• Summary
• Bibliography
• Presentation -- the presentation is in Powerpoint 7.0 format for Windows 95.  If you do not have Powerpoint, you will need a viewer, which can be downloaded by clicking here.

     Language is our primary code for communication and, as such, every message exchange we partake in depends on some form of this code (whether it be in visual, vocal, verbal, or written form) to achieve success. The ways in which this code is used, transmitted, perceived, and understood are, however, dependent on the culture of the actors involved in the exchange. Thus, actors conditioned by different cultural superstructures will have a harder time accomplishing a successful "commerce of ideas." 

     Before we begin our presentation we will show a small clip from the movie "Born in East L.A." where the character played by Cheech Marin, an American citizen stranded on the Mexican side of the border by mistake, is teaching a group of Mexican-Orientals who want to cross the border into the U.S. how to act like "Chicanos." He is teaching them the "correct" pronunciation of "What is happening?" (Wuzapeninn...?) and how to walk and dress like an East L.A. native. While comical, this clip underscores the importance of communication and its components (language, dress, body movements, etc.) in determining the cultural identity of an individual and vice-versa. We will return to this clip and ideas later on. 

     Our assessment of the problems brought about by this situation will begin by outlining some of the main points touched upon in the articles in Section 1 of Gary R. Weaver’s Culture, Communication, and Conflict and expand on them with real-life illustrations and further concepts drawn from academic research. We will first look at the ways in which language is used by individuals and groups to assert cultural identity. As Weaver notes in Chapter 6, ethnic minorities and students have, since the 1960s, involved themselves in a process of re-assessment of their unique cultural identities as a reaction to the hegemonic threat of the mainstream white Anglo-Saxon culture. A great part of this process has taken place through the transformation or re-structuring of language in ways unique to the particular community of identity in question. In the African-American community, for example, there is an interchange of "yo mama!" that is understood by all actively involved to be a game of mental and verbal skill as well as a joke. The Dozens, as the game is called, can and does often become a heated back and forth "argument" as to whose mother is more deplorable, however, as long as none of the insults thrown happen to be actual truths, no one takes offense (so, for example, if "yo mama" is fat, jokes about her lack of mental abilities are acceptable, but jokes about her weight might indeed create a confrontation). The Dozens is an African-American tradition of communication that is soundly based on cultural tradition of vigorous and dynamic expression that attempts "to humanize an often rash world, and to do so with honesty, with toughness, and often with humor." To illustrate the point we will show an audio-visual clip of a Dozens game and point attention to the vocal and body language characteristics present in it. 

     What we hope to have achieved so far is not only the importance of language in identity building, but also the importance of the non-verbal aspects of communication and their relation to culture, as noted by Albert Mehrabian in Chapter 3. In the African-American community, as well as other communities deemed "high-context," the use of exaggerated arm movement and facial expressions may be a sign that the message exchange is indeed functioning properly and smoothly—so, in the Dozens, as long as some commonly-understood protocol is followed, loudness and physicality are acceptable and welcome. To an observer from a different cultural background, however, the exchange may appear to be a violent confrontation between two people who truly have maligned each other’s mother. In other words, though an outside observer could at least chuckle at some of the outrageous insults, a lack of understanding of the culturally contextual meanings of the nonverbal aspects of the game would lead to a mistaken assessment of the situation. This is, then, a problem of perception conditioned by cultural background and can arguably be said to be that cause of most intercultural communication conflicts. To expand on this point, Orlando will talk about his experience as a new immigrant to the U.S. meeting his New York Jewish and Italian grandparents. Not understanding the verbal language, he was left with only nonverbal signs to distill meaning from their responses to him. New York Jewish and Italians, however, tend to speak in very loud, angry sounding voices, with plenty of yelling and violent arm waving. The inferred meaning, from Orlando’s perspective (coming from a much more subdued cultural background), was that he was not liked and was indeed being told to "get out of here" by his grandmother. 

     Problems of perception, however, are not limited to the nonverbal aspects of communication as Marshall R. Singer notes in Chapter 4. Verbal exchanges are often the source of misunderstanding since different groups either use words in differing contexts or attach different culturally-biased meanings to the same phrases. This occurs even within people who speak the same verbal language, but may be speaking a different conceptual and perceptional one. Here we will draw upon Kezia’s experience to illustrate the point. As an English-speaking Ghanaian, Kezia shares the same language background of most U.S. citizens. Yet, as she found out the hard way, her culturally-constructed perceptions of that language differ greatly from that of most Americans. After bumping someone on a hallway by mistake, Kezia learned that while "I’m sorry" was an acceptable answer in her home country, within the American cultural context "Excuse me" would have been a better one. Why is this, though? She can certainly say "I’m sorry" and most of us would understand her point. So, what is it about her answer that can lean to misunderstandings? To explain this we need to understand the values of American society and examine the ways in which they are subconsciously ingrained in our "identity program." From an American individualistic perspective, "I’m sorry" implies a level of guilt. In a society that values the individualism and equality of all, regardless of social or class stature, this deference on the basis of guilt becomes a devaluation of the individualistic self. Why should an individual who seems him- or herself at an equal standing with another have to defer in such a manner? An apology of this sort becomes a sign of insecurity and will be read as such whereas "Excuse me," which still admits a mistake yet carries no meanings of guilt, is a better answer. In Kezia’s Ghana, however, where the value is instead placed on the group and the well-being of all individuals, "I’m sorry" would be culturally perceived as "I hope I have not hurt and you are well," whether "Excuse me" could be translated as "You were in my way." It carries no connotation of caring for the other, which is so important in that culture. 

     The above discussion shows how the same message can be perceived by individuals coming from different backgrounds, yet it does not fully explain why. For this we turn to Ferdinand Tönnies and Chapter 7. In his discussion of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Tönnies gives us a good framework to understand the source of the difference in perception of messages. With this in mind, we can see Kezia’s communication problems not just as glitches in the process of perception but also as a clash between two very different ways to organize society. Kezia comes from a society that values deference to the group and community-building – what can be termed a high-context, Gemeinschaft society. In this form of society, personal involvement with other individuals is extremely important not only for social purposes but also for the survival of all and thus, language and communication reflect these values. The United States is for the most part a society that values the individual and personal gain—what can be termed a low-context, Gesellschaft society. In this type of society, personal involvement is less important because everyone is supposed to look out for him- or herself, creating an impersonal form of communication and usage of language. So for example, when Kezia’s visited from Ghana and both went out to eat, Kezia was taken back a bit by her friend’s insistence on offering food or drinks every time she took some. An "Americanized" Kezia would simply expect her friend to eat and leave her alone to fend for herself. If Kezia is hungry, she will know better and look for food herself. Of course, these are exaggerations of cultural traits. Common courtesy and family norms will provide plenty of exceptions to these "rules." Yet, these exaggerations help drive home the point of the importance of culture in communication and the ways in which it affects our perception of it. These "rules" are only sketchy generalizations and though they may often be broken in friendly exchanges, chances are that they hold true for most interactions between strangers which is, after all, a truer test of the ingrained values of a society that any other. 

     Now that we have established the importance of the differences in culture and social organization in communication, we can better understand the nature of conflict between these differing approaches. Most of what Edward T. Hall argues in Chapter 1 can be directly linked to these differences in social and cultural structures. When Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft cultures come into contact, whether it be for social or business purposes, some level of misperception is bound to occur and conflict, caused by this "collision," is always a possibility. Many times this conflict takes on a quite bellicose nature (Vietnam and Korea are good examples), and sometimes the damage is only temporary or at least much less consequential. In Chapter 2, Hall gives the inability of American banks to provide loans in the Middle East as an example of the inability to understand correctly the other side’s cultural background. An example much closer to home can be found in the rise and creation of the "Cuban enclave" in Miami. The first wave of Cuban immigration to South Florida included a majority of professionals and businessmen who had made fortunes in Havana. These trained and experienced individuals approached local banks for loans to rebuild their businesses in Miami, yet were repeatedly turned down because of their lack of a credit history and means to pay back. While many of the applicants noted that they had built impeccable reputations back in Cuba and would surely pay back the loan, American banks still refused. To the immigrants, this situation was not comprehensible—if they were given their word as upstanding members of the "community" to pay back, what was the problem? 
As one large factory owner in Miami complained: 

"The American banker looks at the statement ... if he doesn’t like it, he doesn’t give you the loan. The Cuban banker has a different technique: he looks for signs of your character. If he knows you, knows that you meet your obligations, he lends you without looking at the balance sheet. He knows you are not going to fail him. American banks have the habit of changing credit managers very often. They hire fresh college graduates who come here to Miami, know no one, and have to begin analyzing statements. There the Cuban banks have the advantage. Their loan officers know their clientele, they often knew their families back in Cuba—twenty, thirty years. It’s a small technical detail, but important." 
 
     As more Cubans were able to break into management and influential positions within the Miami power structure, what came to be known as "character loans" became a common business practice among members of the enclave and ensured the Cuban rise in South Florida economics and politics. This is an example of the barriers to communication that cultural baggage carries. To the Cubans, coming from a high-context, Gemeinschaft society, the terms "reputation" and "moral community" and "social commitment" carried great weight in an economic discussion, more so than "balance sheets" or "credit rating." To the Americans, coming from an opposite, much more bureaucratic system, those terms were out of place in the economic setting and may even sound ridiculous due to their un-enforceability in legal terms. 

     Thus, our culture determines how we communicate with each other by conditioning our usage of the communications code (language), our understanding and perceptions of it, and our conscious and subconscious readings into the code of others and its usage by them. To use the correct code, in the correct manner means to belong to a community of identity (or a culture). To fail in the slightest of these aspects is to be an outsider. We will close our presentation by running an additional clip from the Born in East L.A. movie – at the end of the movie, once Cheech Marin and his posse are able to make it back into the U.S., the Mexican-Orientals (who still speak no English and know very little about U.S. culture or manners) encounter a policeman who looks at them a bit suspiciously. In response, the Mexican-Orientals (dressed like typical Chicanos) lean back and swing their arms and greet the cop with a "Wuzapeninn?....." The cop smiles back, tips his baton and walks away. Their usage of language and their following of the norms following that usage has saved them. They are from the neighborhood, the cop walks away thinking. They belong here. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Born in East L.A.. Produced and Directed by Cheech Marin. 1987. Videocassette. 
 
Dundes, Alan, ed. Mother wit from the laughing barrel: readings in the interpretation of Afro-American folklore. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1990. 
 
Fordham, Monique. "The Politics of Language and the Survival of Indigenous Culture: from Suppression to Re-introduction in the Formal Classroom." Equity and Excellence in Education, April 1998, v31, n1, p40(8). 
 
Gates, Henry Louis and Nellie Y. McKay. The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997. 
 
Gudykunst, William B. "Cultural variability in communication (special issue on communication in the global community." Communication Research, Aug 1997 v.24 n.4 p 327(20) 
 
Hall, Edward and Mildred Reed Hall. Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1990. 
 
Lewis, Flora. "Where did optimism go? (need to reconcile individual and community." The New York Times; Dec 11 1993, v143, p15(N) p23(L), col 3. 
 
Portes, Alejandro and Alex Stepick. City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. 
 
Stewart, Edward C. American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Washington, DC: Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research, 1972. 
 
Tönnies, Ferdinand. Community and Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988, 1957. 
 
Widner, Jennifer "Researching Social capital in Africa." Africa, winter 1998 v.68 n1 p.1 (24) 
 
 
WEB SITES: 
 http://www2.hawaii.edu/~aniya/yomama.html#etc 
 http://users.aol.com/Pesses1/yo_mama.html