In their essay entitled “Ethical Issues in Intercultural Communication”, Judith N. Martin, Lisa A. Flores, and Thomas A. Nakayama discuss ethics within the context of communication between members of differing cultural groups. They explore a concern that there is currently no accepted meta-ethic to help guide decisions about good intercultural communication. These researchers acknowledge the daunting task of creating a meta-ethic of intercultural communication due to the tremendous differences in even what might appear to be fairly similar cultures. In reviewing general models of ethical communication they propose three “Principles for Ethical Intercultural Communication as a precursor toward a meta-ethic. In providing examples to consider as mental exercises, they allow the reader to raise their own awareness of some of the ethical issues people face in intercultural interactions.
The basic mechanistic model of communication involves a sender, a receiver, a channel, a message, and, potentially, noise. According to the authors, a successful communication is one where “the message received is the same as the message sent” despite any noise. Martin, et al, suggest that the differences in cultures can be a substantial source of noise. But cultural differences might not just cause noise that distort a message, they may even cause a message to be sent that is inappropriate and un-welcomed. Noise distortion and unintended messages may damage a valued relationship. Researching the sources of noise in intercultural communication, for example between a man and a woman, or between a religious person and an atheist, has helped social scientists develop a framework for a meta-ethic.
Martin et al explain that culture can have an impact on the ethics and morals of individuals of various cultural groups and that what is considered “right” within one cultural group might be considered “wrong” in another. It is not a stretch to assume, then, that differences in beliefs about right and wrong would impair successful communication. A hackneyed example might be from the differences in Japanese table manners versus American eating culture. In Japan, it is considered proper to pick up a small bowl and drink your soup directly out of the bowl, and slurping noodles has historically been considered a sign that you are enjoying them, whereas in the US a spoon would be used to eat soup regardless of the size of the bowl, and noodles are generally spun onto a fork and placed into the mouth whole. In China, the elders are served food first as a sign of respect and social position, whereas in Italy the patriarch of the household would be served first. In each of these cases, it might be considered rude, or even offensive, to utilize the standard behavior of the other’s culture. While tables manners are examples of indirect or non-verbal communication, the subtleties in what is considered rude or well-mannered in these areas belie the differences in the morals or ethics between cultures. In fact, the psychological model of communication views cultural differences as “filters that influence how messages are encoded or decoded.” Presumably, then, cultural differences in encoding and decoding can cause noise that distorts the message. This is especially so in cases where there are cultural differences regarding truth and honesty, and in what is considered violence or harm and what is not.
When considering what is ethical in intercultural communication, the main idea is to skillfully “deal with and minimize the impacts of cultural differences” in order to maximize understanding. Martin, et al, explain that the mechanistic and psychological models of general communication are individual-centered and thereby have certain limitations. The authors, therefore, explore the work of Metzger and Springston (1992) which reviews systems-based models of communication. “Systems models emphasize the interconnectedness of humans to each other and to their environment (the cultural context in which communication occurs).” The authors here clarify that Metzger and Springston feel that melding individual-centered models with social justice models would lead toward a more useful meta-ethic in intercultural communication.
Martin and colleagues then generate three principles for ethical intercultural communicators that embed more systems-based models: the Humanness Principle, the Dialogic Principle, and the Principle of speaking “with” and “to”. While the Humanness Principle seems self-explanatory, it is anything but. It, of course, is centered around the concept that all human beings should treat each other with respect and respond to uniqueness and difference with openness and peaceful discourse. I feel that the greatest challenges associated with this stems largely from a lack of intercultural interaction. People’s tendencies to interact with those most like them and with those logistically near to them dampens the opportunities for successful exchange of culture, ethics and communication style. The Dialogic Principle stresses relationships and emphasizes that relationships are between human beings. The Dialogic Principle suggests that empathy is required for successful intercultural communications and so is an overlay to respect in that empathy necessitates understanding the other and so requires time, caring, and engagement. The Principle of Speaking “with” and “to”. The distinction between speaking to someone versus speaking with someone is often lost in the activity itself. The practices of self-reflection and listening, practices necessary for speaking with someone and actually communicating, are very difficult. Understanding that our own social positions influence our communication requires us to “get outside of ourselves” and look at ourselves objectively. This is not a skill that is generally taught, nor does it come naturally. Our brains are evolutionarily designed to keep us safe from outside threats, not inside ones. As for listening, the authors here state that, “people who are privileged are often less motivated to listen”. Their status and the ease with which they achieved it presumably contribute to the idea that everyone has the same opportunities. An unfortunate reality that all but shuts down learning within intercultural communication.
Related issues here come from digging further into the Dialogic Principle where the authors address cultural constraints, understanding contexts, and the awareness of power dynamics in intercultural interactions. I found the discussion of the role of power in intercultural communications of particular interest. The authors write that power “is an omnipresent but often hidden part of all intercultural interactions.” They even acknowledge that power, privilege, and position can contribute to scholars misinterpreting attributes of other cultures and warn readers of scholarly articles discussing other cultures to be skeptical. Power dynamics will play a tremendous role in intercultural interactions and yet often go unnoticed. We know, for example, that often times employees do not tell their bosses when they think the boss is wrong. If this happens among people of the same culture, it will certainly be amplified when cultures clash. Power is often attributed to people irrationally through a title like “Manager” or “expert” or even from some characteristic like their height, wealth, or appearance. And it can come from the attitude of either party in an interaction. A person can behave in a manner that suggests that they feel that they have power or a person can behave in a manner that projects that they feel they have no power. Either behavior gives one human being an advantage over the other. Communication among people who feel as though they are equals is often fairly productive. It is, however, apparently quite rare.
In attempting to develop a general meta-ethic for intercultural communications, scholars have a daunting task. Cultures often differ in what they consider moral (right and wrong) and can differ in their basic understandings of truth and honesty. With such fundamental differences, researchers are faced with finding ever more overarching principles to attempt to use as guides. Humanness, something so seemingly basic that we believe it should be assumed, is often completely disregarded in communication. In these circumstances we talk “to” one another rather than “with” and the result is surely misunderstanding. The ultimate goal of communication is cooperation. Therefore, ethical communication requires that we seek to understand one another. The development of a common meta-ethic for intercultural communication is a noble endeavor and would be a highly valuable structure for society. Martin et al have created a basic framework, but implementation would require teaching intercultural communication skills to all as a social policy. Ironically, this requires a change in all cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment