Mark P. Orbe - Constructing Co-Cultural Theory: An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communication

CONSTRUCTING CO-CULTURAL THEORY

An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communication

MARK P. ORBE

Copyright 1998 by Sage Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information, address to:

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Orbe, Mark P.
Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communication / by Mark P. Orbe.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7619-1067-0 (cloth: alk. paper). ISBN 0-7619-1068-9 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Communication and culture. 2. Intercultural communication.
3. Ethnicity. 4. Multiculturalism. 5. Stereotype (Psychology)
6. Interpersonal communication. 7. Sexism in communication. I. Title.
HM258.063 1997
302.2dc21 97-21128

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C ulture and communication are inextricably linked (Brislin, 1993). The ability to comprehend one concept is contingent on understanding its relationship to the other. Within the United States several domestic co-cultures exist on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, religion, abilities, affection or sexual orientation, and other unifying elements (Johnson, 1989; Orbe, 1994a). In the past, researchers have used a variety of terms to describe co-cultural communication: intracultural (Sitaram & Cogdell, 1976); subordinate, inferior, minority (Stanback & Pearce, 1981); subcultural (Pearson & Nelson, 1991); nondominant (Folb, 1994); and muted group (Kramarae, 1981). The word co-culture is used here to avoid the negative or inferior connotations of past descriptions (e.g., subculture, minority) while also acknowledging the great diversity of influential cultures that simultaneously exist in this country. Although these co-cultures exist all around us, their experiences are often made invisible by the pervasiveness of the dominant culture (Samovar & Porter, 1994).

The use of the word co-cultures is especially significant given the breadth of the theoretical framework presented in this book. Co-cultural communication theory is based on the belief that the United States is a country of many cultures, each of which exists simultaneously within and apart from other cultures. The word co-culture is embraced over other terminologies to signify the notion that no one culture in our society is inherently superior to other coexisting cultures. Co-cultures are not less important in the ways in which they affect group members communication, as connoted by the terms subculture and minority communication. Because an assortment of co-cultures simultaneously exists in our society, co-cultural communication theory also is grounded in the notion that over time one co-culture (that of European-American heterosexual middle- or upper-class males) has acquired dominant group status in the major societal institutions (i.e., political, corporate, religious, and legal institutions) across the land. This central position of one dominant co-cultural group has rendered other co-cultural groups as marginalized with the predominant societal structures; this does not mean, however, that other co-cultural groups functioning in other venues are less than effective. Co-cultural communication, in its most generic form, refers to interactions among persons from different co-cultures. The focus of the theoretical framework presented in this book, however, is on describing one specific form of co-cultural communication: the communication between dominant group and co-cultural group members from the perspective of co-cultural group members. ( explicates the notion of co-cultural communication in greater detail.)

Communication scholars have given significant attention to the communication strategies that different groups use during what has become regarded as intercultural interactions (Collier, Ribeau, & Hecht, 1986; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1987; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; Samovar & Porter, 1994). Other researchers, as illustrated by the works of Arendt (1986), de Certeau (1984), and Foucault (1979), have focused on how those without power communicate. Borisoff and Merrill (1992) suggest that differences between co-cultural and dominant group members communication are essentially differences in relative power between these two groups in a given situational context. As different underrepresented group members continue to enter new areas of association (and in greater numbers) with clear opposition to expectations for assimilation, research efforts that continue to explore the ways in which different persons communicate will become even more important in understanding the intricacies of ingroup or outgroup relations (Orbe, 1995).

Most of the existing research efforts exploring cultures impact on communication processes have been criticized for focusing primarily on the dominant perspective (James, 1994; Orbe, 1995; Skinner, 1982). In this regard traditional research has treated the communication of dominant group members as intricately complex and diversified, while formulating a generalized universal iconography (Orbe, 1995) of the communication of co-cultural groups. From the perspective of underrepresented group members, these representations typically suffer from a strong ethnocentric bias (James, 1994). In addition, what so often gets lost in the traditional research on culture and communication is the interplay of power relations (Moon, 1996, p. 75), a reality that is oftentimes made invisible by white male heterosexual privilege (McIntosh, 1988). Some recent efforts, however, approach the topic from alternate (co-cultural group) perspectives (e.g., Gonzalez, Houston, & Chen, 1994; Ringer, 1994) with an inherent focus on exposing how societal power influences everyday communication. Such a variety of approaches is crucial when attempting to gain insight into the deep structures (Pennington, 1979, p. 392) that inform intercultural communication. In fact, Frankenberg (1993) attests that the oppressed can see with the greatest clarity, not only their own position but indeed the shape of social systems as a whole (p. 8). Clearly, research that focuses on nondominant group communicative experiences seeks to inform the development of communication theory, explore the dynamics of power, culture, and communication, and celebrate the spirit of human ingenuity (Stanback & Pearce, 1981).