect interactive talk? c) Which are the implications of the cultural unconscious in intercultural/cross-cultural communication? d) What do we mean by social distance? e) How does social distance emerge in intercultural/cross-cultural communication?f) How can social distance be overcome?2. Intercultural/cross-cultural communication.Intercultural/cross-cultural communication focuses on both face-to-face and person-to-person interaction between human beings and takes place between people who are operating within two different cultural systems. This means that the interlocutors involved in conversation do not share the same cultural frames or frames of cultural reference, although they may be using a lingua franca such as English, Spanish, French, etc., as a means of interpersonal communication. For the purpose of analysis, a cultural frame may be defined as the perceptual lens through which an individual filters the information provided by our physical senses and comes to grips with the world. In other words, our physical senses provide us with information, and we can make meaningful sense of it all only by passing it through the selective filters derived from our system of attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviour embedded in our cultural frame. (Cf. Walker et. al., 2003: 206).When explaining the nature of cultural frames, D. Barnlund (1998: 45) stresses the fact that we achieve our cultural frames rather unconsciously from early childhood. Although the family and school play an important role in giving explicit instruction in the system of beliefs in force in a particular culture by praising or criticizing certain ways of dressing, of thinking, of gesturing, of responding to the acts of others, of reacting, of behaving, etc., «the most significant aspects of any cultural code», argues D. Barnlund (1998: 45) «may be conveyed implicitly, not by rule or lesson but through modelling behaviour Thus the grammar of any culture is sent and received largely unconsciously, making ones own cultural assumptions and biases difficult to recognize». The worldwide famous anthropologist, E. T. Hall (1998: 59) refers to cultural frames in similar terms when he says that they are: «the tacit frames of reference, the rules for living which vary from culture to culture and which can be traced to acquired culture». E. T. Halls use of the adjective tacit draws our attention to what we have called elsewhere the invisible face of culture, which refers to the inner expression of culture, the core beliefs, that is, how people make sense of the world, their principles, their attitudes, their values, etc. This hidden face may well represent 70% of the dimension of culture and is comparable to the huge mass of the iceberg hidden under the waters surface. The invisible face of culture is synthesised in E. T. Halls reflection (1998: 59): «Culture hides much more than it reveals and, strangely enough, what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants». It is precisely this mysterious and hidden face of culture that may be an important source of miscommunication and misunderstanding in intercultural communication, simply because we cannot be aware of the existence of something that is intangible and hence cannot be seen. So far we have tried to explain the conceptual nature of intercultural/cross-cultural communication by focusing on the participants different cultural systems and tacit frames of reference functioning in intercultural encounters. The question we would like to pose now is: How does cultural diversity affect interactive-talk? As shown in fig. 1 below, a formulation of the communication and interaction processes involved in intercultural encounters may comprise the following stages: (a) the sender formulates the message in terms of a cultural frame, (b) the receiver interprets the message in the light of another cultural frame, (c) the receiver creates feedback based on that frame, and (d) the original sender now interprets that feedback from within his or her original frame. Figure 1: Intercultural communication.When speakers cultural filters are partially or fully dissimilar, the received and interpreted message will almost certainly be differ