Li and I will meet tomorrow to discuss his concerns about my desire to convene a Chinese-only group (with me, maybe Leda too, if possible) to look at an interaction which I suspect may be a point of cultural juxtaposition ñ when different cultural frameworks are called into operation because of a specific occurrence. At first, I thought his concern is that by noticing and discussing a potential difference, that communicative act will lead to the creation of a ìdifferenceî that isnít actually rooted in culture. His style is to blur the boundaries and avoid sharp distinctions; I appreciate that and think it will play well in our ultimate product. ButÖto get there, I think we need to explore these junctures, and see what there is to learn about them. As I told Li already, perhaps weíll find that even noticing these incidents has more to do with my biases and stereotypes than anything else.
This morning, though, I read Donalís piece (for 312), ìCultural Pragmatics and Intercultural Competence.î It suggests another possible explanation for Liís reluctance, and revealed, quite explicitly (!), the cultural assumptions inherent in my approach to this project. :-)
The article illustrates differences in Blackfeet and Anglicized communication frameworks, especially around the uses of silence and speaking. I am a textbook example of the Anglicized frame. 1) I believe that ìpeoples, and in particular individuals, are separate and differentî. 2) I believe that ìícommunicationí and íspeakingí become the means by which social connections are built and madeî. Hence, my very ìpremise for verbal action, as such, is theÖbelief that peopleÖare not inherently connected, but intrinsically separateî (emphasis added). In fact, the very aim and goal of speaking is ìto make a public.î I am seeking to create community for myself, but the insidious part of the assumption is that others are lacking what I also lack, the sense of connection and belonging.
Li may be objecting to this very basic premise, which presupposes ìa lack of communication is thusÖa problemî. That might help explain my visceral reaction to his initial resistance to the idea of pinpointing a specific social interaction for discussion and analysis. Perhaps in the Chinese cultural framework there is some similarity (probably to a different degree, with different forms of expression and implications) with the Blackfeet presumption that ìspeaking of such thingsÖcall[s] relationships into question rather than affirm[ing] themî. So, while I am trying ìto recognize the differences and build bridges between themî, I am also (perhaps, this is an hypothesis) presuming ìto create, or to have knowledge of breaches or breaks in the interconnective realmî. Not only that, but by speaking of these things I position myself as someone for whom it is ìproper to create or address such a breakî and that I have ìaccess to the proper means of speaking that can honorably acknowledge and if necessary begin repairing the ëbreakí.î
Obviously, this could be a problem! If there is any similarity between Chinese and Blackfeet communication about silence as a means of respecting and validating a relationship, my desire to speak about these things actually may have the opposite effect of what I intend: producing separation and distance rather than connection and closeness, However, my belief remains that only by examining the interaction and the premises enacted in it can we make any real progress on understanding how our communicative behaviors effect intercultural relationships. Donalís piece demonstrates the value of pragmatic self-reflection about such seemingly minor social interactions, such as the one Iíve both witnessed and experienced as an interlocutor. If I can remain cognizant of the fact that my actions are not only attempting ìto doî something, but is also potentially ìundoingî something of significance to others (the Chinese, in this instance, but with all international students as we move through this process all semester), and make this, in itself, a topic of discussion, perhaps we can all benefit from the risk of ìyield[ing], orÖrisk stepping for a moment into another cultureís spaceî. And yet ñ behold the blatant display of rhetoric: intended to persuade Li (and others) to participate in this project! Isnít ìstepping into another cultureís spaceî precisely what international students are doing whenever they are within the universityís boundaries? Is this a way in which I continue to participate in imposing a code of dignity (which values the intrinsic worth of persons, equality, rights, negotiation) over a code of honor (which values precedence, piety, loyalty, and hierarchical institutions)? Or, since China is a highly industrialized, even post-modern society itself, are there two versions of a code of dignity at play here? Perhaps this is a question off the point, however the issue of me imposing a way of communicating on the entire project is of immanent and urgent concern.
Perhaps Li and I can make some headway on this in our discussion tomorrow. Perhaps this is a theme we can track through the production process. Perhaps it is an invitation to further define our roles relative to each other ñ me as facilitator, Li as producer.
My ideal remains that by such exploration with each other we will ìenable a closer scrutiny of actual intercultural occasions among actual people, such as among teachers and their studentsî (!): the result of this exploration (hopefully!) producing ìserious reflections on our institutions, our roles in them, the kinds of communication that they perpetuate (or what they do), and the kinds they might be supplanting (or what they are undoing)î. Thus, we can promote ìa socially located knowledgeî which can get Anglicized Americans thinking about what they can do differently to enhance mentoring relationships with international students. {The last paragraph is the summative rhetorical pitch. Seems I canít avoid PR!}
