ISFD 79

estudios interculturales
en lengua inglesa i
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Dialogue
John Stewart
Special Assistant to the President, University of Dubuque, Iowa, USA
What is it?
The term dialogue is central and also polysemic,
that is, it has multiple possible meanings. Most
often, whether in two-person, small group, or public
contexts, dialogue labels a quality of communication
characterized by the participants’ willingness and
ability simultaneously to be radically open to the
other(s) and to articulate their own views. One’s
contributions to the communicating are both
assertive and open to the other’s active shaping.
Dialogue occurs when the participants let the other
person(s) happen to them while holding their own
ground. Dialogue’s primary goal is understanding
rather than agreement, an outcome that can result
from sustained collaborative inquiry. Participants
are expected to practice humility, empathy, and
curiosity about differences and to accept the
possibility of non-closure. The primary benefit of
dialogue is that, when this quality is present, the
communicating is highly likely to continue.
Who uses the concept?
The term dialogue is used by diplomats,
anthropologists, organizational development
trainers, social activists, public policy workers, and
communication professionals, often with an
adjective to describe the variety. Some contrast
dialogue with debate and discussion as an
alternative approach to problem-solving or dispute
resolution. Occasionally, the term is hijacked to
provide a patina of respectability to overtly political
efforts focused on control or persuasion.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 14, 2014
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Intercultural dialogue occurs whenever culturally-
different individuals or groups communicate in ways
that manifest their differences and embody the
both-and quality described earlier. Given the natural
complexity and context-dependence of cultural
identities, almost any instance of human interaction
might be viewed as an “intercultural” one, open to
the possibility that it could become an instance of
intercultural dialogue.
What work remains?
It would be ill-advised to try to create a universally-
applicable definition of a term with this one’s
historical freight. Dialogue scholars and
practitioners would benefit from research that
identifies the verbal and nonverbal practices that
enhance and detract from the quality of contact
described. Those committed to dialogue might also
attempt to preserve the term as a label for a
particular type, kind, or quality of communication,
rather than one that can be used to describe any
human exchange.
Resources
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York:
Routledge.
Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fostering dialogue
across divides: A nuts and bolts guide from the
public conversations project. Watertown, MA:
Public Conversations Project. Available from:
http://bit.ly/1fMmWXN
Stewart, J. (2013). U&ME: Communicating in
moments that matter. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos
Institute Publications.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue

Intercultural Dialogue
Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz
Director, Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Harron Family Endowed Chair in Communication, Villanova University, PA, USA

What is it? What work remains?

Despite its significance to diplomats and
Intercultural dialogue occurs when members of
practitioners, intercultural dialogue rarely has been
different cultural groups, who hold conflicting
the technical term of choice for academics, let alone
opinions and assumptions, speak to one another in
served as the primary object of research, although
acknowledgment of those differences. Wishing to
many investigations on relevant topics have used
present his or her own views and have them heard,
overlapping vocabulary. In addition to synthesis of
each participant agrees to listen to the views of
those research results, studies are needed to
the other(s) in exchange. Intercultural dialogue is
confirm whether intercultural dialogue can in fact
co-constructed, requiring the cooperation of
bring about the positive results with which has been
participants to engage in different ways of
credited. Certainly knowing which elements are
interacting. Although by common definition dialogue
critical, and how these can be taught and learned,
does not require agreement as a result, participants
would be valuable. The discipline of Communication
frequently express hope that agreement in at least
should, logically, play a central role in answering
some areas may be achieved. At the very least,
these questions, for it is through communication that
understanding serves as a reasonable beginning,
participants engage in dialogue.
and is preferable to conflict. Dialogues between
those holding the most divergent viewpoints are the
most difficult, but also the most critical. Resources
Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on
Who uses the concept? intercultural dialogue: ‘‘Living together as equals
in dignity.’’ Available from www.coe.int/dialogue
Intercultural dialogue is most frequently promoted
by diplomats describing an ideal world, rather than Ganesh, S., & Holmes, P. (2011). Positioning
as a statement of current reality. Over the past few intercultural dialogue: Theories, pragmatics, and
decades, the term has increasingly been used as an agenda. Journal of International and
shorthand for cooperation between nations and/or Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 81-86.
among cultural groups within national borders,
Näss, H.E. (2010). The ambiguities of intercultural
especially within Europe since the establishment of
dialogue: Critical perspectives on the European
the European Union. Typically, those calling for
Union’s new agenda for culture. Journal of
intercultural dialogue assume it will promote
Intercultural Communication, 23. Available from
tolerance, openness, mutual respect, thus resolving
http://immi.se/intercultural
intergroup conflict and increasing peace and
harmony.

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 1, 2014 http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org

 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Cross-Cultural Kids
Ruth E. Van Reken
CO-FOUNDER, FAMILIES IN GLOBAL TRANSITION, INDIANAPOLIS, IN
What is it?
Cross-cultural kids (CCKs) are children who grow
up living in, or meaningfully interacting with, two or
more distinctly different cultural worlds during their
first eighteen years of life. This umbrella term
includes a wide variety of subgroups such as
traditional third culture kids (TCKs), children from
mixed-racial heritage or bi/multicultural parents.
Some are educational CCKs (attending school in a
different cultural setting than their family culture),
children of immigrants, minorities, refugees, or
borderlanders. Depending on the situation, CCKs
can be international adoptees, foster children, those
raised in blended families, or countless ‘others.’
Many CCKs grow up in more than one of these
categories, and deal with a complex sense of
identity. Adults who grew up as CCKs are called
‘adult cross-cultural kids’ (ACCKs).
Who uses the concept?
Cross-cultural kids is a useful concept for
psychologists and counselors working with
CCK/ACCK clients to help them better understand,
name, and normalize their sometimes complicated
story. Education scholars have used it to discuss
student experiences brought into the classroom.
Sociologists and anthropologists can use it to study
the growing ‘hidden diversity’ in our globalizing
world compared with traditional approaches to
‘diversity.’ Political scientists, communication
scholars, and economists can research this new
demographic to see how the personal impact of
globalization relates to each of their disciplines.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 94, 2019
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Because all CCKs grow up in some sort of cross-
cultural lifestyle or environment, many are
multilingual. Often they are multiculturally or
transnationally competent, flexible, adaptable, and
resilient. CCKs can thus serve as cultural bridges
and provide insight on how effective intercultural
dialogues can happen in multicultural settings.
What work remains?
Research on specific CCK subgroups has been
ongoing but with little effort to consider potential
common themes emerging from these studies.
Unifying the discussion is critical to understanding
how children of all nationalities having culturally
complex backgrounds can find their sense of
identity and belonging in our globalizing world.
Resources
Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. & Pollock, M.V.
(2017). Third culture kids: Growing up among
worlds (3rd ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey.
Cottrell, A. (2007). TCKs and other cross-cultural
kids. Japanese Journal of Family Sociology,
18(2), 54-65.
Van Reken, R. E. (2012). Cross-cultural kids: The
new prototype. In G. H. Bell-Villada, N. Sichel, F.
Eidse & E. N. Orr (Eds.), Writing out of limbo:
International childhoods, global nomads and
third culture kids (pp. 25-44). Newcastle Upon
Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Cultural Mapping
Nancy Duxbury
Senior Researcher, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal
What is it?
Cultural mapping is a systematic tool to involve
communities in the identification and recording of
local cultural assets, with the implication that this
knowledge will then be used to inform collective
strategies, planning processes, or other initiatives.
Cultural mapping promises new ways of describing,
accounting for, and coming to terms with the cultural
resources of communities and places. These
resources are both tangible or quantitative and
intangible or qualitative.
Who uses the concept?
Cultural mapping encompasses an array of
traditions and trajectories that focus on different
dimensions and approaches to understanding
cultural meanings and resources. For example,
since the turn of the millennium, the rising
prominence of so-called “creative industries”
internationally has meant cultural policy-related
mapping research has tended to focus on defining
and measuring the economic dimensions of cultural
and creative industries and on mapping the
presence and development of these desirable
sectors. However, this comprises only portions of
the field. Cultural mapping also encompasses
artistic and counter-mapping traditions that prioritize
the qualitative and intangible, valorize alternative
perspectives, and widen the ways in which we
understand cultural resources within broader
community systems, relationships, and fields of
meaningful interaction. In these ways, cultural
mapping aims to recognize and make visible the
ways local stories, practices, relationships,
memories, and rituals constitute places as
meaningful locations.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 69, 2015
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Cultural mapping – and in particular, its counter-
mapping traditions and trajectories – highlights and
aims to privilege plural perspectives and “alternate”
knowledges, histories, and meanings. In the context
of growing recognition that significant aspects of
culture are contained in the intangible dimensions of
cultural practices and knowledge systems,
UNESCO views cultural mapping as a means to
transform intangible and invisible knowledge into a
medium that can support heritage management,
education, and intercultural dialogue.
What work remains?
Key issues in the highly interdisciplinary field of
cultural mapping include the questions of what to
map, how to map, and to what purpose the
“findings” should be directed. Issues of power,
resistance, alternative perspectives and knowledge,
and the question of what constitutes important
cultural elements and meanings, are situated at the
centre of the field. The process of making implicit
knowledge explicit, and mobilizing the symbolic
forms through which local residents understand and
communicate their sense of place, also have ethical
and political dimensions.
Resources
Crawhall, N. (2009). The role of participatory
cultural mapping in promoting intercultural
dialogue - ‘We are not hyenas’: A reflection
paper. Paris: UNESCO.
Duxbury, N., Garrett-Petts, W. F., & McLennan, D.
(Eds.). (2015). Cultural mapping as cultural
inquiry. New York: Routledge.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue

Culture shock
Frank Fitzpatrick
INTERCULTURAL FLUENCY ADVISOR, BRITISH COUNCIL, LONDON, UK

seekers, for example, or voluntary, as in the case of

What is it?
“Culture shock” is a feeling of disorientation and
unease in a new and unfamiliar cultural environment
as a result of relocation. This concept has both an
affective, or psychological, component, relating to
how an individual feels in their new surroundings,
and a behavioural, or sociocultural, component,
relating to how they interact with others from a
different cultural background. Relocation triggers a
cognitive response in individuals, who reflect on
their own cultural identity and either reject or learn
how to live by new cultural rules. An early model of
culture shock, devised by Kalervo Oberg, identified
set stages in a linear progression towards
adjustment, but, while there may be common
elements, such as learning a new language or
coping with new norms or laws, the experience is
now understood as different for each individual.
Much depends on the domains that they frequent
and the social roles that they play, ranging from an
employee adjusting to new management practices
at work, an accompanying spouse coping with daily
life, to a student dealing with a new college and
methods of study.
Who uses the concept?
Culture shock is widely used in the international
business world, particularly in cross-cultural training
for international relocation. The term is frequently
used in Anthropology, Psychology and
Communication and it is key to Migration Studies, a
multidisciplinary field that studies all forms of human
migration in different circumstances, whether
forced, as in the case refugees and political asylum
business sojourners, tourists or international
students. Culture shock, to some degree, is a
likelihood for all migrants and travelers.
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Addressing the stress and learning processes
experienced in unfamiliar surroundings can help
individuals to overcome a potentially negative
experience and to engage positively in intercultural
dialogue.
What work remains?
Studies in culture shock should take into account
the discursive processes involved in social
interaction and the power relations and macro
forces that govern and influence life in specific
contexts, experienced by individuals as a source of
stress. Essentialist notions of culture based on
national stereotypes or imagined communities of
people across spuriously defined categories, as in,
for example, “Asian culture” or “Islamic culture,” are
insufficient categories of analysis, as an assumption
of homogeneity in sociocultural behaviour across
large populations neglects individual diversity and
contextual dynamics.
Resources
Fitzpatrick, F. (2017). Taking the ‘culture’ out of
‘culture shock.’ Critical Perspectives on
International Business, 13(4), 278-296.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The
psychology of culture shock. London: Routledge.

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 87, 2017 http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org

 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Critical Intercultural Communication
Rona Tamiko Halualani
Professor of Intercultural Communication, San Jose State University, CA, USA
What is it?
A critical intercultural communication perspective
provides a comprehensive and dialogic view of
intercultural communication, culture, and identity. It
offers a glimpse of the ways in which structures and
contexts of power impact our lives and experiences,
including the taken-for-granted shapers of
intercultural relations: the media, government,
economy, history, global markets, and popular
culture. The common element threaded throughout
these dimensions is power, the constraining force
by which dominant structures, groups and
individuals are able to gain position and achieve
their aims and interests over the will of others.
Whether we notice or not, these invisible
dimensions of power, constitute and frame our
intercultural communication encounters,
relationships, and everyday experiences with
culture in terms of identity, language, and
communication styles and practices.
From this perspective, intercultural communication
is much more than in-person, face-to-face contact
between two or more persons. It comes to include
all of the multi-layered dimensions of power that
reside in specific contexts and operate beneath the
surface of intercultural communication, hidden from
our sight and awareness.
Who uses the concept?
Critical intercultural communication as a
perspective, method, and theoretical framework is
most often adopted by intercultural communication
scholars, critical cultural studies scholars, and/or
critical linguistic scholars.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 30, 2014
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
This perspective can help elucidate the larger
discursive framings of issues, cultures, and
historical events that shape and often contain
dialogues across cultural groups. By applying a
critical intercultural communication focus to
intercultural dialogue – either before or after it
occurs – participants can reflect on how different
power structures and interests have framed
conversations across groups in ways that benefit
those very interests. In this way, the challenge
becomes how to reshape a dialogue so that greater
understanding and connection can occur across
those involved and impacted.
What work remains?
The important work of critical intercultural
communication needs to now amass empirical work
and demonstrative analyses that showcase its
unique methods, theoretical explanations, and
justified insights about power forces in the creation
and management of culture. Moreover, the
connections among various projects need to be
foregrounded so they are understood jointly.
Resources
Halualani, R.T., Drzewiecka, J.A., & S.L. Mendoza.
(2009). Critical junctures in intercultural
communication studies: A review. The Review of
Communication Journal, 9(1), 17-35.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking
about culture dialectically. Communication
Theory, 9(1), 1-25.
Nakayama, T.K., & Halualani, R.T. (Eds.). (2012).
Handbook of critical intercultural communication.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Dialogue as a Space of Relationship
Maria Flora Mangano
Invited Professor of Dialogue Among Cultures and Communication of Scientific Research, Italy
What is it?
Dialogue as a space of relationship describes an
approach mediated by dialogue which takes
inspiration from the philosophy of dialogue - a
branch of contemporary Anglo-European
philosophy founded by Martin Buber - and from
transdisciplinarity – according to the perspective
proposed by Basarab Nicolescu, contemporary
Romanian physicist and philosopher. The approach
to dialogue as a space of relationship takes a
transcultural (across cultural groups) and
transdisciplinary (across disciplines) perspective. In
this view, dialogue becomes a space of relationship,
more than for it, a space between, across and
beyond both cultures and disciplines. This implies
that dialogue and relationship are connected:
dialogue needs relationship to be realized; at the
same time, dialogue creates relationship. Dialogue
may also become the relationship itself. Therefore,
the space of relationship is not necessarily a
common ground, as dialogue and relationship may
provide the space in which cultures and disciplines
meet.
Who uses the concept?
Although the notion of dialogue as a tool for building
relationship seems common among scholars of
communication, practitioners of dialogue and within
the philosophy of dialogue, the perspective of
dialogue as a space of relationship has been rarely
investigated. As this approach is focused on
relationships, in addition to cultures and disciplines,
it might also be addressed to different contexts,
such as religions - thus, different religious traditions
and beliefs - and philosophies, either with Anglo-
European, or with non-Anglo-European orientations.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 81, 2017
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
The approach to dialogue as a space of relationship
relates closely to intercultural dialogue. In fact, it
could not be a transcultural approach (between,
across and beyond cultures) without being
intercultural. The intercultural and transcultural
perspectives are complementary and integrate with
one other. Participants create a space of
relationship in order to engage in intercultural
dialogue.
What work remains?
This approach is new, and has been rarely
investigated, thus much work remains on the
possible implications in terms of learning and
teaching to build a space of relationship mediated
by dialogue. Theory and praxis go together in this
approach, as study allows us to understand this
perspective, and what we experience through
dialogue permits us to comprehend this approach.
The goal is to promote an attitude to dialogue as a
“lifestyle”, either in the academic context, or beyond,
and far more broadly, in everyday life.
Resources
Buber, M. (1937). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.).
Edinburgh, UK: T. and T. Clark.
Mangano, M. F. (2015). Dialogue as a common
ground between, across and beyond cultures
and disciplines: A case study of transcultural and
transdisciplinary communication lectures for
graduate and undergraduate students. In N.
Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Intercultural case
studies (pp 73-86). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Nicolescu, B. (2002). A new vision of the world:
Transdisciplinarity (excerpt from Manifesto of
Transdisciplinarity).
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Diaspora
Jolanta A. Drzewiecka
Associate Professor, Washington State University, WA, USA
What is it?
The term diaspora comes from the Greek
andmeans dispersion or scattering. It was first used
in a biblical reference to the Jews leaving
Babylonia; thus diasporas are communities
dispersed from their original home. In the original
use, diasporic groups (i.e., Jews and Armenians)
were forced out of their homelands, and they held
onto the vision and memory of home, and nurtured
desires to return. Such groups coalesced around a
political cause for the nation and maintained a
separate identity in the place of residence. These
ideal characteristics of diaspora no longer hold in
every case. Diasporic groups are likely to become
embedded in their new homes and engage in local
politics. Their links to the homeland are sentimental
and most do not desire to return but instead
maintain degrees of diasporic consciousness of
home as roots and memory. Diasporas are also a
hybrid melding of cultures as is the case with the
Black Atlantic, an African diaspora formed of
African, American, Caribbean and British cultures in
a context of colonial and postcolonial struggles. But
the definition of diaspora is a matter of contention
among scholars. Some refer to any scattering,
including voluntary migration, as a diaspora. Others
argue that such an approach removes specificity
and analytical utility from the term.
Who uses the concept?
Anthropologists, political scientists, historians and
intercultural communication scholars analyze forms
of diasporic identifications, relations between
diaspora groups and home countries, diasporic
memories, and media use. Recent communication
studies demonstrated involvement of diasporic
groups in the Arab Spring through social media.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 62, 2015
Scholars also examine diasporic entertainment
media such as film, music, and online games. Old
and new media enable negotiations of national
identity, cultural empowerment, community building
across distances, and enactments of memory.
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Diasporic groups live among other groups and
connect across vast physical distances with groups
that might share their descent but have different
local cultural experiences and identity. Intercultural
dialogue is thus at the center of diasporic
identification and politics.
What work remains?
The most promising work on diaspora examines the
use of new media and its effects on maintaining
connections between physically separated group
members. We also still need to know how the
dynamically changing globalization structures, such
as state integration, capitalism, and growing
nationalism, shape diasporic identity, belonging,
and politics of descent.
Resources
Clifford, J. (1994). Diasporas. Cultural
Anthropology, 9(3), 302-338.
Drzewiecka, J. A. (2002). Reinventing and
contesting identities through constitutive
discourses: Between diaspora and its others.
Communication Quarterly, 50, 1-23.
Drzewiecka, J. A. & Halualani, R. (2002). The
structural-cultural dialectic of diasporic politics.
Communication Theory, 12, 340-366.
Gilroy, P. (1992). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and
double consciousness. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Global-Local Dialectic
Jana Simonis
Doctoral Student, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL, USA
What is it?
The apparent contradiction of global (at the macro
level) versus local (the micro level) can be
understood as a dialectic, that is, two interrelated
ideas in constant tension. The global-local dialectic
refers to global influences on different localities – for
instance, through global media flows. Different
cultures and peoples are connected to, and have
influenced, each other for centuries (through
colonialism, wars, trade, etc.). This approach moves
beyond the past focus on interactions between
nation-states to emphasize both larger (global) and
smaller (local) levels. One focus of attention has
been the hybrid cultures resulting from global
influences on local practices. Others include global
interconnections, power differences, intercultural
exchange, and especially the link between local
choices and global consequences.
Who uses the concept?
The global-local dialectic is used not only by
scholars in communication, political science, history,
and economics, but even more by interdisciplinary
scholars in cultural studies, postcolonial studies and
globalization. They use the concept in referring to
hybrid cultures and the growing interconnectedness
between individuals and cultures across the planet.
Increasing use of the terms "glocal" and
"glocalization" demonstrates acceptance of the
ways in which global and local intertwine.
Connection to intercultural dialogue
Intercultural dialogue can create a space in which
the global and the local meet in conversation. The
global-local dialectic helps to foster intercultural
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 26, 2014
dialogue as it brings together multiple cultures and
peoples. Intercultural dialogue is required to forge
strong relationships across differences.
What work remains?
Recent scholarship on the global-local dialectic tries
to move away from looking at the global and the
local as opposites that cannot coexist. Rather,
scholars are studying examples of potentially
mutually beneficial relationships. In particular, some
hybridity research, as well as cosmopolitanism
research, focuses on this interconnected approach
to the global-local dialectic.
Resources
Ferguson, M. (1995). Media, markets, and
identities: Reflections on the global-local
dialectic. Canadian Journal of Communication,
20(4), 439-459.
Hall, S. (1997). The local and the global:
Globalization and ethnicity. In A.D. King (Ed.),
Culture, globalization and the world-system:
Contemporary conditions for the representation
of identity (pp. 19-39). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Kraidy, M. M. (1999). The global, the local, and the
hybrid: A native ethnography of glocalization.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16(4),
456-476.
Mignolo, W. D. (2012). Local histories/global
designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and
border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Intercultural Aesthetics
Ramin Hajian Fard
INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR, IRAN
What is it?
A work of art, when displayed, can be considered as
a vehicle through which identity and expression are
revealed. This is not a one-way process: it serves
both individually and collectively, the latter as a
means of intercultural agency called “intercultural
aesthetics.” Also known as “comparative
aesthetics,” or “transcultural aesthetics,” this is a
concept based on common aesthetic judgment
using deep human empathy and understanding. It
rejects the old aesthetic thinking mostly based on
Western definitions to employ other schools of
aesthetics, such as those with roots in ancient
Eastern beliefs and thoughts. The most frequent
goal is to move beyond any single set of
assumptions in evaluating artistic productions,
toward understanding the universal nature of art
and experience. Two alternative approaches are
also sometimes chosen: either to compare art
across cultures, or to broaden the way in which
philosophy and aesthetics are practiced, so that
Western assumptions are disrupted by and
supplemented by eastern assumptions.
Who uses the concept?
Scholars in art and philosophy, and especially
philosophy of art, most often use the concept of
intercultural aesthetics. Occasionally museum
curators, artists or even dancers have used the
concept to describe their work. International
organizations whose work involves intercultural
dialogue might benefit from considering intercultural
aesthetics.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 83, 2017
Fit with intercultural dialogue
As a fundamental element of culture, art plays an
important role in intercultural dialogues. Art exists in
all cultures, and therefore can be used as an
important tool facilitating intercultural interactions.
Art is not only a dialogue between individuals and
their own inner voices but also with “the Other”. This
“Other” is not restricted to people from the same
culture but also more distant “Others,” who wish to
interpret and learn the language of a work and to
join the dialogue.
What work remains?
The power of intercultural aesthetics has been
emphasized in recent years as the importance of
constructive intercultural dialogue has become
obvious. The rapid growth of globalization as well as
differentiation and heterogeneity require
understanding non-native artworks by considering
the fundamental and aesthetic values shared, as
well as understanding different approaches
expressed by the people of various cultures.
Resources
Gonçalves, S., & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.). (2016). Art
and intercultural dialogue. Rotterdam: Sense.
van den Braembussche, A. A., Kimmerle, H., &
Note, N. (Eds.). (2009). Intercultural aesthetics:
A worldwide perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sastri, P. S. (1978). East and west in
Coomaraswamy's theory of art. Journal of
Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, 1(1), 1-
11.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Intractable Conflict
Andrew R. Smith
Edinboro University, PA, USA
What is it?
Intractable conflict is conflict that persists over time,
resists resolution, and involves some form of
violence (physical, structural, symbolic) between
conflicting parties. Those involved perceive one
another as threats, distort messages from and
about the other in order to sustain enmity, become
polarized and rigidified in their positions, and
ultimately collude as identities become dependent
on sustaining tensions. Typically, at least one party
to the conflict benefits from intractability and
maintains a dominant position over the other.
Mediation attempts by third parties not only fail to
resolve the conflict, they often exacerbate it. As a
result, entire populations of people are affected and
suffer injustices of various kinds, including isolation,
marginalization, discrimination, displacement,
exploitation and statelessness.
Who uses the concept?
Intractable conflict is a concept that is used by
mediators and scholars in the fields of international
affairs, policy analysis, conflict studies, diplomacy,
and increasingly in communicology. The United
States Institute of Peace (USIP) sponsors research
and has published several books on the topic. Most
intractability scholarship focuses on conflict
between states, or between ethnic and communal
groups within states, but those researching abortion
rights, doctor assisted suicide, creationism vs.
evolutionism, custody battles, interpersonal conflict
in organizations, and boundary disputes generally
also invoke the term. Of crucial importance in using
the concept is specifying the forms of violence and
communication involved that sustain polarization.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 18, 2014
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
By definition, intercultural dialogue is absent or at
best lacking in instances of intractable conflict. In its
place are distortions of messages, propaganda that
rationalizes violence and dehumanizes the
adversary. Mediation attempts work at creating
meta-cultural contexts for dialogue that transform
polarized relationships.
What work remains?
In recent years there has been an increase in
communication scholarship on intractability, with
focus on framing in multiparty conflict, the dynamic
between law and civil society, the development of
meta-frameworks that address issues of complexity
and change, divergent thinking and problem
solving, the role of argumentation in changing
psychological dispositions, and mediating ethno-
political conflict. Given the role of power and
violence in intractability, research is needed from
critical rhetorical, hermeneutic, cultural, feminist and
other applied philosophical perspectives.
Resources
Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution.
Washington, DC: USIP.
Coleman, P. T. (2000). Intractable conflict. In M.
Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook
of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp.
428–450). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Crocker, C.A., Hampson, F.O., & Aall, P. (Eds.).
(2005). Grasping the nettle: Analyzing cases of
intractable conflict. Washington, DC: USIP.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Media Ecology
Casey Man Kong Lum
Professor of Communication, William Paterson University, NJ, USA
What is it?
Media ecology is the study of media as
environments within which people’s sense-making
experience manifests itself through and in
communication. Media ecologists do not confine
their study of media as mere objects external to
people or conduits for information transmission.
Instead, they examine media, or forms of
communication, as physical, sensorial, perceptual
and symbolic environments or structures in which
people make sense of their world. Media ecology as
a theory group, theoretical perspective, or
intellectual tradition evolved into being from a
multitude of disciplines since the dawn of the
ecological movement late in the 1800s.
Who uses the concept?
Seminal thinkers in media ecology include Gedde,
Mumford, Havelock, Innis, Ong, McLuhan,
Eisenstein, Carey and Postman. Media ecological
theories are useful for students and scholars in
communication studies, including media and
culture, media education, media literacy, media
history, the philosophy of media, media
ethnography, media and popular culture, etc.
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
From one theoretical perspective, media ecology’s
paradigm questions center around the symbiotic
relationship between technology and culture. It
seeks to shed light on how changes in
communication technology may facilitate changes in
people’s sense-making experience, and vice versa.
Media ecology conceptualizes the interaction
between media and culture as symbiotic. Scholars
and practitioners in intercultural dialogue would gain
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 35, 2014
much by considering the opportunities and
challenges engendered by the presence of media,
the inherent structure of which helps to define
communication.
What work remains?
To date, media ecology rarely has been linked to
intercultural communication. But media ecological
concepts are extremely useful to the study of
intercultural communication and intercultural
dialogue in particular. One of media ecology’s
canonical concepts concerns itself with the “trade-
offs” brought about by different media or forms of
communication. For example, what are the relative
benefits and pitfalls inherited in the interaction or
sense-making experience of two teenagers from
different cultural backgrounds that is conducted (a)
entirely in web-based venues over the course of
three months and (b) in a home-stay setting of the
same duration? What are the ramifications of these
trade-offs for the work of scholars in intercultural
dialogue and that of practitioners in international
education?
Resources
Lum, C. M. K. (Ed.). (2006). Perspectives on
culture, technology and communication: The
media ecology tradition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Lum, C. M. K. (2014). Media ecology: Contexts,
concepts, and currents. In R. Fortner & M.
Fackler (Eds.), The handbook of media and
mass communication theory (pp. 137-153).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Strate, L. (2006). Echoes and reflections: On media
ecology as a field of study. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Multimodality
Bernd Müller-Jacquier
Professor of Intercultural German Studies, Bayreuth University, Germany
Founding faculty member, European Masters in Intercultural Communication (EMICC)
What is it?
In face-to-face interactions co-participants use
verbal, nonverbal and paraverbal signs for
expressing and interpreting meaning. This well-
known combination has been studied for a long time
independently, focusing on the assumption that
paraverbal and nonverbal signs somehow modify,
complete or even contradict what has been
expressed by words. Exploring natural dialogues in
social interaction, the multimodal approach does not
attribute a predominant value to the verbal aspects,
but looks at communication behavior as a whole. As
a strictly empirical procedure, researchers make
video recordings of interpersonal interaction and
transcripts. On the basis of these notations,
multimodal research tries to determine the order of
how people combine e.g. their body orientations,
facial expressions, eye contacts, gestures, their
intonations, loudness or accentuations as well as
their wordings into one expression (Gestalt). On the
recipients' side the question is how they interpret
these configurations of visible and audible means.
Who uses the concept?
Researchers using conversation analysis,
ethnographic discourse analysis, functional
pragmatics, and ethnography of communication
among other approaches illustrate multimodal
interactional developments within professional or
mundane conversations. The disciplines concerned
are not only communication, but sociology, applied
linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology,
and social psychology.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 44, 2014
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
For empirical investigation in and conceptual
modelling of intercultural dialogues, the holistic
approach of multimodal research studies not the
isolated verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal
expressions that are conventionally different across
languages, but their joint use. In order to meet the
expectations and competencies of non-native
speakers, this usage is characterized by a
noticeable recipient design and corresponding
selections and priorities of communication means.
What work remains?
Until recently, most investigations show that and
how multimodal resources are used in interpersonal
encounters. This research should be continued in
order to determine situation-specific multimodal
expressions and interpretations. At the same time,
attention should be directed to the various
interactive resources in intercultural encounters. In
particular the question of selection and priority:
which are “decisive contextualizers” for interpreting
a message in a web of resources formatting
actions?
Resources
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of
multimodal resources for social interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137-156.
Mortensen, K. (2012). Conversation analysis and
multimodality. In J. Wagner & K. Mortensen
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics
(pp. 1061-1068). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Otherness and The Other(s)
Peter Praxmarer
Executive Director, European Masters in Intercultural Communication (EMICC), Università della
Svizzera italiana (USI), Lugano, Switzerland
What is it?
Otherness can be seen as an articulation of
diversity as well as a definition of differences.
Otherness is constitutively and inexorably linked
with Sameness and Self – no conceptualization of
the Other (“Them”) is possible without a
conceptualization of Same and Self (“Us”). This
constitutive connection is, for instance, rendered in
a very positive way in the southern African
philosophical tradition through the concept of
Ubuntu. However, more often than not, the
connotations are overly positive only for “Us”, the in-
group, and overly negative for “Them”, the
outsiders: we are civilized, they are savages.
Being essentially about social relationships,
Otherness depends on context, situational position
and time. Three mobility revolutions of the past
decades (human migrations, new information and
communication technologies and flows, and
globalizing markets) have destroyed relatively
stable and territorialized figures of the Other and
created new, transient, ever changing and space-
independent figures, such as the refugee, the
immigrant, the migrant laborer, the “global nomad,”
but also the ubiquitous (inner) enemy or terrorist.
Who uses the concept?
Multiple social, behavioural and natural sciences as
well as the humanities build on this basic concept,
as many taxonomic or comparative classifications
readily show. Recently, various marginalized groups
(e.g. the previously colonized, first nations, the
LGBT community and other groups who self-define
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 39, 2016
Originally published in 2014; revised in 2016.
as diverse and different) have been gaining a voice
by challenging outsider perceptions of them and
their cultures, using Otherness as an emancipative
concept.
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
The extent to which the concept can foster
intercultural dialogue depends chiefly on how ‘the
Others’ are perceived: are they seen as a problem
or threat to be excluded – or an opportunity and
resource to be included into processes and
outcomes of dialogue?
What work remains?
Three main challenges are also questions. First, a
clear awareness is required about the relative
relevance of Otherness when identifying its
dimensions: why and in what ways are the Others
seen as diverse and different? Second, a clear
answer is needed to the question: for what purpose
do we want to dialogue with the Other(s) – and why
should the Other(s) want to dialogue with us? Third,
what units of analysis are meaningful for
intercultural dialogue with the Other(s)?
Resources
Cannadine, D. (2013). The undivided past:
Humanity beyond our differences. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Gabriel, Y. (2012). The Other and Othering: A short
introduction.
Jammer, P. (Ed.). (2010). Café philosophique: A
season of “the Other”. Newcastle, UK:
Newcastle Philosophy Society.
Kapuscinski, R. (2008). The Other. London: Verso.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Politeness
Sara Mills
Research Professor of Linguistics, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
What is it?
Theorists and interactants tend to define politeness
and impoliteness differently. For many theorists,
politeness is a judgment made by others about
interactional behavior, and may be a way of
assessing whether an interactant’s behavior is seen
as appropriate to the community. An assessment of
impoliteness therefore may be a way of judging
someone as not conforming to group norms. Also,
the function of judgments of politeness and
impoliteness within interaction (the way
assessments include or exclude interactants), plays
a critical role. By contrast, interactants often define
politeness as whether someone shows respect or
empathy for others.
Who uses the concept?
The concepts of politeness and impoliteness have
been used by linguists, primarily although not
exclusively within pragmatics, and to a lesser extent
by those in communication, psychology, or
sociology.
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
It is often in the area of politeness where
miscommunication can take place in intercultural
dialogue. In certain languages the use of directness
is a way of exhibiting closeness to the interlocutor,
as in Arabic and Hebrew. In other languages,
indirectness is considered a way of showing respect
and concern for others, as in English and Japanese.
For all of these languages, directness or
indirectness signals politeness to the interlocutor.
However, when Arabic speakers learn English, they
may transfer this use of directness, but find that
rather than signalling closeness and friendliness, it
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 46, 2015
may be interpreted as brusque. In a similar way, if
an English speaker learns Arabic and uses
indirectness to convey respect, they may well be
interpreted as distancing themselves from their
interlocutor. Thus, knowledge of general norms
within a language of how to convey politeness both
in positive politeness (using expressions which
indicate friendliness or social closeness) and
negative politeness (using expressions which
indicate respect and social distance) is important for
successful intercultural dialogue.
What work remains?
Research still needs to investigate the way
individuals learn what counts as polite and impolite.
The resources of politeness obviously pre-date the
speaker and hearer. Thus it would be worthwhile to
investigate the way knowledge of what counts as
polite or impolite is learned and modified by
speakers and communities. Also worth investigating
is the variety existing within communities about
what counts as polite and impolite.
Resources
Kadar, D., &Mills, S. (2010). Politeness in East Asia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linguistic Politeness Research Group. (Eds.).
(2011). Discursive approaches to politeness. Berlin:
Mouton.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Safe Space
Elenie Opffer
Faculty, Western Institute for Social Research, Berkeley, CA, USA
What is it?
In the field of dialogue, “safe space” is a metaphor
that indexes safety, support, and inclusion for
individuals belonging to historically marginalized
groups. Safe spaces are typically created through
programs that provide training, dialogue, support
groups, and ways to publicly recognize them within
the larger organization. Training covers information
on the need for safe spaces, the ways in which
marginalized groups have been targeted with
discrimination, violence, and/or hate speech, the
ways in which people inadvertently marginalize
minorities, important nomenclature, and ways to
shift to supportive dialogue practices. Designated
people and offices mark their sites as safe with a
sticker or small poster with some graphics and the
words “safe space”, or “safe zone,” often followed
by a brief explanation, such as, “This space
respects all aspects of people including race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-
economic background, age religion, body shape,
size, and ability."
Who uses the concept?
Safe space has been used most often in education
contexts, but may also be found in municipalities,
NGOs, and corporations in countries with
established human rights laws and protocols using
safe space as a strategy to expand equal
participation and access within an organization,
most often for LGBT populations. It is relatively new,
but quite helpful, to use the term in reference to
intercultural dialogues. Safe space programs can be
produced by internal or external agents.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 71, 2015
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Creating safe spaces is fundamentally a dialogic
phenomenon. It is through day-to-day
conversational practices that people either feel
affirmed of disconfirmed by their peers or
colleagues. Safe space programs use dialogue to
create awareness of alienating or inviting
communication practices. Marking a space as “safe”
offers the possibility for further dialogue across what
may otherwise be perceived as a hostile territory.
What work remains?
Few studies exist to document the efficacy of safe
space programs. The best research thus far
consists of climate studies in the field of education.
This work needs to expand into workplace settings
as well as into primary education. Training
programs could grow to include more information on
dialogue training. Finally, the effects of safe space
training on overall dialogue practices within an
organization could also be investigated.
Resources
Hunter, M. A. (2008). Cultivating the art of safe
space. Research in Drama Education, 13(1), 5-
21.
Llerena-Quinn, R. (2013). A safe space to speak
above the silences. Culture, Medicine &
Psychiatry. pp. 340-346.
Roestone Collective. (2014). Safe space: Towards a
reconceptualization. Antipode, 46(5), 1346-1365.
Stengel, B. S., & Weems, L. (2010). Questioning
safe space: An introduction. Studies In
Philosophy & Education, 29(6), 505-507.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue

Stereotypes
Anastacia Kurylo
Consultant, Fortified Communication Consulting, USA

What is it? What work remains?

Stereotypes associate members of a group with one
or more characteristics attributed to that group.
Stereotypes are rigid representations in cognitive
processes that are functional for those who use
them. Stereotypes are used as a shortcut to depict
groups in one-dimensional simplistic ways in both
conversation and media. Although research has not
found stereotypes to be accurate, people use them
as a basis for decision making resulting in prejudice
and discrimination. As people get to know each
better, stereotypes become less relevant.
Who uses the concept?
In the early 19th century, Morier coined the term
stereotype in his Adventures of Hajji Baba of
Ispahan. Nearly 100 years later Walter Lippmann
popularized its modern usage as “pictures in our
heads.” Historically, psychologists have been most
prolific in studying stereotypes, focusing on why
people stereotype. Communication scholars, along
with some in psychology and sociology, focus on
how stereotypes are constructed, maintained, and
shared through both interaction and media.
Through communicated stereotypes, knowledge is
passed on from generation to generation and
thereby reproduced within a culture. Political
correctness has attempted to thwart stereotype
reproduction; yet, stereotypes persist in society.
Further research is needed to explore how
communication facilitates stereotype maintenance
within a cultural knowledge base and the ways in
which people can move beyond stereotypes.
Resources
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J. & Ruvolo, C. M.
(1990). Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects
on information processing and social behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 46, 35-60.
Hinton, P. R. (2000). Stereotypes, culture, and
cognition: Psychology focus. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Kurylo, A. (2013). The communicated stereotype:
From celebrity vilification to everyday talk.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Fit with intercultural dialogue?

From a cognitive perspective, stereotypes influence
decision-making and behavior since stereotypes are
schemas that guide how information is interpreted.
From a constitutive perspective, communicated
stereotypes help to construct cultural identity. From
both perspectives, stereotypes can integrally and
unknowingly affect our intercultural dialogue in
innumerable ways, including preventing participants
from engaging in intercultural dialogue at all.

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 55, 2015 http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org

 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Intercultural Sustainability
Dominic Busch
Universitaet der Bundeswehr Muenchen, Germany
What is it?
Intercultural sustainability as a term comprises any
effort to design intercultural relations in ways that
ensure a peaceful and a constructive coexistence of
people across cultures. This notion builds a bridge
between research on intercultural communication
and intercultural relations on the one side and the
global political discourse on sustainability on the
other side.
On the side of intercultural research, the notion of
intercultural sustainability takes up the insight that
any form of research will always be initiated from
normative motivations that influence the design of
future research directions that sometimes are not
made explicit.
The political discourse on sustainability comprising
ecological, economic and social dimensions has
recently included the notion of cultural sustainability
into the latter, relating to the assumption that strong
cultural identities may contribute to social cohesion.
Intercultural sustainability instead relates to the
insight that any other dimensions of sustainability
will be put at risk as long as a peaceful
management of people’s assumptions about culture
and cultural affiliations will not be ensured.
Who uses the concept?
Nancy Duxbury and Eileen Gillette were among the
first to explore the dimension of cultural
sustainability in more detail from the perspective of
urban planning. Dominic Busch provides a first
exploration of contemporary implicit uses of the
concept of intercultural sustainability including
neighboring notions and meanings.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 76, 2016
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
The notion of intercultural sustainability in itself
contains the insight of the necessity of developing
common goals on how to cooperatively manage
aspects of culture and cultural affiliation. However, it
does not in any way pre-set the forms and contents
of this goal. Instead, specifying these common
goals cannot be reached but by permanent global
and equal dialogue on the concept.
What work remains?
Intercultural sustainability in itself is a notion that
points at the need of a permanent debate and
research on its content. Critical analyses of previous
studies on intercultural communication and
intercultural relations may reveal their underlying
notions contributing to intercultural sustainability –
ruptures and disagreements are to be expected.
Contemporary research should be encouraged to
reflect on its assumptions about intercultural
sustainability more precisely, and on a global level,
awareness must be raised for the need of a global
dialogue on intercultural sustainability.
Resources
Busch, D. (2016). What is intercultural
sustainability? A first exploration of linkages
between culture and sustainability in intercultural
research. Journal of Sustainable Development,
9(1): 63-76.http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v9n1p63
Duxbury, N., & Gillette, E. (2007). Culture as a key
dimension of sustainability: Exploring concepts,
themes, and models. Burnaby, Canada: Centre
of Expertise on Culture and Communities.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Third Culture Kids (TCKs)
Anastasia Aldelina Lijadi
Doctoral Candidate in Psychology, University of Macau, China
What is it?
"Third culture" describes the space between
cultures where individuals from different groups
meet, deliberate constructions created in response
to the need to communicate across cultural
boundaries. "Third culture kids" (TCKs) describes
children who accompany their parents into other
societies, as a result holding membership in three
types of cultures simultaneously: their country of
origin (called their "passport country"), any and all
countries where they have lived, and the global
trans-cultural and interstitial culture in which they
have become competent. TKCs most often come
from families in military, foreign affairs or diplomatic
corps, multinational missionary or business
organizations, any of which require extensive time
living abroad.
Who uses the concept?
Sociologists studying the impact of high mobility
lifestyles on children coined the term. Scholars in
intercultural communication and psychology also
study TCKs. Studying concrete examples of how
TCKs adapt their language and behavior when
interacting with members of various cultural groups
highlights topics meriting greater attention.
Recently, the concept has been expanded to
include "cross-cultural kids" (CCKs): children
regularly exposed to multicultural environments,
frequently interacting with members of different
cultures, not just those having lived in many
countries. The larger category of CCKs includes
children of immigrants, minorities, or multiracial
parents, those adopted across national boundaries,
or who have studied abroad.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 12, 2014
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
TCKs are particularly adept at intercultural
dialogues since they have experienced so many
firsthand. They are frequently proposed as model
future world citizens, being multilingual,
multiculturally competent, taking a global worldview
for granted, and typically flexible, adaptable, and
resilient. TCKs provide insight on how intercultural
dialogues are effectively practised among
individuals competent in multiple cultural settings.
What work remains?
The nomadic upbringing of TCKs creates a sense of
belonging to anywhere - and nowhere. Research in
sociology and psychology has mostly emphasized
the difficulties faced by TCKs (not knowing where
"home" lies, confusion about identity, etc.), while
that in communication has emphasized their
strengths (comfort with difference, speed in
adapting to new contexts, etc.); the two strands of
research need to be integrated.
Resources
Casmir, F. L. (1993). Third culture building:
Paradigm shift for international and intercultural
communication. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.),
Communication Yearbook (vol. 16, pp. 437-457).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (2009). Third
culture kids: The experience of growing up
among worlds. Boston: Nicholas Brealey.
Useem, J., Donoghue, J.D., & Useem, R.H. (1963).
Men in the middle of the third culture: The roles
of American and non-western people in cross
cultural administration. Human Organization, 22,
169-194.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org
 Center for Intercultural Dialogue
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue
Transnationalism
Renu Pariyadath
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATION, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATE, SC, USA
What is it?
Transnationalism was earlier used to refer to the
activities of corporations stretching across national
borders. Now, scholars use the term to describe the
phenomenon that results when migrant
communities maintain relational connections across
national borders. When migrants connect with
family, friends, and other social groups in the
country of their origin as well as the country of
arrival, they engage in the economic, social and
political well being of both nations. Transnationalism
allows for a more expanded practice of citizenship
by migrants in countries of origin and arrival, to the
extent that citizenship relates to an active civic
engagement in a community and not merely to the
act of voting or having legal status. Some argue that
the economic, social and cultural contributions
(remittances) migrants from the Global South (i.e.
‘developing nations’) send to their countries of origin
could aid in ‘developing’ these nations.
Transnationalism enables migrants to organize
themselves based on their ethnic/national identity to
claim rights in the country of arrival. Such
organizing may result in the creation of
transnational advocacy networks, where shared
values, shared discourse, and information exchange
allow actors across the globe to get involved on
issues.
Who uses the concept?
Transnationalism is a useful concept for
sociologists, anthropologists, economists, political
scientists, communication studies scholars, and for
those who research globalization, migration,
diaspora, and activism.
Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 93, 2018
Fit with intercultural dialogue?
Knowledge of culturally embedded communication
practices in both the country of origin and the
country of settlement often allow those with
transnational identities to engage more effectively in
intercultural dialogue. In fact, transnationals
themselves embody intercultural dialogue, serving
as the link between different cultures.
What work remains?
The particular modes of and purposes for migrant
transnational engagement, especially as they relate
to communication, need to be better understood.
Economic restructuring processes such as
offshored or outsourced work, as well as online
communication, contribute to transnational identity
formation without having to migrate to a physical
location. This is another productive site for future
research.
Resources
Wan-Ying, L. Song, H, & Ball-Rokeach, S. (2010).
Localizing the global: Exploring the transnational
ties that bind in new immigrant communities.
Journal of Communication, 60, 205-229.
Pariyadath, R. (2015). From BP To Bhopal: Migrant
practices of cultural translation for equitable
development in the global South. In D. Broudy,
J. Klaehn & J. Winter (Eds.), News from
somewhere: A reader in communication and
challenges to globalization (pp. 243-258).
Eugene, OR: Wayzgoose Press.
http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org