2.1 Conceptualizing culture

2.1.1 Categorization of definitions of culture

More than half a century ago，the American anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn（1952）reviewed 164definitions of culture that they found in the anthropology literature and identified six dimensions（cited in Baldwin et al.，2006：8）as follows：

1.Enumeratively descriptive（a list of the content of culture）

2.Historical（emphasis on social heritage，tradition）

3.Normative（focus on ideals or ideals plus behavior）

4.Psychological（learning，habit，adjustment，problem-solving device）

5.Structural（focus on the pattern or organization of culture）

6.Genetic（symbols，ideas，artifacts）

Based on the review，they proposed an inclusive definition that encompasses elements of the six dimensions：

Culture consists of patterns，explicit and implicit，of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols，constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups，including their embodiments in artifacts；the essential core of culture consist of traditional（i.e.，historically derived and selected）ideas and especially their attached values；culture systems may，on the one hand，be considered as products of action，on the other as conditioning elements of further action.（Kroeber&Kluckhohn，1952：181）

Baldwin，Faulkner，Hecht，and Lindsley（2006）extended that classic study by exploring how culture is conceptualized across disciplines that are most relevant to communication studies.They classified definitions of culture into five categories，namely，structural，functional，process，critical，and postmodern（see Table 1）.Because“structural”and“functional”have traditionally been used in tandem，a hyphenated term“structural-functional”is used to refer to the combination of the two.The resulting four categories more or less reflect the evolution of the concept of culture in the social sciences，but all of them can be found in contemporary academia with varying influences.

2.1.2 Structural-functional view of culture

As can be expected，the conceptualization of culture has undergone parallel evolution in the field of intercultural communication.One prominent view is structural-functional in nature，construing culture as a system or framework of elements or a tool for achieving some end.For example，Kulich and SII Follows（2013）offer the following structural definition：“Culture is，in its simplest form，an identifiable，pass-on-able，mutually adopted set or shared semiotic system of inherent meanings，acceptable behaviors，and desirable outcomes related to a specific group”.From the standpoint of functionality and needs，they offer another：“Culture represents evidence of our need to associate with，identify with，and seek similarity，comfort/security，and belongingness in the inherent and constructed codes of a community/context/text that defines‘us’”.Scollon and Wong Scollon（2001）see structural-functional definition as anthropological.Culture refers to“any aspect of the ideas，communications，or behaviors of a group of people which gives to them a distinctive identity and which is used to organize their internal sense of cohesion and membership”（p.140）.

In the early years when the field was beginning to take roots，Edward T.Hall，under the influence of the early anthropologists such as Edward B.Tylor（1871），Ruth Benedict（1934/1959），and Margaret Mead（1953），viewed culture as“a system of patterns which must be learned”（Leeds-Hurwitz，1990：268）.Because culture is patterned thought and behavior，it could be analyzed scientifically.Being a traditional anthropologist，Hall demonstrated“a deep regard for culture explored principally by descriptive，qualitative methods”（Shuter，2008：37）.However，it is Hall’s experience at the Foreign Service Institute（FSI）that greatly influenced“how‘culture’came to be defined and by extension，studied in the field”（Moon，2010：35）.Under the governmental insistence，Hall（1956）treated“culture”，even though with much reluctance，as“an instrumental set of rules or‘cookbook’that white US American trainees could learn quickly then bring to bear as they pursued their assignments in foreign countries”（Moon，2010：35）.According to Leeds-Hurwitz（1990），Hall’s experience at the FSI led to“the creation of an agenda for intercultural communication as a field of inquiry which included comparative approaches to the study of culture primarily defined in terms of national boundaries...”（Moon，2010：35）.

Despite the felt influence of Hall’s conceptualization of culture，according to Moon（2008），the field of intercultural communication in the 1970s witnessed diverse ways in which culture is defined.Apart from the“standard”definition of nation-state，“culture”is also defined in terms of race，social class，and gender identity.However，starting in the late 1970s，the conception of“culture”as“nation-state”came to dominate the field.By 1980，with positivist research projects mushrooming，“culture”became construed as a variable，defined a priori by group membership.This trend is largely attributed to Gudykunst and associates’cross-cultural tests of uncertainty reduction theory which follow a positivist tradition or to Hofstede’s（1980）major multi-national work.It is also attributed to international interest in intercultural communication created by numerous publications addressing the diffusion of innovations including intercultural communication（Rogers，2003）.In a large sense，Gudykunst and associates’positivist and“objectivist”approach to the study of intercultural communication and the historical context of the field’s development bring the field back to“the discursive rules for intercultural communication scholarship as laid out by Leeds-Hurwitz（1990）and attributed to Hall”（Moon，2008：15）.

The popularity of the positivist approach to culture in the field of intercultural communication in the late 1970s and 1980s is also associated with the field’s struggle for its disciplinary identity（Moon，2008）.Following the social sciences tradition of the 1970s，intercultural communication scholars sought to establish disciplinary status through the means of“methodological rigor”（Casmir&Asuncion-Lande，1990：282）which involved the careful application of statistical and mathematical models（Gudykunst，1983a）and emphasized theory development and testing（Gudykunst，1983b）.As a consequence，in much intercultural communication research，“culture”is treated as a mere“research laboratory for testing the validity of communication paradigms”（Shuter，2008：37）and the experiences and self-reports of privileged members of the United States and Japan represent“culture”for all cultural members（Moon，2008）.From the 1980s to the mid-1990s，scholarly publications on intercultural communication primarily framed culture as nation and relied on postpositivist（cultural measurement）approaches，leading to the development of many sorts of generalizations about massive populations of peoples such as individualistic versus collectivist cultures and high-context versus low context cultures.

A growing number of scholars in the 1990s critiqued the predominant theoretical construct of culture as nation-state and questioned the power dynamics underlying such a construct.As Moon（2008）notes，“We must again，as in the 1970s，seriously consider whose interests are served by continuing to construct‘culture’primarily in terms of national boundaries and by maintaining the current focus on the development of‘intercultural cookbooks’for interaction”（p.16）.Dirks，Eley，and Ortner（1994）echoed that culture may be viewed as multiple discourses，“occasionally coming together in large systemic configurations，but more often coexisting within dynamic fields of interaction and conflict”（p.4）.Shuter（1990）challenges the prevalent practice of treating culture as a mere independent variable in theory validation research and proposes an intracultural research agenda in intercultural communication that returns culture to preeminence（Asante，Miike，&Jin，2008）.

Following scholarly critiques of the predominant conception of culture as nation-state is the broadening of the meaning of culture to include gender，race，ethnicity，sexual orientation，social class，and other identifications that affect and are affected by interaction.However，the structural-functional view of culture endures as the field continues to be dominated by the functional intercultural competence effective model drawing upon psychologists and management scholars such as Hofstede，Schwartz，Triandis，and Trompenaars（Young&Sercombe，2010）.As Wang and Kulich（2014）observed in a recent textbook review：“Most intercultural introductory textbooks have sought to maintain a mainstream middle ground yet often default to a functionalist，social science，interpersonal effectiveness approach”（p.508）.

2.1.3 Process view of culture

The prevailing conception of culture as entities with relatively static traits does not mean that the concept of“process”has been ignored in intercultural communication.Decades ago，Prosser（1978）argued that“Communication and culture are both processes”（p.1）.The process view often stresses the role of communication in shaping culture，assuming that culture is“an active creation by a group of people”，embodying“the processes by which a group constructs and passes on its reality，rather than the reality itself handed down to others”（Baldwin et al.，2006：40）.Similarly，Shibutani（1994）argued that：

Culture is not a static entity but a continuing process；norms are creatively reaffirmed from day to day in social interaction.Those taking part in collective transactions approach one another with set expectations，and the realization of what is anticipated successively confirms and reinforces their perspectives.In this way，people in each cultural group are continuously supporting one another’s perspectives，each by responding to the others in expected ways.In this sense，culture is a product of communication.（p.269）

Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo（1982）argued for the centrality of sense making and reality construction in cultural processes：

Culture is to be studied not so much as a system of kinship，or a collection of artifacts，or as a corpus of myths，but as sense making，as a reality constructed and displayed by those whose existence is embedded in a particular set of webs.But the web not only exists，it is spun....When[people]talk，write a play，sing，dance，fake an illness，they are communicating；and they are constructing their culture.（p.123）

It is the idea of ongoing sense making and reality construction that reveals the fact that culture is dynamic processes.Thus，Baldwin et al.（2006）concluded that“perhaps all other process definitions could be subsumed under this social constructionist view of making sense or constructing reality”（p.42）.

Sense-making and reality construction are well reflected in the symbolic interactionist perspective to culture.Under the influence of the work of Mead（1934），Blumer（1969），and Geertz（1973），some scholars argue that social reality is under the constant process of construction and change through message exchange.Although Geertz’s definition of culture as linguistic structures is in essence a structural definition，it allows us to see culture continually evolving through language.Further，as Denzin and Lincoln（1998）noted，“Geertz argued that the old functional，positivistic，behavioral，totalizing approaches to the human disciplines were giving way to a more pluralistic，interpretative，open-ended perspective.This new perspective took cultural representations and their meanings as its point of departure”（p.18）.Thus，the view of culture moved，largely through Geertz’s work，from a view of elements to a view of the process which those elements are continually created and recreated.

This view bears some resemblance to Hall’s（1959）argument of communication as culture，except that in this view，communication creates and constructs culture rather than culture influencing communication.For example，Moon（2002）contended that culture is constantly reconstructed through communication because communication both creates the identities through ongoing interaction among a group and manages them in interaction.Some feminists proposed“doing gender”in our everyday interaction .Carbaugh（1990），echoing his tutor Phillipsens and the language in social interaction group，approached culture from the view of how people practice their culture in everyday lives.He defines culture as“a system of expressive practices fraught with feelings，a system of symbols，premises，rules，forms，and the domains and dimensions of mutual meanings associated with these.”This is consistent with the more holistic ethnographic approach to culture.

2.1.4 Critical view of culture

Both the structural-functional view and process view to some degree stresses meaning-sharing，the critical view，which is derived from cultural studies，sees culture as a site of contestation of meaning（Sorrells，2013）.In this view，culture is often treated as“imagined，constituted in communication，and constrained by social structures and ideologies over a trajectory of time by people and institutions”（Collier，2002：xi）.

Critical scholars argue for“culture as an ideological struggle”which departs from“an unproblematized description and characterization of culture as given or as an essential（natural/internal）set of traits or characteristics or psychological tendencies possessed by a group of individuals merely by virtue of their geographically‘belonging together’”（Halualani&Nakayama，2010：6）.Relating culture to communication in this view，Martin and Nakayama（2000）explained that“culture...is not just a variable，nor benignly socially constructed but a site of struggle where various communication meanings are constructed...”（p.8）.

Similarly，Moon（2002）argued for more complex notions of cultural identity to grasp the political nature of identification processes.She proposed the notion of culture as a“contested zone”，arguing that“if we define culture as a contested zone in which different groups struggle to define issues in their own interests，we must also recognize that not all groups have equal access to public forums to voice their concerns，perspectives，and the everyday realties of their lives”（p.16）.This critical approach assumes that people have overlapping identities that are not static，but are subject to change depending on situations.They are processual in that individuals can enter a situation with one identity in mind，but another can emerge during the interaction.In this conception，culture has become an ongoing site of struggle with different degrees and types of power.

Interestingly，as Sorrells（2013）notes，the contrast itself between the functional notion of culture being a system of shared meaning and the critical conception of culture as a contested site or zone demonstrates the struggle over the meaning of the concept of culture：

Undoubtedly，the logic of understanding culture as a contested site or zone where meanings are negotiated appeals to and makes sense for people who experience themselves as marginalized from or marginalized within the centers of power，whether this is based on race，class，gender，ethnicity，sexuality，or nationality.Similarly，the logic of understanding culture as a system of shared meanings appeals to and makes sense for people at the centers of power or in a dominant role，whether this position is based on race，class，gender，ethnicity，sexuality，or nationality.（p.8）

2.1.5 Postmodern view of culture

Postmodern writers propose“a radical undermining of any assumption about the stability of particular cultural meanings”（Barnard&Spencer，1996：141）.As Clifford（1986）noted，“Culture，and our views of‘it’，are produced historically，and reactively contested.There is no whole picture that can be‘filled in’，since the perception and filling of a gap lead to the awareness of other gaps...Culture is contested，temporal，and emergent”（pp.18-19）.Thus，Conquergood（1991）urged writers to resist monolithic descriptions of culture，to return the“body”and multisensuality to ethnography，and to focus on the“borderlands”.He further urged the student of culture to be reflexive—to recognize the connection between the observed and observer.When it comes to defining culture itself，some postmodern theorists merely present different definitions for culture，contending that no one definition is superior or inferior to the other（Collier et al.，2002）.However，according to Martin and Nakayama（2010），at this point，it seems that only a few culture and communication scholars have embraced the postmodern research trajectory.

To summarize，the evolution of the conceptualization of culture in the field of intercultural communication reveals a similar pattern as highlighted by Baldwin et al.（2006）.It is worth noting，however，that this evolution process is not one of replacing the“old”with the“new”；rather，the evolution has resulted in a juxtaposition of differing perspectives of culture，each having varying degrees of influence.