Theory of Interethnic Communication

The United States is a nation of many different ethnicities and cultures. The challenge of living in such a multicultural society lies in whether an ethnic identity is replaced by the American identity or if they coincide with each other. In this chapter, the author breaks down this theory in the context of America’s struggle toward racial and ethnic equality and integration. There are two main concepts that provide that basis of the American melting pot society.
A concept that is key to American society is individualism. Individualism is defined as the social priority of the individual whether it be the state, the established Church, social classes, or other social groups (Abercrombie, 1980, p.56). This concept emphasizes individual achievement and personal responsibility.
Another concept is universalism which is the view of human nature presupposing social categories such as ethnicity that is embodied in such cultural values as equal rights afforded to all individuals as requisite of a free and democratic society (Kim, 2005). These concepts tie into the theme of procedural equality. Kim defines procedural equality as the equal rights and equal opportunities afforded to all individuals in the form of human rights, the basic requisite of a free and democratic society (2005).
Ultimately those who believe in these concepts push for the ideal of a color-blind society in which everyone is treated as individuals, fellow American citizens, and human beings. This may lead to what Kim calls assimiliationism which is the conversion of alien or indigenous minority cultures into a mainstream cultural tradition and the accompanying fusion of diverse elements (2005).
The purpose of the author is to study the interethnic behavior of individual communicators in order to develop a systematic way of understanding how interethnic communication plays out at the grassroots level. The author studies five types of psychological factors while examining individual communicators:
1. Cognitive factors such as ethnic or interethnic perception, racial beliefs, knowledge or ignorance, stereotyping, and attribution errors (Detweiler, 1986).
2. Affective-motivational-attitudinal factors such as attitudes toward specific ethnic groups, tolerance, prejudice, ethnocentrism, and racism (Bonilla-Silva and Forman, 2000).
3. Various facets of ethnic identity, including the level of ethnic commitment, sense of security or insecurity, and positive or negative feelings toward the ethnic group.
4. Verbal and nonverbal behavior in interethnic encounters (Jacobs, 1992).
5. Interethnic friendship and romantic relationship (Mack, 1997).

In addition, other methods of studying interethnic communication provide different views into how different ethnicities are evaluated. These other viewpoints are offered by cultural anthropologists, sociological research, and psychological studies.
Cultural anthropologists conceive ethnicity as a kind of temporal continuity or common tradition linking its members to a common future (Kim, 2005). Sociological research is a social category defined by membership that differentiated from other groups by a set of objective characteristics, qualities, or conditions such as national origin, language, religion, race, and culture (Kim, 2005). Psychological studies approach ethnicity in terms of subjective orientation of individuals toward his or her ethnic origins (Alba, 1990, p.25). All three approaches incorporated in the present theory examine interethnic communication in its simplest form: simple person communicating.
These concepts are summarized in the following assumptions and theorems written by the author:
Assumption 1. Interethnic communication occurs whenever a communicator sees himself or herself and the other involved party in light of the respective ethnicity and ethnic identity.
Assumption 2. Interethnic communication is an open system in which its components are functionally interdependent.
Assumption 3. Interethnic communication by a single communicator consists of the behavior or action and the three layers of the context (the communicator, the situation, and the environment).
Theorem 1. The more inclusive or exclusive the communicator’s identity orientation, the more associative or dissociative his or her interethnic communication behavior.
Theorem 2. The more secure or insecure the communicator’s identity orientation, the more associative or dissociative his or her interethnic communication behavior.
Theorem 3. The greater the ethnic proximity between the communicator and the others involved in interethnic communication, the more associative or dissociative the communicator’s interethnic behavior.
Theorem 4. The greater the shared or separate goal structure between the communicator and the others involved in interethnic communication, the more associative or dissociative the communicator’s interethnic behavior.
Theorem 5. The more or less ethnically integrated the communicator’s personal network structure, the more associative or dissociative the communicators’ interethnic behavior.
Theorem 6. The greater the institutional equity or inequity across ethnic groups in the environment, the more associative or dissociative the communicator’s interethnic behavior.
Theorem 7. The greater the relative strength or weakness of the communicator’s ethnic in-group in the environment, the more associative or dissociative the communicator’s interethnic behavior.
Theorem 8. The greater the competition-intensifying environmental stress, the more dissociative the communicator’s interethnic behavior (Kim, 2005, pgs 328-329, 333-340).
Kim discusses three models which describes the behavior of the communicator while reacting to an intercultural environment. The intercultural identity model states through extensive, intensive, and prolonged experiences of adapting to a new culture, an individual’s original cultural identity gradually undergoes a transformation in the direction of individualization and universalization (Kim, 2005).
Positive identity orientation is an affirmative and optimistic outlook or general self-efficacy and serves as a source of motivation to perform a more practical adaptive role than pessimism with respect to ethnic difference (Kim, 2001). Individuals are more likely to reach out to individuals of differing ethnic backgrounds.
Social identity theory places particular emphasis on structural conflicts of interest between social groups as a powerful factor encouraging dissociate behaviors by increasing intergroup interaction (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). As an ethnic group grows from its initial economic adjustment stage to the later stages of community building, it shows increasing collective strength with which to manipulate its ethnic identity for political self-assertion for the benefit of group’s interest (Clarke and Obler, 1976). Intergroup conflicts are likely to increase when society undergoes certain challenging circumstances caused by economic hardship, shortage of resources, or involvement in international crisis (Volkan, 1992).
The concepts and models studied by Kim in using the theory of interethnic communication may help America conquer the challenge of achieving racial equality and total integration. The study of different ethnicities and how different communicators interact in interethnic involvement can provide a major breakthrough in interethnic relations and communications. This breakthrough may allow communicators of different ethnicities the ability to keep their ethnic and American identities without conflict and without betraying their personal obligation to their ethnic group.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu