Cultures et civilisations par : Jacques Ardoino

Sommaire
INTRODUCTION
I – CIVILISATION ET CULTURE :
SENS GENERIQUE COMMUN AUX DEUX CONCEPTS.
1. Sens générique commun. 2. Adaptation et identité. 3. Différence d’échelle.
II – LA CIVILISATION ET LA CULTURE :
DEFINITIONS GENERALES DES DEUX CONCEPTS PRIS AU SINGULIER.
1. « La civilisation ». 2. « La culture ». 3. Combinaisons.
III – LES CIVILISATIONS ET LES CULTURES :
DEFINITIONS PARTICULIERES DES DEUX CONCEPTS PRIS AU PLURIEL.
1. Les civilisations. Identité. Matrices culturelles. Sept civilisations contemporaines. Autres éléments de
définition. Comportements collectifs. 2. Les cultures. Identité. Diversité. Groupes d’acteurs socioculturels. 3.
Impact sur les comportements collectifs
IV – DEFINITIONS CONNEXES.
1. Métissages fondateurs. 2. Ethnocentrisme. 3. Racisme. 4. Universalisme.
Mondialisation : dialectique de l’universalisme et du relativisme. 7. Multiculturalisme.
5.
V - NOTIONS COMPLEMENTAIRES.
1. Reconnaissance des identités culturelles. 2. Industries culturelles. 3. Exception culturelle.
CONCLUSION
1
Relativisme.
6.
Définition de la civilisation
Etymologie : du latin civis, citoyen.
Sens n°1 :
Une civilisation est l'ensemble des caractéristiques spécifiques à une société, une région, un peuple, une
nation, dans tous les domaines : sociaux, religieux, moraux, politiques, artistiques, intellectuels,
scientifiques, techniques... Les composantes de la civilisation sont transmises de génération en génération
par l'éducation. Dans cette approche de l'histoire de l'humanité, il n'est pas porté de jugements de valeurs.
Le sens est alors proche de "culture".
Exemples : civilisations sumérienne, égyptienne, babylonienne, maya, khmer, grecque, romaine, viking,
arabe, occidentale...
Sens n°2 :
La civilisation désigne l'état d'avancement des conditions de vie, des savoirs et des normes de comportements
ou moeurs (dits civilisés) d'une société. La civilisation qui, dans cette signification, s'emploie au singulier,
introduit les notions de progrès et d'amélioration vers un idéal universel engendrés, entre autres, par les
connaissances, la science, la technologie. La civilisation est la situation atteinte par une société considérée,
ou qui se considère, comme "évoluée". La civilisation s'oppose à la barbarie, à la sauvagerie.
Le XXe siècle ayant montré que la "civilisation occidentale" (au sens n°1) pouvait produire les formes
les plus cruelles de barbarie, il est indispensable de faire preuve de la plus grande modestie quant au
degré de civilisation (sens n°2) atteint par notre société.
>>> Terme connexe : Culture
>>> Terme connexe : Humanité
>>> Terme connexe : Peuple
>>> Terme connexe : Société
Dossier > La notion de « culture » - Futura-Sciences
www.futura-sciences.com/magazines/sciences/infos/.../d/...culture.../4/
Définition de la culture
La culture est un système de croyances, de valeurs, de coutumes et de comportements transmis de
génération en génération que les membres de la société utilisent pour affronter le monde et les autres.
Une civilisation est une société complexe qui a des villes, des classes sociales, ainsi qu'un gouvernement. La
culture n'est qu'un aspect de la civilisation.
Il est possible pour une culture d'exister sans la civilisation, mais une civilisation ne peut exister sans la
culture. En outre, une civilisation ne peut comprendre plus d'une culture.
2
Cultures et civilisations par : Jacques ARDOINO
Table des matières
Les sens communs
Les acceptions scientifiques
Psychologie sociale et psychosociologie
L’anthropologie structurale
Les critiques et la relativisation du « relativisme culturel »
La culture en tant que dialectique du social et des personnes
Texte intégral
Tantôt employées au singulier, tantôt au pluriel (ce dernier souvent associé à leur représentation plus
singulière [Michel de Certeau, 1969]), ces deux notions vont prendre une place très importante au sein des
sciences humaines et sociales, notamment dans les champs intimement liés de l’anthropologie et de
l’ethnologie (sans préjudice des rapports, encore étroits mais déjà plus distants, avec la linguistique,
l’histoire, le Droit, l’économie, la sociologie, la psychologie sociale, la psychanalyse, la psychologie, la
philosophie, les sciences politiques…), au cours des trois derniers siècles pour la pensée occidentale (plus
particulièrement à partir de la seconde moitié du dix-neuvième et tout au long du vingtième).
En dépit, ou, peut être en raison, de leur équivocité tenace, comme tant d’autres (ainsi « l’institution »
excommuniée par Georges Gurvitch [1950] !!) elles continueront d’y jouer un rôle éminent à la faveur des
courants dits « culturalistes ». On les confondra parfois, jusqu’à les prendre pour synonymes, mais nous
pensons devoir insister, d’emblée, sur leurs nuances respectives subsistantes, pouvant aboutir à des
postures épistémologiques très fondamentalement opposées, voire hétérogènes [Jacques Ardoino et André de
Peretti, 1998 ; cf. également, Léo Frobenius, 1936 et 1940]. Elles joueront, de surcroît, un rôle politique dans
certaines conjonctures internationales.
Les sens communs
Dans la langue française [Nouveau dictionnaire étymologique, 1964 et Etymologies du français, 1996], le mot
culture (1262) dérive du latin cultura, issu de colere (plus anciennement quolere) : tourner en rond, travailler
régulièrement, assidûment, cultiver, soigner, habiter (les suffixes français « cole » ou « culteur », agricole,
agriculteur, mais aussi bien pisciculteur ou puériculteur…, en découleront). Le sens commun au travail
agricole et au commerce, singulier et collectif, de l’esprit cultivé, voire à l’ascèse d’un culte, est celui d’une
durée consentie, vécue, vivante, autrement dit d’une « patience », impliquant l’action de retravailler sans
cesse : la terre, des matériaux, des données, avec efforts et assiduité, en vue de leur accroissement qualitatif,
trop souvent dégradé en quantitatif. De leur côté aussi bien que « civiliser », « civilité » ou « incivilité »…,
civilisation (1784) désigne l’ensemble des traits caractérisant une société donnée, située dans le temps et
dans l’espace, et provient de civis : citoyen. Comme pour la culture, l’intention et l’action de civilisation
s’opposent à l’état supposé antérieur de nature [E. Morin, 1973 et S. Moscovici, 1972], mais, ici, plus
précisément encore, à la sauvagerie, à la barbarie, au proto-développement. C’est, au fond, le pari
idéologique d’un humanisme rationaliste, héritier de la philosophie des lumières, qui entend fonder ainsi
l’évolution et le progrès humains.
Plus qu’un temps-durée vécu, l’idée de civilisation occupe un espace ou un intervalle de temps
(chronologique), ce qui n’est pas du tout la même chose. En cela, elle est avant tout territoriale jusqu’à
concevoir des périodes, des époques, des « moments » [Jacques Ardoino, 2001] de l’histoire inscrits dans un
temps désormais « réifié » [Joseph Gabel, 1962]. Nous le verrons, plus loin, les acceptions plus spécialisées,
plus techniques, des termes culture et civilisation creuseront davantage une telle opposition. A y regarder de
plus près encore, pour l’instant, l’idée de civilisation, longtemps préférée en France, nous apparaît plus
architecturale (il y a ainsi des « jardins à la française » et des personnages de tragédie taillés more geometrico,
3
à l’opposé du théâtre shakespearien), plus linéaire, plus construite, plus volontariste, celle de culture restant
plus holistique, plus élaborée, jusqu’à l’idée de perlaboration empruntée aux psychanalystes, laissant une
place beaucoup plus considérable au jeu de processus inconscients, temporels et historiques. Dans tous les
cas, la relation, réciproque ou plus unilatérale, l’interdépendance, entre la vie psychique des personnes, des
individus, des sujets, et les effets propres des influences et des déterminismes sociaux est soulignée. Du fait
même de ces cadres et découpages spatio-temporels, la (les) civilisation(s) semble(nt) s’imposer plus
objectivement à nous, tandis que la (les) culture(s) se donne(nt) toujours à lire de façon plus
« intersubjective » [cf. pour cette notion Magali Uhl, 2002], plus profonde, peut être plus opaque. Je parlerais
sans peine de la « trajectoire » d’une civilisation, mais il me faudra plutôt évoquer le « cheminement » plus
capricieux d’une culture.
Si des « modèles » sont bien impliqués par l’une comme par l’autre, ce ne sont pas du tout les mêmes. On
« baigne » dans une civilisation, on appartient à une civilisation qui nous englobe ; la culture nous habite,
nous inspire et nous structure jusqu’à constituer un style. Son association fréquente avec de proches
parentes, la « tradition » (au double sens du terme), les coutumes, souligne encore les rôles spécifiques du
temps-durée et de la mémoire dans leur compréhension. La culture se transmet, certes lentement, mais à
des échelles de temps, largement moindres que celles d’une évolution cosmique ou génétique. Le processus
reste toutefois, ici, généalogique plus qu’héréditaire. Schématiquement, la nature est donnée, la culture est
acquise, mais pour l’individu qui finalement les agit l’une et l’autre plus ou moins inconsciemment, celle-ci
est une seconde donnée. Autre caractéristique majeure, ces termes sont, à l’évidence, chargés de valeurs,
axiologiques. Bien entendu, les mots évolueront, quant à leurs significations comme à leurs emplois, au fil
du temps. On parlera facilement, ainsi, aux époques moderne et, plus encore, « post moderne », de microcultures (les « tribus » de Michel Maffesoli) ou de sous-cultures, voire de contre-cultures (celles, parfois
captives et consuméristes, des minorités, des intelligentsia, des « élites », des déviants, des enfants, des
personnes âgées, des femmes, des gangs, des entreprises…). L’anglo-saxon culture et l’allemand Kultur
présentent des nuances importantes par rapport au français, en raison, précisément, de leurs cultures
propres. En témoignent, entre autres débats (les modèles opposés de Jacob Burckhardt, Considérations sur
l’histoire universelle, et de François Guizot, Civilisation européenne, notamment), ces lignes fortes de Thomas
Mann, en septembre 1914, ponctuant l’antagonisme de la culture allemande et de la civilisation française
dans la Neue Rundschau : « Civilisation et culture, expliquait-il, sont des contraires, ils constituent l’une des
diverses manifestations de l’éternelle contrariété cosmique et du jeu opposé de l’Esprit et de la nature.
Personne ne contestera que le Mexique au temps de sa découverte possédait une culture, mais personne ne
prétendra qu’il était alors civilisé. La culture n’est assurément pas l’opposé de la barbarie. Bien souvent, elle
n’est au contraire qu’une sauvagerie d’un grand style – et parmi les peuples de l’Antiquité, les seuls, peutêtre, qui fussent civilisés étaient les Chinois…/…La culture peut inclure des oracles, la magie, la pédérastie,
des sacrificeshumains, des cultes orgiastiques, l’inquisition, des autodafés, des danses rituelles, de la
sorcellerie, et toute espèce de cruauté. La civilisation, de son côté, est raison, lumières, douceur, décence,
scepticisme, détente, Esprit (Geist).»[cité par Pierre Kaufmann in Encyclopédia universalis, 2002]. On ne
saurait adhérer sans réserves aujourd’hui à une telle diatribe. Nous l’avons mentionnée justement parce
qu’elle ne peut s’entendre que dans le contexte et les cultures nationales, de son époque à laquelle elle reste
indexicalisée.
Quant au langage trivial, quelques autres acceptions peuvent encore être retenues relativement distinctes
des précédentes : la « culture physique » en tant qu’entraînement et exaltation individuels ou (et) collectifs
des capacités corporelles et sportives ; la « culture » dans sa forme plus esthétique, au niveau des activités
culturelles populaires, ou de celles des élites des arts, de la musique (jusqu’à La distinction de Pierre
Bourdieu) ; la « culture cultivée » de « l’honnête homme », enfin, qui, disait-on, subsiste en nous au delà de
l’oubli des acquis, des apprentissages, et des fruits de l’expérience personnelle ; plus banalement encore, la
culture générale scolaire. Chacune d’entre elles, notons le, s’ordonne, plus ou moins, à la qualité, au
dépassement de soi, aux records, aux performances, à des pôles d’excellence, aux chefs d’œuvre, aux
raffinements. Mais il y aura, évidemment, des cultures plus factices, plus brillantes, mondaines, « de cour »,
et des cultures plus authentiquement intellectuelles et spirituelles. Dans la suite de cet article, nous nous
limiterons aux sens techniques et scientifiques, anthropologiques, ethnologiques et psychosociaux,
notamment privilégiés par les approches culturalistes dans les sciences humaines et sociales.
Les acceptions scientifiques
4
Avant de se voir concéder le statut de concept scientifique, la notion oscille, du moyen age au dix-neuvième
siècle entre l’état de la culture cultivée et l’action de cultiver le sol, puis, de façon figurée, l’esprit (fin du dixseptième siècle). Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie (1798) en fait mention comme trait distinctif de l’espèce
humaine (éducation, instruction) à partir de la distinction, fondamentale pour la philosophie des Lumières,
entre nature et culture [E. Morin, 1973 et S. Moscovici, 1972]. Nous l’avons vu, les relations francoallemandes, entre 1870 et 1918 attiseront un débat plus sémantique et politique intéressant les idées de
culture (Kultur) et de civilisation. Ce débat s’affirmera d’ailleurs archétypique de deux conceptions
concurrentes de la culture qui persisteront par la suite, l’une plus universaliste, l’autre plus particulariste.
L’émergence de la sociologie et de l’ethnologie, en tant que disciplines scientifiques, à la fin du dix neuvième
siècle, donnera ses premiers titres de noblesse au concept de culture, mais à l’étranger. Deux
anthropologues, respectivement britannique et allemand, Edward Burnett Tylor et Franz Boas (ce dernier
naturalisé américain par la suite), l’un de conception universaliste, l’autre plus particulariste, contribueront
très largement à de premiers éléments de définition qui deviendront ensuite littéralement « canoniques » :
« Culture ou civilisation, pris dans son sens ethnologique le plus étendu, est ce tout complexe qui comprend
la connaissance, les croyances, l’art, la morale, le droit, les coutumes et les autres capacités ou habitudes
acquises par l’homme en tant que membre de la société » (E. B. Tylor, 1871, p. 1 ; études de terrain au
Brésil). Franz Boas (1858-1942 ; études de terrain chez les esquimaux, les indiens de la Colombie
britannique, les Kwakiutl, les Chinook et les Tsimshian), pour sa part, peut être considéré comme le
précurseur, si ce n’est l’inventeur, de l’ethnographie. C’est un chercheur de terrain. Il s’oppose à Tylor tout
en retenant la définition de la culture proposée par celui-ci. Tous deux combattent les partis pris
comparatistes antérieurs, hierarchisants, fondés sur des conceptions d’inégalité des races et d’anthropologie
physique ; l’absurdité de la croyance à l’existence de correspondances entre des traits physiques et des traits
mentaux est aisément démontrée [Franz Boas, 1940]. Au moins par la méthode, on est au seuil de ce qui
s’appellera, plus tard, anthropologie culturelle ou relativisme culturel, avec, cette fois, un fondement et une
portée plus épistémologiques. Il s’agit, au fond, déjà, de ce qui restera ensuite le projet commun aux
perspectives anthropologiques et ethnologiques, ou ethnographiques, voire, plus tard, aux approches
ethnométhodologiques [Alain Coulon, 1987], dans le sillage de l’école interactionniste de Chicago [Alain
Coulon, 1991] : rendre compte, de façon descriptive et non plus normative, de la diversité et de l’unité, tout à
la fois, du vivant humain regardé à travers ses formes sociales.
Il est alors à noter l’absence de l’idée de culture parmi les fondateurs de l’ethnologie française, du moins à
ses débuts. La naissance d’une sociologie volontiers impérialiste, celle d’Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) va lui
faire de l’ombre en privilégiant le concept de société. Avec une approche résolument unitaire, tout à fait
compréhensible dans le contexte idéologique de l’époque (kultur et civilisation devenant des armes de
propagande, sans compter la politique officielle assimilationniste à l’égard des populations d’immigrants) la
sociologie française, dont l’ethnologie reste, quelques décennies durant, une branche annexe, retient le terme
de civilisation plus universel et plus normatif en abandonnant à l’étranger le concept plus descriptif de
culture. Il subsiste néanmoins dans la sociologie durkheimienne une sensibilité et une ouverture propres à
un certain relativisme. La notion de « conscience collective » n’exclut pas quelques parentés avec la théorie de
la culture d’Alfred Kroeber (« superorganisme ») ou avec les « patterns culturels » et « la personnalité de base »
de Ralph Linton. Il n’en demeure pas moins que Durkheim, dans son combat contre le psychologisme,
assigne à la société une priorité et une suprématie, par rapport à l’individu. En conséquence, les groupes, les
communautés, l’intersubjectivité, n’auront pas, non plus, sa faveur.
De son côté, Lucien Levy-Bruhl (1857-1939), fondateur de la discipline ethnologique en France, hostile aux
thèses de l’évolutionnisme unilinéaire comme à celle du progrès mental, s’intéressera à l’étude des cultures
primitives et s’interrogera sur les différences de mentalités entre les peuples. Cette notion de mentalité n’est,
non plus, très éloignée du sens ethnologique du terme culture. Mais elle ne s’implantera pas pour autant
durablement dans le vocabulaire ethnologique de l’époque. Certains historiens (« Ecole des Annales »), lui
feront, par ailleurs, un meilleur accueil. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl créera, en 1925, l’institut d’ethnologie de
l’université de Paris. Il faudra, tout de même, attendre les années « trente », pour voir se développer une
ethnologie de terrain avec des africanistes tels que Marcel Griaule ou Michel Leiris. Celle-ci prendra
progressivement, alors, une certaine autonomie qui lui permettra, plus tard, de s’intéresser aux retombées
de la période « triomphale » de l’anthropologie américaine et du relativisme culturel qui y était associé.
Les successeurs immédiats de Franz Boas, Alfred Kroeber (reprenant la trilogie évolutionniste d’Herbert
Spencer entre « inorganique », « organique » et « superorganique ») et Clark Wissler s’attacheront à l’« histoire
culturelle ». On leur devra les notions d’« aires », de « traits » et de « modèles » (patterns) culturels, au risque,
parfois d’excès « diffusionnistes » ou « hyper-diffusionnistes ».
C’est, alors, un autre anthropologue anglais, Bronislav Malinowski (1844-1942) qui va réagir à ces excès en
proposant un courant plus résolument fonctionnaliste. Ce dernier entend se fonder sur le présent, contre le
passé et ses dérives diffusionnistes, contre le futur et ses anticipation évolutionnistes. Il se réclamera donc
d’une perspective synchronique. Néanmoins, le changement ne peut être endogène. Il vient de l’extérieur, à la
faveur des contacts interculturels. A partir d’un recensement, au demeurant controversé, des besoins, qu’il
place au fondement d’une théorie scientifique de la culture (1944) il « s’oppose à tout tentative d’écrire
l’histoire des cultures à tradition orale. » et « critique l’atomisation de la réalité culturelle à laquelle
aboutissent certaines recherches du courant diffusionniste…/… Ce qui compte, ce n’est pas que tel ou tel
5
trait soit présent, ici ou là, c’est qu’il remplisse, dans la totalité d’une culture donnée, telle fonction précise.
Chaque culture formant un système dont les éléments sont interdépendants, il est exclu de les étudier
séparément. » [Denis Cuche, 2001]. Sinon, on s’abîmerait dans une muséographie. Pour l’éthnologie et
l’anthropologie française, jusque là quelque peu oblitérées par l’occupation allemande, sans préjudice des
pseudos-théories nazies largement encombrées par l’anthropologie physique, ce sont les travaux de
Malinowski qui permettront de renouer avec les courants américains. On lui doit la méthode de «
l’observation participante ».
L’école américaine « culture et personnalité » se distinguera justement par sa centration sur les liens entre
les individus et leurs cultures. Il s’agit essentiellement de mieux comprendre comment les êtres humains
incorporent et vivent leurs cultures. Même si elle conserve une certaine indépendance, la culture n’est pas
conçue, par ces anthropologues, comme une « réalité en soi », extérieure aux individus. Elle apparaît plutôt
comme un « style » commun marquant les comportements de ceux qui partagent une même appartenance.
Là réside, peut être, ce qui fait l’unité d’une culture et la différencie des autres. Avec Edward Sapir (18841939) une théorie s’esquisse ainsi qui marquera le culturalisme, faisant largement place à la psychanalyse
anthropologique tout en inversant la problématique freudienne initiale (la culture n’est pas une projection de
la libido, c’est la libido qui se trouve bel et bien informée par la culture). Ruth Benedict (1887-1948 ; étude
comparative contrastée sur des tribus indiennes Pueblo), étudiante, puis assistante de Boas, reprend la
notion de pattern culturel et tente de fonder l’utilité d’un « arc » culturel incluant une gamme de possibilités
dans les différents domaines concernés, mais chaque culture restant limitée à l’actualisation d’un segment
de l’éventail ainsi constitué. Dans cette optique la culture devient quelque peu combinatoire. Son pattern est
un schéma inconscient, véhiculé par les institutions (notamment éducatives) façonnant les comportements
en harmonie avec les valeurs culturelles ainsi distinguées. Il convient donc d’appréhender la logique interne
de ces configurations culturelles. Margaret Mead (1901-1978) s’intéresse à la façon dont chaque individu
reçoit sa culture et l’intègre dans son développement personnel. A partir d’études de terrain menée en
Océanie (Arapesh, Mundugomor et Chambuli), elle remet en question des préjugés, des parti-pris, enracinés
dans des croyances biologiques quant aux soi disantes personnalités « féminines » ou « masculines », dans
certains types de sociétés. Au moins autant, sinon plus, que les caractères biologiques (sexualité, entre
autres) transmis par l’hérédité, les personnalités individuelles résultent des modèles culturels particuliers à
une société donnée, à un groupe, à une communauté, qui déterminent notamment l’éducation des enfants
(systèmes de rôles). Les anthropologue Ralph Linton (1893-1953 ; études de terrain à Madagascar et aux Iles
Marquises) et Abram Kardiner (1891-1981), ce dernier de formation psychanalytique, se rattachent à la
même école. La culture ne peut se comprendre et s’appréhender qu’au travers des hommes qui l’expriment.
Mais, de ces individus, l’anthropologue ne retiendra que des traits communs, quasi épistémiques, des
« types », abandonnant les aspects plus qualitatifs, plus incarnés, historiques et personnels, à la psychologie.
Ralph Linton formulera donc l’hypothèse d’une « personnalité de base », type « normal » directement
déterminé par la culture à laquelle appartiennent les individus. Le système d’éducation propre à telle ou telle
société diffusera ce « type normal » de personnalité. La diversité des statuts devra aussi impérativement être
prise en compte. Loin de n’être que le dépositaire passif de sa culture, l’individu réinterprétera celle-ci et se
l’appropriera, en autant de tentatives originales, tout au long de son histoire. Pour Abram Kardiner la
personnalité de base est une trame déjà psychologique sur laquelle les individus broderont leurs « variantes
singulières » (institutions primaires). La réaction au niveau de la culture du groupe s’effectuera par un jeu de
« projections » permettant d’élaborer des structures secondaires (systèmes de valeurs et de croyances) qui
conduiront celle-ci à évoluer peu à peu.
Il faudrait encore mentionner, dans les années « cinquante », les travaux, américains (H. G. Barnett, A. R.
Beals, G. M. Foster, M. Herskovits, R. Linton, K. E. Reach, R Redfield, S. Tax…, après J. W. Powell, dès 1880)
et français (Roger Bastide qui introduit en France ces recherches), portant sur l’acculturation (« processus
complexe de contact culturel au travers desquels des sociétés ou des groupes sociaux assimilent ou se voient
imposer des traits ou des ensembles de traits provenant d’autres sociétés » [Jean-François Baré in Pierre
Bonte et Michel Isard, 1992]). La « créolisation » s’y rattache évidemment. Nous sommes, aussi, aux confins
du métissage.
En dépit de la nuance péjorative qui l’affecte, comme des nombreuses critiques qu’il aura justement
suscitées, le courant culturaliste américain (« théorie culturaliste de la personnalité ») a contribué à
décloisonner les sciences sociales et humaines. Il se prolongera, ensuite, chez Eric Fromm et Karen Horney,
deux autres psychanalystes, et au sein de l Ȏcole de Francfort avec le sociologue et philosophe Herbert
Marcuse... De son côté, l’anthropologie sociale anglaise (E. E. Evans-Pritchard), qui se rapproche davantage
de la sociologie, à partir de ses origines propres, et qui considère que l’étude des structures sociales est « la
condition préalable à la mise en perspective des problèmes culturels dans leurs diverses dimensions
linguistique technique, psychologique et historique » [E. Ortigues, in Dictionnaire de l’Anthropologie et de
6
l’Ethnologie, 1991], se réclame aussi d’un culturalisme (pris cette fois dans un sens plus large). Grâce à
l’introduction de nouveaux concepts, à partir d’une élaboration plus poussée des méthodes ethnographiques,
ces chercheurs et ces penseurs ont malgré tout réussi à établir que le psychique et le culturel, voire,
l’institutionnel, sont hétérogènes tout en participant d’une même réalité, à condition toutefois d’être
convenablement articulés quant à l’entreprise d’intelligibilité. L’anthropologie a du ainsi s’ouvrir à d’autres
disciplines frontalières en sortant de son isolement social. Une perspective plus authentiquement
multiréférentielle, et finalement relativiste, a pu en résulter (alors que le parti-pris de départ était de
considérer la culture en tant que totalité). La destruction, à tout le moins la sérieuse remise en question, des
mythes universalistes ne s’est pas irrévocablement soldée, comme on pouvait le craindre, par l’émiettement
des valeurs mais aboutit plutôt à une réhabilitation du pluriel et de l’altérité, de la particularité et de la
singularité, dont les chances heuristiques ne sont pas non plus négligeables. Les hiérarchies naturalistes,
fondées, jusque là, sur les concepts de race, d’ethnie, de supériorité biologique, n’en sont pas, de très loin,
sorties tout à fait indemnes.
Psychologie sociale et psychosociologie
Les courants les plus interactionnistes de l’anthropologie culturelle, d’Edward Sapir à Grégory Bateson et à
l’anthropologie de la communication (école de Palo Alto) nous rapprocheront évidemment des perspectives
plus explicitement psychosociales. Celles-ci, à l’échelle d’un déterminisme meso-social, tout comme leur
démarche clinique, la psychosociologie (essentiellement française), sont effectivement concernées à travers
leurs pratiques (intervention, consultation, formation, sensibilisation, changement, information,
communication, moral, climat, type de leadership…) et leurs théorisations, par les notions de culture(s), de
sous-culture(s), et d’acculturation, que nous venons très cavalièrement d’évoquer, ici. C’est le jeu des
interactions qui fait le « nous » du groupe ou de la communauté, si différent du « on » plus « collectif ». En ce
sens elles constituent au sein des groupes un des lieux de la dynamique des échanges culturels. La plupart
des traités de psychologie sociale, classiques de ces dernières décennies (D. Krech et R.S Crutchfield, ou O.
Klineberg, ou R. Daval, F. Bourricaud, Y. Delamotte, R. Doron, PUF, ou W. J. H. Sprott, Payot), se référent
explicitement à cette idée de culture qu’elle permettront en retour d’affiner et de complexifier, mieux que les
démarches sociologiques classiques, à partir d’une approche plus clinique, donc plus intersubjective, du lien
social. [Jacques Ardoino, « Les dialectiques du lien social », 2001, André Levy, 1997, Jacqueline BarusMichel, 1987]
L’anthropologie structurale
En France, une autre école, dite « structuraliste » fondée par Claude Levi-Strauss [1958], suivi par un certain
nombre de disciples (parmi lesquels Maurice Godelier), reprend le thème de la totalité culturelle sous un
autre angle (ensemble de systèmes symboliques : langage, institutions, règles matrimoniales, économie, arts,
sciences, religions, traduisant certains aspects de la réalité physique et de la réalité sociale des ensembles
humains concernés, mais, beaucoup plus encore, les systèmes de rapports que ces réalités physiques et
sociales peuvent entretenir entre elles, et que ces systèmes symboliques, à leur tour, peuvent avoir avec
d’autres). Même si la pensée structuraliste, qui se développe parallèlement dans les champs de la
psychanalyse (Jacques Lacan), de la littérature (Roland Barthes) et de la linguistique (dont toutes s’inspirent
plus ou moins) emprunte à l’origine aux travaux de l’anthropologie culturelle américaine (Ruth Benedict :
patterns, types de culture limités, étude privilégiée des sociétés primitives ; possibilité d’étudier les
combinaisons de ces facteurs indépendamment des individus qui les incarnent et les concrétisent) que
Claude Levi-Strauss connaît bien pour avoir enseigné aux Etats Unis, elle s’en démarque résolument en
cherchant dans la synchronie le dépassement de l’approche particulariste des cultures. Il s’agit donc de
rechercher des « invariants » (la prohibition de l’inceste, notamment) que vont exprimer toutes les cultures à
travers la diversité de leurs agencements. Nous reviendrons ainsi « à un trésor culturel commun », aux
catégories et aux structures inconscientes de l’esprit humain. C’est un retour aux universaux, aux a-priori de
toute société humaine. Le balancier repart dans l’autre sens.
Les critiques et la relativisation du « relativisme culturel »
On le voit, peut être, là ou nous en sommes de ce parcours limité, l’étude des notions que nous avons
travaillées n’a guère réduit leur équivocité de départ. Celle-ci s’affirme, au contraire, chemin faisant, en tant
que richesse polysémique, à laquelle il convient de se familiariser sans trop vouloir la réduire, au risque de
son appauvrissement. Elle demeure donc inséparable de l’herméneutique qui seule pourra lui prêter sens.
Peut-on, dès lors, en guise de solution, se contenter, du profil hâtivement tracé d’un anthropoloque bifrons,
tout à la fois savant et écrivain, toujours impliqué, s’investissant lui même inconsciemment, et de façon
7
irréductible, dans ses objets d’étude (Clifford Geertz) ? Pour ce qu’il en est de la culture, au point où nous en
sommes, faut-il conclure, à la façon de Georges Gurvitch à propos de l’institution, qu’un tel concept ne
présente plus d’intérêt scientifique et qu’il est préférable de l’abandonner ou de le remplacer par un autre
plus strictement définissable et plus opératoire ? Ce serait ne tenir aucun compte de sa vitalité actuelle
attestée par un pouvoir de diffusion remarquable dans les domaines professionnels et sociaux les plus
divers. Il circule et nous ne pouvons pas facilement en faire l’économie. Ce serait, en outre, oublier un peu
vite les apports incontestables de ces notions : à l’ethnologie, à l’anthropologie ainsi qu’à d’autres sciences
humaines et sociales, tout au long d’un siècle.
Il convient, sans doute, de relativiser « le relativisme culturel ». « Il faut revenir à son usage originel, le seul
recevable scientifiquement, qui en faisait un principe méthodologique, principe restant toujours opératoire
aujourd’hui. Dans cette perspective, recourir au relativisme culturel, c’est postuler que tout ensemble
culturel tend vers la cohérence et une certaine autonomie symbolique qui lui donne son caractère original
singulier ; et qu’on ne peut analyser un trait culturel indépendamment du système culturel auquel il
appartient et qui peut, seul, lui donner sens » [Denys Cuche, 2001]. Mais ce sont aussi, les modes de
connaissance, et les représentations que nous nous donnons de la science, les paradigmes en fonction
desquels nous observons, lisons, décrivons et interprétons les phénomènes, qui doivent, aussi, changer et
qu’il convient de revisiter (Edgar Morin). Ces termes (civilisations et cultures), plus explicitement
multiréférentiels que d’autres, nous semblent relever à bon droit de ce que Paul Ricoeur désigne en tant que
« logique du double sens » (ce qui n’est pas tellement étonnant au regard des fonctions et des rôles multiples
qu’on leur assigne). Ils sont « construits », « mentaux », « théoriques » et comme tels fictifs (« la théorie comme
fiction » de Maud Mannoni), « imaginaires » [C. Castoriadis, 1975], « symboliques » (quand on les étudie en
tant qu’objets ou processus), beaucoup plus que réels, mais ils n’en perdent pas, pour autant, leurs valeurs
praxéologique, fonctionnelle, explicative ou compréhensive (pour reprendre, ici, la distinction célèbre de W.
Dilthey, dans le cadre de l’école herméneutique allemande de la fin du dix-neuvième siècle). Leur portée
comme leur ancrage scientifiques ne se comprennent vraiment qu’à partir du réseau interdisciplinaire
(sociologie, histoire, psychologie sociale, psychologie, économie, ethnographie, ethnologie, anthropologie,
linguistique, philosophie, sciences politiques…), encore complexifié par les vues et visées romantiques (quant
aux origines allemandes), idéologiques, éthiques, axiologiques, autrement dit les visions du monde, au sein
desquels ils s’inscrivent. Mais le réseau, stricto sensu, n’est encore constitué que de connexions (terme
d’inspiration plus mécaniste, électrique, teléphonique ou informatique). Ce n’est donc pas un groupe. Il ne
s’y trouve pas d’interactions proprement dites, en dépit des illusions cybernétiques véhiculées par
l’ingénierie systémique. Les interactions psycho-sociales (et non magnétiques, chimiques, ou astrophysiques) supposent, en effet, l’existence concrète, vécue, de relations intersubjectives impliquées,
libidinales, et non de simples rapports plus ou moins abstraits, topiques.
La culture en tant que dialectique du social et des personnes



Plutôt qu’« apparemment paradoxale » [M. J. Herskovits, 1967], la notion de culture que nous venons
d’entrevoir, à grands traits, requiert, ainsi, une intelligence (entendre, ici, un mode de connaissance
élaboré, peu dépendant du biologique, en un mot culturel) proprement dialectique, acceptant le jeu
reconnu normal des contradictions comme source de sa dynamique, pour pouvoir être comprise et
acceptée en tant que réalité distincte, et, pourtant, interdépendante, parce que toujours enracinée
dans les subjectivités qui la supportent et contribuent à une telle élaboration.
Contradiction entre les représentations également nécessaires de l’universel, du particulier et du
singulier. C’est un fait constatable, la culture est une caractéristique commune à tous les hommes
organisés en société et, pourtant chaque culture oppose ses particularités aux autres, jusqu’à
donner place aux singularités. L’humain, en tant qu’« ensemble pratique » [Jean-Paul Sartre, 1960],
interactif (« plus » que chaque homme, autre que leur somme), groupe, organisation, institution, crée
sa culture, tout à la fois transcendante et immanente, qui lui sera transmise, en amont, et qu’il
transmettra à son tour aux fins d’apprentissage en aval. N’est ce pas justement le partage entre la
perspective d’une anthropologie plus unitaire et celle de la diversité revendiquée par les ethnologies,
voire par les ethnographies ? Mais c’est aussi une problématique philosophique essentielle, en même
temps qu’une question ardue de psychologie et de psychologie sociale. C’est, encore, un indice fort
de ce que la multidimensionnalité, facilement concédée à l’humain (convoquant autant de regards :
biologique, psychique, linguistique, historique, économique, technique, rationnel, social,
psychanalytique, imaginaire [Cornelius Castoriadis, 1975], fonctionnel et symbolique) ne suffit pas à
exprimer toute sa complexité, mais suppose, à son tour, une multiréférentialité [Jacques Ardoino,
1988 et 1998] plus ouverte à l’hétérogénéité. L’homme vit dans l’espace qu’il transforme en fonction
de ses besoins, mais il existe dans le temps qui reste pour lui irréversible. Sa conscience se
développe au cœur même de sa subjectivité et cependant il ne devient vraiment lui même qu’à partir
de la reconnaissance de l’autre, y compris de l’étranger en lui, seules origines possibles d’une
assomption des limites impliquant le deuil des fantasmes initiaux de toute puissance et de maîtrise.
En cela, le social est rappel nécessaire d’une reconnaissance pratique et formelle de
l’intersubjectivité et de l’altérité, tandis que le psychique éprouve les affres, mais aussi les
enrichissements, dues aux altérations.
Contradictions entre l’identité et l’altération, la stabilité et le mouvement, la permanence et le
changement. Tout comme les langues qui en sont l’émanation et la traduction, les cultures, ou
8

mieux les civilisations, devenues statiques sont celles qui sont effectivement mortes. La culture peut
être considérée à la fois comme durable, relativement stable et en perpétuelle évolution. C’est
toujours, ici, affaire d’observatoires, de regards, de perspectives, et, d’une certaine manière, de partis
pris épistémologiques, eux mêmes évoquant, de façon plus lointaine, les weltangschaaung, plus
dyonisiaques, ou les cosmogonies, plus apolliniennes, dont ils s’inspirent. On retrouve, bien sur, en
filigrane de cette question sur la nature de la culture, le débat philosophique traditionnel
idéalisme/réalisme.
Contradiction entre les attentes d’une existence objective de la culture, « autre » et « plus » que les
mentalités des personnes composant les groupes humains, à un moment donné de leur histoire,
valeurs se transmettant de génération en génération (« survivances »), sans commune mesure avec
les durées réelles d’existence des individus auxquels elle s’impose, et les vécus interactifs et
collectifs, intersubjectifs, les patterns, les modèles sociaux, les coutumes et les traditions, parfois
largement inconscients (introjection), structurant et qualifiant les comportements et les attitudes qui
en témoignent. En ce sens la culture est beaucoup plus encore élaborée que construite. Elle
s’apprend, certes à l’école et à l’université, mais aussi par contagion, par sympathies et empathies
(familiales, locales, régionales, nationales), experientielles, autrement dit par acculturation. C’est
peut être justement à travers cette articulation originale du social et du psychique, du biologique et
de la rationalité, scandée en autant de dialogies, surtout comprises autrement que disjonctives, que
la bête humaine fait vraiment sens, à la différence des autres espèces animales.
Bibliographie
Jacques Ardoino, « Les dialectiques du lien social » in L’Année de la recherche en sciences de l’éducation,
AFIRSE-Matrice, n° 8, 2001
Jacques Ardoino « Des moments et du temps », texte inédit, 2001 ; « L’humain, le vivant et le vécu » in « Le
vivant », Prétentaine, n° 14-15, Paris, 2001 ;
Jacques Ardoino « La complexité en tant que multidimensionnalité des objets ou en tant que
multiréferentialité explicite des regards qui les inventent » in contribution aux journées thématiques
organisées par Edgar Morin, Paris, 1998 ;
Jacques Ardoino « L’analyse multiréférentielle » in Welgand/Hess/Prein, Institutionnelle analyse, - Athenaum
monografien-Sozial wissenschaffen, Athenaum, Frankfurt am Main, 1988.
Jacques Ardoino et André de Peretti, Penser l’hétérogène, Paris, Desclèe de Brouwer, 1998.
Jacques Ardoino et Jean-Marie Brohm, « Repères et jalons pour une intelligence critique du phénomène sportif
contemporain », in Critique de la modernité sportive (sous la direction de Jean-Marie Brohm), Paris, Les
Éditions de la Passion, 1995, p. 50 et in Anthropologie du sport, perspectives critiques, (sous la direction de
Jacques Ardoino et de Jean-Marie Brohm) Paris, Matrice-AFIRSE-Quel corps ? 1991.
Jacqueline Barus-Michel, Le sujet social, Paris, Dunod, 1987.
Franz Boas, Race, language and culture, New York, Macmillan, 1940.
Pierre Bonte et Michel Isard, Dictionnaire de l’ethnologie et de l’anthropologie, Paris, PUF, 1992 (articles
« acculturation », Jean-François Baré, « civilisation », Anne-Christine Taylor, « culturalisme », Edmond
Ortigues, « culture », Michel Isard).
Jean Bouffartigue, Anne-Marie Delrieu, René Garrus, Etymologies du français, Paris, éditions Belin, 1996.
Michel de Certeau, La culture au pluriel, Paris, Christian Bourgois, 1969.
Cornelius Castoriadis, L’institution imaginaire de la société, Paris, Seuil, 1975.
Alain Coulon, L’école de Chicago, Que-sais-je ? 2639, Paris, PUF, 1991. L’ethno-méthodologie, Que-sais-je ?
2393, Paris, PUF, 1987.
Denys Cuche, La notion de culture dans les sciences sociales, Paris, Repères, La Découverte, 2001.
Albert Dauzat, Jean Dubois, Henri Mitterand, Nouveau dictionnaire étymologique et historique, Paris,
Larousse, 1964.
9
Encyclopedia universalis, Paris, 2002 (articles . « acculturation » par Roger Bastide ; « anthropologie » par
Elisabeth Copet-Rougier ; « Culturalisme » par Marc Abeles ; « culture et civilisation » par Pierre Kaufmann ;
« nature et culture » par Françoise Armengaud),
Sigmund Freud, Malaise dans la civilisation (1929), Paris, PUF, 1971.
Léo Frobenius, Le destin des civilisations, NRF, Paris, Gallimard, 1940 et L’histoire de la civilisation africaine,
NRF, Paris, Gallimard, 1936.
Joseph Gabel, La fausse conscience, Paris, éditions de Minuit, 1963.
Georges Gurvitch, Vocation actuelle de la sociologie, Paris, PUF, Sociologie contemporaine, 1950.
Edward T. Hall, La dimension cachée (1966), Paris, Seuil, 1971.
Melville J. Herskovits, Les Bases de l’anthropologie culturelle, « Petite collection », Paris, François Maspéro,
1967.
Claude Levi-Strauss, Anthropologie structurale, Plon, Paris, 1958.
André Levy, Sciences cliniques organisations sociales, Paris, PUF, Psychologie sociale, 1997.
Edgar Morin, Le paradigme perdu : la nature humaine, Paris, Seuil, 1973.
Serge Moscovici, La société contre nature, Paris, Plon, 1972.
David Riesman, La foule solitaire, anatomie de la société moderne, Paris, Arthaud, 1964.
Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique de la raison dialectique, Paris, Gallimard, 1975.
Edward B.Tylor, La civilisation primitive (édition anglaise 1971), traduction française Paris, Reinwald, 187678.
Magali Uhl, « Intersubjectivité et sciences humaines – approche épistémologique » in L’année de la recherche
en sciences de l’éducation, n° 9, Paris, AFIRSE-Matrice, 2002.
Pour citer ce document
Jacques Ardoino, «Cultures et civilisations », Les cahiers psychologie politique [En ligne], numéro 14, Janvier
2009. URL : http://lodel.irevues.inist.fr/cahierspsychologiepolitique/index.php?id=272
Quelques mots à propos de : Jacques Ardoino
Cultures, civilisations et diversités culturelles : Quelques références bibliographiques
Première partie:
Rappel des notions de culture, civilisation
et d'évolution des sociétés
Léon Dion, “Notes de recherche. Méthode d'analyse pour l'étude de la dynamique et de l'évolution des sociétés”.
Un article publié dans la revue Recherches sociographiques, vol. 10, no 1, janvier-avril 1969, pp. 102-115. [On y trouvera
un tableau comparatif des traits généraux des sociétés traditionnelles et modernes.]
Mauss, Marcel (1872-1950) (Sociologue et neveu d'Émile Durkheim), «Les civilisations. Éléments et formes.»
(1929). Exposé présenté à la Première Semaine Internationale de Synthèse, Civilisation. Le mot et l’idée, La Renaissance
10
du livre, Paris, 1930, pp. 81 à 106. Texte reproduit in Marcel Mauss, Oeuvres. 2. Représentations collectives et diversité
des civilisations (pp. 456 à 479). Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1969, 740 pages. Collection: Le sens commun.
Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) (Sociologue et neveu d'Émile Durkheim) et Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) (sociologue
français), «Note sur la notion de civilisation.» (1913). Extrait de L’Année sociologique, 12, 1913, pp. 46 à 50. Texte
reproduit in Marcel Mauss, Oeuvres. 2. Représentations collectives et diversité des civilisations (pp. 451 à 455). Paris: Les
Éditions
de
Minuit,
1969,
740
pages.
Collection:
Le
sens
commun.
Guy Rocher, “Notions de culture et civilisation.”
Un fichier PDF de 10 pages de 256 K à télécharger.
Deuxième partie:
Étude d'une culture ou d'une civilisation.
Textes
sur
la
civilisation
(dans Les Classiques des sciences sociales)
chinoise
Textes sur la civilisation chinoise:
civilisation
Les millie et Une Nuits.
Contes
arabes.
Gustave
LeBon,
La
civilisation des Arabes
(1884)
Voir la sous-collection CHINE
ANCIENNE.
Voir la sous-collection CIVILISATION ARABE.
Tex Textes sur la civilisation de l'Inde:
sur
la
Texte sur la civilisation arabe:
Textes
de
nombreux anthropologues et
sinologues français sur la
civilisation chinoise ancienne.
Textes
civilisation
de
et
Textes sur la civilisation romaine:
la
l'Inde.
(1837-),
romaine.
Voir
la
sous-collection
Civilisation de l'Inde.
11
Pierre
Mythologie
Commelin
grecque et
arabe:
Volume 10, No. 1, Art. 50 – January 2009
The Notion of Culture in Linguistic Research
Dominic Busch
Abstract: Many works on intercultural communication from the field of linguistics share the assumption that influences
of culture on social interaction will manifest in communicative exchanges—and conversely, that an academic's look at
these exchanges will be a sufficient basis for an adequate description of what intercultural communication is supposed
to be about. Linguistic theory itself lacking of places to integrate culture as a factor into its concepts, urges scholars to
borrow operationalizations of culture from neighboring disciplines like e.g. different strands of psychology, sociology
or anthropology. Approaches resulting from this transdisciplinary orientation as a consequence share very divergent
assumptions on how, at what moment in a communicative process and with what effects culture influences social
interaction. While many surveys on similar behalf distinguish between primordial and constructionist approaches, a
closer look at different strands of empirical linguistic research may reveal even more precise and detailed distinctions
on how culture may be captured and framed. This article will present and analyze a selection of approaches from the
mentioned field, e.g. from intercultural and contrastive pragmatics, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of
communication, ethnomethodology as well as discourse analysis. In each case, the underlying notions of culture will be
revealed and put into contrast. Additionally, this exemplary analysis may show that most of the empirical schools
mentioned follow and adopt changing notions of culture from social theory over time.
Key words: academic concepts of culture; primordialism; constructionism; effects of culture on social interaction
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A Systematics on Culture's Influences on Social Interaction
2.1 Culture as a given vs. culture as a product
2.2 Culture as knowledge vs. culture as values and beliefs
2.3 The primordialist approach: cultures as a given, people react to
2.3.1 Cultures as knowledge
2.3.2 Cultures as values
2.3.3 Intercultural competence according to primordialist approaches
2.4 The constructionist approach: individuals produce culture
2.4.1 Moving from primordial to constructionist approaches
2.4.2 Focusing on individuals' thought vs. their action
2.4.3 Culture as knowledge
2.4.4 Culture as values
2.4.5 Intercultural competence according to constructionist approaches
3. Conclusion
12
Notes
References
Author
Citation
1. Introduction
Swiss linguist Ferdinand DE SAUSSURE (2001/1916) has revolutionized linguistic thought when he introduced
structuralist ideas on how mutual understanding by means of language is supposed to work. Later, even philosophers
showed considerable interest in his thoughts and they paved the way for cultural philosophy and the integration of
culture into social theory (CASSIRER, 1992/1947). Linguists doing research on intercultural communication on that
basis, on the one hand, found a first solid basis to integrate culture into linguistic theory. On the other hand, after the era
of structuralism, the assumed constraints of this paradigm tended to persist in linguistics and for a long time they
impeded linguists from taking note of the advances of cultural theory after structuralism. [1]
Meanwhile, the notion of culture has turned into a popular way to link macro-social phenomena to micro-social
observation in the social sciences. Besides of that, authors from cross-cultural and intercultural research continue to
point at today's enormous increase of cross-cultural exchange and interaction (BLACK & MENDENHALL, 1990).
Linguists from different schools (GUMPERZ, 1982a, p.3; BLUM-KULKA, HOUSE & KASPER, 1989, p.1; KOOLE
& TEN THIJE, 1994, p.3) continue to claim a priority role for linguistic approaches in cross-cultural and intercultural
communication research. In these respects, they point at the fact that intercultural interaction will always and
necessarily be carried out by means of (verbal) communication and that consequently, empirical methods from
linguistics will tend to provide the most valuable insights. [2]
Since culture had never had its own place in classical linguistic theory, linguists got used to borrow notions and
definitions on what culture was supposed to be from other academic disciplines. As a consequence, linguists today have
a wide choice of concepts of culture at their disposal. This variety may on the one hand enrich the potential of linguistic
research. On the other hand it should be kept in mind that, although many authors would reject this for their research,
one of the main motivations for doing research on intercultural communication might still be seen in the mission to find
ways to improve people's intercultural competence. From this point of view, culture is seen as a variable that will on the
one hand influence the outcome of people's interaction, but that on the other hand may be actively used by interactants
to improve their outcomes in terms of mutual understanding and/or agreement. [3]
From this perspective, the multitude of optionally available notions of culture may lead to significantly diverging
judgments of people's intercultural competence vs. their potential scope of action. However, besides the field of
research on intercultural education (AUERNHEIMER, 1999; MECHERIL, 2002), this insight seems to run the risk of
being neglected in current research and discourse on intercultural communication. Putting recommendations from
research into practice, the fact that what individuals are advised to do is largely pre-determined by theoretical
considerations instead of practical experiences sometimes tends to get out of sight. [4]
Encouraging a better awareness of this phenomenon, a critical classification of current approaches to intercultural
communication should first and foremost uncover the exact ways in which these approaches conceive culture to
influence social interaction. However, a first short look at the relevant literature may reveal that just this central
question so far has largely been neglected or even avoided. Recently, SCHONDELMAYER (2008) summarized this
dilemma for the field of cultural anthropology: According to her, current studies in cultural anthropology may roughly
be divided into pursuing two different traditions with opposing perspectives on their objects of research: Works of those
scholars explicitly committing themselves to research on intercultural communication ("interculturalists," HANNERZ,
1997, p.541) still tend to build upon ideas from cognitive anthropology initiated by Ward GOODENOUGH (1957) and
today centrally purported by Roy G. D'ANDRADE (1995). According to them, culture is seen as a system of mental
knowledge shared by a cultural community. Researchers can describe this knowledge, and people entering a new
culture will need to learn this knowledge to cope with their new environment. Empirical research on this behalf has
consequently focused on the description of people's attitudes and interpretations, but they rather neglected to look at
people's action resulting from these attitudes. [5]
SCHONDELMAYER opposes this strand to what she summarizes as interpretive anthropology and what founds the
basis of most of the works in contemporary cultural anthropology: Scholars from interpretive anthropology, e.g.
13
GEERTZ (1973), assume that individuals actively produce meaning to interpret their surroundings and that, by doing
this, they create culture. In opposition to the tradition of cognitive anthropology, interpretive anthropology focuses on
individuals' practices and instead neglects considering potential underlying beliefs or values (SCHONDELMAYER,
2008, p.36). SCHONDELMAYER does not propose a new theory to bridge this gap neither, but she produces new
insights (e.g. "paradoxe Parallelität" [paradox parallelism; D.B.], p.265) into the relationship between people's attitudes
and their practices in intercultural settings by opposing and comparing them with each other (p.14). [6]
The paper at hand will try to at least evaluate a number of selected and exemplary approaches to the description of
intercultural communication according to their contribution to bridge the gap between the description of people's
attitudes and knowledge vs. their practices. To do so, it will be asked what culture is supposed to consist of, and
whether it is taken as a given prior to a situation or whether it is produced in time by interactants. It will then be asked
for the degree to which individuals are conceded their own freedom of situational action vs. the degree to which they
are bound to their cultures. [7]
Reviewing the literature on intercultural communication on this behalf may reveal the rather disappointing impression
that most of this research rather seems to be designed to integrate culture as a factor into formerly universalist theories
and—by doing so—to confirm these existing theories than to design new theories tailored to describe the role of culture
(cf. "additive procedure," KOOLE & TEN THIJE, 1994, p.72). In these respects, KIM (2007) illustrates for speech
communication research, that academic interest in the role of culture and motivation for research have undergone a
long-term shift that itself shows some parallels to cross-cultural encounters: Accordingly, early scholars took the
standpoint of a "'preencounter' research culture: 'I'm not interested'" (KIM, 2007, p.280). This today may also be termed
a universalist perspective assuming that scientific results on any research question will produce the same results in all
cultures. KIM then identifies an " 'initial encounter' research culture" of scholars assuming that "culture is a nuisance"
that has to be dealt with as a cumbersome hindrance from insights (KIM, 2007, p.281). According to KIM, most of the
current research may be classified as carried out from the " 'Captain Cook' research culture" of scholars proposing a
"Let's explore and compare" mindset (KIM, 2007, p.282). To effectively gain cross-cultural insights, KIM however
pleads for a "'paradigm shift' research culture: 'beyond ethnocentric paradigms'" (KIM, 2007, p.282). Although KIM
does not substantiate this idea any further, the subsequent literature review may prove this appraisal truer than it may
seem at first sight. [8]
2. A Systematics on Culture's Influences on Social Interaction
To delineate theory-based interrelations between culture and social interaction, KLUCKHOHN and STRODTBECK's
(1961, p.3) assumption that culture serves as an explanatory linkage between phenomena at a social macro-level and the
micro-level of individuals' action may serve as a telling starting-point. To specify this notion, a closer look should be
taken at the precise point within interaction at which culture is supposed to interfere. This paper will argue that the
distinction between primordialist vs. constructionist notions of culture taken from APPADURAI's (1996) work may be
a useful approach to this aim. Prior to this, some alternative approaches to the categorization of studies in intercultural
research will be reviewed. [9]
The distinction between contrastive and interactionist views on intercultural and cross-cultural communication initially
had been put forward by GUMPERZ (1982b). Relating to ideas prepared by MEAD (MEAD & MORRIS, 1934) and
GOFFMAN (1967), GUMPERZ claimed that separate descriptions of two cultures and their mere comparison cannot be
taken as a basis to predict what will happen when people from these two cultures meet. In whatever way culture is
conceived to influence interaction, GUMPERZ states that intercultural interaction cannot be explained neither on the
mere basis of the assumed underlying original cultures nor on the assumption that culture will predetermine
intercultural contact. Instead, participants themselves will negotiate the progression of their interaction. In most cases
however, interactionist approaches as well assume that interaction will take place on the basis of given cultural
conventions—which interactants may decide to apply or not. Still, from this perspective, the interactionist approach
may be seen as a major advancement and a complement to earlier approaches from culture-contrastive research, which
had been confined to mere comparisons of cultures. [10]
Another classification of approaches may be seen in the distinction between etic and emic research methods (BERRY,
1969). In etic approaches, researchers look at cultures from an external point of view. They formulate universal
categories and dimensions helping to classify and to compare different cultures. In contrast, authors of emic studies try
to take in the perspective of their objects of research. While both approaches may contribute significant insights into
intercultural communication, the distinction mentioned does neither fix nor specify the way culture is supposed to
influence interaction. [11]
2.1 Culture as a given vs. culture as a product
14
A more suitable approach on this behalf may be found in APPADURAI's (1996, p.14) distinction between primordialist
and constructionist concepts of culture. Within their research, authors following a primordialist approach take culture
and the quality of its influences on individuals as givens that they will not be able to modify. APPADURAI instead
pleads for an instrumentalist view on culture. From this standpoint, cultural differences are not given but people
construct them for their own (instrumentalist) purposes (APPADURAI, 1996, p.14). However, a short look at
mainstream cross-cultural research and cultural politics may reveal that the notion of constructionist approaches still
tends to be ignored as criticized by SPIVAK (1987), TAYLOR (1994) as well as KALSCHEUER and ALLOLIONÄCKE (2002). Besides from research and politics, intercultural education and training are hit by the most striking
critique in these respects: Anthropologists like DAHLÉN (1997) revealed that much of cross-cultural management
training offered in the U.S. is still confined to a basis of very much generalized and primordialist concepts of culture.
Instead of allowing people to understand and to apply current approaches of cultural theory, DAHLÉN reveals what
HANNERZ had termed a "culture shock prevention industry" (HANNERZ, 1992, p.251) serving the economic market.
[12]
2.2 Culture as knowledge vs. culture as values and beliefs
Another crucial distinction influencing the conception of cultural influences may be seen in the equation of either
culture as knowledge or culture as values or beliefs. In the first case, approaches see culture as a form of specific
knowledge either on particular interaction contexts or on particular communicative rules or conventions. Members of a
given cultural group are said to share this knowledge as their characteristic feature. Some approaches further specify
this culture-specific knowledge as needed to deal with problems of social life that are universally given in all cultures.
To enter a new group or to get acquainted with a group's culture, outsiders will need to learn and internalize this
knowledge. [13]
Theories conceiving culture as beliefs or values underlying people's interaction instead see culture as a preferential
system. According to this approach, members of a specific culture will prefer certain forms of action at the expense of
other forms. Consequently, it may be assumed that on the one hand individuals of one culture indeed will prefer some
forms of action, but that on the other hand they will always be able to act in alternative ways (AUERNHEIMER, 2002).
Considering this last point, both conceptions significantly shape individuals' assumed scope of action. [14]
Beyond this distinction, some anthropologists like SWIDLER (1986, 2001) hint at the shortcomings resulting from a
separation of these two approaches to understand cultural influences on action. SWIDLER instead proposes to combine
both approaches arguing that culture may be conceived as a repertoire of knowledge people may but do not necessarily
have to make use of. On the basis of this deliberate choice individuals then will decide about how to interact—and
theory may then take this interaction as influenced by culture. In this paper however, works using this approach will be
put into the category of constructionist approaches. [15]
2.3 The primordialist approach: cultures as a given, people react to
Primordialist approaches to the description of culture in the first instance take culture and its influences as givens, and
in cross-cultural interaction, people are said to react to these influences. Beyond this, primordialist approaches may vary
significantly in the ways they identify and distinguish culturally loaded units (for an overview and a discussion see
CHICK, 2001). Accordingly, primordialist approaches for example do not necessarily claim that culture and ethnicity
are almost given by nature. Instead, they may well agree that cultural differences may result from social processes.
However, the emergence of cultural differences is taken as having taken place beforehand and it is no longer focused in
the respective analyses. [16]
Compared to constructionist notions of culture, primordial views are much deeper rooted in early social science
research dating back as early as to HERDER (1974/1784-1791) and HUMBOLDT (1903, p.16). Despite this long
tradition, especially psychologists had always been facing major difficulties trying to integrate culture as an a priori
given into their theories that centered around humans as pure individuals (BRABANT, WATSON, & GALLOIS, 2007,
p.56). Basing on this assumption, culture could not be considered as something people are able to control and change,
but instead as something they will have to learn (as knowledge) and to take into consideration to develop an
(individually based) intercultural competence in the end (BRABANT et al., 2007, p.55). Later, psychologists
significantly restricted this view considering that misunderstandings resulting from a clash of culturally different forms
of action may lead into perceived uncertainty and conflict. Although individuals may have the required cultural
knowledge they may not feel like making use of it when feeling threatened or in a conflict. MATSUMOTO et al. thus
concluded that instead, people's ability to keep control over their emotions may come out to be a much more decisive
aspect of intercultural competence ("Emotion Regulation" (ER), MATSUMOTO, YOO & LeROUX, 2007, p.82). [17]
2.3.1 Cultures as knowledge
15
2.3.1.1 Culture as congruent with language
Although linguistics' turn towards pragmatics in the 1950's and 1960's encouraged the discipline to overcome the
constraints of structuralist thought, many authors continued to claim universal validity of their approaches without
considering potential cultural variation (GRICE, 1975; LEECH, 1983a; BROWN & LEVINSON, 1987). Later
approaches tried to integrate cultural variation into these concepts (BLUM-KULKA et al. 1989b; CLYNE, 1994), but
current authors still point at major shortcomings of these efforts (GODDARD, 2006, p.1). 1) [18]
Linguists easily argued that intercultural communication research was what they had always been doing: For a long
time, scholars simply equated culture with language assuming that language is one—and the most visible and
distinguishable—aspect of culture. The tradition of contrastive linguistics comparing selected linguistic aspects and
their realization in different languages (FISIAK, 1980, 1984; OLEKSY, 1989; JASZCZOLT, 1995) could thus be taken
as predetermined as a method for the comparison of cultures. Situations of intercultural contact from this perspective
could primarily be seen as characterized by the fact that people of at least two different native languages meet. To start
an interaction, at least one of them will then need to speak a foreign language, and some authors equate this
multilingualism with multiculturalism: People speaking more than one language will also need to have some knowledge
on more than one culture (LÜDI, 2006, p.13). [19]
2.3.1.2 Cultural knowledge underlying verbal communication
Many authors going into some more detail still felt that culture may influence verbal interaction at so many different
levels that linguists in their analyses will soon face their limits resulting from their object's complexity: They could
either simply list a number of potential levels and their respective cultural influences (SCOLLON & SCOLLON, 1981)
or they had to formulate theories remaining at a very general level of description. In the latter case, authors assumed
that probably most communicative conventions, especially at the level of pragmatics, will potentially differ across
cultures. HOUSE for examples terms this phenomenon a "cultural filter" (J. HOUSE, 1997) that especially translators
will hardly be able to completely overcome. [20]
Within the field of German language studies, EHLICH and REHBEIN presented their concept of speech action patterns
(EHLICH & REHBEIN, 1986; EHLICH, 1987, 1996). According to them, linguistic phenomena or utterances cannot
be tied to any cultural interference on social interaction. Instead, recurring combinations of certain linguistic forms can
be seen as speech actions serving certain aims or goals. These speech actions draw on underlying patterns on an extralingual deep level, at which social structure and culture come into play. Advancing BÜHLER's theory of field
characteristics of language (BÜHLER, 1982/1934; EHLICH, 1996, p.196ff.), EHLICH and REHBEIN describe how
singular verbal utterances (procedures) may be tied to this deep level. According to the theory of speech action patterns,
individuals thus need some implicit knowledge on cultural structures that helps them to perform any basic
communicative interaction. Applications of this theory on issues of intercultural communication may be found in
REHBEIN (1985), HARTOG (2006) as well as ROST-ROTH (2006) as an example. [21]
To highlight the distinction between cultural vs. social knowledge, REDDER and REHBEIN epitomize the particular
role of culture within REHBEIN's theory as a "cultural apparatus" (REDDER & REHBEIN, 1987). Instead of assuming
culture as effecting like a permanent filter, REDDER and REHBEIN argue that individuals can decide whether they
want to consider cultural aspects or not. However all-integrating these approaches may be on the one hand, on the other
hand they do not introduce culture as some new kind of factor on communication that had not been considered
elsewhere before. Instead, these approaches rather tend to confirm the validity of existing universal approaches like
speech act theory, contextualization or critical theory. [22]
2.3.2 Cultures as values
A much wider choice of works on intercultural communication conceives cultures as values instead of fixed and
learnable knowledge. Geert HOFSTEDE (1980, 2002) putting the world's national cultures into a framework of four
linear dimensions may be seen as one of the most prominent and most frequently cited authors conceiving the relevance
of culture to intercultural communication in terms of values underlying people's action. HOFSTEDE bases his approach
on PARSONS' (1951) structural functionalism and people's value orientations implied by this concept (HOFSTEDE,
1983, p.291). In this tradition, several authors (C. KLUCKHOHN, 1962/1952; DOUGLAS, 1970) had proposed
different sets of potential value orientations that could be put into correlation when placed on linear scales
(HOFSTEDE, 1983, p.291). According to HOFSTEDE, adequate research on this behalf necessarily will have to
produce very large numbers of value orientations producing a too complex picture to derive characteristics of national
cultures (for an example see MURDOCK's Human Relations Area Files, MURDOCK, 1949). HOFSTEDE thus
confines his survey to the investigation of "work related values" (HOFSTEDE, 1980). Here, one critical aspect of this
focus may be seen in the fact that HOFSTEDE deliberately selects and names criteria and aspects that should be taken
as socially relevant and as accountable for a nation's culture. [23]
16
In general, HOFSTEDE sees culture in terms of work-related values as something people are not consciously aware of.
Empiricists will thus not be able to directly interview individuals and ask them to overtly express their values. Instead,
for the case of work-related values, HOFSTEDE surveys people's satisfaction with different leadership styles in their
companies. Satisfaction and preferences of certain styles may them hint at the presence of underlying values
(HOFSTEDE & SADLER, 1976, p.90). MOOSMÜLLER (2004, p.60) notes that in these respects, HOFSTEDE's
approach is similar to the notion of habitus in the works of BOURDIEU (1979) and later ELIAS (1989) assuming that
implicit underlying values prompt individuals to express certain preferences. [24]
Although the mere existence of preferences and values does not cater for people acting accordingly, HOFSTEDE claims
that "there is little doubt that organizational culture affects performance" (HOFSTEDE, 1998, p.491). Even 1990's more
elaborate and updated GLOBE study (R.J. HOUSE, HANGES, JAVIDAN, DORFMAN & GUPTA, 2004) builds upon
the same assumptions on what culture is supposed to be, how it may be identified, and how culture affects people's
interaction. [25]
2.3.2.1 The culture-specific way to put universal values into words
Those linguistic approaches to intercultural communication assuming that underlying values and shared preferences are
the crucial factors enabling people to communicate and to understand each other may be put into three groups: Some of
them assume that values underlying communication are by and large universal but that cultures differ in the ways
people put these values into words. In contrast, other approaches claim that underlying values are completely culturerelative and that they account for the core of cultural differences. In that case, cultures are not considered to differ in the
way they put these values into words. A third group of studies claims that both levels are culture-specific: Cultures
differ in their values underlying interaction, and they differ in their ways to put values into words. The following lines
will present some examples for each case. [26]
The first group of approaches mentioned assumes that culture influences interaction by determining the way universal
values are put into words. One prominent example for this approach comes from one of intercultural pragmatics' most
extensive undertakings, the so-called Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (BLUM-KULKA et al., 1989).
According to the authors of this project, principles of interpersonal politeness may be taken as culturally universal. One
of these universals on politeness may be seen in the idea that it is mostly expressed by different modes of
communicative indirectness. Beyond this however, different languages provide very different conventions on how to
verbally express speakers' intention of being indirect. [27]
2.3.2.2 The universal way to put culture-specific values into words
CONDON and YOUSEF (1975) may belong to the first authors who tried to introduce culture as a parameter into
linguistic theory stating that culture-specific values will influence the way people communicate (MOOSMÜLLER,
2007, p.17). In a similar vein, THOMAS (1983) concedes that there may be culturally different ways of speaking
leading to misunderstandings termed pragmalinguistic failure (J. THOMAS, 1983, p.101) in intercultural contact.
People may overcome these differences by just learning these linguistic particularities. Beyond this however, THOMAS
states that in addition, culture influences interaction in terms of underlying culture-specific value judgments (J.
THOMAS, 1983, p.106) that may lead to sociopragmatic failure (J. THOMAS, 1983, p.103) and that are much more
difficult to manage in intercultural contact. [28]
SPENCER-OATEY and JIANG (2003) curtail this assumed variety of culture-specific values. Introducing culture as a
factor into LEECH's (1983b) universal pragmatic theory of linguistic politeness, SPENCER-OATEY and JIANG agree
with LEECH that polite communicative behavior results from people trying to conform to a universal set of values.
However, instead of assuming that people from all cultures strive to conform to these values in the same way,
SPENCER-OATEY and JIANG claim that cultures differ in the way they attribute importance to these values in
specific situations. For each universal value and for each specific situation, cultures may thus be ranged on a onedimensional scale according to the importance of a given value to be followed. SPENCER-OATEY and JIANG term
this way culture influences interaction as sociopragmatic interaction principles (SIP) (SPENCER-OATEY & JIANG,
2003, p.1633). According to the authors, this cultural impact on interaction may be uncovered by facing people with
given standard situations and by asking them to rate the importance of certain given values. [29]
CLYNE (1994) agrees with the notion of sociopragmatic interaction parameters stating that universal underlying values
will influence people's interaction. However, according to him, these values are based on HOFSTEDE's (1980) four
cultural dimensions. Consequently, people from different cultures will differ in the degree to which they take some ends
of these dimensions as normative ideals to follow. [30]
WIERZBICKA (1994, 1998, 2006) agrees with the idea of values underlying communication. However, according to
her approach, these values are completely culture-specific and cannot be categorized into supra-cultural dimensions or
17
scales. Instead, according to WIERZBICKA, these values find their immediate expression in the way people speak.
WIERZBICKA (1994, p.3) draws upon the notion of HALL (1976) assuming that culture itself is unconscious to people
but that it still influences the ways people think and speak in a rather direct and immediate way WIERZBICKA (1994,
p.2) terms as cultural scripts. To make these cultural scripts visible from a cross-cultural perspective, they can be
expressed and paraphrased using words from natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) (WIERZBICKA, 1994, p.20)
which the author conceives as a set of approximately 60 semantic primes, i.e. central words that exist and have almost
exactly the same meaning in all naturally occurring languages. However, WIERZBICKA concedes that the collection of
semantic primes will always have to be taken as an academic construction on the mere basis of the author's trial and
error experiences (WIERZBICKA, 1994, p.20). [31]
2.3.3 Intercultural competence according to primordialist approaches
Primordial approaches assume that culture is something that already exists when people get involved in interaction and
that culture will in some different ways influence the way people communicate. Intercultural communication may thus
be taken as prone to an increase of communicative misunderstandings to occur. Communicating in a culturally
competent way will thus require interlocutors to learn about the ways culture influences communicative utterances of
individuals concerned. To describe this learning process as a process of mutual understanding, social theory may
consult hermeneutic approaches to describe this learning process (BREDELLA, 2000; BREDELLA, MEISSNER,
NÜNNING & RÖSLER, 2000). Applied versions of phenomenology may describe gaps in people's knowledge and
ways of closing these gaps (SCHRÖER, 2002). For these cases, a multitude of forms of intercultural trainings
(FOWLER & MUMFORD, 1995; LANDIS & BHAGAT, 1996; RONALD SCOLLON & SCOLLON, 1997; FOWLER
& MUMFORD, 1999; MÜLLER-JACQUIER, 2003) is on offer to support individuals improving their intercultural
competence. [32]
2.4 The constructionist approach: individuals produce culture
2.4.1 Moving from primordial to constructionist approaches
Several authors criticize that a large part of scholars interested in intercultural communication research have tended to
ignore social theory's constructionist turn (MOOSMÜLLER, 2007, p.19), and from this point of view, intercultural
communication research seems to process dilemmas that originate just from this primordial perspective and that would
not even emerge otherwise. In linguistics for example, scholars pleading for a congruence between language and culture
have developed a constructionist approach as well: According to LÜDI, people in intercultural contact will necessarily
have an account of at least two different languages—and thus: cultures—and they will be able to consciously make use
of their resulting "multilingual repertoire" (LÜDI, 2006, p.12) intentionally creating "translinguistic markers" (LÜDI,
2006, p.13) activating different linguistic prestiges and identities. [33]
Other scholars accept the primordial view on culture but they question culture's inevitable control on people's
interaction. ERICKSON and SHULTZ (1982) for example come to the conclusion that culture's influence on interaction
cannot be predicted in advance. Instead, whether cultural differences will take effect or not depends much more on the
degree to which people feel irritated from interaction on a subjective basis. Accordingly, ERICKSON and SHULTZ
illustrate that the more people feel irritated, the more they will give way to unrepaired communicative
misunderstandings. Instead of sheer cultural differences, ERICKSON and SHULTZ identified that interactants' comembership in the same social groups is a much better predictor for people's cooperation vs. their divergence than
culture. [34]
Besides of constructionist approaches building upon a primordialist notion of culture in general, others adopt fields and
topics of research from primordialist intercultural research and then try to describe and explain the same problems on
the basis of the assumption that culture is situationally produced by interactants. So even here, a large number of studies
deals with fields familiar to the intercultural reader like intercultural conflicts (TRIANDIS, 2000; RAVIT & CAHANAAMITAY, 2005), business communication (PÜTZ, 2004), job interviews (AUER & KERN, 2001) and higher education
(HU, 2000, 2006). [35]
Of course, still a vast field of approaches tries to completely override primordialist roots and thoughts. Especially
anthropologists in the 1980s and 1990s have purported the practice turn (SCHATZKI, KNORR-CETINA &
SAVIGNY, 2001; RECKWITZ, 2002) explicitly locating culture between individuals mental concepts and their factual
action. According to them, especially structuralist notions of culture so far have on the one side made linguistics,
especially semiotics, an ideal discipline for the analysis of culture. On the other hand, the notion of culture could not
override its structuralist paradigms focusing especially on people's minds and their thinking, and neglecting people's
real action. Instead of emphasizing aspects that predetermine individuals' action, approaches from practice theory tend
to concede that it is individuals themselves who shape their action. However, this notion of culture as an interplay may
then again blur the search for culture's actual location and function in interaction processes. Alternatively, on this
18
behalf, APPADURAI (1996) continues to de-essentialize the notion of culture and locates it in social discourse.
Accordingly, culture should be taken as a notion that itself is shaped by social discourse on its matter—including this
research paper at hand (APPADURAI, 1996, p.13). [36]
2.4.2 Focusing on individuals' thought vs. their action
Even in constructionist research however, most authors still rather tend to focus on one single perspective, either on
people's minds or on their action. On this behalf, MATSUMOTO et al. (2007) distinguish between analyses of
individuals' adjustment vs. their adaptation to a new cultural context. Analyzing individuals' forms of adjustment will
thus mean looking at changes of their subjective perceptions and evaluations of their surroundings. Looking at aspects
of their adaptation in contrast means analyzing changes in their action (MATSUMOTO et al., 2007, p.77f). [37]
From the perspective of this distinction, research on aspects of how people construe processes of intercultural
adjustment (see also BRISLIN, 1993) definitely have been much more common than looks at their adaptation. At a very
early stage of intercultural research, scholars identified aspects of individual adjustment in terms of stereotypes
(LIPPMANN, 1922) that until today form one significant strand of intercultural research (A. THOMAS, 2004). In
social psychology, TRIANDIS on this basis had formed the notion of subjective culture (TRIANDIS, 1972, p.4).
According to him, researchers looking at individuals' affiliations to different cultures will always have to take in a
single perspective from which they construe what they see. [38]
BENNETT and HAMMER (BENNETT, 1986; HAMMER, 1999; HAMMER, BENNETT & WISEMAN, 2003)
presented their developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). According to them, the way culture influences
social interaction primarily depends on individuals' cultural worldviews that can be put into a successive series of
stages. Here, cultural worldviews specify the degree and the quality to which individuals consider culture to be relevant
to their interaction. For the discipline of cultural anthropology, BARTH (1969) stated that actually any cultural
differences will necessarily have to be taken as social constructions as a basic principle. [39]
Research on individuals' adaptation to new cultural contexts in contrast has rather been neglected. Some approaches are
basing on the notion that boundaries between social groups have grown in history and that on this basis, individuals'
action is characterized by separation (BRABANT et al., 2007, p.55). Research on intergroup relations in social
psychology heavily draws on these phenomena (TAJFEL, 1981). Most disciplines even seem to lack of adequate
empirical methods to capture and to describe people's action in intercultural settings on the basis of constructionist
theories. Most of the approaches have to rely on individuals' statements about themselves and the ways they act (for a
model of different types of adaptation see BERRY, KIM & BOSKI, 1988). [40]
2.4.3 Culture as knowledge
Like with primordialist approaches to the description of cultural influences, it makes sense to distinguish approaches
taking culture as knowledge vs. culture as values in the constructionist field as well. Here, some approaches assume that
cultural knowledge has been existing beforehand and that interactants may deliberately make use of it. Other
approaches claim that cultural knowledge does not come into being but until people activate it in a relevant situation.2)
[41]
2.4.3.1 Cultural knowledge pre-exists and is available for deliberate application
German philosophy-based sociology of knowledge building on phenomenological thought of Alfred SCHÜTZ (1967)
presents an elaborate theory on how mutual understanding of individuals in social contexts may be described. In recent
years, interest in this approach has primarily grown in terms of its potential for the description of intercultural
communication (MATTHES, 1992; ALTMAYER, 2004; DREHER & STEGMAIER, 2007). [42]
Basing on WEBER's (1980/1922) individualist approach to social interaction SCHÜTZ claims that all theorizing should
take individuals and their experiences as its starting points (SCHÜTZ, 1967, p.3). Accordingly, individuals share
different patterns of interpretation (SCHÜTZ, 1974/1932) that help them to attribute and to retrieve meaning and sense
to and from their surroundings. People perceive their life-worlds in terms of symbolic orders that they interpret in
similar ways since among their group they share some knowledge on so-called interaction patterns, i.e. on how to
interpret their symbolic perceptions. [43]
Cultures in this context may thus be defined as an inventory of knowledge shared and reproduced by the use of
interpretation patterns. In this way, individuals even share definitions of what culture itself is supposed to be. PÜTZ
(2004, p.27) assumes that these definitions normally will contain essentialist and primordialist views on culture.
19
OEVERMANN (2001) presents an analytical methodology to uncover and to describe a group's interpretation patterns.
[44]
Being asked to distinguish between social and cultural influences on interaction, this approach from sociology of
knowledge faces some difficulties:3) SCHÜTZ (1974/1932) claims that it is culture that is responsible for the fact that
people are unaware of the uniqueness of their knowledge on interaction patterns. KNOBLAUCH (2001) adds that
SCHÜTZ had distinguished three spheres within an individual's life-world. The outermost sphere cannot be accessed
directly by individuals but is mediated symbolically. KNOBLAUCH proposes that although all three spheres of
different immediacy are interlocked and although SCHÜTZ instead took this sphere as a historical dimension
(SCHUTZ, 1967, pp.163-214), the outermost sphere could be termed as a sphere of culture (KNOBLAUCH, 2001,
p.24). [45]
Another critical point in sociology of knowledge's approach to the description of intercultural communication may be
seen in the relatively broad account of its results: The identification and the description of interaction patterns so far has
largely been used to show how individuals and groups construct and maintain social and cultural boundaries. Beyond
this however, it seems that this method cannot help to reveal the assumed nature of cultural differences on both sides of
these boundaries, i.e. potential culture-specific characteristics. For example, PÜTZ (2004) in his analysis of narrations
taken from migrant entrepreneurs in multicultural districts of Berlin reveals that these people construct their business
networks in compliance with ethnic group boundaries—and that they will thus be disadvantaged in economic terms
because of their constrained network. Similarly, conversation analyst research basing on these theories largely serves to
show how individuals draw cultural boundaries while talking (AUER & KERN, 2001, p.108). [46]
Beyond this, scholars on this method rather tend to neglect to look at how people's construction and perception of
boundaries might influence the quality of their action. Even further, MOOSMÜLLER (2007, p.27) criticizes that
sociology of knowledge cannot specify how exactly individuals access common knowledge and how they agree with
their interlocutors on what interpretation patterns are to be used to interpret a given situation. [47]
2.4.3.2 Cultural knowledge is situationally produced and activated
In contrast to sociology of knowledge, fellows from linguistic anthropology (GOODENOUGH, 1957; GOODWIN &
DURANTI, 1992) as well as from ethnography of communication (HYMES, 1964; GUMPERZ, 1982a) claim that
individuals construct and mutually agree upon the existence of certain cultural knowledge in any respective situation.
According to BAUMAN and SHERZER (1993/1974) ethnography of communication builds upon JAKOBSON's
(1990) notion of speech events as an intermediate level of analysis between language and action. Whereas earlier
scholars had confined themselves to the mere description of people's culture-specific knowledge, authors like
GUMPERZ (1982a) in interactional sociolinguistic claimed that they bring together both culture-specific knowledge
and its manifestation in conversation. According to this approach, at the level of speech events people integrate
(culturally loaded) context into their utterances to create meaning by using so-called contextualization cues. These may
consist of any linguistic signs that conventionally refer to extra-linguistic context making this context relevant for the
interpretation of what is said (GUMPERZ & COOK-GUMPERZ, 2007, p.24). Regarding this situational referencing,
interlocutors are said to be able to create culturally relevant knowledge during their interaction. In contrast, scholars
would not be able to list a certain number of fixed contextualization cues that might be characteristic to one culture.
Some parts of this contextual knowledge may be termed as cultural although distinctions between mere contextual vs.
cultural cues may turn out to be tricky. Current empirical applications of the method may be found in AUER and DI
LUZIO (1992) in a general perspective as well as in DI LUZIO, GÜNTHNER and ORLETTI (2001) with a special
focus on intercultural communication. To emphasize the connection between individuals' utterances and their action,
later authors have introduced the notion of communicative practices that are performed by communities of practice
(SARANGI & VAN LEEUWEN, 2003; CORDER & MEYERHOFF, 2007). [48]
One critical point in this methodology may be seen in the fact that in the end, researchers themselves will need to spot
and to declare cultural influences by themselves: In a repeated process they will need to identify frequently occurring
linguistic utterances with constant co-occurring contexts (2007, p.23). Whether a co-occurrence may be taken as
significant or not, for which group it is relevant and whether a context may be taken as constant will need to be stated
by researchers from their own cultural perspective. [49]
2.4.4 Culture as values
Regarding society's perceived intricacy of intercultural communication, GUMPERZ (2001) concedes that people's mere
lack of knowledge on cultural contextualizations of communication cannot account for any complete communication
breakdown. Instead, individuals tend to substitute lacking contextual knowledge by negative stereotyping. Normally,
these stereotypes are taken from society's ideological discourse and they provide a basis for individuals' interpretation
20
and action in intercultural contexts. These orientations from discourse may be taken as value-based: Discourse in these
contexts defines desirable as well rejectable issues as values and norms. [50]
When scholars look at culture as values from a constructionist perspective, their approaches may differ in the degree to
which they assume that individuals will consciously decide whether or not they want to stick to existing values or
whether even they will be able to produce and agree upon new values of a cultural character in a given situation. [51]
2.4.4.1 Cultural values exist and may be activated spontaneously
Most of the research referred on cross-cultural stereotyping in Section 3.2.2 may be taken as approaches that assume
people more or less consciously recurring to values that they equate to culture. Social scientists additionally developed
the notion of discourse assuming that all communication is based on underlying ideology through which individuals
interpret the world. Discourse theories from the social sciences laid the ground in particular for linguists and literary
scholars to develop empirical methods of discourse analysis to uncover the influence of ideological discourse on
communication. Considering that academic research will always be goal-driven and that it will never be able to be
carried out from a completely neutral social stance, many discourse analysts declared (critical) discourse analysis as a
political project. Most authors in this field try to uncover social inequalities and forms of discrimination. However,
contemporary discourse analysis may be rooted in different theoretical bases: For example, while WODAK (1989)
draws on HABERMAS' (1983) discourse ethics, JÄGER (1993) and FAIRCLOUGH (1995) recur to FOUCAULT's
(1984/1969) discourse theory, whereas VAN DIJK (1977, 1998) purports ideas from studies on cognition. While a large
part of the approaches from discourse research identifies influences of culture on interaction in manifestations of
racism, the contributions of KNAPP, ENNINGER and KNAPP-POTTHOFF (1987) present a broader perspective on
central objectives of intercultural communication research. [52]
2.4.4.2 Cultural values are created spontaneously
While the former approaches assume that individuals may actively refer to cultural norms that they interpret as given,
other authors go even further and try to uncover how interactants construct and agree upon newly created norms.
Building on a primordial understanding of the term culture, CASMIR states that these new systems of norms created in
intercultural contact may be termed as a "third realm" (CASMIR, 1978, p.249) or even a "third culture" (CASMIR,
1993, p.408). Similarly, DIRSCHERL (2004) derives a notion of third spaces from FOUCAULT's (1994) concept of
heterotopia. By means of discourse and conversation analyst methods, KOOLE and TEN THIJE (1994) reveal how
interactants in intercultural contact attribute each other different discourse positions making each other experts and
representatives for their respective cultures that remain acknowledged and unquestioned for the respective situation.
[53]
The preceding paragraphs have demonstrated that research on intercultural communication in the last five decades has
compiled a vast variety of theoretical and methodological approaches to its central object of study, and this observation
may contribute one additional viewpoint to the current paragraph's category: Accordingly, it should not be neglected
that in parallel, intercultural communication has also been an issue of discourse in people's everyday life in Western
societies, all the time. Many people are used to permanently integrate aspects of cultural or ethnic belongings as well as
assumed cultural or ethnic characteristics into their thinking and into their interpretations of their surroundings. In
parallel to academic approaches to culture and intercultural communication, it may be assumed that individuals have
their own notions of what culture means to them and in what ways culture plays a role in their everyday interaction.
Individual experiences, but primarily as well receptions of social discourse, mass media reception and even parts of
academic theories that have found their ways into social discourse may contribute to these individual notions of culture.
Compared to academically derived notions of culture, these individual notions may be assumed to considerably
influence these individuals' social interaction. [54]
The idea of making use of individuals' subjective notions of culture for analyzing intercultural communication so far
has largely been neglected. However, empirical research on these notions may provide a new framework for additional
fruitful insights into how interplays between culture and social interaction may be conceived (BUSCH, 2008a). As one
crucial point of departure to this approach, researchers will need to keep in mind the fact that their own object of study,
i.e. intercultural communication, itself results from social and academic discourse. From this perspective, the fact that
academics explore aspects of intercultural communication is one precondition for the subject to come into being, at all.
This insight into the constructivist character of one's own objects of study has been developed much further in the field
of gender studies. Here, according to BUTLER (1990, 1993), the mere idea that sex exists as a given natural category
before individuals get socialized according to social notions of gender, needs to be taken as part of social discourse on
gender itself. [55]
Some scholars have started to hint at a number of parallels between objects of study in gender studies and intercultural
communication research as academic disciplines (MAE, 2003, p.195). Transferring the notion of a constructed basis
21
from gender studies to intercultural research may lead to the insight that similar to sex and gender, the notion of an a
priori existence of culture before producing discourse on it must be taken as part of this discourse itself. [56]
Butler discusses the hegemonic dichotomization between males and females in Western societies and wants to break it
on a political level. A similar approach may reveal comparable "materializations" (BUTLER, 1993, p.4) in intercultural
research: Here, many cultural boundaries come out to be produced by hegemonic discourse (ANG & ST LOUIS, 2005).
According to Butler, materializations result from a permanent iteration of norms. Here, Butler does not take iterations of
norms as completely constant and static but as changing and as a result of congealed memories of the past (BUTLER,
1993, p.244): Norms to be iterated will be remembered in a more and more imprecise and vague way over time.
Materializations will thus also include processes of permanent change. To explain this, BUTLER refers to DERRIDA's
concept of iterability (BUTLER, 1993, p.70) developed on a discussion of AUSTIN and SEARLE's speech act theory
(BUTLER, 1993, p.224). Accordingly, individuals in intercultural contact may be seen as iterating social norms on how
to deal with culture as a potential issue. [57]
To reveal integrations of culture into individual's interaction by means of empirical analysis, membership categorization
analysis (MCA) (MOERMANN, 1988; HESTER & EGLIN, 1997; JALBERT, 1999; LEPPER, 2000) may serve as a
promising example to produce significant insights into social interaction (BUSCH, 2008b, p.36). MCA as a method for
textual analysis was developed from SACKS' notion of membership categorization devices (MCD) (SACKS, 1974,
p.218) building on the premises of ethnomethodology (GARFINKEL, 1967). According to this approach, individuals by
interaction put people and objects into different constructed categories (membership categorization). Devices from the
perspective of MCD are higher-ranking units helping individuals to interrelate several categories into meaningful
context. Categories in this concept may additionally be specified by corresponding "category-bound activities"
(SACKS, 1974, p.221). Individuals take these activities as characteristic for people or objects from a certain category.
Later, authors like JAYYUSI (1984) as well as STOKOE and SMITHSON (2002) have applied MCA to the analysis of
construction of socially relevant categories like deviant behavior (JAYYUSI) and gender (STOKOE & SMITHSON).
SACKS had encouraged scholars to expand the notion of category-bound activities designating it as "inference-rich"
(SACKS, 1992, p.179). Relying on this, STOKOE and SMITHSON present the notion of "category-bound
performances" (STOKOE & SMITHSON, 2002, p.101). Accordingly, BUTLER's notion of performative action basing
on discursive materializations may be integrated into the concept of membership categorization: Membership
categorization from this perspective may help individuals to decide according to which materialization to treat people in
their surroundings—and in intercultural contact. [58]
2.4.5 Intercultural competence according to constructionist approaches
While primordialist approaches come to the conclusion that people in intercultural contact will need to put additional
effort into understanding their foreign partners in a conversation, constructionist approaches resume that people instead
will need to struggle to agree upon a common perspective onto the role and the relevance of culture to their interaction.
While some approaches lead to clear recommendations for cooperative interaction (TEN THIJE, 2006, p.117), others
come to rather general conclusions providing insights into the scope of action individuals are supposed to manage in
intercultural contact. GUDYKUNST for example pleads for a growth of "mindfulness" (GUDYKUNST, 1993, p.40):
As long as interactants keep in mind that intercultural communication may hide some obstacles for mutual
understanding they will be able to adapt their interpretations and their action respectively. Regarding the approach last
mentioned, individuals should learn about the constructionist character of the idea of culture itself. On this basis, they
may learn to re-consider their scope of action in a given situation. [59]
3. Conclusion
The survey in this paper may reveal that firstly, research concepts on intercultural communication are based on a
multitude of different notions of what culture is supposed to be. As a consequence, the approaches mentioned claim
different points and different ways in which culture as defined is supposed to influence people's interaction.
Primordialist concepts of culture assume that culture exits prior to a given situation. People's interaction will thus be
influenced by culture in different ways that are outside their awareness and their scope of action. Constructionist
approaches instead assume that culture and its influence on interaction are constituted in different ways within a given
situation. Accordingly, individuals are agreed different scopes on how to deal with culture. Another relevant distinction
may be seen in whether scholars roughly conceive culture as knowledge or as norms and values: Taking culture as a
form of knowledge encourages theories expecting people to be able to learn and then apply the knowledge of a new
culture. This process may come out to be more complicated if culture is seen as a form of values or norms: Culture then
will play a role that tends to be unaware to individuals. Additionally, cultural affiliation then turns into an issue that is
subject to people's arbitrary assessment and evaluation, e.g. on the basis of hegemonic discourse. This large variety of
concepts may be taken as a great gift to intercultural communication research: it may help to shed light onto aspects of
intercultural communication that may play a role in extremely different contexts of human life. Besides of that,
intercultural communication research frequently serves as a basis for education: On the basis of research findings,
22
individuals are supposed to be taught and to learn how to interact in more competent ways when cultural aspects may be
at issue. Depending on the underlying theory, evaluations of what people are able to do or what they are able to learn to
better manage intercultural interaction may vary significantly (BUSCH, 2008b). From this perspective, research and
education on intercultural communication as well as on intercultural competence may improve even further if the strong
bias of underlying theory will be assessed in an even more critical way. [60]
Notes
1) See also the article of BARINAGA (2009) in this thematic issue. <back>
2) See also the article by KOCH (2009) in this thematic issue. <back>
3) Also SCHRÖER (2009) in this thematic issue. <back>
References
Altmayer, Claus (2004). Kultur als Hypertext: Zu Theorie und Praxis der Kulturwissenschaft im Fach Deutsch als
Fremdsprache. München: iudicium.
Ang, Ien & St Louis, Brett (2005). Guest editorial: The predicament of difference. Ethnicities, 5(3), 291-304.
Appadurai, Arjun (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Auer, Peter & di Luzio, Aldo (Eds.) (1992). The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Auer, Peter & Kern, Friederike (2001). Three ways of analysing communication between East and West Germans as
intercultural communication. In Aldo di Luzio, Susanne Günthner & Franca Orletti (Eds.), Culture in communication
(pp.89-116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Auernheimer, Georg (1999). Notizen zum Kulturbegriff unter dem Aspekt interkultureller Bildung. In Marion
Gemende, Wolfgang Schröer & Stephan Sting (Eds.), Zwischen den Kulturen. Pädagogische und sozialpädagogische
Zugänge zur Interkulturalität (pp.27-36). Weinheim: Juventa.
Auernheimer, Georg (2002). Kultur, Lebenswelt, Diskurs—drei konkurrierende Konzepte. Tertium Comparationis,
8(2), 93-103.
Barinaga, Ester (2009). A performative view of language—methodological considerations and consequences for the
study of culture. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 24, http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901244.
Barth, Fredrik (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural difference. Boston: Little
Brown.
Bauman, Richard & Sherzer, Joel (Eds.) (1993/1974). Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, Milton J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Michael R.
Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp.27-70). Lanham: University Press
of America.
Berry, John W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119-128.
Berry, John W.; Kim, Uichol & Boski, Pawel (1988). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In Young Yun Kim &
William B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp.62-89). Newbury Park: Sage.
Black, J. Stewart & Mendenhall, Mark (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical
framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 113-136.
23
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana; House, Juliane & Kasper, Gabriele (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An
introductory overview. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies (pp.1-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1979). La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.
Brabant, Madeleine; Watson, Bernadette & Gallois, Cindy (2007). Psychological perspectives: Social psychology,
language, and intercultural communication. In Helga Kotthoff & Helen Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of
intercultural communication, Vol. 7 (pp.55-75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bredella, Lothar (2000). The significance of intercultural understanding in the foreign language classroom. In Theo
Harden & Arnd Witte (Eds.), The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of German as a foreign language
(pp.145-166). Oxford: Lang.
Bredella, Lothar; Meißner, Franz-Joseph; Nünning, Ansgar & Rösler, Dietmar (Eds.) (2000). Wie ist Fremdverstehen
lehr- und lernbar? Tübingen: Narr.
Brislin, Richard (1993). Understanding culture's influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcort Brace Jovanovich.
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, Karl (1982/1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.
Busch, Dominic (2008a). Wie kann man Vertrauensbildungsprozesse in sprachlicher Interaktion beobachten und
beschreiben? In Elias Jammal (Ed.), Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext (pp.27-50). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Busch, Dominic (2008b). Professionalisierung interkulturell kompetenter Kommunikation—am Beispiel interkultureller
Trainings und interkultureller Mediation. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 2008, 34, 81-97.
Butler, Judith (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". New York: Routledge.
Casmir, Fred L. (1978). A multicultural perspective of human communication. In Fred L. Casmir (Ed.), Intercultural
and international communication (pp.241-257). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Casmir, Fred L. (1993). Third-culture-building: A paradigm-shift for international and intercultural communication.
Communication Yearbook, 16, 407-428.
Cassirer, Ernst (1992/1947). Versuch über den Menschen. Einführung in eine Philosophie der Kultur. Frankfurt/Main:
Fischer.
Chick, Gary (2001). Culture-bearing units and the units of culture: An introduction. Cross-Cultural Research, 35(2), 91108.
Clyne, Michael (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work. Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Condon, John C. & Yousef, Fathi S. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication. Indianapolis: BobbsMerril.
Corder, Saskia & Meyerhoff, Miriam (2007). Communities of practice in the analysis of intercultural communication.
In Helga Kotthoff & Helen Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication, Vol. 7 (pp.441-461).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
D'Andrade, Roy G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24
Dahlén, Tommy (1997). Among the interculturalists. An emergent profession and its packaging of knowledge.
Stockholm: Department of Social Anthropology.
Di Luzio, Aldo; Günthner, Susanne & Orletti, Franca (Eds.) (2001). Culture in communication. Analyses of
intercultural situations. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dirscherl, Klaus (2004). Der Dritte Raum als Konzept der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Theorie und Vorschläge für
die Praxis. In Jürgen Bolten (Ed.), Interkulturelles Handeln in der Wirtschaft. Positionen—Modelle—Perspektiven—
Projekte (pp.12-24). Sternenfels: Verlag Wissenschaft und Praxis.
Douglas, Mary (1970). National symbols: Explorations in cosmology. New York: Vintage Books.
Dreher, Jochen & Stegmaier, Peter (Eds.) (2007). Zur Unüberwindbarkeit kultureller Differenz. Grundlagentheoretische
Reflexionen. Bielefeld: transcript.
Ehlich, Konrad (1987). Kooperation und sprachliches Handeln. In Frank Liedtke & Rudi Keller (Eds.), Kommunikation
und Kooperation (pp.117-132). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Ehlich, Konrad (1996). Funktional-pragmatische Kommunikationsanalyse: Ziele und Verfahren. In Ludger Hoffmann
(Ed.), Sprachwissenschaft. Ein Reader (pp.183-201). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ehlich, Konrad & Rehbein, Jochen (1986). Muster und Institution. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Elias, Norbert (1989). Studien über die Deutschen. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Erickson, Frederick & Shultz, Jeffrey (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper. Social interaction in interviews. New York:
Academic Press.
Fairclough, Norman (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fisiak, Jacek (Ed.) (1980). Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fisiak, Jacek (Ed.) (1984). Contrastive linguistics: Prospects and problems. Berlin: Mouton.
Foucault, Michel (1984/1969). L'archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel (1994). Des espaces autres. In Michel Foucault (Ed.), Dits et écrits (pp.752-762). Paris: Gallimard.
Fowler, Sandra M. & Mumford, Monica G. (Eds.). (1995). Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods,
Vol. 1. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Fowler, Sandra M. & Mumford, Monica G. (Eds.). (1999). Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods,
Vol. 2. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Garfinkel, Harold (Ed.) (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Geertz, Clifford J. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Goddard, Cliff (2006). Ethnopragmatics: A new paradigm. In Cliff Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics. Understanding
discourse in cultural context (pp.1-30). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Goodenough, Ward Hunt (1957). Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In Paul C. Garvin (Ed.), Report of the seventh
annual roundtable meeting on linguistics and language study (pp.167-173). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Goodwin, Charles & Duranti, Alessandro (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Alessandro Duranti &
Charles Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp.1-42). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
25
Grice, H. Paul (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & James L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol 3:
Speech acts (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gudykunst, William B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication. An
anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In Richard L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication
competence (pp.33-71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gumperz, John J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. (Ed.). (1982b). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. (2001). Contextualization and ideology in intercultural communication. In Aldo Di Luzio, Susanne
Günthner & Franca Orletti (Eds.), Culture in communication. Analyses of intercultural situations (pp.35-53).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gumperz, John J., & Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (2007). Discourse, cultural diversity and communication: A linguistic
anthropological perspective. In Helga Kotthoff & Helen Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
communication, Vol. 7 (pp.13-29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Habermas, Jürgen (1983). Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Random House.
Hammer, Mitchell R. (1999). A measure of intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. In Sandra
M. Fowler & Monica G. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods, Vol. 2 (pp.61-72).
Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Hammer, Mitchell R.; Bennett, Milton J. & Wiseman, Richard L. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443.
Hannerz, Ulf (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hannerz, Ulf (1997). Borders. International Social Science Journal, 154, 537-548.
Hartog, Jennifer (2006). Beyond "misunderstandings" and "cultural stereotypes". Analysing intercultural
communication. In Kristin Bührig & Jan D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyond misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of
intercultural communication (pp.175-188). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herder, Johann Gottfried von (1974/1784-1791). Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Union
Dt. Verl.-Ges.
Hester, Stephen & Eglin, Peter (1997). Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. In Stephen Hester & Peter
Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action. Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp.1-23). Washington, DC: International
Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, Geert (1983). National cultures revisited. Cross-Cultural Research, 18(4), 285-305.
Hofstede, Geert (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies,
19(3), 477-392.
Hofstede, Geert (2002). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across
nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert & Sadler, Philip J. (1976). Leadership styles: Preferences and perceptions of employees of an
international company in different countries. International Studies of Management and Organization, 6(3), 87-113.
26
House, Juliane (1997). Translation quality assessment. A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
House, Robert J., Hanges, Paul J.; Javidan, Mansour; Dorfman, Peter W. & Gupta, Vipin (Eds.) (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hu, Adelheid (2000). Intercultural learning and its difficult aspects—an analysis of the criticism in relation to a
controversial concept. In Theo Harden & Arnd Witte (Eds.), The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of
German as a foreign language (pp.75-102). Oxford: Lang.
Hu, Adelheid (2006). Mehrsprachigkeit und Mehrkulturalität in autobiographischer Perspektive. Fremdsprachen Lehren
und Lernen (FLuL), 35, 183-200.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1903). Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. VI. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hymes, Dell H. (1964). Introduction: Towards ethnographies of communication: The analysis of communicative events.
American Anthropologist, 66(6), 1-34.
Jäger, Siegfried (1993). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung. Duisburg: DISS.
Jakobson, Roman (1990). The speech event and the functions of language. In Roman Jakobson (Ed.), On language
(pp.69-79). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jalbert, Paul L. (Ed.). (1999). Media studies: Ethnomethodological approaches. Lanham: University Press of America.
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna (1995). Contrastive analysis. In Jeff Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östmann & Jan Blommaert (Eds.),
Handbook of pragmatics (pp.561-565). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jayyusi, Lena (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kalscheuer, Britta & Allolio-Näcke, Lars (2002). Why does the current debate on interculturality prevent the
development of intercultural communication? A critical note on the interculturality discourse. Paper presented at the
SIETAR Congress 2002 in Vienna, April 10-13, 2002, http://sietarcongress.wu-wien.ac.at/docs/T6_Kalscheuer.pdf
[January 15, 2009].
Kim, Min-Sun (2007). The four cultures of cultural research. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 279-285.
Kluckhohn, Clyde (1962/1952). Universal categories of culture. In Sol Tax, Loren C. Eiseley, Irving Rouse & Carl F.
Voegelin (Eds.), Anthropology today (pp.239-253). Chicago, Ill: Chicago Press.
Kluckhohn, Florence Rockwood & Strodtbeck, Fred L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, Ill: Row,
Peterson and Company.
Knapp, Karlfried; Enninger, Werner & Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie (Eds.) (1987). Analyzing intercultural communication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Knoblauch, Hubert (2001). Communication, context and culture. A communicative constructivist approach to
intercultural communication. In Aldo Di Luzio, Susanne Günthner & Franca Orletti (Eds.), Culture in communication.
Analyses of intercultural situations (pp.3-33). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Koch, Gertraud (2009). Intercultural communication and competence research through the lens of an anthropology of
knowledge. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 15, http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901153.
Koole, Anthony J. & ten Thije, Jan D. (1994). The construction of intercultural discourse. Team discussions of
educational advisers. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Landis, Dan & Bhagat, Rabi (Eds.) (1996). Handbook of intercultural training. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983a). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
27
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983b). The tact maxim. In Geoffrey N. Leech (Ed.), Principles of pragmatics (pp.104-130). New
York: Longman.
Lepper, Georgia (2000). Categories in text and talk: A practical introduction to categorization analysis. London: Sage.
Lippmann, Walter (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Lüdi, Georges (2006). Multilingual repertoires and the consequences for linguistic theory. In Kristin Bührig & Jan D.
ten Thije (Eds.), Beyond misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication (pp.11-42). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Mae, Michiko (2003). Transkulturalität und interkulturelle Kompetenz. Erwägen—Wissen—Ethik. Themenheft
"Interkulturelle Kompetenz—Grundlagen, Probleme und Konzepte", 1, 194-196.
Matsumoto, David; Yoo, Seung Hee & LeRoux, Jeffrey A. (2007). Emotion and intercultural adjustment. In Helen
Spencer-Oatey & Helga Kotthoff (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics, Vol. 7 (pp.77-97). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Matthes, Joachim (Ed.) (1992). Zwischen den Kulturen. Die Sozialwissenschaften vor dem Problem des
Kulturvergleichs. Göttingen: Schwartz.
Mead, George Herbert & Morris, Charles W. (1934). Mind, self & society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press.
Mecheril, Paul (2002). Natio-kulturelle Mitgliedschaft. Ein Begriff und die Methode seiner Generierung. Tertium
Comparationis, 8(2), 104-115.
Moerman, Michael (1988). Talking culture. Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Moosmüller, Alois (2004). Das Kulturkonzept in der interkulturellen Kommunikation aus ethnologischer Sicht. In
Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink (Ed.), Konzepte der Interkulturellen Kommunikation. Theorieansätze und Praxisbezüge in
interdisziplinärer Perspektive (pp.45-67). St. Ingbert: Röhrig Universitätsverlag.
Moosmüller, Alois (2007). Interkulturelle Kommunikation aus ethnologischer Sicht. In Alois Moosmüller (Ed.),
Interkulturelle Kommunikation—Konturen einer Disziplin (pp.13-49). Münster: Waxmann.
Müller-Jacquier, Bernd (2003). Linguistic awareness of cultures: Principles of a training module. In Peter Kistler & Sini
Konivuori (Eds.), From international exchanges to intercultural communication: Combining theory and practice (pp.5090). Jyväskylä: EMICC Programme & University of Jyväskylä.
Murdock, George Peter (1949). Social structure. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Oevermann, Ulrich (2001). Zur Analyse der Struktur von sozialen Deutungsmustern. Sozialer Sinn, 1, 3-33.
Oleksy, Wieslaw (Ed.) (1989). Contrastive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Parsons, Talcott (1951). The social system. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pütz, Robert (2004). Transkulturalität als Praxis. Unternehmer türkischer Herkunft in Berlin. Bielefeld: transcript.
Ravit, Dorit & Cahana-Amitay, Dalia (2005). Verbal and nominal expressions in narrating conflict situations in
Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 157-183.
Reckwitz, Andreas (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European
Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 245-265.
28
Redder, Angelika & Rehbein, Jochen (1987). Zum Begriff der Kultur. In Angelika Redder & Jochen Rehbein (Eds.),
Arbeiten zur interkulturellen Kommunikation (pp.7-21). Osnabrück: Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie (OBST)
38.
Rehbein, Jochen (Ed.) (1985). Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.
Rost-Roth, Martina (2006). Intercultural communication in institutional counselling sessions. In Kristin Bührig & Jan
D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyond misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication (pp.189-215).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sacks, Harvey. (1974). On the analysability of stories by children. In Roy Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology. Selected
readings (pp.216-323). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sarangi, Srikant & van Leeuwen, Theo (Eds.) (2003). Applied linguistics and communities of practice. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (2001/1916). Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaf. (Cours de linguistique générale)
(ed. by Charles Bally und Albert Sechehaye, .transl. by Alfred Lommel (3rd ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schatzki, Theodore R.; Knorr-Cetina, Karin & Savigny, Eike von (Eds.) (2001). The practice turn in contemporary
theory. London: Routledge.
Schondelmayer, Sanna (2008). Stereotypisierung am Arbeitsplatz. Zur Handlungsrelevanz von Selbst- und
Fremdbildern in der deutsch-polnischen Interaktion. Münster: Waxmann.
Schröer, Norbert (2002). Verfehlte Verständigung? Kommunikationssoziologische Fallstudie zur interkulturellen
Kommunikation. Konstanz: UVK.
Schröer, Norbert (2009). Hermeneutic sociology of knowledge for intercultural understanding. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 40, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0901408.
Schütz, Alfred (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Schütz, Alfred (1974/1932). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Scollon, Ronald & Scollon, Suzanne B.K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Scollon, Ronald & Scollon, Suzanne B.K. (1997). Intercultural communication. A discourse approach. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Jiang, Wenying (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness
maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1633-1650.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1987). In other worlds. Essays in cultural politics. New York: Routledge.
Stokoe, Elizabeth H. & Smithson, Janet (2002). Gender and sexuality in talk-in-interaction: Considering conversation
analytic perspectives. In Paul McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality (pp.79-109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Swidler, Ann (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
Swidler, Ann (2001). Talk of love. How culture matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tajfel, Henri (1981). Human groups and social categories. Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
29
Taylor, Charles (1994). Multiculturalism. Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
ten Thije, Jan D. (2006). Notions of perspective and perspectivising in intercultural communication research. In Kristin
Bührig & Jan D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyond misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication (pp.97151). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Thomas, Alexander (2004). Stereotype und Vorurteile im Kontext interkultureller Begegnung. In Hans-Jürgen
Lüsebrink (Ed.), Konzepte der Interkulturellen Kommunikation. Theorieansätze und Praxisbezüge in interdisziplinärere
Perspektive (pp.157-175). St. Ingbert: Röhrig Universitätsverlag.
Thomas, Jenny (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Triandis, Harry C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Triandis, Harry C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 145-152.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman.
van Dijk, Teun A. (Ed.) (1998). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
Weber, Max (1980/1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (5th revised ed.).
Tübingen: Mohr.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1994). "Cultural scripts": A semantic approach to cultural analysis and cross-cultural
communication. In Lawrence F. Bouton & Yamuna Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp.1-24).
Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1998). German "cultural scripts": Public signs as a key to social attitudes and cultural values.
Discourse & Society, 9(2), 241-282.
Wierzbicka, Anna (2006). Anglo scripts against "putting pressure" on other people and their linguistic manifestations.
In Cliff Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics. Understanding discourse in cultural context (pp.31-64). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wodak, Ruth (1989). Language, power and ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30