Sociological Approaches To Intercultural

10
Sociological approaches to
intercultural communication:
exploring the ‘silent zones’
Uttaran Dutta & Judith N. Martin
n
io
bl t
pu prin
at
ic
or -
t f pre
10.1 Introduction
Intercultural communication scholarship is an interdisciplinary
endeavour, and sociology - the study of society, social
relationships, social interaction and culture (Calhoun, 2002) - has
no
contributed a great deal to intercultural communication

scholarship, both historically and contemporaneously. i To attempt
to identify all sociological approaches is beyond the scope of this
chapter. We therefore identify and describe four areas of research
with roots in sociological concepts and theories, and then highlight
the ‘silent zones’ in intercultural communication scholarship,
discussing challenges for future researchers.
296 UTTARAN DUTTA AND JUDITH N. MARTIN
10.2 Sociological approaches

There are several identifiable ‘moments’ in sociological theorising
that have impacted intercultural communication research,
including: theoretical conceptualization, intergroup contact,
conflict and attitudes, sojourner adaptation and immigrant
assimilation, as well as recent critical studies.
10.2.1 Conceptualization
One of the most influential sociological concepts in intercultural
communication theorising is Simmel’s (1908; 1921) and later
Schütz’s (1944) concept of ’the stranger’ (Cooks 2001; Rogers,
n
io
1999). Simmel’s stranger was originally conceptualized as
bl t
pu prin
at
someone who has not always been in the society, is both an insider
ic
and outsider, reflecting Simmel’s conceptualization of society:
or -
t f pre
groups of individuals at varying degrees of social distance from

one another. This focus formed the foundation of the traditional
(early) definition of intercultural communication: ‘a
communication relationship between two or more people who are
dissimilar’ (Rogers, 1999, p. 60). Gudykunst, with graduate
no
training in sociology, introduced the concept into U.S. intercultural

communication scholarship (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984) as ‘the key
intellectual device to broaden the meaning of intercultural
communication’ (Rogers, 1999, p. 69) to include many types of
cultural groups--ethnicity, race and even organizational culture or
the culture of the deaf. This conceptualization was accepted by
many intercultural communication scholars and spawned years of
related research. ii
Sociological approaches to intercultural communication 297
We should note that some scholars now question the utility of

Simmel’s notion. For example, Marotta (2012) argues that
Simmel’s category of ‘stranger’ reflected a position of power and
privilege, excluding disenfranchised migrants, refugees etc., and
Harman (1988) suggests that in postmodern globalized society
strangeness ‘is no longer a temporary condition to be overcome,
but a way of life’ (p. 44), defined by mobility and multiple
identities. These critiques led Cooks (2001) and others to adopt
more critical theorizing of intercultural encounters (described later
in the chapter).
n
io
10.2.2 Intergroup contact, conflict and attitudes
bl t
pu prin
at
Early conceptualizations emphasized the group membership of
ic
individuals in intercultural encounters and emphasized that this
or -
t f pre
group membership (e.g. nation, ethnicity, race, etc) was a primary

factor in the interaction processes and outcomes (Gudykunst,
1986). However, this focus (and terminology) gradually shifted
from ‘intergroup’ to ‘intercultural’ communication (Gudykunst &
Shapiro, 1996, pp. 20-21) and to individual attitudes (e.g.
no
stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism) – over objections of some

scholars. For example, Landis and Wasilewski (1999) noted the
shift and admonished that ‘sociological and political theorists are
clamouring to be heard’ (p. 560).
An example of the social psychological focus is the extensive
research on the contact hypothesis and various conditions affecting
attitude change, particularly in interethnic and interracial
encounters (e.g. Pettigrew et al., 2011) and for recent
investigations, Nshom’s (2016) study of the effect of intergroup
contact on Finns’ prejudice toward Russian immigrants. Another

example of social-psychological perspective is the research based
on social identity and its relationship to linguistic practices in
Communication Accommodation theory (e.g. Ng & Stolte, 2017).
However, there are a few communication approaches that
incorporate the macro level societal/context of intergroup
encounters. For example, Y. Y. Kim’s (2005) model of interethnic
communication emphasizes that communicators are always
embedded in hierarchical levels of context (e.g. national, regional,
neighbourhood, institutional and so on), and one can understand
interethnic communication only by considering the impact and
n
io
input of these various levels, e.g. Lee’s (2012) study of
bl t
pu prin
at
communication between Hakka and other ethnic groups in Taiwan,
ic
and de Vries (2002) study of ethnic tensions in Fiji and
or -
t f pre
implications for ethnic cohabitations.
10.2.3 Sojourner adaptation and immigrant integration

By some accounts cultural adaptation of sojourners (strangers) and
immigrants is the most theorised concept in intercultural
no
communication research (e.g. Dutta & Martin, 2017) and a few

contemporary investigations of intercultural contact are based
explicitly on Schütz’s concept of the stranger. There are at least
three important sociological influences in this area of research, all
building on the notion of the stranger.
First, a less emphasised element of Simmel and Schütz’s work
is the notion that interaction between strangers involves
uncertainty and anxiety, due to cultural differences and lack of
familiarity with cultural rules. As Gauthier (2009) points out,
Gudykunst’s Anxiety and Uncertainty Management theory (AUM)

builds on this concept and attempts to explain (and predict) how
individuals manage to balance anxiety and uncertainty at optimum
levels in order to communicate effectively in intercultural
encounters (e.g. Gudykunst, 2005). Using AUM theory,
Samochowiec & Florack (2010) investigated the impact of
predictability and anxiety on the willingness to interact with a
member from an unknown cultural group.
Second, intercultural communication scholars were also
influenced by Simmel’s student, Robert Park’s (1928) concept of
the ‘Marginal Man’ (sic), an individual who lives in two different
n
io
cultural realities. Park’s concept was later extended to ’the
bl t
pu prin
at
sojourner’, who visits another culture for a period of time but
ic
retains their own original culture, leading to studies on U-curve of
or -
t f pre
adjustment, culture shock, re-entry shock, etc (Fuhse, 2012; Hart,

1999).
Unfortunately, Park’s concept of the ‘marginal man’ remains
unrelated to his later theory of the assimilation process and to the
wider theoretical approach of the Chicago School (Fuhse 2012, p.
no
641), e.g. Blumer’s theory of symbolic interactionism iii, and later

Milton Gordon’s (1964) theory of assimilation, a third area of
influence in intercultural communication studies. Park and Gordon
theorised that successful acculturation of immigrants depends on
their incorporation into host community networks, i.e., the
development of their relationships with host nationals leads them
to adopt the host definitions of situations, leading then to a
lessening of ethnic divisions, and eventually the attainment of
status equality. Similarly, a more recent approach, explicitly based
on Simmel’s stranger and the work of Gordon and Park, Fuhse

(2012) emphasizes the centrality of personal relationships and
networks in the successful adaptation and integration of migrants
into host communities. He argues that any ‘theory of interethnic
relations has to link two levels: the relational level of relationships
and networks, and the symbolic level of cultural differences, ethnic
categories and symbols of demarcation’ (p. 640), noting that
previous work has rarely embraced these dual levels. In a similar
vein, Horgan (2012) revisits the stranger concept and introduces
the notion of ‘strangership’ — emphasizing the element of
relationships among strangers as a better theoretical description of
n
io
contemporary fluid and mobile intercultural encounters, that opens
bl t
pu prin
at
up ‘conceptual space to examine conditions where strangership is
ic
present, where it emerges, where it intensifies and where it
or -
t f pre
diminishes’ (p. 613). Y. Y. Kim’s integrative theory of adaptation

(2005, 2008), like Fuhse’s work, integrates the macro sociocultural
elements along with the micro interpersonal elements in a systems
approach to adaptation., e.g. Cheah et al.’s (2011) comprehensive
study of adaptation of Bosnian refugees.
no
10.2.4 Critical theorists

More recent developments of sociological theorising come from
European and U. S. critical theorists in the late 20th century. As
has been fully described elsewhere (e.g., Halualani et al., 2009;
Halualani & Nakayama, 2010), many intercultural communication
scholars rejected the earlier micro (interpersonal) and acontextual
focus of intercultural communication scholars. They called for
closer attention to historical specificity and contextual grounding
(González & Peterson, 1993; Lee et al., 1995) and attention to the
impacts of ‘larger structures of power (governmental, institutional,
legal, economic, and mediated forces)’ (Halualani & Nakayama,
2010, p. 2). They promoted a re-theorising of culture as ‘sites of
struggle’ based on power relations and ideologies (Collier et al.,
2001; Cooks, 2001) and once again turned to sociologists,
specifically the European critical theorists. For example, Moon
(2010) cites Foucault’s (1972) notions of power and knowledge in
her study of the genealogy of the field, rooted in colonialism and
U. S. imperialism (p. 34). Similarly, Hasian (2012) extends the
biopolitical work of Foucault (1977, 2003) in analysing the legal
n
io
and cultural arguments used to abuse Filipinos during the
bl t
pu prin
at
Philippine-American War. Critical scholars also problematise the
ic
notion of adaptation as a ‘power neutral, linear process’ (Moon,
or -
t f pre
2010, p. 41) and pursue critical studies of immigrant adaptation

and diaspora (e.g. Le Pichon, in this volume).
Critical scholars also focus on language and power in studying
intercultural encounters (e.g. Ife, in this volume). Based on
Habermas (1996), Striley & Lawson (2014) theorise
no
communication orientations of privilege in showing how White

discourses (de)construct Australian Aboriginals.
More recent Critical sociologists, e.g. Patricia Hill Collins and
Bonilla Silva, are also integrated into intercultural communication
research. For example, Willink et al. (2014) chart new
methodologies for Critical Intercultural Communication research,
based on Collins’ Critical Race Theory and Moon (2016) and other
scholars’ studies of white identity have often relied on Bonilla-
Silva’s (2010) work.
10.3 The way forward: silent zones in intercultural

communication research
Consonant with a critical approach to intercultural communication
and shifting from a static nation-orientation (e.g., Hofstede’s
[1991] framework) to an ever-emerging contextual-orientation,
current intercultural communication research is committed to
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and bringing about
‘“multiculturalism without hierarchy’ (Asante, 2003). Rather than
being confined to ‘student-convenience sampling’ (primarily from
Europe and America) (Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014), we echo
those who call for progress towards achieving multi-accentualities
n
io
and restoring polyphony (Alexander et al., 2014). In this spirit, we
bl t
pu prin
at
now identify seven ‘Silent zones’: never-researched or under-
ic
researched sub-domains/aspects (both physical/material and
or -
t f pre
abstract/conceptual)--of intercultural communication research and

suggest avenues for future scholarship.
10.3.1 Representation of culture

We, the human race, practice different cultures, and speak in a
no
wide variety of languages. However, the different geographical

locations, languages, and cultures/cultural practices are not
represented equally in the discursive spaces. Recent studies show
that North America, Europe, and East Asia received more attention
in published literature than the rest of the world. Countries from
Latin America, Africa and Asia (except for east-Asia) represent
more than 60% of the global population but receive significantly
less attention (Worldometers, 2018). For example, approximately
2% of the recent articles published in 5 primary culture and
communication journals focus on African, and Southern and

Central American countries/cultures (Dutta & Martin, 2017) and
more than 100 countries have never appeared in those journals. In
terms of linguistic diversity, more than 90% of the languages
spoken are in Asian, African, Latin American and Pacific regions
and 500 out of 6,500 living languages are on the brink of extinction
(Simons & Fennig, 2018). According to UNICEF, around half of
existing languages will be lost by the end of this century--a serious
concern (Austin & Sallabank, 2011). Similarly, local/indigenous
cultural communication behaviours, preferences (various forms of
songs, dances, theatrical performances, art and craft artefacts) and
n
io
practices (e.g., cultural paradigm, awareness, mythology, oral
bl t
pu prin
at
narrative, and religious practices) are also experiencing severe
ic
challenges in this neoliberal world (Alexander et al., 2014). Not
or -
t f pre
only is the geographical representation of culture unequal, but

scholars of underrepresented regions are also constantly facing
challenges to publish their scholarship. For example, Miller, Kizito
and Ngual (2010) noted the struggle of non-western (particularly
African) scholars in the world of academic publication. Such
no
limited attention and research–engagement potentially lead to lack

of theoretical inquiry, awareness, and knowledge about under-
represented regions; this then further delegitimises less-known
cultures and practices. The complexity and nuances of the cultural
dynamics, linguistic diversity, religious and spiritual practices
warrant academic attention, specifically to less represented regions
and their cultures.
10.3.2 Socio-economic and structural disparity and global

missions
Increasing social, economic and political disparity is producing
cultural marginalisation in this contemporary world. This vicious
cycle of inequality is true for underserved regions of both
developing and developed countries. When most of the global
population is living with or under US$5 per capita per day
(Kochhar, 2015), it is crucial for intercultural researchers to study
these populations at the margins, whose voices and issues are
historically delegitimised/erased in the spaces of decision-making.
These economically poor populations are also suffering from lack
n
io
of access to education, health, technological resources; which
bl t
pu prin
at
consequently reproduce and reinforce the conditions of
ic
marginalization. Such poverty and other socio-economic
or -
t f pre
disparities, along with growing global populations (e.g., estimated

8.5 bil lion by 2030 [United Nations, 2017]), anthropocentric
activities and environmental deteriorations have led to several
global missions including the United Nations’ sustainable
development goals. In these long-term missions, global
no
organizations are seeking to make the world a better place by 2030;

scholars, researchers and practitioners from various academic
disciplines (including STEM and social sciences) are contributing
towards achieving these ambitious goals. iv
However, in many such development and social change
projects, culture and communication scholarship still remains as a
peripheral component, and the volume of culture and
communication research on these emergent and macro issues is
negligible, which makes our discipline less-visible, and less
engaged in academic and professional discursive spaces. In one of

the few studies, Thornton and Cimadevilla (2010) showed the
impact and relevance of participatory communication in the
context of Latin American development, and scholars like Broome
(2013) and Dutta (2018) argued that as researchers we need to be
more applied and focus on key social issues, fostering academic-
community partnership to foreground cultural realities through the
voices of cultural participants (Chen, Lawless & Gonzalez, 2015;
Ting-Toomey, 2007). Examples of such academic-community
partnership in the context of participatory communication can be
seen in several research initiatives such as (a) Niyamgiri movement
n
io
(where indigenous populations organized for a bottom-up, local-
bl t
pu prin
at
centric development by foregrounding alternate epistemologies
ic
and resisting neoliberal agendas (Padel & Das, 2010); and (b)
or -
t f pre
Sonagachi project (where sex-workers, by building alliances with

academics and practitioners, made organized efforts towards
fighting HIV/AIDS and ensuring and improving health and well-
being at the margins (Jana et al., 2004). It is therefore urgent, and
timely for culture and communication scholars to contribute to the
no
aforementioned global missions towards making the world more

habitable, tolerant, and just.
10.3.3 Hidden, dark and forbidden cultural practices

There are several aspects of life, particularly dark and forbidden
ones that we usually prefer not to talk about or disclose in public
to maintain social decorum. However, oftentimes these aspects
constitute the foundation and development of our thought
processes, through communication processes. For instance,
watching politically charged or superstitious conspiracy theory

videos can influence those predisposed to particular political and
social attitudes (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Moreover, secret
association with propagandist discourses (which are socially
disapproved of) or participating in taboo rituals can result in fatal
and/or socially-unhealthy consequences; e.g., following
superstitious predictions, so-called religious practitioners and cults
have committed dangerous and damaging actions (e.g., mass-
suicide) (Mancinelli et al., 2002). In short, secret and forbidden
aspects of culture and communication play important roles in
shaping collective (un)consciousness. For another example,
n
io
microaggressive behaviours and attitudes of men (sometime
bl t
pu prin
at
without consciously realising) towards women, or growing rape-
ic
culture in various parts of the globe can be traced to lack of
or -
t f pre
sex/family education and/or over-reliance on mediated

pornographic and misogynic contents (Makin & Morczek, 2016).
Even as the outcome of all of these behaviour creates public
sensations or shame, their roots can be traced back to our everyday
actions, and thought foundations. Instead of condemning these
no
outrageous or uncivil behaviours and their societal impacts,

intercultural communication scholars need to engage with them in-
depth to learn the unconscious (or subconscious) foundation of our
different rationalities and actions.
10.3.4 Plurality and cultural ecology

Many underrepresented peoples across the globe, e.g., indigenous
people, are constantly exploring and experimenting with situated
(and limited) material and cultural resources to ensure their
survival. Such negotiations have given birth to alternate

knowledge, science and technology; unfortunately, these
knowledge resources receive little or no recognition in Western
academia. For example, several age-old alternate medicinal
approaches are often labelled as folk or pseudoscientific practices
(Beyerstein, 2001). Moreover, strategic ignorance from the
hegemon, and unequal fight of under-resourced people to preserve
them, result in rapid disappearance of these alternate knowledge
resources; many of them on the brink of extinction, lost forever, an
irreversible/irreparable losses to humanity. Therefore, responsible
intercultural research needs to pay attention to both documenting
n
io
and preserving such alternate knowledge and knowledge-
bl t
pu prin
at
productions, potentially leading to better understanding and
ic
cultural interactions towards resolving conflicts, achieving equity,
or -
t f pre
and improving intercultural exchanges and relationships. Dutta and

Das (2015) demonstrated that intercultural factors are instrumental
in co-creating culture-preservations solutions with underserved
populations of the global south. Together with community
members, they co-developed digital/information solutions by
no
paying attention to (a) long-term participatory research

engagements in overcoming linguistic/literacy barriers, (b) in-situ
design development of visually–guided digital interface, and (c)
embracing dialogic and critical reflexive praxis when designing for
local audiences. The digital application addresses
contextual/communicative barriers (e.g., literacy, linguistics and
technological proficiency), so that people at the margins can
communicate (i.e., retrieve, share and create cultural information)
with other community members and the outside world.
Scholars further suggest that our inability to accept differences

in communication styles and alternate repertories or knowledge
systems, lead to barriers to health and development activities, and
contribute to growing inequalities (Croucher et al., 2015;
Viswanath & Ackerson, 2011). Therefore, intercultural research
needs to actively reflect on overcoming ethnocentrism, naïve
scientism, and apparent neutrality in describing ‘others’.
Intercultural communication as a discipline deeply believes in
plurality and rights of existence and functioning of every culture
and cultural components such as languages, identities, values, and
worldviews. However, dominant forces historically have
n
io
delegitimized opposing and resistive voices and perspectives by
bl t
pu prin
at
promoting monocultural logics of modernism to maintain the
ic
status quo (Mendoza & Kinefuchi, 2016). It would be
or -
t f pre
interculturally unfortunate if we are content with a mono-religious,

mono-lingual, mono-ideological world; such approaches are
antithetical to the essence of interculturality. Embracing social
justice and equality perspectives of interculturality (Alexander et
al., 2014), communicators need to foreground different/alternate
no
cultural values and practices alive today, before their extinction;

such an approach towards ensuring cultural ecology and diversity
will prevent creation of ahistorical and uncritical world, and
possible (re)establishment of a supremacist and colonial order.
10.3.5 Future approaches and methodologies

Intercultural communication as an academic discipline is uniquely
situated, as it is dedicated to learn known, less known, and
unknown cultural and communication practices. Conventionally,
we use academic methodological tools to understand, analyse and

represent various cultures, which are mostly suited for US and
other western contexts (Ting-Toomey, 2017). These theoretical
and methodological frameworks and approaches yield a certain
kind of academic output (which is standardized and conventionally
appreciated in academic and professional domains). However, it
can be argued that various cultural practices and behaviours can be
better understood if we create or modify contextually appropriate
methodological tools, specifically designed for studying less-
studied cultures and societies, across the world; it would also
enable us to better theorise and present our findings. For instance,
n
io
Pink (2009) and Dutta (forthcoming) promote sensory (including
bl t
pu prin
at
visual) methodological approaches, useful for researching
ic
underserved cultures which face communicative barriers such as
or -
t f pre
illiteracy, habitual shyness and muteness, and a lack of linguistic

proficiency in mainstream languages. Specifically, Dutta
(forthcoming) co-generated (with participants) culturally-
appropriate hand-drawn images as prompts in order to more easily
conduct qualitative interviews in indigenous communities in the
no
global south. In this way, extant non-Western academic

approaches (e.g., decolonising, delink, indigenous methodologies,
performance and action-based work) should be consulted and
studied, co-creating with local community members, to devise new
theoretical and methodological frameworks. Moreover, a focus on
decentring dominant knowledge production practices by
foregrounding local/alternate worldview, paradigm, cultural
conditioning can be instrumental in exploring and bringing forth
contextual narratives, imaginaries, identities, and cultural spaces

(Schneider, 2010).
10.3.6 Emerging realities and cultural complexities

As a dynamic entity, culture is getting produced, reproduced, and
transformed every moment, which gives birth to new cultural
formations and dynamics. Instances from Arab spring and similar
movements, remind us of human creativity and innovation in
performing resistance and collective actions. Recent scholarship,
e.g., on the dislocated people’s resistance in China (Yu-Shi, 2011),
collective mediated voices of dissent (Coopman, 2011), and
n
io
Dreamer’s articulations (Hartelius, 2016) represent new
bl t
pu prin
at
possibilities and explorations of collective movements. Another
ic
example could be the contemporary post-truth scenario, where
or -
t f pre
authenticities of cultural expressions are experiencing severe threat

as people are constantly creating untruth, seemingly truthful,
strategically ambiguous and confusing messages for their vested
interests; this scenario makes knowledge production process more
complex than ever before (Harsin, 2015). Emerging cultural
no
realities as these not only mark the beginning/possibilities of newer

formations and dynamics (e.g., emergence of new global middle
class through social media [Polson, 2011]), but also open up new
possibilities of engaged research to understand such phenomena.
For instance, intercultural research on the intersections of culture
and posthuman (including Anthropocene and non-human aspects)
(Stephens, 2014) and trans-human (including cyborg and
technological interactions) paradigms potentially yield new
understandings and theorizing of emerging human behaviours.
10.3.7 New dynamics of digital media

Shuter’s (2012) article on intercultural new media studies marked
the beginning of systematic intercultural research on new-media
and mediated behaviours (e.g. also Nakayama’s chapter, in this
volume). So far, cultural communication research is primarily
invested to study social mediated cultural behaviours, particularly
those found in surface Web platforms (such as Google, Facebook
and Twitter). Apart from conventional new media research,
researchers could explore several new cultural dynamics such as
culture of shaming, new moral panics (Ingraham & Reeves, 2016),
and nontraditional media ownerships and disruptive platforms
n
io
(Cunningham & Craig, 2016). However, more than 90% of the
bl t
pu prin
at
Web activities are either deep-web or dark-web in nature (Chertoff,
ic
2017). Research on dark-web activities are particularly missing in
or -
t f pre
cultural and communication research; this is important because

dark-web interactions are specifically responsible for drug dealing,
weapon selling, gambling, hacking, and child pornography among
others (Bartlett, 2015). These platforms are also facilitators of
alternate financial exchange and market possibilities such as
no
introducing and promoting bitcoins (Kethineni, Cao, & Dodge,

2018).
In addition, when we use social media and online search
engines, service providers generate contents based on predesigned
algorithms, which selectively provide us partial access to
information (as well as block certain contents) eventually leading
to a limited variety of opinions and information; such anomalies
and short-sightedness are often unintentional. Moreover,
explorations in mediated communications and cultural behaviours,
particularly in virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial

intelligence led (multi-sensory) environments, would potentially
give birth to new understanding and possibilities to design culture-
and communication-driven meaningful information-technology
solutions for everyday human communication.
10.4 Conclusion
As described here, sociological theorising has contributed a great
deal to intercultural communication scholarship, historically and
contemporaneously. Our hope is that critical communication
scholarship will continue to embrace goals of a more just,
n
io
polyphonous, ‘multiculturalism without hierarchy’ (Asante, 2001)
bl t
pu prin
at
and a ‘new paradigm, beginning with the re-awakening of the
ic
human imagination to new/old long-forgotten possibilities’
or -
t f pre
(Mendoza, in Alexander et al., 2014, p.22).
References
Alexander, B. K., Arasaratnam, L. A., Durham, A., Flores, L.,
Leeds-Hurwitz, Mendoza, S. L., Oetzel, J. G., Osland, J.,
no
Tsuda, Y., Yin J. & Halualani R. (2014). Identifying key

intercultural urgencies, issues, and challenges in today's world:
Connecting our scholarship to dynamic contexts and historical
moments, Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication, 7(1), 38-67.
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news
in the 2016 election, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2),
211-36.
Asante, M.K. (2003). The Afrocentric idea in education. In J .L.

Conyers, ed., Afrocentricity and the Academy: Essays on
Theory and Practice, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company,
pp. 37–49.
Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (eds.) (2011). The Cambridge
Handbook of Endangered Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bartlett, J. (2015). The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underworld,
New York: Melville House.
Beyerstein, B. L. (2001). Alternative medicine and common errors
of reasoning, Academic Medicine, 76(3), 230-237.
n
io
Blommaert, J. (1998). Different a pproaches to intercultural
bl t
pu prin
at
communication: a critical survey, Plenary Lecture, Lernen und
ic
Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen
or -
t f pre
Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universitat Bremen, Institut fur

Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik (IPMI),
February 27-28.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
no
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without Racists: Color-blind

Racism & Racial Inequality in Contemporary America, 3rd
edition, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Broome, B.J. (2013). Building cultures of peace: the role of
intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oezel & S. Ting-Toomey, eds., The
SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating
Theory, Research, and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.
737-762.
Calhoun, C. (ed.) (2002). Sociology. In C. Calhoun, ed.,

Dictionary of the Social Sciences, New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cheah, W. H., Karamehic-Muratovic, A., Matsuo, H. & Poljarevic,
A. (2011). The role of language competence, interpersonal
relationships, and media use in Bosnian refugees’ resettlement
process, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,
40(3), 219-236.
Chen, Y. W., Lawless, B. & González, A. (2015). Relating across
difference for social change: calling attention to inter/cultural
partnerships in nonprofit contexts, Journal of International and
n
io
Intercultural Communication, 8(3), 187-192.
bl t
pu prin
at
Collier, M.J., Hegde, R.S., Lee, W.S., Nakayama, T.K., & Yep, G.
ic
A. (2001). Dialogue on the edges: ferment in communication
or -
t f pre
and culture. In M. J. Collier, ed., Transforming Communication

about Culture: Critical New Directions, International and
Intercultural Communication Annual, volume 24, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 219-280.
Collins, P. H. (2005). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans,
no
Gender, and the New Racism, New York: Routledge.

Cooks, L. (2001). From distance and uncertainty to research and
pedagogy in the borderlands: implications for the future of
intercultural communication, Communication Theory, 11(3),
339-351.
Coopman, T. M. (2011). Networks of dissent: emergent forms in
media based collective action, Critical Studies in Media
Corbett, J. (2009). Editorial, Language and Intercultural

Croucher, S. M., Sommier, M. & Rahmani, D. (2015). Intercultural
communication: where we’ve been, where we’re going, issues
we face, Communication Research and Practice, 1(1), 71-87.
Cunningham, S. & Craig, D. (2016). Online entertainment: a new
wave of media globalization?, International Journal of
Communication, 10, 5409-5425.
De Vries, R. E. (2002). Ethnic tension in paradise: explaining
ethnic supremacy aspirations in Fiji, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 26(3), 311-327.
n
io
Dutta, U. (2018). Negotiating structural absences: voices of
bl t
pu prin
at
indigenous subalterns of eastern India, Journal of Intercultural
ic
Communication Research, 47(1), 52-71.
or -
t f pre
Dutta, U. (forthcoming). Conducting ethnographic research in low

literate, economically weak underserved spaces: an introduction
to visual aided interaction, Qualitative Research.
Dutta, U. & Das, S. (2015). Digital divide at the margins: co-
designing information solutions to address needs of indigenous
no
populations of rural India, Communication Design Quarterly,

4(1), 36-48.
Dutta, U. & Martin, J. N. (2017). Theoretical perspectives in
intercultural communication. In L. Chen, ed., Handbook of
Intercultural Communication, Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 45-66.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York:
Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (ed.) (1977). Language, Countermemory, Practice:

Selected Essays and Interviews, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended, New York:
Picador.
Fuhse, A. A. (2012). Embedding the stranger: ethnic categories and
cultural differences in social networks, Journal of Intercultural
Studies, 33(6), 639-655.
Gauthier, B. (2009). Creating anxiety: setting the stage for
intercultural communication, Canadian Journal of
n
io
González, A., & Peterson, T. R. (1993). Enlarging conceptual
bl t
pu prin
boundaries: A critique
at of research in intercultural
ic
communication. In S. P. Bowen, ed., Transforming visions:
or -
t f pre
Feminist critiques in Communication Studies, New York:

Hampton Press, pp. 249-278.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of
Race, Religion, and National Origins, New York: Oxford
University Press.
no
Chertoff, M. (2017). A public policy perspective of the dark web,

Journal of Cyber Policy, 2(1), 26-38, DOI: 10.1080/23738871.
2017.1298643
Gudykunst, W. B. (1986). Towards a Theory of Intergroup
Communication, Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
Gudykunst, W. B (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management
(AUM) theory of effective communication: making the mesh of
the net finer. In W. B. Gudykunst, ed., Theorizing about
Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.

281-332.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with
Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication,
Addison-Wesley.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Shapiro, R. B. (1996). Communication in
everyday interpersonal and intergroup encounters,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(1), 19-45.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston:
Beacon Press.
Halualani, R. T. & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Critical intercultural
n
io
communication studies at a crossroads. In R. T. Halualani & T.
bl t
pu prin
at
K. Nakayama, eds., The Handbook of Critical Intercultural
ic
Communication, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1-16.
or -
t f pre
Halualani, R.T., Mendoza, S. L., & Drzewiecka, J.A. (2009).

Critical junctures in intercultural communication studies: a
review, The Review of Communication Journal, 9(1), 17-35.
Harman, L.D. (1988). The Modern Stranger: On Language and
Membership, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
no
Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention

economies, Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2), 327-333.
Hart, W. B. (1999). Interdisciplinary influences in the study of
intercultural relations: a citation analysis of the ‘International
Journal of Intercultural Relations’, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 575-590.
Hartelius, E. J. (2016). ‘Undocumented and unafraid’?
Challenging the bureaucratic paradigm, Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies, 13(2), 130-149.
Hasian Jr., M. (2012). The Philippine–American war and the

American debates about the necessity and legality of the ‘water
cure’ 1901–1903, Journal of International and Intercultural
Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.
Horgan, M. (2012). Strangers & strangership, Journal of
Intercultural Studies, 33(6), 607-622.
Ingraham, C. & Reeves, J. (2016). New media, new panics,
Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(5), 455-467.
Jackson, J. (2017). Sociolinguistic approach to intercultural
n
io
communication. In Y. Y. Kim, ed., The International
bl t
pu prin
at
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, Hoboken: John
ic
Wiley & Sons. Online. Available: https://doi-
or -
t f pre
org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0068
(accessed 1 February 2019).
Jana, S., Basu, I., Rotheram-Borus, M. J. & Newman, P. A. (2004).
The Sonagachi Project: a sustainable community intervention
program. AIDS education and prevention, 16(5), 405-414.
no
Kethineni, S., Cao, Y. & Dodge, C. (2018). Use of bitcoin in

darknet markets: examining facilitative factors on bitcoin-
related crimes, American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2),
141-157.
Kim, Y. Y. (2005) Adapting to a new culture: an integrative
communication theory. In W. Gudykunst, ed., Theorizing about
Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.
375-400.
Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: globalization and a

way of being, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
32(4), 359-368.
Kochhar, R. (2015). A Global Middle Class Is More Promise than
Reality: From 2001 to 2011, Nearly 700 Million Step Out of
Poverty, but Most Only Barely. Washington, D.C.: Pew
Research Center. Online. Available: http://www.pewglobal.
org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is-more-promise-than-
reality (accessed 1 February 2019).
Kramsch, C. J. (2001). Intercultural communication. In R. Carter
and D. Nunan, eds., The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English
n
io
to Speakers of Other Languages, New York: Cambridge
bl t
pu prin
University Press, pp. 201-206.

at
ic
Landis, D. & Wasilewski, J. H. (1999). Reflections on 22 years of
or -
t f pre
the ‘International Journal of Intercultural Relations’ and 23

years in other areas of intercultural practice, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 535-574.
Lee, M. (2012). On studying interethnic communication between
the Hakka and other ethnic groups in Taiwan, Intercultural
no
Communication Studies, 21(3), 29-40.

Lee, W.S., Chung, J., Wang, J., and Hertel, E. (1995). A
sociohistorical approach to intercultural communication,
Howard Journal of Communications, 6(4), 262-291.
Makin, D. A. & Morczek, A. L. (2016). X views and counting:
interest in rape-oriented pornography as gendered
microaggression, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(12),
2131-2155.
Mancinelli, I., Comparelli, A., Girardi, P. & Tatarelli, R. (2002).

Mass suicide: Historical and psychodynamic considerations,
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 32(1), 91-100.
Marotta, V. (2012). Georg Simmel, the stranger and the sociology
of knowledge, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(6), 675-689.
Mendoza, S. L., & Kinefuchi, E. (2016). Two stories, one vision:
A plea for an ecological turn in intercultural communication,
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication,
9(4), 275-294.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in
cross-cultural communication research: A systematic and meta-
n
io
analytic review, International Journal of Intercultural
bl t
pu prin
Relations, 38, 1-23.

at
ic
Miller, A. N., Kizito, M. N. & Ngula, K. W. (2010). Research and
or -
t f pre
publication by communication faculty in East Africa: a

challenge to the global community of communication scholars,
3(4), 286-303.
Moon, D. G. (2010). Critical reflections on culture and critical
no
intercultural communication. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T.

Halualani, eds., Handbook of Critical Intercultural
Communication, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 34-52.
Moon, D. G. (2016). ‘Be/coming’ white and the myth of white
ignorance: identity projects in white communities, Western
Journal of Communication, 80(3), 282-303.
Ng, S. H. & Stolte, J. F. (2017). Power in intergroup
communication. In Y. Y. Kim, ed., The International
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons. Online Library, Online. Available: https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0170
(accessed 1 February 2019).
Nshom, E. (2016). Predictors of Finnish adolescents’ prejudice
towards Russian immigrants and the effect of intergroup
contact, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,
45(1), 31-44.
Padel, F., & Das, S. (2010). Out of this Earth: East India Adivasis
and the Aluminium Cartel, New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man,
American Journal of Sociology, 33(6), 881-893.
n
io
Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R. Wagner, U. & Christ, O. (2011).
bl t
pu prin
at
Recent advances in intergroup contact theory, International
ic
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271-280.
or -
t f pre
Pink, S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography, Thousands Oak, CA:

Sage.
Polson, E. (2011). Belonging to the network society: social media
and the production of a new global middle class,
Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(2), 144-163.
no
Rogers, E. M. (1999). Georg Simmel’s concept of the stranger and

intercultural communication research, Communication Theory,
9(1), 58-74.
Samochowiec, J. & Florack, A. (2010). Intercultural contact under
uncertainty: the impact of predictability and anxiety on the
willingness to interact with a member from an unknown cultural
group, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4),
507-515.
Schneider, J. (2010). Making space for the ‘nuances of truth’:

communication and uncertainty at an environmental journalists’
workshop, Science Communication, 32(2), 171-201.
Shuter, Robert (2012). Intercultural new media studies: the next
frontier in intercultural communication, Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 41(3), 219-237.
Schütz, A. (1944). The stranger: an essay in social psychology, The
American Journal of Sociology, 49(6), 499-507.
Shi, Y. (2011). Creating new subjectivities: The resistant tactics of
the dislocated people in China’s real estate development,
Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(3), 275-295.
n
io
Simmel, G. (1908). The sociological significance of the ‘stranger’.
bl t
pu prin
at
In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess, eds., 1921, Introduction to the
ic
Science of Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.
or -
t f pre
322–327.
Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, C. D. (eds.) (2018). Ethnologue:
Languages of the World, 21st edition, Dallas, TX: SIL
International.
Stephens, N. P. (2014). Toward a more substantive media ecology:
no
Postman’s metaphor versus posthuman futures, International

Journal of Communication, 8, 19.
Striley, K. M. & Lawson, S. (2014). Theorizing communication
orientations of privilege: How White discourses (de)construct
Australian Aboriginals, Journal of International and
Intercultural Communication, 7(2), 170-191.
Thornton, R. D. & Cimadevilla, G. (2010). Usos y abusos del
participare, Buenos Aires: Ediciones INTA.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Intercultural conflict training: theory-

practice approaches and research challenges, Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 255-271.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Conflict face-negotiation theory:
Tracking its evolutionary journey. In X. Dai & G.-M. Chen,
eds., Conflict Management and Intercultural Communication,
London: Routledge, pp. 123-143.
Viswanath, K. & Ackerson, L. K. (2011). Race, ethnicity,
language, social class, and health communication inequalities:
a nationally-representative cross-sectional study, PLoS One,
6(1), 145-150.
n
io
United Nations. (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017
bl t
pu prin
at
Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper
ic
No. ESA/P/WP/248. Online. Available: https://esa.un.org
or -
t f pre
/unpd/wpp/ publications/ (accessed 17 July 2018).

Willink, K. G., Gutierrez-Perez, R., Shukri, S. & Stein, L. (2014).
Navigating with the stars: Critical qualitative methodological
constellations for critical intercultural communication research,
no
7(4), 289-316.
Worldometers (2018). World Population. Online. Available
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#region
(accessed 7 August 2018).
i
Note: putting in three search words (intercultural, communication, and
sociology) in one research data base yielded 311 citations.
ii
We should note that European studies of intercultural communication
followed a slightly different trajectory, more oriented toward language
issues—the role of language in intercultural encounters and the role of

intercultural communication in language education (Corbett, 2009;
Jackson, 2017; Kramsch, 2001), influenced by research in applied
linguistics, linguistics, language education, disciplines like psychology
and applied fields like business and management (e. g. Hofstede, 1991).
iii
The premises of Blumer’s (1969) symbolic interaction is the center of
human interaction is the negotiation of meaning (symbols) in densely
connected primary groups; which determines individuals (and groups)
larger schemes used to assess particular situations and then as a basis of
action. It follows that races, nationalities and communities all develop
their schemes of interpretations and particular ways of defining
n
situations.
io
bl t
pu prin
iv
For example, goals 1 and 2 of SDGs seek to end hunger and poverty in
at
all its forms everywhere by achieving food security and promoting
ic
or -
sustainable agriculture. Likewise, goals 4 and 5, focus on inclusive

t f pre
education/lifelong learning opportunity and gender equality to bring

about empowerment for all. Goal 16 focuses on promoting peace towards
building an inclusive society for sustainable development, and providing
justice to all.
no

Sociological Approaches To Intercultural

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociological Approaches To Intercultural

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10

Uttaran Dutta & Judith N. Martin

contributed a great deal to intercultural communication

10.2 Sociological approaches

groups of individuals at varying degrees of social distance from

training in sociology, introduced the concept into U.S. intercultural

We should note that some scholars now question the utility of

group membership (e.g. nation, ethnicity, race, etc) was a primary

stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism) – over objections of some

contact on Finns’ prejudice toward Russian immigrants. Another

implications for ethnic cohabitations.

10.2.3 Sojourner adaptation and immigrant integration

communication research (e.g. Dutta & Martin, 2017) and a few

Gudykunst’s Anxiety and Uncertainty Management theory (AUM)

adjustment, culture shock, re-entry shock, etc (Fuhse, 2012; Hart,

641), e.g. Blumer’s theory of symbolic interactionism iii, and later

on Simmel’s stranger and the work of Gordon and Park, Fuhse

diminishes’ (p. 613). Y. Y. Kim’s integrative theory of adaptation

10.2.4 Critical theorists

2010, p. 41) and pursue critical studies of immigrant adaptation

communication orientations of privilege in showing how White

10.3 The way forward: silent zones in intercultural

abstract/conceptual)--of intercultural communication research and

10.3.1 Representation of culture

wide variety of languages. However, the different geographical

communication journals focus on African, and Southern and

only is the geographical representation of culture unequal, but

limited attention and research–engagement potentially lead to lack

10.3.2 Socio-economic and structural disparity and global

disparities, along with growing global populations (e.g., estimated

organizations are seeking to make the world a better place by 2030;

engaged in academic and professional discursive spaces. In one of

Sonagachi project (where sex-workers, by building alliances with

aforementioned global missions towards making the world more

10.3.3 Hidden, dark and forbidden cultural practices

watching politically charged or superstitious conspiracy theory

sex/family education and/or over-reliance on mediated

outrageous or uncivil behaviours and their societal impacts,

10.3.4 Plurality and cultural ecology

survival. Such negotiations have given birth to alternate

and improving intercultural exchanges and relationships. Dutta and

paying attention to (a) long-term participatory research

Scholars further suggest that our inability to accept differences

interculturally unfortunate if we are content with a mono-religious,

cultural values and practices alive today, before their extinction;

10.3.5 Future approaches and methodologies

we use academic methodological tools to understand, analyse and

illiteracy, habitual shyness and muteness, and a lack of linguistic

global south. In this way, extant non-Western academic

contextual narratives, imaginaries, identities, and cultural spaces

10.3.6 Emerging realities and cultural complexities

authenticities of cultural expressions are experiencing severe threat

realities as these not only mark the beginning/possibilities of newer

10.3.7 New dynamics of digital media

cultural and communication research; this is important because

introducing and promoting bitcoins (Kethineni, Cao, & Dodge,

particularly in virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial

(Mendoza, in Alexander et al., 2014, p.22).

Tsuda, Y., Yin J. & Halualani R. (2014). Identifying key

Asante, M.K. (2003). The Afrocentric idea in education. In J .L.

Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universitat Bremen, Institut fur

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without Racists: Color-blind

Calhoun, C. (ed.) (2002). Sociology. In C. Calhoun, ed.,