Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Statement of the problem and significance of the present research

Globalization has compressed time and space，allowing cultures of different geographic locations and historical epochs to interact.Such interaction inevitably brings about the diffusion and hybridization of values，beliefs，norms，and behavior patterns of diverse cultural origins.As a result，the cultures in which we live today may escape some of the traditional definitions that tended to focus on nationality and pan-cultural traits（cultural dimensions）.In the case of intercultural communication research，Durant and Shepherd（2009）observed that“in a period of cultural adaptation and hybridization，more precise specification of both‘culture’and‘communication’appear to be needed if we are to understand how cultural identities relate to the variation of communicative styles with which they co-occur”（p.151）.Similarly，Xu（2012）questioned the prevailing practices of employing and presenting key concepts such as“culture”in an uncritical manner and called for the re-conceptualization of such concepts.Intercultural communication scholars，“who are professionally committed to limiting the damage caused by cultural simplification and misunderstanding”（Durant&Shepherd，2009：151），therefore need to reconsider the extant culture-related theories，perspectives，assumptions，and research methodologies to ensure their relevance to today’s globalized contexts.

The present research project，on the basis of a historical review of diverse conceptualizations of culture in the field of intercultural communication and an exploration of their philosophical foundations，attempts to bring into light the latest developments in social psychological research on culture to illuminate today’s intercultural scholarship.These developments are characterized by a dynamic process view，a perspective markedly different from the traditional cross-cultural psychological approach which places more emphasis on the structure and fixed-traits of culture.Although the field of intercultural communication is informed by diverse approaches to culture（Baldwin，2004；Baldwin et al.，2006；Baldwin，et al.，2014；Casmir&Asuncion-Lande，1990；Chen&Starosta，1998；Kurlyo，2013；Martin&Nakayama，1997，1999，2009，2010），much of its work continues to rely upon the fixed-traits view as exemplified by the cultural anthropology and cross-cultural psychology of values on which the field has been traditionally based（e.g.，Hofstede，1980；Kluckhohn&Strodtbeck，1961；Schwartz，1992；Triandis，2006；Trompenaars&Hampden-Turner，2004）.The stress on the static and orderly characteristics of culture is equally manifested in many popular intercultural communication textbook materials that adopt a functional/postpostivist research approach field were produced in the mid-1970s，most new iterations have continued providing variations of rather staid formats that overview knowledge about culture，communication，and the IC field，highlight key concepts or constructs，suggest functional approaches to better ways of thinking or behavior，and promote applications toward developing IC awareness，competence，and ways of dealing with diversity（Weng，in press）.）and，accordingly，reflected in how culture is typically“taught”in an intercultural communication classroom.

The fixed-traits view has successfully reduced the complexity of culture to a number of manageable global，“universal”dimensions and provided assumedly powerful tools for anticipating and interpreting cultural differences（Chiu&Chao，2009）.However，this view faces severe challenges today.First，since it assumes that culture is a coherent system and a static entity defined in terms of geographical boundaries and/or demographic features，it seems inadequate in addressing the permeable impact of globalization on culture.Biculturalism，multiculturality，rapid modernization，and drastic societal change that have frequently been treated as“noise”in data are now widely believed to be substantial issues that require serious considerations（Hong&Chiu，2001；Kulich&Zhang，2010）.Second，it has been challenging to empirically establish system coherence within a culture（Kashima，2009；Hong&Chiu，2001）.Recent research findings suggest that some collectivistic cultures are actually more individualistic than individualistic cultures depending upon which component of individualism or collectivism is under study（Oyserman，Coon，&Kemmelmeier，2002）.Third，it is difficult to establish the causal link between global cultural dimensions and cultural differences in individuals’behavior（Kashima，2009；Hong&Chiu，2001）although cross-cultural behavioral differences have traditionally been attributed to the differences in cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism.Such evidence seems to suggest that these dimensions generally only provide useful frameworks for making sense of（rather than predicting）culture-related human behaviors.

As such，it is of great importance to develop alternative approaches that may be helpful in overcoming the problems stated above.The dynamic process view of culture as proposed by cultural psychologists Ying-yi Hong，Chi-yue Chiu，and their associates（Hong&Chiu，2001；Hong，Morris，Chiu，&Benet-Martinez，2000；Hong&Mallorie，2004；Chiu&Hong，2005，2006，2007；Hong，2009；Chiu，Leung，&Hong，2011）provides such an approach.Taking a knowledge perspective，these scholars generally view culture as loosely-connected networks of knowledge shared among a collection of interrelated individuals.Culture is seen as an open system that is continuously changing and evolving.Cultural differences are viewed as“the differing contents of the widely circulated and highly accessible knowledge structures in different cultures”（Chiu&Hong，2007：794）.More importantly，the application of cultural knowledge follows the principles of knowledge activation，i.e.，cultural knowledge has to be available and accessible in people’s mind to be used and it is only used when deemed applicable to the assigned task（Higgins，1996；Wyer&Srull，1986）.Although perhaps less parsimonious than the fixed-traits approach，the dynamic process approach has demonstrated the capacity to establish some kind of cultural causation using priming methods that were pioneered by Hong and her associates（e.g.，Hong et al.，1997，2000），thereby moving a step forward in human behavior prediction.

Caught between culture and communication，intercultural communication as a field likewise needs to go beyond the static，fixed-traits treatment of culture to incorporate dynamic approaches into its scholarship.The problems confronting cultural and cross-cultural psychology are equally present in communication research.As Xu（2012）noted：

“Culture”has to be reconceptualized if we really want to contribute more to increased understanding and dialogue rather than to stereotyping and prejudices.There is consequently a need to move away from solidified，reified，polarized，and objectivist visions of culture in such a complex and mixed world，where multidimensional cultural encounters are common.

Indeed，if these problems are left unaddressed，much of our research will likely be mechanic，reductionist，de-contextualized，culturally essentialized，and thus irrelevant to the actual world in which we live.