Video: [Link]

v=m0FTB6giFzQ
Reading: [Link]
Martin, Nakayama, & Flores’ Dialectical Approach (pp. 3-13 in MN&F reader)
Some critique approaches such as that by Neuliep (based in part on a “classic” approach
by Gudykunst and Kim) by arguing that it is too linear—for example, with variables that predict
outcomes. They feel that communication might, in fact, be too difficult to “predict” in the way a
traditional scientific theory would propose.
Others suggest that, in fact, we want some uncertainty or tension in our communication, or
that one partner in an interaction might want more predictability and another more novelty.
These people feel that prediction and novelty are opposite sides of a coin—both exist in tension
with each other, always present, but also always contradicting or working against each other.
MN&F, in their essay that introduces their text of readings, combine these two criticisms to
provide their own approach to intercultural communication. Where the other two frameworks
we look at in this unit are visual models, this is more of an approach that can be used to
understand actual intercultural communication and intercultural research.
Questions for the reading:

 What do MN&F mean by a “dialectical approach”? Baldwin’s summary and brief history:
1. Brief history: Hegel and Marx were early writers to use the dialectical
perspective. According to Marx, there was a tension between a current
political/economic system (the “thesis”) and an opposing view (the “antithesis”).
These struggled together to create a new “synthesis,” which, after entrenched,
became the new “thesis,” awaiting a new “antithesis” to challenge it, and so
on. Bakhtin applied the view to relationships and communication, and writers in
relationships (e.g., Baxter & Montgomery, Rawlins) applied the view more fully
to relationships.
2. The dialectic is a tension between two opposites that contradict each other and,
yet, must both be present at any given time, as complements of each other. The
dialectical view of relationships (Baxter & Montgomery, for example) treats
relationships as murky, messy, even unpredictable. Rather, the dialectical
approach explains how one partner in a relationship wants a particular balance
(for example) of independence and autonomy, while the other partner might
want a different balance.
3. In sum, then, the tension comes to explain a view where, rather than placing
items in a dichotomy, we see them in an ongoing, ever-changing tension with
each other, with both likely present at any time.
 The first set of dialectics (pp. 4-6) refer to everyday interaction, some referring to the
tensions that exist within a culture and others to tensions that exist within intercultural
communication. Be able to define and tell the difference between different tensions
(Figure 1). I will provide examples here—you can see the chapter for the definitions:
 1. Cultural Individual: As I interact with Shyla, our interaction will reflect some
balance of personal identities and personalities, but also some balance of
cultural influence. The exact balance will change from person to person in the
interaction and from time to time (for example, if we are following scripts,
culture may influence our behavior more. As we get to know each other better,
we may make more predictions based on personal aspects of the other, though
culture will still play more or less of a role at any given time.
2. PersonalSocial-Contextual: Since Shyla is a student and I am the prof, our
behavior will also have a role-based component. Each of us will behave, in part,
in line with social role or context expectations (i.e., fulfilling a role) and in part in
terms of personal goals or ideas. Again, this will change over time and from
situation to situation.
3. Differences  Similarities: Our communication will have (cultural)
differences, but we should not overemphasize these. We will also have cultural
similarities. These differences and similarities exist in tension…
4. Static  Dynamic: Where others suggest that some cultures strive for change
and others maintain stability, the dialectical approach holds that change and
stability mark all cultures (including organizational and religious cultures)—
within any culture, forces will work both for change and for stability, with change
being more important (to some members) at some times, and stability at other
times or to other members.
5. Present-future  History-past: The same can be said of the drive towards the
future or striving towards the past. If we look back to time-capsule exercise, we
do see change in American culture, but also a deep-abiding tradition. Notably,
however, some cultures may have a preference for change or future, even
though stability and past-focus are still present. Also, these last two dimensions
refer more to a single culture than to interaction between individuals.
6. Privilege  Disadvantage: Here we see the critical roots of some of the
authors coming out: According to the authors, all interactions, especially
intercultural interactions, have power relationships, where some individuals
have more socially inscribed (social, economic, political) than others. But it is a
tension—both people in an interaction might have power, but the relations are
more complex than assuming that just because a person is a White male tourist,
that he has all the power in the interaction! This power dimension has been
ignored by most traditional researchers.
In sum, we see that this approach, rather than predicting intercultural communication
outcomes, sees intercultural communication as more dynamic (processual) and contains a
critical element as well.

 The second set of tensions (pp. 6-11) start with tensions of doing research. These relate
to the three “paradigms” that guide intercultural communication research. Understand
the main tensions as represented in the bottom part of Figure 2. In brief, the dimensions
are as follows:
1. Causal  ReciprocalßàContested: This deals with what causes human
behavior. The causal approach (à la Gudykunst) sees causality as fairly linear (A
causes B, which causes C). A reciprocal view (like a “systems” approach) would
see A causing or influencing B, but B also influencing A—kind of like the
communication patterns in our families! The contested view might actually
abandon the notion that causality exists at all, suggesting that people act based
on choices and “in order to” motives, rather than “because of” motives.
2. Reductionist  Holistic: Some research wants to break reality down into
smaller parts—typically “variables”—and a single study will look at the
relationships between some of these variables (such as “warm nonverbal
behavior” and “teacher effectiveness” in the cross-cultural classroom). Other
researchers think that this “variable analytic” approach ignores larger social,
political, relational, or historical contexts, and will, instead, seek to understand
behavior within these contexts. Because of these approaches, the first type of
approach will tend to try to “predict” outcomes (in “independent variables”)
based on the “influences” of other variables. The second will seek, instead, to
“interpret” an interaction or group or text in terms of the social contexts, but
may not try to predict at all.
3. Objective  Subjective: This deals, briefly, with whether there is an reality
external to observers, or whether reality is essentially in the minds of the
observers. But perhaps it is time to turn to a fuller explanation of these. First, in
sum, where much research frames itself in terms of one approach (subjective) or
the other (objective), M, N, & F suggest that these are tensions—that is, that
objective and subjective elements might both appear in a scholar’s approach,
and that the two existe in tension with each other.