Finding a “home” beyond culture: The emergence of intercultural personhood in the globalizing world

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Finding a “home” beyond culture: The emergence of intercultural personhood in the globalizing world Young Yun Kim ∗ Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73072, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Cross-cultural adaptation Globalization Intercultural identity Intercultural personhood Stress–adaptation–growth dynamic

a b s t r a c t This theoretical essay presents intercultural identity development and the emerging intercultural personhood as an adaptive response to the increasing interface of differing cultural traditions. Based on the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2005), extensive and prolonged intercultural communication experiences are explained to render a gradual psychological evolution from a largely mono-cultural to an increasingly “intercultural” way of relating to oneself and others. Underpinning this internal transformation are two interrelated processes of individuation and universalization in identity orientation, by which conventional, ascription-based cultural identity plays a diminishing role in a person’s daily existence. Samples of direct and indirect research evidence supporting the present theoretical claim are provided from studies of immigrants and sojourners, along with three individuals’ personal narratives offering a concrete insight into the reality explained by the theory. The essay ends with an examination of intercultural personhood as a constructive way of engaging oneself in the globalizing world and as ultimately a matter of choice for those intercultural communicators who are open to the possibility of being changed by the experiences of new cultural learning. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction “You cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh water is forever flowing towards you,” observed Heraclitus of Ephesus, Greek philosopher of the late sixth century BCE. This ancient insight into the human condition is relevant today more than ever before. Ever since the first camel caravan ventured afield, humans have been crossing group boundaries and weaving cultural connections. What is different now is the speed and scope of such occurrences. Physical distance no longer dictates exposure to the images and sounds of once distant cultures. In many urban centers, the natives are routinely coming in face-to-face contacts with newly arrived non-natives of differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds. We are, indeed, in the throes of a worldwide integration of cultures, a tectonic shift of habits and dreams called “globalization”—the process of integration of the world in which many facets of human affairs that used to be bounded by locality now play out on the world’s stage, bringing differing cultural traditions together in an increasing interdependence. “We are all migrants,” as Pieterse (2000, p. 385) aptly noted. Ours is also a world of clashing traditions and identities, as people around the world struggle to make sense of a life of ever-present uncertainty and complexity. Conflicts along ethnic and national lines render alarming daily news headlines and

∗ Tel.: +1 405 325 1587. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.018 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

4

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

a deeply unsettling landscape of collective identity claims. The very forces that diminish physical boundaries exacerbate what Steigerwald (2004) referred to as “culture’s vanities” and “the follies of cultural determinism” (p. xi). The seemingly innocent banner of group identity is now a compelling sore spot galvanizing people into us-against-them posturing, manifested in so many angry words and even acts of violent rage and terror. Lost in the identity polemics are the ideals of diversity and multiculturalism, that is, people with different roots can coexist, learn from each other, and look across and beyond the frontiers of group boundaries with minimum prejudice or illusion. Yet, beneath the daily news headlines of clashing group identities, there is another reality—the reality of people around the world whose daily communication experience extend beyond the familiar world of their home culture and who have been adapting themselves to the stresses of crossing cultures, and creatively and resourcefully crafting their own ways of life that transcends cultural categories. A case in point is Tan Dun, a Chinese-born composer who is best known for his Oscar-winning film score to the film, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Tan Dun was exposed to Western classical music for the first time in 1973 as a young student of traditional Chinese music at a concert by the Philadelphia Orchestra in Beijing performing Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. Right there and then, he decided to become a composer himself and found his way to come to New York City in 1986. He has since established himself as a composer renowned for his unique musical creations that combine both Chinese and Western musical traditions and, at the same time, cannot be classified as either Chinese or Western (Composers Datebook, September 11, 2014). Clearly revealed in this story of Dan Dun’s transformation as a composer is an understanding of “both-and” and the human capacity to adapt to, and participate in, the depth of intellectual, aesthetic, and emotional experience of others. Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie, in his book East, West (1994), speaks to this transcendence of the culture of one’s childhood upbringing in the voice of the book’s narrator: “I, too, have ropes around my neck, I have them to this day, pulling me this way and that, East and West, the nooses tightening, commanding, choose, choose. . .I do not choose between you. . .I choose neither of you, and both. Do you hear? I refuse to choose” (p. 211). Indeed, modern history presents ample cases of immigrants and sojourners who have demonstrated extraordinary openness and resilience. Their experiences demonstrate that going through adaptive challenges of crossing cultural boundaries bring about a personal transformation beyond the boundaries of any single culture and beyond “either-or” characterization. The above-described grassroots-level phenomenon of personal transformation beyond one’s “home” culture is the focus of this theoretical essay. Based on the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2005), the author seeks to capture and illuminate this phenomenon by presenting a systematic way of understanding it. Employing the key terms, “intercultural identity development” and “intercultural personhood,” the author puts forth a theoretical claim that: (1) through extensive and prolonged experiences of communication across traditional cultural boundaries, people undergo the process of cross-cultural adaptation; (2) over time, the adaptive responses to new cultural experiences bring about a gradual transformation in a person’s identity orientation and personhood in the direction of an increasingly “intercultural” nature; and (3) the two key facets of intercultural identity development and intercultural personhood are individuation and universalization in self-other orientation. This three-part theoretical claim is made with the practical aim of projecting a path of creatively and constructively engaging oneself in the world of intensifying interface of differing, and often divergent, cultural traditions.

2. The integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation Communication across cultures is inherently stressful as it challenges our taken-for-granted assumptions. Since our cultural habits are acquired and internalized from early childhood, they generally elude our awareness, except when we encounter people whose cultural scripts are at variance with our own. The experiences of interactional incongruity and accompanying stress inherent in intercultural encounters, in turn, provides us an impetus for new learning and adaptive change in our cultural habits. Despite, or rather because of, its potential difficulties, the process of intercultural communication spurs adaptive responses in individual participants, as has been amply demonstrated by numerous immigrants, refugees, and even temporary sojourners. Uprooted from the familiar home culture, some of their experiences can be devastating because they have to separate themselves from something that has been an important part of their identity. Yet, cultural uprooting, “should you survive it, can be the greatest of philosophical gifts, a blessing in disguise. . .[it] gives you a chance to break free. All that heavy luggage of old ‘truths,’ which seemed so only because they were so familiar, is to be left behind” (Bradatan, 2014, p. SR12). The long-term transformative effect of intercultural contact and communication is addressed in the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2005). Plasticity, or the ability to learn and change through new experiences, is regarded in this theory as one of the most profound characteristics of the human mind and as the very basis upon which individuals acquire an identity and personhood. Built on this basic premise, the theory presents a systemic account of the dynamic person–culture relationship from a general systems perspective (Bertalanffy, 1956; Ruben, 1972). The theory explains that, as an open system, each person adapts to, and co-evolves with, the environment through all forms of communication, from mere observations to intense social engagements and from face-to-face and technologically mediated social encounters to public mass-mediated communication. As such, cross-cultural adaptation is defined in this theory as the entirety of the dynamic process by which individuals who, through direct and indirect contact and communication with a new,

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

5

changing, or changed environment, strive to establish (or reestablish) and maintain a relatively stable, reciprocal, and functional relationship with the environment (Kim, 2001, p. 31). 2.1. Acculturation and deculturation in the cross-cultural adaptation process Kim’s theory explains that, at the heart of the adaptive activities of intercultural contact and communication is the process of acculturation, that is, the acquisition of the new cultural patterns and practices in wide-ranging areas including the learning of a new language. Acculturation brings about a development of cognitive complexity, or the structural refinement in an individual’s internal information-processing capacity with respect to the newly acquainted cultural system. Acculturation does not occur randomly or automatically following intercultural exposures. New cultural elements are not simply added to prior internal conditions. Rather, each individual has a degree of freedom or control, based on his or her predispositions, pre-existing needs and interests. Such an ego-protective and ego-centric psychological principle is demonstrated in Bognar’s (2001) finding of an uneven development in gender role change between male and female immigrants, and in Chang’s (2001) finding that Asian immigrants in Singapore reported relatively higher levels of acculturation in workplace-related and public norms and values than in private realms and private life. Kim’s theory further explains that, as acculturation takes place through new learning, deculturation or unlearning of some of the old cultural elements occurs, at least in the sense that new responses are adopted in situations that previously would have evoked old ones. The act of acquiring something new is the suspending and, over a prolonged period, even losing some of the old habits at least temporarily. “No construction without destruction,” in the words of Burke (1974). Although various personal and environmental factors influence the distance individuals travel in the cross-cultural adaptation process, at least some change will inevitably occur in everyone. Gradually and imperceptibly, as at least some of their old cultural habits will be replaced by new ones through the experiences of acculturation and deculturation. The interplay of acculturation and deculturation sets into motion the gradual and largely imperceptible psychological evolution accompanying changes in “surface” areas of original cultural habits such as outwardly expressive behaviors such as choices of music, food, and dress. Over time, through extensive and prolonged experiences of new cultural learning and adaptation, individuals may undergo some of the deeper-level changes in the realm of aesthetic and emotional sensibilities of experiencing life’s pleasure, joy, and beauty, of moral and ethical values about what is right and wrong in one’s public and private conduct, and even the very notion of self in relation to culture. 2.2. The stress–adaptation–growth dynamic The experiences of acculturation and deculturation inevitably accompany stress in the individual psyche—a kind of identity conflict rooted in resistance to change and the desire to retain old customs in keeping with the original identity, on the one hand, and the desire to change behavior in seeking harmony with the new milieu, on the other. This conflict is essentially between the need for acculturation and the resistance to deculturation, that is, the “push” of the new culture and the “pull” of the old. The internal disequilibrium created by such conflicting forces can be manifested in intense emotional “lows” of uncertainty, confusion, and anxiety. Such intense situations can generate moments of “crises” in which our mental and behavioral habits are brought into awareness and called into question. Stress is an expression of the instinctive human desire to restore homeostasis, that is, to hold constant a variety of variables in internal structure to achieve an integrated whole. Some people may attempt to avoid or minimize the anticipated or actual “pain” of disequilibrium by selective attention, denial, avoidance, and withdrawal, as well as by compulsively altruistic behavior, cynicism, and hostility toward the new or changed external reality. Others may seek to regress to an earlier state of existence in the familiar “old” culture, a state in which there is no feeling of isolation, no feeling of separation. From this open systems perspective, then, the extensively investigated phenomenon of “culture shock” (e.g., Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001), “transition shock” (e.g., Bennett, 1977), or “self-shock” (Zaharna, 1989) is essentially a manifestation of the generic process that occurs whenever an individual’s internal capabilities are not adequate to the demands of the new or changing environment. Even in times of anguish and tribulations, however, experiences of stress presents us with opportunities for adaptation. Stress, in this regard, is intrinsic to complex open systems and essential in the adaptation process by making people susceptible to external influence and compelling them to learn new cultural elements. For most people, internal changes take hold as they strive to stabilize themselves by overcoming their predicament and partake in the act of adaptation. What follows a successful, long-term, and cumulative management of the stress-adaptation disequilibrium is a subtle and often imperceptible psychological growth, that is, an increased complexity in an individual’s internal communication system. Periods of stress pass as an individual works out new ways of handling problems, owing to the creative forces of self-reflexivity of human mentation. This “coming-together” of an individual’s internal conditions owes to what Jantsch (1980) called the “self-organizing” human capacity—the capacity to endure the broken intrapsychic and person–environment symmetry. The experiences of stress, adaptation, and growth are captured in Kim’s theory in terms of the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic—a dynamic psychological movement in the forward and upward direction of increased chances of success in a changing or changed environment. In this process of personal evolution, individuals experience varying degrees of “boundary-ambiguity syndromes” (Hall, 1976, p. 227), in which the original cultural identity begins to lose its

6

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

Fig. 1. The stress–adaptation–growth dynamic. Source: Kim, 2001, p. 59.

distinctiveness and rigidity while an expanded and more flexible self-definition emerges (Adler, 1982; Kim, 1995; Kim & Ruben, 1988). The interplay of stress and adaptation enabling personal development, thus, echoes Dabrowski’s (1964) notion of “positive disintegration”: Disintegration is a generally positive developmental process. . .The disintegration process, through loosening and even fragmenting the internal psychic environment, through conflict within the internal environment and with the external environment, is the ground for birth and development of a higher psychic structure. Disintegration is the basis for developmental thrusts upward, the creation of new evolutionary dynamics, and the movement of the personality to a higher level. (p. 5) As depicted in Fig. 1, the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic does not unfold in a smooth, steady, and linear progression, but in a continual and cyclic “draw-back-to-leap” pattern. Each stressful experience is responded to with a “draw back” (or a state of regression), which, in turn, activates adaptive energy to help individuals reorganize themselves and “leap forward.” The stress–adaptation–growth transformative process continues as long as there are new challenges of intercultural contact and communication, with the overall forward and upward movement in the direction of greater adaptation and growth. In this process, large and sudden changes are more likely to occur during the initial phase of exposure to a new or changing cultural milieu. Such drastic changes are themselves indicative of the severity of difficulties and disruptions. Over a prolonged period of undergoing internal change, the diminishing fluctuations of stress and adaptation become less intense or severe, leading to an overall calming of the internal condition. 3. Intercultural transformation Emerging from the prolonged experiences of acculturation, deculturation, and the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic is an intercultural identity—a self-other orientation that is richer in content and more complex in structure. Through extensive and intensive exposure to, and interactions with, cultural elements beyond the familiar ones of one’s “home” culture, individuals undergo a progression of stages. In each stage, previously unknown concepts, sensibilities, attitudes, and behaviors are incorporated into one’s new psyche and transforming the overall inner constitution, which makes it possible, over time, the development of a broadened, clearer, more objective, and more differentiating perception as well as a broader and more integrative understanding of the human condition. Accompanying the perceptual refinement is the increasing capacity to participate in the emotional and aesthetic experiences of cultural strangers, and the resourcefulness with which to make appropriate behavioral adjustments to specific situations and to manage them effectively and creatively. 3.1. Individuation and universalization Intercultural identity, as such, refers to an acquired identity constructed after the early childhood enculturation process through one’s communicative interactions with other cultural groups. Intercultural identity, then, is consistent with the conception of “adopted” (Grotevant, 1992) or “achieved” identity (Phinney, 1993), in contrast with “assigned” or “ascribed” identity. One of the two key elements of intercultural identity development identified in the present theory (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2005) is individuation of one’s self-other orientation. This development involves a solidified sense of self—an “epoche,”

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

7

authenticity, and a feeling of certainty about one’s place in the world, and a differentiated and particularized definitions of others as singular individuals rather than as members of conventional social categories such as culture and ethnicity (Billig, 1987; Hansel, 1993; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984). Accompanying the individuation of self-other orientation is a parallel development of a universalization of one’s mental outlook—a synergistic cognition “of a new consciousness, born out of an awareness of the relative nature of values and of the universal aspect of human nature” (Yoshikawa, 1978, p. 220). Together, the two interrelated processes of intercultural identity development define the nature of the psychological movement toward an identity orientation that is no longer bound by conventional cultural categories. Through individuation and universalization, then, individuals undergoing the process of intercultural transformation are able to cultivate a mindset that integrates, rather than separates, cultural differences. With an understanding of cultural differences between and among human groups and, at the same time, of profound similarities in the human condition, they are better able to rise above the hidden grips of culture and cultivate those psychological attributes that have been linked to cooperative intercultural behaviors and relationship development including a “third-culture” perspective (Gudykunst, Wiseman, & Hammer, 1977; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Useem, 1963), “cultural reflexibility” (Roosens, 1989), “cultural relativistic insight” (Roosens, 1989), and “moral inclusiveness” (Opotow, 1990). 3.2. Related terms The term, intercultural personhood, is employed in the present theory broadly and inclusively to incorporate and represent various related terms such as “multicultural man” (Adler, 1982), “universal man” (Tagore, 1961; Walsh, 1973), “cultural hybrid” (Park, 1939), “species identity” (Boulding, 1988), “cosmopolitanism” (Appiah, 2006; Pearce, 1989), and “self-identity between cultures” (Seelye & Wasilewski, 1996). With varying degrees of explanatory value, terms such as these project similar images of personhood, signifying an expanded and/or meta-contextual, universalized outlook on self and others rather than rigid boundedness vis-à-vis conventional social categories such as ethnicity or culture. Walsh’s (1973) concept of “universal” person, for instance, emphasizes three aspects of a transcultural viewpoint: (1) respect for all cultures; (2) understanding of what individuals in other cultures think, feel, and believe; and (3) appreciation for differences among cultures. Unlike some of the related terms, however, intercultural personhood uniquely signifies both of the two transformation processes, individuation and universalization of identity. Unlike the term, multicultural person, intercultural personhood is defined not by the characteristics of a set of two or more specific cultures, but by one of the well-known central maxims for all living systems: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” The cultural bases of an intercultural person is unlikely to disappear completely until the end of his or her life, even if we wanted to get rid of it. What does happen in the process of intercultural transformation is a juxtaposition of deculturation and acculturation—fading of some of the old cultural habits and gaining of some of the new cultural habits. In doing so, a person becomes something else, as represented by a formulaic metaphor, A + B = A + B + X, with A and B indicating modifications in some of the original cultural patterns (A), some of the new cultural patterns (B), and the two interrelated facets of identity transformation (X), individuation and universalization. 4. Empirical evidence Countless studies across social science disciplines have been conducted among immigrants since the 1930s and subsequently among temporary sojourners to investigate various aspects of the cross-cultural adaptation process. This extensive body of literature provides a wide ranging array of direct and indirect research evidence in support of the theoretical claim made so far about intercultural transformation process, including acculturation and deculturation, the experiences of stress, adaptation, and growth, and intercultural identity development. Examples of such research evidence are presented below, followed by three first-hand accounts of the personal experiences of intercultural transformation. (See Kim, 2001, for a more extensive documentation of research findings and case illustrations.) 4.1. Research findings Among the numerous studies of immigrants documenting adaptive changes is a study by Suro (1998), who reported that Hispanics in the United States showed diminished Hispanic cultural patterns in their judgments and increased social interactions with non-Hispanics. Another study by Dasgupta (1983) indicated that Asian-Indian immigrants were able to resolve the conflict between their traditional value of holism and ascription and the American cultural values of individualism, achievement, and competition by dichotomizing and attaining a healthy balance between primary ingroup relationships and achievement in their occupational lives in the larger society. Conversely, those who lack adaptive changes have been found to experience a sense of cultural dislocation, a sense of being left out, commonly manifested in social-psychological distress symptoms such as dissatisfaction with life in general and a bitter attitude of being helpless victims of the changing cultural reality, as well as hostility or aggression toward outgroups, particularly those that are regarded as being responsible for their cultural dislocation group or groups that are perceived to be (e.g., Berry, 1990; Furnham & Bochner, 1986). Such frustration, in turn, tends to be followed by some form of aggression (Zajonc, 1952). The growth resulting from the stress–adaptation experiences is reflected in the findings from a long line of research demonstrating the increase over time in functional and psychological adaptation. In a study of Japanese–Americans (Marmot

8

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

& Syme, 1976), for example, the better adapted immigrants were found to experience initially a somewhat greater frequency of stress-related symptoms (such as anxiety and a need for psychotherapy) than the less adapted group. Among the more recent studies reporting on similar results is Milstein’s (2005) study in Japan of college students from the United States and a number of other countries. Milstein found that the students’ sojourn experience resulted in increased levels of “self-efficacy” and that the increase in self-efficacy was linked positively to the level of challenge the students reported to have experienced and to the eventual perceived success of their sojourn. Similarly, in a 15-month ethnographic fieldwork among American exchange students studying in a college in France. In this study, Pitts (2009) described how, at various stages of the sojourn, the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic was unfolding in the college students’ intercultural experiences during their sojourn, leading to an increased sense of personal growth beyond the parameters of their identity as Americans. A limited number of studies have offered some indirect indications for the two sub-processes of intercultural identity development, individuation and universalization. Amerikaner (1978), for example, found in a study of military cadets, seminarians, and college fraternity members, that subjects of a high degree of adaptation (measured by the ability “to deal effectively with everyday tensions and anxieties”) exhibited greater identity differentiation and integration, less categorical and simplistic self-identity, and greater openness to new social experiences. In a study of Korean immigrants in the United States (Kim, 1976, 1977), participants were asked to compare the meaning of friendship among Koreans to that among Americans. The results revealed that those immigrants who were relatively new to the United States were able to offer fewer and more stereotypical comments focusing only on the differences along the cultural lines. On the other hand, the subjects who had lived in the United States longer were able to articulate clearer and more refined comparisons of the two cultural groups. They did so not only by mentioning cultural differences in a more differentiated and complex manner, but also by emphasizing similarities between the two groups. Relatedly, in a study based on one-on-on interviews with 182 American Indians in Oklahoma (Kim, Lujan, & Dixon, 1998), the investigators found a preponderance of an intercultural identity orientation that was, at once, universalized and individuated. Almost all of the interviewees identified themselves inclusively as both an American and an American Indian. Many of them volunteered comments such as “we are all humans,” “people are people,” and “there are good people and bad people in all groups.” One of the comments succinctly indicated a simultaneously universalized and individuated identity orientation: “I can go either way, you know, my dad. . .was a White man and I was raised around Indians all my life. . .when you grow up being a half-breed like me you learn how to play both sides and you can be accepted by both sides. And you can be hated by both sides, too. But you know how to play them both. . .” (p. 265). (See, also, Grotevant, 1993, for similar findings among Asian Indian immigrants and McKay-Semmler, 2010, among Hispanic youth in the United States.) A related insight into intercultural identity development can be gleaned from a growing literature in the field of psychology that links intercultural experience to heightened individual creativity. Studies have found that sojourners undergo significant cognitive changes that can lead to enhanced creative thinking abilities. Cheng and Leung (2012), for example, report evidence for the intercultural experience-creative link and demonstrates that two factors, perceived cultural distance between the two juxtaposed cultures and comparison mind-sets, interact to affect creative outcomes. In their two studies, individuals exposed to dual cultural primes with higher levels of perceived cultural distance perform consistently more adeptly in creative insight tasks when they were personally predisposed or experimentally manipulated to adopt a difference (vs. similarity) mindset. The findings suggest that individuals’ creativity is more likely to be increased when they have been exposed to a cultural environment that is perceived to be substantially different from their home culture.

4.2. Case illustrations In addition to the research findings sampled above, many first-hand personal accounts have been told, bearing witness to the concrete realities that illuminate the present theoretical ideas about intercultural personhood and the underlying processes of individuation and universalization of identity orientation. These stories are available in a variety of publicly accessible sources such as case histories, memoirs, biographical stories, and essays of self-reflection and self-analysis in various forms—popular books, newspaper and magazine articles, and radio and television programs. The creative insight into the human condition gathered from a life of intercultural personhood appears to have been the driving passion for the 2006 winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, the Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk is recognized for having captured in his writings new symbols for the interlacing of cultures. In an interview with the National Public Radio following the Nobel Prize announcement (National Public Radio, October 12, 2006), Pamuk was reminded by the interviewer that he had talked previously about “coming from one of those countries. . .on the periphery of the Western world where the art was developed, and being one of those writers who is grabbing that art from the center to the periphery and then producing something new to show the world” (Italics added). Pamuk reaffirmed this intercultural focus in his work and explained his inclusive intercultural identity as follows. My whole book, my whole life, is a testimony to the fact that East and West actually combine, come together gracefully and produce something new. That is what I have been trying to do all my life. . .I don’t believe in clashes of civilization. I think that was a fanciful idea which, unfortunately, is sometimes coming to be true. But no, I think that East and West meet. I think that my whole work is a testimony to the fact that we should find ways of looking, combining East

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

9

and West without any clash, but with harmony, with grace, and produce something new for humanity. (Italics added for emphasis) Perhaps one of the most pointed and poignant testimonials to the present theoretical formulation of individuation and universalization of identity orientation has been offered by Mueno Yoshikawa (1978). As someone who had lived in Japan and in the United States, Yoshikawa offered the following insight into his own personal evolution—an insight that captures the very essence of what it means to be an intercultural person: I am now able to look at both cultures with objectivity as well as subjectivity; I am able to move in both cultures, back and forth without any apparent conflict. . .I think that something beyond the sum of each [cultural] identification took place, and that it became something akin to the concept of “synergy” – when one adds 1 and 1, one gets three, or a little more. This something extra is not culture-specific but something unique of its own, probably the emergence of a new attribute or a new self-awareness, born out of an awareness of the relative nature of values and of the universal aspect of human nature. . .I really am not concerned whether others take me as a Japanese or an American; I can accept myself as I am. I feel I am much freer than ever before, not only in the cognitive domain (perception, thoughts, etc.), but also in the affective (feeling, attitudes, etc.) and behavioral domains. (Italics added for emphasis; p. 220) A similar individuated and universalized intercultural vision appears to be sought by a Chinese graduate student Li Mengyu. In an essay excerpted below and originally posted on March 29, 2011 on the online news blog of the Communication Research and Theory Network (CRENET), Li discusses the following self-reflection on the question of identity from which a budding of an intercultural personhood can be gleaned: The rapid pace of globalization not only brings in western goods, but also imports western thoughts and ideologies which sometimes are in great conflict with their Chinese counterparts. . .I love freedom, resent rules and restrictions, and I prefer a simple, individual lifestyle in which I can enjoy more privacy. I am fascinated about new things, metropolitan prosperity, and I am voracious for new knowledge. . .my parents want me to take a stable job in the government or some public institution, but I want to be employed by some top 500 multinational corporations and do some really creative and rewarding tasks. In a word, it is really difficult to fully summarize my cultural background in this increasing diversified world in which numerous factors interact with each other in constituting my specific cultural context. The case of Li Mengyu exemplifies those who, unlike immigrants or sojourners, actively partake in intercultural communication activities and undergo some of the adaptive and transformative experiences without having to leave the home culture. Through mass media and Internet-based technological means of communication, people around the world are increasingly exposed to the images and sounds of once distant cultures. Li Mengyu’s narrative reveals a keen awareness of oneself as being part of a larger, more inclusive whole, a wider circle of identification beyond the parameters of the culture of one’s childhood, and a kind a freedom and creativity with which to make deliberate choices about action in specific situations, rather than to have these choices simply be dictated by habitual conventions of thought and action. With this transcendental understanding of self and others, Li conciliates and reconciliates seemingly contradictory elements and transform them into complementary, interacting parts of a unique, intercultural personhood. Together, the above three personal narratives suggest that, even though no two individuals travel an identical path of intercultural personhood, the experiences of crossing cultures offer everyone opportunities for blossoming of the uniquely human capacity to face challenges, learn from them, and grow into a greater self-integration beyond the parameters of one’s “home” culture. Their intercultural identity orientations enable them to relate to others in a less categorical and more individuated and universalized self-other orientation that allows them to create an outlook on life that transcends the parameters of any given cultural tradition.

5. Looking forward The present theoretical account links together the experiences of intercultural communication, the adaptive experiences of acculturation, deculturation, and the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic, intercultural identity development, and the emergence of intercultural personhood. As we move forward in our ever-changing world, the present theoretical account provides a communication-based framework for investigating the phenomenon of intercultural transformation at the grassroots level. Investigators, for example, might find this theoretical framework useful in conducting in-depth case studies of individuals who actively seek and participate in intercultural communication experiences, either through direct, face-to-face contacts or via various “social media” including electronic word-of-mouth micro-blogs (Ma, 2013; Shuter, 2012). A timely example of such in-depth studies is the recent anthropological case study presented in the book, Email from Ngeti: An ethnography of sorcery, redemption, and friendship in global Africa (Smith & Mwadime, 2014). The study is focused on a young Kenyan man, who is keenly aware of the world outside Kenya and Africa, struggling to move beyond what he considers to be the hold of the past in search of opportunities for a successful life abroad. This man exemplifies the increasing number of people in many parts of the world who are eager to pursue their aspirations in the global stage. If successful, he might well be on his way to become what newspaper columnist and author Thomas Friedman (2014) has referred to as the

10

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

“square people” who are “mostly young, aspiring to a higher standard of living and more liberty. . .connected to one another either by massing in squares or through virtual squares or both” (p. A27). For now, the present theoretical account offers significant practical implications for our time of great change and profound uncertainty. Whether at a familiar ground or in a foreign soil, more and more people around the world engage in contacts with previously alien cultural elements. In presenting the theory, the author has sought to highlight intercultural personhood as a viable, creative, and constructive way of orientating oneself in today’s changing world. Intercultural personhood, underpinned by an individuated and universalized identity orientation, is regarded as no less genuine and far more constructive than the conventional practice of exclusive ethnic loyalty. In this regard, the author’s idea of intercultural personhood echoes Thomas Sowell (2012), an African–American economist and public intellectual, who has pointed out that there an urgent need to “separate the issue of the general importance of cultural diversity. . .from the more specific, more parochial and more ideological agendas that have become associated with that word in recent years” (p. 491). He reminds us that cultural features “do not exist merely as badges of ‘identity’ to which we have some emotional attachment. They exist to meet the necessities and forward the purposes of human life,” and that the history of the human race has been “marked by transfers of cultural advances from one group to another and from one civilization to another. . .until they become the common inheritance of the human race” (p. 491). Likewise, philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, who, in his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers (2006), has observed that we have grown accustomed to thinking of the world as divided among warring cultural identities. Drawing on his personal experience of growing up as the child of an English mother and a father from Ghana in a family spread across four continents and as many creeds, Appiah argues that, although cultural differences are real enough, intellectuals and political and social leaders have wildly exaggerated their significance and that people across religions, cultures, and nations need to recognize the powerful ties that bind all of them into the human community. Beyond its practical and philosophical implications, the present conceptions of intercultural identity development and intercultural personhood affirm and celebrate the remarkable human spirit and capacity for self-renewal unencumbered by the constraints of a single culture. The possibilities of growing beyond one’s “home” culture speak to a uniquely human plasticity to form new habits—“our relative freedom from programmed reflexive patterns. . .the very capacity to use culture to construct our identities” (Slavin & Kriegman, 1992, p. 6). Not everyone, of course, is willing or able to embrace intercultural challenges and partake in the process of becoming intercultural. Some, by circumstances or innate temperament, may be highly susceptible to ill effects from intercultural interactions. Others may try to alleviate the fear of cultural strangers by retreating into their own cultural identity or aggressively asserting it. To them, the rapid interface of cultures brought about through globalization can represent a particularly unsettling discontinuity and malaise. To many others, however, adapting to new or changing world of multiple cultural forces is something that is necessary and desirable. They may choose to move beyond parochialism, so as to embrace two or more seemingly conflicting identities into a new identity without losing the overall integrity of their personhood. Whether by necessity or by a personal value, they are more open to the changing world, the increased contact with other cultures presents an opportunity for adaptation and transformation beyond their original cultural parameters. It is to these individuals that the present concept of intercultural personhood offers an intellectual template for a constructive and creative way of seeing and relating to oneself and others. In the end, then, intercultural identity development is largely “the gift of the individuals” (Steele, 1990, p. 171). The power and responsibility for change ultimately rests in each person, who is willing and able to use his or her free will to embrace the process of intercultural identity development, and who is open-minded and resilient enough to endure the stress inherent in the situations of new learning and adaptation. Those of us who are more successful in this process are likely to be the ones who make more deliberate choices to engage fully in the often stressful intercultural encounters and are willing to be changed by the experiences choose to adapt and be transformed (Feldman, Baumeister, & Wong, 2014). Such is clearly the case in the experiences of the three individuals featured earlier for case illustration, Japanese–American Muneo Yoshikawa, Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, and Chinese graduate student Li Mengyu, as well as Chinese-born composer Tan Dun, Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie, and philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, as well as the young Kenyan man and all others called “square people” aspiring to pursue their dreams in the global stage. Although vastly different in cultural backgrounds and life circumstances, all of these individuals share an individuated and universalized outlook on life—one that has been explained in this theoretical essay as the hallmarks of an intercultural personhood. Each of them shows us that cultivating an intercultural personhood does not require us to be disloyal to the culture of our youth, that cross-borrowing of identities is often an act of appreciation that leaves neither the lender nor the borrower deprived, and that experiences of going through adaptive challenges bring about a special privilege and freedom—to think, feel, and act beyond the confines of any single culture. Their personal courage and insights affirm the uniquely human capacity to invent and reinvent oneself and the power of personal freedom to choose to create a singular life of one’s own and, along the way, finding a “home” beyond culture.

Author note An earlier version of this essay has been presented elsewhere (Kim, 2008). In writing the present version, the author has sought to broaden the literature review and further refine and elaborate on her theoretical argument for intercultural identity development and intercultural personhood.

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

11

References Adler, P. (1982). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicultural man. In L. Samover, & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (3rd ed., pp. 389–408). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Amerikaner, M. (1978). Personality integration and the theory of open systems: A cross-subcultural approach (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Gainsville, FL: University of Florida. Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Bennett, J. (1977, December). Transition shock: Putting culture shock in perspective. In N. Jain (Ed.), International intercultural communication annual (Vol. 4) (pp. 45–52). Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association. Berry, J. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bertalanffy, L. (1956). General systems theory. General Systems, 1, 1–2. Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bognar, N. (2001, April). Cross-cultural adjustment and gender-related norms: A study of Eastern Europeans in the United States. In Paper presented at the 2nd biennial congress of the International Academy for Intercultural Research. MS: Oxford. Boulding, K. (1988). Building a global civic culture. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bradatan, C. (2014, August 17). The wisdom of the exile. The New York Times, SR12. Burke, K. (1974). Communication and the human condition. Communication (Vol. 1) United Kingdom: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Chang, W. (2001, April). A model of situation-specific multiculturalism of Asian immigrants in Singapore. In Paper presented at the 2nd biennial congress of the International Academy for Intercultural Research. MS: Oxford. Cheng, C., & Leung, A. (2012). Revisiting the multicultural experience-creativity link: The effects of perceived cultural distance and comparison mind-set. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(4), 475–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612462413 Composers Datebook. (2014, September). Tan Dun and Beethoven in (and out) of China. Email newsletter received from [email protected] Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Dasgupta, S. (1983). Indian immigrants: The evolution of an ethnic group (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newark, NJ: University of Delaware. Feldman, G., Baumeister, R., & Wong, K. (2014). Free will is about choosing: The link between choice and the belief in free will. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 239–245. Friedman, T. (2014, May 14). The square people, Part 1. The New York Times. Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London, UK: Mathuen. Grotevant, H. (1992). Assigned and chosen identity components: A process perspective on their integration. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation (pp. 73–90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Grotevant, H. (1993). The integrative nature of identity: Bridging the soloists to sing in the choir. In J. Kroger (Ed.), Discussions on ego identity (pp. 121–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gudykunst, W., Wiseman, R., & Hammer, M. (1977). Determinants of a sojourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 415–425). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Hansel, B. (1993). An investigation of the re-entry adjustment of Indians who studied in the U.S.A. (Occasional Papers in Intercultural Learning No. 17). New York, NY: AFS Center for the Study of Intercultural Learning. Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe: Scientific and human implications of the emerging paradigm of evolution. New York, NY: Pergamon. Kim, Y. (1976). Communication patterns of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation: A survey among the Korean population in Chicago (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Kim, Y. Y. (1977). Communication patterns of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 66–77. Kim, Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Kim, Y. (1995). Identity development: From cultural to intercultural. In H. Mokros (Ed.), Information and behavior, Vol. 6. Interaction and identity (pp. 347–369). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions. Kim, Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. In Y. Kim, & D. Bhawuk (Eds.), Globalization and diversity: Theoretical and applied perspectives [Special Issue]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations (Vol. 32(4)) (pp. 359–368). Kim, Y., Lujan, P., & Dixon, L. (1998). I can walk both ways”: Identity integration of American Indians in Oklahoma. Human Communication Research, 25(2), 252–274. Kim, Y., & Ruben, B. (1988). Intercultural transformation: A systems theory. In Y. Kim, & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), International and intercultural communication annual 12. Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 299–321). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ma, L. (2013). Electronic world-of-mouth on microblogs: A cross-cultural content analysis of twitter and weibo. Intercultural Communication Studies, 22(3), 18–42. Marmot, M., & Syme, S. (1976). Acculturation and coronary heart disease in Japanese–Americans. American Journal of Epidemiology, 104(3), 225–247. McKay-Semmler, K. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of Hispanic youth: A study of communication patterns, functional fitness, and psychological health (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma. Mendenhall, N., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 39–47. Milstein, T. (2005). Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the perceived enhancement of self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 217–238. National Public Radio. (2006, October). Once resented, Pamuk takes solace in Nobel. Interview transcript from All Things Considered. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=625630 Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1984). Person perception in cross-cultural settings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8(1), 77–96. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20. Park, R. (1939). Reflections on communication and culture. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 191–205. Pearce, W. (1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Phinney, J. (1993). Multiple group identities: Differentiation, conflict, and integration. In J. Kroger (Ed.), Discussions on ego identity (pp. 47–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pieterse, J. (2000). Globalization and human integration: We are all migrants. Futures, 32(June (5)), 385–398. Pitts, M. (2009). Identity and the role of expectations, stress, and talk in short-term student sojourner adjustment: An application of the integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(6), 450–462. Roosens, E. (1989). Creating ethnicity: The process of ethnogenesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ruben, B. (1972). General system theory: An approach to human communication. In R. Budd, & B. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to human communication (pp. 120–144). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Books. Rushdie, S. (1994). East, west: Stories. New York, NY: Pantheon. Seelye, H., & Wasilewski, J. (1996). Between cultures: Developing self-identity in a world of diversity. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

12

Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 46 (2015) 3–12

Shuter, R. (2012). Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 219–237. Slavin, M., & Kriegman, D. (1992). The adaptive design of the human psyche. New York, NY: Guilford. Smith, J., & Mwadime, N. (2014). Email from Ngeti: An ethnography of sorcery, redemption, and friendship in global Africa. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Sowell, T. (2012). Cultural diversity: A world view. In L. Samovar, L. Samovar, et al. (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (13th ed., Vol. 32(4), pp. 490–498). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character: A new vision of race in America. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Steigerwald, D. (2004). Culture’s vanities: The paradox of cultural diversity in a globalized world. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Suro, R. (1998). Strangers among us: How Latino immigration is transforming America. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knoff. Tagore, R. (1961). Towards universal man. New York, NY: Asia. Useem, J. (1963). The community of man: A study of third culture. Centennial Review, 7, 481–498. Walsh, J. (1973). Intercultural education in the community of man. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Routledge. Yoshikawa, M. (1978). Some Japanese and American cultural characteristics. In M. Prosser (Ed.), The cultural dialogue: An introduction to intercultural communication (pp. 220–239). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Zaharna, R. (1989). Self-shock: The double-binding challenges of identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(4), 501–525. Zajonc, R. (1952). Aggressive attitude of the “stranger” as a function of conformity pressures. Human Relations, 13, 501–525.