Using subject readings and examples to explain race, orientalising, culturalism and relate to intercultural/international communication

Using subject readings and examples to explain race, orientalising, culturalism and relate to intercultural/international communication Order Description Using subject readings, write an essay which explains race, orientalising, culturalismand illustrates them with an example from popular culture. Identify three ways in which these relate to intercultural/international communication. The focus for the assessment is evidencing understanding of the core concepts, the readings, intercultural communication rather than a detailed account of the example from popular culture. The purpose of the assessment is to demonstrate understanding of at least three concepts from the subject using subject readings and the issues these raise for intercultural/international communication. Examples can include books (fiction or non-fiction); current, cult, or classic movies; documentaries; television shows; episodes of a soap opera; lyrics of songs, artworks or exhibitions; plays or performances; tourism guidebooks or inflight airline magazines etc. Criteria: Quality of understanding of at least three core concepts from the subject Quality of application of core concepts to examples used to illustrate concepts Quality of analysis of concepts in relation to wider context of intercultural/international communication Use of at least five readings off the subject ‘‘Critical’’ Junctures in Intercultural Communication Studies: A Review Rona Tamiko Halualani, S. Lily Mendoza, & Jolanta A. Drzewiecka This literature review foregrounds the critiques, moves, and junctures that have specifically retheorized culture and communication from a critical intercultural communication perspective, and set the stage for a fifth ‘‘moment’’ in the field of intercultural communication. Likewise, the historically specific moments when various scholars dared to question, confront, and wrestle with definitions and theoretical formations of culture and intercultural communication are delineated. Such a review will elucidate the role a critical perspective has played in the field of intercultural communication, and the crucial research questions, stances, and directions that arise from such a perspective for future intercultural communication studies. Keywords: Critical Intercultural Communication; Power; Historical Context; Culture as a Struggle juncture: (junc-ture) a point in time, especially a critical time . . . (Hall, 1996) The 20022005 volumes of International and Intercultural Communication Annual highlight a recurring significant issue within the field of intercultural communication: the reconceptualization of culture and intercultural communication relations through an emerging critical perspective. The volume titles*Transforming Communication About Culture: Critical New Directions, Intercultural Alliances: Critical Transformation, Ferment in the Intercultural Field: Axiology/Value/Praxis, and Taking Stock in Intercultural Communication: Where To Now?*reflect an unsettled and vibrant turn toward a perspective different from the long-held social scientific/ functionalist and interpretive research traditions: that is, the critical perspective, or Rona Tamiko Halualani is Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at San Jose State University. S. Lily Mendoza is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Jolanta A. Drzewiecka is Associate Professor in the E. R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University. Correspondence to: Rona Tamiko Halualani, 1 Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0112S, USA. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1535-8593 (online) # 2009 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/15358590802169504 The Review of Communication Vol. 9, No. 1, January 2009, pp. 1735 one focused on issues of power, context, and historical/structural forces in engaging culture and intercultural communication relations. According to Mary Jane Collier (2002), a critical turn requires that scholars ‘‘understand how relationships emerge in historical contexts, within institutional and political forces and social norms that are often invisible to some groups’’ and how intercultural communication relations are ‘‘constrained and enabled by institutions, ideologies, and histories’’ (pp. 12). Such a turn has created what William Starosta (2003) refers to as a ‘‘ferment’’ in the intercultural field and has been an enduring issue for intercultural communication scholars since the early 1980s. Indeed, a critical turn is definitely not new; neither has it been fully traced in terms of its historical formation in the field. This has led to many calls by scholars for alternative powerbased theorizings, reconceptualizations, and analyses of culture, identity, and intercultural communication (see Collier, Hegde, Lee, Nakayama, & Yep, 2001; Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993; Lee, Chung, Wang, & Hertel, 1995; Martin & Nakayama, 1999; Moon, 1996; Starosta & Chen, 2005). Interrogating the field and its shifts in theorizing and conducting research is necessary, according to Stuart Hall (1996), in order to trace and make sense of the ‘‘breaks,’’ ‘‘ruptures,’’ and ‘‘interruptions’’ in de-centering a paradigm or a normative way of seeing and understanding the social world. According to Stuart Hall (1996), a theoretical ‘‘juncture’’ or ‘‘detour’’ enables scholars to re-imagine new possibilities for scholarly engagement and struggle with theory as a set of contested, localized, and conjunctural knowledges that can live in productive tension and dialogue with other perspectives. Thus, by interrogating the unstable formations in a field, scholars are able to pinpoint and engage the different junctures and moments in a field that signal reflection, change, growth, and transformation. In the spirit of looking simultaneously back and ahead for intercultural communication studies, we employ Hall’s notion of ‘‘juncture’’ to trace developments in the field of intercultural communication that have led to the formation of a critical turn as an alternative perspective for exploring intercultural communication concepts, relations, and contexts. In the past 25 years, numerous historical overviews and critiques of the concepts of culture and communication have emerged in intercultural communication studies (e.g., Collier, 1998; Collier et al., 2001; Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993; Hall, 1992; Lee et al., 1995; Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Martin & Nakayama, 1997, 1999; Moon, 1996; Ono, 1998; Shuter, 1990; Smith, 1981; Starosta & Chen, 2001, 2003a,b, 2005). More specifically, several of these overviews and critiques have contested prevailing framings of intercultural communication and argued for a conceptualization of culture from a critical perspective. According to Martin and Nakayama (2000), a critical perspective is defined as one that addresses issues of macro contexts (historical, social, and political levels), power, relevance, and the hidden and destabilizing aspects of culture. Martin and Nakayama (2000) explain that the critical perspective seeks to ‘‘understand the role of power and contextual constraints on communication in order ultimately to achieve a more equitable society’’ (p. 8). Thus, these overviews and critiques call for the framing of culture as politically and historically shaped and the theorizing of culture through power relations. 18 R.T. Halualani et al. In this literature review, we revisit only the critiques, moves, and junctures that have specifically retheorized culture and communication from a critical intercultural communication perspective, and set the stage for the fifth ‘‘moment’’ in the field of intercultural communication (Starosta & Chen, 2001). The ‘‘fifth moment’’ refers to the historical moment in the 1980s when scholars began to engage issues of power, context, and ideology in studying intercultural communication. Likewise, the historically specific moments when various scholars dared to question, confront, and wrestle with definitions and theoretical formations of culture and intercultural communication are delineated. While culture is our focal point, we review works that have addressed the concept either directly by providing a specific reformulation, or indirectly via related concepts such as identity or historicization. We do so in order to reflect on the role that a critical perspective plays in the field of intercultural communication and the crucial research questions, stances, and directions that arise from such a perspective for future intercultural communication studies. Moreover, we write this review with the hope of opening a dialogue about how to advance and deepen the study of intercultural communication through the critical perspective, and seriously consider how such a view may enhance and productively wrestle with other paradigmatic approaches so as to stretch the purview of the field. It is important to note that the junctures delineated below are numbered for the sake of clarity. However, a linear chronological development may not be presumed, given that they overlap and have emerged in roughly the same moments; many are still ‘‘brewing’’ and being fully shaped. We include in our review works that may not have been explicitly labeled as ‘‘intercultural’’ but nonetheless speak to the central concerns of the field in its critical turn from a rhetorical, critical discourse, or critical media perspective. Juncture #1: Critical Impulses: Where are Context and History in Theorizing Culture? One of the marks of a maturing discipline is a capacity to historicize and problematize its own disciplinary formation. This serves as a de-naturalizing move that opens up the possibility of self-criticism and necessary revision. We find evidence of this beginning turn towards self-reflexivity in the interest of mapping and historically accounting for the modes of theorizing (e.g., in the theorizing of culture) that predominated at particular moments in the field’s history for the purpose of outing the politics driving their hegemonization (cf. Moon, 1996). It manifests also in the willingness to acknowledge consciously the discipline’s genealogy in the U.S. Foreign Service Institute with its service of Cold War exigencies, and what that entails in terms of defining its object(s) of study and the driving goals of research (Leeds- Hurwitz, 1990). This first-time historicization brought to the fore the relevance of context and history in the formation of intercultural communication as a field of study. At the same time, it raised suspicion about the reifying effects of ahistorical functionalist analyses and the penchant for ‘‘discovering’’ universal covering laws in the social scientific mode of research. Critiques of the embedded assumptions of Intercultural Communication Studies 19 race-less, gender-less, and class-absent individualism and liberal notions of agency thus began to interrupt the positivist discourse in the discipline. In response to the reifying and static positionalities embedded within social scientific intercultural communication research, the first ‘‘critical’’ works that emerged in the field argued for the historical and political contextualization of culture as opposed to the presumption that culture could be abstracted, separated from surrounding sociopolitical conditions, and treated as a fixed variable (e.g., Asante, 1980; Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993). As Moon (1996) observed, the 1980s marked a turn to functional approaches, with a significant narrowing of the conceptualization of culture and an almost exclusive focus on interpersonal contexts with concomitant emphasis on uncertainty reduction. In this mode, according to Gonzalez and Peterson (1993), the ‘‘cultural description branch’’ of intercultural communication research failed to demystify the power implications embedded within intercultural interaction and ‘‘nonevaluative thick description’’ (p. 256). In the 1980s, intercultural scholars such as Molefi Kete Asante (1980) argued that cultural groups needed to be historically contextualized in order to understand fully their cultural systems, identities, and communication practices. Such a contextualization includes the historicized set of power relations between and within specific cultural groups. In response to the rapidly growing ‘‘individual competency’’ approach in intercultural communication studies, Asante questioned the type of intercultural communication encouraged in the field when context is not given serious consideration and, consequently, historically-produced relations and conditions are unwittingly naturalized as ‘‘cultural givens’’: that is, as ‘‘inherent’’ cultural characteristics defining a particular group. In view of such a concern, he underscored the need for intercultural communication scholars to incorporate self-reflexivity, historical context, and sociopolitical relations in their analyses of culture. He also decried the way intercultural communication scholars and instructors tended to focus exclusively on the individual and personal level of culture and communication (in terms of interpersonal adjustment and competencies), without any connections made to contemporary issues, global relations, historical context, and sociopolitical urgencies. Overall, Asante’s critique urges intercultural scholars to be more reflexive about the unforeseen consequences of their intercultural theorizing and to take historicization more seriously in their study of intercultural interactions. Interestingly, Molefi Kete Asante (then Arthur Smith) was part of an earlier push by U.S. rhetorical scholars in the 1970s and 1980s who examined rhetorical speakers, discourses, and contexts primarily through the lens of cultural and historical context. This movement in rhetorical studies overlapped with and informed the arguments made by Asante (1980) and other intercultural scholars (Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993) to engage the historical contextualization and formation of culture and intercultural communication. For instance, Starosta and Chen (2003b) point to the work by Michael Prosser (1969) on intercultural rhetoric and by Smith (now Asante) (1979) on black rhetoric. These analyses illustrated that communication acts, practices, and processes are grounded in and constituted by historical and cultural factors and dynamics*an illustration that intercultural communication studies did not fully 20 R.T. Halualani et al. utilize until the 1990s with historicized accounts and case studies of intercultural communication encounters and contexts. Taking Asante’s (1980) lead, several scholars argue for a historical and contextual approach to the study of intercultural communication. Specifically, Lee et al. (1995) do just that in their development of the method of double description, through which the multivocalities, incompleteness, contextualities, and critical aspects of intercultural interactions can be uncovered. They ground their understanding of interpersonal remarks and rituals in an historical understanding of power relations, social categorizing, and the public and private spheres of Chinese and North American cultures. Lee et al. (1995) stress that knowledge claims in intercultural communication are situated in historical and cultural contexts and, as a result, epistemological claims are always shaped by cultural and historical lenses. These scholars push for the field of intercultural communication to engage the larger macro contexts of historical, social, and economic and political forces that have always permeated and continue to permeate intercultural encounters and contexts. Other intercultural communication scholars grapple with the historical and ideological effects of how ‘‘culture’’ and ‘‘communication’’ are constructed. In her pivotal piece ‘‘Concepts of ‘Culture’: Implications for Intercultural Communication Research,’’ Moon (1996) provides us with a much needed historical contextualization of the field that outlines the discursive formation created by past research which proscribed the boundaries, parameters, and rules for intercultural communication inquiry and scholarship. She aims to link how the configuration of intercultural communication designed the directions for theoretical development and dialogic engagement among scholars in terms of intercultural theorizing and methodology. In her analysis, Moon concludes that in the 1970s (up until 1977) culture was conceptualized in many ways (e.g., race, social class, gender, and nation), diverse methods were used, and there seemed to be ‘‘a deep interest in how intersections between various nodes of cultural identity both play out in and are constructed by communication’’ (p. 73). However, by about 1978 culture was conceived almost entirely in terms of nation-state, and by 1980 culture became a variable in positivist research. This view of culture became deeply entrenched for the entire decade of the 1980s. In this period, Moon notes, heterogeneous cultural groups were treated as homogenous and static collectives via the hegemonic construction of culture as a variable. Here intercultural communication was framed based on ‘‘dyads wherein two disembodied, ahistorical beings communicate across cultures’’ (p. 76). Moon compels intercultural scholars to return to the 1970s’ diverse constructions of culture, paying particular attention to its articulations to race, class, and gender and its focus on examining culture through the concepts of historical context and power relations. Mendoza (2001, 2002) places history, power, and context center stage in advocating for a more dynamic reading of various assertions of cultural identity. She argues, for example, that the self-centering discourse of historically marginalized groups (e.g., Filipinos in the Philippines and Filipino Americans in the U.S. diaspora) may not be read in the same vein as discourses calling for the de-centering of already centered, dominant identities of the West. Reading both with the same static theoretical lens Intercultural Communication Studies 21 may result in unwittingly privileging one form of identity expression over another (e.g., fluid, de-centered identities versus allegedly ‘‘essentialist,’’ fixed identities) without regard for the way such forms of cultural assertion may be invoked differently to serve differing political ends and historical imperatives. From this work, then, history as context plays a major role in constituting intercultural interactions and reproducing power relations that are embedded in historical and contested struggles over issues of belonging and ethnic rights. Power inflects and becomes determinative of cultural meaning: Mendoza argues for seeing culture not merely as a benign system of signification but as an ongoing struggle for hegemony*ultimately, as a process of negotiation around meaning that can never not be about politics. In her most recent work, ‘‘Tears in the Archive: Creating Memory to Survive and To Contest Empire,’’ Mendoza (2005a) narrates the hard-hitting and brutal impact U.S. historical discourses have had on her identity development as a Filipina, and, subsequently, as an immigrant in the United States. She reveals the shock, sadness, and anger she felt when she read for the first time the records of the U.S. Congressional hearings at the turn of the 20th century debating the question of ‘‘what to do with the Philippines.’’ In surfacing this buried historical narrative that documented the forcible annexation of the Philippines under the guise of ‘‘benevolent assimilation’’ and other such thinly-veiled justifications for U.S. imperialist ambitions, Mendoza illustrates first-hand how colonialist history and unjust power relations invariably leave in their wake a legacy of violence and exploitation that require honest confronting and acknowledging if there is to be the possibility of a just encounter between the two nations and peoples. History therefore can never be deemed a pure innocent space; neither, for that matter, can intercultural communication. Likewise, Steyn (1999) highlights the importance of understanding context and history in her examination of the intricate links between whiteness and culture in South Africa. Contrary to the U.S. situation, where whiteness maintains its power through a naturalization of its claims to entitlement and universality, thereby rendering it invisible, whiteness in South Africa, owing to its colonial and apartheid history and to differing demographics, was visibly marked culturally from the beginning in its enactment by a minority of English-speaking whites and Afrikaners. Steyn argues that the European colonial ideology, working off a narrative of white supremacy and armed with a mission to civilize the continent’s predominantly black inhabitants deemed to be inherently inferior, fomented a complex native response of cultural alienation, on the one hand, and forced identification with Europe, on the other. The fraught condition resulting from such ambivalence contributed to the salience and ownership of whiteness within the context of apartheid South Africa. Steyn’s (1999, 2004) work calls attention to the particularized forms and enactments of whiteness within such postcolonial contexts as part of a larger theoretical strategy of dislodging it from its globally dominant position. In his critical analysis of the rhetorical discourses of identity circulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Hasian (1998) highlights how intercultural interactions between the Arabs and Israelis are shaped by enduring historical conflicts and differences and the situated positionalities of each group in relation to land and sovereignty 22 R.T. Halualani et al. struggles. He underscores how a cultural group’s belonging and entitlement to land are historically understood and interpreted, often differentially across groups with vying claims to the same nation or land. Hasian’s essay foregrounds the central role history and power play in the constitution and framing of intercultural relations between and among groups. History stands as a powerfully persistent and seemingly impenetrable force in positioning cultural groups in relation to and against one another. To not acknowledge the role of history and context in creating cultural subjectivities, claims, and external identity discourses would be to miss most of the intercultural reality among groups. The deeply historical and contextual connection between culture and competing claims to identity is taken up by Drzewiecka (2002) in her exploration of cultural and national identity claims in the diasporic context. Her work calls for a consideration of the textured and complicated ways in which historical discourses and narratives of collective memory are strategically deployed by Poles dispersed in the United States to negotiate their identities through relations to and exclusions of religious, political, and cultural others, most notably ‘‘the Jew.’’ She argues that it is impossible to understand the deployment and effects of identity narratives in diasporic locations without understanding the ongoing contestation of national history both within ‘‘homeland’’ and the localized relations of dwelling. These works reconceptualize culture as a politicized system of signification, the semiotic terrain of an ideological struggle of vested interests where cultural terms for negotiation of identities are deployed, appropriated, and contested. Within this conception, culture needs to be understood both in its enduring sedimentations (the deposits and traces left by historical contestations) and in its radical transformations and itineraries as it travels and enters into translations within specific localized contexts and toward differing goals. These works at this critical juncture underscore how historical context constitutes and shapes the very foundation and formation of culture, cultural identity, and the communication practices and expressions situated within cultures. The central and powerful role of history is foregrounded through specific examples set in specific historical and political moments. As such, the very writing of these works reveals both the historically anchored and contingent ways in which culture is understood, experienced, expressed, and communicated. Intercultural communication studies, therefore, gains an important wake-up call through this prolonged critical juncture (from the 1980s to the present): there is a need to theorize, frame, and analyze culture and intercultural communication within historical and contextual frames, not as a secondary (add-on) level but as a primary constitutive dimension that is simultaneously rooted and dynamic. Juncture #2: Critiques of the Unitary Conceptualization of Culture as a Nation- Based Variable Within the last 12 years, several scholars have critiqued the field’s naturalized homology between culture and nation, and challenged the theoretical constructions Intercultural Communication Studies 23 of communication as the resulting behavioral channel of national identity (e.g., Altman & Nakayama, 1992; Asante, 1980; Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993; Moon, 1996; Ono, 1998; Smith, 1981). According to these critiques, intercultural communication scholarship research from the 1970s and 1980s portrays a monolithic culture through reductionist cultural measurement and nation-based approaches (see Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993; Moon, 1996). Throughout this period, culture was predominantly conceptualized as an entity contained within and synonymous with nation or, more precisely, with nation-state, although neither side of the hyphen was theoretically addressed. This led to an erasure of the difference between ‘‘culture,’’ ‘‘nation,’’ and ‘‘state’’ that precluded any examination of the relationship between and among these complex entities. For example, Moon (1996) demonstrates in her significant critical genealogy of the concept of culture in intercultural communication that although culture was deemed more allied with nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s, in the 1970s it was progressively conceptualized as race, social class, gender, and nation. Moon explains that by ‘‘about 1978, ‘culture’ comes to be conceived almost entirely in terms of ‘nation-state’ and by 1980, ‘culture’ is predominantly configured as a variable in positivist research projects’’ (1996, p. 73). Indeed, this exclusive linking of culture with nation/nationstate is possibly what allowed for the reduction of the culture concept into an isolatable variable*a tradition that became hegemonic throughout the field, and for a long time dominated the way intercultural communication was understood. Certainly, the exclusive conceptualization of culture as nation has limited the field’s purview of the multifaceted and complex relationship between culture and communication, and how even the concept of nation is entangled with historical, political, and structural forces and effects to begin with. According to critical scholar Ono (1998), ‘‘nation’’ became a dominant operational mechanism for ‘‘making broad generalizations about massive numbers of diverse peoples with complex cultural organizations, performances, identities, and experiences’’ (p. 201). Such generalizations homogenize culture as a predictable entity located in moments of putatively identifiable behavior and reduce intercultural communication to a uniform outcome. To the extent that cultural members come to share common histories in the process of either nation-building or resisting incorporation, the study of national groups and cultures remains crucial. Ono warns, however, that the legitimacy of such work must be premised on a complex understanding of the contested and often contradictory histories that make possible the coming into being of nationalism and national identities. He also urges scholars to rethink a nation-based model of theorizing and the implications of such a model for the cultural groups themselves and the long-lasting knowledge claims and representations of nation that circulate around such groups. To accept cultures as nations as inherently and naturally truthful and accurate at a surface level would be to risk reproducing external framings of cultural groups advanced by colonialist governments, dominant nationalist parties, and ruling power interests that benefit from such ‘‘status quo’’ thinking. 24 R.T. Halualani et al. In this way of thinking about nation and nationhood, history and historical narrations become themselves constitutive of our understanding of (national) cultures, and as far as the politics of historical representation go, Mendoza (2005a) underscores the warning from Kenyan nationalist writer Ngugi, who inveighs: ‘‘Any study of cultures which ignores structures of domination and control and resistance within nations and between nations and races over the last four hundred years is in danger of giving a distorted picture’’ (p. 244). While past traditional intercultural research has contributed to outlining the possible boundary markers around specific national identities, Mendoza, Halualani, and Drzewiecka (2003) argue that there is still an underlying theoretical presumption that culture and subjectivity reside in nation-based identities, and that communication stands as a neutral medium through which national differences are expressed. ‘‘Culture’’ has been therefore conceptualized as a national group whose ‘‘identity’’ unquestionably refers to both a salient form of national membership and the expressive (or communicative) means through which such a putatively inherent subjectivity is enacted (Mendoza et al., 2003). They argue that the field has presumed the existence of an immutable link, or guaranteed homology, between national culture and communication behavior. As a result, meanings and identities are thought to reside within separate cultural groups and to be communicated intact, thereby leading to an immediate, guaranteed, communicated subjectivity. Another logical extension of this default theoretical framing is that communication is immediately and directly derivative of (and revealing of) culture, which obscures the hidden and complex relationship between culture and communication (Chang, 2003; Mendoza et al., 2003). Hence, communication is individuated if it is conceptualized to function in the service of individuals’ effectiveness or uncertainty reduction through a neutral and unconstrained channel. Thus, if approaching culture through a nation-based lens, we are limited to only the surface aspects (or external, behavioral, or public practices) of a cultural group’s subjectivity. This ultimately carries the effect of framing intercultural communication as mostly individual-based skills and practices that need to be merely improved upon based on standards of competency for ‘‘effective’’ and ‘‘smooth’’ intercultural outcomes. Further, the role of state and other structural forces (such as the government, legal, media, educational, and institutional spheres) in constituting, constraining, and enabling particular forms of cultural practices and communication is completely unrecognized. According to Halualani (2000): ‘‘[A] necessary contribution to intercultural research . . . would be an analysis of operations within a specific group context that draws attention to the interplay between social structures and concrete interaction (with examples of talk and verbal expressions)’’ (p. 598). This, Halualani argues, would frame intercultural studies as structuralcultural projects, each with its own sociopolitical interests and histories. Halualani (1998) also outlines the need to surface the role that power plays in the construction of any given ‘‘culture.’’ She poses such questions as: ‘‘Who ultimately has the power/privilege/right to define and reproduce ‘culture’? Who benefits from the creation of ‘culture’?’’ (p. 267). Such deconstructive work refuses to take at face value the seamless appearance or naturalness of ‘‘culture’’ and insists rather on making Intercultural Communication Studies 25 visible the ideological work that may play into representations of any given ‘‘culture.’’ Folb (1997) made an earlier argument that the degree of appearance of homogeneity in any given ‘‘culture’’ may not be so much a signifier of inherent cultural similarity as evidence of ‘‘domination and hierarchy in the differential relations between members of the dominant group versus those of the subcultures subsisting within the same cultural community’’ (pp. 138146). Indeed, the naturalization of a cultural view (via a nation concept) appears neat, uniform, and shared around a nation-based identity which can obscure the political, historical, and economic interests at work to make it so. These scholars, at this juncture, illustrate that conceptualizing culture predominantly and necessarily as nation may preclude insights, analyses, and perspectives about culture and intercultural communication that beg more interrogation to help reveal the full complexity of culture and unveil and bring to light the intermingling dominant power interests and structures that shape culture, position specific kinds of intercultural relations, and privilege some cultural voices over (and on the backs of) others. While nationalistic contexts do stand as major influences on cultures, nationbased models have rarely been discussed and theorized in past intercultural communication scholarship as power-laden, structural, and ideological apparatuses that form and mold culture, and represent culture as ‘‘how it naturally is’’ at an individual and group level. For example, Hofstede’s (2001) important and oft-cited work on cultural patterns, which informs a majority of intercultural communication research, is rarely read as revealing the overwhelmingly powerful and naturalized nationalistic-political-ideological layers that shape culture, cultural attitudes, and values. The works discussed in this juncture push the boundaries of extant intercultural communication scholarship beyond what it has always presumed to be so apparent and useful: culture as nation. Instead, the critical view reveals an intellectually riskier and methodologically/analytically unwieldy notion: culture as power struggle, the unstable formation of culture based on prevailing nationalistic, economic, and structural power interests. Juncture #3: Culture as a ‘‘Site of Struggle’’: Critiques that Highlight Power Relations and Ideology in Intercultural Communication Scholars argue that it is important to turn to conceptualizing culture through power and to ‘‘contest the notion of ‘culture’ as unproblematically shared’’ (Moon, 1996, p. 75). The point is to engage culture and intercultural communication as ideologically constituted and framed notions and spaces to uncover the ideological slants and imprints within cultures and their identity and communication practices. Most notably, Martin and Nakayama (1999) propose a dialectical approach to intercultural communication and explain that culture ‘‘is not just a variable, nor benignly socially constructed but a site of struggle where various communication meanings are constructed’’ (p. 8). This differing conception of culture challenges the notion of intercultural communication as an ideologically uncontaminated space 26 R.T. Halualani et al. allowing for the free play and exchange of ideas between self-governing, rational agents willfully expressing themselves in a wide-open arena of neutral dialogue and communication. In the words of Spivak (quoted in Mendoza, 2005a): ‘‘The idea of neutral dialogue is an idea which denies history, denies structure [and] denies the positioning of subjects’’ (p. 244). In specifying critical humanist and critical structuralist paradigms (as framed by Burrell & Morgan, 1979), Martin and Nakayama (1999) argue that a critical turn in intercultural communication highlights how histories of domination, takeover, and control of certain groups by others effectively position cultures differentially in relationship to each other. Such historically-determined differential power positioning underscores the importance of accounting for the contested formation of societal structures, material conditions, and cultures rather than acquiescing to their representation as the natural and inevitable outcome of inherent superiority/ inferiority based on given notions of civilizational hierarchies. Mendoza (2005b) notes in this regard that, particularly within the more contemporary context of globalization and the logic of commodification, culture needs to be understood as ‘‘at once the site of: governance, consumption, production, contestation, and assertions of new, old, and emergent/ing identities’’ (p. 84). In a revision of the formerly objectivist ideal of social scientific research, Martin and Nakayama (1999) redefine the goal of critical scholarship as uncovering, evaluating, and changing the conditions and power relations that frame intercultural relations. In this sense, Martin and Nakayama’s article stands as one of the first theoretical discussions that brings the critical turn to the forefront. However, questions still remain as to how culture as a struggle can be studied and how communication might be differently conceptualized from a critical perspective. In response, Cooks (2001) proposed recentering the field on questions of ethics from a perspective of deconstructive pedagogy which addresses the construction of boundaries, the positionalities of those involved in specific contextualized communication processes, and the possibility of multiple readings of discursive positions. She returned to Gloria Anzaldua’s concept of ‘‘borderlands’’ as a perspective alternative to the one dominant in the field and able to capture the significance of the notions of both the stranger and distance. She proposed that intercultural communication focuses on borderlands ‘‘asks how people are organized socially according to local conceptions of cultural identities, and thus how resources, both material and social, are distributed across people who engage such identities or are made sense of according to such categories’’ (p. 347). From this perspective, the focus on culture shifts from ‘‘(un)acceptable differences’’ to a range of variation in similarities and differences and how they are constructed and towards what ends (p. 349). Moreover, Cooks argues that Georg Simmel’s concept of the stranger has been misread in intercultural communication to mean that ‘‘both parties have an equal stake in reducing uncertainty and in adapting to the other,’’ a notion that has led to ‘‘a noticeable narrowing of the field’’ (Cooks, 2001, p. 341). Such a misreading has ignored the idea that ‘‘mobility and constraint, deviation and conformity’’ are part of the dynamics of power. Intercultural Communication Studies 27 Similarly, in their important essay ‘‘Dialogue on the Edges: Ferment in Communication and Culture,’’ Collier et al. (2001) continue this line of argument by stating: ‘‘[A]ny act of defining culture should not forget political questions such as the following: Whose interest is served by this definition? What definitions are left out or unimagined?’’ (p. 229). These authors highlight the definition of culture as ‘‘shifting tensions between the shared and the unshared’’ and as a shifting and unstable discourse where ‘‘the links remain not only situated but also unstable, shifting, and contested’’ (p. 230). They stress that culture is a contested terrain where meaning is contextually, historically, and politically produced. These scholars point out that past intercultural communication scholarship has predominantly served the interests of and maintained an obsessive focus on white U.S. Americans. They argue that the time has come for more contextualized, historically situated, and politicized scholarship with a commitment to pushing for social justice, challenging status quo power relations, and breaking the dominant cycles of imperialism, colonialism, sexism, heteronormativity, and racism. One of the authors of the ‘‘Dialogue on the Edges’’ article, Radha Hegde, po points to the absolute necessity and ethical obligation for intercultural scholars to engage intercultural communication through power and ideology: We do need to think about culture and power in interrelated ways because culture cannot be abstracted from structures of power. With changes in the world political scene and postcolonial global development, we cannot afford to perpetuate an apolitical reading of intercultural communication. The notion of neutrality that is so prized in our approaches, denies structure and denies the subject positions of those involved. (p. 226) Kraidy’s (2004) work on hybridity has also been influential; it highlights the hegemonic articulation of cultural, economic, and political forces at the interconnected levels of everyday life and structural global transformations. His work demonstrates that the dynamic, multiple, and chaotic cultural flows that cut across borders are permeated by power relations which may enable, restrain, or highjack their progressive potential to unmask or undermine hegemonic assertions of cultural purity. Kraidy’s work repeats the warnings of others against unwitting applications of hybridity to any sort of cultural mixing which evacuate the pervasive workings of power, and instead calls for a deeply contextualized examination of local conditions under which hybrid articulations take their pervasive and yet indeterminate shape. Recently,William Starosta and Guo-Ming Chen (2003b) highlighted the urgency of examining the ideological underpinnings of our intercultural communication behaviors and practices. They argue: Exploring the why element requires critical, historical, or even ideological analyses of cultural behaviors that unfortunately are de-emphasized or left out . . . . Dare we ask the question of whether it is a good or bad practice to engage in future orientation, in materialism, the subjugation of women, in a belief in cultural purity and superiority . . . in individualism so strong that it attacks outsiders in the name of that collective. (pp. 1415) 28 R.T. Halualani et al. These scholars underscore an important question for the field: Who benefits from these constructions and framings of culture and intercultural communication? Starosta and Chen remind us that the conceptualizations that we create, identify, and promote often render and represent our social world and communication encounters in fixed, de-contextualized, and undifferentiated ways*an ideological effect that may hinder our pursuit of engaging the complexity of intercultural communication relations and contexts. In so doing, Starosta and Chen (2003b) stress the emergence of a fifth moment in the field, or rather the formation of a critical perspective among the dominant research paradigms (positivist/postpositivist, interpretive). They historicize the critical turn to the 1980s and argue that intercultural communication scholars have explored the ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘what’’ of intercultural communication but not the ‘‘why.’’ Thus, these scholars problematize the detached and often ethnocentric stance intercultural communication scholars have employed in their studies, which positively valorizes certain cultural values, worldviews, and identities over others. They argue that the larger goals, functions, and implications of such research need to be fully considered and addressed, with special attention paid to how certain structures of power and groups gain from the kinds of conclusions that we draw about intercultural communication. Starosta and Chen (2003b) envision such a focus as creating much needed change in the field: Departing from the traditional descriptive positivist and postpositivist way of doing things to ask ‘‘Who is benefiting from doing things in this way?’’ and ‘‘Does this way of doing things render the world static and undifferentiated’’ moves us to new moments and subjects the field to ferment. (p. 16) They crystallize the importance of critical perspectives in unpacking the value-laden stances unspokenly embedded in intercultural communication research and problematizing notions of ‘‘history, hegemony, privilege, generalizability, validity, objectivity and control, and reliability and representation’’ (p. 19). In an excellent postmodern critique of past intercultural communication research, Chang (2003) destabilizes the reified positivist framings of culture (in terms of cultural patterns such as high context-low context and individualism-collectivism). This scholar argues that such framings of culture speak from an ideological foundation of Cartesian linear logic which ultimately deems the Western/European American (white) culture (and in U.S. research, white middle class values) as the normal reference point for all cultures. This, she posits, creates a crisis of representation that suffocates and silences cultural groups. Miike (2003) elaborates on the ideological slanting of intercultural communication towards the Western center. He argues that the field of intercultural communication ‘‘suffers from Eurocentric otherization’’ in its obsessive focus on U.S. European American culture and values (p. 247). Miike also problematizes the ways in which intercultural scholars draw from mostly European and American theories and perspectives to analyze all cultures. In fact, there is a habitual routine among intercultural scholars to employ Western (and mostly U.S.-based) paradigms, Intercultural Communication Studies 29 theories, and methods, read only literature published in English, and invoke a comparison reference point of a European American culture. Miike raises the important question: Why don’t we study cultures from within their own native paradigms (e.g., in analyzing Asian cultures, one can employ an Asiacentric perspective)? He specifically addresses critical intercultural communication scholars and urges them to consider the kind of Eurocentric perspectives on ‘‘individual freedom, social justice, material change, and power’’ they bring to bear on intercultural contexts and foci. Miike warns: If critical intercultural communication scholars, most of whom are trained in highly privileged scholarly environments at European or U.S. universities, confine themselves to what might be termed Eurocentric approaches to anti-Eurocentrism by failing to examine their ideal version of humanity and to treat other Eurocentric intellectual traditions as resources of knowledge for theory-building, they will end up imposing pale imitations of Euro-American critical scholarship on other parts of the world and they will further perpetuate Eurocentric elitism. (p. 267) Thus, the overarching theme shared by scholars reviewed in this essay is that culture is always embedded in a ‘‘a politics of location’’, or a contested space of power relations (Lee, 1998, p. 290) that articulates culture and communication in other than through a group focus. The challenge is therefore to develop a sustained framework that fully theorizes culture as the locus of power, hegemony, variations, and distinctions in cultural formation and communication practices. Two central questions emerge from the critiques above: What are other ways* apart from the presumed homology between culture and nation*in which culture, communication, and intercultural communication can be theorized? How might culture, communication, and intercultural communication be theorized differently through a lens that adequately accounts for historical context, ideology, and power relations? As pioneers of the critical intercultural communication perspective, several scholars have called for a ‘‘fifth moment’’ and a critical turn in intercultural communication in which scholars theoretically reconceptualize culture, communication, and intercultural communication (e.g., Collier et al., 2001; Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993; Martin & Nakayama, 1997, 1999; Moon, 1996; Starosta & Chen, 2001). Thus, the next challenge is fully to theorize and articulate the revisioned concepts of culture, communication, and intercultural communication from a critical perspective*a task we anticipate will be both exciting and promising, but beyond the scope of this review meant merely to track the junctures that brought us to this crucial threshold. As a starting point, it is important to rethink more closely and explicitly the way in which the theoretical discourse on communication is inevitably implicated in the operation of power and ideology (Hall, 1980, 1985). In particular, we need to challenge the notion of communication as an ideologically uncontaminated space allowing for the free play and exchange of ideas between self-governing, rational agents willfully expressing themselves in a wide-open arena of neutral dialogue and communication (Hall, 1980, 1985). As Spivak (in Mendoza, 2005) in ‘‘Tears in the Archive’’ categorically notes in this regard: 30 R.T. Halualani et al. (A) neutral communication situation of free dialogue . . . is not a situation that ever comes into being*there is no such thing. The desire for neutrality and dialogue, even as it should not be repressed, must always mark its own failure. The idea of neutral dialogue is an idea which denies history, denies structure, denies the positioning of subjects. (p. 72) Relatedly, Hall, Whyte, Keesing, Keesing and Bennett (1966) challenges the construction of communicative participants as unencumbered rational subjects when he proposes that in any communicative event, participants ‘‘are not free agents in the interaction process: they enter the engagement with culturally conditioned conceptions and expectations which influence communication and learning’’ (p. 597). We can take Bennett’s point further here by asking: How might communication be approached differently as the politically and historically situated structuring of meaning, identity, and social relations and how might this reconceptualization change the normative outcomes of research in the intercultural field? Finally, how is communication a larger complex of meaning and subjectivity, unguaranteed yet historically implicated, structurally formed yet creatively practiced by social actors moment to moment? Specific to communication as the articulation of meaning through communication expressions by speakers, we can incorporate deep structural (e.g., historical, political, economic) analysis into our projects and the expressions and patterns of identity can be examined more thoroughly. Regularities and patterns in communicative expressions can be interrogated in terms of historical moments and power interests so as to prevent the overlooking of shifts in group belonging, sense-making, and identity formation. From a larger perspective, each intercultural communication project can be theoretically compared in terms of similar sociopolitical interests and histories and/or differences and distinctions constructed over time between groups. Likewise, a critical intercultural perspective can help reconceptualize intercultural communication and broaden how ‘‘inter’’ and ‘‘intra’’ might be better deployed to analyze more fully the relationship between culture, identity, and power. The ‘‘inter’’ label in intercultural communication studies stands as a remnant of its historical roots in two-group, interaction-focused research. A broadening may push the notion of ‘‘inter’’ from connoting actual interaction between culturally different ‘‘dialogue partners’’ to the intersecting layers of cultural, discursive, and signifying practices that constitute power relations. Instead, ‘‘inter’’ and ‘‘intra’’ could symbolize temporarily useful spatial metaphors for rethinking how culture involves contested sites of identification as opposed to others and the resulting political consequences. In this way, we can also interrogate ‘‘individualculture,’’ ‘‘personalsocial,’’ ‘‘difference similarity,’’ and ‘‘staticdynamic’’ as proposed by Martin, Nakayama, and Flores (1998), not as given, but rather as themselves historical productions articulated from a specific place. For example, how might such historically and ideologically produced categories work in line with particular state administrative mandates and classifications toward pursuit of unquestioned political aims and interests? How might scholars in intercultural communication be unwittingly affirming the historically Intercultural Communication Studies 31 established reifications of group identities proffered by the national-popular economy without critiquing the normative assumptions behind their very construction? Critical perspectives on culture can focus on differences within national boundaries, nodes of cultural identity, positionality and subjectivity, constructions of femininity and masculinity and gendered experiences, representation of differences, and examination of particular locations (Collier et al., 2001; Cooks, 2001; Gonzalez & Peterson, 1993; Moon, 1996). Juncture #4: Beyond Disciplinary Narcissism to Renewed Field of Study juncture: (junc-ture) a transition; the act of joining. (Hall, 1996) One may wonder at this point when preoccupation with collective self-critique, redefinitions, and reconceptualizations might actually give way to new problematics, new objects of study, and new terrain for the conduct of research in this new critical tradition. It is our view that it absolutely should. As we engage the limits of long-held paradigmatic and research approaches to the study of intercultural communication, the next step will be ferreting out the specific role and contribution critical intercultural communication studies can make to push and further interrogate intercultural communication contexts, phenomena, and problematics. At the current juncture, we are at the crossroads of exciting growth and tremendous re-imaginings and possibilities for intercultural communication studies. Growth requires critique, deconstruction, and the clashing of perspectives. It is important to highlight that junctures are not mere deconstructive breaks; junctures signal growth, change, transformation, and new ways of joining, meeting, and relating in intercultural communication studies. We find that the insights and struggles raised by critical perspectives need not be ‘‘sores’’ in the side of postpositivist or interpretive traditions. Instead, these insights and struggles from critical perspectives may help to create productive*albeit passionate*dialogues across paradigmatic perspectives and research methods, not to engage culture and intercultural communication in the same way but to lend ‘‘eyes’’ and ‘‘hands’’ in obscured areas, tight spots, and difficult-to-traverse realities (colonized cultures and identities, structured inequalities, rampant marginalization). Just as critical scholars can learn from social scientific and interpretive perspectives, they can uniquely contribute different ways of engaging how history, power, and ideology work at the individual and interactional levels and through public communicative acts and processes*a major omission that stunts intercultural communication inquiry in its present stage. We can provide a larger landscape of insights, raising questions and knowledge claims that will help to stretch each perspective and, ultimately, the collective, multiparadigmatic, and contested engagement of intercultural communication communities, contexts, issues, and realities from all possible (and often conflicting) angles. Junctures signal urgencies, needs, crises, and yearnings for connection, growth, and new joinings; these critical intercultural junctures are no different. 32 R.T. Halualani et al. References Altman, K., & Nakayama, T. (1992, November). The fallacy of the assumption of a unitary culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. Asante, M. K. (1980). Intercultural communication: An inquiry into research direction. Communication Yearbook, 4, 401410. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Chang, R. (2003). A postmodern critique of cross-cultural and intercultural communication research: Contesting essentialism, positivist dualism, and Eurocentricity. In W. J. Starosta & G. M. Chen (Eds.), International and Intercultural Communication Annual 26: Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 2453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collier, M. J. (1998). Researching cultural identity: Reconciling interpretive and postcolonial perspectives. In A. Gonzalez & D. Tanno (Eds.), International and Intercultural Communication Annual XXI: Communication and identity (pp. 122147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collier, M. J. (2002). Transforming communication about culture: Critical new directions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collier, M. J., Hegde, R. S., Lee, W. S., Nakayama, T. K., & Yep, G. A. (2001). Dialogue on the edges: Ferment in communication and culture. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), International and Intercultural Communication Annual 24: Transforming communication about culture: Critical new directions (pp. 219280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cooks, L. (2001). From distance and uncertainty to research and pedagogy in the borderlands: Implications for the future of intercultural communication. Communication Theory, 11, 339 351. Drzewiecka, J. A. (2002). Reinventing and contesting identities in constitutive disclosures: Between diaspora and its others. Communication Quarterly, 50, 123. Folb, E. (1997). Who’s got the room at the top? Issues of dominance and nondominance in intracultural communication. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 264275). Belmont: Wadsworth. Gonzalez, A., & Peterson, T. R. (1993). Enlarging conceptual boundaries: A critique of research in intercultural communication. In S. P. Bowen (Ed.), Transforming visions: Feminist critiques in communication studies (pp. 249278). New York: Hampton Press. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding, decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128139). London: Hutchinson. Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the postructuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 91114. Hall, S. (1992). Theories of culture and communication. Communication Theory, 1, 5070. Hall, S. (1996). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In D. Morley & K. H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 262275). London: Routledge. Hall, E. T., Whyte, W. F., Keesing, F. M., Keesing, M., & Bennett, J. W. (1966). Intercultural communication. In A. Smith (Ed.), Communication and culture: Readings in the codes of human interaction (pp. 596615). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Halualani, R. T. (1998). Seeing through the screen: The struggle of culture. In J.N. Martin, T.K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. ). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Halualani, R. T. (2000). Rethinking ‘ethnicity’ as structural-cultural project(s): Notes on the interface between cultural studies and intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 579602. Hasian, M. A. (1998). Intercultural histories and mass-mediated identities: The re-imagining of the ArabIsraeli conflict. In J. Martin, L. Flores, & T. Nakayama (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 97104). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Intercultural Communication Studies 33 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kraidy, M. M. (2004). Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory, 12, 316339. Lee, W. S. (1998). In the names of Chinese women. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84, 283302. Lee, W. S., Chung, J., Wang, J., & Hertel, E. (1995). A sociohistorical approach to intercultural communication. Howard Journal of Communications, 6, 262291. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes on the history of intercultural communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 262281. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997). Intercultural communication in contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking about culture dialectically. Communication Theory, 9, 125. Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. K. (2000). Intercultural communication in contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A. (1998). A dialectical approach to intercultural communication. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 514). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Mendoza, S. L. (2001). Nuancing anti-essentialism: A critical genealogy of Philippine experiments in national identity formation. In D. T. Goldberg, M. Musheno, & L. C. Bower (Eds.), Between law and culture: Relocating legal studies (pp. 224245). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mendoza, S. L. (2002). Between the homeland and the diaspora: The politics of theorizing Filipino and Filipino American identities. London: Routledge. Mendoza, S. L. (2005a). Tears in the archive: Creating memory to survive and contest empire. In R. Lustig & J. Koester (Eds.), Among US: Essays on identity, belonging, and intercultural competence (rev. ed., pp. 233245). Boston, MA: Pearson. Mendoza, S. L. (2005b). From a theory of certainty to a theory of challenge: Ethnography of an intercultural communication class. Intercultural Communication Studies, 14, 8299. Mendoza, S. L., Halualani, R. T., & Drzewiecka, J. A. (2003). Moving the discourse on identities in intercultural communication: Structure, culture, and resignifications. Communication Quarterly, 50, 312327. Miike, Y. (2003). Beyond Eurocentrism in the intercultural field: Searching for an Asiacentric paradigm. In W. J. Starosta & G. M. Chen (Eds.), International and Intercultural Communication Annual 26: Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 243276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moon, D. G. (1996). Concepts of ‘culture’: Implications for intercultural communication research. Communication Quarterly, 44, 7084. Ono, K. A. (1998). Problematizing ‘‘nation’’ in intercultural communication research. In D. Tanno & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures (pp. 3455). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prosser, M. H. (1969). Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind: Heads of state address the United Nations. Volumes 1 and 2. New York: William Morrow. Shuter, R. (1990). The centrality of culture. Southern Communication Journal, 55, 237249. Smith, A. L. (1979). Rhetoric of Black power. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Smith, A. L. (1981). Content decisions in intercultural communication. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 252262. Spivak, G. C. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, and dialogues. New York: Routledge. Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2001, November). A Fifth Moment in Intercultural Communication?: A Dialogue. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. 34 R.T. Halualani et al. Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2003a). International and Intercultural Communication Annual 26: Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2003b). ‘‘Ferment’’ an ethic of caring and the corrective power of dialogue. In W. J. Starosta & G. M. Chen (Eds.), International and Intercultural Communication Annual 26: Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2005). International and Intercultural Communication Annual 28: Taking stock in intercultural communication: Where to now?. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Steyn, M. E. (1999). White identity in context: A personal narrative. In T. K. Nakayama & J. N. Martin (Eds.), The communication of social identity (pp. 264278). Steyn, M. E. (2004). Rehabilitating a whiteness disgraced: Afrikaner White Talk in post-apartheid South Africa. Communication Quarterly, 52, 143169. Intercultural Communication Studies 35