Annals of the International Communication Association

ISSN: 2380-8985 (Print) 2380-8977 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rica20

Third-Culture Building: A Paradigm Shift for

International and Intercultural Communication

Fred L. Casmir

To cite this article: Fred L. Casmir (1993) Third-Culture Building: A Paradigm Shift for International
and Intercultural Communication, Annals of the International Communication Association, 16:1,
407-428, DOI: 10.1080/23808985.1993.11678861

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1993.11678861

Published online: 18 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rica20

Download by: [ECU Libraries] Date: 10 July 2017, At: 10:15

8 Third-Culture Building:
A Paradigm Shift for International
and Intercultural Communication

FRED L. CASMIR
Pepperdine University

WesternlNorthem scholars have developed models of communication and rhetoric

that have been based on persuasion. logic. and the exertion of influence over
listeners by well-trained. skilled speakers and writers. On the other hand. founda-
tions for different, nontraditional approaches have been made available for some
time. in both the United States and Europe. They can assist us in developing a new
model for human interactions. based on mutual respect. concern. and the develop-
ment of new processes for sharing the limited resources found in a given environ-
ment A reexamination of contemporary international and intercultural affairs presents
powerful reasons for paradigms that are more responsive to existing needs. The
building of third cultures represents one situation in which individuals find it
necessary to make important responses to their environment as well as to human
needs within that environment. These responses can be based on mutually developed
values. communication. and organizational systems. rather than dominance/submis-
sion paradigms. Informed by the original cultures two or more individuals have left
behind. third cultures include new. effective. and mutually acceptable ways of
benefiting from human relationships.

A
series of interrelated issues are developed in this essay. First, con-
temporary failures of the modem state in dealing with intercultural
and interethnic problems are used, simply because they are well
known and provide dramatic evidence of challenges we face at the end of the
twentieth century. Other institutions could be used to make the same point.
In all such cases, it is asserted, we have manifested a lack of appreciation for
the fact that human beings and not groups, organizations, or institutions
communicate, and that they must find ways to resolve conflicts. In addition,
the modem state, and much of the rest of our society, has applied rhetorical
models that are based less on cooperative, mutually beneficial communication

Correspondence and requests for reprints: Fred L. Casmir, Department of Communication,

Pepperdine University. Malibu. CA 90263.

Communication Yearbook 16. pp. 407-428

407
408 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

models than on concepts that result in domination, trust in the ability of some
to persuade others to "see things their way," and the general assertion of
power and control by one group over another. Indeed, in both intercultural
and international communication, little has been done to develop common
bases and value systems for the solution of problems; rather, efforts to
negotiate or establish and maintain relationships have emerged out of crisis
situations that often made positive results very difficult. The influences of
institutions on their members, once they have been established, cannot be
denied. However, neither can it be denied that all institutions initially, and
always, are the result of the efforts of individual human beings.
Second, the process of human communication ultimately is based on and deals
with the establishment and maintenance ofrelationships. The significance of this
issue becomes most evident, unfortunately, in our failures to achieve positive
results. In cases where limited resources have to be shared by members of two
or more cultural groups within a specific environment, significant aspects and
problems of intercultural communication become readily apparent. In a direct
response to that challenge, a third issue is developed in the pages to follow.
If a model can be developed that has as its primary function and basis the
human communication process, that is ajoint, cooperative, participatory, mutual
building process that deals not only with results, but also with the means through
which they can be achieved, a major contribution to the solution of our problem
may suggest itself. Such a mutually beneficial creation and maintenance of
human relationships based on interpersonal communication can overcome the
problems, noted in the beginning of this essay, that arise when other models are
employed. In other words, the statist, institutional model commonly applied in
the past lends itself more to control from the top down, to efforts leading to
so-called unification by force, but not to anything that encourages interpersonal
and culture-based cooperation that emerges from the bottom up. The latter tends
to be dictated by human needs and the former by institutional survival needs-it
does not encourage a partnership or balanced relationship. A third-culture model,
however, because it begins and ends, as it were, with the need for interactive,
interpersonal communication, is based on very different, interhuman assump-
tions. If the significant contributions of individuals to the development and
maintenance, as well as the destruction, of various affiliative efforts are acknowl-
edged, interpersonal communication models can readily be applied to all efforts
to build and maintain relationships or affiliations. The failure to do so, as will be
shown first, underlies the significant problems of modern states. Modern states
have attempted to unify their members or citizens on the basis of ideologies or
political and economic "necessities" that have been determined only by their
leaders. Such approaches often lack shared cultural value bases.
A deliberate effort to assist in positive communication efforts on the basis
of a culture-building model, reflecting actual processes in the development
of "natural" cultures, rather than on the basis of a technique-based or tech-
nology-oriented approach, is the ultimate issue raised in this essay.
Third·Culture Building 409

NORTHERN/WESTERN COMMUNICATION STUDIES

As is true in all cultures, scholars in the United States are strongly influ-
enced by the concepts and value systems of those who have preceded them.
In the WestINorth, for instance, we stand on the shoulders of giants in the
Greek and Roman intellectual systems, represented, respectively, by Aristotle
(1954) and Cicero (1976), important rationalists (Descartes, 1941; Locke,
1760; Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1976), and figures of the Enlightenment
who were concerned with good reasons and the perfectibility of "man"
(Babbitt, 1919; Bredvold, 1961; Bury, 1921; Fairchild, 1928; Stephen, 1949).
This has been especially the case for those of us who are dealing with such
areas as speech, rhetoric, and communication. For centuries, the models we
continue to use have been based on four foundational concepts that initially
emerged from Greek thought: (a) the primacy of the speaker or sender; (b)
the importance of reason, logic, and persuasion; (c) the acceptance of para-
digms based on debate, confrontation, argument, and bilateral negotiation;
and (d) win/lose outcomes as desirable ends.
When Aristotle (1954) called for the discovery of all available means of
persuasion, and Quintilian (1933) defined his model speaker as a good man
speaking wen (Thonssen, Baird, & Braden, 1970, p. 100), they both con-
cluded that appropriateness could be more important than persuasion under
certain circumstances. Once again, this issue has become a focal point for the
work of contemporary scholars (Waddell, 1990).
In a significant way, much of intercultural and international communica-
tion is concerned with developing appropriate models for interaction between
representatives of different cultures and systems. Breaking with a past that
made extensive use of concepts of persuasion, influence, logic, and reason
based on the cultural preferences of the West and North is not easy. In this
essay I will outline the reasons or even necessities for such a change, as well
as the existing bases in the fields of communication and rhetoric that should
make future adaptations easier.
In addition, I will present a model for building mutually acceptable and
beneficial third cultures through interactive intercultural processes. The
model is based on successful efforts by a wide variety of individuals, in such
areas as marriage, the arts, and segments of multicultural societies, to over-
come the negative effects of dominance/submission-oriented approaches to
building human relationships.

A NEW LOOK AT INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Recent international developments have forced all thoughtful observers to

reconsider the role of culture and intercultural communication in relation to
interpersonal interactions. Nye (1990) writes of "the rapid growth of private
410 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

actors operating across international borders, whether large corporations or

political groups" (p. 156), and indicates that these private actors, as well as
others, are becoming increasingly important in the overall arena of public
diplomacy. Today, some 30 corporations have annual sales greater than the
gross national product of 90 countries. Basically, I agree with Nye that
changing goals result from the roles of these changing actors. As a commu-
nication scholar, I am forced to reconsider the models I apply to such
interactions. This becomes even more important if we accept Ravenal's
(1990) definition of history Hproperly seen as the unfolding and shifting of
parameters of the international system, which is mostly a political-military
universe" (p. 4), because the very bases for these shifts may be drastically
changing.
For many decades, Western and Northern states have been understandably
attacked by less developed countries because of their colonialist tendencies.
Colonialist attitudes have been present even in the postcolonial policies of
such states in their relationships with newly emerging and Third World
countries (Masmoudi, 1979; Sauvant, 1979; Schiller, 1976). Representatives
of newly independent states and American scholars have thus spoken of
Ucultural imperialism" or "electronic colonialism" (Everitt, 1982; McPhail,
1987; Regis, 1987; Snow & Marshall, 1984). Calls for a new world informa-
tion and communication order, coupled with demands for a new world
economic order, have been heard in the halls of international organizations such
as the United Nations, UNESCO, and the ITU (Manley, 1990; Masmoudi, 1919).
WARC conferences have had to deal with much more than the mere allocation
of broadcasting frequencies, while the entire problem of relations between
peoples has become more and more politicized, confrontational, and poorly
defined e'The way it was and wasn't at WARC '85," 1985; "WARe 1985,"
1985). Frequently ignored has been the fact that as allegations of cultural
imperialism have been made against Western or Northern states by Africans,
Asians, and Latin Americans, governments in these developing parts of the
world have also increasingly opened themselves up to internal confrontations
with oppressed cultural groups (Alisky, 1981; Dahlburg, 1991; Larrabee,
1990-1991; Ugboajah, 1985; Williams, 1991).
Such a period of inadequately perceived and poorly defined needs should
give us pause as we contemplate the future. As Nye (1990) accurately
observes, tension and miscalculation tend to accompany the anxiety experi-
enced when powers decline or shift. That is especially true because "national
cohesion, universalistic culture, and international institutions are taking on
additional significance" (p. 164). Nyc's conclusion that we are seeing a clear
distinction developing between power over other countries and power over
outcomes should give us reason to reconsider a number of our assumptions
about relations among contemporary states and among representatives of
various cultures in that setting.
Third-Culture Building 411

The State and Its Role in International Affairs

Ever since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the modem political state has
been accepted as the means for unifying divergent ethnic, racial, cultural, and
religious groups. As Flynn and Scheffer (1990) remind us, it was the relative
homogeneity of the ruling monarchal governments of Europe that gave the
approach stability. More recently, however, as Stent (1990, p. 60) indicates,
some European leaders, such as Willy Brandt, have developed doubts about
the reality or actual existence of the classical "nation-state," at least in
German history. When Europeans came to Africa, Asia, and South America,
it was only "natural" for them to divide up their newly conquered colonies
along lines of demarcation that suited their own needs and the political
models they had brought with them from Europe. That fact continues to have
negative impacts on development in such areas as the Middle East. Sterner
(1990) writes of the perception that international borders established by the
colonialists have less legitimacy for Arabs, as well as others, and that they
are usually seen as quite arbitrary. If one combines the notion of "illegitimate
borders" with the deeply experienced cultural problems in the area as people
seek for "cultural authenticity among Arabs, Islamic, and Western themes and
values" (Sterner, 1990, p. 47), the vital role of intercultural communication
becomes clearer.
Not quite as obvious may be the fact that even citizens of what used to be
East Germany need to find ways of assuring that their integration into the
reunited Germany, and the new resulting national identity, does not tum them
into second-class citizens of that new state (Stent, 1990, p. 62). To make the
point of increasing complexity more strongly, Simpson's (1990) analysis of
the two Canadas is important. The collapse of the Meech-Lake accord, meant
to resolve important disagreements between the French- and English-speak-
ing citizens of Canada, actually revealed that there were far more differences
among Canadians than those previously addressed in that accord. In fact, the
federated government of all of Canada may no longer be viable as constituted.
Why? What is faced in Canada and elsewhere are cultural and ethnic conflicts
that represent a "crisis of the heart and mind, a clash over symbols, a struggle
for recognition and rights by newly empowered groups" (Simpson, 1990,
p. 72). I would suggest that the modem state has proven itself singularly
ineffective in dealing with such crises-almost everywhere.
All this should become evident to anyone who regularly reads one of the
leading U.S. international affairs journals, Foreign Policy. Ullman (1990) is
definite in his assessment that most of the world's conflicts, both interstate
and intrastate, will occur in the Third World. Yet that is only part of the total
picture. It is possibly the one most easily accepted, but it distorts perceptions
of the total situation we face in our world, as repeatedly indicated in this
essay. Recurrent confrontations between ethnic and cultural groups following
independence in Africa caught our fleeting attention because they made
412 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

headlines throughout the world. When ideologically or politically constructed

empires such as the Soviet Union began to collapse, we finally began to
wonder if the basic model of the modern state was adequate-in spite of the
fact that we had used it for so long. Flynn and Scheffer (1990) summarize
events like the collapse of the Soviet empire in relationship to changes
throughout Eastern Europe. They also note the new kind of culturally aware
pluralism that is emerging everywhere. Ullman (1990) sees these events as
leading to less of a "zero-sum game" than had resulted during the Cold War.
That suggests the need for new communication paradigms tailored to the new
and changing environments.

CHANGING BASES FOR COMMUNICATION

Questionable, however, is whether the players in the new "game" have the
appropriate communication skills or models available to deal with the emerg-
ing situation. Nothing exists that can be readily substituted for changing
power structures to assure beneficial, peaceful, cooperative interactions among
national groups that have been arbitrarily combined into modern political
states. Manley (1990) sounds a somewhat hopeful note as he reminds us that
quiet diplomacy and negotiation have recently tended to replace earlier
confrontational approaches, and that Third World countries may increasingly
realize that "while cultures and religions may vary, certain standards gener-
ally apply to governments everywhere" (p. 41). Whether that indeed will be
the case, we will have to wait and see. Meanwhile, as Ullman (1990) reminds
us, the old system has left us with border areas, established by multinational
states, that are certain to make interethnic and intercultural conflicts spill
across international frontiers.
During the past couple of years the world has watched with amazement,
fear, and confusion as states have disintegrated and nations have returned to
traditional cultural and religious values. Many people had ignored these
values as irrelevant to the postmodern world Of, for some ill-defined reason,
had hoped human beings had by now "outgrown" them (Featherstone, 1988).
Central to my own discussion is the fact that the traditional models we have
used to separate statist concerns, or "national" concerns, as they were called,
from human cultural bases were not adequate. With the collapse of a number
of arbitrarily constructed state systems, such as Lebanon, the Soviet Union,
and Yugoslavia, we can no longer escape the fact that intercultural commu-
nication and multicultural relations, even within the boundaries of one state,
are high-priority concerns. The conceptual foundations of civil societies,
basically democratic states, almost certainly lead to the consideration of such
factors. Hoffmann (1990) points out that while domestic factors are ufluid
and complex" in such areas as Western Europe, "a new generation of busi-
nessmen, civil servants, journalists, and politicians have acquired the habit
Third-Culture Building 413

of cooperation across barriers" (p. 26). No more dramatic example could be

cited than the way the Persian Gulf war coverage by CNN (from Baghdad,
the capital city of the coalition's opponent) exerted direct influence in both
Iraq and the United States.
Already, one can notice significant changes in the perception of statist
national and international models as indicated by Simpson's (1990) afore-
mentioned evaluation of the bases for Canada's problems and Hoffmann's
(1990) awareness of different attitudes among the actors in today's world.
This does not negate the possibility of a renewed "Balkanization" of Europe
or of the world. The challenge would seem to be how one manages to get past
old statist models without denying the legitimate concerns of culturally
diverse human beings, simultaneously promoting necessary and mutually
satisfactory economic and political interactions. Hoffmann (1990, p. 25)
provides another helpful insight for intercultural communication scholars
when he asks us to remember the importance of domestic factors in under-
standing foreign policy, particularly the need to look at the configuration of
internal political forces and the relation between what is often called "civil
society" and the state. I would suggest that those domestic factors and internal
political forces are centrally related to cultural and multicultural relations in
a given society.
Indeed, a world leader such as Toshiki Taifu (1990), prime minister of
Japan, provides corresponding insight when he writes that "with a lessening
of tensions between East and West, ethnic and religious rivalries, along with
nationalistic rivalries may become increasingly visible. A variety of efforts
to preserve world peace and stability will therefore be needed to overcome
these potential risks" (p. 29). His thinking is extended by Jacques Delors
(1990), president of the European Communities, who points out "the need for
in-depth imaginative and dynamic thinking in the area of what traditionally
has been called 'foreign policy' but might better reflect the realities oftoday's
world if it were rechristened 'international cooperation' " (p. 14). The EC
may turn out to be one viable model for such cooperation between states, if
not cultures. It is instructive to consider the concept of a "civic culture"
(Almond & Verba, 1963) as it has existed in the multicultural settings of the
United States. Civic culture can be seen as a political culture in which
identification with entities larger than the mere individual becomes possible.
The turmoil has not been limited to countries of Asia, Europe, Africa, or
South and Central America. The United States is more and more frequently
faced with similar challenges, made somewhat less confrontational by our
own history as a civil, pluralistic society. This has influenced both our
national and international policies in keeping with Hoffmann's (1990) point
that domestic and international factors must be seen as interrelated. For
decades, we had insisted that the United States was a "melting pot" in which
people were happily assimilated into some sort of existing cultural system,
losing all differentiation or individuality (Friesen, 1985). For the dominant
414 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

white culture a similar simplistic approach led to the designations "WASP"

U
and "Anglo (Alba & Moore, 1982; Goldstein, 1989; Gordon, 1964; Maier
& Waxman, 1983; Sarna, 1978).
As is true in all human confrontations, the terms WASP and Anglo were
primarily used by those who saw themselves as outsiders to vent their
frustrations; such terms were never intended to provide them a meaningful
way of dealing with existing problems. In effect, both these terms illustrate
well some problems all cultures face when dealing with outsiders. Most
prominent among them is the difficulty of identifying and labeling adequately
what is being observed while using the backdrop of one's own experiential
world and value framework. There is no single unified "Anglo" group. Not
even all those who speak English as their native language share a cultural
heritage that is totally the same.
At times, as in the case of the British and Irish, language is about the only
thing that makes them appear to be similar. Consider the Protestant portion
of the acronym WASP. Even a cursory study of the confrontations and
disagreements among the large number of existing Protestant denominations
makes it apparent that there is no single unified group that can be described
by that term. Both the Quakers and the Church of England would fall under
the Protestant umbrella, and yet most of us are acutely aware of the deep
differences in perceptions and value systems that caused these groups to split
and go their different ways. On the other hand, a Japanese woman who feels
oppressed by male chauvinists in her native country may, in fact, feel much
greater kinship with an American WASP who has shared similar experiences
than could ever be expected on the basis of their cultural dissimilarity.

NEW MODELS FOR

NEW COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES

To date, our models have been woefully inadequate. Little has changed
since they were first used in intercultural or multicultural relations, because
the supporting foundational concepts and perceptions have seldom been
critically reexamined. Yet critical reexamination is absolutely necessary if
we desire to produce a paradigm shift or conceptual revolution (Kuhn, 1970)
that would allow us to deal more adequately with significant changes in our
contemporary world. Against this very real and very problematic background,
intercultural communication scholars need to ask themselves a number of
serious, important questions. How much of the so-called intercultural litera-
ture in the field deals with cultural rather than intercultural concerns? A
review of available sources would indicate that a large number of publica-
tions fit the former rather than the latter category (Barnlund & Yoshioka,
1990; Chung & Walkey, 1989; Levinson, 1989; Watson, Monroe, & Atterstrom,
1989; Wolfson & Norden, 1984).
Third-Culture Building 415

The next question to address would be, How much of our literature effec-
tively deals with subjects related merely to awareness and adaptation, in
hopes that their respective improvement will lead to better communication?
Such an emphasis can be found in a number of efforts that seem to ignore the
"inter" aspects of intercultural communication. They address only one per-
spective or partner in such processes, while ignoring altogether the other vital
interactional processes and situational aspects that are influential over time.
A significant number of publications in the field can be identified that are
slanted in this direction. Many approaches can be identified as noninteractio-
nal, or lacking in a process orientation, in that they do not stress the necessity
of more than one partner's adaptation, adjustment, or awareness to produce
effective communication, interaction, or change (Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1963; Jacobson, 1963; Kato, 1974; Rokeach, 1971).
Our past efforts could thus often be interpreted as having failed to address
either communication or intercultural aspects. It is at this point, in my own
thinking, that a third-culture building paradigm takes on special significance.
One additional consideration is that while there is undoubtedly some value in
considering transactional (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
and interpersonal aspects (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988) of intercultural
communication, their obvious limitations need to be considered as well. This is
especially the case where data based on a longitudinal research design are not
available. As Searle and Ward (1990) observe, quite accurately, 6'The cross-sec-
tional nature of the study is inferior to a longitudinal design in the investigation
of psychological and sociological adjustment over time" (p. 460).
Additionally, if one considers the results of dependence on logic systems
such as mathematics and its derivative statistics as sole interpretive models,
the work of communication scholars can suffer from limitations shared by all
who employ a physics perspective toward so-called scientific inquiry. Natural
science methodologies can deal, at best, only with comprehensive and accu-
rate systems of description; they cannot provide explanation (Nagel, 1979).
Here again, the impacts of Aristotelian logic and of the rationalists can be
seen. An emphasis on cause-and-effect relationships has dominated much of
our past thinking in various areas of communication. It was left to individuals
such as Bateson (1972) to point out that human social acts are simultaneously
commands and results, or causes and effects. Just as important, Watzlawick,
Beavin, and Jackson (1967) insist that they could not distinguish, at least
empirically, between the content and relational aspects of human behavior.
Thus in both cases we face a direct challenge to any simplistic attempt to
distinguish between causes and effects in human communication. More
recently, in an attempt to overcome such arbitrary distinctions, Porter and
Cissna (1990) incorporated the concept of ucauseffective models" into their
discussion of the ontological bases of human communication.
Certainly the creative process of building a mutually satisfactory interactional
approach to intercultural and international problems cannot be understood if we
416 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

use only the traditional transactional, cause-effect models inherited from the
natural sciences. There are two examples in recent history that make this point
for very specific, real-world settings. Both intercultural and interethnic
attempts to negotiate serious problems in South Africa and negotiations
between the foreign minister of Iraq and the secretary of state of the United
States have included transactional and interpersonal aspects. However, in
both cases, the development of mutually satisfactory, creative, interactional
approaches has been, and remains, extremely difficult because of the preva-
lence of traditional transactional paradigms used for negotiations.
The central problem is not an acute lack of awareness, but a failure to focus
on the low level of concentration related to the issues summarized here.
Bochner (1973) writes of the "mediating man," but neglects to pay sufficient
attention to process and development over time. The same is true of lists
purporting to identify desirable cross-cultural attitudes provided by scholars
such as Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer (1977), Ruben (1985), and Abe
and Wiseman (1983). All of them are fundamentally descriptive attempts to
identify desirable attitudinal components applicable to those wishing to adapt
or adjust to a different culture. While some of them include interpersonal
relationship components, the relationship aspects are inadequately consid-
ered, especially from the standpoint of their development over time and the
possibility of creating a "third culture." In such an approach, the building of
relationships tends to be seen almost as the inevitable outcome of certain
components of specifiable interpersonal techniques that can be acquired by
anyone. Indeed, much of our prior intercultural and international communi-
cation training has been based on such paradigms (Sikkema & Niyekawa,
1987; Storti, 1989; Triandis, 1975).

Interaction and Third-Culture Building

A number of factors have been in place for some time that make the task
of developing a new model much easier than would at first appear. Many of
them have influenced my own thinking. Like most students of speech, I was
introduced to the model of interlocking concentric circles as a reference point
for identifying desirable communication and relationships between people
(Andersen, Lewis, & Murray, 1964; Bittner, 1985; White, 1984). Now, as I
look back at my own "early" speech textbook, Interaction, I notice only slight
glimpses of what later became my dissatisfaction with the traditional speech-
discipline orientation (Casmir, 1974). But the title of the book does not
capture what the concept of "interaction" implied for those of us interested
in intercultural communication. All of us who developed the field were
strongly influenced by the speech, psychological, and anthropological tradi-
tions that had nourished us. When we developed our first list of concerns
about the future of the emerging field, we did so under the auspices of the
Speech Communication Association and the International Communication
Third-Culture Building 417

Association, also including some interests of another emerging group, the

Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research-SIETAR (Casmir,
Bystrom, Stewart, & Tyler, 1974). Our document clearly reflected the empha-
ses we had inherited from our various fields of scholarly interest, only
somewhat modified by what little we had gathered from our exposure to
intercultural and international experiences.
Meanwhile, some scholars had observed the existence of what they called
"third cultures," resulting from as yet poorly understood interactions between
sojourners and members of their host cultures (see, e.g., Useem, Donoghue,
& Useem, 1963). Others had written of what they called "mutuality" (Tronick,
Als, & Brazelton, 1977). Burke (1969) had coined the term "consubstantial-
ity." Fisher (1985) was concerned with "wise and humane goals" (p. 353).
My own thinking had begun to focus on the actual development or building
of what I calIed a "third realm" or "third culture," based on cooperative,
nonthreatening, mutually beneficial interactions (Casmir, 1978).
My concern focused on identifying such cultures, as well as understanding
how they are developed. Berg (1985) comes close to my own perceptions
when he writes: "A true dialogue, one where the parties are really open, do
not know what will come of it, requires risktaking and courage. It also
requires an 'opening' (as opposed to open) attitude, a will to go deep into a
joint exploration of the [culture] and what it stands for" (p. 298). I felt more
comfortable with the less permanent-sounding term third realm because I saw
some of these interactional processes as short-term events.
Culture fonnation, although a possible outcome of the process, appeared to
me to be a long-term, more permanent arrangement, achieved by a significant
number of people for their mutual benefit. But in either case, more than simply
overlapping circles (Andersen et aI., 1964; Bittner, 1985; White, 1984) would
result from such interactions-and that proved to be a central issue. What I had
observed was actually the emerging of much more than sympathy or empathy.
In the area of business management some authors, including Moran and Harris
(1982), describe the process involved as "synergy."
In a more recent essay, I used the example of contemporary families in the
United States (Casmir & Asuncion-Lande, 1989). The older members of these
social units must learn to prepare their children for both the possibility of
intercultural/interethnic/interracial marriages and the need for a positive rela-
tionship with their original family roots. It is clear that in such cases the
destructiveness of denying one's roots is undesirable, as is the wholesale rejec-
tion of any value in what the "old folks" used to do. Equally undesirable might
be the submission of one partner to another in an attempt to adjust or adapt to an
existing relationship. The example of a mixed or interethnic marriage, however,
has much broader implications than those used in that essay.
Brown (1990) uses the concept in his recent article on the subject of "mixed
marriages," or joint ventures, in business. He makes the point that strategic
alliances in one country are stressful, but those between representatives of
418 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

different cultures result in formidable challenges. Brown accounts for these

difficulties by pointing out that few business partners entering such relation-
ships are sufficiently aware of the hidden cultural differences that cause them.
All relationships, of course, must face changes. New circumstances do arise,
such as a move into a new environment. In the case of a mixed marriage, that
might mean a move into an area where people are more likely to accept that
kind of relationship. Of course, all marriages, including those between indi-
viduals from two different racial backgrounds, face some common challenges
or problems. Such circumstances call for the creative development of some-
thing new by the marriage partners. However, their decisions will always be
influenced, or at least informed, by what has gone before. In all cases, the
new is also a response to the old.
Just how vital concerns with such issues are becoming in the United States
is well illustrated by a profusion of recent articles in the Los Angeles Times.
These have dealt with black-white marriages (Monroe, 1990), interethnic
confrontations between Asian shop owners and their black customers (Itabari,
1990; Lee, 1990), and the underrepresentation of ethnic and racial minorities
in U.S. newspaper reports (Shaw, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1990d); the newspa-
per has also published a series titled "Beyond the Melting Pot" (ltabari,
1991). In addition, contemporary debates in popular magazines (Leo, 1990)
and more academically inclined periodicals have targeted new approaches to
the teaching of history and second languages (Ravitch, 1990). As a result, we
may conclude that something other than the choice of either total integration
into an imagined cultural majority or total disintegration must be found if we
are to preserve much of what is good about civic, political, and economic
associations in the United States.
What appears to be necessary is a new model for social and cultural
relationships. That model needs to go beyond the mere adaptation of old
paradigms whose conceptual bases may no longer be adequate. It clearly
requires that we carefully reconsider what Gordon (in Colburn & Pozzetta,
1983) calls a "liberal expectancy," based on the melting pot model. Modern
and modernizing societies have not caused groups, including cultural and
ethnic groups, simply to lose their distinctive features. Education and com-
munication have not simply wiped out group differences. The symbolic
interactionists provided some of the first paradigms enabling us to think of
human beings as active, participatory partners in constructing social reality
(Blumer, 1969; Rose, 1962; Mead, 1934). It is significant that those para-
digms did not originate with communication scholars. Rather, we borrowed
and applied them, albeit not consistently. Human beings both construct and
communicate the realities of their experience, and that was a startling yet
helpful insight (Weimer, 1978).
Thus the foundations had been laid for the work of scholars such as Wood
(1982), who could begin to write of "relational culture, a privately transacted
Third-Culture Building 419

system of understandings that coordinates attitudes, actions, and identities of

participants in a relationship" (p. 76). What is important here is the realiza-
tion that participants engage in an active, coordinated, mutually beneficial
process of building a relationship. Building a relationship involves more than
mere interpersonal communication techniques constrained by predetermined
rules, standards, and value systems in expectation of predetermined results.
In some cases, participants in such a process may, at least at the outset, not
even be able to define the desirable outcomes of their interactions, beyond
the fact that the relationship itself is something they are striving to achieve
and maintain. The forms, the ends, the values, the interactional rules emerge
only as the process develops over time, similar to what we observe in the
gradual development of cultures-thus the concept "third-culture building."
Fundamental to the process is the kind of emphasis on dialectic change and
its qualitative basis that Baxter and Wilmot (1983) examine in their work on
openness and closedness. This search for a new paradigm is also the motiva-
ting force behind an unpublished essay by Broome (1991). In it, Broome
explains his concern with relational empathy, noting that "the emergence of
this third culture is the essence of empathy" (p. 17). Broome benefits from
Stewart's (1983) earlier insights that describe the process of understanding
as "a move from the separate ... positions of the individual interlocutors to
a synthesizing position that subsumes relevant aspects of each" (p. 388; see
also Deetz, 1978, 1990). American scholars identified as pragmatists have
evolved equally relevant positions (Call, 1990; James, 1907). Their contribu-
tion to insights about third-culture building remind us, among other things,
that nothing "new" is ever developed that can be totally removed. from the
context of past human experiences (Dewey, 1929).
I initially identified a few early paradigms that we have used in our
attempts to understand the communication of individuals both within a given
culture, usually Western or Northern, and between members of divergent
cultural groups. Many of these models were founded on concepts of confron-
tation, "winning" arguments, rational persuasion, debate, and the domination
of "winners" over ulosers." Experience taught us that their use was not only
difficult, but also destructive for intercultural interactions (Burton, 1987;
Kelman & Cohen, 1986; McDonald & Bendahmane, 1987).
As a result of my own concerns, I have proposed a nontraditional model
based on the insights of scholars in a variety of fields that illustrates an
interactive process of third-culture building (Casmir, 1978; Casmir & Asun-
cion-Lande, 1989). It tends to avoid the old, Western, nationally and interna-
tionally deeply resented tendencies toward the development of communica-
tion approaches that result in the domination of some and the submission of
others. It also tends to avoid the application of absolute, predetermined,
culturally dictated rules of logic and reasoning that are assumed to result in
listeners' acceptance of arguments. The speaker/listener dichotomy is re~
placed by an interactive, mutually beneficial creative process that does not
420 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

necessarily depend on "equal" contributions from the involved partners.

Rather, it finds its meaning in contributions determined by and valued because
of mutually agreed-upon needs. That is the case regardless of what percentage
of the total each contribution represents.
Foundational to third-culture building is a fairly constant and consistent
performance cycle for the majority of human beings. The model presented in
Figure 1 is focused and limited in scope. It makes no attempt to deal with all
internal and external aspects of the human experience. It simply indicates the
interrelationships of the broadest possible categories connected with human
experiences. Once perceptions or experiences have created needs, only the
adequate development of knowledge and skills can make the successive
phases of performance beneficial to both the individual and those with whom
she or he is involved in interactions.
The second model, shown in Figure 2, is a necessarily limited representa-
tion of the complex interactional process that I call third-culture building. It
indicates what can evolve out of initial contacts between two or more human
beings who find it necessary or desirable to share limited resources in a
specific environment for mutual benefits. They do so by developing their own
frameworks, value systems, and communication systems for purposes of
survival, mutual growth, and enjoyment of the life experience.
Both individual and interactional processes involving two or more individ-
uals attempting to develop survival values and behavior patterns are stipu-
lated here as being quite similar. Whenever that process is short-circuited,
problems result, especially if it is caused by "technological" reasoning, often
introduced by "outsiders" or "authorities." Such interference tends to ignore
the vital role of individual human experiences and needs in favor of centrally
directed and controlled solutions.
The final model (Figure 3) superimposes the performance cycle of individ-
ual human beings over the third-culture building model, showing the "fit"
previously mentioned. During a master's session at a recent annual confer-
ence of the International Communication Association, Starosta (1991) pre-
sented a very helpful response to and elaboration of the third-culture building
model. Both the "third-realm" and "third-culture" aspects elaborated in an
earlier essay (Casmir, 1978) are identified and accommodated in Starosta's
discussion. Considering the role of outside forces in third-culture building
processes is very meaningful. Since outsiders (parents, government agencies,
art critics, and so on) often do not become equal partners in the process of
mutual building, they may eventually act as destructive interventionists, or
they may force their own model on the original partners in the building
process. Such an imposition would not be considered a desirable part of
third-culture building.
Understanding the process of third-culture building is often aided more by
insights from history, ethnography, and the humanities than by stochastic
social science research. Starosta's (1991) work has been especially useful.
Third-Culture Building 421

MODEL 1

/EXPEIDENCE~

~WE\ENCE JED
COMMUNICAnON
~RACI1~

Figure 1. Third-culture building individual perfonnance cycle.

He provides two models: a chronological model of development and an

intervention model of facilitation. Table 1 lists the phases in Starosta's
chronological model. The conditions for the achievement of a third realm of
experience beyond the two individuals are represented as points in time Tl
through T6. The building of a third-culture proper takes place between T6

MODEL 2

~\

Figure 2. Third-culture building.

422 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

MODEL 3

Inte

Need
Communication
Experience

Individual A Individual B

Figure 3. Individual performance cycle and third-culture building.

and T8. Starosta's concept of a third realm, like my own, represents a

temporary or even fleeting moment; a third culture, on the other hand, would
be relatively enduring. As such, it can be perpetuated through transmission
to others not immediately present. Whether a researcher is more or less
interested in the enduring conditions of the interactants would determine the
methods of interaction analysis.
Table 2 lists the occasions in which third-party inputs help bring the third
culture into being. Unlike the natural development seen in Table 1, this table
represents the way third-culture building can become negati ve by destroying
the essence of one or both parties through pressure or duress. From this
perspective, third-realm building can be seen as a positive process of trans-

TABLE 1
A Chronological Model of the Process of Third-Culture Building

Tl: A notices B.
T2: A makes self known to B.
T3: A seeks information about B.
T4: A engages B in the same processes already described.
TS: A and B start to question their attitudes. mores. and values as they relate to each other.
T6: A and B replace some attitudes. mores. and values and modify others to more resemble
each other.
T7: A and B integrate new or revised attitudes. mores. and values into existing constellations.
T8: A and B renegotiate their relationship in light of changing circumstances and contexts.
T9: Some of these renegotiated aspects of the relationship become permanent and self-
perpetuating.
Third-Cultrtre Building 423

TABLE 2
Third·Party Inputs in the Process of Third·Culture Building
(1) Monitor or cbronicle: The third party may watch the process, provide a record of the
process, or raise the consciousness of the parties regarding what appears to be transpiring
between them. This role might be played by a historian or by an acquaintance to either or
both parties.
(2) Nurture: The third party might encourage, reassure, or facilitate. Counselors, agents of
civil or government institutions, marriage brokers, friends, or elders might be among
those who play such roles.
(3) Facilitate: The third party might volunteer assistance. This role is most often played by
representatives of standing institutions and agencies.
(4) Manage: The third party provides a plan for interactions and tests relationship develop-
ment in tenns of its progress in reaching the desired end state. Some businesses have
implemented plans for cultural diversity in the workplace that would fall within
this definition.
(5) Build: The third party may set out to effect a particular synthesis between two or more
distinct entities, usually without regard to the wishes of the parties involved. The efforts
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to integrate Native American nations into the mainstream
at the expense of their languages and distinct cultures exemplify such intervention.

action developed by voluntary engagement of the interacting parties, while

third-culture building might be imposed from the outside. Such a condition
makes understanding the history of third·culture building very important.
Further, it encourages the study of potential abuses that have been shown in
various literature on hegemony and diffusion of innovation.

Support for the New Paradigm

It remains for all of us interested in this creative process to provide careful
documentation by means of both historical research and ethnographically
gained insights. The beginnings of such an effort can be seen in a recent study
dealing with the Wisconsin treaty rights debate (MetzBer, Springston, Weber,
& Larsen, 1991). Going beyond the mere identification of existing problems,
institutions, and conflicts, this study is based on an attempt to determine how
a mid-level moral community, or third culture, is built, who the builders in
such an effort are, and how they use interactional communication to achieve
their goals.
Additional subjects come to mind quite readily. It should prove instructive
to understand the process by which the Japanese built a business and indus·
trial powerhouse through the evolution of a combined Western·Eastern,
U.S.-Asian model of development and productivity; how they "borrowed"
and adapted important cultural aspects from China, and did so while failing
to become adept at third-culture building in an interactional process with
other peoples (Reischauer, 1988). A second, and related example, could well
be the study of the integrative process in and between contemporary market
424 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

economy states, as in the case of the European Community (Ullman, 1990).

How Greek culture came to playa dominant and accepted role in the devel-
opment of Roman society after its conquest is another instance that requires
deeper understanding, beyond the consideration of historical facts.
Similarly, the process that resulted in a cultural transformation of both
Tamerlane's Mongol and the Persian empires, including art, literature, and
science, should provide valuable information for scholars concerned with
third-culture building. The effective building of third cultures in such coun-
tries as the United States and Brazil needs to be studied in much more detail,
while attempting to avoid ideological issues that cause us to focus only on
failures or problems. While the rhetorical tradition has consistently included
concern with humanistic, and thus historical, aspects, those operating on the
basis of a communication/social science/natural science tradition frequently
lack interest and preparation in those vital areas. We can, however, gain some
very important insights when we understand that cultures facing confronta-
tions or serious clashes, in effect, must find ways of sharing limited resources
in a shared environment. At times such challenges have been met simply by
armed conflict, and the victor usurped total control. On the other hand, other
means of resolving such dilemmas have been used again and again, as
Halperin (1985) makes clear in relation to the situations the Mongols and
conquered nations faced when "unable to exterminate one another, the two
sides were forced to develop some sort of modus vivendi" (p. 2).
In other words, our theoretical models now need to be tested in the
real-world settings of yesterday and today. The challenges facing human
societies are too important to allow us the luxury of mere esoteric scholarly
exploration. What we teach about intercultural communication either works
or it doesn't. However, unless we can prove its value in the real world, it is
little more than a complex game played by a small number of highly educated
individuals. As Ullman (1990) would remind us, 04The era ahead needs
politicians [and others, I would add] who understand complexity and who are
willing [and able, I would add] to explain it to their publics" (p. 120).

CONCLUSION

Clearly, we face a diffusion of power as we complete the final decade of

the twentieth century (Nye, 1990; Ravena}, 1990). In such a setting, cultural
values and intercultural communication are taking on new and greater impor-
tance. By the same token, we need to understand the process and the outcomes
of third-culture building much better if we are to go beyond Nye's (1990)
warning that "today, however, economic and ecological issues involve large
elements of mutual advantage that can be achieved only through cooperation"
(p. 158). How we accomplish such cooperation is ultimately the challenge
that intercultural communication scholars and practitioners have to face.
Third-Culture Building 425

Buber (1965) sums up my own conviction that "man wishes to be confirmed

in his being by man, and wishes to have a presence in the being of the Other"
(p. 71). Interactional communication and third-culture building skills, as well
as improved communication technologies, can be the decisive factors in
building our new world-or in destroying it.

REFERENCES

Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural
effectiveness. International JourlUll of Intercultural Relations. 7, 53-67.
Alba, R. D., & Moore, G. (1982, June). Ethnicity in the American elite. American Sociological
Review, 47. 373-383.
Alisky, M. (1981). Latin American media: Guidance and censorship. Ames: University of Iowa Press.
Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five
nations. Boston: Little, Brown.
Andersen, M. P., Lewis, W., & Murray, J. (1964). The speaker and his audience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Aristotle. (1954). The rhetoric and the poetics ofAristotle (W. R. Roberts & I. Bywater, Trans.).
New York: Random House.
Babbitt, I. (1919). Rousseau and romanticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bamlund, D.• & Yoshioka. M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193-206.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward the ecology o/mind. New York: Ballantine.
Berg. P. O. (1985). Organization change as a symbolic transformation process. In P. J. Frost, L.
F. More, R. M. Louis, & C. C. Lundberg (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 281-299). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Beyond the melting pot. (1991, January 13). Los Angeles Times. pp. EI, E8-E9.
Bittner, J. R. (1985). Fundamentals of communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bochner, S. (1973). The mediating man and cultural diversity. Topics in Culture Learning. 1,23-31.
Bredvold, L.I. (1961). Brave new world ofenlightenment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Broome, B. J. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications ofa relational view of empathy for
teaching intercultural communication. Unpublished manuscript.
Brown, R. J. (1990, December). Mixed marriages. International Management. p. 84.
Buber, M. (1965). The knowledge ofman: A philosophy of the interhuman (M. Friedman, Ed.).
New York: Harper.
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric ofmotives. California: University of California Press.
Burton, J. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Bury, J. B. (1921). The idea a/progress. London: Macmillan.
Casmir, F. L. (1974). Interaction: An introduction to speech communication. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.
Casmir, F. L. (1978). A multicultural perspecti ve of human communicati on. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.),
Intercultural and international communication (pp. 241-257). Washington, DC: University
Press of America.
Casmir, F. L., & Asuncion-Lande, N. C. (1989). Intercultural communication revisited: Concep-
tualization, paradigm building, and methodological approaches. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 12 (pp. 278-309). Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
426 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

Casmir, F. L., Bystrom, J., Stewart, E. C., & Tyler, V. L. (1974). Intercultural communication:
Development of strategies for closing the gap between the is and the ought-ta-be. Interna-
tional and Intercultural Communication Annual, 1, 152-160.
Can, I. E. (1990, November). The "cash-value" ofcommunication: An interpretation ofWilliam James.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
Chung, R., & Walkey, F. H. (1989). Educational and achievement aspirations of New Zealand
Chinese and European secondary school students. Youth &: Society, 21, 130-151.
Cicero (1976). De oratore (E. W. Sutton & H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Colburn, D. R., & Pozzetta, G. E. (1983). America and the new ethnicity. Port Washington, NY:
National University Press.
Dahlburg, J. T. (1991, January 15). Crowds weep over bodies of Soviet attack victims. Los
Angeles Times, p. A21.
Deetz, S. (1978) Conceptualizing human understanding: Gadamer's hermeneutics and American
communication research. Communication Quarterly, 26, 12-23.
Deetz, S. (1990). Reclaiming the subject matter as a guide to mutual misunderstanding: Effec-
tiveness and ethics in interpersonal interaction. Communication Quarterly. 38, 226-243.
Delors, J. (1990). European ambitions. Foreign Policy, 80. 14-27.
Descartes, R. (1941). A discourse on method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton, Balch.
Everitt, J. (1982, April). Changing patterns of cultural imperialism in a developing country.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, San
Antonio, TX.
Fairchild. H. N. (1928). The noble savage. New York: Columbia University Press.
Featherstone, M. (Ed.). (1988). Post·modernism. London: Sage.
Fisher, W. R. (1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs, 52,
347-367.
Flynn. G., & Scheffer. D. J. (1990). Limited collective security. Foreign Policy, 80, 77-101.
Friesen, J. W. (1985). When cultures clash: Case studies in multiculturalism. Calgary, Canada:
Detselig.
Golden, J. L.. Berquist. G. F., & Coleman. W. E. (1976). The epistemologists. In The rhetoric of
Western thought (pp. 127·147). Dubuque, fA: Kendall Hunt.
Goldstein, R. (1989, November). The new WASP hegemony in the wake of Bush. Enclitic. 22(2),8-14.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion. and national
origin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gudykunst. W. B.• & Ting-Toomey, 5., with Chua. E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal commu·
nication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Wiseman. R., & Hammer. M. (1977). Determinants of a sojourner's attitudinal
satisfaction: A path model. In B. Rubin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 415-425). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahom, J. E. (1963) . An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of
Social Issues, 19(3}, 33-47.
Halperin, C. J. (1985). Russia and the golden horde. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoffmann, S. (1990). The case for leadership. Foreign Policy, 81, 20-38.
Itabari, N. (1989, November 8). Cultural conflict. Los Angeles Times, pp. EI, EI0.
Itabari, N. (1991, January 13). Beyond the melting pot. Los Angeles Times. pp. E1, E8-E9.
Jacobson, E. (1963). Sojourn research: A definition of the field. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3},
123·129.
James. W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking; Popular lectures on
philosophy. New York: Longman, Green.
Kato, H. (1974). Mutual images: Japan and the United States look at each other. In J. Condon &
M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural encounters with Japan (pp. 111-123). Tokyo: Simu!.
Third-Culture Building 427

Kelman, H., & Cohen, S. (1986). Resolution of international conflict: An interaction approach.
In S. Worchel &. W. Austin (Eels.), Psychology a/intergroup relations (pp. 140-156). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure ofscientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larrabee, F. S. (199011991, Winter). Long memories and short fuses: Change and instability in
the Balkans. International Security, 15,58-91.
Lee, H. (1991. January 30). Learning to understand. Los Angeles limes, pp. BI, B12.
Leo, J. (1990, April 6). Our hypersensitive minorities. U.S. News &: World Report, p. 17.
Levinson. D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Locke. J. (1760). An essay concerning human understanding. London: D. Brown.
Maier, J. B., & Waxman, C. I. (Eds.). (1983). Ethnicity, identity, and history: Essays in memory
of Werner J. Cahnman. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Manley, M. (1990). Southern needs. Foreign Policy, 80, 40-51.
Masmoudi, M. (1979). The new world information order (Commission for the Study ofCommu-
nication Problems Pub. No. 31). Paris: UNESCO.
McDonald, J. W., &. Bendahmane, D. (Eds.). (1987). Conflict resolution: Track two diplomacy.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Institute
McPhail, T. L. (1987). Electronic colonialism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mead, G. M. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Metzger, J. G., Springston, J. K., Weber, D. W., &. Larsen, P. D. (1991). The Wisconsin treaty
rights debate: Narratives of conflict and change in a mid-level moral community. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations~ 15, 191-207.
Monroe, S. (1990, December 9). Love in black and white: The last racial taboo. Los Angeles
Times Magazine~ pp. 14-22,58-62.
Moran, R. T., & Harris, P. R. (1982). Managing cultural synergy. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Nye. J. S.• Jr. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.
Porter, D., & Cissna, K. N. (1990). A causeffective model ofinterpersonal sequencing: An ontolog-
ically based conception ofcommunication. Paper presented to the Interpersonal Communication
Division at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin.
Quintilian. (1933). The institutio oratorio of Quintilian: Or education ofan orator (H. E. Butler,
Trans.). London: Heinemann.
Ravenal, E. C. (1990). The case for adjustment. Foreign Policy, 8~ 3-19.
Ravitch, D. (1990. October 24). Multiculturalism yes, particularism no. Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. 44.
Regis, J. (1987, May). Musical social commentary and the exportation/importation perspective
of communication and cultural imperialism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Eastern Communication Association, Syracuse. NY.
Reischauer, E. O. (1988). The Japanese today. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Rokeach, M. (1971). Long-range experimental modifications of values, attitudes and behavior.
American Psychologist, 26, 453-459.
Rose, A. M. (1962). Human behavior and social processes: An interactionist approach. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Ruben, B. (1985). Human communication and cross-eultural effectiveness. In L. Samovar & R.
Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 338-346). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sarna. J. D. (1978). From immigrants to ethnics: Toward a new theory of "ethnicization. New II

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sauvant, K. P. (1979). Sociocultural emancipation. In K. Nordenstreng & H. Schiller (Eds.),
National sovereignty and interntltional communication (pp. 9-20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schiller, J. I. (1976). Communication and cultural domination. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Searle, W., &. Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during
cross-cultural transactions. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations. 14,449-464.
428 COMMUNICATION IN A CHANGING WORLD

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Shaw, D. (1990a, December 11). Minorities and the press. Los Angeles Times, pp. Alff.
Shaw, D. (l990b, December 12). Minorities and the press. Los Angeles Times. pp. Alff.
Shaw, D. (1990c, December 13). Minorities and the press. Los Angeles Times. pp. Alff.
Shaw, D. (1990d, December 14). Minorities and the press. Los Angeles Times, pp. Alff.
Sikkema, M., & Niyekawa. A. (1987). Design for cross-cultural learning. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Simpson, J. (1990). The two Canadas. Foreign Policy. 81, 71-86.
Snow, D. A.• & Marshall, S. E. (1984). Cultural imperialism, social movements, and the Islamic
revival. In J. Kriesberg (Ed.), Research in social movements, conflicts and change (Vol. 7,
pp. 131-152). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Starosta, W. 1. (1991, May 23). Third culture building: Chronological development and the role
o/third parties. Response paper presented during the master's session, Emerging Contempo-
rary Approaches to the Study of Intercultural Communication in the Nineties, at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
Stent, A. (1990). The one Germany. Foreign Policy. 81,53-70.
Stephen, L. (1949). English thought in the eighteenth century. New York: P. Smith.
Sterner. M. (1990). Navigating the gulf. Foreign Policy, 81,39-52.
Stewart, J. (1983). Interpretive listening: An alternative to empathy. Communication Education,
32, 379-391.
Storti, C. (1989). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Taifu, T. (1990). Japan's vision. Foreign Policy, 80. 28-39.
The way it was and wasn't at WARC '85. (1985, November 4). Broadcasting, pp. 70-72.
Thibaut. J. W., & Kelley. H. H. (1959). The social psychology ofgroups. New York: John Wiley.
Thonssen, L., Baird, A. C., & Braden, W. W. (1970). Speech criticism. New York: Ronald.
Triandis, H. (1975). Culture training: Cognitive complexity and interpersonal attitudes. In R.
Brislin (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in learning (pp. 39-77). New York: John Wiley.
Ugboajab, F. O. (1985). Drawing the curtain: Policy issues and communication research in West
Africa. In F. O. Ugboajah (Ed.), Mass communication, culture, and society in West Africa (pp.
309-329). New York: Hans ZeU.
Ullman, R. H. (1990). Enlarging the zone of peace. Foreign Policy, 80, 102-120.
Useem, J., Donoghue, J. D., & Useem, R. H. (1963). Men in the middle of the third culture.
Human Organization, 22(33), 129-144.
Waddell, C. (1990). The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study in the rhetoric
of science policy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 381-400.
WARC 1985: The politics of space. (1985, September 23). Broadcasting, pp. 56-58.
Watson, A. K., Monroe, E. E., & Atterstrom, H. (1989). Comparison of communication across
cultures: American and Swedish children. Communication Quarterly. 37. 67-76.
Watzlawick. P. J., Beavin. J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weimer, W. B. (1978). Communication, speech and psychological models of man: Review and
commentary. In B. Rubin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 57-77). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
White, E. E. (1984). Basic public speaking. New York: Macmillan.
Williams, C. J. (1991, January 15). East Europeans assail assault on Lithuania. Los Angeles
Times, p. A20.
Wolfson, K., & Norden, M. (1984). Measuring responses to filmed interpersonal conflict. In W.
Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 155-
168). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wood, J. T. (1982). Communication and relational culture: Bases for the study of human
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 75-83.