Running head: A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 1

The Background, Description, and Application of Co-Cultural Theory

Matthew A Reiskytl

Wheaton College

30 November 2020
A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 2

Abstract

Mark Orbe’s Co-Cultural Theory has its roots in Muted Group and Standpoint Theory. Co-

Cultural Communication is defined and utilized. Co-Cultural Theory’s six influential factors are

described and explained in-depth. Extensions of the Theory are utilized to illustrate what is

going on in the film Purl.

Keywords: co-culture, dominant culture, communication orientation

A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 3

The Background, Description, and Application of Co-Cultural Theory

Originally created with a primarily feminist agenda, the Pixar short film titled Purl sheds

light on way more than just the female experience in a male-dominated society. When a pink-

colored, female-voiced ball of yarn, Purl, gets a job at a company made up of 100% rich white

males (who are not balls of yarn, but humans), she is left to choose what communication

orientation she will choose to adhere to, as she is not only part of a co-cultural group, but is the

only member of any co-cultural group in this particular setting (Lester 2018). Of course, many

communication theories show their faces in the eight minutes of the film, such as Muted Group

Theory and Standpoint Theory, but no theory is better suited in understanding Purl’s options and

consequent choices, based on a variety of factors, than Mark Orbe’s Co-Cultural Theory.

Foundations

As alluded to, Co-Cultural Theory overlaps a lot with the concepts of Muted Group

Theory and Standpoint Theory. This is no coincidence. Mark Orbe’s previous studies lied

primarily in these previously developed theories. He drew upon elements of both, along with his

own research to develop what is now known as Co-Cultural Theory (Orbe 1998).

Muted Group Theory

Muted Group Theory’s main argument builds off of the conjecture that language is man-made

(Griffin 2019). What this means is that in contexts and cultures in which language is “created,”

it is almost always invented by men. What the theorist means here is that “men” really means

male humans, as opposed to the sometimes general sense of the world “men” as standing for

humankind. She would say that even the need to eliminate this possible discrepancy is a direct

result of the creation of language, where literal men decided that “men” can sometimes represent

all people, even those who are not men. Hence, some groups of people, namely women, are
A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 4

“muted” in a sense, since they are forced to communicate using a language created by a different

group, and of course, ideas and thoughts will be lost in translation. In this way, Muted Group

theory develops the idea of “mutedness,” and creates a dichotomy of Muted Groups and

Dominant Groups.

Standpoint Theory

Standpoint Theory also develops a social dichotomy of its own. It is similar to the muted-

dominant dichotomy put forth by Muted Group Theory in what it represents, however, it is

labelled differently. This theory suggests that there is always a social hierarchy to some degree,

and that one’s social location within this hierarchy determines their experience (Griffin 2019). It

is on this hierarchy that certain groups of people are marginalized, as their experience is

controlled by the system put in place by those at the top of the hierarchy. This is where

Standpoint draws its distinction between Marginalized Groups and Dominant groups.

Other Foundations

Although to some the labels or muted, marginalized, or minority may be unoffensive and

unobtrusive, Orbe sought to eliminate any hint of inferiority or submissiveness for these groups

by creating the label of “co-cultural” (Orbe 2019). As defined by Mark Orbe, a co-cultural group

is essentially any group of people that are not the dominant culture (Orbe 1998). According to

him, the separating factor of what puts someone in a co-cultural group verses the dominant group

is power. Orbe is looking specifically at the different levels of power that different types of

people have. In the United States current cultural climate, where the dominant culture is made

up of wealthy, straight, white males, some commonly referred to co-cultural groups are women,

people of color (which can be broken up into many different co-cultural groups), the LGBTQ

community, the poor, and those who have disabilities.

A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 5

Co-cultural communication is simply the communication practices that are utilized by co-

cultural groups (Orbe 1998). Orbe focuses on the everyday, lived experiences of individuals,

which aligns with a phenomenological approach to communication (Orbe 1998). Orbe sought to

inform the world of the plight of the member of a co-cultural group when interacting with the

dominant culture and to outline the different choices they have to choose from for their everyday

interaction thereof.

Co-Cultural Theory

First and foremost, it is worth noting that a lot of co-cultural communication is not as

natural as it could be. It is not extemporaneous, but rather, it is conscious. “Conscious

communication” takes place when members of co-cultural groups, for whatever reason, feel as if

they have to guard their speech to some extent, so not everything that comes to mind is said

(Orbe 1998). It is evident that Orbe has drawn this idea from Muted Group Theory, as co-

cultural group members clearly are muted in a sense when they feel as if they cannot share what

is on their mind. However, he has extrapolated upon Muted Group Theory in that now it is not

just women who experience “mutedness,” but other co-cultural groups as well. One can also see

here that he has combined this idea of “mutedness” with the social hierarchy concept developed

in Standpoint Theory. This idea was utilized in his declaration of the term “Co-Cultural,” as it

primarily pertains to power, just as Standpoint’s social hierarchy does. Under this idea of

conscious communication, it is clear that those who hold more power and are higher on the

social ladder, are not muted, while those with little to no power are muted and experience this

phenomenon of conscious communication (Orbe 1998).

Upon conducting and analyzing his research, Orbe discovered 26 emerging themes of

different daily lived experiences (Orbe 1998). All of these were important findings and
A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 6

contributed towards his research significantly, but Orbe went one step further. He wanted to

discover why one of these 26 options was chosen as opposed to the remaining 25. What factors

determine what communication practice is chosen? As it turns out, Orbe discovered six factors

that contribute to the choice a co-cultural group member makes when faced with communicating

with the dominant culture (Orbe 1998).

The first of which is the communicator’s preferred outcome. Put quite simply, the co-

cultural group member will either prefer to assimilate into the dominant culture while losing their

co-cultural group identity, to accommodate both their culture and the dominant culture and keep

both culture’s identities, or to separate from the dominant culture, keeping their co-cultural

identity intact (Orbe 1998). While there are three primary options, they all lie on a continuum,

so individuals may walk the line between different preferred outcomes. The six factors that

influence a co-cultural group member’s communication practices are deeply interconnected such

that each factor contributes to the other five factors and vice versa. Orbe brings his theory full

circle and combines these in a very parsimonious way.

One’s field of experience, or standpoint (also borrowed from Standpoint Theory), is the

second influential factor here. Every person has different fields of experience and acts based

upon those in different ways. Although there are hypothetically 26 options for communicators to

use, not every person is equipped in the same way. Hence, ability represents another factor. Of

course, every situation calls for different communicative responses, so situational context is yet

another factor. Every other factor may be unchanged, but if the context in which a person

communicates changes, it is clear that their communicative practices will change as well. Next

is the communicator’s perceived costs and rewards. Like preferred outcomes, communicators

may want to gain, or not gain, something in particular by communicating in a certain way and
A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 7

will perform a mini cost-benefit analysis within their own mind before communicating based

upon that. Lastly is the co-cultural group member’s communication approach. Once again, this

factor represents a continuum with three more defined points upon it. At one end you have

nonassertive communication. This could also be labelled as passive or nonconfrontational. At

the other you have aggressive communication, which is very confrontational and direct.

Somewhere in the middle lies assertive communication, which incorporates standing up for

oneself without stomping on the needs of the other (Orbe 1998).

The way in which these six factors connect and influence one another while together

influencing the communicative practices of an individual is best summed up by this:

“Situated within a particular field of experience that governs their perceptions of the costs

and rewards associated with, as well as their ability to engage in, various communication

practices, co-cultural group members will adopt communication orientations—based on

their preferred outcomes and communication approaches—to fit the circumstances of a

specific situation.” (Orbe 1998)

From this idea, Orbe developed a three by three grid of communication orientations by looking at

the cross-section of a communicator’s preferred outcomes and communication approaches.

Within each of his nine communication orientations, Mark Orbe placed his 26 previous findings,

grouping them by their preferred outcome and communicative approach. For instance, he placed

“avoiding” and “maintaining personal barriers” within the nonassertive separation orientation

(Orbe 1998). It is worth nothing that this does not mean avoiding and maintaining personal

barriers are the same things, because they are not. It simply implies that both of them are

nonassertive communication practices with the goal of separation from the dominant culture, as

discussed prior.
A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 8

Application

Since its development, Co-Cultural Theory has proven to be applicable to a vast number

of situations, as it is general enough to apply to a lot of things but also specific enough to be able

to be understood concretely. Returning to the short film, Purl, one is able to apply not only the

theory itself, but a few extensions that have further developed Orbe’s work. At the beginning of

the film it can be seen that the dominant culture is intentionally choosing to exclude Purl because

she is different, and hence, it is clear that their goal is to reinforce the system that is in place

(Razzante 2018). At times it is assertive, while other times is nonassertive, but does not become

overtly aggressive. Razzante extends Co-Cultural Theory into Dominant Group Theory in a

parallel way and claims that the two theories are two sides of the same coin. This is an

extraordinary idea, as it gives agency to the dominant group as well, where Orbe left the

dominant group to simply be a product of circumstance.

Before aggressively assimilating, Purl noticeably decides to rationalize the actions of her

coworkers. Castle Bell et al. argues that this type of response cannot be categorized into any of

Orbe’s 26 communicative practices, and that it should be its own, fitting into the assertive

assimilation category of the theory (Castle Bell 1998). After rationalizing, during the company’s

lunch break, Purl decides to aggressively assimilate. She sows herself a suit and makes herself a

shape that are the nearest to the dominant culture as possible. She uses mirroring in a similar

way to the black female pilots described in Zirulnik’s article (Zirulnik 2019). This is a fair

comparison as black female pilots have to deal with being treated differently because they are

women, and because they have differently colored skin to the dominant culture. Similarly, Purl

is female and a different color than those around her. As discussed by Orbe in 2016, Rachel

Dolezal also aggressively assimilates so much that her co-cultural group outed her (Orbe 2016).
A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 9

Up until this point in the story of Purl, the white men have assertively and non-assertively

reinforced the dominant culture, while Purl first rationalized their behavior, and later proceeded

to aggressively assimilate. Purl was successful in her attempts to aggressively assimilate until

another ball of yarn was hired to the firm. She then chose to go for an accommodating strategy,

and eventually transformed the company into a colorful and diverse place, full of balls of yarn

and white males. This film is clearly trying to illustrate that the accommodation approach is the

best approach to take when it comes to co-cultural communication. However, Orbe said nothing

about which communication orientation is “the best.” He simply outlined what could happen,

not what should happen. However, despite this disparity between the film and Co-Cultural

Theory, clearly Co-Cultural Theory and its relevant extensions are more than equipped to

describe and explain the happenings in the film Purl.

A LOOK AT CO-CULTURAL THEORY 10

References

Castle Bell, G., Hopson, M., Weathers, M., & Ross, K. (2015). From “Laying the Foundations”

to Building the House: Extending Orbe’s (1998) Co-Cultural Theory to Include

“Rationalization” as a Formal Strategy. Communication Studies, 66(1), 1-26.

Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2015). Queer Identity Management and Political Self-Expression on

Social Networking Sites: A Co-Cultural Approach to the Spiral of Silence. Journal of

Communication, 65(1), 79-100.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). A First Look at Communication Theory (10th

ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

Lester, Kristin, director. Purl. Disney Plus, Hollywood, 2018.

Orbe, M., & Roberts, T. (2019). Co-Cultural Theorizing: Foundations, Applications, &

Extensions. Howard Journal of Communications, 23(4), 293-311.

Orbe, M. P. (1998). Constructing Co-Cultural Theory: An Explication of Culture, Power, and

Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orbe, M. P. (2016). The Rhetoric of Race, Culture, and Identity: Rachel Dolezal as Co-Cultural

Group Member. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 6(1/2), 23-25.

Razzante, R. J., & Orbe, M. P. (2018). Two Sides of the Same Coin: Conceptualizing Dominant

Group Theory in the Context of Co-Cultural Theory. Communication Theory (1050-

3293), 38(3), 354-375.

Zirulnik, M. L., & Orbe, M. (2019). Black Female Pilot Communicative Experiences:

Applications and Extensions of Co-Cultural Theory. Howard Journal of

Communications, 30(1), 76-91.