What’s in a Name

What do we mean with ‘intercultural communication’? Could we use another word? Intercultural is an adjective that tells something more about the noun communication. Apparently there was a need to specify this particular domain as communication just didn’t cover the load. This further implies that we adjust our ‘standard communication’ to an intercultural one. This begs the question: ‘What is the difference?’.  If we dissect the word intercultural we can identify two parts; inter and cultural. This seems to suggest that something is happening between cultures. Intercultural communication hence means the communication that takes place between different cultures. Again we can ask ourselves why this communication is different from standard communication.

If we ponder the differences, language gap comes to mind quite quickly. But then again, when I travel to the Belgian seaside I am also baffled by the strange language and am thus confronted with a language gap even though I am communicating with people of the same culture. So the language gap cannot be the identifying factor. (Unless you consider people from West Flanders to be of a different culture.)

What about the cultural differences? Do the cultural differences distinguish this kind of communication from our regular one. When people have different beliefs and customs this can indeed complicate communication. But this phenomenon is not isolated to intercultural communication. Politicians tend to struggle in their communication with those of other political beliefs. They judge the other solely by the colour of their political fraction and forget to rationally counterfeit their ideas. This is a pitfall many fall prey to.

Marc Colpaert uses the term ‘intergenerational communication’ to indicate that problems in communication often arise due to a generational gap. I can indeed agree that generational differences can sometimes prove challenging.

I conclude that intercultural communication is a vague term and that it means nothing more than regular communication between two human beings. When we converse with another human being we should take some things into consideration. First of all we need to make ourselves understandable. We try to adjust our language to the expected audience. When in Paris I will try to order my moelleux au chocolat in French as it is important to me that the kitchen prepares the right thing. My motives here seem selfish but in general we can conclude that communication runs more smoothly if one uses a language both parties can understand.

Secondly efficient communication entails a certain openness and honesty. Both parties need to be willing to listen and do this as unbiased as possible. Easier said than done of course. When you are talking to someone who clearly disdains women and thinks of them as less than a man it is very difficult not to convert to other measures than polite conversation. I do think being polite and listening to everyone is taking the moral high ground. Only by calming explaining your own opinion and ideas and by being genuinely interested in those of the other one can really change minds.

I know that this attitude of respect and rationality takes training. That is why I am a very strong advocate of philosophising with children. It is by reading and listening to other ideas than your own that one can expands one’s horizon. By talking and arguing about ideas one can start to form an opinion and even change one’s mind. Philosophy can help people to empathise with others as well as stimulate independent thinking. Instead of creating this new subject ‘mens en samenleving’ (human and society) for secondary schools, one should revive the most ancient one of all: philosophy.