Please answer the following questions:

· What are your thoughts about “Racial Profiling”?

· What about the concept that people from other cultures often see us differently from how we see ourselves?

· Punctuation Principle and Uncertainty Principle (include these principles in each answer)

I have attached copies from the book of the 2 principles that need to be included in the answer to each question as well as the rubric for the assignment. Thanks.  

Intercultural Communication

“Assignment Rubric”

· Identify the Question you’re answering…have
2 full, double- spaced ( 500 words),
typed pages (1 page per question).

· Have thoughtful answers.

· Include the 2 Current Principles in both of your answers to each question

(make them easy to identify).

16 CHAPTER ONE

I

ntroducing the Punctuation Principle

Let’s now formula!e, based on the discussion above, the first principle of intercul­ tural communication: the Punctuation Principle. We will isolate three parts that make up this principle. Each part deals with intercultural communication as a process of drawing boundary Jines between groups of people. First, we will present boundary Jines in intercultural communication as conceptualizations. Next, we will look at constructive and destructive boundary lines. Finally, we will discuss the goal of intercultural communication as a process of looking for a boundary fit.

After discussing each part separately, we will formulate the Punctuation Principle as a whole.

Boundary Lines as Conceptualizations

The Concept of “Punctuation.” You may be wondering what punctuation has to do with intercultural communication. It must be said right away that the Punctuation Principle is not about punctuation marks, even though the word punctuation has the same origin in the case of punctuation marks and in the case of the Punctuation Principle. Etymologically, punctuation is derived from the Latin punctuare and means to break or to mark with a point (Morris, 1982: 1060). This is exactly what traditional punctuation marks do-they break the stream of writ­ ing into separate elements and tell us what the divisions between these elements are. Punctuation marks help us to understand the correct meaning; as we all know, a simple comma, put in the wrong place, can change meaning dramatically. But the term punctuation can also be applied to communication in general, not just writing (see Bateson & Jackson, I 964; Watzlawick, I 984). ‘In the study of communication, punctuation is a process of perception through which people or­ ganize their ongoing interactions into recognizable openings, closings, causes, and effects’ (Anderson & Ross, 2002: 147).

Intercultural communication can be viewed from the same perspective. In intercultural communication, as shown above, we find marks such as skin color and land and water borders. Our experiences are·divided through such marks, or boundary lines, into different cultures with their own identities. In essence, the Punctuation Principle is the Principle of Boundary Lines.

If you were asked now ‘What is a boundary line?” you would probably give examples such as land borders, sea lines, shared language, or shared beliefs and values. And you would be absolutely correct: All these are examples of boundary lines. But think how these boundaries change as we move from skin color to land borders to sea lines to shared beliefs and values..They become less and less tangi­ ble, and more and more difficult to detect. You can (literally) put your linger on a land border, but how can you grasp lines in the universe of beliefs and values? What about people who have the same skin color and yet do not communicate at all or, even worse, are ready to kill each other? Where does the boundary line be­ tween these people lie? What is a boundary line, first and foremost?

I
I

L”

CREATING CULTURAL BOUNDARIES 17

A Boundary Line as an Idea. Earlier, Barker was quoted as saying “What we think of as our identity is dependent on what we think we are nor (2000: 195). The word think, used twice in the quote, is the key to the origin of boundary lines: They are, above all our thoughts, perceptions, and expectations. Boundary lines are born in people’s minds, as conceptualizations, and later turn into borders,

walls, lines in the water, language barricades, and such. There is a wonderful short film called Boundary Lines, directed and written by Philip Stapp in 1946. In this film, we see two friendly neighbors peacefully settling a dispute over a little fence. But we also see an arrow shot by a primordial hunter flying across time and turning into various types of weapons, eventually ending as an atomic bomb, ready to descend on a city. The film makes a powerful statement about the con­ ceptual nature of boundary lines.

Of course, sometimes nature pushes us, allowing us to draw boundary lines

more readily-by giving us different skin pigmentation, for instance. But even then, as we saw earlier in the example of race, our thoughts affect the process of identity construction. For example, in the 2000 U.S. Census, almost half of all His­ panic respondents refused to identify themselves as belonging to any of the five racial categories on the form: white, black, Asian, American Indian or Alaska na­ tive, or native of Hawaii or the Pacific Islands. Forty-two percent of all Latino re­ spondents marked the box labeled “some other race· and wrote in such identities as Mayan, Tejano, and mestizo (Navarro, 2003). So, even skin color is a moving target, and the North American construct of race is making room for new groups of people.

It is people who create boundary lines, for better or for worse. A boundary line, first and foremost, is an idea, or conceptualization.

Constructive and Destructive Boundary Lines

Identity Confirmation and Dlsconflrmation. During intercultural commu­ nication, people present their identity by taking a line. Naturally, people try to take an appropriate line, aiming to project the image that they desire. People from other cultures may respond to our self-presentation positively, or they may re­ spond negatively. Positive responses can be equated with identity confirmation, the •process through which individuals are recognized, acknowledged, and en­ dorsed” (Laing, 1961: 83). Identity-confirming messages may include showing empathy toward others and using supportive language. Negative responses can be equated with identity disconflrmation, “the process through which individuals do not recognize others, do not respond sensitively to dissimilar others, and do not accept others’ experiences as valid” (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 47). Identity­ disconfirming messages may include ignoring others and using racist language. People ·can suffer real damage, real distortion• if people from another culture “mirror back to them a confining, or contemptible picture of themselves” (Taylor, 1992: 25),

Confirming or disconlirming messages affect the process of cultural identifi­ cation. If people can freely take the line they want-that is, use the verbal and

18 CHAPTER ONE

nonverbal behaviors they want-their identity as a self-construal is confirmed. In this case, people achieve their goals, and boundary lines are perceived as con­ structive. If people take a line, using certain verbal and nonverbal behaviors, but their identity as a self-construal is disconfirmed, they do not achieve their goals, and boundary lines are perceived as destructive.

Destructive Boundary Lines. When most people hear the words boundary lines and boundaries, their first image is of separation and L.eakdown in commu­ nication; hence, boundary lines are perceived as negative and destructive. Unfor­ tunately, this view is supported by numerous real-life examples. In fact, many illustrations discussed in this text are examples of intercultural failures due to de­ structive boundary lines. Boundary lines are destructive when they fail to help people realize their goals and define themselves-that is, construct their cultural identities (see Figure 4).

Any boundary that physically separates people from different cultures, pre­ venting them from taking their line in interacting with each other, is an example of a destructive boundary line; the Berlin Wall was one such boundary. People from different cultures can also be separated by other destructiv boundary lines­ for example, those of language. In the Texas town of Amarillo, two women who were fluent in Spanish and English were fired from their jobs because they chat­ ted in Spanish in their workplace. The owner of the company asked the women to speak only English while at work; the owner allegedly even demanded that they sign a pledge not to speak Spanish. Both women refused, and they lost their jobs (see Verhovek, 1997). It is clear that the boundary line in this intercultural in­ teraction was destructive: The owner was perceived by the women as overstepping his boundary, while the two women were perceived by the owner as uncoopera­ tive and lacking flexibility.

Constructive Boundary Lines. Let us not forget that without boundary lines there would be no cultures, so boundary lines cannot be all badl Besides, the Latin root of punctuation refers simply to·marking with points,· and the Latin root

(

i
)Destructive

’61 I \:Y

I

FIGURE4

CREATING CULTURAL BOUNDARIES 19

of boundary refers to ·a field within limits.• Nowhere do we find any evaluation; the meanings of the words punctuatian and boundary are neutral. Boundary lines could be perceived as negative and destructive, or they could (and should!) be per­ ceived as positive and constructive. Boundary lines are constructive when they make it possible for people to take a certain line in communication and define (construct) their cultural identity, regulating interaction with others. If the cul­ tures involved in communication see the boundary lines as serving them well, then the boundary lines are perceived as constructive and positive. The idea of constructive boundary lines is highlighted in Figure 5.

Take the example of St. Martin, the smallest parcel of land in the world ruled by two sovereignties. Part French and part Dutch ever since the partition treaty was signed back in 1648 (for more information, see Jermanok, 1999), the island even has two names-St. Manin and Sint Maarten. People from both cul­ tures have merged to create arguably the most cosmopolitan island in the Caribbean. The island’s inhabitants are proud of their peaceful coexistence for over 350 years. A boundary line running from Cupecoy Bay in the west to Cor­ talita Beach in the east apportioned 21 square miles to the French and 16 square miles tc;> the Dutch. Legend has it that two soldiers, one Dutch and one French, were chosen to divide the island in half. They started back to back and began walking. However, the Dutch soldier stopped to have a drink, while the French soldier remained sober and continued his duty, hence the difference in size. (More likely, though, the French received 21 square miles because of their superior naval presence in the region when the treaty was signed.) Today, one is free to cross sides without a passport.

Thus, the nature of boundary lines is two-fold. A boundary line can cause disputes and even wars; then a boundary line is perceived as destructive and does not lead to effective intercultural interactions. Or a boundary line can create peaceful borders (think of a fence between two friendly neighbors); then it is per­ ceived as constructive and leads to effective intercultural communication. Again, the origin of boundary lines is in people’s minds, and so it ls people who make those boundary lines destructive (dysfunctional, negative) or constructive (func­ tional, positive).

Constructive

(
.
): I

I

FIGURES

20 CHAPTER ONE

Boundary Fit as the Goal of Intercultural Communication

The main goal of intercultural interactions is to make sure boundary lines are re­ spected and agreed upon-that is, are perceived as constructive by people from all cultures engaged in the interaction. Then all cultures can function successfully, reaching a boundary fit in their interactions. A boundary flt is an agreement among people from interacting cultures on the function of a boundary line between them. An example of a successful boundary fit would be the relationship between

the Amish and people from the Anglo-Saxon culture. Although interactions be­ tween the Amish and Anglo-Saxons are not perfect, the Amish have managed to fulfill their philosophy of maintaining cultural separateness and still succeed in their businesses and be accepted and respected by the Anglo-Saxon culture (Petronio et al., 1998).

But now look at another example-an excerpt from a guided tour of one of the so-called heritage museums in Israel:

(
-,
)I’ll tell you a story, do you remember the story about the Patriarch Abraham? Oh, he was quite a man! Phee (Wow), he had lots of cows and sheep and lots of peo­ ple working for him, and he used to wander from place to place, and he lived in the desen. He was the first Bedouin, the Bedouins weren’t there yet, but he was there already. He was sitting in a tent, what was his wife’s name? Sara, Sara sat with him in the tent, and three angels are coming, they are going around in the desert, and they see some old man sitting with a young and beautiful woman, so they say:

(
l
)•Let’s go visit them,• so they come, and Abraham says to them: •refadalu, please, come in and be our guests,” so he says, what does he say to Sara? He whispers a loud whisper in her ear: “Go get three measures of flour (seot kemah).• Here are the measures (pointing to the wall), from the Bible straight here on this wall. You see, this is what they used to measure in, imagine, the Patriarch Abraham in his time. How many years already? Oh, it’s impossible, I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, your parents weren’t there, and he was already using this to measure with this. (Katriel, 1994: 14)

To Jewish audiences, this kind of story sounds like a playful elaboration of a well-known biblical tale. To Arab audiences, however, the strategy of renaming Abraham as the first Bedouin and endowing a familiar agricultural object (the measure) with a biblical career is an act of cultural appropriation-the taking away of symbolic resources. It might be that the Israeli crossed an imaginary line

here, or it might be that the Arabs simply overreacted. Whatever the case, it is hardly possible to speak of a true boundary fit in this intercultural interaction.

Or take the example of a dramatic change in the boundary lines in the former Yugoslavia, where people from the same communities suddenly saw themselves as members of different ethnic groups. The aggressive behavior of former neighbors, friends, and even spouses, which the international community found difficult to understand, was the consequence of a changed boundary fit (Petronio et al., 1998). Sometimes it seems that the boundary line between people from different cultures is so negative and deeply engraved that no boundary fit is possible. How-

36
CHAPTER

TWO
two

notebooks,

coincide?

The

answer

of

course

is

that

the

two

will

not

be

identi­ cal.

The

reason

fm

this

discrepancy

is

dearly

not

due

to

the

nature

ol

the

event,

but
rather

to

the

fact

that

the

observers

were

different,

psychologically

and

culturally.
So,

as

Heisenberg

would

have

suggested,

the

true

nature

of

the

event

is

indeter­ minable. (

1

999:

64)

I

n every intercultural interaction, we try to capture and represent meaning so that we can use it in the future. In a way, we approach every situation of in­ tercultural interaction as if it consisted of ‘things,• or small particles, and srrive to discover their exact meaning; this approach is found in the objective view of knowledge. But, as you remember, every situation is dynamic because “things• re­ late to other things, creating continual motion like that of a wave; this approach is found in the subjective view of knowledge. Thus, it is possible to discover the exact meaning of something with only a degree of certainty, which implies a de­ gree of uncertainty as well.

Introducing the Uncertainty Principle

lNow, on the basis of the discussion above, we can introduce the second principle underlying intercultural communication: the Uncertainty Principle. There are three parts to this principle, and each deals with the nature of our knowledge about our interactions with people from other cultures. First, we will discuss im­ certainty in terms of horizon of knowledge. Next, we will present intercultural communication as a process of dis-closure. Finally, we will show how uncertainty is linked to order. We will discuss each part separately and then formulate the Un- certainty Principle as a whole. ·

Uncertainty and Horizon of Knowledge

Uncertainty refers to our cognitive inability to predict or–explain •our own or others’ feelings and behaviors in interactions• (Chen & Starosta, 1998: 122). Two kinds of uncertainty are often isolated: predictive and explanatory. Predictive uncertainty is the inability to predict what someone will say or do, while explanatory uncertainty is the inability to explain why people behave as they do (Martin & Nakayama, 2000: 210).

Uncertainty usually evokes anxiety, which is considered to be its affective equivalent (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 329). Higher levels of uncertainty and anx­ iety directly correlate with increased communication apprehension (Neuliep & Ryan, 1998).

The Uncertainty Management Theory (Gudykunst, 1995; Gudykunst &

L

ee, 2002) sees the goal of intercultural communication as seeking information to re­ duce uncertainty and increase the predictability of our interactions with the Other. Ideally, it seems, uncertainty would be eliminated from our intercultural interac­ tions, but can it be? Can we be absolutely confident that our knowledge is certain

1
L

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 37

and complete? Can we honestly say that the way we have predicted or explained something excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future? We can try to know everything there is to know about our­ selves, about people from other cultures, and about how to interact with them, but can we succeed?

Earlier, it was shown that the line between objective reality and its subjec­ tive interpretation is always uncertain. Now let’s take this thesis a step further and look at intercultural communication, using a modification of the Johari Window model (Luft, 1970). Our model consists of four areas of awareness (or ‘window panes’) in the context of interaction (see Figure 3).

The first area, the Open Window, contains the information that others know about you and that you are aware of. The second area, the Closed Window, con­ tains the information that you know about yourself, but others do not know about you. The third area, the Blind Window, contains the information that other peo­ ple know about you, but you do not know. And the fourth area, the Unknown Window, contains the information that is unknown to both you and others.

In their interactions, people from different cultures share some information about themselves (Open Window). At the same time, people from one culture keep to themselves some information that people from the other culture are not aware of (Closed Window) and are unaware of some information that people from the other culture have about them (Blind Window). Intercultural commu­ nication takes place against the backdrop of some information that is not known to people from either culture (Unknown Window).

Consider the following situation (see Cohen, 1999: 224). Two persons, one from an Asian culture and the other from a Western culture, are engaged in busi­ ness negqtiations. At some point it becomes obvious to both parties that the ne­ gotiations are leading nowhere, yet the Asian suggests that a document be signed, presenting the negotiations as a success. The Westerner might view this behavior as frustrating or even ethically questionable. The Westerner might take offense and withdraw from the negotiations or, on the contrary, vow not to go away and insist that the negotiations continue. That behavior, in tum, might be perceived by the Asian as unnecessarily unpleasant and excessively persistent. To the Asian, accord is essential, to preserve appearances and maintain the impression that the

I
Open
11
Blind
I
Closed
11
Unknown
IKnown to self

Known to others

Known to others

Not known to othersI

FIGURE 3 Applkation of Johar! Window to Intercultural Communication

38 CHAPTER TWO

I ,I

1
I

negotiations have concluded on a basis of mutual respect and equal standing. Be­ sides, there is always a hope that, in the future, things might change and tum out all right.

First, these two people share some information about themselves: The Asian suggests that a document be signed, and the Westerner objects. This part of the in­ tercultural exchange forms its Open Window. Second, each person holds some in­ formation that the other is not aware of: The Asian wants to preserve appearances, while the Westerner wants to be straightforward. This part of the intercultural ex­ change forms its Closed Window. Third, both parties are unaware of some infor­ mation about them held by the other: The Asian is unaware that he or she is coming across as lazy or unethical, while the Westerner is unaware that he or she is coming across as stubborn and inconsiderate. This part of the intercultural ex­ change forms its Blind Window. Fourth, there is always the possibility that this situation may change, taking a new twist. Thus, this exchange contains informa­ tion that is not known to either party (Unknown Window).

Figure 4 shows intercultural interactions in terms of the areas of awareness discussed above. The shared area in the middle represents the Open Window; the areas on the left and right represent the Closed Window (Self’s view of Self) and the Blind Window (Other’s view of Self); and the background area represents the Unknown Window.

Every situation of intercultural interaction appears before us like a horizon: It seems to stand still, but in reality it does not. We move closer trying to reach it, and it moves away. Thus, the picture we see is always somewhat different-and limited to our view. What we have in front of us, in fact, is a viewing window. We try to see more of what is behind the left edge, and we inevitably lose some infor­ mation on the right. We try to see more of what is behind the right edge, and we

inevitably lose some information on the left. And something always remains un­

1 knowable. We must stress ‘the function of the unknown· because “concerned as

we are with what we do, we cannot forget that we are all limited individuals, most interested in those facts relevant to the course of our lives, having to make deci­ sions before we have all the information a pure seeker alter knowledge would re­ quire• (Fleischacker, 1994: 50-51).

FIGURE4

L

, I

I

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE !N !NTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 39

Thus, every situation of intercultural communication is characterized by a

horizon of knowledge-that is, a different degree of reach of knowledge. Like a

horizon, knowledge in intercultural communication is never completely reached.
‘i

In other words, seemingly static cultural realities are, in fact, dynamic by nature I I

and always open to new interpretation. One of Gary Larson’s cartoons makes this point very well. In the cartoon, an ostrich, sitting in a bar holding a cocktail glass, is saying to the woman next to him, “Well, according to the dictionary, I’m just a large, flightless bird from East Africa But believe me, Doris-once you get to

Iknow me, you’ll see I’m much, much more than that.• ‘I

So, we cannot be absolutely confident that our understanding is certain and complete; intercultural communication is inherently variable and subject to rein• terpretation. We can never say that the way we have predicted or explained some­ thing excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future. We must acknowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication.

Since uncenainty in intercultural communication cannot be avoided, we must deal with it. That is to say, we must share information with others and un· derstand their information ourselves. As a result, intercultural communication can be seen as a process of dis-closure.

Uncertainty and Dis-closure

Disclosure is usually defined as the process of ‘regulation of information flow be· tween the self and the outer world” (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 188). Often, this process is also labeled “self-disclosure’ (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 333).

‘Self-disclosure occurs among people of all cultures• (Lustig & Koester, 2003: 284), although there are cultural differences in the breadth, depth, valence, and targets of the self-disclosure (for more information, see Gudykunst & Kim, 2003: 333-334; Lustig & Koester, 2003: 284-285; Ting-Toomey, 1999: 188-189). Breadth refers to the range of topics of self-disclosure-for example, whether they include interests, tastes, financial matters, and physical condition. Depth refers to the level of information revealed in the process of self-disclosure-superficial or intimate. Valence refers to whether the information revealed in the process of self­ disclosure is positive (favorable to self} or negative (unfavorable to self). The tar• get of self-disclosure is the person to whom information is given, such as a same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, spouse, or acquaintance. –

When people engage in self-disclosure, they aim to open up their cultural identity, as it were, and share it with people from other cultures. In this respect, disclosure can be viewed as a process of opening up all the windows of awareness. During this process, people from each culture share information about themselves, which varies in terms of its breadth, depth, valence, and targets. However, as we saw earlier, they can never be confident that this information is cenain and com­ plete. First, people from one culture keep to themselves some information that people from the other culture are not aware of (Closed Window}. Second, there is always some information that people from one culture are unaware that people

40 CHAPTER TWO

from the other culture have about them (Blind Window). Third, in every inter­ cultural situation there is some inJormation that is not known 😮 people from ei­ ther of the interacting cultures (Unknown Window). So, disclosure always contains some missing information for people from another culture. From this perspective, intercultural communication between Self and the Other can be rep­ resented as shown in Figure 5.

Now, let’s see how the Other reacts to information revealed by Self. In this process, three strategies for dealing with uncenainty can be isolated-passive, ac­ tive, and interactive (Berger, 1979):

The passive strate9y entails reflective observations concerning the verbal and non­ verbal performance of the individual whom you are interested in getting to know. The active strate9y refers to seeking out information from a third person about the in­ terests and hobbies of the individual of interest. Lastly, the interactive strate9y refers to the direct interaction between yourself and that person. (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 189)

7
‘Using these three strategies, people from another culture (the Other) try to un­ derstand the new information they receive, based on the previous knowledge they have. This way, people aim to build a bridge between what they know and what they want to know. When a connection between the two is made, a pattern is es­ tablished; that is, closure is reached. Closure involves a process of li!ling in missing information. In other words, closure is a process for dealing with uncenainty whereby an incomplete stimulus is perceived to be complete (d. Bernstein et al.,

II 1988: 632). It is as ii people tried to close the windows of awareness, thereby re­ ducing uncenainty in intercultural interactions. However, as we saw earlier, uncer­

l tainty cannot be completely removed from intercultural interactions; we can never

reach the horizon, and the windows of awareness cannot be shut down once and for all. Thus, closure is a process of closing down windows of awareness that always contains some missing information. From this perspective, intercultural communi­ cation between Self and the Other can be represented as shown in Figure 6.

! FIGURE 5 lntercultural Communication from the Perspective of Disclosure

L.

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 41

FIGURE 6 Intercultural Communication from the Perspective of Closure

In intercultural communication, every culture acts as both Self and the

Other; sending and receiving information and thus using both disclosure and clo­ t sure. So, overall, intercultural communication can be presented as a process of l dis-closure (see Figure 7). !’

In this process, people from different cultures together construct knowledge ‘

of their own and each other’s identities and how to interact with each other. This

knowledge must be viewed like a giant dynamic puzzle, in which some pieces are

always missing.

You remember that disclosure was defined as a process of open­ ing up the windows of awareness that always contains some missing information, while closure was defined as a process of closing down the windows of awareness that always contains some missing information. Notice that, in both cases, some information is always missing-the knowledge constructed in the process of dis­ closure always contains some uncertainty.

This view of interactions between people from different cultures seems to be quite pessimistic. It is tempting, on the one hand, to fight this view with full de­ termination to find all missing pieces, aiming to complete the giant puzzle of in­ tercultural communication. As we saw earlier, however, this extreme approach is unproductive because it leads to a predetermined order. On the other hand, it is tempting to give in to this view, allowing the giant puzzle of intercultural

FIGURE7

42 CHAPTER TWO

communication to break into countless pieces and dealing with each piece indi­ vidually. As we saw earlier, however, this extreme approach is also unproductive because it leads to chaos.

So, what should we do with the uncertainty that is built into all intercultural interactions?

Order out of Uncertainty

The view of intercultural communication as a process of dis-closure with a hori­ zon of knowledge is not really pessimistic. We must not equate uncertainty with impossibility of intercultural communication. In fact, the opposite is true! We must acknowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural commu­ nication and, because it is unavoidable, deal with it. The rich history of intercul­ tural communication shows eloquently how people, over the centuries, have dealt

with uncertainty.

lRecall the example cited earlier of the North American and Tagalog scientists observing the same event and taking notes. It continues as follows:

So, as Heisenberg would have suggested, the true nature ol the event is indeter­ minable, although it can be investigated further, paradoxically, on the basis of the notes taken by these two scientists. (Danesi & Perron, 1999: 64; italics added)

Not only can it be, but it must be! For that is the only way to communicate-by comparing your notes or, figuratively, your perspectives of the same event from your respective •viewing windows,· In Chapter 5, we will discuss in depth how and why different cultures compare their perspectives. Right now, let’s emphasize that knowledge-in spite of or thanks to its unavoidable uncertainty-must be seen as a basis for intercultural communication. Order is created out of uncer­ tainty.

You might be having mixed feelings about the Uncertainty Principle, think­

ing that it sounds too philosophical, too academic, and too impractical. True, a per­ son with an uncertainty approach to intercultural communication might be seen as lacking self-confidence and unable to make decisions. Uncertainty values are not always encouraged, especially by Western cultures. But •humans should rec­ ognize that the possibility of certainty or complete predictability is an illusion and that believing this possibility is a product of an erroneous Western attempt to con­ trol nature” (Bradac, 2001: 546). We should also remember that ·indeterminate organisms possess expandable or ‘open’ boundaries that enable them to continue to grow and alter their patterns indefinitely” (Hoffmeyer, 1999: 337). Uncertainty opens a free space for change and evolution; it is the major force of creativity.

In this dynamic world, to be always certain might not be to your advantage. When you go beyond the boundary lines of your culture, you will discover, sooner or later, that the world cannot always be relied upon to meet your expectations. Being always certain often leads to intolerance, prejudice, and violence. To recog-

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE IN INTERCIJLTIJRAL COMMUNICATION 43

nize the Uncertainty Principle means to encourage humility and creativity and to take responsibility for your actions, admitting errors and seeking improvement. Without a degree of uncertainty, there would be no advancement of knowledge. Remember that ‘the development of self requires a kind of ‘enlightened indeter­ minacy’-a willingness to embrace ambiguity and uncertainty as an integral part of everyday life’ (Eisenberg, 2001: 534).

So, think of the Uncertainty Principle in a positive sense. Think of it the way Mary Bateson does. In her book Full Circles, Overlapping Lives: Culture and Generation in Transition, she has this to say:

We live with strangers. Those we love most, with whom we share a shelter, a table, a bed, remain mysterious. Wherever lives overlap and flow together, there are depths of unknowing. Parents and children, partners, siblings, and friends repeat­ edly surprise us, revealing the need to learn where we are most at home. We even surprise ourselves in our own becoming, moving through the cycles of our lives. There is strangeness hidden in the familiar. (2000: 27)

So-let themystery be!

The Uncertainty Principle Defined

Let’s now give a more concise formulation of the Uncertainty Principle, based on the above discussion of its three parts.

First, we cannot be absolutely confident that our understanding of intercul­ tural interactions is certain and complete. Intercultural communication is inher­ ently variable and subject to reinterpretation; in other words, our interpretations of new cultural experiences have a degree of uncertainty. We can never say that

!)le way we have predicted or interpreted something excludes all other predictions or interpretations made in the past or to be made in the future. We must ac­ knowledge uncertainty as an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication. Second, intercultural communication can be presented as a process of dis­ closure, or simultaneous opening up and closing down of the windows of aware­ ness. In this process, people from different cultures together construct knowledge of their own and each other’s identities (Self and the Other) and how to interact with each other. This knowledge is like a giant dynamic puzzle with some pieces

always missing.

Third, different interpretations of the same experiences form the basis of in­ tercultural communication, as shared order is created out of uncertainty.

In a nutshell, the Uncertainty Principle can be formulated as follows:

Intercultural communication is a process whereby people from different cultures constantly search for knowledge of how to interact with one another against the background of uncertainty.