Você está na página 1de 13
414 Winfried Thielmana Thicimann, Wine 2002. The problem of English as the Zngua franca of scholarly writing from a Geran perspective. In: Anthony Lidcoot and Karis Mule (eds). Per spectves on Europe, Langnage Ines and Language Planning in Europ {35-108 Melbourne: Language Australia ‘Thiclmann, Winried 2003, Wege aus dem sprachpolitschen Vakuum? Zur schenbacen wisenschas kultuellen Neutalit wiseenecaflicher Universlsprachen. In: Konrad Enlch (ed). Mehrsprachige.Wissenschft ~ earopaische Perspektiven. Eine Konferens im Europtischen Jar der Sprachen. wwweuro-sprachen jade Thictmann, Winfried 2064 Begrife als Handlungspotentisle - Ubertegungen 2 ener Klirung des PPinomens der "Bedeutung" einige fch- baw, wissenschaftesprachlich Symbolfeldausricke, Linguistisch ‘Cussroom discourse of an experienced teacher of indigeneous chide, Australian Revie of Applied Linguistics 272): 75-91 Toulmin, Stepbe 2001 Reta to Reason, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pr Van Dijk, Teun (4) 985." Hendbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume 4 Dis Landon: Acidemic Press. 985 The interaction betwocn jadge and defendant. In: Teun A. Van Dif 81-191, Landon: Academic Press. Wolf, Chsian Sprache heraus gegeben (Facsimile ofthe edition from 1733; Gesarnme! Werke 1 Abt Bd. 9), Hildesheim: Oks Hilesheim: Olns YYonus, Muhammed and Allan Jl 1098 Grameen ~ eine Bank fr die Armen der Welt, Bergisch Gladbach Communicating Identity Intercultural Communication Janet Spreckels and Helga Kotthoft When studying intercultural conumnicatio, dhe question automatically arises ‘of the identities through which individuals encounter each ether and how this ‘encounter can be analyzed, When a Italian and a Swedish surgeon jointly per form an operation in Zurich, their national identities are nt necessarily import ant, What is relevant under the given circumstances is that both are surgeon ‘can communicate with each other, and who has more experience in performing Particular surgical procedures, In order to discuss, inthe second pat of the a tle, the various procedures which Set cultural categorization as relevant, in the itt part the conceptualization of “identity” wil be outlined Social identity ‘The concept of social identity arose in social psychology and was, among others, developed by the social psychologists Henri Tajfel, Joseph Forgas and Yim Turner, Tajfel (1982: 2) defines the concept of social identity as follows: Social identity i thus the part of an individnal’s self-concept that is desived from her/his knowledge of het/his membership in social groups and from the emotional significance with which this membership is endowed. Tajel's em phasis on “part” can be understood if one considers the other part ofthe self concept, “personal” identity. The concept of this division of the “sel” into two parts goes back tothe social psychologist George Herbert Mead. In his major work, Mind, Self and Society (1934), he developed an interaetionst paradigm 1 idcntity that contains the reflexive ability of the subject to behave toward himself and toward others. Identity accordingly has two components: s social component, the so-called ‘me’ and ia personal component (als the personal, individual, subject or self) compo: nent the Mead thereby paved the way forthe later concept ofthe ‘social’ vs. te “pr: onal” Ademtry, without, however, himself using these ters, T 416 Janet Spreckels and Helga Koto nent of identity worked out by Mead develops through the growth of the in dal ino his socio-cultural suroundings and is derived from identification peer group of which the individual understands himself tobe a part. Social iden tty is thas a par ofthe self worked out inthe socio-cultural life contet. Pe sonal identity, othe contrary, refers to the unigueness ofthe individual in eon Something ike the continuity ofthe T" (Habermas 1968) Krappmann (1978 39) summaries this dichotomy a follows Obviously enti both simultaneous: the ange expectations ofthe oer andthe indivi’ own ants. GLH. Mad och thi dal sper of Wnty ito ethernet an “the iavida's answer othe expectations ofthe hers Although most authors usually speak of “identity” inthe singular, “each social identity is just one among many [...] which each individual possesses (Schwvit alla & Sireeck 1989: 237), because “the uniquenes of individuals es in thee bend of multiple social and personal identities” (Meyerhoft 1996: 215). Weal ake various oles in everyday life (as daughter, grriend, member of «spor Club, ee), affliate wih various socal groups and thereby mark outa variety of social entities, Individuals construct their social identities on the bass of Vat (us socially and culturally relevant parameters, such as nationality, gender 9 profession lifestyle ee. (Duszak 2002: 2 and Keupp et al. 2002: 68) The con ep of social identity must therefore be understood as muli-sded and very dy “Today its commonplace in socal psychology to think of dentiy asthe pro essul and never-ending tsk ofeach person (see Brabant, Watson and Galois inthis volume), but thie wa not alway the cae. Inthe oer litratcr th ‘were ocasiomaly static concepts which porrayed biography and identity Something stable. permanent and unchangeable” (Keupp etal, 2002: 22) Soch approaches, which portray identity a a sor of goal toe achieved, can however nol be upheld in view of empirical studies and an inreasingly multi-faceted so Ciety. Alteady Mead (1934) pointed in his intractionist approach (othe con structive and negotiated character of social identity and emphasized that iden being negotnted in interaction. More recent this important aspect has oft been emphasized, this, eg. Duszak (2002: 2) has writen, “socal identities tend tobe indeterminate, situational rather than permanent, dynamic and inter actively constructed. ty intercultural Communication 417 1.1, Modern patchwork identities Ifthe construction of identity, as described above, i lifelong process, this dy namism and changeabilty simultaneously pose the danger of an inconsistent identity. Our modern world is marked by accelerated processes of change greater geographic and social mobility, freedom to form attachments, the plural ization of life forms and worldviews, and progressive individualization, Thereby fea individ’ possible Identity spectrum has considerably increased: "While carer the development of identity was much more strongly marked by the posi tion info which one was bora, modern man is forced to choose among many possibilities, and this strugee of youth withthe required choice ofa sef-detini- tion i ...] ferred to as an identity crisis" (eter and Dreher 1995: 348; Baw meister 1986; Luckmann etal, 1981 /\key term inthe contemporary process of finding an identity i ‘possibility fof enoice's “modernity confronts the individual with a complex diversity af hhoices and... atthe same time offers litte help as to which options should be selected” (Giddens 1991: 80, emphasis added). Where previously there was litte possibility of ehoice, today individuals face a life-world variety of experi ‘ences that onthe one sie frees them, but on the other sce leaves them deeply insecure and partly overtaxed. Schifers (2001: 92) points out that identity problems only arise in socal systems like the present ones. Giddens (1991: 81) aplly describes this situation with the insight: "[Wle have no choice but 0 choos Certain basic, self-evident aspects of our society are being putin question and shaken by new altematives, Today there are, e-., various models of the ‘most important socal group upon which society is based: the family, The eman cipation movement brought about the possibility forthe classical role models the devoted mother and housewife and the father as Family breadwinner to be challenged and revised. Certainly thee ae still a large number of fanilies with twaditional role assignments, but besides this, today there are also some families ‘where the wife “brings hone the bacon” while the husband takes a parental leave of absence. In addition, there are single mothers and fathers, commuter families, homosexual couples with children, so-called ‘patchwork families’ that result from the founding of families after respectively terminated partnerships, etc Family relationships are today anything but clearly defined and therefore no longer serve to the same degree as previously as stable references for identity The family is only one area of societal life that has lost stability inthe course of socio-cultural change; besides it one can name class membership, nation, pro fessional world, religion, gender and generational relationships, sexuality and many others, Keupp etal. 2002: 87) therefore speak ofthe “dissolution of gue antees of coherency” and affirm that “even the core stocks of our identity con structions ~ national and ethnic identity, sender and body identity thave lost] their quasi-"natural’ quality as guarantors of identity 418 Janet Spreckels snd Helga Ki In the 1960s James Marcia, a student of Enkson, developed the sdeatity model of his teacher, by constructing a differentiated model with four diferent idemtity states, the “idemty status model" (Marcia 1966). He distinguishes among a) “achievement,” i.e, an eared oF developed identity, 6) the “mor torium,” a currently ongoing struggle wit various value questions, ¢)“oreclo ure," the adopted identity, mostly through the adoption of he value conceptions ofthe parents, and finally d) “identity diffusion,” a state in which individuals have not yet reached a firm position on values. In order to grasp a person's cu rent identity status, Marcia posed youthful subjects a series of questions in the frame of an “identity status interview” (concerning professions, religion, polities, etc.. His empirical studies (Marcia 1989) shoved that the share of Youth with diffuse identities had increased after ca. 1984 from 209% toca, 40% Marcia thereby offered an early proof that youth are becoming less inclined t ‘ommit themselves to stable, binding and oblizating — and in this sense iden tty-giving ~ relationships, orientations and valves.” (Keupp et al. 2002: 81 This tendency has increased in recent years. Inthe so-called “fun society" of today hedonistic, media, experience- and consumer oriented values play a com ‘manding role, which simultaneously entails a large number of new possible identifications. Penelope Eckert (2000: 14) describes the situation of youth in ‘modern times as a “marketplace of identities,” and Baacke (1987) describes the ofthese expanded possibilities of choice are modern identities that Elkind (1990) refers to as "patchwork identities.” Such an identity is, a the metaphorical con cept reveals, pieced together from individual “patches,” namely patial-identtie and possesses no unified identity core, Oerter and Dreher (1995: 354) point out that persons wih patchwork idemiies canbe very suecessful, bit no longer Full the ‘classical’ criteria of « worked-out, integrated identity” In a patchwork ale attitudes and customs are juxtapoced with no ties and in pat contradict each other” (ibid) The classical question of identity research, namely of ov the indivical succeeds in achieving a consistent identity from a variety of possibil: ities and thereby experiences herself, despite all the differences, as not torn, but ther coherent, thus is becoming increasingly important in modern times. Keupp nd other psychologists take up Elkind’ concept ina study entitled The Patch work of lentties in Late Modeity and come tothe conclusion that in many sit fever, neither possible nor necessary, since, “the constancy of the self does not consist in resolving all differences, but rather in enduring the resulting tension nd mastering constantly recurring criss.” Modem identities are thus, onthe one side, marked by more possibilities, to which the virtual communities of the inter het have made @notinessential contribution, and, on the oer side, however, asc by more uncertainties. The constriction of identity in youth can therefore take the form of an “open and often chaotic process of search,” (Eckert ct al, 200 1 Besides the so far presented complexity and changeabilty of social identity, the meaning ofthe ‘other’ forms the second central aspect fr the constitution of the elf. AS the initially formulated definition of social identity by Tajfel and others and the discussions above have made clear, this part of individual identity is derived from simultancous membership in specific groups and demarcation iterdependent and inter-subjective” (Keupp et al. 2002: 138). We develop out identity not ina vacuum, but rather in and through the constant comparison of the self with other individuals and groups: “Only by comparing ourselves with ‘thers can we build up our affiliations and our non-alignments” (Duszak 2002 1), Tuner (1982: 17) therefore brings the concept of social identity together with a further central concept of identity researc, socal cat Social identification can refer wo the proces of locating oneself or ase bya person to define him or herself and others. [.-] The som tl of he sot identification used bya person odin him or ersel willbe desribed as his on het iocial identity. Social eategorzations define person by systematically includ ‘hem within some, and excluding thom fom oer related categories, They sate at the sume time what person i and sn entity can thus only be grasped in a social context. Anyone who wants to do research on the social identities of individuals must therefore of necessity also ake into account the relationships of these individuals to other persons and _groups (Keupp ct al. 2002: 67, Oerter and Dreher 1995; 361, Strauss 1969: 44), for from an “anthropological perspective identity isa relationship and not, as everyday language supposes, an individual characteristic” (Goussiaux cited in ‘upp otal. 2002: 98). Identity ant altevity ae inseparably bound to one ah other, and hence Goussiaux formulates the question of identity not as “Who am ut rather as “[Wyho am Tin relationship tothe others, who are the others in relationship to me?” Tajfel & Forgas (1981: 124) express this relationship with the intuitive formula: “We are what we are because they are not what we are This fundamental aspect of relationships of social identity is constantly being emphasized in identity and categorization research, Sine ereatng afinity with ‘respectively demateation ffom others 1s often achieved using linguistic ‘means, itis especialy linguistic studies that have been dedicated to these pro: cesses (recently, e.g. Duszak 2002, Hausendorf and Kesselheim 2002, An Aroutsopoulos and Georgakopoulou 2003). Already in 1959, Anselm Strauss as serted: “Cental to any discussion of identity is language” (1969: 15). Articles With tiles like: "We, They and Identity” (Sebba and Wootton 1998), “Us and Others” (Duszak 2002), and “Us and Them” (Zhou 2002) point to the fact that without the “they” no we" can exist.