ContentServer.asp 6

8/11/2019 ContentServer.asp 6

1/26

Locating Diversity in

ommunication Stud ies

AMARDO ROD RIGUEZ Syracuse University

DEVIKA CHAWLA hio University

There is a common perception in academia that overly generous affir-

mative action program s have given rise to remarkable d iversity on co llege

cam puses. Tbe reality, of course, is anything but so, as every report con-

tinues to show that historically marginalized and disenfranchised peop les

face daunting obstacles both inside and outside the university (Antonio,

2002;

Educating,

2003;

Milem, 200 0; Viernes Tum er, 2000 ). In

Communication Studies, the situation remains bleak, with many major

comm unication departments yet to promote and tenure a minority candi-

date. The argum ents, of course, are many, such as the supposedly thin

pool of viable candidates who can flourish in supposedly the most rigor-

ous programs. But only a few persons can continue to take these argu-

ments seriously (Hu-DeHart, 2000).

Our position in this paper is that the diversity problem tbat faces

Com munication Studies is much more profound than merely a num erical

lack of historically marginalized and disenfranchised persons. We focus

on the ordinary ways that the status quo in Communication Studies

undermines a richer and fuller understanding of diversity. Although we

acknowledge the need to increase the number of persons from historical-

ly marginalized groups in Communication Studies, and support every

program available to do so, we believe that the diversity problem is fun-

dam entally epistemological ratber than merely racial. It is about a disci-


2/26

4 Intercultural Com munication in a Transnational World

sexuality, and so forth. We can theoretically add such differences but yet

achieve no diversity (Hu-DeH art, 2000). W hat emerges is plurality.

Plurality looks like diversity, and can even behave like diversity; but unlike

diversity, plurality neither pushes us to look at the world anew nor enriches

the human experience. Diversity as a process is inherently organic, where-

as plurality is fundamentally inorganic. A few more distinctions must be

made about these two processes.

Plurality is about addition, accom modation, and inclusion. For this rea-

son, it poses no threat to the status quo by undermining the openness and

suspicion (of our own truths) that is vital to look at the world in new ways,

including those that are in every way contrary to our own. An exam ple of

pluralistic thinking is aptly seen in the recent call for papers in the

Journal

of Intercultural Comm unication Research

(JICR): JICR publishes qualita-

tive and quantitative research that focuses on the interrelationship between

culture and com munication. Submitted manuscripts may report results

from either cross-cultural comparative research or results from other types

of research concerning the ways culture affects human symbolic activities.

By embracing both qualitative and quantitative research, the joumal

undoubtedly appears to be inclusive of different kinds of research.

However, it makes no mention of research that falls outside of this tradition-

al axis, such as thinking that is against method and thereby has no discov-

eries or results to report? In fact, what about research that rejects the dual-

ity of theory and method and therefore makes no distinction between the

theoretical and the empirical? Such scholarship would most likely come

from persons who com e from non-dualistic cultural orientations. How is it

that such research, and the persons who embody such research, are unwel-

come in joumal about culture and published by the World Communication

Association (W CA ), where members are convinced that to maintain peace

throughout the world there must be a mutual understanding among people

of the world that grows from individual and group interaction. Indeed,

WCA believes that one effective way to begin this worldwide exchange is

by establishing individual and scholarly contacts among people and across

all national and cultural boundaries. Unfortunately, the W CA underm ines

this important mission by downplaying or simply missing the rich and


3/26

Locating Diversity in Com munication Studies 5

such as those investigations that view culture as a mode of spiritual

em bodying rather than merely a tool of meaning-m aking Anzalda , 1987;

Bhabha, 1994; Conquergood, 2002; Rodriguez, 200 1). That is, what is the

possibility of scholarly contacts where there is no nurturance of Other mod-

els of scholarship , especially those that challenge the status quo? Ou r posi-

tion in this paper is that diversity is about disruption , confrontation, and rev-

olution. It poses a threat to the order of things by pushing us to prom ote

rather than merely accommodate, tolerate, and bridgenew ways of being

that affirm life. Prom oting diversity involves, among other things, disman-

tling structures and arrangements that block such processes, as well as pro-

moting environs and practices that invite modes of being that are yet to

form. Therefore, diversity is about possibility and the forces that promote

possibility.

We contend that the diversity project has been co-opted by the plurality

project and, as a result, has been depoliticized and neutralized. Even though

more comm unication departments may com e to have increasing numbers of

historically marginalized and disenfranchised persons, and thereby claim

diversity, such additions can also potentially work to mask our own com-

plicity in promoting a status quo that is hostile to diversity. Indeed , the goal

of inclusion constitutes the most insidious threat to diversity by promoting

and even reifying the belief that inclusion is possible without dismption,

confrontation , and evolution. We believe that such a reality is ecologically

impossible. Inclusion outside of dism ption , confrontation, and evolution is

moral regression. This regression consfitutes the neutering and assimilating

of that which makes us most different from one another.

In this paper we look at the ordinary ways that the status quo in

Communication Studies undermines diversity and disguises plurality as

diversity. Our analysis is twofold. In the first section, we show how jo b

descriptions in Communication Studies, including those for intercultural

communication positions, limit diversity in the field by perpetuating an

impoverished understanding of culture. In doing this, we interrogate the

supposed divide between communication scholarship and intercultural

com mu nication scholarship. Our contention is that com munication schol-


4/26

6 Intercultwal Comm unication in a Transnational W orld

ter of the field, or are comm only viewed as such, and therefore play a dom -

inant role in framing communication studies.

The second section of this paper looks at how intercultural communica-

tion textbooks legitimize these structures and ideologies by perpetuating the

division between communication theory and intercultural communication

theory, by re-legitimizing a narrow view of diversity, and by promoting

models of communication that hinder diversity. Our analysis, in some

ways,

parallels another conducted by Ashcraft and Allen (2003), who

recently scmtinized the construction of race in organizational communica-

tion textbooks and found that the field's most common ways of framing

race ironically preserve its racial [white] foundation (p. 5). In the third

section of this paper we introduce an emergent framework that allows us to

make a theoretically rigorous distinction between diversity and plurality.

We conclude the essay with a discussion of communication and diversity.

As w e begin our analysis, we want to emphasize that we do so with great

respect for our colleagues in the field of Communication Studies, the

authors of the textbooks we review, as well as colleagues in our respective

institutions. In fact, it is because w e use and value these processes and texts

that we have chosen to represent them in this analysis. Moreover, we main-

tain that we are often complicit in promoting similar ideologies of differ-

ence and diversity; yet we continue to consider them problem atic, and there-

fore have decided to present a critical analysis of the discourses of power

which frame diversity and difference in job descriptions and textbooks. Our

goals here are mainly to illum inate, explore, and thereby provoke conversa-

tions about these matters across the field.

Job Descriptions and the Field of Communication Studies

Job descriptions in any field or discipline provide us with an overview

of a field's terrain and topography. In Communication Studies, as in any

other field, job descriptions give us a sense of the kind of faculty who are

required, preferred, and even encouraged

t

join academic programs. These

descriptions are also about how resources are distributed within colleges

and departments. Moreover, jo b descriptions control academic access to the


5/26

L o c a t i n g D i v e r s i t y

i n

o m m u n i c a t i o n S t u d i e s

7

kinds of instructors students will be exposed to in a classroom , and how dis-

sertations and theses w ill be guided. Job descriptions also give us the tra-

jectory of a field by setting in place various push and pull forces, as in

revealing what areas of study are in vogue and what graduate students

should be studying. In fact, we know from the way job descriptions are

written what might be expected of us in terms of teaching loads and other

obligations. W here one gets a job often tells us whether a person will be

able to sustain a research program or whether one might get caught up in

overwhelming teaching assignments that leave no time or room for an aca-

demic to pursue research.

In a Focauldian sense, job descriptions may be considered the gatekeep-

ers of a discipline. Inasmuch as they are ordinary and mundane artifacts,

they enact the most entrenched institutional discourse about any field by

being the most visible descriptions about how a discipline is constituted

outside of periodicals and textbooks). These descriptions perform a disci-

plining function by dem anding that the status quo be adhered to. For exam -

p l

minority candidates tend to be professionally boxed as persons of color

who are casually cast as experts in all matters intercultural, and, too often,

only invited for positions that focus on race, ethnicity, and intercultural

communication Hu-DeH art, 200 0). Such persisting experiences reinforce

our belief that job descriptions remain a vital discourse in the examination

of how a field defines diversity, culture, and cultural practices. In job

descriptions we see institutional discourses of power on displayin terms

of who gets the jobs, what and who are cast as mainstream, ways in which

difference and diversity are defined, and in tum how these inevitably

becom e replicated in textbooks inside the classroom a matter examined in

the second portion of this paper). Job descriptions can be considered mech-

anisms of deflection that departments develop in order to propagate one

view of diversity, culture, and communication.

Our analysis uses communication job descriptions for the last three aca-

demic years 2003-2006) from two sources ^/jecira, the monthly newslet-

ter published by the National Communication Association, and CRTNET

Com munication Research and Theory Network), an online information


6/26

8

Interculturl Communication in a Transnational World

at the intercultural com munication jo b desc riptions to see how w ell these fit

with the dominant discourses about diversity that are perpetuated in 'main-

stream ' advertisements. Finally and broadly, we sought to show tbe inher-

ent contradiction present in the descriptions, which claim to seek diversity

yet control and limit it by promoting overly rigid epistemological and

methodological guidelines for candidates.

We first assessed how diversity was mentioned across all job postings

and made a few early and obvious observations. Every job posting bad

paragraphs that expressed the university's commitment to diversity and

encouraged m inority persons to apply. Indeed, more than 80 percent of

these postings contained the phrases, Women and minorities are encour-

aged to apply, and/or this University is an equal opportunity employer.

Others took it one step further and offered caveats that tend to give tbe

impression that minority candidates will be favored, such as the following:

[Our university] is an equal opportunity educational institution and as such does

not discriminate on grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, age, sexual ori-

entation, or status as a disabled or Vietnam era veteran. X is committed to

increasing the diversity of its faculty and senior administrative positions.

***

[Our university] is committed to excellence and actively supports cultural diver-

sity. To prom ote this endeavor, we invite individuals who contribute to such

diversity to apply, including minorities, women, GLBT, persons with disabilities

and veterans.

***

[Our university] is committed to a pluralistic cam pus community through affir-

mative action and equal opportunity, and is respons ive to the needs of dual career

couples. We assure reasonable accommodation under the Am ericans with

Disabilities Act.

These sentences and caveats reveal many serious implications about the

way that diversity is cast, understood, and perpetuated inside most commu-

nication departm ents. In our reading of tbese jo b descriptions, diversity is

understood as difference, as access to people from Other worlds who differ

from the mainstream in color, ethnicity, and/or sexuality. There seems to be


7/26

Locating Diversity in Comm unication Studies 9

It follows from the way that diversity is framed that it is these Other folks

who will diversify a department, while the rest already there are 'mainstream.'

Yet, this is a threshold of diversity because even though Others are strongly

urged to apply, every applicant must 'fit' with the ideology of the departm ent

in terms of theory, methodology, and so on. For instance, most jo b positions

that include caveats for diversity, equality, affirmative action, and so on, seek

only candidates whose scholarly and teaching interests align with the status

quo of

th

respective program s. There is no apparent recognition that no epis-

temology can ever be unhinged from an ontology (Bhabha, 1994; Minh-ha,

1989;Ong, 1988; Rodriguez, 2006). To insist that an epistemological posi-

tion be upheld or remain privileged is to insist that an ontological position also

be upheld and privileged. Therefore, to demand that Other peoples uphold a

certain epistemological orientation or suffer punitively in terms of resources

and opportunities undermines any possibility ofdiversity. Ashcraft and Allen

(2003), who propose a similar argument in their analysis of race in organiza-

tional communication tex ts, tell us that the ways in which we routinely frame

race preserve the Whiteness of the field, even as we claim to do otherwise

(p .

6). They suggest that complex accounts of race will continue to elude

organizational Communication Studies unless its scholars problematize the

ways in which the dom inance and invisibility of W hiteness (p.7) is con-

structed. In the context of the framing of culture, consider the specifications

for the following two positions:

The Department of Communication at the University of X is seeking to hire fac-

ulty members in two areas: (1) intercultural communication; (2) persuasion and

social influence.

Position 1. Assistant or Associate Professor in Intercultural Communication .

The successful candidate will have expertise in quantitative approaches to inter-

cultural com munica tion. In addition, the successful candida te will have the abil-

ity to teach quantitative research methods, statistical analysis, and/or mathemat-

ical modeling of communication processes.

Position 2. Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor in Persuasion and Social

Influence. The successful candidate will have expertise in quantitative

approaches to persuasion and social influence (e.g., negotiation and conflict

management, political communication, message design and production, compli-


8/26

4 Intercultural ommunicationin a TransnationalWorld

Interpersonal Communication; Communication Technology; Health

Communication; Political Communication; Organizational Communication.

While we already have a firm presence in these areas, we are looking for col-

leagues who have an interest in helping us develop an even stronger program.

The School is committed to empirical, social-scientific research on communica-

tion processes, either basic or applied.

Accompanying these advertisements were also standard caveats about the

university s com mitmen t to diversity. In these cases, the departments have

devised job descriptions that promote plurality by disallowing persons who

bring fundamentally different epistemological perspectives to the study of

the advertised areas. This formal disallowing of Other perspectives is a

devaluing of those perspectives. Indeed, what is most striking about these

ads is the unwillingness of these departments even to consider Other possi-

ble ways of studying and theorizing about the advertised communication

areas. Prominent across

all

jobdescriptions, this pattern reinforces the gate-

keeping funcfion these jo b ads perform and shows clearly that these descrip-

tions function as a control mechanism that ultimately requires Others to

comply with the overarching ideology of

a

department. Such advertisemen ts

lead to creating win-win situations for departments if job searches are suc-

cessfulacademic units are applauded and often rewarded for making diver-

sity/minority hires, wh ile the status quo in these units remain intact. Adding

categorically diverse faculty merely constitutes dem ographic diversity,

which does nothing to ensure racial, ethnic, gendered, or cultural equality in

the workplace (Daniels et a l , 1997; Zak, 1994). This practice also does

nothing to produce epistemological diversity.

However, what is arguably most compelling is the fact that this ideologi-

cal and epistemological disciplining is found in many advertisements for

intercultural communication positions, such as the following:

We are seeking faculty to teach and conduct research in Intemational and

Intercultural communication, particularly related to health and risk communica-

tion. Qualified applicants should have a social scientific focus, a background in

quantitative research methods, and expertise to teach both graduate and under-

graduate courses.

e

are seeking candidates with strong potential for a success-


9/26

oc tingDiversity in Communication Studies

4

communication, inu-oductory courses in theory and/or research and courses in

area of specialization.

***

Assistant Professor in Persuasion and Social Influence or in Intercultural

Communication. The successful candidate will be able to teach and engage in

research in persuasion and social influence from a cognitive approach (e.g.,

negotiation and conflict management, political communication, message design

and production, compliance gaining) or in intercultural communication. The

successful candidate will have the ability to teach quantitative research methods,

statistical analysis, and/or mathematical modeling of communication processes.

Expertise in health communication or risk communication is desirable.

The above intercultural communication job descriptions show quite clear-

ly the gate-keeping role that job descriptions play in the everyday life of a

communication department. These job s ads are all written in ways that limit

the scholarship that can potentially occur in these departments by requiring

applicants to adhere to an epistemological stance as dictated by the depart-

ment. With these ads there is simply no opportunity for persons with differ-

ing worldviews to present an alternative way of understanding these areas.

These departments have already determined what type of epistemology is

superior and the worldviews to which students in these departments will be

introduced. By hierarchically imposing a certain epistemology, these depart-

ments are also dictating which human practices will be conceptualized and

theorized , including what will be defined as com municative behavior. Yet,

from an epistemological standpoint, every way of framing negates other

ways of framing. Thus to insist or promote one way of understanding is to

block the growth of other ways of understanding.

But intercultural communication positions should arguably allow for the

most epistemological and methodological fiexibility, as intercultural com-

munication should at least begin with the premise that the world is rich with

peoples who hold different views, including different systems of under-

standing, experiencing, and framing the world. Acco rdingly, the study of

these peoples may most likely involve epistemologies and methodologies

that are different from those in the mainstream of Communication Studies.


10/26

42 Intercultural C ommunication in a Transnational W orld

methodological orientation, these departments and schools undercut tbe

mission of our discipline to introduce our students to all the possible epis-

temologies and methodologies necessary to understand and leam from dif-

ferent peoples, and to be a discipline that welcomes peoples from all cor-

ners of the world who com e to the study of comm unication from different

epistemological and methodological persuasions.

Another fallout of these stringent epistemological boundaries is the cre-

ation of a bifurcation between 'mainstream' and 'cross-cultural' job posi-

tions, which manufactures a cultural dividea divide that is by no means

balanced because one group is privileged over another. Cu lture begins to

get isolated into a separate realm , leaving intact the illusion that m ainstream

courses and scholarship are acultural. In this way,th s job announcements

further reify a division of labor among academicsthose who do cultural

work and those wh o do mainstream work. The strongest implication of

such maneuvers is that culture gets assigned to certain classes. It also gives

license to 'mainstream' faculty who teach the so-called mainstream cours-

es,

which merely give a nod to 'multicu ltural' perspectives. On a resonat-

ing note, Ashcraft and Allen (2003) report that in organizational communi-

cation studies, race is relegated to a portion of tbe class and often postponed

to be covered at the end of a text. They further assert that wh en race is dis-

cussed it appears to be the unique interest of the people of color, manifest

as a static identity variable with relatively predictable effects on one's per-

spective and behavior (Ashcraft & Allen,

2003,

p. 10). We wholehearted-

ly concur with these authors; our assessment of diversity as addition show-

cases bow diversity is depoliticized and neutralized. In the context of cul-

ture and communication, this addition and division have grave intellectual

implications for communication theory, because both operate on the

assumption that there is theory and then there is intercultural theory, and

that mainstream theories cater to one singular culturein this case, the

dominant mainstream.

There are various other implications of thiscultural divide In too many

cases, persons of historically marginalized groups, when interviewed and


11/26

Locating Diversity in Cotnmunication Studies 4

created by communicative, rhetorical, and performance practices. This lack

of interrogation allows comm unication departmen ts to maintain a status quo

tbat surely will face no threat from the rise of fundamentally new ways of

understanding and experiencing the worid. In this case, diversity is sacri-

ficed for the promise of predictability. Our analysis revealed the persistence

of this ideology w ithin the jo b advertisem ents. In fact, only

one

out of 75

positions framed diversity in intellectual and relational ways, thus giving us

a glimpse at some possibilities, yet all the while reinforcing how scarce

such a worldview is within the field:

[Our

university

seeks an associate professor

in the area

of race/ethnicity and com-

munication in the Department of Communication. We seek faculty committed to

our department's principles of intellectual and cultural pluralism, interdisciplinary

theorizing, diverse methods of inquiry, public scholarship and community engage-

ment, and innovation through collaboration among faculty and students.

This advertisement was the exception. In nearly all the Interculturai

Communication positions under review, diversity was dealt with as a cate-

gory of difference, and culture as something that occurs outside of our

human interactions. In a majority of descriptions, culture and diversity are

constructed as nouns rather than verbsthat is, as stable processes versus

continually occurring natural processes which constitute all persons in any

society. These advertisements never seem to recognize or acknowledge tbat

all categories leak, change, and evolve (Minh-ha, 1989). There is no men-

tion of or concern with w hat is comm only referred to in most disciplines as

a cosmopolitan perspective in wbich diversity is more wary of traditional

enclosures and favors voluntary affiliations. It is a movem ent that promotes

multiple identities, emphasizes the dynamic and changing nature of many

groups, and is responsive to the potential for creating more cultural combi-

natio ns (HoUinger, 1995, p. 3).

At the same time job advertisements are not the only places where

Communication Studies undermines diversity and disguises plurality as


12/26

Intercultural Comm unication in a Transnational World

Intercultural ommunication Textbooks

Textbooks are arguably the most important books in our society.

Disseminating the knowledge that is vital to maintaining the status quo,

textbooks are required to be read and leamed, for students must acquire the

education necessary to succeed in our society. Moreover, textbooks are

ubiquitous, covering nearly every subject and every level of education. In

fact, as they define and perpetuate w hat is appropriate know ledge and, in so

doing, shape what is appropriate and possible, textbooks are guardians of a

society. In this way, textbooks are crucial objects of analysis because they

dissem inate a field's canon of kno wledge (Ashcraft & Allen,

2003,

p. 7;

see also Altbach, 1991;Kuhn, 1970; Litvin, 1997). Further, textbooks inad-

vertently take on the role of disciplining undergraduate and graduate stu-

dents with respect to the field's dominant theories and interests (Ashcraft

& Allen,

2003,

p . 7). Agger (1991 ), a sociologist who undertook a critical

study of sociology textbooks, concluded that introductory texts socialize

both the students as well as the faculty members who teach them.

Exploring this relationship. Agger (199 1) points o ut:

many graduate students and junior faculty mem bers are acculturated to our com -

mon disciplinary assumptions by teaching through the chapters of the introduc-

tory boo ks. In this sense , pedag ogy merges with professional socialization,

underlining the disciplinarily constitutive nature of textbooks. Th e books not

only reflect the discipline, they also help to reproduce it in the way in which they

expose graduate students and faculty to the consensus underlying the dominant

approach to epistemology, methodology and theory, (pp. 107-108)

However, textbooks generally manage to avoid the scrutiny that should

com e with such infiuence. Then again, textbooks achieve this invisibility

by seeming to be objective, authoritive, and neutralthat is, texts devoid of

human subjectivity.

It is precisely this neutrality that makes textbooks so problem atic. No

book , even a textbook, is devoid of human subjectivity. Every textbook

refiects a vision of how the world is and how the world should be. Also,

every textbook, especially an intercultural communication text, through


13/26


In order to focus our analysis, we chose eight textbooks based on a few

guiding criteria. All the textbooks were book-length m anuscripts that syn-

thesize intercultural communication and frame it as a field. Second, we

chose texts that target both undergraduate and graduate students. For

instance, our sample ranged from texts that include introductory theoretical

frames meant primarily for undergraduates to other more sophisticated text-

books that could potentially be used in graduate-level classes. All of these

chosen textbooks are widely used in the discipline. Finally, and most

importantly, these textbooks represent many different methodological and

conceptual perspectives on intercultural communicafion. We believe that

surveying this plurality of perspectives is vital to understanding the arche-

ology of intercultural communication theory. In this section we focus upon

how intercultural textbooks also undermine diversity and disguise plurality

as diversity by re-legitimizing assumptions that align our understanding of

diversity with physical places and spaces.

Our review of numerous intercultural textbooks (including Hall'sAmong

Cultures; Gudykunst's Cross-cultural and Intercultural Communication;

Gudykunst and Kim's Communication with Strangers; Weaver's Culture,

Communication and Conflict; Rogers and Steinfatt's Intercultural

Communication; Gudykunst ' s Theorizing about Intercultural

Communication; Cooper, Calloway-Thomas, and Simonds' Intercultural

Communication; Klopf and McCroskey's Intercultural Communication

Encounters; Martin and Nakayama's Intercultural Communication in

Contexts; Neuliep's Intercultural Communication; and Samovar, Porter,

and McDaniel 's Intercultural Communication, and Communication

Between C ultures found many com mon themes and assumpfions. All these

texts begin with the assumption that cultures make for differences, such as

peo ples' sharing different beliefs, values, fears, norm s, expectations, truths,

and, ultimately, different behav iors. For exam ple. Klopf and McC roskey

(2007) contend that Un less we know the rules of other cultu res' prac tices,

we will discover it is almost impossible to tell how members of other cul-

tures will behave in similar situations (p. 22). Many textbooks focus on

how peoples are different as a result of being of different cultures that are


14/26

6 Interculturl Communication in a Transnational World

ficient by knowing how cultures are different and how best to use various

communication skills and techniques to navigate and bridge such differ-

ences.

For exam ple, McDaniel, Samovar, and Porter (2006) claim that The

intemational community is riven with sectarian violence arising from ideo-

logical, cultural, and racial differences (p. 15). Neuliep (2000) echoes

Arthur Schlesinger's warning that history tells an ugly story of what hap-

pens when people of diverse cultural, ethnic, religious, or linguistic back-

grounds converge in one place (p. 2). Finally, many intercultural comm u-

nication textbooks emphasize that changing global demographics, econom-

ics,

and pragmatics make being interculturally proficient vital to human

beings in the contemporary world. As Rogers and Steinfatt (1999) note, If

individuals could attain a higher degree of intercultural competence, they

would presumably become better citizens, students, teachers, businesspeo-

ple,

and so forth. Society would be more peaceful, m ore produc tive, and

generally a more attractive place to live (p. 222 ). Moreover, Individuals

would be better able to understand others who are unlike themselves.

Through such improved understanding, a great deal of conflict could be

avoided; the world would be a better pla ce (p. 222 ). In short, in nearly all

of these textbooks, the focus is on discourses of plurality that encou rage tol-

eration and accom modation. Such a thread also persists in many discus-

sions of language.

Although language receives significant attention in most of the textbooks

under review here, these discussions also perpetuate assumptions that limit

diversity, and, in so doing, keep us bound to a set of fears and beliefs that

maintain our suspicion and distrust of those who seem most different from

us.

The common assumption is that a com mon language is vital for com-

munication between peoples of different cultures. For instance. Samovar,

Porter, and M cDaniel (2007) write that language diversity presents a prob-

lem in the United States (p. 182). Although Samovar et al. do not

end orse legislative proposals to make English the official language of the

United States, they do believe that know ledge of English and the ability

to com municate in English are essential in Am erican so ciety (pp. 182-

183). However, the position that language diversity presents a problem in

the United States still perpetuates the assumptionand the attending fear,


15/26


History makes no case that language diversity threatens stability and

social evolution. In fact, the world's most horrendou s crimes have occurred

in placessuch as Germany, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq, Turkey, and

Som aliathat actually experience language hom ogeneity. Moreover, in

focusing on issues, such as language diversity, that reallypose no threat to

the ability of different peoples to find harmony and understanding, many

intercultural communication texts are able to side step other issues that do

threaten harmony and understanding. W hat of, for instance, the widening

gap between rich and poor, or our reckless and selfish plundering of the

plan et's natural resources? How did these and other such issues come to

present no problem to intercultural relations in the United States, and hence

come to be elided from most intercultural communication textbooks?

Indeed, the disguising of plurality as diversity can be seen in the omission

of any discussion of poverty and inequality in most intercultural communi-

cation textbooks. In fact, plurality is most compellingly seen in the goal of

most intercultural communication textbooks merely to make us intercultur-

ally comp etent. Such proficiency is comfortable and unthreatening to the

status quo . It in no way pushes us to wrestle with the larger ideological and

institutional forces that make for a widening g ap between rich and poor and

thereby heighten our anxiety over immigrants supposedly taking away jobs

and draining preciou s resources. Th e goal of com munication proficiency

never allows us to reckon with the fallout of our reckless plundering of the

world's natural resources on the quality of life of different peoples, such as

the native peoples of Alaska, whose homes are disappearing into the ocean

as the ice caps melt. It also downplays and even misses how our heavy

dependency on foreign oil has made many persons in the Middle East har-

bor a deep hostility to the United States.

Language is by no means the most important component in communica-

tion. Yet language ach ieves this status when one begins w ith the assum p-

tion that communication is fundamentally linguistic and symbolicand it

is this lingu istic and symbolic-based definition that pervades many intercul-

tural com mu nication textbooks. For instance, Neuliep (2000) asserts,

Intercultural communication occurs whenever a minimum of two persons


16/26

8 Interculturl C ommunication in a Transnational World

textbooks forward definitions of communication that assume no profound

relationship between communication and the human condition, or even

between communication and the condition of the world. Co mm unication is

cast as a tool to share our thoughts and emotions, and communication com-

petency is about mastery of various skills and techniques. But this orienta-

tion masks the implications of different communication practices on tbe

human cond ition (Rodriguez, 2006 ; Thayer, 1987). To recognize the pro -

found relationship between communication and the human condition is to

recognize that communication is fundamentally moralour communica-

tion practices and environs shape and define our humanity and the humani-

ty of others, and the condition of our humanity affects the condition of the

worid. Com munication is both human making and world mak ing.

Our point is that the definitions of communication that are found in most

intercultural communication textbooks lack the expansiveness to help us

flourish in a world that is increasingly showcasing diversity more as a verb

and less as a noun . In a worid where spaces and distances are co llapsing

and imploding and there are no longer boundaries between the local and the

global, increasing numbers of persons are unwilling to yield to simplistic

and reductionistic categories (Conquergood, 2002). Sucb a worid requires

a new definition tbat characterizes communication as a mode of being and

becoming rather than a means of relaying and sharing of messages between

static bodies (Rodriguez , 2006). In this emergent definition, com munica-

tion is about being vulnerable to the humanity of

others.

This emergent def-

inition of com munication prom otes modes of being that lessen the threat

of our differences by pushing us to understand and embody the worid from

new and different positions. In assuming ontological or ecological continu-

ity between human beings, our communication competence is now defined

in terms of our capacity and willingness to enlarge our humanity. This

move exceeds commonly held definitions of communication competence

that stress proficiency in executing various skills and techniques that sup-

posedly make for effective communication. Indeed, to look at comm unica-

tion in terms of vulnerability is to recognize that language diversity poses

no threat to progress and social prosperity. W hat ultimately underm ines

social evolution is our lack of compassion for those who seem most differ-


17/26


ability and are necessary for the fiourishing of diversityremain on the

periphery of communication theory, inquiry, and pedagogy (Chase, 1993;

Go oda ll, 199 3; Kirkwood, 1993; M cPhail, 1996; Ohlhauser, 1996;

Rodriguez, 2006; Thayer, 1987; Tukey, 1990).

Our analysis of both job announcements and intercultural communication

textbooks arguably shows that Communication Studies has yet to arrive at

a rigorous understanding of diversity and to understand what is at stake in

the struggle for diversity. The field is com prom ised by this deficiency, for

diversity would mean that Communication Studies is evolving and acquir-

ing new epistemological resources that enrich our understanding of the inte-

gral relation between communication and being human . It would also mean

that historically marginalized persons are teaching courses and doing schol-

arly work that is respected by peers. But, of course, such is hardly the case

(see Allen, Olivas, Orbe, 1999). Many job announcem ents under review

show that many of us cannot even get the opportunity to present a different

epistemology for consideration, for many departments remain off limits for

the only reason that our worldviews are different, and thereby our ways of

understanding and theorizing about communication are different. Even

many intercultural communication announcements give us no opportunity

to present a different story, a different reality, a different possibility of being

in the world. Moreover, many intercultural com munication textbooks hard-

ly help our plight as they promote diversity as plurality.

The rigid epistemological guidelines of many job announcements really

mean that there is no opportunity for comm unication among peoples of dif-

ferent w odd view s in the departments that are seeking to fill open ings. This

is the interesting irony about the lack of diversity in Communication

Studiesthe undermining of comm unication by persons who are supposed-

ly com mitted to the study and promotion of comm unication. Yet this irony

reminds us why communication is integral in the promotion of diversity.

Communication sustains the possibility of diversity and most distinguishes

diversity from plurality. Com munication puts our differences in com mun-

ion with one another. It allows us to demystify one another, to understand


18/26

5 Intercuitural Com munication in a Transnational World

n Ecological pproach

Most intercultural comm unication textbooks under review offer different

frameworks upon which to view intercultural relations. For instance, Kloff

and McCroskey (2007) offer a functional approach, Neuliep (2000) offers a

contextual approach, and Martin and Nakayama (2007) offer a dialectical

approach. In the funcdonal approach, the goal is to understand how differ-

ent cultures make for different com munication behaviors. Th e contextual

approach aims to understand the cultural, tnicrocultural, environmental, per-

ceptual, and sociorelafional contexts in which intercultural communication

occurs. According to Neu liep (2000), A context is a complex com bination

of a variety of factors, including the setting, circumstances, background, and

overall framework within which communication occurs (pp. 18-19). The

dialectial approach emphasizes the processual, relafional, and contradicto-

ry nature of intercultural communication, which encompasses many differ-

ent kinds of intercultural know ledge (Martin & Nakayama, 2007, p. 69).

Ukimately, the goal of these models is to promote tolerance by giving us the

means to better understand one another's differences. As Neuliep (2000)

writes about the benefits of intercultural cotnmunication, Communicating

and establishing relafionships with people of different cultures can lead to a

host of benefits, including healthier communifies; increased intemational,

nadon al, and local comm erce; reduced conflict; and personal growth through

increased tolerance

(p .

2). But tolerafion, as even the staunchest proponents

of toleration acknowledge, is a morally and theoretically tenuous nofion

upon which to build a diversity politics. Even though all differences are

incomparable, most intercultural communication textbooks refrain in every

possible way from broaching this politically perilous subject. The result is

an orientation to intercultural communication matters in most textbooks that

never engages the most contentious issuessuch as women's seemingly

subordinated and even oppressed positions in many cu ltures that currently

surround discussions of diversity and culture. The result also is an impres-

sion that these issues stand outside the realm of theory.

We believe that Communicafion Studies needs a framework that moves

beyond the goal of merely accommodating, tolerafing, and bridging differ-

ences.

Such a framework should be able to help us know which differences


19/26

L o c a t i n g D i v e r s i t y i n o m m u n i c a t i o n S t u d i e s 5

tive action) is cast as being economically good. How did this become a

morally sound way to defend some of the most vulnerable groups among

us? Evidently, Com munication Studies needs a framework that can funda-

mentally expand our understandings of borders, citizenship, and regional

cooperation, for immigration and diversity are in every wayand every

placeumbilically intertwined.

We believe an ecological framework can enlarge Com munication Stud ies

understanding and framing of diversity. This framework begins on the

assumption that social, cultural, and communicational processes, as organic

phenom ena, are ecologiesrelationships among organisms sharing an envi-

ronment. Since every ecology must abide by the same algorithms and

axioms or simply perish, this framework gives us a rigorous moral and the-

oretical calculus to understand d iversity. One such algorithm and axiom is

that ecologies are either

evolving or devolving

either promoting or under-

mining life. No ecology is ever morally neutral. On the other hand , though

the proclivity of every ecology is to aifirm life, evolution is difficult, even

perilous. It requires an embracing of ambiguity, mystery, and complexity,

and thereby an unwillingness to be seduced by the illusion of certainty. In

other words, evolution requires ecologies to possess the muscularity,

resiliency, and capacity to deal w ith high levels of ambiguity, as in our open-

ness to new ways of knowing and experiencing the world. In this way,

social, cultural, and communicational processes that promote and promise

certainty, besides undermining innovation and evolution, promote crippling

fears,

anxieties, insecurities, and paranoia about that which is unknown, dif-

ferent, and com plex. By underm ining diversity, we underm ine life, includ-

ing all the life forms that share our ecology . W hen it is no longer innovating

and evolving, and thereby promoting diversity, a culture faces decline and

ruin as reason gives way to desperation, relationships give way to structures,

and comm unication gives way to information (and expression).

But cultures undercut ambiguity, mystery, and complexity by insisting on

rigid and redundant structures, such as job announcements with rigid

methodological and epistemological guidelines and curriculums with strin-

gent requirements that lessen the opportunity for new course offerings. By


20/26

52 Intercultural Communication in a Transnational World

Ecologies also evolve by prom oting relationships w ith many different kinds

of ecolog ies. This is the axiom of embeddedness. Ecologies survive and

flourish by being embedded within as many other ecologies as is physical-

ly possible. This is why, for instance, joint appointments are necessary for

the evolution of Com munication S tudies. It is also why Comm unication

Studies needs to continue to promote interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary,

and multidisciplinary initiatives, and amply reward such work. In fact,

embeddedness undercuts the notion that because [our] view of the world is

shaped by the perspective of [our] culture, it is often difficult to understand

and appreciate many of tbe actions originating in other people, groups, and

na tions (Samovar, Porter, & McD aniel, 2006, p. v). It does so by showing

that cultures and peoples who are evolving, innovating, and changing are

highly embedded; they are so significantly influenced by other cultures and

peoples that assuming cultural boun daries is all but meaningless. High lev-

els of embeddedness make for a belonging and understanding of multiple

ecologies. In this way, em beddedness enlarges our humanity and also quilts

our humanity w ith other peoples and cultures . On the other hand , the rela-

tional promiscuity that promotes em beddedness also promotes permeabili-

ty

which is another reliable measure of ecological prosperity. Permeability

allows for the back-and-forth movement of resources, knowledge, and

expertise between and among ecologies . For Com munication Studies, per-

meability is about inviting colleagues from other departments to be on our

search committees; encouraging scholarship that appears in joumals and

venues outside of mainstream communication outlets; allowing job candi-

dates to present new m odels of excellence in research , service and teaching;

and instituting tenure and prom otion pro cedures that encourage these differ-

ent models of excellence.

Our point is that distinct attributes and processes distinguish an evolving

ecology from a dying ecology. Ultimately, the latter is afraid of the world 's

ambiguity, mystery, and complexity. It is beholden to the past and bent on

promoting isolation so as to avoid contamination from outside influences.

It is also hostile to other ecolog ies, especially those that supposedly threat-

en pollution, contam ination, and chaos. In contrast, ecologies on the evolv-

ing side of the continuum move courageously into the world's ambiguity,


21/26


being that undermine evolution and innovation by disrupting leaming will

always face decline and ruin. The notion that a culture can be preserved by

religiously holding on to tbe ways of the past is simply contrary to what is

necessary for preservation. But preservation is by no means the only no tion

that this emergent framework changes. Again, most intercultural com muni-

cation textbooks focus on the need to understand our many differences; the

origins of our differences; the implications of our differences; the need to

respect our differences; and how best to navigate, negotiate, and bridge our

differences. The assumption is that our differences ultimately make for

strife and conflict. Our differences are cast as a set of dan gero us and per-

ilous rapids that demand vigilant and sensitive navigation . Any wrong act,

movement, bebavior, or word can send us crashing into the rocks and cur-

rents of discord . But framing cultures as ecologies moves us away from this

approach by emphasizing diversity rather than difference, and thereby

reminding us tbat only com munication ends aggression. Also, the language

of culture suggests, as is seen in most intercultural communication text-

books, that cultures are relatively stable and have well-defined boundaries.

This premise is foundational to intercultural communication theory, inquiry,

and pedagogy. However, this language tends to mask the tremendous ten-

sions, conflicts, and dissent that are found among supposedly homogenous

peop les. In actuality, our differences pose no threat to discord and conflict.

Our supposedly intercultural problems are really ecological problems

problem s that stem from the undermining of evolution. Put differently, our

supposed diversity problems are fundamentally ecological in origin: they

reflect a lack of permeability, diversity, embeddedness, and harmony in our

social, cultural, and com municational processes. No amount of sensitivity

or respect for one another s differences can save us from the angu ish that

promise to come from cultures that disrupt leam ing. The pervasive hostili-

ty to that which is different, complex, and unknown will always produce

strife and discord. In this way, such cultures, and the differences that come

from these cultures, should neither be tolerated nor accom modated . To look


22/26

5

Intercultural Communication in a Transnational World

on lusion

The struggle for diversity has long been cast as a struggle for space

specifically for spaces that will shelter and nourish the best ambitions of

historically marginalized and disenfranchised peoples. In this regard the

struggle has always been about inclusion. But inclusion depoliticizes diver-

sity. Job announcem ents in Com munication Studies show that many who

are already marginalized and disenfranchised will remain marginalized and

disenfranchised as inclusion demands submission and our promise to aid

and abet no forces that might disrupt the status quo. Unfortunately this

promise often translates to the marginalized and disenfranchised being

complicit in helping perpetuate and reify the illusion of separation between

communication theory and intercultural communication theory.

This illusion is foundational to maintaining the status quo in

Communication Studies including keeping historically marginalized and

disenfranchised peoples confined to job s convention pane ls journ als and

anthologies that focus upon intercultural communication and other matters

that supposedly deal

only

with race culture ethnicity and sexuality. The

impression that emerges is that communication theo ry is devoid of

race

cul-

ture

and privilege and thereby beyond the limitations of hum an subjectiv-

ity. It is outside of history and culture and consequently superior to inter-

cultural communication theory. But no theory escapes history and culture.

Theories describe as well as reinforce a vision of the world. But what mat-

ters is the illusion of objectivity for without this illusion the hegemony

found in Com munication Studies will implode. So the status quo in

Communication Studies does have a stake in maintaining this illusion

which means ironically continuing to support traditional intercultural com-

munication theory so that historically marginalized and disenfranchised

peoples can claim to have a space in Communication Studies.

But inclusion blocks any rigorous scrutiny of the dominant worldview

that rules communication theory inquiry and pedagogy and thereby the

job s and textbooks that help maintain this hegemony. In our view the par-

adigm of inclusion toleration and accomm odation needs to be displaced by

a paradigm of evolution innovation and confrontation. W ithout this dis-

placement the disenfranchised and marginalized will remain marginalized


23/26

Locating Diversity in Comm unication Studies

55

deal with the world that is now upon us, as well as the capacity to help us

imagine new and better wodds. The struggle for diversity is ultimately a

struggle for life.

R F R N S

Agger, B. (1991). critical theory of public life: Knowledge, discou rse and

politics in an age of decline.

London: Falmer Press.

Allen, B. J., Orbe , M ., Olivas, M. R. (1999). The complexity of our tears:

Dis/enchantment and (in)difference in the academy. Communication

Theory, 9(4), 402-429 .

Altbach, P. G. (1991). The unchanging variable: Textbooks in com parative

perspective. In P. G. Altbach, G. R Kelly, H. G. Ptrie, L. Weis

(Eds.), Textbooks in American society: Politics, policy, and pedagogy

(pp.237-254). New York: State University of New York Press.

Antonio, A . L. (2002 ). Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contribu-

tion to scholarship.The Joumal of Higher Education, 73,582-602.

Anzalda, G. (1987).

Borderlandsa frontera.

San Francisco: Aunt Lute.

Ashcraft, K. L., Allen, B . J. (2003). The racial foundation of organiza-

tional com munication.

Com munication Theory, 13 1),

5-38.

Bhabha, H. (1994).

The location of culture.

New York: Routledge.

Chase, K. R. (1993). A spiritual and critical revision of structuration

theo-

ry. Joumal of Comm unication and Religion, 16 ,

1-21.

Conquergood, D. (2002). Performance studies: Intervenfions and radical

research.

The Drama

Review,

42 2),

145-156.

Cooper, P J., Calloway-Thomas, C , Simonds, C. J. (2007).

Intercultural

comm unication: A text with readings.

Boston, MA : Pearson.

Daniels, T.D., Spiker, B. K., Papa, M . J. (1997).

Perspectives on organi-

zational comm unication

(4' ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown Benchmark.

Educating the largest minority group.

(2003,

November 28).

The Chronicle

of Higher Education,

B6-B9.

Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1993). Mysteries of the future told: Communication as


24/26

56 Intercultural Comm unication in a Transnational World

Hu-DeHart, E. (2000, September-October). The diversity project:

Institutionalizing multiculturalism or manag ing differences?Bulletin of

theAm erican Association of niversityP rofessors,39-42.

Kirkwood , W. B . (1993). Studying comm unication about spirituality and

the spiritual consequences of communication.

Journal of

Com munication and Religion, 17,

13-26.

lopf

D. W., McCroskey, J. C . (2007). Intercultural communication

encounters. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Litvin, D. R. (1997). The discourse of diversity: From biology to manage-

ment.

Organization, 4,

187-209.

M artin, J. N., Nakayam a, T. K. (2007). Intercultural communication in

contexts.Boston, MA: M cGraw-Hill.

M cPhail, M. L. (1996 ). Spirituality and the critique of epistemic rhetoric:

A coherent analysis. Journal of Communication and Religion, 19,4 8-

60.

Milem, J. F. (2000, S eptember-October). Why race m atters. Bulletin of the

Am erican Association of U niversity Professors,26-29.

Minh-ha, T. T. (1989). Woman, native, other: W riting postcoloniality and

feminism.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Neuliep, J. W. (2000).Intercultural com munication: A contextual approach.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Ohlhauser, J. B. (1996). Human rhetoric: Accounting for spiritual mlervcn-

tion.

Howard Journal of

Com munications,

7,339-348.

Ong, W. J. (1988).

Orality and

literacy.New York: R outledge.

Rodriguez, A. (Ed.) (2001).

Essays on comm unication and spirituality:

Contributions to a new discourse on communication. Lanham, MD :

UPA.

Rodriguez, A. (2006). A story from somewhere: Cathedrals,

Communication, and the search for possibility. Intemational and

Intercultural Com munication Annual, 2 9, 4-21.

Rogers, E. M., Steinfatt, T. M . (1999). Intercultural communication.

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., M cDaniel, E. R. (2006). Intercultural com-

munication. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.


25/26

L o c a t i n g D i v e r s i t y i n o m m u n i c a t i o n S t u d i e s 5 7

Viemes Tumer, C. S. (2000, September-October). New faces, new knowl-

edge. Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors

39-42.

Zak, M. W. (1994). It's like a prison there : Organ izational fragmentation

in a demographically diversified workplace. Journal of Business and

Technical Com munication. 8 281-298.


26/26

Copyright of International & Intercultural Communication Annual is the property of National Communication

Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

Documents

ContentServer.asp 6