Identifying culture as a race Free Essay Example

Scollon et al. (2012, p. 3) infer that identifying ‘culture’ as a race, a geographic location, a sexual-orientation, a specific gender, a generation, a product, a religious-affiliation, or a specific social group is not enough to encapsulate its true scope and meaning. The authors think of ‘culture’ as an activity that is carried out, it is something that needs to be embodied based on a set of knowledge and abilities that pertain to a specific group that interacts – one’s ‘culture’ is not a possession (Scollon et al.

2012, p. 3). Consequently, due to this misunderstanding of the meaning of the word ‘culture’ an individual may be unaware that they are part of a defined ‘cultural group’ (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 3).

Despite the fact that Scollon et al. (2012, pp. 3 & 4) attempt to avoid defining the word ‘culture’ throughout their book chapter, they do identify a number of issues that have been encountered in ‘intercultural communication’ research, namely results being unfairly skewed due to researcher bias, an absence of results that would indicate ‘intercultural communication’ is a misnomer, and when results are returned that indicate ‘intercultural communication’ is an issue, based upon a scenario implemented during research that wouldn’t truly reflect reality.

Scollon et al. (2012, p. 5) state that to carry out an activity, an individual requires to have access to a tool, or a set of tools. ‘Cultural tools’, for example a language, are defined by Scollon et al. (2012, p. 5) as integral generational resources used by a group of individuals to carry out an activity that assists in the classification of a ‘cultural group’.

In addition, people within ‘cultural groups’ apply and improve these tools over time, even though not every person within a ‘cultural group’ may have built up the same set of tools (Scollon et al. 2012, pp. 5 & 7). The authors further stipulate that different sets of tools may be used in a variety of situations, as well as the same set of tools being used in several ways (Scollon et al. 2012, pp. 5 & 7).

Scollon et al. (2012, p. 7) explains that when two or more tools from the same ‘cultural group’ manifest, they are grouped together to form a ‘cultural toolkit’. According to Scollon et al. (2012, p. 8):

For now, we will simply say that a discourse system is a “cultural toolkit” consisting of four main kinds of things: ideas and beliefs about the world, conventional ways of treating other people, ways of communicating using various kinds of texts, media, and “languages,” and methods of learning how to use these other tools.

Scollon et al. (2012, p. 9) suggests that ‘discourse systems’ research reveals how and why individuals who belong in different ‘culture groups’ interact with one another. Furthermore, the authors infer that individuals within wide-ranging communication ‘discourse systems’ act in a participatory manner to varying degrees of involvement (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 9). The element of participation associated resulting in more detailed results than generated by previous research methodologies. In addition, Scollon et al. (2012, p. 10) explain that an individual may belong to multiple ‘discourse systems’ at the same time.

It is important to note at this point, that ‘Discourse systems’ are distinct from ‘Discourse communities’ and ‘Communities of practice’, as the latter two usually involve group adherence to a specific text and ritual (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 9).

Scollon et al. (2012, p. 10) argues that ‘Intercultural communication’ between individuals inside different ‘discourse systems’ has surpassed previous research to include ‘discourse systems’ associated with an individual’s place of work, gender, sexual-orientation, and selected career type. As a result of this research scope expansion, the authors found that ‘intercultural communication’ involves both an external (interaction with two of more people) and an internal (individual) reaction to dialog (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 10).

According to Scollon et al. (2012, p. 10):

But communication is far from simple or straightforward, especially given two rather inconvenient facts: that when people communicate they often don’t say what they mean, and they often don’t mean what they say.

Scollon et al. (2012, p. 11) states that when an individual communicates with another in person, or in writing, each person who is part of the discussion will draw on different knowledge sources when constructing their words and sentences (Scollon et al. 2012, pp. 11 & 13). Likewise, depending upon which ‘cultural group’ the individual belongs to, speech that is equivocal may form part of the discussion as each party to the discussion is required to interpret the words and sentences, as well as the generic meaning of the language collectively (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 11). It was found that, practice, through trial and error on the part of all parties involved reduces the extent of uncertainty and confusion in the words expressed (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 16). Therefore, the authors infer that equivocal speech can be mitigated by the development of strategies, they also stress that this confusion surrounding speech should not be attributed to insufficient knowledge on the part of an individual (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 14).

The authors suggest that confusion with speech comes about because we inherently make assumptions about the exact meaning of what we are told based on the norms of the tools we have developed from our culture (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 14). Moreover, these assumptions that are instantly used when in social situations are predisposed to become permanent thoughts in our heads, in short, they become our cultural ‘norms’ (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 15). Ultimately, due to this the chances of a successful dialog increase when the assumptions that are made about others are shared openly, and any meaning limitations on speech are known (Scollon et al. 2012, p. 16).

Scollon et al. (2012, pp. 18-24) provide at the end of the book chapter a pathway to further research and discussion, this information includes an overview of ethnographic research practices and resultant data, the fundamentals for selecting a ‘cultural groups’ physical location to be studied, a set of discussion questions, as well as a number of highly regarded reference sources pertaining to ‘intercultural communication’.