African American Communication: Exploring Identity and Culture (Volume in Lea's Communication Series)

A F R I C A N AMERICAN

COMMUNICATION

Exploring Identity and Culture Second Edition

LEA's COMMUNICATIONS SERIES Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, General Editors

Selected titles in Intercultural Communication include: Carbaugh • Cultural Communication and Intercultural Contact Elasmar • The Impact of International Television: A Paradigm Shift Leeds-Hurwitz • Semiotics and Communication: Signs, Codes, Cultures Leeds-Hurwitz • Wedding as Text: Communicating Cultural Identities Through Ritual Hecht/Jackson/Ribeau • African American Communication: Exploring Identity and Culture, Second Edition For a complete list of titles in LEA's Communication Series, please contact Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

AFRICAN AMERICAN

COMMUNICATION

Exploring Identity and Culture Second Edition

Michael L Hecht Ronald L Jackson II The Pennsylvania State University

Sidney A. Ribeau Bowling Green State University

2003

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS Mahwah, New Jersey London

Copyright © 2003 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, NJ 07430 Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey The cover image is a duotone version of Family, by Gilbert Young. It appears here by permission from the artist. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hecht, Michael L. African American communication : identity and cultural interpretation / Michael L. Hecht, Ronald L. Jackson II, Sidney A. Ribeau—2nd ed. p. cm. —(LEA's communications series : Intercultural Communication) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8058-3994-1 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-8058-3995-X (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. African Americans—Race identity. 2. African Americans—Communication. I. Jackson, Ronald L, 1970. II. Ribeau, Sidney A. III. Title. IV Series. E185.625.H39 2002 305.896'073—dc21 2002070660 CIP Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

About the Authors

xi

Acknowledgments

xiii

Preface

xv

1 • Introduction

1

Surveying the Ancestral Heritage of African American Culture 8

Origins of African American Culture 8

Historical Roots of the Composite African American Experience and the Metatheory of Afrocentricity 10

African Americans in Contemporary U.S. Culture 12

Employment 13

Social Structure 16

Institutions 20

The Black Church 20

Education 21

Family 23

African American Culture and Communication 26

V

vi • CONTENTS

An Interpretive, Cultural Approach 27

Communication as a Cultural Process: A Perspective 28

Culture is Historically and Socially Emergent 29

People Co-create and Maintain Culture as a Function of Identity 30

People Negotiate Their Identities When They Come in Contact With Others 30

Identities are Pluralistic and Overlapping 31

Culture is a System of Interdependent Patterns of Conduct and Interpretations 32

Perceptions Provide a Rich Source of Interpretive Data 32

Sensitizing Constructs 33

Core Symbols and Prescriptions 34

Communication as Problematic 37

Conversation, Code, and Community 39

Cultural Identity 41

Summary and Overview of Chapters 42

2 • Self, Identity, Cultural Identity, and African American Cultural Identity

45

Self-Concept and Identity 47

Social Categorization and Identity 49

Hierarchical Organization of Identity 51

Types of Identities 56

Identity and Social Interaction 61

The Process of Identity 66

Cultural Identity 69

Ethnolinguistic Identity 71

African American Cultural Identity 73

Conclusion 88

3 • Communication Competence Defining Competence 91

Effectiveness and Appropriateness 92

Knowledge, Motivation, and Skills 95

Cultural Differences in Communication Competence Patterns 96

Cultural Appropriateness 99

African American Norms for Acquaintances 103

African American Norms for Friends 104

African American Norms Within Unequal Power Relationships 105

African American Norms During Conflict 106

Cultural Effectiveness 107

90

CONTENTS • vii

Intercultural Communication Issues 110

Validation of the Issues 117

Comparisons of the Issues in In-Group and Out-Group Conversations 118

Comparisons to European Americans 120

Intercultural Conversational Improvement Strategies 124

Original Strategies 124

Additional Strategies 127

Validation of the Conversational Improvement Strategies 130

Intercultural Conversational Improvement Strategies in In-Group and Out-Group Conversations 132

A Comparison of African American and European American Conversational Improvement Strategies 133

Intracultural Communication Effectiveness 135

Conclusion 138

4 • African American Language and Communication Styles

140

Language Style 142

Black English 143

Code or Style Switching 149

Oral Tradition 156

Core Symbols and Communication Style 160

Sharing 161

Touch 162

Distance 162

Immediacy and Relationship Intimacy 162

Rituals 163

Toasting 166

Uniqueness 167

Positivity and Emotionality 168

Realism 169

Assertiveness 170

Other Communication Styles 172

Coping Styles 172

Interpersonal Styles 173

Relationships 173

Verbal Messages 175

Nonverbal Messages 175

Summary 177

5 • African American Relationships and Cultural Identity 179

Negotiation African American Children and Youth Relationships 180

viii • CONTENTS

Development of Racial Attitudes Among African American Children 181 Race-Related Stress Among African American Adolescents 183 African American Adolescents and Educational Achievement 185 Gender Identity Differences Among African American Adolescents and Adults 187 African American Families 191 African American Family Structure 191 Sibling Relationships 198 Parent-Child Relationships 201 Informal and Formal Adoption Networks 202 Informal Adoption 202 Formal Adoptions 203 Motherhood 205 Fatherhood 208 African American Friendship, Dating, and Marital Relationships 211 Adult Friendship Networks 211 Interpersonal Solidarity and Loving Relationships 213 Dating Relationships 213 Marital Relationships 216 Homosexual Relationships 220 African American Workplace Relationships 222 Conclusion 225

6 • Conclusions Status of African Americans in the United States Communication Theory of Identity 229 Basic Concepts of the Communication Theory of Identity 230 Frames of Reference 233 The Interpenetration of Frames 234 Basic Assumptions of the Theory 235 Identity as a Personal Frame 236 Identity as an Enactment Frame 236 Identity as a Relationship Frame 236 Identity as a Communal Frame 23 7 Applications of the Theory 238 Cultural Contracts Theory 241 Basic Premises 242 Identities Require Affirmation 243

227 227

CONTENTS • ix

Identities Are Constantly Being Exchanged 243

Identities Are Contractual 244

Basic Assumptions of Cultural Contracts Theory 244

Cultural Contract Types 245

Future Directions 250

Research Methodology 254

Practical Applications 260

Conclusion 261

References

263

Author Index

299

Subject Index

309

This page intentionally left blank

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michael L. Hecht (PhD, 1976, University of Illinois) is a Professor and Head in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University He has edited and authored books on prejudice and communication, adolescent relationships and drug use, nonverbal communication, and interpersonal communi­ cation and has authored numerous articles and chapters on topics such as communication effectiveness, interethnic communication, identity and communication, communication and emotion, and communication in a social context. Dr. Hecht has been the principal investigator on a series of studies funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse on adolescent drug resistance. These studies have exam­ ined ethnic and gender identity and produced multicultural, school-based prevention materials that reduced 7th-grade use of al­ cohol, tobacco, and marijuana. His prevention materials have won video awards and are being used by the middle schools in Phoenix, Arizona. He has taught courses on interpersonal relationships, eth­ nicity, nonverbal communication, communication theory, and re­ search methodology

xi

xii • ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ronald L. Jackson II (PhD, 1996, Howard University) is Assistant Professor of Culture and Communication Theory in the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences at the Pennsylvania State Univer­ sity and past chair of the National Communication Association Black Caucus. He is author of The Negotiation of Cultural Identity and of two dozen articles found in several peer-reviewed outlets such as Howard Journal of Communication, Journal of Black Studies, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Journal of Communication, and the International and Intercultural Communication Annual. Forth­ coming are five books entitled: Understanding African American Rhetoric: Classical Origins to Contemporary Innovations (with Elaine B. Richardson), African American Rhetoric(s): English Studies Perspectives (with Elaine B. Richardson), Negotiating the Black Body: Intersections of Communication, Culture and Identity (sole-authored), Essential Readings in African American Commu­ nication Studies (with Carlos Morrison) and African American Pio­ neers in Communication Research (with Carlos Morrison and Trina Wright). Dr. Jackson's theory work includes the development of two paradigms coined cultural contracts theory and Black masculine identity theory. Sidney A. Ribeau (PhD, 1979, University of Illinois) is a Professor of Interpersonal Communication and President of Bowling Green State University positions he has held since 1995. He has published in a number of scholarly journals including the Journal of Black Studies, Negro Educational Review, and International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Ribeau writes regularly for periodicals and newspapers and has lectured at Chautauqua and the Smithsonian In­ stitutes. He has taught courses on African American culture, public speaking, interpersonal communication, African American rhetoric, and intercultural communication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the participants in our studies who have informed us about African American communication and corrected us when we misin­ terpreted their social world. We also thank our co-authors on the many projects that went into this book and our predecessors in the study of African Americans and their culture. Finally, we would like to acknowledge Mary Jane Collier, co-author on the first edition, and Linda Bathgate our editor and supporter. Michael Hecht I thank Ann Bolser, who gives special meaning to my life and work. Thanks, also, to Albie, Susan, Jim, and Bella Hecht, Rebecca Kayo, and Donnie and Lenore Perlmutter for their support throughout my life and for the diversity they have provided. Thanks to Stan Jones for introducing me to the study of intercultural communication and to Joe DeVito, friend and mentor, for the intellectual and personal val­ ues he has modeled. Flavio Marsiglia has been a special friend and colleague who has enriched my life as well as my thinking about eth­ nicity. Thanks also to Ron and Sidney, co-authors, teachers, and friends. Without Sidney, my work in this area would never have be­ gun and without Ron this edition would not have been possible. xiii

xiv • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ronald L.Jackson II First, all honor for making this second edition possible goes to God, who has continually expanded my life. Moreover, I am thankful for my family, and especially for the significant women in my life: my mother, Sharon Prather, my wife, Ricci Jackson, and others who have given me inspiration—Thelma Gross, Phyllis Gross, Vanessa Jackson, Baola Gould, Georgie Jackson, MaryHaiman, Mary Gould-Reed, Melbourne Cummings, Deborah Atwater, Brenda J. Allen, Robin Means-Coleman, Trina J. Wright, and Shauntae Brown-White. Certainly, I am very thank­ ful for my co-authors, friends, and colleagues, Michael Hecht and Sid­ ney Ribeau. Sidney Ribeau Thanks to those who made my contribution to this project possible—my family, who supports me unconditionally; Michael Hecht, my patient colleague and friend; Paula, my partner; Janis Woolpert, my transcriber; and God, my constant guide.

PREFACE

Many academic research projects begin as creative enterprises that culminate in a finished product, in this case a book. Informal conver­ sations among the authors regarding the lack of information that ex­ plains African American communication led to the first empirical study among members of this group. These conversations, which in­ cluded discussions of African American history and popular culture, sports figures, and rhetoricians all seemed to conclude with aware­ ness that something unique characterizes African American experi­ ences in North America and that this should be exhibited in communication and other expressive forms. Conversations such as these were reinforced by classroom teaching experiences and exam­ ples in the media of communication breakdowns and problems that suggested differing communication systems, which lead to alterna­ tive interpretive frameworks. There seemed to be a great deal of attention given to interracial and intercultural communication problems, but little data to help us better understand these phenomena. We initially conceptualized a number of studies to help better understand the complexity of Afri­ can American-European American communication, a practical task that was ambitious and premature. What was needed, we decided, XV

xvi • PREFACE

was a data-based explanation of African American communication that could be used to first explicate the communicative behavior of this important American copopulation. A series of studies has evolved into this text, an attempt to describe and interpret African American communication. The work is important for a number of reasons, a few of which are mentioned here. The book is a serious attempt to provide a cultural analysis of African American communication from the perspective of the group. Emphasis is given to the identities, rules, and strategies that characterize communication for group members. It is a look from within African American culture. Group-specific cultural data are used along with culturally sensitive social psychological theory to provide an analytical framework for group behaviors. Analytical constructs were selected because of their congruence with African American life and culture. Finally, we provide an extensive review of the literature and recommendations designed to assist one in under­ standing African American communication in a context, which ex­ tends beyond the Eurocentric paradigm. The text presented here is a beginning. It suggests an approach and provides information necessary to start an important dialogue in the communication discipline, ethnic studies, and other fields con­ cerned with the centrality of culture and communication as it relates to human behavior. The three authors came to this book from diverse yet intersecting paths. We attempt to situate the book in the experiences of the au­ thors in the following text.

Michael Hecht

I was born and raised in New York City. My family home was in a sec­ tion of the borough of Queens where diversity was represented more by religious and nation-of-origin differences than by racial dis­ tinctions. During these early years my exposure to ethnic diversity was mainly through my interest in basketball. But my cultural back­ ground as an Eastern European Jew raised in the post-World War II era taught me about prejudice and stereotyping. As a child I met ho­ locaust victims and was warned about the dangers of discrimination and racism. Through these experiences I gained an awareness of membership in an oppressed culture. Although Judaism may be an

PREFACE • xvii

"invisible" culture, one easily hidden, it nevertheless comes with a history that rivals any group for its tragic treatment at the hands of the dominant class. My focus on intercultural communication, and particularly interethnic communication, was shaped through undergraduate and Masters classes at Queens College under Stan Jones. Jones, one of the early communication ethnographers, observed the proxemic and touch behaviors of African American and European American children and examined cultural walking styles. Although at odds with my early positivist bent, these cultural experiences sparked an interest that sur­ vived the intellectual training of my doctoral program. It was during these doctoral years that I met Sidney Ribeau and we became friends. Later, while working at separate universities in Los Angeles, we decided to combine my work in communication compe­ tence with his work on African American culture, and thus began our line of interethnic research. More recently, working with Flavio Marsiglia on the development of a multicultural drug prevention pro­ gram has expanded my awareness of culture and provided a practical outlet for this knowledge. Even more recently, Ron Jackson joined the faculty at Penn State and our discussions have been enriching. The specific idea for this book developed at a conference in Bris­ tol, England, when a colleague, Bill Gudykunst, introduced Ribeau and I to Howie Giles who was editing a series on language and social behavior. Contact with Giles, Bourhis, and Sachdev stimulated our thinking and encouraged us to continue establishing linkages be­ tween our work and ethnolinguistic identity theory. With the en­ couragement of Giles, this book project was begun. The second edition, however, would not have been possible without the support of Linda Bathgate and the people of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ronald L Jackson II

I have always believed that scholars of all disciplines study only one thing—how humans have evolved. It is with this piqued interest in human evolvement that I began the intensive process of defining and transforming my cultural self. It did not begin simply as an in­ tellectual project, but as an experiential one, one in which I searched for reasons why race held so much value to North Ameri­ cans. The first time an African American is called a nigger or any

xviii • PREFACE

other racial slur, it evokes a range of emotions from anger and con­ fusion to sadness and despair. It forces one to become resilient, im­ plode, or else recess into denial and slowly deteriorate. I chose to become resilient, to fight to preserve my own psychological, cul­ tural, and emotional balance and security, and I could do it because I understood many people had suffered so that I had the right to do so. Despite the tragic reality that African Americans still must strug­ gle to have their humanity and culture recognized and valued, we persist. In many ways, this book is dedicated to the courageous ones who died during the fight for racial and gender justice so that we may live life more abundantly. I owe many intellectual debts to those who have influenced my cultural and spiritual consciousness, for it was not communicol­ ogists at all who first introduced me to the importance of inter­ cultural communication. It was Chiekh Anta Diop, Ivan Van Sertima, Chancellor Williams, Audre Lorde, George James, Maulana Karenga, Patricia Hill Collins, Naim Akbar, Haki Madhubuti, Jawanzaa Kunjufu, Maya Angelou, and Eric Abercrumbie. These scholars started me on this path and there have been several others who have kept me on it: Molefi Asante, Melbourne Cummings, Jack Daniel, Deborah Atwater, Cornel West, bell hooks, Geneva Smitherman, and Dorthy Pennington, to name a few. Each of them has reminded me via their writings that there is a need to re-introduce the legacies of African descendants to history and humanity. This second edition of African American Communication serves as testament to a full range of human experiences that characterize African American cul­ ture, a major part of who I am. I define myself with respect to being an African American man, fa­ ther, son, husband, and foremost a son of God. Before I even con­ sider my professional roles, I am a proud member of the composite African American cultural community. I come to this book project with a heartfelt commitment to the preservation of African American culture and identities. I have served on numerous community and professional boards, as well as committees that are dedicated to ex­ ploring race, racial identity, and cultural understanding. I earned my doctorate from Howard University, the nation's premier African American university, and one of the major centers of intellectual vi­ brancy still committed to social change. Until now, I have sustained a line of research inquiry that concentrates on racial healing and or­ ganic intellectualism. Although I was neither born nor raised during

PREFACE • xix

the civil rights movement, I have received a cultural and intellectual inheritance that I feel obligates me to systematically examine African diasporic experiences and become an instrument to liberation. Sidney Ribeau

Throughout my academic career I have attempted to explore areas of intellectual interest that posed challenging questions regarding human relationships. In graduate school I was initially interested in interpersonal communication, but quickly came to realize that Afri­ can Americans were not included in the literature that defined the field. Further research confirmed my experience in the interper­ sonal area—research studies on African American communication were almost nonexistent in the entire discipline. At the same time, relationships between Black and White Amer­ ica had deteriorated to an all-time low. Throughout the country nonviolent social protests were rapidly becoming demands for Black Power. In many cities frustration fermented and eventually exploded into urban rebellions. It seemed clear to me that some­ thing must be done to reopen the channels of dialogue and reduce the violence. Thus, I became interested in what was then known as interracial communication. Time passed, and my interests were so­ lidified in graduate study, which included speech communication, anthropology, and sociology. I completed graduate school armed with many ideas concerning the role of communication in race relations, yet aware that there was still limited information available that helped explicate ethnic communication. On one occasion, I was discussing these ideas with a friend who was also a communication professor. He seemed quite interested in the academic problems that I described and in the need for academics to study communication as it is lived in eth­ nic communities. An interethnic team was formed during those dis­ cussions that has authored a number of papers and published several articles. Our early work has evolved into this book. Along the way much has changed in our personal lives, America, and the world. All of these events reaffirm for me the need for human dia­ logue. I believe that our work provides insight into an important communication phenomena and ethnic culture that helps us better understand our humanity.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

1

Introduction

m mT" T"hat is African American Communication?1 Perhaps the an­ % jL I swer to this question is best illustrated by sociolinguist T T Richard Wright, who routinely asks his class the following rhetorical question: "If communication can be defined as the uni­ verse of forms, processes, and structures that govern how we relate to the world, then aren't there forms, processes, and structures that are particular to African Americans?" Indeed, there is a universe that facilitates how African Americans relate to the world, and it is refer­ eed by African American cultural personhood. Any book concerning African American communication must be­ gin first by examining the African American cultural values, norms, mores, and beliefs that inform communicative behaviors. Essentially, African American communication is grounded in African American cultural identities. "Identities" is pluralized to accent variance in Afri­ can American experiences, while recognizing that there is a shared set of realities among African American interactants. Without that most important reference point, this book becomes diluted. The termsAfrican American and Black are used interchangeably throughout the book. 1

2 • CHAPTER 1

African American identities, like those of other marginalized groups, are not static. They are often negotiated while in interaction with others—other African Americans as well as other cultural inter­ actants (Daniel & Smitherman, 1990; Harris, 2000; Hudson & HinesHudson, 1999; Pennington, 1993, 2000). Our goal in this book is to articulate how African Americans define themselves and their mem­ bership in their cultural group and how they perceive intracultural, intercultural, intraethnic, and interethnic communication. As you will notice throughout the book, we are careful to limit the use of the word ethnic as a way to describe African American identities and communicative behaviors, because the lexicographical, historical, and contemporary usage of the term often signifies and names nega­ tive difference from Whites (Jackson & Garner, 1998) with few ex­ ceptions (Jeffres, 2000). In working to portray the voices of African Americans as we have heard them, experienced them in our research and our everyday lives, and read about them in the work of others, we must be sensitive not to "otherize" these voices. In other words, we have consciously chosen not to treat African American identities as aberrations of whiteness. In this move toward full valuation of Af­ rican American identities, no claims are made to speak for individual members of the group or the group as a whole. Additionally, we pur­ sue our goal by interpreting this rich cultural and cosmological sys­ tem in a way that allows us to understand major patterns of thought and conduct as well as explicate the problematic elements of compe­ tent communication and cultural identity negotiation. We describe what is distinct about African American communication and then ex­ plain the emerging patterns of norms across situations. In doing so, we emphasize cultural identity and perceptions of communication, explaining which identities emerge, what they mean, and how they are enacted and negotiated. Communication and culture are not truly separable. Communica­ tion is meaningful because of the culture that frames it, and culture must be expressed to exist. Thus, the term cultural communication is a useful redundancy because all communication exists in a cultural context and all culture is communicated. Communication is seen as a problematic part of cultural affiliation and not as caused or predicted by that affiliation. Communication is problematic because there are few "givens" or "taken-for-granteds." In writing these sentences, the authors cannot assume that the reader interprets meanings as we would. In meeting a stranger, one

INTRODUCTION • 3

cannot assume a shared understanding of the nature of the encoun­ ter (e.g., is this friendship or romance, business or pleasure). Within a relationship, one cannot assume that a conflict will be resolved as previous ones have. Personal antecedents and relational histories vary with respect to individual and group experiences. Cultural affiliations also are problematic. There is no single and correct way to be "African American." These identities are negotiated in context and situationally emergent. As identities emerge, they present problems for the interactants, problems managing individ­ ual identities, and jointly negotiating conversations. One popular example of cultural affiliations being problematic is the notion of acting, looking, or sounding Black. The assumption is that there is an authentic Blackness that is revealed when cultural members "keep it real" rather than "play the part" (Orbe, 1998). Many scholars have critiqued this popular stance concerning the universality of black­ ness as essentialist and uncritical (Gilroy, 1995; McPhail, 1998; West, 1993). Fundamentally, this is an issue of cultural affiliation and at­ tachment to identity. These problems are part of communication and cultural affilia­ tion. In other words, the affiliation process and the expression of af­ filiation are problematic. Problems may be a cause or consequence of affiliation but are always a characteristic of affiliation and commu­ nication. As a result, our research seeks to understand the problem­ atic elements of communication and cultural affiliation rather than predicting from one to the other. Culture and ethnicity play major roles in everyday life in a cultur­ ally diverse nation such as the United States (Jackson, 1999a; Jeffres, 2000). Jeffres' (2000) longitudinal study of a panel of at least 13 White ethnic groups reveals that from 1976 to 1992, participants in his survey strengthened their ethnic-group identification via expo­ sure to ethnic mass media such as newspapers and television. He concluded, "social categories do predict ethnic ties and mainstream media use, but not ethnic media use. Ethnic ties in turn are strongly related to ethnic media use" (pp. 520-521). In other words, ethnic and cultural groups want to see themselves reflected in the media, which may not seem difficult to accomplish on the surface because so many diverse cultural groups cohabitate in the United States. However, as Sue and Sue (1999) explained, there is an enormous distinction between diversity and multiculturalism. The United States is very diverse, but still has a pressing need for multicultural­

4 • CHAPTER 1

ism. Diversity simply suggests difference, whereas multiculturalism implies inclusiveness and embrace of differences (Sue & Sue, 1999). This is important to note because cultural group marginalization still exists despite the national presence of diversity. We define culture as code, conversation, and community (Philipsen, 1987), which categorically subsumes aspects of ethnic­ ity mentioned later on. Code denotes as system of rules and mean­ ings. Conversation describes culture as a way of interacting while community denotes membership. These components are dis­ cussed in greater depth later in this chapter where they are applied to our approach to understanding African American communica­ tion and culture. Our definition of culture also presumes a shared geographic land reference location. That is, the Irish can go back to Ireland, the Ital­ ians to Italy, the Nigerians to Nigeria, and so on. Thus, our concept of culture connotes the social or communicative system shared by a group with similar heritage. These groups are constituted by mem­ bership in a system with common patterns of interaction and per­ ception and a historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings, and norms (Collier, 1992; Geertz, 1973, 1983; Schneider, 1976). Thus, cultures are characterized by a shared orientation to the past as well as toward current group identity (Jackson, 1999a). Depending on one's viewpoint, culture can be said to be an indi­ vidual, social, or societal construct. On the individual level, culture is a characteristic of a personal worldview that is at least partially shared in common with other group members. Here, membership is defined as a sense of belonging to a social group and adopting its perspective on the world. The focus is on how the individual relates to the group. On the social level, culture is enacted and maintained in conversation among group members (Giles & Johnson, 1987; Martin, Moore, Hecht, & Larkey, 2001). Thus, culture is a patterned, social network with shared history, traditions, and more. Finally, on a societal level, culture is a structural variable that characterizes large groups of people as an entity and includes its practices, power dy­ namics, rituals, and institutions. Ethnic groups are difficult to define because there are no essential characteristics that are common to all groups so distinguished (De Vos, 1982). Jackson and Garner (1998) explained why defining eth­ nicity is such a complex task:

INTRODUCTION • 5

Most dictionaries depict ethnicity as a possible characterization of any group that is not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. However, several publications contend that there is a White ethnic population consist­ ing of Irish, Polish, Italian, German, and Mediterranean peoples.... The etymology of the word ethnic traces to the Greek ethnikos mean­ ing a foreign group or nationality within a society. Also, the Latin ethnicus, not only meant foreigner, but also heathen.... Ethnic group references are most often tied to groups considered to be non-White, foreign, and heathen. (p. 31)

Jackson and Garner recommended usage of Hraba's definition of ethnicity as "self-conscious collectivities of people, who on the basis of a common origin or a separate subculture, maintain a distinction between themselves and outsiders" (p. 51). Many scholars and nonscholars use the term co-culture rather than subculture to define the set of citizen groups who cohabitate within cultures such as "women, people of color, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc." (Orbe, 1998, p. 4). Regardless of the term, the co-culture that Hraba men­ tions is somewhat ambiguous, as it is often cited to mean religion, language, nationality, or culinary interests. Taking these definitions into account, we define ethnicity as shared ancestral heritage. An ethnic group is a self-perceived com­ munity of people who hold a common set of traditions not shared by those with whom they are in contact (De Vos, 1982). Ethnic groups have origins that are external to or precede existing nation-states and are constituted through a shared sense of tradition, people­ hood, heritage, orientation to the past, religion, language, ancestry, social-psychologies (e.g., values), economics, and aesthetics (Banks, 1987; Collier, 1989; DeVos, 1982; DeVos& Romanucci-Ross, 1982a, 1982b; Horowitz, 1975; Isajiw, 1974; Kim, 1986;Obidinsky 1978).

Finally, ethnicity and culture may be differentiated from race, which is assumed to have a biological basis (Gould, 1981; Michaels,

1982; Vora & Asante, 1978). Race, ethnicity and culture are clearly social constructions. Gould (1981) argued the assumed biological basis for race is false. Instead, he believed that race, like culture and ethnicity, is a social construction and, in fact, one that has been used to justify racism. In any case, these three terms are not meant to be mutually exclu­ sive. A group can have elements of all three, as the South African rul­ ing class and government attempted to create by defining full

6 • CHAPTER 1

membership in their society racially (Caucasian), ethnically (Afri­ cans) and culturally (apartheid). Ethnic communities may be racial as well (e.g., American Indians), but they need not be so defined (e.g., Jews). One might consider culture to be a combination of the characteristics listed for both culture and ethnicity and limit ethnic­ ity to cultural groups that share a common racial characteristic. How­ ever, we use the tripartite definitional system and study African Americans as culture that revolves, at least in part, around race. Despite the importance of culture, ethnicity, and race there is little research about the diversity within and between cultures and what makes intercultural contact effective or ineffective. Most studies of intercultural communication are binary, invoking comparisons be­ tween European Americans and one other group with the European American group as the assumed norm or point of comparison (Nakayama & Penaloza, 1994). Even less is known about how mem­ bers of nonmainstream or disempowered groups perceive these in­ teractions. We review some of this research in chapter 3. Most extant research across disciplines is Eurocentric, particularly Anglocentric, in theory, method, and focus (Asante, 1987; Jackson, 2000a; Olivas, 1989; Van Dijk, 1987). Eurocentric studies are derived from European-American theories, center around European American culture, and the results are assumed to be culture-general rather than culture-specific findings (Jackson, 1997; Martin & Nakayama, 1999). This book attempts to give voice to another view and experience of communication, that of African Americans. These voices expand the range of experiences and can inform multiple disciplines in or­ der to diversify extant levels of theory and practice. Perhaps this al­ ternative worldview will broaden us and facilitate new and richer theories and explanations. Pragmatically, to feel included in a body of knowledge, members of a group must have their voices and per­ spectives heard, and this extends to the humanistic and social sci­ ence literature. As Jackson (2000a) noted, "The absence of any written mainstream valuation of African American theories and his­ torical relevancies presents a significant commentary and dilemma within the communication discipline" (p. 29). A study of African Americans brings into focus the cultural aspects of communication and provides a counterpoint to the notion that 'American" means Eurocentrism. There are multiple ancestral lega­ cies in North America including, but not limited to, Native Americans and African Americans. African Americans have fought for justice and

INTRODUCTION • 7

equality as promised by our constitution and as heralded in our na­ tional anthems and "Pledge of Allegiance." We need only be re­ minded of our kindergarten teachers asking us to stand with our right hands over our hearts while reciting, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." The fight to achieve that dream, the promise and Utopia of a sin­ gle, undivided nation constitutes much of the struggle of African Americans in the United States. Historically, politically, and socially, African Americans occupy a unique position within U.S. society. Their history includes religion as a cultural cornerstone, slavery and segregation, the migration North, and the civil rights, as well as the Black feminist and Black Power movements. Their political past involves voter disenfranchisement, school segregation, and separation from formal channels of power (Dangerfield, 2001; Lemann, 1991), and their economic life can be characterized as disadvantaged compared to European Americans (Dewart, 1989; Mincy, 1989). African American culture is also socially distinctive, including linguistic carry-overs from continental Africa, as well as unique nonverbal and verbal styles and patterns of interaction (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Hecht, Jackson, Lindsley, Strauss, & Johnson, 2001; Jackson, 1999a; Kochman, 1981; Smitherman, 2000). Structural, cultural, ancestral, and social distinctions define the com­ posite African American cultural experience and lead us to argue that African Americans constitute a cultural group. We use the term com­ posite to signify our recognition and understanding that there is not a singular African American experience, but rather a variegated set of ex­ periences that shape African American cultural identities and commu­ nicative behaviors. We have borrowed this usage from Asante and Abarry (1996), who employed the adjective composite before the word African to mean Blacks throughout the diaspora. The remainder of this chapter describes the context for the book. First, we describe the composite African American experience in the United States. This section is not intended as a complete or exhaustive description of the social, political, historical, cultural, and economic conditions, but only a cursory glance. Within this brief overview, we at­ tempt to capture the essence of the composite African American expe­ rience by highlighting findings in each of these areas. Second, we attempt to articulate the basic assumptions that guide our research. These assumptions provide a starting point and help the reader un­

8 • CHAPTER 1

derstand the choices we have made. Finally, we provide an overview of the remaining chapters that describe African American cultural identity, identity negotiation and communication competencies, communication and language styles, and relationship networks (i.e., gendered, family, workplace, dating, and friendship). SURVEYING THE ANCESTRAL HERITAGE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURE

In this section, we provide an overview of the composite African American experience in the United States. African American commu­ nication must be placed within an African ancestral-cultural back­ drop in order to understand its grounding. Because no communication system exists in isolation we point to the historical, political, economic, and social milieu in the United States as a way of describing the context for an indigenous African American commu­ nication system. First, we briefly describe the Herskovits-Frazier de bate concerning the origins of African American culture. Next, we describe some of the main historical events that have shaped the cul­ ture, explaining the Afrocentric approach. Then, we examine the composite African American experience in contemporary U.S. cul­ ture. Finally, we examine social structures and institutions that influ­ ence African American life.

Origins of African American Culture

Perhaps one of the most persistent and important questions is, where did African American culture begin? Holloway (1990) described this as being the central question in the debate between Melville Herskovits (1941) and E. Franklin Frazier (1963). Holloway explained that Africanisms are the cultural continuities or carryovers from Africa that are preserved by African Americans in the United States. The debaters represented two very different schools of thought concerning the ex­ istence of Africanisms in North America with much more agreement concerning the survival of Africanisms in the Caribbean. Herskovits claimed that West African cultural aspects from the Bantu people were being retained in the Caribbean, South America, and in the United States. Holloway opined that Herskovits' arguments were often over­

INTRODUCTION • 9

zealous and excessive, and this did nothing to support his credibility. For example, Holloway reminded us that Herskovits' conclusions about Bantu influences were later disproved, but Herskovits set the foundation for future research that argued effectively that Geechi and Gullah dialects spoken in Charleston, South Carolina, southern Geor­ gia, and parts of Florida are present-day evidence of Africanisms re­ maining in the United States. Frazier (1963) maintained that African American culture, as we know it, has no traces of African retentions. As Holloway (1990) suggested, Frazier believed that Black Americans lost their African heritage dur­ ing slavery; thus he postulated, African American culture evolved in­ dependently of an African influence. In short, Frazier argued that slavery was so devastating in America that it destroyed all African ele­ ments among Black Americans. For Frazier Black American culture be­ gan without any African antecedents, (p. ix)

Contrary to Frazier's hypothesis, several scholars have contended that African-derived communication patterns are apparent among present-day African Americans (Asante & Abarry, 1996; Conyers & Barnett, 1998; Daniel & Effinger, 1996; Jackson, 1999a; Karenga, 1993). Daniel and Smitherman (1990) offered a thorough treatment of several emergent patterns, which they identified as those "deep structures" characteristic of a traditional African worldview. The pat­ terns are as follows: (a) Unity between spiritual and material; (b) Centrality of religion; (c) Harmony in nature and the universe, even among opposites; (d) Interdependence of "I" and "We" as touch­ stone of community building; (e) Respect for time and age; and (f) Call and Response as a means of interactivity among communica­ tors. We expound on these ontological elements in chapter 4. African American culture is the amalgam of the cultural traditions, values and norms of the indigenous African slaves as well as the Eu­ ropean settlers who laid claim to what we now know as the United States of America. The Herskovits-Frazier debate is instructive. Al­ though there seemed to be no merger of opinion between the two philosophers, the central communicative behaviors and patterns of African Americans were uncontested, because they were evidenced in their everyday lives. That is, the issue was not about whether these cultural patterns existed, but where they began. We concur with Herskovits that African American culture is deeply rooted and pre­ cedes enslavement.

10 • CHAPTER 1

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE COMPOSITE AFRICAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE AND THE METATHEORY OF AFROCENTRICITY

The composite African American experience is the term often used to characterize the variance within the African diaspora, out of which was borne African American culture. Forcibly removed from their native land, Africans from varied groups speaking different languages created a hybrid culture and way of life in America that blended the indigenous cultures of the past with the cruel reality of life in racially segregated America. The maafa (great disaster), also known as the "holocaust of enslavement" (Karenga, 1993, p. 115), and the life of African Americans in the United States for the past 300 years are a matter of historical record. Although actual ac­ counts differ in detail and point of view, the works of W. E. B. DuBois (1903), Carter G. Woodson (1969), John Hope Franklin (1988), and Maulana Karenga (1993) are particularly useful in un­ derstanding African American life and culture. The work of these scholars may be considered afrocentric because of the contribution toward understanding African-derived sets of communication patterns among African Americans (Asante& Abarry, 1996; Asante, 1980). Asante (2000) claimed that Afrocentricity is a term that is often misunderstood by those who would prefer not to comprehend its intellectual and ontological revisionism. Crouch (1995/1996) vehemently asserted that afrocentricity has received warranted criticism because it presents "visions which are at odds with the heroic imperatives of shaping our society beyond the frag­ mentation of special interests" (p. 77). Crouch continued by sug­ gesting that afrocentricity is founded on essentialist claims of a onedimensional Blackness and a one-sided account of history. However, in closely reading the range of literature concerning afrocentric thought, it is not about establishing Black authenticity or claiming that all good things came from Africa. Afrocentricity is a way of seeing the world; it challenges us to shift perspectives and examine the world differently. Afrocentricity emerged most prominently in the literature in 1980 with the release of Molefi Asante's book Afrocentricity: A Theory of Social Change. In this original self-published volume, Asante outlined a metatheoretic framework for examining the world through the lenses of African antiquity. Many people confuse afrocentricity with africology. Afrocentri­ city is an African-centered orientation to the world whereas afri­

INTRODUCTION • 11

cology is the systematic study of Africa. Certainly, an afrocentrist takes interest in africology, although not all africologists are afro­ centric. In order for an africologist to be considered afrocentric, he or she must be principally concerned with the following: place­ ment of African cultural norms, ideas, and epistemes at the center of analysis; liberation of the masses from hegemony, especially that of Europeans; and competent explication of Africa's contribution to humanity and the humanity of Africa. Perhaps one of the most important criteria for afrocentric analysis is the careful consider­ ation of African natives and descendants as agents in their own ex­ perience, rather than objects acted on by others with little to no distinctive identity of their own (Kershaw, 1998). An Afrocentric ac­ count may be written from any African diasporic frame of reference (including that of African Americans) and includes early experi­ ences on the African continent as the structural foundation for Afri­ can American culture. Covin (1990) identified five assumptions that support the Afrocentric perspective: 1. People of African descent share a common experience, struggle, and origin. 2. Present in Africculture is a nonmaterial element of resistance to the assault on traditional values caused by the intrusion of Euro­ pean legal procedures, medicines, political processes, and reli­ gions into Africculture. 3. Africculture takes the view that an Afrocentric modernization pro­ cess would be based on three traditional values: harmony with na­ ture, humaneness, and rhythm. 4. Afrocentricity involves the development of a theory of an African way of knowing and interpreting the world. 5. Some form of communalism or socialism is an important compo­ nent of the way wealth is produced, owned, and distributed. These constructs, in addition to those "deep structures" presented earlier from Daniel and Smitherman (1990), provide the philosophi­ cal starting point for an analysis of African American culture. All Afri­ can Americans do not embrace these assumptions in their day-to-day life; to say so would be to suggest that African Americans have a ho­ mogenous cultural consciousness and way of seeing the world. As with any paradigm, you would expect people to disagree; hence, there are cultural others who do not fully embrace afrocentricity.

12 • CHAPTER 1

However, the historical effect of Asante's (1987), Covin's (1990) and Daniel and Smithermann's (1990) assumptions are clear and, as such, they inform our discussion of African American communication. A complex relationship exists between a theoretical consideration of the African American experience and the realities of daily exis­ tence. The glory of periods in early Africa (Diop, 1991; Williams, 1987) seem far removed from the world of the "truly disadvantaged" described by Wilson (1987). Few deny that African Americans can rightfully take pride in the achievements of their ancestors, yet the harsh reality of life for many African Americans often overshadows the study of history (Hill, 1989; Jacob, 1989). A brief discussion of life in modern African America provides a useful background for our dis­ cussion of African American communication and identity. AFRICAN AMERICANS IN CONTEMPORARY U.S. CULTURE

African American life, social structure, and identity have always re­ flected the complexity of a people caught in a cultural chasm. Before being brought to America, life in Africa was characterized by group affiliations that employed separate languages, rituals, and beliefs. Group similarities were at the deep structural level and preserved via oral narratives, written texts, and inscriptions on the walls of the pyr­ amids (Asante & Abarry 1996). The late and contemporary existence of widespread international groups on a continent with 54 countries can only account for a gen­ eral orientation and worldview rather than fully shared cultural be­ haviors. Pre-colonial Africa consisted of diverse nations that the White settlers derogatorily called "tribes," which was equivalent to being named a phylum or set of living beings organized by similar attributes and characteristics. Even still, they were not a homogenous group. The African continent housed a number of multilingual nations as dis­ tinct as the countries that comprise Europe. There were, and still are, well over two thousand different languages and dialects in continen­ tal Africa (Hecht, Jackson, Lindsley Strauss, & Johnson, 2001). When brought to this country, these groups were forcibly thrust together and eventually created an African American culture that was shaped by the African past and the cruel vicissitudes of slavery. This background has evolved into an African American society existing within the so­ cially stratified matrix of North America. Because African American

INTRODUCTION • 13

culture survives in a larger social structure, it shares many of the European-centered American cultural characteristics. Although African Americans share in the composite American ex­ perience, there is still a sociocultural divide that remains in part due to racism, discrimination, and prejudice. This has resulted in what Gunner Myrdal (1944) referred to as An American Dilemma, and the Kerner Commission warned could sustain itself as "two nations, one Black, one White, separate, hostile and unequal" (Hacker, 1992). In 1998, the Milton D. Eisenhower foundation (Harris & Curtis, 1998) conducted a 30-year anniversary investigation of race in North Amer­ ica and revealed that there is still a culturally divided nation, sepa­ rate, hostile, and unequal.

Employment

A recent National Research Council (NRC) study by Smelser, Wilson, and Mitchell (2001) identified nine independent events that signifi­ cantly influenced contemporary African American life up until the end of the 20th century: 1. Urbanization and northern movement of the African American population from 1940 to 1970. 2. A civil rights movement that forced the nation to open its major in­ stitutions and residential neighborhoods to African American par­ ticipation during the same three decades, although residential segregation is still in place from 1970 to 2000. 3. An unprecedented high and sustained rate of national economic growth from 1940 to 2000. 4. A comparably (to Whites) lower rate of personal wealth among Af­ rican Americans, although it has increased due to cross-industry business ownership among African Americans since 1970. 5. A significant slowdown in the U.S. economy and periods of eco­ nomic uncertainty from the early 1970s throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. 6. Disparities in educational test scores among races and cultures, leading to predictions of lowered achievement possibilities and eventual earning potential. 7. Increase in incarceration rates and a gradual increase in the jobless and unemployment rates.

14 • CHAPTER 1

8. Increase in wage inequality among younger Hispanic and Black women in the labor force. 9. Increase in vulnerability due to poor health maintenance and physician-enacted racial discrimination in prescribed healthcare measures. The interaction and impact of these events with institutional racism and the devastating psychological and material legacy of slavery has created a complex and diverse African American social reality that Jaynes and Williams (1989) apply to the glass-is-half-empty versus the glass-is-half-full debate. We may look at the glass as being half full if we measure the status of Black Americans today by the progress made since 1939, or we may see the glass as half empty if we measure the sta­ tus of Black Americans today by the persisting disparities between Black and White Americans. Any assessment of the quality of life for Blacks is also complicated by the contrast between Blacks who have achieved upper- and middle-class status and those who have not. Ten years later, Smelser et al. (2001) offered a compendium of na­ tional studies that support Jaynes and Williams's conclusions and re­ ported that African Americans have made progress, but there is still a long way to go. Due to racial differences as accented by residential seg­ regation, labor market trends, criminal involvement, family structures, educational attainment, technological access and healthcare mainte­ nance, the forecast is much more dismal than we would like to observe at the turn of the century. Massey (2001) remarked, "Black home seek­ ers now face a more subtle process of exclusion. Rather than encoun­ tering 'White only' signs, they encounter a covert set of barriers" (p. 415). Massey further noted, 'As a result of their prolonged exposure to high rates of neighborhood poverty, Blacks experience much higher risks of educational failure, joblessness, unwed childbearing, crime, and premature death compared with other groups" (p. 425). These aspects, when coupled with the psychologically damaging effects of racism, are quite disturbing. Sandefur, Martin, EggerlingBoeck, Mannon, and Meier (2001) corroborated Massey's analysis and report, Blacks consistently have the lowest life expectancy among major U.S. racial and ethnic groups. A Black person born in 1970 could expect to live 64 years; by 1995, Black life had increased to 70 years. The 1990

INTRODUCTION

• 15

life expectancy of Blacks is 7 years less than the 1990 life expectancy of Whites, (p. 81) African Americans are far more likely to die of HIV or homicide than any other group in the United States. The life expectancy rate is an in­ dicator of a group's mean health (Blank, 2001). There are many intangible factors related to life expectancy such as life satisfaction. Blank (2001) explained that there are seven fac­ tors related to life satisfaction, which she named indicators of well-being (p. 22): • • • • • • •

population/demographic change education labor markets economic status health status crime and criminal justice housing and neighborhoods.

Blank (2001) suggested that basic differences in achievement can be observed via such activities as computer access and usage differences among different racial and cultural populations. Al­ though the gap has attenuated somewhat since the 1993 data she analyzed, in August 2000, the U.S. Department of Commerce re­ port on the digital Divide noted that approximately 47% of all Whites own computers, as compared to 49% of Asian Americans, 29% of Blacks, and 24% of Hispanics. Naturally, these numbers are tied to Internet access. Half of the Whites and Asian Americans who own computers have a household connection to the Internet. In comparison, only 23.5% of Black homes in which there is a computer were online. This represents educational trends and comments directly on school systems with poor finan­ cial resources, and the fact that many marginalized group mem­ bers, especially African Americans, tend to attend such schools in America's inner cities. These are only a few of the recent trends. We highlight salient as­ pects of this social world in order to provide an overview of the pre­ vailing sociocultural milieu. We now provide more detail about African American social structure and institutions.

16 • CHAPTER 1

Social Structure

Significant changes in African American social structure have oc­ curred in the last 50 years. Indicators of this are better jobs, in­ creased income, and improved educational opportunities. A comparison of African American life from 1940 to 1980 illustrates these changes. In 1940, "one out of every two Black adults had no more than eight years of education, and 62 percent of working Black men and women were employed either in agriculture or in menial personal service jobs" (NRC, 2001, p. 164). In addition, one third of African American families had incomes of $3,000 or below (in 1974 constant dollars) whereas 1 in 50 exceeded $15,000, and only 13% of all African American workers were in white-collar occupations. During the 1960s, these figures were significantly changed. The percentage of African American white-collar workers increased from 13% to 26%, the median years of schooling was 10.5, and the types of employment became far more diversified. Overall, African Ameri­ cans shared in the general prosperity of the country; however, these changes did not significantly close the gap between African Ameri­ cans and European Americans. Progress is evident when using in-group comparisons, but when compared to European Americans, the marker of inequality be­ comes obvious. Using economic indicators as the basis for social stratification, African Americans are overrepresented in the lowest class in America. On all counts of economic indicators, African Americans rank drastically lower than European Americans and usually rank below other minority groups, except Puerto Ricans (Tienda, 1989). Although weekly and hourly wages of African Amer­ icans have risen relative to other groups, their relative employment rates have decreased significantly (Blank, 2001). The overall effect of these changes has left a wider gap between African American and European American per capita incomes since 1964. In Becoming America (Smelser et al., 2001), the disparities become obvious. In the following, we compare Swinton's (1989) The State of Black America: 1989 that contains statistical research from the 1980s with that of the 1990s, most of which derives from 1999 and 2000 data, as reported by the following federal agencies: U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Department of Education.

INTRODUCTION • 17

• In 1989, Black per capita mean income was $7,499, compared to a White per capita mean income of $13,031. In 1999, the Black per capita mean income was $ 14,397, compared to a White per ca­ pita mean income of $22,375. • In 1989, Black median family income was $ 18,098, compared to a White median family income of $32,274. In 1999, Black median family income was $31,778, compared to a White median family in­ come of $51,224. • In 1989, the percentage of Blacks living below the poverty level was 33.2%, compared to a 10.5% poverty rate for Whites. In 1999, the percentage of Blacks living below the poverty level was 23.6%, compared to a 9.8% poverty rate for Whites. • In 1989, 53.8% of families headed by Black females were in pov­ erty, compared to 26.4% of families headed by White females. In 1999, 41% of families headed by Black females were in poverty, compared to 24.7% of families headed by White females. • In 1989, the unemployment rate for Blacks was 11.8%, com­ pared to 4.7% for Whites. The 2000 statistics reveal that the unem­ ployment rate for Blacks was 10.2%, compared to 5% for Whites. • In 1989, the mean or per household net worth (i.e., property or investments) for Blacks was less than 25% of the mean of White households. The per capita net worth of Blacks was $9,359, com­ pared to $44,980 for Whites (Wilson, 1998). The latest statistical results from the U.S. Census Bureau are from 1995; they reveal that the mean or per household net worth (i.e., property or invest­ ments) for Blacks slightly increased to 27% of the mean of White households. More specifically, the average net worth of Whites was $112,840 as compared to $30,531 for Blacks. Whereas Whites had an average of $5,000 in other non-stock and non-retirement as­ sets, Blacks had no other such assets. • In 1989, Blacks owned only 15% of the businesses that would be required for them to own if parity (proportionate equality with White business ownership) were to be achieved. Notwith­ standing the growth spurt in the number of Black businesses in the last decade, Blacks still only have a third of the equity built up in their businesses that Whites have in theirs. This may be due in part to an average Black-owned business life span of 3 years with high incidences of credit default, low savings, and low business capital (Wilson, 1998).

18 • CHAPTER 1

These figures indicate patterns of inequality, some of which have worsened in recent years, not in numbers, but in class differentia­ tion. That is, the growth of the African American middle class has not necessarily improved conditions for the economically disadvan­ taged under class who occupy the bottom position in every indicator of social and economic disenfranchisement. In 1985, it was reported that 44% of African American children lived in poor households, and the general poverty rate for the group was 31%. These compare to 16% and 11% for European Americans. In 2001, it was reported that the poverty line is around an annual in­ come of $8,000. Whereas approximately 30% of African Americans are at or below the poverty line, 10% of Whites are poverty stricken, and the numbers are declining. That is, nearly three times as many African Americans are in poverty as are Whites. Many of those in pov­ erty are the working poor whose low wages and vulnerability to eco­ nomic trends have led to increased poverty. Wilson (1997) maintained that among Black males aged 25 to 34 years of age, nearly half are jobless. He further asserted, "Many of today's problems in the inner-city ghetto neighborhoods—crime, family dissolution, welfare, low levels of social organization ... are fundamentally a con­ sequence of the disappearance of work" (p. xiii). Gates and West (1996) reported, "The poorest fifth of whites have a median net worth of ten thousand dollars; the median net worth of their Black counterparts is zero" (p. 25). Thus, even within the lowest economic class there are disparities. Cose (1993) reminded us that in 1991 ABC Primetime Live aired the now very popular special program concerning racial discrimina­ tion and the economic divide in America. Two trained confederates, Glenn and John, were sent out to local St. Louis, Missouri businesses to shop for clothes and a car, apply for a job, attempt to gain a home loan, and to apply for an apartment rental. The results were fascinating. In several instances, Glenn, the Afri­ can American participant was treated differently than John, the White participant. Glenn was closely monitored while shopping, quoted a higher down payment for a car, and informed that there were no vacancies for an apartment that was still available. Finally, Glenn received a lecture about laziness and punctuality when visit­ ing an employment agency whereas John did not. John received in­ stant service while shopping, rather than being placed under surveillance. When locked out of his car, passersby almost immedi­

INTRODUCTION • 19

ately assisted him. Glenn was ignored. John was allowed to take the keys and check out the apartment for rent that Glenn was told was unavailable. Subsequently, John was offered the apartment if he wanted it. These disparities have led banks and other financial ser­ vice companies to seek the assistance of market research firms like Barry Leeds and Associates who send White and non-White "testers" into the marketplace (e.g., loan and mortgage offices) to act like le­ gitimate clientele seeking services in order to ascertain whether an organization is practicing fair-treatment, fair-housing, fair-lending and/or overall regulatory compliance (Wallace, 200la, 2001b). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate as of April 2001 was at 4.5%. The Bureau reported that 19.4% of all Black families have no member working as compared to 16.2% of White families. Naturally, this has a proportionally greater effect on African Americans. With the average American on the job for 3.5 years, 29.4% of African Americans have been on the job for less than 12 months, as com­ pared to 26% for Whites. Economist William Julius Wilson (1998) con­ tended that the jobless rates in the inner city are even more horrific. He asserted that "there is a new marginal working class population [that is] being forced out of the higher paying industrial jobs into the lower pay­ ing service jobs" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ race/interviewsAvilson.html). Juxtaposed to this group is the African American elite composed of educators, medical doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, and a growing number of elected officials and corporate executives. It is esti­ mated that business executives and government officials comprised "12 and 11 percent respectively, of the Black elite as of 1978" (Jaynes& Wil­ liams, 1989, p. 171). These groups grew significantly in the 1970s and 1980s and have stabilized with some incremental growth. Much of this growth is due to historically marginalized cultural groups seeking ad­ vanced degrees. For example, recent studies indicate that "racial/ethnic" groups earned 16% of all doctorate degrees awarded in 1999- Of the 27,177 doctorate degrees awarded in 1999, African Americans earned 1,596, Hispanics earned 1,109, Asians earned 1, 324, and Native Americans earned 219 (Sanderson, Dugoni, Hoffer, & Myers, 2000). Contrary to the belief of some social commentators (Wilson, 1978), the new African American middle class is "more predisposed to align itself politically with the Black lower class than was earlier the case" (Jaynes & Williams, 1989, p. 169). Smith (1982) suggested that what he called structural liberalism, shared political ideology,

20 • CHAPTE R 1

and group consciousness, might account for this (pp. 36-38). Gra­ ham (2000) contended that the African American upper class has evolved in part from a growing and sustained middle-class commu­ nity in the United States in the last century. The complexity of the social structure constituting African Ameri­ can life has not only significantly influenced political consciousness, but more important, cultural identity and communication. This so­ cial structure, as we demonstrate throughout this book, is enacted in communication behaviors that respond to and define social reality. Institutions

National organizations such as the National Association for the Ad­ vancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the Urban League, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and a number of local community groups—often church affiliated—became the heart of the civil rights movement. They formed the nu­ cleus for social change, and remain significant social forces. Through their activism and the support of a number of White liberal organiza­ tions, the national status of African Americans changed as America was forced to confront the contradictions in its democracy. The pri­ mary institutions in African American culture from the early slavery period until the present are the Black church, educational institu­ tions, and the family. The Black Church. E. Franklin Frazier (1962), among many others (Galloway-Thomas & Lucaites, 1993; Dyson, 2001; Hamlet, 1998), cred­ ited religious life for providing the means for a structured and organized social life among African Americans. The church established the moral fabric of the community and the organizational network for leadership training. Membership data suggests that church affiliation has grown in the last 50 years. From the 1940s through 1988, the National Baptist Con­ vention, the largest denomination, has increased its rolls from 4,022,000 to 6,300,000, and the Church of God in Christ has grown from 300,000 to 3,710,000. Current membership in African American denominations totals approximately 23,000,000, making them the largest independently funded African American institution in America. The church also has contributed significantly to African American culture. Spirituals served as the precursor of gospel music (Baraka,

INTRODUCTION - 21

1963), which spawned rhythm and blues and rock and roll. Even a recent brand of rap and hip-hop music has been inspired by the Black church, with groups like Kirk Franklin and The Family, as well as Mary Mary. The African American oral tradition that originated in the African experience and is enacted weekly in pulpits across the country has produced orators such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., J. C. Watts, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and former House Whip Bill Gray, to name only a few. The church, through its outreach pro­ grams, continues to feed the homeless, provide youth support groups, and advocate for the community. Through organizations such as the Congress of National Black Churches, a coalition of seven major African American denominations (the three major Baptist con­ ventions, the three major Methodist churches, and the Church of God in Christ), has pursued six broad priorities: theological educa­ tion, employment, economic development, the media, evangelism, and human services (Lincoln, 1984). With the emergence of televan­ gelism, the memberships and the financial capital have increased tre­ mendously. Several of these Bishops and Reverends, Bishop T. D. Jakes, Reverend Creflo Dollar, and Bishop Paul Morton to name a few, have congregations in excess of 25,000 members. These churches have established academic primary and secondary school campuses, shopping centers, and ornate praise and retreat areas, and have become robust economic growth centers in Black commu­ nities throughout the United States. With a Black community buying power of almost one-half trillion dollars, this could prove quite lu­ crative if Blacks reinvest and recirculate their disposable monies, es­ pecially because "church-owned businesses are community-owned businesses" (Wilson, 1998, p. 580). It is estimated that African American church supporters contrib­ ute $1 billion a year to their parishes, and total assets are believed to exceed $10 billion. The African American church remains a pur­ veyor of the cultural and spiritual cornerstone of the community. It is central to any analysis of the peoples' social reality. Education. An accurate assessment of the current status of African American life must also consider education and both economic and sociocultural factors. Harvard University professor and chair of African American Studies Henry Louis Gates (1998) described the adverse con­ ditions of African American life by linking class, crime and education:

22 • CHAPTER 1

For my community, the American community, it is the best of times and the worst of times. We have the largest black middle class in our history, and the largest black underclass. According to a report by the Alternative Schools Network, in 1990, nationwide, 2,280,000 black boys and men were jailed or imprisoned at some time during the year, while only 23,000 earned a college degree. That's a ratio of 99 to 1. For white boys and men, the ratio of inmates to graduates was six to one, with 2,412,000 locked up at some time in 1990 and 413,000 earning a bachelor's de­ gree, (p. 2, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/)

Education is the primary method through which African Ameri­ cans improve their social and economic status. The traditionally Black colleges pioneered this role starting with Cheyney University (1837) in Pennsylvania and expanded to 121 institutions by 1936 (Hill, 1984). Black colleges were a response to racial segregation. Be­ cause African Americans were not allowed to attend school with Eu­ ropean Americans, private charities, churches, and freedman's societies started these alternative institutions. Many of the colleges began offering secondary-level course work and eventually added college-level work. Integration of predominantly European Ameri­ can institutions began on a large scale in the 1960s and 1970s, yet Hill reported the majority of "Black lawyers, dentists, and teachers in the United States today received their degrees from Black institu­ tions of higher learning" (Hill, 1984). Elementary and secondary education for the majority of African Americans is a public enterprise. There are some African American private alternative schools, but the overwhelming majority of African American youth, as is the case for the average American citizen, are educated in public institutions. Since the 1954 Brown versus the Board of Education decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, school desegregation has been mandated. Yet, many of the nation's school districts remain segregated as a result of European American aban­ donment of urban centers (Kozol, 1991). Although several districts serve an African American population, they usually suffer from dete­ rioration of the physical plant and severe underfunding based on an eroding tax base and other problems associated with socioeconomic deprivation. However, the schools are where African Americans enact cultural rituals that forge cultural identity. Predominantly African American public institutions provide fertile ground for the creation and main­ tenance of cultural behaviors that remain group-specific because of

INTRODUCTION • 23

geographic isolation, although this is rapidly changing. About 10 years ago, we could confidently assert that most African American students were unlikely to attend college (Wilson, 1989), therefore exacerbating this idea of geographic isolation. Now, African Ameri­ can students are more likely than ever before to join the ranks of the African American middle class. There was a decline in college enroll­ ment during the 1970s and early 1980s from 33.4% to 28.6% (Wil­ son, 1989), but between 1985 and 2000, enrollments increased from 26.1% to well over 40% (Smelser et al., 2001). For the past 50 years, African Americans collectively have demonstrated improvements in the area of educational achievement, but recent trends suggest a widening of the gap between African Americans and European Amer­ icans, an indicator that further clouds the future. For example, the U.S. Department of Education reported that in 1998 Whites were 10 times more likely to graduate with a masters or doctoral degree and almost 4 times more likely to graduate with an associate or bachelors degree than Blacks. Family. Any discussion of African American life and culture is in­ complete without consideration of the family. Franklin suggested that the family is the primary and most important tradition in the Af­ rican American community (Franklin, 1988). WE.B. DuBois (1969) and E. Franklin Frazier (1962) did pioneering work in this area. After these writers, a number of scholars have studied the traditions of this extremely important African American institution (Gutman, 1976; Nobles, 1979; Staples, 1971; Sudarkasa, 1980, 1988). Research in the area is characterized by what Pipes McAdoo (1988) called the Africanist and Empiricist perspectives. The former, which was initiated by the work of DuBois, studies the African American fam­ ily in relation to its African roots and assumes that the enslaved Afri­ cans brought with them societal codes that governed family life in Africa (Sudarkasa, 1988). The Empiricist view focuses on the experi­ ences of the African American family during slavery and since Recon­ struction, emphasizing the role of poverty and social adaptation in determining family values and structure. Excellent research has been conducted by scholars in both schools; however, a comprehensive theory of the African American family has not yet been developed. Two factors seem important in the study of the contemporary Afri­ can American family: (1) Enslaved Africans utilized their cultural

24 • CHAPTER 1

backgrounds and experiences in creating family life in America; (2) Economic, geographic, and public policy changes affected the devel­ opment of family traditions (McAdoo, 1999). Most cultural popula­ tions in America maintain group-specific traditions for a number of reasons while adapting to mainstream society. The African American family is a product of this same dynamic process. In the past 30 years, there have been significant changes in Ameri­ can families that have established patterns that directly influence mothers and children by weakening the economic base of the family. Higher divorce rates and lower marriage rates have led to a higher percentage of children living in female-headed families, which often accounts for a higher percentage of children living in poverty. In fact, Chideya (1995) reported, "The U. S. child poverty rate is twice that of Canada and four times that of most Western European nations" (p. 39). Although these changes have affected all families, they have been more pronounced for African Americans than European Ameri­ cans. Recent statistics show that 86% of African American children will spend some time in a female-only or other single-parent house­ hold (Bumpass, 1984) and that 46% of African American households are parented solely by women, 47% are led by two parents and ap­ proximately 7% are parented solely by men (Chideya, 1995). This high percentage of single-parent households indicates a trend that differs from previous years. In 1940, 76% of African American fami­ lies consisted of a husband and wife, a percentage that remained rel­ atively constant until the 1960s. From 1960 to 1985, the percentage had dropped to 56. A number of factors account for this change. Among the most important are "differences in social class and eco­ nomic position, family assistance benefits, changes in men's and women's economic status, scarcity of men, and a culture of poverty" (Jaynes & Williams, 1989, p. 527). However, it should be noted that over half of African American families remain husband and wife units. The change of 20% from 1940 to 1985 does not include the na­ tional trend of unmarried couples living together. When adjusted for these populations, the statistics might show slight variations. The factor that most clearly distinguishes two-parent households from single-parent groups headed by females is actual income. The gap between African American single- and dual-parent families has also increased with home ownership being a major indicator. Fiftysix percent of African American householders rent, as compared to 33% of Whites; the remainder own their own homes (Chideya,

INTRODUCTION • 25

1995). An African American family with husband and wife will gener­ ate three times the median income of their mother-only counterpart. In real terms, this means that in female-headed households there are fewer economic and human resources to meet the challenges of rais­ ing a family. There are a number of explanations for the economic conditions of single-parent families. A single-parent family is more likely to be poor simply because there is usually only one earner. Second, women on the average earn less than men; so even among single-parent families, those with a female head are more likely to be poor than those with a male head. Third, young Black women who form single-parent households predominantly come from poor households and often lack the requisite skills for high earnings. Fourth, in the absence of relatively inexpensive day care, many sin­ gle mothers of young children cannot earn enough from outside employment to justify working (NRC, 1989, p. 525). According to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 19.4% of Black families have no employed member, as compared to 16.8% of White families and 13% of Hispanic families. Black children under the age of 18 repre­ sent a third of all Blacks in poverty (Blank, 2001). White children under 18 represent a fifth of all Whites in poverty, and Latino chil­ dren mirror the data for Blacks with a third of the children under 18 in poverty. Also,we find that 67% of African American children in female-headed households live in poverty (Jaynes & Williams, 1989). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that 9% of the entire African American population in the United States were incarcerated, pa­ roled, or under criminal supervision in 1995. This number is com­ pared to 2% of the White U.S. population segment (Blank, 2001). For children of impoverished homes, health problems and limited educational opportunities lead to an uncertain future. Although Blacks are only 12.3% of the U. S. population, one forth of all U. S. citizens are Black. Significant changes have occurred in the African American family during the past 30 years. These changes followed years of relative stability in which descendants of slaves created a family life consist­ ing of traditional African societal codes adapted to the "peculiar insti­ tution" of slavery, to Reconstruction, and the migration to the North. A recent national study compared African American and European American differences in family structure and came to the following conclusion:

26 • CHAPTER 1

The most powerful hypothesis is that the economic situation in the black community together with residential segregation not only af­ fects the immediate living conditions of blacks, but also strongly influ­ ences family structures and thereby alters the social and economic prospects for the next generation. (NRC, 1989, p. 545)

The family is one of the primary conduits of cultural identity codes. It is here that the young begin to define and negotiate their worlds. Language acquisition and the identification of significant group symbols are essentials of this process. For African Americans, we see the cultural aspects of this expressed in Black English or Ebonics, contemporary music, and other expressive forms, which are discussed in other chapters in this volume. Cultural identity for this group becomes an amalgamation of cultural traditions and so­ cial realities that are fused by racial isolation and class distinctions. The study of communication in the African American family, then, be­ comes an opportunity to experience the lives of a significant copop­ ulation as they live it.

African American Culture and Communication

An Afrocentric perspective on African American social reality starts with recognition of an African past and considers the complexities of life in a segregated America and the elements that fundamentally shape peoples' lives. The assessment provided is not exhaustive, yet it strives to highlight dynamics that constitute a struggle to balance culture and class in the context of an environment replete with insti­ tutional racism and discrimination. However, members of the Afri­ can American community continue to negotiate the challenges of daily life despite the fact that racism is communicated in both subtle and overt ways (Van Dijk, 1987). The intersection of the psychology of the individual and the larger societal structures that shape this culture is found most richly repre­ sented in interaction (Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 1996; Giles & Robin­ son, 2001). Pettigrew (1985) has stated that our most sophisticated understanding of cultural group conditions can be found at the in­ tersection of the macro and micro levels of analysis. He suggested that the dynamics of many of the social problems cannot be under­ stood from only one level of analysis, but that these must be com­

INTRODUCTION • 27

bined for a complete picture. For example, the continued patterns of occupational segregation of women and many cultural groups in the lowest levels of organizations must be viewed as a web of interacting forces of individual attitudes, interactive behavior, and numerous societal/structural factors. Cultural identity, as expressed through interaction, is a critical point at which the macro and micro levels merge in African American life. Communication becomes the vehicle for the creation and maintenance of culture and the mechanism to "deal with" European America. In the next section, we explain our approach to studying identity and communication. AN INTERPRETIVE, CULTURAL APPROACH

We describe the communication system of African Americans from the perspective of its actors by focusing on how African Americans conceptualize their cultural identity and their intra- and inter­ cultural interactions. Although we incorporate objective descrip­ tions of behavior, particularly in chapter 3, our primary approach is interpretive as we explore the members' taken-for-granted and ingroup assumptions about identity and communication. We do not derogate the importance of other research approaches, including those that are Eurocentric. To the contrary, we feel these traditions complement our research and eventually may incorporate some of these alternative methods in an attempt to triangulate our knowl­ edge claims (Denzin, 1978). Rather than constituting an end point, the first edition of this book was meant as a beginning and this revi­ sion as a continuation. Our secondary objective, then, is to explicate in the pages that follow the approach we have used so that it might be extended to other cultures and prove useful in describing culture-specific patterns of communication. Communication is a complex and multidimensional process, and African American communication is no exception. In order to make sense of this process and, in particular, to understand the actor's so­ cial constructions, we adopted an interpretive, cultural perspective. This perspective distinguishes African Americans as a group and, by focusing on reports or descriptions of their own experiences, informs us about the creation and enactment of identity (Geertz, 1973, 1983; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 1982).

28 • CHAPTER 1

We are interested in the group members' interpretation of the so­ cial processes through which members interact with others who have similar and different identities and, in the process, define, cocreate, interpret, and evaluate those identities and messages. By collecting and analyzing African Americans' descriptions and evalua­ tions of identity and communication, we understand these social processes. Interviews, open-ended questionnaires, and surveys have been used to interpret members' perceptions as reflections of cul­ tural patterns. Our focus on communication is distinct from, but complementary to, anthropological, sociological, psychological, historical, political, and other perspectives. Communication provides a unique focus by emphasizing the points of interaction through which culture is cre­ ated and confirmed, yet these interactions must be understood in the context of cognate disciplines. For example, one cannot fully un­ derstand power as it is communicated in African American culture without placing it in the historical context of powerlessness and dis­ crimination derived from historical, political, anthropological, and sociological studies. Similarly, knowledge of individual personality and style derived from anthropology, psychology, and sociology is needed to interpret the symbols used to express identity in intercultural relationships. Our goal is to incorporate and acknowl­ edge previous literature from these disciplines and approaches to the extent that such research speaks to our understanding of an Afri­ can American perspective on communication.

Communication as a Cultural Process: A Perspective

Our objective in this section is to outline our assumptions about communication as a cultural process. This will help the reader un­ derstand the bases for our research programs and judge the appro­ priateness and utility of our approach. Ultimately, this information will prove useful in placing our work within the nexus of studies of culture (Geertz, 1973, 1983; Hymes, 1972) and intercultural interac­ tion, integrating our work with that of other scholars and applying our approaches to other cultural groups. Several assumptions underlie our conceptualization of culture: • culture is historically and socially emergent,

INTRODUCTION • 29

• people cocreate and maintain culture as a function of identity, • people negotiate their identities when they come in contact with others, • memberships in cultures are pluralistic and overlapping, • culture is a system of interdependent patterns of conduct and in­ terpretations, and • perceptions provide a rich source of interpretive data. These assumptions provided the basis for our research. Culture is Historically and Socially Emergent. Cultur e emerges intergenerationally and in social interaction. This means that culture is an historically transmitted system of symbols, mean­ ings, and norms (Geertz, 1973; Schneider, 1976). The attribute of shared history that is transferred intergenerationally or to new mem­ bers distinguishes cultures from task or social groups who may have a system of shared symbols, meanings, and norms but do not have a shared and transmitted culture. Conquergood (1991) and Rosaldo (1989) stressed the temporal aspects of culture, extending the con­ cept to a theory and method that examines the unfolding of human conduct through time. Culture is a process, never static and always changing. Thus, a cultural perspective examines the structures and processes that emerge and change over time and are handed down to new members, thereby creating "history." This chapter provides an overview of the historical factors influ­ encing African American life in the United States. This history is pres­ ent in other sections as well. Our discussion of African American language, for example, examines assumptions about the language acquisition of slaves, and our analysis of identity considers changes in cultural labels and meanings throughout U.S. history. Furthermore, we believe that culture is most effectively studied as it emerges in behavior and cognition. Culture is enacted in feelings, thoughts, and social behaviors of group members and in interac­ tions with the out-group. This assumption leads us to examine com­ munication effectiveness in chapter 3 and interactional style in chapter 4. African American culture is constituted through commu­ nicative forms, such as the use of code switching from Black English to Mainstream American English, an assertive, stylized communica­ tion manner, and rituals such as "playing the dozens." We believe that communication is an essential aspect of culture.

30 • CHAPTER 1

People Co-create and Maintain Culture as a Function of Identity. Our second assumption is that persons co-create and maintain culture as a function of identity (Deetz & Kersten, 1983). In this view, reality is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) through identity. So­ cial constructions are not just something "out there" that get built through sense-making, but rather at the very heart of these construc­ tions are the expressions of self and group identity so needed for the continued emergence of cultural character. African Americans observe their social world and learn from it. They also discuss this social world with others and test their constructions through interaction. For exam­ ple, an African American student may decide that certain teachers are prejudiced and others are not. The student may try out this conclusion by suggesting African American authors for assignments. Identity plays an important role in this sense-making process. By figuring out who you think you are, you decide how you want to be treated by others, whom you want to interact with, and how you will treat others. For instance, I may make relationship decisions and choices based on who I think I am (identity) and derive this identity from my culture. Again, these decisions do not exist in social isola­ tion. They must be socially constructed to have force. If my identity requires me to interact with intellectuals but intellectuals will not in­ teract with me, my identity is presented with a dilemma that requires redefinition or renegotiation with others. In this process of negotia­ tion, the creation and maintenance of culture interacts with the es­ tablishment and expression of cultural identity. This assumption is clearly manifested in chapter 2, which deals with identity, and chapter 6 where our conclusions are presented. In chap­ ter 2, identity is tied to social interaction, while in chapter 6 a new Cul­ tural Contracts Theory and a revised Communication Theory of Identity are articulated. In both of these places, we stress the interde­ pendence of co-creation and maintenance of identity and culture. People Negotiate Their Identities When They Come in Contact With Others. Our third assumption is similar to the second, except that the previous assumption suggests that individuals maintain a sense of belonging to their cultural group(s) as a means of making sense of who they are. Identity negotiation is a bit of a different con­ cept. Although one may be unconscious of how she negotiates her cultural identity, there is a sense that something is at stake when giv­

INTRODUCTION • 31

ing up a portion of one's worldview. For example, Spellers (in press) discussed what she called the kink factor and explained that her in­ terpretive study of African American's perceptions of hair revealed that the media and other social forces dissuade African American women from wearing their hair kinky, natural, and nappy, and that this is an attempt to mute their expressions of their identities and heritage. This is one example of identity negotiation. It is not a cocreated facet that is used to maintain culture; her kinky hair is a part of who she is. She can choose to dislike that part of who she is, but "it is nappy by nature" (p. 3). Identity negotiation is a process of giving, taking, maintaining, or exchanging worldviews or portions thereof in an effort to coordinate relationships with others. This happens al­ most instantaneously as we come in contact with others and evi­ dence of its occurrence includes critical incidents, relational signposts or a stable, unshifting identity over time (Jackson, 2000a). The cultural contracts theory discussed in chapters 5 and 6 is an identity negotiation approach. Identities are Pluralistic and Overlapping. Our fourth as­ sumption is that identities are pluralistic and overlapping. People typically assume multiple, overlapping identities in any situation. The reader might simultaneously be enacting gender, culture, and occupational identities as these words are read. Our approach to chapter 2 is based on this assumption. There we attempt to ground our study of identity in a more general discussion of self and identity. Cultural identity is then framed as one identity and understood within the larger system. The intersection of gender and culture are discussed in chapter 2, where we focus on Black Feminism. This dis­ cussion also considers social class as an additional identity that com­ bines with gender and culture to produce "triple jeopardy." But even a single, cultural community is pluralistic. Just as it is im­ practical to define a single American cultural identity (although gen­ eralizations may produce such a definition), so is it an oversimp­ lification to define a single African American identity. Identity itself is both an individual and group phenomenon and therefore can be de­ fined at any point in the range from micro (individual) to macro (so­ cietal) levels of analysis. Cultural identity—or perceived membership in culture—requires a group definition, but almost any boundary around a group leaves us open to missing the differentia­

32 • CHAPTER 1

tions within groups. That is why we use the word composite to ac­ cent the multiplicity of perspectives. Therefore, we take into consideration the larger African American identity as well as the dif­ ferences within this group, as defined by different labels (Black, Black American, African American) and foci (political and social). The memberships subsumed within the African American culture are discussed in chapter 2. Culture is a System of Interdependent Patterns of Conduct and Interpretations. We conceptualize culture as a system of interde­ pendent patterns of conduct and interpretations. Culture describes communication patterns of action and meaning that are deeply felt, commonly intelligible, and widely accessible in the process of creat­ ing, defining, and communicating identity or personhood (Carbaugh, 1988). Culture is thus constituted and created through systematic and patterned communication that is interpreted through a shared code. This assumption is played out in our examination of the interpre­ tations of cultural identity (chap. 2) and intercultural interaction (chaps. 3 and 4). This work examines the meanings African Ameri­ cans ascribe to their identity and the communication that enacts it. Studies of intercultural communication focus on patterns of con­ duct and interpretations of these patterns. Through this work, a code of identity is articulated and an agenda for effective interaction is described. Perceptions Provide a Rich Source of Interpretive Data. Our interpretive, cultural perspective diverges from some others within this general frame on methodological grounds. Most "inter­ pretivists" would concur that the perspective of the cultural mem­ bers provides a rich source of knowledge about culture (Carbaugh, 1988) and that it is critical to understand the in-group member's per­ sonal process of coming to know and define self, community, and membership. This process traditionally has been accessed through observation of actors "in situ" and through conversational texts. These are not necessarily the only sources or even the primary source of data (Carbaugh, 1988). In particular, when these conversa­ tions are disembodied or separated from the actors, additional data are needed to fully capture the actors' social constructions of reality.

INTRODUCTION • 33

Accordingly, the members' perspectives communicate a great deal about the culture. In particular, their definitions of key terms and de­ scriptions of social interaction tell us how they create, maintain, en­ act, and interpret culture, and it is these definitions we consider the primary data for our research. A group member's description of ef­ fective and ineffective communication, for example, may not "accu­ rately" reconstruct the text of the event but, instead, provides a representation of how those events are interpreted. Recalled conver­ sations tell us how members construct their identities and social worlds in the symbols and frameworks they can articulate. We agree that "recall data and reconstructed acts ... cannot substitute for data gathered in situ" (Carbaugh, 1988, p. 39). However, the obverse, that text and observation cannot substitute for the actors' interpreta­ tions, is equally true. Contextually grounded description from the respondent's perspective is a different type of data but no less useful than "expert" textual analysis of conduct (sometimes by out-group members). Based on this assumption, we pursued our research through interviews and written descriptions of recalled conversa­ tions and interpretations of identities, messages, and relationships.

Sensitizing Constructs

Having articulated these primary assumptions of our interpretive, cultural approach, we study African American communication by fo­ cusing on sensitizing constructs that point out the means by which persons create culture and identity and reinforce their commonality. Sensitizing constructs direct a researcher toward a general area or topic without specifying operational definitions (Denzin, 1978). These constructs tell us where to look without telling us what we might find. For example, the sensitizing construct of privacy might be used to study families. This tells us that privacy is likely to be an is­ sue in these relationships and alerts us to these practices so we can recognize them when they appear. The construct sensitizes us to pri­ vacy issues and interpretations and guides us to observe relevant be­ haviors. In our research, the sensitizing constructs are: • core symbols • prescriptions • communication as problematic

34 • CHAPTER 1

• • • •

code conversation community cultural identity

Core Symbols and Prescriptions. The first two constructs are called core symbols (Collier, 1992; Schneider, 1976) and prescrip­ tions (Geertz, 1973; Hymes, 1972). People define themselves, their cultures, and their experiences through their beliefs and under­ standings as expressed in core symbols and through prescriptions about appropriate and effective behavior. Together, core symbols and prescriptions tell us what it takes to be a competent and ac­ cepted member of a culture. It is often difficult to separate core symbols from prescriptions and, in fact, we do not mean them to be distinct constructs. For ex­ ample, the institution of marriage may revolve around the core sym­ bol of permanence and prescribe commitment and staying together. Core symbols and prescriptions are overlapping frameworks for ex­ ploring and understanding culture that, together, sensitize us to sa­ lient aspects of the actors' interpretations of interaction. Epistemologically, this information explains what one needs to know to identify with or claim membership in a cultural group. Schneider (1976) claimed that cultures can be defined through the identification of clusters of symbols and meanings into analytic galaxies with central, unifying, and epitomizing core symbols. Geertz (1973) noted that there are sets of beliefs that can be called worldviews consisting of concepts of self and society, as well as de­ scriptions of the "ways things are." Core symbols tell us about the definitions, premises, and propositions regarding the universe and the place of humans. They sensitize us to cultural beliefs about the management of nature and technology and to views of the institu­ tions of marriage, education, and politics. The symbols point us to­ ward the central ideas and concepts of the culture and the everyday behaviors that characterize membership as expressed in the pat­ terned use and interpretation of messages. These symbols, then, ref­ erence the central beliefs of culture and answer such questions as: How do you make sense of your world? What do you believe and why? Who are you/we as a people? What are the institutions, artistic forms, and organized frameworks that are used to establish contacts

INTRODUCTION • 35

with one another? What do you do? What symbols are significant? What do these symbols mean? The symbols are identified through recurrent patterns of message use, repeating categories of verbal and nonverbal conduct, and shared interpretations of these messages and categories. These mes­ sages convey both a symbolic category and the meanings associated with the symbol. For example, Philipsen (1975) conducted an eth­ nography in a south Chicago neighborhood and identified in the speech of male community members the symbolic category of"talking like a man." Collier (1989) analyzed intensive interviews and found that communication among African American friends reflects the core symbol of respect for the individual, and Carbaugh (1989) analyzed transcripts of the popular television talk show The Donahue Show and identified self-expression as a core symbol of mainstream U.S. identity. The meanings of these symbols are also evident in the structures of co-occurring and repetitive messages. A culture's use of meta­ phors, stories, and myths (Philipsen, 1987) reveal themes and di­ mensions that identify the key symbols and tell us how social life is interpreted. Katriel and Philipsen (1981) examined real communi­ cation as a core symbol co-occurring with the symbolic categories of self and relationship in U.S. culture. They noted that the meaning of the real communication (for European Americans) is "close, sup­ portive, and flexible" speech that pays ritual homage to the individu­ als in the relationship. Meanings also are evident in the definition of and participation in such institutions as government, media, education, and religion, and in the creation and interpretation of art in all of its forms. For ex­ ample, members of a culture may believe that government is a means of social control or believe that the people must control the govern­ ment. Each belief system implies something very different about the nature of society. In the former, people are seen as weak and in need of control in order to maintain social order. Here the people are the potential source of evil. In the second view, government is seen as the corrupting force, and the inherent good nature of the people must be used to keep this from actualizing. Similarly, professions, recreation, entertainment, and other valued activities provide infor­ mation about the meanings and symbols in use, the behavioral pat­ terns that emerge, and the notion of identity or personhood.

36 • CHAPTER 1

Core symbols provide our frame for understanding African Ameri­ can communication style in chapter 3. After examining research de­ scribing this style, we pose five core symbols as an organizing framework. Core symbols are also used to explain African American norms in chapter 4. In addition to understanding people's interpretations of "what is," we also must come to understand their notions of what "ought to be." Thus, the prescriptive or evaluative aspects of culture also must be considered in order to gain a more complete picture. This frame­ work focuses our view on the norms of appropriate and acceptable behavior, moral standards, expectations for conduct, and criteria of competence. One can say that the "ethos" of culture is its moral, aes­ thetic, and evaluative patterns that establish attitudes toward indi­ viduals and environments as well as the quality of life (Geertz, 1973). Because norms are situated behaviors (Hymes, 1972), they prescribe appropriate behavior in particular contexts (Schneider, 1976). The notion of prescription points us to the definitions of compe­ tent communication (in addition to other important cultural norms) that explicate a culture (Collier, Ribeau, & Hecht, 1986; Hecht et al., 1989). Hymes (1972), for example, defined communication compe­ tence as the knowledge of and demonstrable ability to carry out ap­ propriate conduct in particular contexts. Similarly, Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) conceptualized relational competence as the knowl­ edge, motivation, and skills needed to behave appropriately and ef­ fectively and achieve mutually satisfying outcomes. From this perspective, competence includes conduct that is both appropriate and effective in particular contexts (Collier, 1989; Collier et al., 1986; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Saville-Troike (1982) summarized this notion: "Interaction requires the perception, selection, and in­ terpretation of salient features of the code used in actual communi­ cation situations, integrating these with other cultural knowledge and skills, and implementing appropriate strategies for achieving communication goals" (p. 24). Cultural groups provide criteria for evaluating appropriate and ef­ fective communication. Inherent in a cultural system are notions of what it takes to "perform the culture" by following norms and inter­ acting with in-group and out-group members (Collier et al., 1986; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984, 1987; Hecht, et al., 1989; Hecht, Ribeau, & Sedano, 1990). Because appropriate communication is rule follow­ ing (Shimanoff, 1980), effective rule-following behavior results in

INTRODUCTION • 37

positive outcomes such as self-concept reinforcement (Collier, 1988), desire to maintain the relationship (Collier, 1988) and goal attainment (Collier et al., 1986; Hecht et al., 1990). This prescriptive component is the basis for much of chapter 4. There we discuss Afri­ can American perceptions of effective and ineffective intra- and intercultural communication. We attempt to articulate an agenda for appropriate and effective communication. Communication as Problematic. The model presented thus far seems to imply that communication is easy and smooth when interactants are members of the same culture and share notions of ap­ propriateness and effectiveness. Such is not the case. Communication is conceptualized as a problematic event during which persons assign meanings to messages and jointly create identities and social reality. Cultures provide parameters within which interaction occurs, but they can never specify all of the emergent properties of social behav­ ior, nor do individuals always fully intend to follow the parameters. Meanings and identities do not exist a priori. Instead, they present interactants with a dilemma or puzzle that must be solved. The ques­ tion of how to negotiate meanings and identities through discourse is a predicament because people do not share the same experiential space and, therefore, differ in their interpretations and uses of sym­ bols and norms, their abilities to competently interact, and their com­ munication styles. Interactants also must negotiate definitions of interaction, answering the "what are we doing" question and estab­ lishing the communication episode (Pearce & Cronen, 1980). They also must adjust and accommodate to each other, the situation, and the relationship (Gallois, Franklyn-Stokes, Giles, & Coupland, 1988). Even well intentioned, skilled communicators must continually ma­ neuver through the conversational turns in order to discover and ne­ gotiate the norms and maintain competent interaction. As a result, specific instances of communication even among those within the same cultural group membership are problematic more often than not (Babrow, 1995; Coupland, Wiemann, & Giles, 1991). This process is further obfuscated when cultural factors are con­ sidered. Misunderstandings and other obstacles are likely when any two persons navigate the stream of differing symbols, norms, com­ petencies and styles, but if people are of diverse cultural back­ grounds, this process can be even more difficult or problematic

38 • CHAPTER 1

because they may not share the same standards of appropriateness and effectiveness. For example, American and Japanese co-workers each make choices about language, nonverbal behaviors, dress, con­ flict management strategies, and level of disclosure based on their culture, and then they must relationally negotiate conversational choices, such as turn-taking, speaking time, topic, and intimacy. In addition, people are simultaneously members of multiple identity groups that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. The se­ lection of the memberships salient to a particular time, place, rela­ tionship, and interaction is problematic in its own right. We say, then, that communication is problematic because all inter­ actions, no matter how smoothly they appear to flow, involve choices, puzzles, and dilemmas that challenge the interactants' abilities. This conceptualization changes the way competence is viewed. When communication is conceptualized as problematic, the focus moves away from global definitions of competence and incompe­ tence. Instead, we emphasize the ongoing management of identity, conversations, and relationships (Martin, Moore, Hecht, & Larkey 2001). The fundamental areas of interest move from lists of compe­ tence skills to identification of the problematic issues that emerge in conversations and the moment-by-moment strategies used to deal with these issues. An example of this shift in emphasis is provided by the key commu­ nication skill other orientation (Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Other ori­ entation might help one recognize that it is important to the other person to feel accepted and might be used as a guideline to provide this feeling. Other orientation is treated as a communication compe­ tence skill and included on most complete lists of how to be a good communicator. However, this behavior may be interpreted by the other interactant as "over accommodation" even when it is intended to be a culturally sensitive adjustment to a person perceived to be a member of a different cultural group. A person who feels others are over-accommodating may perceive them as stereotyping or patroniz­ ing (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991; Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989). If other orientation were considered a skill in the traditional sense, one would deal with this perception of over-accommodation through increased efforts to focus on the other person's perceived in­ terests and orientations. Our work suggests that this may be the wrong strategy. For example, if an European American has expressed other orientation through introduction of "Black topics" when talking

INTRODUCTION • 39

to an African American and this has lead to the perception of stereo­ typing through over-accommodation, continued attempts to recog­ nize cultural identity may only exacerbate the situation. If the keys to competence are understanding the emerging issues in communication and developing as well as utilizing strategies for responding to these issues, what role do skills play? One can imagine a model in which skills are seen as contributing to both the creation or anticipation of issues, as well as providing a repertoire of re­ sponses to conversational problems. Such a model alters the empha­ ses of the traditional views of competence to focus on the problematic issues that emerge, their anticipation, and the coping strategies for avoiding and/or adapting. Thus, different sets of "skills" are needed when anticipating the issues, avoiding the issues, recognizing the issues, and responding. This new emphasis guides our discussion of communication com­ petence in chapter 4. Through a series of studies, we identify the is­ sues that African Americans find problematic in their interactions with other members of the group and with European Americans. We go on to examine a series of improvement strategies that can be used to overcome the problematic elements. Studies of these other com­ petencies await future research. Conversation, Code, and Community. Philipsen (1987) pro­ posed that cultural communication is composed of conversation, code, and community. This system provides us with three sensitizing constructs by shifting our attention to how symbols, meanings, and norms occur in conversations and become codes of conduct that cre­ ate shared identities. The three constructs are interrelated. Conversations express pat­ terns of social interaction or discourse that evolve into codes of con­ duct for members of particular groups. These codes, in turn, guide conversational behavior in line with cultural indications. Conversa­ tion and code, then, are identifiable structures of communicative con­ duct that define and express membership in a community Cultural communication is a system of interdependent patterns of conduct (conversation) and interpretations (code) that are used by a group of people to define their personhood and reinforce group identity (com­ munity). Philipsen's tripartite system for defining culture is part of the Communication Theory of Identity presented in chapter 5. We argue

40 • CHAPTER 1

that communication can be used as a frame for understanding identity and utilize principles, including communication as code, conversa­ tion, and communication, to build the theory. On one level, cultural communication can be studied as conversa­ tion, a patterned representation of a people's experience. Conversa­ tions include ritual exchanges between persons in particular contexts. They enact core symbols and are guided by prescriptions for appropriate and effective communication. We think of conversation as answering such questions as: "What kind of contact are you having? What is your relationship? What kind of messages are you exchanging? What is being accomplished through social interaction?" Conversa­ tion is represented in chapter 3, which describes African American communication competencies in general and in conversation. Code is a broad system of beliefs, values, and images of the ideal that is reflected in language patterns. A code is a set of symbols and meanings that is based on sets of cognitive and moral constraints and results in a worldview. Codes can be epitomized by core symbols and thought of as a set of consensual norms and conduct that is ex­ pected, valued, prohibited, or predicted. When shared by a commu­ nity of persons, codes serve social ordering and coordinating functions, guiding language choices and patterns through which people come to know their place in the world. In this manner, codes prescribe effective and appropriate behavior. According to Philipsen (1987), "Cultural communication is the process by which a code is realized and negotiated in a communal conversation" (p. 249). Codes answer such questions as: "Who are you as a people? What do you mean? Who do you want to be?" We examine the identity codes that are marked by cultural labels in chapter 2 and the communica­ tion codes for interpreting interaction in chapters 3 and 4. Philipsen's (1987) third sensitizing construct, community, is a grouping of persons whose commonality is derived from shared identity and setting. A sense of membership stems from shared sym­ bol use, meanings, norms, prescriptions, and history. This bonding creates an in-group-out-group distinction that guides social rela­ tionships (Tajfel, 1981). The essence of community is a sense of belonging, loyalty, or membership (De Vos & Romanucci-Ross, 1982a; Philipsen, 1987). Membership in communities is seen as central because it provides a reference point for interpreting codes and conversations. It is the en­ actment of identification within a community that is most salient. We

INTRODUCTION • 41

believe that members of the African American community identify with culture, a social organization with common sense of ancestry, tradition, aesthetics, and values that coalesces around racial charac­ teristics. For ease of terminology, we call the sense of belonging to a culture cultural identity. This focus on communities permeates our discussion of identity in chapter 2 and guides our assumption of identity as a central feature of social interaction. In the next section, we provide an overview of cultural identity. Cultural Identity. Cultural identity is defined as perceived mem­ bership in culture that is enacted in the appropriate and effective use of symbols and cultural narratives, similar interpretations and mean­ ings, and common ancestry and traditions. Identity implies a sense of self or personhood, and cultural identity is the subjective sense of be­ longing to or membership in culture. Identities such as African Ameri­ can, French, and Hindu move in and through time and space and are composed of diverse elements, such as geography, politics, econom­ ics, sociology, psychology, and history. At any moment, identity is what it was, currently is, and is becoming, and exists on individual, social, and societal levels across time and space. Identity creates and is created by the people, interactions, and en­ vironments in which it has, does, or will exist. Identity is defined by the individual and cocreated as people come into contact with one another and the environment. As people align themselves with vari­ ous groups, this cocreation process is negotiated, and boundaries, symbols, meanings, and norms are developed and modified. Thus, identity is a characteristic of the individual, the interaction, the rela­ tionship, and the collectivity. Our interest in this book is with those who belong to the African American culture. The book discusses how persons identifying themselves as African American in ethnicity and culture create a sense of shared community and codes in conversation through the use of symbols, meanings, and norms. In other words, we want to know how African Americans interpret the creation and enactment of their identity in everyday conversation. It is clear that for any individual there may be more than one iden­ tity and, furthermore, that each identity is in a continuous state of en­ actment and change. African Americans in the United States face a continuing series of dilemmas, including the potential tensions be­

42 • CHAPTER 1

tween being African American and American, being an individual and a group member, and different ways of being African American. In addition, members of this group are faced with in-group conflict and out-group assimilationist pressure and discrimination. As a re­ sult, African American cultural identity and cultural communication is a problematic, provocative, and an important area of study. At the same time, we are interested in these conversations themselves. We are especially concerned with the junctures at which the conversa­ tions are less self-consciously manifestations of identity and cultural memberships (Martin et al., 2001). SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS

In this first chapter, we explained our interpretive, cultural approach to communication. We view communication as a socially con­ structed process that revolves around membership in a certain cul­ ture. These memberships are formed out of interaction and frame our interpretations of interaction. Thus, interpretation, member­ ship, and interaction are privileged in this perspective, and each is seen as emerging within a cultural context. It is from this perspective that we describe the emergent and prob­ lematic nature of culture as expressed in symbols, meanings, and norms. Communication is socially constructed and interpreted through these forms and is inherently problematic because it in­ volves socially constructed and enacted interpretations. This focus shifts us from the objective study of skills to an understanding of how the actors interpret the challenges of social discourse. Although stressing the role of perceived identity, we have tried to emphasize the importance of the larger cultural heritage as well as in-group-out-group relationships. This led us to explicate Afrocen­ trism and the African American experience in the United States, thus providing a broader social context with which to interpret African American communication. Furthermore, we have explicated core symbols, prescriptions, problematic communication, code, conversation, community, and cultural identity as sensitizing constructs. These constructs are de­ rived from our theoretical perspective and point us to salient aspects of African American communication. This list is not exhaustive, but rather represents the constructs we have found most useful in our

INTRODUCTION • 43

work. They are laid out here to inform the reader of our theoretical basis, building on the interpretive framework presented earlier in the chapter. In the remainder of the book, we apply this framework to African American communication. Sometimes the context, theory, assump­ tions, and sensitizing constructs are implicit in our writing. At other times, we attempt to make explicit these assumptions as we explore the "taken-for-granted" everyday world of African Americans. In the second chapter, "Self, Identity, Cultural Identity, and African American Cultural Identity," we discuss membership in African American culture. Information from social and psychological pro­ cesses are synthesized in order to understand the notions of self and identity and to apply these notions to cultural identity, particularly that of African Americans. Current research on African Americans' perceptions and identities is integrated. Although we touch on the prescriptive aspects of identity (how to appropriately and effectively adopt a particular African American identity), the chapter focuses primarily on the symbols, meanings, codes, and communities (what are the identities and what do they mean?). In the third chapter, "Communication Competence," we gener­ ally explore the literatures concerning cultural conflict and differ­ ence as it relates to adaptation, accommodation, and acculturation, with the understanding that difference can be conflictual. We also emphasize recent studies pertaining to identity negotiation with an accent on the notion of cultural contracts. The exploration of cul­ tural conflict is entwined in a discussion of cultural identities func­ tioning in varying contexts such as workplace organizations, intimate relationships, and small groups. Also, we focus on appro­ priate and effective communication among African Americans as well as between in-group and out-group members. We examine the problematic nature of communication by examining the norms and issues that are salient to African Americans in their communication. These norms and issues constitute an agenda for effective commu­ nication and include core symbols as well as their interpretations and meanings. This discussion also considers the communicative strategies needed to overcome conversational obstacles and achieve positive outcomes. These competencies represent the pre­ scriptive aspect of culture. 'African American Language and Communication Styles" is the fourth chapter and summarizes information on African American

44 • CHAPTER 1

language codes and communication style. This chapter is organized around five core symbols: sharing, uniqueness,positivity, realism, and assertiveness. Understanding the linguistic and interaction styles illuminates the code and conversation of this group and helps us comprehend specific message preferences and adaptive strate­ gies. These styles are those that typify African American conversation and focus us on the use of symbols. The fifth chapter is a new addition to the book, entitled "African American Relationships and Cultural Identity Negotiation," where we focus on intraracial and interracial friendships, heterosexual and homosexual romantic relationships from courting to marriage, and issues related to family, divorce, elderly, and spiritual relationships. Chapter 6, "Conclusions," synthesizes identity, communication style, and competence, and suggests applications and pragmatic is­ sues in African American communication. The chapter presents a Communication Theory of Identity and a new framework called the Cultural Contracts Theory as a framework for interpreting previous research and guiding future endeavors. Research challenges are dis­ cussed with suggestions for future directions. This final chapter, like the entire book, is meant to continue the discussion we began in the first edition of this book.

CHAPTER 2

Self, Identity,

Cultural Identity,

and African American

Cultural Identity

T

he approach to culture articulated in chapter 1 emphasizes the role of cultural identity. Understanding culture is an inter­ pretive process that manifests itself in code, conversation, and community; it frames our understanding of the world (code), of interacting with others (conversation), and of aligning with groups of people (community). These central elements of code, conversa­ tion, and community are inherently entwined with a sense of iden­ tity and are primary components of the communication theory of identity elaborated in chapter 6. As described in chapter 1, culture is the parent concept associated with two conceptual offspring: race (preverbal communicative ele­ 45

46 • CHAPTER 2

ments marked by physiognomy coupled with socially derived ascrip­ tions) and ethnicity (traditions, peoplehood, heritage, orientation to the past, religion, language, ancestry, values, economics, and aes­ thetics). The process of identification with culture is one of adopting the behavioral code, learning to "do the conversation," and associat­ ing within the community literally and/or symbolically. Identity means orienting self toward particular cultural frameworks while defining, negotiating, and reconstructing aspects of the self via inter­ action with others. Identification and identity are related concepts, but they are not the same. Identification relates to an affinity for or perceived association with something, whereas identity refers to how one defines self. Because there are ascribed aspects to culture, identification does not fully define cultural consciousness. Any person born into and so­ cialized within a particular culture, for example mainstream U.S. cul­ ture, will be shaped by those experiences. These cultural properties are likely to become part of that person's consciousness even if the person leaves the culture and lives as an "expatriate" or maintains multiple cultural memberships as in the case of multiple re-acculturating transients (Onwumechili, Nwosu, Jackson, & JamesHughes, in press). In addition, we do not assume that people are always highly aware of even those cultural aspects they select to enact on a daily basis. Much of social life is processed mindlessly (Kitayama & Burnstein, 1988; Langer, 1978), and this includes identity (Fisher, 1998; TingToomey, 1999). The role of identity, therefore, is to provide a se­ lected orientation toward a culture. As the selection or choice of the individual, cultural identity can be a powerful source of meaning and behavior. However, cultural identity is only one aspect of the to­ tal self-concept. Thus, there are many other sources of interpretation in any particular interaction, and we are not always aware of any or all of these. This sense of identity is multifaceted and complex, with cultural identity only a part of it. Therefore, in order to understand cultural identity, we first explicate the concepts of self and identity. We can then apply cultural identity to the African American community. This approach also allows us to understand identity in its broadest sense and fit cultural identity into this larger framework. In this way, Afri­ can American cultural identity is contextualized as a part of an over­ all personal identity as well as characterized as a quality of the

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 47

community. We ask the reader to bear with us as we weave our way through a discussion of self and identity before reaching our goal of discussing African American cultural identity. The purpose of the current chapter, then, is to articulate a concep­ tualization of cultural identity that is derived from an understanding of the total self-concept or how one sees oneself. Subsequently, we will apply that conceptualization to African American identity. Con­ sistent with chapter 1, we use the term ethnic identity sparingly due to its connotation of stigmatized, foreign, and heathen communi­ ties. Unfortunately, discussion of it cannot be avoided because the literature in communication overutilizes ethnic identity as a way to describe what we define as cultural identity. The overwhelming us­ age of the term illustrates how the field of communication character­ izes non-White cultural experiences. Finally, in this chapter, we describe a series of quantitative and qualitative studies focusing on African American cultural identity. Although discussing the self in general terms, we focus on the United States because, ultimately, it is the identities of a cultural group within that national context we wish to explicate in this book. SELF-CONCEPT AND IDENTITY

One criticism of the extant communication literature on identity is that notions of self, personhood, and personal identity seem to be universally held (Hecht et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2001; Orbe, 1998), although culturally variant. Existing evidence indicates that most, perhaps all, cultures have a notion about something we can call self, although the specific notions of self vary greatly across cultures. In addition, a number of perspectives on self have emerged as research­ ers attempt to explain the construct (Carbaugh, 1989; Jackson, 1999a; Kashima, 1995; Stephan & Stephan, 1992). We start by conceptualizing the self as both a psychological and a communication process. As a psychological construct, the self is seen as an integrated, hierarchically organized set of self-attributes or components (Burke, 1980; Cheek &Hogan, 1983; Hoelter, 1985) that define how one perceives oneself and that influences percep­ tions and social behavior. The self, then, is constituted by "the mean­ ings one attributes to oneself as an object" that are experienced in interaction with others (Burke & Tully, 1977).

48 • C H A P T E R 2

Essentially, the self can be explained as having these primary parts: self-concept, self-esteem, self-consciousness, and identity. Self-concept refers to an overall perspective in one's own personae about how one sees oneself. For example, one may characterize one­ self according to roles such as parent, child, churchgoer, friend, and/or professional, but it is not always conceived of in relation to roles. One might also see oneself as a great person or a friendly per­ son, which are much more adjectival descriptions of how self-concept is defined. It is what is signified when one asks, "Who am I?" Self-esteem relates to evaluative judgments one makes about one's self-concept and answers the question, "How do I feel about who I am?" Self-consciousness studies in psychology are often extended to studies of cultural consciousness. For example, cross-cultural psy­ chologists Cross, Clark, and Fhagen-Smith (1998) theorized via their revised nigrescence model that many African Americans undergo a metamorphosis from a Eurocentric consciousness to a more cultur­ ally aware Black consciousness. Likewise, Baldwin (1990) theorized the "Black personality" within the context of an African cosmology identified as the "African Self-Extension Orientation." This "Orienta­ tion" promotes a communal consciousness that views the world not as an autonomous set of individuals, but as a "conscious collective sur­ vival thrust" (p. 137). Finally, in psychological studies, identity refers to personal and group identifications. Additionally, identity is con­ cerned with self-definition, and the self is conceptualized as a fairly stable, internal entity that is rarely modified to fit the context. In fact, the self is a core sense of who one is. That is, you are who you are; shift­ ing is indicative of a problematic, deficient or disengaged identity. The interdisciplinary definitions of identity in the field of communi­ cation are juxtaposed to those of many psychological theorists. Communicologists embrace the idea that identities are socially con­ structed and shift while in relationships with others. Consequently, the self is understood as a communicative construct during an interac­ tive process. All social behaviors have aspects of at least one enacted self. That is, a person's sense of self is part of their social behavior, and their sense of self emerges and is defined, redefined, and negotiated in social interaction (Jackson, 1999a; Ting-Toomey, 1999). The problem lies in attempting to articulate a fixed hierarchy of identities that cuts across communicators and encounters. Research suggests that gender may override or interact with ethnicity among European Americans, whereas ethnicity emerges as the predomi­

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 49

nant factor among other U.S. ethnic groups (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988; Ickes, 1984). This distinction is particularly salient to our dis­ cussion of Black Feminism later in the chapter. Similarly, the role of spouse may override group memberships (e.g., gender, family) in certain settings (e.g., anniversaries among couples with equal and nongender-based relationships). What is clear in all of these discus­ sions is that social groups often play a major role in identification.

Social Categorization and Identity

Turner (1982) defined a social group as two or more people who share a common social identification or perceive themselves as be­ longing in the same social category. Social categorization occurs when people organize their perceptions of the world around per­ ceived memberships in these groups. Categorization is a natural cog­ nitive process whose more salient categories include gender, socioeconomic groups, family, political organizations, nations, and ethnic groups (Tajfel, 1978). De Vos (1982) argued that a sense of common origin and survival has bound humans into groups throughout time. Thus, social groupings have a historical origin, and the classification of people based on these groupings seems a natu­ ral outgrowth. These memberships provide a means of self-categorization. Tajfel (1982) claimed that people use the cognitive tool of social categori­ zation to define themselves. He defined social categorization as "that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowl­ edge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership" (Tajfel, 1974, p. 69). Social categories are used to determine memberships, and memberships guide perceptions of people and choices of inter­ action. However, the importance of membership as a factor varies with the value attached to the group, positive in-group image, imag­ ined out-group image of in-group, importance of group member­ ship, and group security (Bond & Hewstone, 1986). Social categories also provide a means for differentiating people. One of the most common of these differentiations is that between in-group and out-group membership. Behavior may be conceptualized along a continuum from interindividual to intergroup (Miller & Steinberg, 1975; Sherif, 1966; Tajfel, 1982). Others (Giles & Hewstone,

50 • CHAPTER 2

1982; Stephenson, 1981) argued that interpersonal and intergroup fac­ tors are present in all interactions, with emphases shifting. Interindi­ vidual behavior is that in which memberships are less salient and people are responded to on a one-to-one, personalized basis. Inter­ group behavior occurs when membership is salient and differential, and people are responded to based on group attributes. Treating an­ other on an idiosyncratic basis characterizes the former category, whereas treatment as a group member characterizes the latter. Membership is both self-perceived and ascribed (Garza & Herringer, 1987). As discussed earlier, there is an a priori or objec­ tive nature to group membership that is ascribed by the culture. However, membership is also subjective, and because of this, actual membership may not be the key factor. Interaction with people who may objectively be classified as out-group members may be defined by participants in in-group terms, and interaction with "in-group members" may be defined as intergroup. Across a wide range of situations, people tend to exaggerate inter­ group differences and minimize in-group differences (Tajfel, 1981). Group differences tend to be more salient when there are convergent boundaries—categories based on a number of distinctions (e.g., gen­ der, race, and socioeconomic status together; Campbell, 1967). Tajfel (1978, 1981) argued that people try to perceive their own group in positive terms, and Brewer (1979) and Gudykunst and Hammer (1988) argued that in-group bias is based on assumed in-group supe­ riority. When this superiority is challenged, people restore positive identity by leaving the group, making group identity more positive, joining other positive groups to provide balance, or reinterpreting the negativity to martyr the group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). However, this analysis may not apply to all groups. Some groups may internalize their low power position (De Vos, 1982), and there are also many other perceptual bases for differentiating groups, in­ cluding common language, customs, and values, shared neighbor­ hoods and occupational opportunities, and a common history of oppression. Positivity may be one of the bases for intergroup com­ parison but its relationship to other criteria must be subject to em­ pirical scrutiny situated in the lived experience of group members. Bond and Hewstone (1986) report that intergroup differentiation in general was more salient to British respondents than Chinese re­ spondents in their Hong Kong sample. Thus group differentiation it­ self may be a culturally variant phenomenon.

SELF,

IDENTITY, CULTURAL

IDENTITY • 51

Social categories, however, do not subsume all of the self-concept. As indicated previously, identities have both an individual and a so­ cial component. As Garza and Herringer (1987) noted, "The social categories used to group people (e.g., gender, ethnicity, religion, club memberships) are an importan t source of 'social self-identity'—the identity that guides social interactions" (p. 299). The importance of these social identities is demonstrated in re­ search using the 20 Statements Test to measure self-concept. The task requires participants to complete the sentence stem "I am" 20 times in order to define their identity. Social identity is a major cate­ gory in self-concept when measured this way (Garza & Herringer, 1987; Gordon, 1968; Kuhn, 1960). From both the self and social categorization perspectives, the self can been seen as a characteristic of the individual as well as of com­ munication, of the communicator as well as the relationship, and of the mind as well as social behavior. Identities are part of the self and take on these same characteristics. We briefly explicate some of the implications of this position for identity and then apply this perspec­ tive to the study of cultural identity.

Hierarchical Organization of Identity

Individual, internal, subjective identities are seen as organized hier­ archically, with the more general, pervasive, encompassing, and in­ fluential identities on top and more situation-specific identities on the bottom (Burke & Tully 1977; McCall & Simmons, 1978). Hierar­ chically superordinate identities are more likely to be invoked in general and in more situations as well as more likely to be enacted in combination with other identities (Burke, 1980; Burke & Franzoi, 1988). Some may call these superordinate identities the "personal­ ity," and they come the closest to what we call self-concept. In fact, self-concept may be the superordinate identity. This hierarchy has a degree of permanence; its parts are interrelated, and it exists on vari­ ous levels of interpretation. Each of these aspects of hierarchy is dis­ cussed in turn. Theorists disagree as to the permanence of the hierarchy or the core. Some see the relative ordering of identities as more transient and situational (e.g., Onwumechili et al., in press), while others see it as more enduring (Baldwin, 1990; Davis, 1998; Stryker & Statham,

52 • C H A P T E R 2

1984). However, Turner (1968) noted that the self has the contradic­ tory properties of constant change and temporal consistency. Slugoski and Ginsburg (1989) called this "the paradox of personal identity—that at any moment we are the same as, yet different from, the persons we once were or ever will be" (p. 36). Jackson (1999a) de­ scribed this as diunitality, an asynchronous merging of the time-space continuum while accenting both change and stability. Additionally, Asante (1998) considered this to be a basic principle of the African concept of ma'at, defined as balance, harmony, justice, and a combi­ nation of opposites such as right and wrong. This paradox or duality is problematic for dimensional perspectives that see meaning as con­ structed of bipolar opposites. The emphasis is on aligning a person or event at one point along a continuum. Dialectical1 perspectives inte­ grate opposites (Baxter, 1988; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Baxter& Simon, 1993). An event is both bad and good; it does not have to exist at one point along a bad-good continuum. The key to the dialectical view is the tension between the polarities and the movement along the continuum in response to changing and evolving pressures. Utilizing the perspective derived from dialectical thought, we con­ ceptualize the identity hierarchy as both enduring and situational/ changing. Fitzgerald (1974), for example, distinguished between fixed (derived from group membership) and relative (situational) identity. One way to work through this apparent contradiction is to hypothesize that, depending on the maturity of the individual, the overall, central image of the self is relatively enduring; specific mani­ festations in specific identities less enduring; and enactments in so­ cial interaction the least stable of all. In addition, the ordering and structuring of identities to form the overall self-concept may also change, with the gestalt experienced as stable. Another way to view the dialectic is to understand the competing pressures of maintain­ ing self-consistency and conforming to social norms. For instance,

The concept of dialectic derives from critical theory and is often used to describe the ten­ sions between polarities in everyday life (Altman & Nakayama, 1991). For example, relation­ ships are seen as constructed on the dialectical tension between polarities, such as openness and closedness (Baxter, 1988; Rawlins, 1983). Here we use dialectic to describe not only social processes but theoretical processes as well. On the theoretical plane, we can understand the dialectic between two positions and then utilize that abstract dialectic to understand the social dialectics. In this manner, theories can be constituted and reconstituted in the clash between individual and social levels of analysis just as relationships are constituted and reconstituted through the dialectics of social processes, such as openness/closedness.

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 53

how did persons who saw themselves as "Negro" handle a shift in identity to "Black" during the Black Power Movement of the 1960s? Certain identities, then, tend to emerge more frequently across situations as hierarchically superordinate, but there are situational variations in these processes and how they are enacted in social situ­ ations. Thus, a hierarchically superordinate construct on the individ­ ual level may be subordinate when expressed or instantiated. Furthermore, the superordinate construct may be enacted in differ­ ent ways in different situations depending on which other identities are salient and manifested in the situation. For example, one's gen­ der identity may be enacted differently when linked with "employer" or with "friend," or when enacted in a situation calling for comfort­ ing (e.g., an employee's spouse dies) or discipline (e.g., an employee is consistently late for work). This principle has important implications for African American cultural identity. As indicated in chapter 1, the Afrocentric position stresses the commonalities among African people over time and across space (Asante, 1987; Jackson, 2000a). However, as we shall see, identities have changed during historical periods. For the indi­ vidual, the implications are also profound. Later we discuss code switching and the value of expressiveness, as well as other aspects of identity management. These can be seen as part of the enduring and changing nature of identity as African Americans retain a sense of self while adjusting to competing situational demands. In addi­ tion, we can see the cultural identity itself will be more or less sa­ lient for particular people and in particular situations. Thus, an African American may be troubled by behavior that stresses cultural identity in a situation in which this identity is not particularly sa­ lient. As we see in chapter 4, such treatment may be seen as an indi­ rect form of stereotyping. A second quality of the hierarchy is the interrelationship among its elements as well as between elements and the environment. Roles and identities are always viewed in relation to counter-identities and co-identities (Burke & Tully, 1977; Jackson, 1999a). Counter-identities are those enacted to complement an identity. Just as one's role can only exist in relation to the counter-roles played by oth­ ers in the social environment (e.g., teacher-student, pastor-member, buyer-seller), identities exist in relation to counter-identities within the hierarchy. Co-identities refer to the multiple identities enacted in any instantiation. For example, while discussing a film at a party, you

54 • C H A P T E R 2

may enact gender, occupational, and personality identities. Each of these may be seen as co-identities. Counter-identities can be of two types. First, there is the comple­ mentary identity enacted by others to allow smooth social interac­ tion (e.g., speaker-listener). Second, there are the identities not chosen. For example, choosing the identity buyer often precludes the role of seller. And, in some situations, there are many counter-roles/identities (e.g., ethnicity; Burke & Tully, 1977). In a group discussion, there may be coalition members, opposition, and group facilitators. The commercial marketplace may consist of buyer, seller, consumer advocate, and government regulator. Most behavior enacts multiple identities. It is rare for a single iden­ tity to overwhelm all others. It is more common for multiple, coidentities to be enacted. As Nakayama and Penaloza (1994) noted, identity is fluid with an instantiation expressing a number of posi­ tions. Like counter-identities, these co-identities can be complemen­ tary or impose competing demands. It is, in part, for this reason that we begin this chapter with a discussion of self and identity before fo­ cusing on cultural identity. African American cultural identity is but a part of any individual's overall identity. The organization of this chapter stresses this framing. However, in a racialized society such as the United States we often focus narrowly on racial identity. As we see later in the chapter, cultural identities are often salient. Both of these relational properties—identities in relation to counter-identities and in relation to other identities in the hierarchy— have cultural properties. This is a third quality of hierarchy. The ref­ erence points and relational juxtapositions are defined by cultural standards, thus allowing for social interaction based on shared meanings and consensus on role expectations (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977; Orbe, 1998). Orbe (1998) suggested that co-cultural identities, such as those related to race and class, always be studied relationally and never in isolation. The salient issues are the similari­ ties within a class of similarly situated people and the differences from other classes (Chideya, 1995, 2000; Graham, 2000; Moon & Rolison, 1998). This property of identity has important implications for social categorization as we see later in this chapter. Fourth, identities exist on different levels of interpretation. Like other social and cultural constructs, identity has both content and re­ lational aspects (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Watzlawicket al. pointed out that specific messages have a content (the topic and

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 55

manifest meaning) and imply something about the relationship be­ tween people. For example, saying "pick that up" means that you want something lifted up (content); at the same time, it implies power or control over the other person (relationship). Identities also have a content or meaning to people (both self-perceived and other as­ cribed) and imply a relationship. The content or meaning of the identity is largely invested in self-labeling and its associations. Thus, one may label an identity "teacher," and this label will have personal meaning. The relation­ ship aspect implies a connection between and among various self-identities and with other people and positions in social life. As a "teacher," I need "students." The identity "minority" means that the person is a member of a group that is numerically less than 50% (content), but it implies an inferior relationship that has lead many to question the usefulness of the term (Fairchild, 1985). This has led some to use the terms co-culture or co-population instead (Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Harris, 2000). Expressions of identity also have content (i.e., the messages that enact it) and relational (i.e., the implications about the relationships between people) levels of interpretation. For example, African Americanism can be expressed through African metaphors that con­ stitute part of the content of the enactment of the identity. But the enactment also implies a relationship to other members of the group and to members of other groups. This relational element may mani­ fest itself in code switching to reflect in-group-out-group distinc­ tions and power relationships. In addition to the components articulated previously, the self-concept hierarchy also includes an affective dimension. If in fact, we can suggest that one's sense of self is coconstructed in relation­ ships with others, then it is logical that others will influence the degree of attachment, comfort and closeness within relationships. Samp (2000) contended that affective dimensions of the self take the form of emotion regulation and protective and adaptive behaviors that secure the self from "threats to self-construct" (p. 333). Others would label this construct "self-esteem" and define it as a person's affective reac­ tion to self-attributes and roles (Oyserman & Harrison, 1998). This emotional component is one of the more frequently examined as­ pects of self (Cross, 1995; Singelis & Sharkey, 1995). Greenwald, Bellezza, and Banaji (1988) have shown "that self-esteem is a perva­ sive component of measured self-concept, even for measures that lack

56 • CHAPTER 2

manifest esteem-related content" (p. 34). Although self-esteem is not stressed in the work of identity conducted under the rubric of sym­ bolic interaction, one may apply the previous analysis to the affective dimension of self. Studies have repeatedly shown African American self-esteem to be equal to or greater than that of European Americans in apparent con­ tradiction to expectations based on status differentials in U.S. cul­ ture (Phelps, Taylor, & Gerard, 2001). Recent analyses have separated personal and racial self-esteem and personal self-efficacy (Cross & Strauss, 1998). Only personal self-efficacy seems vulnera­ ble to racial inequality, and this may explain differential achievement levels (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998). For instance, Aronson et al. (1998) argued that stereotypes of African Americans, over time, pose a violent threat to the self-esteem of African Americans and may lead to underachievement due to the psychological burden of trying to overcome the stereotype. From this discussion, we conclude that identities are parts of a hi­ erarchically arranged self-concept that is both enduring and chang­ ing and consists of identities and their counter- and co-identities, content and relationship dimensions, and affect. We continue our discussion by considering the types of identities that constitute the hierarchy.

Types of Identities

A number of systems have been proposed to delineate the types of identities. Many writers divide identity into social roles and individ­ ual attributes, although they provide different labels or terms for each (Giles & Robinson, 2001). All these approaches share in com­ mon the distinction that the self consists of identities associated with roles, groups, and categories (e.g., group memberships) on the one hand, and personal or individual characteristics (e.g., personality characteristics) on the other, or both. In the United States culture, the locus of identity has increasingly emphasized the individual rather than society, thereby rendering the development of a sense of self more problematic (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipson, 1985; Philipsen, 1987) and situationally emergent. Some writers limit identity to group memberships (e.g., Isaacs, 1975; Lian, 1982). Others argue that identity should not be vested in

SELF,

IDENTITY, CULTURAL

IDENTITY • 57

objective group membership. Ting-Toomey (1999) maintained that a priori predictions from cultural or racial memberships are an over­ simplification because the identity may not be salient to a particular situation or may have different meanings to various group members. Instead, as Lian (1982) and Collier and Thomas (1988) believed, identity is established and reestablished in interaction and, there­ fore, has an "emergent" quality. From this emergent perspective, identity is situationally problematic, not static and ascribed based on a priori group membership (Banks, 1987), and persons are continu­ ally negotiating their identity (Jackson, in press-b; Jackson, Shin, & Wilson, 2000). Thus, the language or discourse of a community, par­ ticularly that which references their identity, is an important compo­ nent of identity. Even emergent identity may be situated in group memberships. One's membership in an academic group may emerge as a salient identity when discussing occupations at a party or when interacting with other academics. How are we to know which group member­ ships are salient in any one interaction? This is often a dilemma dur­ ing everyday conversation as interactants attempt to orient toward each other. It has been suggested that this is dealt with by the net­ works approach that incorporates the notion that people choose among social groupings and constitute them through their actions (Fisher, 1998). Pennington's (2000) interpretive study of African American women quitting the workplace argues that social categories (e.g., gender, age, culture) are relevant to identity when they manifest themselves in the social networks within which people interact. Net­ works are membership groups with shifting compositions and meanings that are enacted in social life. Networks are created and enacted into being; groups exist a priori. Networks may enact exist­ ing groups, but the concept of network stresses the social bonds and lines of communication between and among people rather than the prior existence of the group. At issue are the actual social relation­ ships among people. With whom does an individual interact? Thus, an individual would be placed in the context of his or her personal network rather than the larger group interest. Within the African American community, this issue is salient in a number of areas. What sort of identity is communicated by member­ ship in Black community churches? A Pentecostal or an Episcopalian church? Whose children participate in the Jack and Jill Clubs (Hare,

58 • C H A P T E R 2

1991)? Who chooses to date only European American partners and why (Harris & Kalbfleisch, 2000)? Within the community, what is the importance of associations with lighter or darker skinned people (Russell, Hall, & Wilson, 1993)? Which individual and groups speak the language of the "hood" (i.e., neighborhood) and which do not (Smitherman, 2000)? These questions are emotionally charged and speak to central issues in the role of social networks in African Ameri­ can identity (K. Scott, 2000a). They also are reflected in artistic ex­ pressions such as Spike Lee's and Kasi Lemmon's movies and permeate the legal structure of society in terms of census counts and political allocation of governmental resources (Davis, 1996). The question of group membership and network involvement also highlights the distinction between identities that are internally defined (subjective, perceived, or private identity) and those that are externally-ascribed (objective, actual, or public identity) (Giles et al., 1977; Hoffman, 1985; Lian, 1982). Lian (1982) argued, "in an eth­ nically plural society where there are several competing universes, identity is highly problematic because individuals and groups have to adapt to a situation of competing universes" (p. 44). As an individ­ ual moves through and among various networks, identities are both subjectively self-selected and externally attributed. Again, it is the di­ alectical tension between internal and external definitions that gives vitality to the lived experience. We feel that self-concept consists of both individual and social elements such that both objective (im­ posed or ascribed from the outside) and subjective (self-perceived) group memberships are salient and the dialectical tension between the two is often more salient than either individually. Objective group membership, which is ascribed to an individual by others (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990), may directly influence the de­ velopment of identity through socialization and stereotyping (Jack­ son, 1999a). Objective memberships also may indirectly affect interaction through its influence on situated self-labeling (Martin, Krizek, Nakayama, & Bradford, 1999) and how the ascriber interacts with the person (Collier & Thomas, 1988). Certain objective mem­ berships are more overt because they are difficult to hide (e.g., lan­ guage, race, gender), while others are more covert (e.g., occupation, mental abilities) and therefore are more easily hidden or selectively revealed (Hecht & Faulkner, 2000; Hecht, Faulkner, Meyer, Niles, Golden, & Cutler, in press). For example, the fact that people racially categorize (i.e., ascribe racial identities) makes it difficult for African

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 59

American cultural identity not to be salient in intercultural interac­ tion. Jackson (1999b) explained that race is predicated on elements of preverbal communication he labeled corporeal zones, such as thickness of lips, hair texture, nose width, and skin color. All of these are preverbal cues that instinctively cue personal antecedents and perceptions about people who look like the person with whom you are interacting. However, African Americans may label this stereotyp­ ing when cultural identity is not germane to the situation (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). Thus, the clash between objective, exter­ nally imposed, or ascribed identities and subjective or internally se­ lected identities is an important one. Although we retain objective group memberships as part of the overall model of self and identity, we emphasize subjective group membership based on our belief in the symbolic dimension of cul­ ture and the social construction of identity. Thus, identities may be symbolic in nature and core symbols are the most central of these symbols. As discussed in chapter 1, core symbols are unifying and dominating, and orient people to their social world (Carbaugh, 1989; Collier, 1992; Katriel, 1987; Philipsen, 1987). Cultural groups differentiate themselves through symbolic emblems and these sym­ bols unite communities. This symbolic notion consists of selves that people would like to become, might become, or are afraid of becom­ ing (McPhail, 1996). The importance of verbal and nonverbal symbols can be seen in Cultural Nationalism movements (Asante & Abarry 1996; Karenga, 1993; Wilson, 1998). These movements frequently seek to change names, key labels, dress, celebrations, and other emblems and sym­ bols. However, it is important to keep in mind that although cultural identity may now be considered symbolic, historically it has been a racial ascription (Goldberg, 1990). Wilson (1998) argued that the cultural identity of third and fourth generation African Americans is voluntary and largely symbolic. He claims that the functions of such groups have disappeared along with culturally segmented neighborhoods, expanded Black self-net-worth, occupational stratification by culture and, as a result, membership is primarily a symbolic activity with expressive rather than instrumental functions. These symbols must be visible and clear, and easily expressed and felt. Examples of these symbols might include the Holocaust for members of the Jewish religion and the Di­ aspora for descendants of Africa and Palestine. It might also be an Af­

60 • CHAPTER 2

rican hairstyle such as braids or cornrows. These evoked symbols can be threatening to outsiders who are unaware of their cultural sig­ nificance. For example, the Associated Press (2000) reported that a 13-year-old African American male was suspended from St. Rose of Lima elementary school in Philadelphia for refusing to change his cornrows hairstyles to meet school regulations prohibiting "faddish" or "outlandish" adornments or styles. The article indicates that Mon­ signor Wilford Pashley, the pastor at St. Rose, stated that the issue is not about hairstyle or identity but about the parents' willingness to follow school policy. The boy agreed to take his cornrows out and went to school with a large afro. That also was considered a violation. The student's mother threatened to place her son in another school to defend her son's right to express his "African American heritage" (p. 5A). The student, has since been reinstated, but only after his par­ ents and community protested. Spellers (1998) talked vividly about how African Americans with coarse textured hair tend to undergo a period when they do not like how they look because it is not affirmed in the media. She reveals her personal experience growing up with "blonde ambition" (p. 71) and becoming a "Black Barbie" after hav­ ing her hair pressed before a special occasion (p. 73). She suggested that "nappy hair" is deemed unacceptable in mainstream U. S. soci­ ety, so this facet of African American identity becomes suppressed, unaffirmed, and devalued. She ended her self-narrative by discuss­ ing her self-pride as an adult and her subversion of those oppressive perceptions of her cultural self. She concludes by saying she is "happy to be nappy" (p. 73). This phenomenon, indicative of "symbolic identity" utilizes the concept of core symbols to refer to the key features. Thus, identities function symbolically to convey the meaning of the cultural group and to establish uniqueness. Identity does not require actually func­ tioning groups or networks for their maintenance because the alle­ giance is to the symbol and not to the actual collectivity. In an insightful analysis, Krizek and Stempien (1990) demon­ strated the geographic and cultural influences on symbolic identity maintenance. There, cultural identities can be maintained symboli­ cally because membership in those groups has a long and estab­ lished history. However, in areas such as the Southwestern United States where cultural groups are reconstituting themselves through second-wave migratory patterns, face-to-face interactions ("ethnic revivals") are being evidenced. Thus, it would seem that both subjec­

SELF,

IDENTITY, CULTURAL

IDENTITY • 61

tive-symbolic identity and actual group-network membership ap­ proaches are needed to encompass all aspects of identity. Identity and Social Interaction

Thus far we have attempted to clarify the essential nature of identity. We noted in chapter 1 that one of our primary assumptions is that in­ teraction is constituted and interpreted through identity. Thus, inter­ action is central to the notion of identity and vice versa. Identity is formed, maintained, and modified through social interaction. Iden­ tity then begins to influence interaction through shaping expectations and motivating behavior. Identity is also enacted in social interaction, and the conditions of those interactions influence the enactments. Thus, identity is both an individual and a social event. These processes are discussed in the section that follows. The self can be thought of as an organized system of meanings created through social interaction (Samp, 2000). Samp (2000) asserted, "The self is an introspective, yet reflexive cognitive structure that contains all of the information that defines an individual and informs behavior" (p. 330). People perform certain behavioral roles and are influenced by the reac­ tions of others to their role performance (Ganiere & Enright, 1989). Meanings are attributed by others and attributions internalized as, over time, a person's actions are assigned meanings through and in social in­ teraction (Mead, 1934). Gradually, some of these meanings are general­ ized across time and form the more core identities in the self. Significant symbols become attached to self, and the self-concept is experienced through these symbols (Mead, 1934). Identities also are formed through naming or locating the self in so­ cially recognizable categories (Carbaugh, 1996). We create an identity through applying these categorical labels to ourselves (e.g., woman, middle class, yuppie), and these identities are confirmed and vali­ dated (or disconfirmed and invalidated) through social interaction (Hecht & Baldwin, 1998). Thus, identity is formed and shaped through social interaction. Once formed, identity influences the flow of social behavior and continues to be influenced by social interaction. The influences on interaction may be seen in expectations and motivations, whereas the enactment of identity in interaction exemplifies the mutually causative process discussed in chapter 1.

62 • CHAPTER 2

Identities provide expectations about society. Hecht et al. (2001) contended that belief systems about the nature of society are a part of identity that influence relations between groups, and this is reified through linguistic and social behaviors. From these beliefs and experi­ ences in the culture, social actors form expectations about social roles, conversations, situations, and relationships. For example, gen­ der identity influences the ways that women and men are expected to behave in reference to each other (Jackson & Dangerfield, in press; Weedon, 1987), and certain variants of African-American identities im­ ply differential power relationships with European Americans (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991; Jackson, 2002). Finally, certain identities are linked to personality traits. Stereotypes of cultural terms or labels are based on rigid use of these links (Cote, 1996; Fairchild, 1985). As we have seen, identities provide expectations and motivation, thereby influencing interaction. On an even more intrinsic level, iden­ tity may be viewed as enacted in social behavior. Jackson and Garner (1998) described feelings, actions and situations as enactments of identity, pointing to rites of passage, holidays, rituals, consumer goods (especially food), and political forms. Social interaction influ­ ences the enactment of identities in a number of ways. People monitor feedback to assess the effectiveness of performances, modifying their presentation of self to fit the situation (Goflman, 1959). Through a regulative process, the self assesses and modulates interaction in rela­ tion to identity (Oyserman & Harrison, 1998). The relationship between identity and social interaction raises im­ portant theoretical questions about the "location" of identity. Is it a property of the individual or the interaction? This theoretical distinc­ tion loosely mirrors the "theories in use" regarding self of participants in various world cultures. Carbaugh (1996) and Oyserman and Harri­ son (1998) argued that views of self fall into two general camps: collectivist/holistic and individualistic notions. Holistic notions embed the self in the collectivity (social view of self) whereas individualistic notions view people as separate from society. Similarly, some social scientist have argued that interaction can best be studied at the indi­ vidual level (Hewes & Planalp, 1987; Triandis et al., 1984), whereas others argue for the relational or social level (Montgomery, 1984), and still others seek to integrate the two (Harre, 1989; Hecht, 1993). We believe that identity exists on each level (individual and interactional) and that the tension created between individual and social levels are part and parcel of that which constitutes the self. We

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 63

conceptualize the self as a characteristic of both the individual and social interaction, the dialectic between the two, and the interpenetration of one in the other. Let us start with a discussion of the individual and social interaction before moving to the more com­ plicated issues of dialectic and interpenetration. Within mainstream United States folklore, the self tends to be viewed as an individual entity (Carbaugh, 1987; Geertz, 1976). Carbaugh (1989) argued that for this culture "the symbolic self is considered something that the individual has" (italics in original; p. 62), and mainstream members of U.S. culture use a "container" met­ aphor to "create a sense of self as a separate, or at least separable, en­ tity" (p. 77). Finally, members of this culture see the self as existing within each person and accessible only to that person (Carbaugh, 1996). Thus, any discussion of self in U.S. culture should include the individual level of analysis as well as the social. This is particularly sa­ lient to African American identity. As we have seen, group members' personal and racial identities are not affected by racial discrimina­ tion, but their sense of personal efficacy is (Jackson & Dangerfield, 2002). Thus, the distinction between the level of identity (individual or collectivity) and the type of identity (esteem or efficacy) allows us to understand how many African Americans process cultural rela­ tions in the United States. We ascribe meaning to our self and use our identities to interpret and respond to the social world. At this level, identity is a property of the individual's interpretative or cognitive processing. Rosenberg (1986) defined self-concept as "the totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings with reference to self as an object" and argued that conceptualizing the self as a property of the individual is one of the major approaches to self-concept research. From the perspective of social cognition, self can be seen as a schema or overall perspec­ tive for viewing oneself, with identities as models or prototypes. These schema and prototypes are enacted in conversation through sequences of acts or scripts (Markus & Sentis, 1982). Conversely, identities are created through communication and have existence in the social world between and among people. As Hall (1997) noted, "Identities are the names we give to the positions and the ways we are positioned by narratives of the past" (p. 10). In­ deed, it has been argued that the very idea of an individual psychol­ ogy is a social and historical construction (Sampson, 1989). Kashima (1995) suggested that the view of the self as a unique, separated

64 • CHAPTER 2

whole is a uniquely Western one, not shared by many of the world's other cultures. Others have argued for the ontological primacy of re­ lationships rather than individual entities (Asante, 1990; Jackson, 2000b). Deconstructionists have challenged any view built on the primacy of the subject, claiming that the individual approach is de­ signed to serve the ideological purposes of capitalism (Sampson, 1989). Out of these recent perspectives emerges a new and changing conception of identity or "personhood" as relational (Shotter & Gergen, 1989). Conceptualizing identity from a social perspective provides a very different set of assumptions. Identities are formed, changed, and ne­ gotiated through social interaction (Jackson, 1999a; Scotton, 1983; Ting-Toomey, 1999), enacted or performed through communication and relationships (Deaux & Ethier, 1998) and language (MyersScotton, 1997), and constitutive of social pattern 0ackson, in press-a). We develop and modify our identities through a process of contrasting self with others and in-group with out-group (De Vos, 1982; Tajfel, 1974, 1982; Turner, 1987). From a social perspective, self is not only created through and in social interaction, but interaction is an enactment of self (Carbaugh, 1989, 1996; Collier, 1992; Philipsen, 1987). All social life enacts or presents an identity. The most extreme version of this position holds that identities exist only in communication. Pearce (1989) con­ tended that one primary means by which people understand the world is through social conversation clusters. It is these clusters that facilitate how identities are assigned in a rapidly changing multidi­ mensional social milieu. The result of such conversations is often a social structure created through enactments of identity (Shotter & Gergen, 1989; Weedon, 1987). Our position is between the extremes. We believe that identity is both an individual and a social construct, emerging in a dialectic be­ tween the two (Babad, Birnbaum, & Benne, 1983; Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Carbaugh, 1989; Cheek & Briggs, 1982; Lian, 1982; Turner, 1982). Banks (1987) argued that the locus of control over identity is switched from individual to social levels according to situational demands. In this manner, identity is a feature of partici­ pants that is created in interaction at both levels of meaning. Philipsen (1987) maintained that the tension between the compet­ ing communal and individual pulls is a dominant theme in human action, and we can describe cultures by locating them along this axis.

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 65

Thus, it is important to understand how individual African Ameri­ cans construct their identity, looking at their language for self-description, meanings, and affect. In addition, we must under­ stand how African American cultural identity is enacted in conversa­ tion. What is there about their communication rituals that characterizes identity? What does one's style of dress or choice of hairstyle say about his or her identity? How do language choices such as code switching and verbal games invoke an identity? We also believe that it is useful to analyze the dialectic between the individual and social levels. Some of the fundamental questions of psychology concern the relationship between an individual's self-concept and the enacted self within the social world. Social and human scientists have struggled with questions of the individual in society. Indeed, the dialectic between individualism and collectivism appears to be one of the core, cross-cultural dimensions of values (Hofstede, 1980) and nonverbal communication (Hecht, Anderson, & Ribeau, 1989). Harre (1989) noted that all concepts are embedded in an individual and a collective matrix. As a result, we find it useful to retain each perspective (individual and social identity) as well as the dialectic between each in order to more fully explicate the self. By retaining these three elements, a fourth emerges: the interpenetration of society and the individual. Interpenetration means that the individual and society cannot be de­ fined apart from each other. Rather, they are seen as constitutive of each other (Sampson, 1989). This concept is very similar to interdepen­ dence and Jackson and Dangerfield's (in press) notion of "community." The interpenetration of individual and social levels can be seen in concepts such as collective memory (Crewe & Spitzer, 1999; Hasian & Carlson, 2000; King, 2000; Middleton & Edwards, 1990) and cul­ tural space (Rota, 1990). Collective memory refers to the body of knowledge that is held intersubjectively by a group of people and forms the basis for their culture. Cultural space is used by Rota to de­ note the fact that cultural groups may not occupy a contiguous geo­ graphic space but instead maintain a collective construction or interpretation of the world. Hasian and Carlson (2000) explained that collective memories are "partial recollections of historical facts" (p. 60), which allow new commemorative discourses about commu­ nity to be devised to reflect conditions of the present. This is impor­ tant to note, because it suggests that we are constantly creating discourses and history while being influenced by the two.

66 • CHAPTER 2

We depart from a strict critical theory interpretation that stresses social and institutional control and focuses heavily on the dialectic through which social control is manifested. Our view allows for both the individual and the social perspectives, the dialectic between the levels and the interpenetration of the social and individual levels with each other, and emphasizes the individual's interpretation of each level as well as structural properties of interactional and soci­ etal systems.

The Process of Identity

The establishment and maintenance of identity are problematic due to the competing forces in society that push and pull individuals to­ ward a variety of identities. These forces are the process of identity and have become even more problematic in modern society (Gra­ ham, 2000; Jackson, 1999b, in press). Although culturally pluralistic societies are not new, pluralism and identity are more important now due to geographical and social mobility and the recording of so­ cial and cultural history that calls attention to cultural groups (De Vos, 1982). Through these processes an individual develops and maintains multiple and shifting identities (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Fine & Kleinman, 1983) that emerge out of social interaction and are en­ acted in conversation (e.g., Antaki, Condor, & Levine, 1996). The sa­ lience of various identities ebbs and rises contextually and relationally (Burke & Franzoi, 1988). Group-network memberships emerge and recede in importance depending on situational factors, such as group status, demographics (e.g., proportional group size), institutional and societal support (e.g., mass media messages), dis­ tinctiveness of identity within the group, group-boundary perme­ ability, and multiple group membership (Giles et al., 1977; Giles & Johnson, 1981, 1987; McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990). Individuals often switch or alter identities. This is particularly common among people who occupy two social worlds such as cul­ tural minorities. Sometimes called biculturalism, this DuBoisian double consciousness can be explained as the alteration between identities occurring as people move between and among social worlds (Jackson, 1999a). The shifting and problematic nature of

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 67

identity may result in fragmentation and produce ongoing stress (Deaux & Ethier, 1998). These pressures, in turn, can lead to changes in identity as well as dysfunction. When the management of identities interferes with successful social functioning, an individual may experience identity diffusion, when there is conflict between inconsistent values, defensive narrowness, when barriers are erected, and identity flexibility, when identities are minimalized and diffused (De Vos, 1980; Erikson, 1968). Others have criticized Erikson's position for its inappropriateness with nonmainstream groups. Attempting to correct for this problem, Cross and Strauss (1998) developed an alternative system for resolv­ ing identity crises, noting "everyday functions" of African American identity, such as: buffering, bonding, bridging, code switching, and accenting individualism. • Buffering "provides psychological protection against racist situa­ tions" (p. 270). • Bonding functions to enhance personal connectedness via attach­ ment to the cultural collective as a means of alleviating psychologi­ cal stress. • Bridging refers to the attempt to be empathetic toward a cultural other's worldview. • Code switching is an adaptive function that temporarily relieves others' negative perceptions of one's cultural competency by as­ similating one's own behaviors. • Accenting individualism is a function that strategically dismisses collectivistic tendencies or concern for the composite culture in order to appear as an autonomous human being who makes choices that are not at all related to one's culture. This last function is not atypical for African Americans, as Jackson and Dangerfield (in press) note. It is only logical that African Americans re­ tain a collectivistic African orientation while simultaneously experi­ encing an individualistic European or North American orientation. Identity change is not the only outcome of tensions and crises. Musgrove's (1977) study of marginalized groups shows that people can make fundamental changes in behavior while maintaining iden­ tity. The groups in this study (blind people, gays, Hare Krishnas) of­ ten understood and adapted to the dominant group's definition of social reality and made significant changes in behavior without alter­

68 • CHAPTER 2

ing values and basic identity. Lian (1982) extended this analysis to members of "minority" groups who have to operate within the limi­ tations of the dominant, mainstream culture. These people can maintain their own values and beliefs through interaction within group boundaries, and their marginalization may serve to strengthen group identity. Similar analyses have been drawn in the case of marginalized group students who attend dominant culture schools. Bernal, Saenz, and Knight (1991), for example, suggested that those students who identify closely with nondominant cultural groups can accommodate without assimilating the dominant cul­ ture. On the other hand, Orbe and Harris (2000) argued that mem­ bership in more than one minority group may lead to increasing isolation. Thus, the flowing and changing nature of identity is prob­ lematic but not necessarily dysfunctional. Sachdevand Bourhis (1990) identified both individual and group strategies for dealing with pressures on language identity (identifica­ tion with a language group) that involve identity management as well as identity change. Individual strategies include situational techniques, such as style or code switching, which occur when mem­ bers of a language group adapt their language use to the situation (Jenkins, 1982; Seymour & Seymour, 1979), and language mobility, which occurs when individuals switch to another language almost exclusively. Group strategies are aimed at changing perceptions of the entire language community and may be seen in recent events in Quebec, Canada (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990). Language mobility is di­ rectly related to identity formation. Deaux and Ethier (1998) posited that there are only two strategies used to cope with identity forma­ tion: identity negation and identity enhancement. Identity negation involves either eliminating an identity by exiting a role or denying identity by refusing to agree or claim membership in an ascribed identity category Identity enhancement occurs through reassertion, reshifting of identity though environmental conditions have changed, and/or intensifying group contact. Each of these identity negotiation strategies protects oneself against threats to identity. The study of assimilation processes may also be relevant. Alba (1985) noted that most assimilation theories assume a motivation on the part of low power groups to merge with high power groups. As­ similation of identity, therefore, is assumed to be unidirectional. As a result, assimilation depends on the willingness to become part of the majority and is linked to identity and identity salience. Alba further

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 69

suggested reconceptualizing assimilation as a boundary control pro­ cess emphasizing criteria for membership and methods of signaling membership. More akin to a cultural diversity or pluralism position, this process mirrors the construct of multiple, shifting identities and identity diffusion and does not assume a unidirectional movement toward assimilation into the mainstream culture. One way that shifting identities are managed is through a bound­ ary control process (Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; Hecht & Faulk­ ner, 2000; Petronio, 1991, 2000). The flow of information about the self is managed and the private self is regulated. Various conditions (e.g., predicted outcomes, prerequisite conditions, threats) influ­ ence boundary management and ownership of information (Petronio, 1991, 2000). These processes make it difficult to get a "fix" on identity. There are many different types of identities, hierarchi­ cally aligned along various dimensions, such as salience. These hier­ archies, although somewhat enduring, are also changing. Thus, it is important to understand how these identities are created, chosen, and altered. Social categorization plays a key role in these processes. Research shows that one of our most salient social identities is re­ lated to culture (Jackson, 2002; Ting-Toomey, 1999).

Cultural Identity

Culture is a complex experience, which is defined and negotiated while in interaction with others. The notion of cultural identity, as po­ litically and socially bound (Lian, 1982), has important implications for intercultural communication. There are multiple definitions of intercultural communication. Intercultural communication may be defined as contact between people who identify themselves as cultur­ ally distinct from one another (Collier & Thomas, 1988) or interaction between culturally different persons who enact different identities during conversation. Another way of looking at intercultural interac­ tion is to view it as a social encounter in which cultural identity is sa­ lient to one or both interactants, and these identities are perceived as different and/or enacted differently in conversation (Antaki et al., 1996). Similarly, intercultural competence may be defined in terms of the match between ascribed and avowed cultural identity (Collier & Thomas, 1988). When these two identity types are matched, there is said to be optimal conditions for competent communication to take

70 • C H A P T E R 2

place. This happens when the behavior of one interactant confirms the enacted cultural identity of the other interactant. Jackson (in press-b) introduced the concept of cultural contracts to explain this. Essentially, cultural contracts are the end products of identity negotia­ tions. The principal assumption is that individuals who seek to estab­ lish a relationship with one another will also seek to coordinate that relationship and all coordinations will be indicative of one's cultural frame (s) of reference. With that foundation, an individual will also ex­ plore what relational resources are available. If there is to be a true ne­ gotiation process, resources must be exchanged. The primary resource in identity negotiations is the cultural identity or worldview to which one attaches oneself as a way of experiencing the world. Rather than negotiate the entire worldview, Jackson suggested that portions of individuals' worldviews are exchanged. If all things were equal among the interactants, these portions would typically not be attached to the core self; however, in the United States, asymmetrical power distribution is of utmost concern. The primary identity re­ source (s) of a marginalized group is the defining stigma(s) or component(s) of identity that is dominated most. So, for African American males, the primary resource may be culture or race. It is this resource that is negotiated or adjusted within many intercultural encounters. Without adaptation, the individual is often deemed deviant or antiso­ cial and is ostracized. Regardless of the overall importance of culture, cultural identity increases and decreases in salience depending on the situation (Banks, 1987). Cultural identity is more salient when group identity is threatened (Cross, Clark, & Fhagen-Smith, 1998), comparisons are made (Deaux & Ethier, 1998), or the person is perceived as more typical of his or her social group (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). Peo­ ple use linguistic distinctiveness strategies that set them apart from outgoing members when they identify strongly with their own group and are insecure about other groups (Giles & Johnson, 1981). Thus, cultural identity is problematic, receding and emerging in impor­ tance as people seek to define and redefine group memberships. For members of nonmainstream groups, this process often involves con­ sideration of the mainstream culture. People not only adjust their own identities and identity perfor­ mances, but they adjust their perceptions of the identities of others. The "typicality" of a group representative influences membership in­ terpretation. People will "subtype" information that differs from the

SELF,

IDENTITY, CULTURAL

IDENTITY • 71

stereotype (Weber & Crocker, 1983), and typical group members are perceived as better predictors of other group members (Wilder, 1984). Atypical members are perceived with more individualized or person-centered cognitive structures, whereas typical people acti­ vate category-based structures (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). People will individuate or treat a person as out of the group category after at­ tempts to place the person within the category have failed (Fiske& Neuberg, 1990). When someone violates the stereotype, this may also disrupt the view of the group as homogeneous (Wilder, 1986). Other studies indicate that people treat more intimate relational partners idiosyncratically and not through cultural stereotypes (Honeycutt, Knapp, & Powers, 1983; Knapp, Ellis, & Williams, 1980; Miller & Steinberg, 1975; Won-Doornink, 1985). Language plays an important role in the shifting nature of cultural identity. Harre (1989) argued that self is linguistically constructed, and Rota (1990) maintained that language explains and binds the identity of self through its surface and deep structures. Giles and Johnson (1981) contended that language is vital to any group's iden­ tity and is particularly salient for cultural groups. The issue of language and identity has been dealt with in a number of ways. Giles and colleagues have derived ethnolinguistic identity theory as an explanation for the relationship between language and cultural identity. More generally, specific language and dialect have been related to identities (e.g., Smitherman, 1997, 2000). Finally, others have examined the semantic properties of labels (e.g., Asante, 1998; Hecht & Ribeau, 1991; Larkey, Hecht, & Martin, 1993; Wright, 1998; Wright & Hailu, 1988/89) under the assumption that the names we apply to people, places, and things influence how we be­ have toward them (Scott, 2000c) and reflect how people give mean­ ing to and organize their experiences (Carbaugh, 1996; Katriel & Philipsen, 1981). In the next section, we discuss ethnolinguistic identity theory. We address the dialect and semantic labeling ap­ proaches when we deal with African American identity.

Ethnolinguistic Identity

Drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Turner, 1987), Giles and colleagues developed ethnolinguistic identity theory to ex­ plain how members of language communities maintain their linguis­

72 • CHAPTER 2

tic distinctiveness and how and when language strategies are used (Giles et al., 1977). The basic tenets of the theory revolve around techniques and processes for maintaining distinctiveness that in­ clude a variety of speech and nonverbal markers (e.g., vocabulary, slang, posture, gesture, discourse styles, accent) that create "psycholinguistic distinctiveness" (Giles et al., 1991). One aspect of this distinctiveness is vitality, the ability of the group to survive as a unique and active collectivity in intergroup settings (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990). Vitality depends on three sets of factors: status, de­ mographics, and institutional support/control. Less vital groups are more likely to linguistically assimilate (Sachdev, Bourhis, Phang, & D'Eye, 1987). Although the original vitality factors were objectively assessed, more recent formulations take into account subjective elements (Bourhis, Giles, & Rosenthal, 1981; Giles & Johnson, 1981) and the factors of perceived group boundaries and multiple group member­ ships (Giles & Johnson, 1981, 1987). In addition, research suggests that subtractive identity, the difference between identification with one's own language group and the dominant group, is a better pre­ dictor than group identification alone (Ros, Cano, & Huici, 1987). Finally, recent research differentiates internal and external group factors (Allard & Landry, 1994). The theory and its extension, Communication Accommodation Theory, also predict convergence and divergence of communication styles (Gallois et al., 1988; Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987). Communicators use group status (in-group-out-group) to decide how and when to adjust to the other person. These adjustments or accommodations take the form of divergence and convergence in style. Early formulations of the theory predicted that communica­ tion is more likely to diverge when the encounter is defined in inter­ group terms and there is a strong desire for group identity or when there is the desire to disassociate self from other (Beebe & Giles, 1984; Bourhis, 1985). More recent work has identified a series of fac­ tors that constitute a model of accommodation, including the individual's focus (what they are attending to), listener attributes, dependence on the group and available options (i.e., out-group con­ tact), group solidarity (identification and satisfaction with group membership), power and dominance relationships, situational con­ straints (i.e., rules and norms), individual and group motivations, communicator's repertoires and abilities, and expectations (i.e.,

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 73

match between conversations and expectations) (Antaki et al., 1996; Gallois et al., 1988). The theory plays particular attention to the conditions under which ethnolinguistic identity is most salient. Giles and Johnson (1981) specified the boundary conditions as when people (a) iden­ tify with a group that emphasizes its language, (b) are insecure in their comparisons to other groups, (c) have high perceived group vi­ tality, (d) have closed and hard intergroup boundaries, (e) strongly identify with only one group, (f) perceive the other person as a mem­ ber of a different group, and (g) perceive their status as higher within their social group than within any other group. If these conditions are met, people will tend to support the distinctiveness of their lan­ guage group. Sachdev and Bourhis (1990) identified individual (e.g., change groups) and group (e.g., change evaluations) re­ sponses to negative identity when the comparison between one's own group and other groups is not favorable. Research has not, as yet, linked ethnolinguistic identity theory to African Americans. There are clear linguistic (Black English) and nonverbal markers of distinctiveness and research on code switch­ ing that speaks to how group members manage the boundary pro­ cess. These and other aspects of African American language use are presented in chapter 3. Furthermore, the analysis of the African American experience presented in chapter 1 forms a basis for a vital­ ity analysis. However, it would be informative to learn how and when African Americans identify with their group as a language commu­ nity, manage issues of distinctiveness, and process the subjective vi­ tality of their group.

African American Cultural Identity

In this section, we apply our analysis of self and identity to African Americans. As we have proceeded through the chapter, we have at­ tempted to foreshadow this move by using extensive examples from African American culture. Next, we provide a more detailed analysis of this identity group. Studies of African American cultural identity have advanced signif­ icantly during the 1990s, although still limited when compared to European and Asian cultural identity research. Research just began to explore the identities of African Americans and link them to social

74 • CHAPTER 2

interaction in the early 1990s. Much work up until 1995 had largely focused on the labels used to connote identities, marked language choices, and had been conducted from dimensional and semantic approaches. Others have discussed the role of language, focusing on Black English, a Creole language form common to many African Americans (Smitherman-Donaldson, 1988). Researchers have begun to explore how African American identity is enacted in conversation (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987, 1991; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts 1989). Finally, a new cadre of scholars have initiated some studies concern­ ing relational communication among mixed dyads (e.g., teacher-student; Hendrix, 1998a, 1998b), interracial couples (Har­ ris & Kalbfleisch, 2000), homosexuals (Nero, 2000) and African American male-female companionships (Duncan, 1998). In this section, we explore each of these areas of research. It should be apparent, however, that a great need exists for identity research within this population. Specifically, we would be informed by the ap­ plication of ethnolinguistic identity theory; descriptions of identity crisis and maintenance in U.S. society; an understanding of how mem­ bers of this group manage the dialectic forces of identity management both psychologically and through everyday talk; and a focus on the in­ terplay among gender, class, and cultural identity. In addition, African American identity has rarely been examined in terms of social roles or the objective and symbolic participation in social networks, and an understanding of these processes would be useful. African American cultural identities continue to survive within a context of oppression (Asante & Abarry 1996; Jackson, 2000a; Karenga, 1993) that has had a profound effect on emerging identities (Cross & Strauss, 1998). Our review of the social, political, and eco­ nomic milieu for African Americans in the United States during the 1980s and into the 2000s presented in chapter 1 indicates that the en­ vironment is still not conducive to a strong, positive identity. The me­ dia often reinforce these negative identities and certainly reflect them. Early studies reveal that African American females were typically por­ trayed as aggressive and domineering, males as submissive, docile, and nonproductive, and families as matriarchal and pathological (Al­ len, 2000a; Davis, 1998; Socha & Diggs, 1999). More recent research finds a bifurcation of images into the middle-class success story (e.g., Cosby/Huxtables) versus the drug and crime menace (e.g., police shows; Gray, 1989; Means-Coleman, 2000). Unfortunately, MeansColeman argued that these competing identities communicate the

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL

IDENTITY • 75

message that success is not at all relegated by privilege, which perpet­ uates the myth that the United States is a land of equal opportunity and those who do not make it did not try hard enough. The competing pressures and duality of African American identity has a historical basis. This is consistent with our assumption that cul­ ture is historically emergent. W.E.B. DuBois (1969) established the conceptual foundation for African American identity when suggest­ ing that he was both American—by citizenship, political, ideals, lan­ guage, and religion—and African, as a member of a "vast historic race of separate origin from the rest of America. In spite of their citizen­ ship, the destiny of African Americans was not absorption into a ser­ vile imitation of Anglo-Saxon culture, but a stalwart originality which shall unswervingly follow Negro ideals" (p. 23). The tension be­ tween these two realities has sparked the push for both integration and Pan Africanism. Integrationists have worked to create expressive forms, educational philosophies, and political strategies that accen­ tuate the American aspects of the equation. Pan Africanist and na­ tionalist groups strive to strengthen the ties to Africa and develop traditions and rituals that grow from the philosophical and cultural roots of the "motherland" (Karenga, 1993). As we argued in chapter 1, African American identity must be viewed in the context of the larger cultural system of the United States. Acknowledgment of African American duality is a prerequisite for the study of African Americans and African American-European American relations (NORC, 2000). For African Americans, the pur­ suit of one or the other extreme on the continuum of consciousness (separatism/assimilation) can be problematic. Jones (1980) dis­ cussed the social isolation and adjustment problems that can arise from the emersion of an African American into a White middle-class world, and the previous decimation of Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association, indicates the perils of separatism. Stanbeck and Pearce (1981) located identities in relation to mainstream European American culture using a model they claim is applicable to all status-defined group relationships. They describe four strategies for dealing with mainstream culture and define four corresponding identities: tomming (accepting lower status posi­ tion), passing (acting as a member of the higher status group), shucking (conforming to the stereotype while rejecting the mean­ ings) , and disassembling (conforming to the stereotype while re­ defining the meanings).

76 • C H A P T E R 2

Although we applaud these attempts to relate identity to main­ stream culture, and to link identity and enactment, it is unfortunate the analyses do not include more positive strategies for identity man­ agement and maintenance. Stanbeck and Pearce do not provide a means for functional and positive identity among African Americans that does not either separate entirely or assimilate. Others describe the developmental stages of African American identity responses to mainstream U.S. culture. One system focuses on the conversion during the 1960s and 1970s from the label Negro to that of Black and the attendant meanings associated with the terms (Cross & Strauss, 1998; Helms, 1990; Larkey et al., 1993). Five stages were conceptualized. In the first stage, thinking is domi­ nated by European American determinants, denying African Ameri­ can elements of identity. Stage two is the "Encounter" stage. Here, stage one thinking is disrupted by a new view of cultural group membership. Usually this disruption involves a specific event that ends in the decision to "become Black." Next comes "Immersion-Emersion" in which the individual tries to rid the self of stage one views and seek out a "Black self." This third stage has character­ istics of "conversion." In stage four the new views are "Internal­ ized," and in stage five they are reinforced and ritualized through participation in activities and networks. The final stage is therefore labeled "Internalization-Commitment." The implication is clearly that the end state is the desirable one toward which all African Americans should strive. Jenkins (1982) argued that this view is limited because not only is there no single developmental path and no single desirable end state, but all styles have both positive and negative consequences. Jenkins identified six styles and their consequences: Continued Apa­ thy (passive style), Seeking a Piece of the Action, Counter Culture (e.g., art, religion, drugs), Black Nationalism, Authoritarian Identi­ fication, and Cognitive Flexibility. Having heard the critiques of his nigrescence theory, Cross and associates (Cross, Clark, & Fhagen-Smith, 1998; Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 1996; Cross & Strauss, 1998) have responded by exploring how identify shifts may cause in­ dividuals to move back and forth within the constraints of the model, while flexibly adjusting outside of the model as well. In order to demonstrate how this occurs, Cross and his associates have revised the theory to reflect identity development throughout the lifespan. As discussed earlier, Cross & Strauss (1998) have noted the "every­

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 77

day functions" of African American identity: buffering, bonding, bridging, code switching, and accenting individualism. The Black social movement of the 1960s may be seen as a response to the impetus for these identity functions. This movement sought to discard images and labels that communicated inferiority (Jewell, 1985), transform the identities from passive to active (Asante, 1998; Karenga, 1993), and promote pride and activism (Gyant & Atwater, 1996). The attempt to move from subordinate status emphasized cul­ tural identity (Berry & Blassingame, 1982; Weber, 1981). These historical factors impact the age cohort that experiences them most directly during the formative years. The life experiences of these age cohorts probably are a more important force in explain­ ing identity and intercultural relationships than their stage in the life cycle (Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 1996; MacLaury & Hecht, 1994). Atti­ tudes and behaviors once established tend to remain stable across the life span (Barresi, 1990). Shifts in identity are more likely to come about through new age cohorts than in changes in existing cohorts. Recent opinion research reveals that young Americans have more liberal racial attitudes than their parents, but the parents do not be­ lieve they will institute change. As a matter of fact, the survey reveals that the parents of these generation Xers think the kids will either make the world worse than it already is or leave it as they found it (National Opinion Research Center, 2000). In Berkeley linguistics professor John McWhorter's (2000) book Losing the Race, he ex­ plains that African Americans have developed a "cult of victimology" that encases their possibilities. He argued that there are historical disadvantages that have prompted civil rights legislation, but that is a thing of the past and that present-day African American youth are us­ ing racism as a "crutch." Recent research (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998) indicates that seeing oneself as a victim of discrimination leads to "debilitating psychiatric and physical heath symptoms," including increased depression and reduced self-esteem and their side effects (p. 247). Branscombe and Ellemers (1998) recommended that marginalized group members maintain positive valuations and thoughts of self. By accenting the advantages of the group (s) to which one belongs, they contend the self is at least partly protected from the risks previously mentioned. Some would argue that ac­ knowledging one's identity is more obstructive than progressive. The central argument here is that acknowledgment of difference of­ ten tends to transcend simple recognition of diversity to preoccupa­

78 • CHAPTER 2

tion with it (McWhorter, 2000). We strongly disagree with this claim for the same reason we would not advise one to ignore symptoms of a disease that could cause an eventual fatal decline in health. Racism is a social disease that drastically affects physical (Klag, 1991), mental, and psychological (Branscombe & EUemers, 1998), as well as communica­ tive (Jackson, 1999c) health. It is important to note that these "melting pot" arguments do reflect a post-civil rights angst among those who lived through that era about what the subsequent generations will do with the legacy of 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s activism. Although we un­ derstand at least one source of this claim, we still wholeheartedly dis­ agree with the way in which it is framed. They also suggest the indisputable tragedy of marginalized group life in the United States should be dismissed and that "isms" like racism, sexism, and classism cause psychological, emotional, and physical stress. This stress stifles individual and collective progress and success. The assumption is that restrictions on the freedom of self-definition have always led new gen­ erations to shift how they see the world and what they will do with it, so identity is of paramount importance. The history of African American rhetoric has been characterized by a continuing search for identity (Davis, 1998; Jackson, 1999a). This rhetoric is often played out in linguistic devices (Hecht et al., 2001; Scott, 2000c) discussed in chapter 3. Black English, a Creole language created by slaves out of merging native African language with English, is characteristic of some African American talk (Gilyard, 1996; Hecht et al., 2001; Smitherman, 1994). However, as Jenkins (1982) noted, Afri­ can Americans are a pluralistic language community, with variations by geographic region and social class. As a result, it is difficult to apply a consistent language or ethnoliguistic identity analysis. Other studies examined the semantic associations for African American identity. At least two "waves" of The National Survey of Black America (Jackson & Gurin, 1989, 1996) measured the traits and qualities that characterize group membership. They asked a question regarding what it was about Black people that made the re­ spondents feel most proud. The majority of the responses fell into three categories: 28% concerned with socioeconomic and scholastic achievement; 24% concerned with group pride and mutual support shown by Blacks; 22% concerned about qualities of endurance, striv­ ing, and group progress. Cultural labels are one aspect of language that is related to iden­ tity maintenance and evolution. Due to social categorization and ste­

SELF,

IDENTITY,

CULTURAL IDENTITY • 79

reotyping processes within U.S. culture, cultural identity seems particularly focused on labels that provide a frame or anchor for naming identities and are thus useful for identity maintenance and management (Hecht & Faulkner, 2000; Larkey et al., 1993). Labels and their associated meanings provide a useful measure of cultural identity (Martin et al., 1999). The labels used for African American self-identification and the traits attributed to their group are reveal­ ing of social realities (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991;Larkey et al., 1993; Scott, 2000a; R. Wright, 1998) and changing semantic designations reflect shifts in consciousness and a sensitivity to the sociopolitical milieu (Williams, 1997). Labels or names fulfill two functions (Lampe, 1982). The manifest function is to denote similarities and differences, whereas the latent function is to provide expectations and guide behavior. Thus, the labels assigned to identities are reflec­ tive of a confluence of meanings and associations and, as such, cul­ tural labels become representative of cultural identities. Earlier in U.S. history, African American identity labels were de­ rived from Europeans (Fairchild, 1985). The label Negro is derived from the Latin word, niger, which translates to "Negro" in Spanish and Portuguese, and the English language translation for Negro is Black (Fairchild, 1985). Thus, the movement from Negro to Black as identity labels represents a movement from one European-based language to another. The shift in labels to "African American" in the early 1990s represented a break in this stream of adopting others' la­ bels to describe the self (Larkey et al., 1993). Similarly, the grouping of African Americans and other cultural groups of color into categories such as minority and non-White may reflect an inferior and negative image. The word minority is derived from "minor," which connotes an inferior role and importance (Gettone, 1981), and "non-White" asserts that "White" is the relevant frame of reference for understanding and defining other groups. This is why we have chosen to use the words marginalized group in­ stead of minority to describe nondominant groups. The European influence on African American identity may have been greater in the 18th century South. Lavender (1989) argued that northern free African Americans of that era established identities that were more separate from European American citizens and that this is reflected in name choices. Examining historical records, Lavender (1989) showed that northern free African Americans used fewer European-based names than southern free African Americans.

80 • CHAPTER 2

The movement in identity is reflected in the shift of labels from Negro to Black to African American (Jewell, 1985). An attempt was made to sub­ stitute the label Black for Negro in the belief that the newer term would reflect self-improvement and unity (Larkey et al., 1993). The predomi­ nant identities were expressed first in the labels Black, Black American, Afro-American, and Black Afro-American (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991), and most recently Black, Black American and African American (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). Overall, Black is still the most frequently self-selected label, although its use may be decreasing in favor of the label African American (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987, 1991; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Jewell, 1985; Lampe, 1982). Much of the earlier work on African American cultural identities examined these identities as ethnic. Additionally, African American identity research examined ways in which European Americans and African Americans perceived various labels along prescribed dimen­ sions. These studies grew out of interest in stereotyping and racism and, as a result, focused on perceptions of these labels without delv­ ing deeply into the gestalt of identity formation and maintenance. In general, these studies show that overall, the terms African American and Negro are viewed more positively than Black (Fairchild, 1985, Larkey et al., 1993), although this is truer of Euro­ pean Americans' and Mexican Americans' perceptions than it is for African Americans' perceptions (Hecht et al., 2001). In particular, Hecht et al. (2001) found that European Americans and Mexican Americans both rated Black as more threatening than Negro. Fairchild (1985) reported that European Americans associate the la­ bel Black with being loud, lazy, and rude, and associate African American with talkative. Similarly, White (1989) and White and Burke (1987) found that hardworking, liberal, uneducated, fol­ lower, loud, musical, sensitive, neat, nonmaterialistic, struggling, and powerless are more likely to be associated with the term Black than the term White, and that European American and African Ameri­ can students do not differ significantly in their perceptions of these labels. Furthermore, White (1989) reported that the profile African Americans provide for themselves is very similar to the profile pro­ vided for the general label Black, and there are fewer African Ameri­ cans who associate with "White terms" (7%) than there are European Americans who identify with "Black terms" (19%). White (1989) concluded that many of the terms associated with the label Black fit the typical stereotypes of this cultural group

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 81

(Larkey et al., 1993). For example, a recent survey found that African Americans were perceived to be less hard working, more violence-prone, less intelligent, and less patriotic than European Ameri­ cans (National Opinion Research Center, 1991, 2000). Haskins (1984) argued that these perceptions are consistent with the traditional associations for these labels. The argument is pre­ sented that Black has long been synonymous with evil, sin, and sor­ cery, whereas White is associated with goodness. Furthermore, Haskins pointed out that the color black is absolute, there being no real shades of it. Whereas the term Black traditionally evokes nega­ tive reactions, the term Negro has a more forgiving history. For exam­ ple, Negro is traced to the Greek "Piper Nigrum," which was used as a medicine. Thus, findings that the term Negro is perceived more posi­ tively than Black is, for Haskins, consistent with the etiology of the terms. Furthermore, the same study reveals that when compared with White, Black is associated with physical traits, rendering athleti­ cism a cultural stigma. In contrast, White is rated as more intellec­ tual. These findings are consistent with the dialect perceptions (Black English/Mainstream American English) reported in chapter 4. African American identity may coalesce along a limited number of dimensions. White (1989) argued that these dimensions are politi­ cal (African Americans are more liberal, struggling, powerless, and following than European Americans) and social-cultural (African Americans are more musical, neat, sensitive, hard working, loud, and less educated than European Americans). Similarly, Staiano (1980) argued that African American identity may be reduced to two major elements: power or action orientation and soul or emotion orientation. Hoffman (1985), however, reported that cultural iden­ tity is part of Social Identity for both African Americans and Euro­ pean Americans. Our own preliminary analysis of a measure that sought to separate cultural identity into political and social identities does not unequiv­ ocally support this view (Larkey & Hecht, 1991). From the descrip­ tions provided in the literature, we constructed a measure of the strength or degree of cultural identification tapping both political (e.g., importance of participation by one's cultural group in politics, education, media, and business) and social/personal (e.g., centrality of being a member of the group, importance for self-definition, im­ portance of group membership) dimensions. We administered this instrument to 129 African American and 95 European American stu­

82 • CHAPTER 2

dent and nonstudent respondents and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the program PACKAGE. Findings do not support the notion that there are two separate factors for identity for European Americans. Instead, identity ap­ peared to be unidimensional (overall identity) for this group. Among African Americans, however, clear support was found for the two-factor solution (political and social identity). These findings suggest that cultural identity operates very differently in the two groups. When interpreted more broadly, the implications are that cultural identity may, conceptually, mean very different things in mainstream and nonmainstream groups. As Marsiglia, Kulis, and Hecht (2001) demonstrated via their concept of ethnic glossing, la­ bels may oversimplify and reduce perceptions of in-group heteroge­ neity. If validated in future studies, these findings would suggest that cultural identity theory must develop an explanatory mechanism to account for the differing dimensionality within each group. Regardless of whether identity breaks down into political and so­ cial components, one would expect that African Americans would experience problems developing and maintaining an identity given the cultural pressures and interpretations of the labels summarized previously. This is one of the assumptions behind increased atten­ tion to counseling/psychotherapy issues specific to African Ameri­ cans (e.g., Jenkins, 1990). However, research shows that African Americans have stronger and more positive racial, cultural, and na­ tional identities than European Americans (Hoffman, 1985; Larkey& Hecht, 1991; Oyserman & Harrison, 1998). In fact, White and Burke (1987) reported a negative relationship between self-esteem and commitment to cultural identity among European Americans as compared to a positive relationship among these variables among Af­ rican American college students. Similarly, Larkey and Hecht (1991) found a negative correlation between the degree of European Ameri­ can identity and the intimacy of their intercultural relationships. Thus, stronger identity seems to be an inhibiting factor for European American intercultural relationships but not for African Americans. White and Burke concluded that African Americans do not inter­ nalize the negative images presented of them. However, research also shows that European Americans have a more integrated per­ sonal identity structure than African Americans (Hoffman, 1985), and higher socioeconomic status is associated with self-perceptions that include more "White traits" than "Black traits" (White & Burke, 1987). Although racial inequality may not directly influence per­

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 83

sonal or racial esteem, it does impact feelings of personal efficacy or the belief that one can accomplish goals and be successful (Hughes & Demo, 1989). Thus, there is a basis to conclude that for many indi­ vidual African Americans, identity is indeed a problematic issue. Our own work in this area shares an emphasis on cultural labels as representative of identity. Identity types seem to coalesce around group labels or names. This work has identified the prevalence of the labels Black, Black American, and African American (as evolved from Afro-American) as the most frequent labels and has examined related elements of identity salience. However, the primary focus of our studies has been the meanings associated with these labels as manifested in verbal descriptions instead of ratings, and the enact­ ment of cultural identity in social interaction. We also believe that no single identity describes the variation within the composite African American community (Banks, 1981). Instead, there exist many complicated and changing identities. Al­ though one label or identity may be used by the majority of the peo­ ple (e.g., Black) or used in more situations, other labels provide a reflection of the diversity within the group and across situations (Da­ vis, 1996; M. Wright, 1998). Additional definitions or meanings asso­ ciated with any one label also may vary. Unfortunately, not enough research has been conducted to examine how identity is adjusted to situational demands nor how individuals change identity situationally and across the life span in response to the enduring/ changing dialectic presented earlier. With these issues and the view of identity articulated in this chap­ ter in mind, we have studied the identities that are used by African Americans, what these identities mean to members of the commu­ nity, and how these identities are enacted. We have consistently found three labels provided by African Americans to name their cul­ tural identity. In our data collected in the early 1980s among college students in California (N = 43) and Arizona (N = 26)2 (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991), we initially found four labels: Black, Black American, Afro-American, and Black Afro-American. Studies (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Jaynes & Williams, 1989; Larkey et al., 1991)3 reflected a clear 2

Although this sample was made up of students, they were older than typical college partic­ ipants, averaging 28.5 years of age in California and 27.4 in Arizona, with an average income of $23,526 and $35,909 for these states respectively. 3 In these studies, both student and nonstudent samples were utilized ranging from a low of 61 respondents to a high of 204, and drawn from California, Arizona, and New York. The av­ erage age ranged from 25 to 31.3 years old, with average incomes in low to upper $20,000s.

84 • CHAPTER 2

preference for Black and African American with fewer respondents selecting labels such as Black American. Since our own work is based on small, nonrandom samples in a limited geographic region, conclusions about these trends must be tempered. Labels such asNegro and Colored appear infrequently in all of these studies, and it would be informative to find out the character­ istics of those retaining these labels. Jackson (1999a) conducted an in­ terpretive study of identity-shifting among African Americans in New Orleans and Washington, D.C. His findings revealed that the partici­ pants considered African American, Black and Afrikan the most sig­ nificant and appropriate labels for characterizing their selfdefinitions. They reasoned that African American was the least desir­ able, yet most accurate label because it captured multiple ancestries. Black was the most desirable label because it represented a recogni­ tion of Blacks throughout the diaspora, including African, Caribbean, Brazilian, and Egyptian natives who are Black. Afrikan spelled with a "k" was the politicized term of preference among cultural activists who wanted to signify that they understood and wanted to acknowl­ edge their rich African ancestry. The "k" is used to suggest a move away from a White-dominated colonialistic state where even the language was altered to reflect consonants that aren't even in some African lan­ guages and dialects (Madhubuti, 1991). In several studies, we have asked respondents, "Why do you use this label?" (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991) and "What does this term mean to you?" (Larkey et al., 1993). For purposes of analysis, we combine the Black Afro-American and Afro-American groups, because they are the smallest groups and their responses are conceptually similar, and use the more current, African American label. In other studies, those choosing the label Black justify their selec­ tion by saying that it is the right label, generally accepted, reflective of their skin color, and the label they were taught. These answers re­ flect use based on social acceptability and consensus, as well as an as­ pect of external ascription. Their answers also reflect a mild patriotism and an almost unconscious acceptance of the status quo. Our most recent study (Larkey et al., 1993) indicates that this label is described as a racial identity, although there also appears to be a growing emphasis on cultural pride, ancestry, and heritage among those selecting Black to label their cultural identification. Although these people felt the label communicated race to other African Amer­ icans, they also believe it communicates pride, rights, and kinship. In

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 85

fact, some feel that the label sends mixed or varied messages to other members of the cultural community. Users of the term believe that Black communicates a wide variety of meanings to European Ameri­ cans. Some feel that European Americans react to it in a racist fash­ ion, others feel it is a racial identifier, while others take a different view, saying it reflects equality or sameness and is acceptable. Thus, the label Black is taken as a racial identifier whose choice is predi­ cated on skin color and social acceptability and whose use communi­ cates race, pride, rights, and equality. Respondents selecting Black American explain that the label means being both Black and American. Their answers express both patriotism and cultural pride and reflect a place of origin and heritage. Statements such as "my people built this country" and "we were here from the beginning" exemplify this. They also express the need to as­ similate and "make it" in America. Finally, the group is similar to those using Black alone in their belief that the label is socially acceptable. Their answers, however, reflect a developing sense of cultural con­ sciousness not found among those using Black as a label and a recog­ nition of cultural differences in "ways of thinking and behaving" that exemplifies their awareness of the duality of their existence. Cultural heritage is the key for those using the labelAfrican Amer­ ican. This is reflected in statements such as "our roots are not in America." In addition, this group seems sensitive to the need to func­ tion in mainstream culture as reflected in the perceived "necessity to succeed in the system," while expressing an ambivalence toward what they describe as "dominant group values." They are aware of their cultural past and pragmatic about their present situation. This is in contrast to Black Americans who do not seem to have resolved the dialectic between these competing pressures. In a more recent study (Larkey Hecht, & Martin, 1991), users of this label stressed a blended heritage from both Africa and the United States, with an awareness of the label as a cultural rather than racial identifier. In ad­ dition, they felt that the label communicated this heritage to other Af­ rican Americans along with a sense of cultural pride and kinship. Users of this label feel that European Americans do not understand its use or react in a racist fashion. This research has produced a pattern in which Black respondents are the most conservative and accepting of the status quo whereas Af­ rican Americans are the least conservative. Furthermore, Black Ameri­ cans, as indicated by the name, seem caught between the two

86 • CHAPTER 2

extremes. Future research should delve more deeply into the mean­ ings and explore how members of one identity group (e.g., Blacks) perceive the other labels, how they believe European Americans per­ ceive these labels, and when these identities change. Next, we developed 3 bipolar, 7-step scalar items to measure the degree or extent of identification (totally-not at all) and provided two comparisons to mainstream, European American culture (superior-inferior, totally different-totally similar). All groups exhib­ ited relatively high levels of identification (means of 5.76-6.08 with 7 being the highest score), with no significant group differences. Scores for the amount of difference were relatively neutral (4.57-4.71) and did not differ across the groups. Finally, results for superiority approached statistical significance (p < .09) and indi­ cated that the African American group had the strongest feelings of superiority (mean = 5.69), followed by the Black group (5.19) and the Black Americans (4.50). Correlations were also computed between the scales and revealed that the stronger the identification with the cultural group, the more likely were members to see their group as superior to mainstream culture. Small relationships also existed between similarity and level of identification and between similarity and superiority. In a follow-up to this study, Larkey et al. (1993) compared the de­ gree of political and social-personal identity of those using the labels Black and African American (there were too few using Black Ameri­ can for comparison purposes). Although there were no significant differences for social-personal identity, those using African Ameri­ can reported higher levels of political identity. When demographic indicators were examined, additional trends emerged (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991). There was a slight tendency for males to use Black more than other labels. African American tends to be used more frequently by older people (within a range of 18 to 40), and Black American is reported more frequently among those with lower family incomes. Finally, we are interested in how these identities are enacted in con­ versations and conducted three studies to address this question. In Hecht and Ribeau (1991), we asked respondents "What is there about your communication that reflects each label?" (p. 505). In Hecht and Ribeau (1987) and Hecht, Ribeau, and Alberts (1989), we asked re­ spondents to provide us with the label they use to describe their cul­

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 87

tural identity and then describe either a satisfying or dissatisfying conversation they had engaged in during the past week with a White person. Next, we linked the identity to the enactment. We summarize the results of these three studies later on. We believe, however, that future research is needed to observe ongoing conversations and link linguistic devices (conversational analysis), nonverbal and verbal mes­ sage types (interaction analysis), and communication strategies (dis­ course analysis) with identity types. Blacks characterize their communication by the use of slang, ver­ bal aggressiveness, and a willingness to talk. This group is moder­ ately concerned about negative stereotyping and understanding as issues in their communication with European Americans, place great emphasis on other orientation, and are the least likely to use asser­ tiveness to overcome problems. People who label themselves Black Americans describe their communication characteristics as "speaking an acceptable code," "code switching," and recognizing "dialect differences." This group is also the most likely to feel negatively stereotyped and to feel that a lack of understanding inhibits intercultural communication. Consis­ tent with their dual cultural affiliation and their recognition of both cultural uniqueness and assimilation, they are the only group to re­ port with any frequency trying to improve conversations with both other orientation and assertiveness. Finally, African Americans believe that their communication is marked by nonverbal factors, such as unique touch and space norms and awareness of dialect differences. Members of this identity group are least likely to feel stereotyped and only moderately likely to see understanding as an issue in their relationship with European Amer­ icans. They are highly likely to suggest assertiveness as a strategy for dealing with intercultural communication problems but the least likely to try other orientation when such problems occur. From these studies, a picture of African American cultural identi­ ties is beginning to emerge. These identities represent gradients of differences along certain dimensions (e.g., concern with social ac­ ceptance), while reflecting differences of type in other domains (e.g., whether identity is linked to skin coloring). Furthermore, the labels are meaningful to in-group and out-group members, and pref­ erences exist for certain labels over others. Finally, evidence has been presented that these identities are differentially enacted.

88 • CHAPTER 2

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we sought to ground cultural identity in a more gen­ eral discussion of self and identity and then explore the cultural identities of African Americans. One of our original research foci was on the labels people use to describe their own cultural identity. These studies examined the meanings of these labels and their ex­ pressions through verbal and nonverbal communication. An illustra­ tion of this point is a self-identified African American who assumes an African name and wears a kofi and dashiki. Here, cultural identity is captured in a label and enacted nonverbally through attire. Certain areas remain for exploration. First, although these and other studies establish the meanings the labels have for people who use them and to European Americans, we do not know what these la­ bels communicate to African Americans who do not use them. How is the label Black interpreted by someone who uses the label African American? In addition, we do not know what African Americans think these labels communicate to European Americans. Both of these will tell us more about why people choose their labels and pro­ vide information about intersubjective meanings. Second, we do not know if there is a hierarchically superordinate label that can subsume most members of the larger group. There are indications, for example, that Spanish-origin people use the terms Hispanic or Latino/a as cover terms to communicate with out-group members (Padilla, Ruiz, & Alvarez, 1983). Is there a similar term for African Americans? Will most members accept the label Black, the most frequently used label in most surveys, for their cultural identi­ fier, even if they prefer either Black American or African American personally? If so, should we consider Black the label for identity of the community? If a hierarchically superordinate identity exists, does this explain why there are fewer than expected differences in the communication issues associated with various labels in intercultural communication? Perhaps in intergroup situations the superordinate identity, Black, is more salient whereas the more spe­ cific label (e.g., African American, Black American, Black) is more important in in-group situations and intergroup situations with groups other than European Americans. Context might well elicit the appropriate aspects of cultural identity as defined by cultural ex­ pectations and expressed through communication.

SELF, IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY • 89

The relationship between cultural identity and other identities must also be explored. In this chapter, we suggested the importance of gender and class. Age may also combine with culture (Daniel & Effinger, 1996). Coupland, Coupland, and Giles (1991) pointed out that discourse reflects age; identity, facework, and "troubles-telling" are primary ways in which older persons negotiate their identity. Ed­ wards (1992) found gender differences in linguistic style among Afri­ can Americans in a Detroit, Michigan community who were over 40 years of age. It may be that the older the person the higher the ethnolinguistic vitality as well. Thus, future research should examine how other aspects of identity interact with cultural identity. Clearly greater progress has been made in conceptual areas and in comparative work. Less is known about the interpretations of these identities and their enactments in social interaction, and no single theory of identity integrates the diverse elements discussed in this chapter. In some ways, the chapter poses a challenge to expand the scope of research in this area. The promise is recognition of the differ­ ences within this cultural community and a greater understanding of certain trends or commonalities in how members of the group inter­ pret themselves and their communication. In chapter 5, we present the preliminary workings of a new theory of identity derived from the conclusions regarding self and identity presented in this chapter. We have attempted to describe African American identities as we know them. This quote from W.E.B.DuBois (1969) poignantly cap­ tures the character of African-American identify: One ever feels his twoness—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body.... The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife—this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self.... He would not Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism; for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an Ameri­ can, without being cursed and spit upon. (p. 15)

CHAPTER 3

Communication

Competence

I

n chapter 1, we introduced the idea that culture is enacted in conversation by a community that has knowledge of the behav­ ioral code. Members of the community are said to act compe­ tently if they behave in an appropriate and effective fashion. In this chapter, we explore African American communication competence and cultural identity negotiation in both intra- and intercultural set­ tings. First, definitions and approaches to general communication competence are presented and adapted to a cultural perspective. Then we explore the basis for an African American model of compe­ tence and examine how this code operates in both intra- and intercultural contexts. Finally, we discuss why the research on com­ munication competence is most apropos for communities outside of the United States and how recent research has introduced a more ef­ fective paradigm for explaining intercultural communication in the United States. The paradigm is cultural contracts theory, which con­ siders Ting-Toomey's extant identity negotiation paradigm to be the metatheory that guides the new approach. This approach is dis­ 90

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 91

cussed in chapter 6. Power as an interceding variable in human inter­ action is a key development in the cultural-contracts paradigm. This component seems to have been overlooked in much of the commu­ nication competence research to date. We have two goals in this chapter: to explain the code(s) or system(s) of symbols, meanings, and norms by which members of the diverse composite African American community tend to evaluate and enact competent conver­ sation; and to elaborate on how social categorizations and social constructions of race and culture inhibit and/or enhance interaction. DEFINING COMPETENCE

Competence is a particularly salient topic in today's world. Divorce rates, labor disputes, corporate downsizing, racial profiling, and do­ mestic violence all speak, at least in part, to the breakdown of effec­ tive and jointly negotiated communication systems. In our increasingly intercultural world, we find additional challenges. As we stated in chapter 1, communication in general is complicated and intercultural communication is particularly so. Most approaches to competence can be labeled Eurocentric in their focus on European American communication patterns (Hecht, Ander­ son, & Ribeau, 1989). Although competence is simple to define, the liter­ ature concerning competence moves in at least two directions. Chen and Starosta (1998) explained, "whereas some scholars conceive of commu­ nication competence as a function of perceived effectiveness, others look at communication competence from the viewpoint of appropriateness" (p. 241). Theories of communication competence (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984; Wiemann, 1977) and, even more specifi­ cally, theories of intercultural communication effectiveness have been derived from a variety of approaches (for a review, see Martin, 19941). Many researchers began to incorporate perspectives of participants from groups other than mainstream U.S. culture in the mid to late 1980s (e.g., Collier, 1989; Hecht, Anderson, & Ribeau, 19892; Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Ting-Toomey 1988). Scholars (Ting-Toomey, 1999) continue to examine 1

A number of authors have dealt with this topic, including Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wise­ man, 1978; Imahori and Lanigan, 1989; Kealey, 1989; Martin and Hammer, 1989; Olebe and Koester, 1989; Ruben, 1989; Spitzberg, 1989; Wiseman, Hammer, and Nishida, 1989. 22For other examples, see Abe and Wiseman (1983), Collier (1988), Gudykunst and Ham­ mer (1988), and Hecht and Ribeau (1984, 1987).

92 • CHAPTER 3

face-threatening acts as an identity negotiation concern among non-U.S. cultural groups. So, although research using the words communication competence has slowed considerably, communication competence re­ search still remains imbedded in the analyses of appropriateness and ef­ fectiveness in intercultural interactions. Eurocentric work informs our research but does not guide it. Rather, we believe in an emically derived approach (Headland, Pike, & Harris, 1990; Martin & Butler, 2001) in which the specific culture is studied first in order to understand its construction and then, only after this culture-specific knowledge has emerged, are comparisons made across cultures in order to derive culture-general knowledge. Headland, Pike, and Harris (1990) sug­ gested that etic investigations are conducted by outsiders attempting to examine an insider's perspective, using an external lens as a means of evaluating and assessing what is going on in the ingroup. By contrast, emic investigations are usually conducted by insiders or by researchers who are sensitive and objective to insider's concerns. Hence, the study is about insiders' perspectives of reality as they understand it. In this case, the researcher is careful to discern all information using a critical ingroup lens. We study African American culture from an emic perspective, and in some cases we then compare those findings to other groups (e.g., Eu­ ropean Americans, Mexican Americans) to test for generalizability and culture specificity. In other cases, we use qualitative methods to gain insight into a rich, lived set of African American experiences. In gen­ eral, our work examines how African Americans perceive themselves and their communication, and then compares these perceptions to those of other cultures; this chapter tends to reflect this orientation. Current frameworks for communication competence point out the criteria forjudging competence—effectiveness and appropriateness—and the requirements for achieving competence—skills, mo­ tivation and knowledge (Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993; Spitzberg, 1993, 2000). As we describe these more general models, it becomes obvi­ ous that the criteria and requirements are culturally based.

Effectiveness and Appropriateness

Competent communication must be appropriate and effective (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). The appropriateness criterion means

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 93

that the competent communicator is capable of adjusting to the en­ vironment and requires knowledge of what is going on and bow to deal with it (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). This "adjustment" may consist of a range of behaviors including changing the environ­ ment, exiting from the interaction, or applying communicative strategies to deal with problematic issues (Babrow, 1991, 1995). But these behaviors will be selected based on culturally informed criteria or norms for appropriateness. Spitzberg (2000) explained that extant communication competence research, including his own (Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993), has produced lengthy lists of traits and skills that characterize competence; however, he argued that one need only offer a general framework for competent behaviors across relationships, which when enacted nicely integrates the ideas of previous models. Spitzberg (2000) provided that integrative model for intercultural communication competence and identifies three levels of analysis, which he labels "systems" (p. 376): individual, episodic, and rela­ tional. The individual system is that which accounts for personal at­ tributes and skills inherent in the individual person. These attributes and skills are used to achieve competent interactions. The episodic system is that which assists with effective and appropriate interac­ tions within a communicative situation or relational moment. The relational system functions to sustain competent interactions throughout an entire relationship. Spitzberg was careful to suggest that this model attempts to explain dyadic interaction only. He also added the important dimensions of expectancy violation and com­ pliance. As a matter of fact, he proposes that optimal conditions for competence are supplied when the skills, knowledge, and motiva­ tion to succeed are aligned with meeting the other's expectations about appropriateness and effectiveness. This is perhaps the closest rendering to date, which hints at the possibility of relational asym­ metry. There are 10 propositions in his model, one of which states, "Asidentity and role diversity increases, communicator knowledge increases" (p. 379). Because the theory posits that increased com­ municative knowledge leads to increased competence, Spitzberg predicted that flexibility in self-image, self-definition, and other-understanding leads to greater competence. We parse this out to suggest that an individual who is willing to negotiate portions of his or her identity is the most likely candidate for intercultural com­ munication competency. Although there is some suggestion of rela­

94 • CHAPTER 3

tional asymmetry here, there is still no direct discussion of which party tends to negotiate cultural identity most and why. As Spitzberg suggested, knowledge of culture is necessary for any consideration of appropriateness and effectiveness. Culture com­ prises a significant component of the environment, setting stan­ dards and norms, as well as guiding interpretations and evaluations. Symbols, meanings, and norms emerge out of cultural traditions, and cultures are constituted in codes, conversations, and communi­ ties. These communities use codes to determine the appropriate use of symbols (Hecht et al., 2001). Such norms for appropriateness guide conversations and, when used effectively, lead to positive out­ comes as defined by the community. Not only are effectiveness and appropriateness defined in terms of cultural communities, but the very skills, motivations, and bases for knowledge that allow for the execution of communication are based on cultural learning (Hecht, 1993). What people consider to be the reasons for communicating effectively and what they consider to be the norms and behaviors leading to competence are all profoundly affected by the culture they share. Our analysis of the competence literature suggests to us that re­ search could be most productive if it focused on communication norms, problematic events, and conversational improvement strate­ gies. Norms reveal the "ought" aspect of the moral dimension and tell us what communicators have come to expect in interaction. Problematic events or communication issues tell us about the key events that must be overcome to constitute an agenda for effective communication. These issues are the criteria interactants use to eval­ uate success or failure, and if we identify the most salient problems or issues, we can better understand what effective communicators do to achieve positive outcomes. Finally, we must learn what people do to deal with conversations when they are less than optimal. How can conversations be improved? As a problematic event, communi­ cation requires adjustment and change during the conversational flow. Without a repertoire of improvement strategies, communica­ tion will stall when the first obstacle or nonscripted message is en­ countered (Lustig & Koester, 1996). We decided to examine the norms, issues, and improvement de­ vices at the level of conversational choices or strategies. Much of the work on intercultural communication and failure events has been conducted at the "microlevel" of analysis. These studies focus on

COMMUNICATION

COMPETENCE • 95

specific speech acts. Although these studies are useful, it is impor­ tant to complement this level of analysis with more macrolevel stud­ ies (Scott, 2000c). It has been suggested that communicators often make predictions about the direction and outcomes of their interac­ tions and design strategies to actualize their preferences (Miller & Steinberg, 1975). Although it seems clear that much communication occurs "mindlessly" or outside of awareness (Kitayama & Burnstein, 1988; Langer, 1978; Ting-Toomey, 1999), when communicators are faced with atypical events outside of their scripted sequencing they become more aware and strategic (Douglas, 1983). Because difficult interactions should make being strategic (strategicness) more sa­ lient, it is important to examine norms and issues in effective com­ munication and communication improvement strategies (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). See Table 3.1 for more details about African Ameri­ can communication improvement strategies. Knowledge, Motivation, and Skills

Effective communication within a cultural community requires that interactants have the requisite communication skills, be motivated, TABLE 3.1 African American Communication Improvement Strategies Improvement Strategy

Description

Assert Point of View

More strongly argue your position and convince the other person.

Positive Self-Presentation

Impress the other person and/or contradict the stereotype.

Be Open and Friendly

Conversational partner should consider one's ideas or opinions rather than dismissing them without sufficient deliberation.

Avoidance

Avoid certain topics of conversation or simply avoid interaction with specific people.

Interaction Management

Regulate amount of talk, turn taking, etc.

Other Orientation

Involve the other person, find common ground, and create identification.

Inform/Educate

Clarify or give more information.

Express Genuineness

Express feelings and be honest.

Confront

Direct or indirect confrontation.

Internal Management

Control one's thoughts or feelings.

Treat as Individual/Equal

Leave race out of conversation.

Language Management

Avoid slang and articulate clearly.

Sources: Hecht and Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, and Alberts, 1989.

96 • CHAPTER 3

to communicate, and have knowledge of self, other, situation, and topic (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Culture manifests itself in each of these areas and influences the ability of interactants to adjust to and accommodate one another (Gallois et al., 1988; Giles et al., 1991; Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987; Smith & Moore, 2000). This ability to adjust and accommodate be­ comes even more salient in intercultural contexts. Certainly, the in­ tricacies of how communication competence functions in the United States require further explication. It is critical to explore how diverse groups who cohabitate in a national context become effective, be­ cause the assumption is that effective communication results from applied knowledge, skills, and motivation to be competent and/or to demonstrate "normal" and appropriate behavior. One approach stresses assimilation and power. If it is true that the most powerful interlocutor sets the standard for what is effective and what is not effective, then communication compe­ tence works most effectively when there is assimilation. That is, accord­ ing to the model, the most effective communicator becomes the one who either surrenders or temporarily suspends her or his cultural val­ ues in order to look and/or act like another cultural person or who claims no cultural membership at all and considers her or himself to be a "multicultural" or "intercultural" person (Adler, 1982; Gudykunst& Kim, 1997). Neither of these options appears most productive or healthy for marginalized beings in the long term (Jackson, 1999a). Chen and Starosta (1998) defined intercultural communication competence (ICC) less severely. They assert that ICC is "the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors to elicit a desired response in a specific environment" (p. 241). This may be interpreted to mean that individuals will manage interaction in ways that facilitate the achievement of desired goals. Although this interpretation seems innocent, it is necessary to return to the defin­ ing criteria effectively and appropriately. What do these terms mean in a context where appropriate behavior is equated with European American Standards?

Cultural Differences in Communication Competence Patterns

It is clear that African American communication patterns differ from those evidenced by European Americans (Asante & Noor-Aldeen,

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 97

1984; Hammer & Gudykunst, 1987a, 1987b; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984; Kochman, 1981; Scott, 2000b, 2000c). These differing patterns dem­ onstrate the potential tension involved in intercultural interaction and the ways cultural differences can inhibit effective communica­ tion. Also, members of these cultural groups do not share a common set of communication norms (Collier, Ribeau, & Hecht, 1986) and are dissimilar in their willingness to shift their norms in order to ad­ just to the culture of their dyadic partners (Collier, 1988). Although African Americans and European Americans may have differing styles, it is possible for them to communicate effectively if they are able to adapt their conversational patterns in order to adjust to or ac­ commodate one another's styles. The emphasis here should not be underestimated. The actual or perceived presence of power may po­ tentially disable or hinder effective interaction when power is seen as an inhibitor of genuineness rather than a mechanism that enables persons to speak openly and directly. Generally, interactants modify their messages to match or diverge from their conversational partners depending on conditions. As re­ viewed in chapter 2, communication accommodation theory identi­ fies the general factors influencing divergence and convergence: individual focus, listener attributes, dependence on the group, group solidarity, power and dominance relationships, situational constraints, individual and group motivations, communicator's rep­ ertoires, and expectations (Gallois et al., 1988). In some circum­ stances, modification in speech converges (moves toward each other's style), while in others such modification diverges (moves away from each other's style). Adjustments have been reported for variables such as pronunciation (Giles, 1973), vocal intensity (Natale, 1975), talk and silence sequences (Capella & Planalp, 1981), pause and utterance length (Jaffe & Feldstein, 1970), and speech rates (Webb, 1972). These studies show that people linguistically converge toward each other's presentation when the costs are less than the rewards, there is a desire for communicative efficiency, and the social norms do not dictate alternative strategies (Beebe & Giles, 1984; Bourhis, 1985). However, divergence is likely to occur when the encounter is defined in intergroup terms and there is a strong de­ sire for group identity or when there is the desire to disassociate self from other (Beebe & Giles, 1984; Bourhis, 1985). Thus, cultural differences potentially can influence the adjustment process. Strong cultural group identity can promote divergence as

98 • CHAPTER 3

can peer group pressures. When dyadic partners do not share the same culture, it is more difficult to know how to adjust to each other and the adjustment process may require a communication style that is not a frequently used aspect of the cultural repertoire (e.g., when a faster speaking rate is required of southern African Americans). In addition to differences in how to adjust, there are differences in the norms about who should do the adjusting. Given the great power differential in U.S. society, members of the mainstream cul­ ture have often assumed that other groups will adjust to their style. In fact, earlier speech accommodation research has repeatedly ex­ amined and verified the presence of code-switching in cross-cultural interactions (Giles et al., 1977); disempowered groups often shift to the mainstream style to accommodate cultural differences. How­ ever, rising controversies over issues such as bilingual and bicultural education suggest that social norms may be changing as emerging copopulations assert their own influence, and rightfully so. One sur­ vey respondent wrote us a note in which she claimed that Black Folks are not concerning themselves with what White Folks are thinking. That was yesteryear when we looked for approval from Whites. Today we [Blacks] are seeking better educational opportunity and economic development. As we achieve this we will not need to concern ourselves with White acceptance and negative stereotyping.

Contrary to this respondent's perceptions, research has indicated that Blacks still feel they must play the part (Orbe, 1998) and negoti­ ate their identities (Jackson, 1999a) in order to succeed in life. Ru­ bin, Martin, Bruning, and Powers (1993) explained that self-efficacy is inexplicably tied to communication competence and satisfaction and, therefore, must be studied as an intermediating variable be­ tween the two. They assert, "Self-efficacy is a person's belief or con­ victions about being able to use skills, not a direct measure of skill itself" (p. 211). These studies suggest problems inherent in African American-European American communication interactions, particularly as norms and power differentials shift. If interactants do not share common knowledge, motivation, and styles then conversations may diverge. And if interactants do not agree on the direction or accountability for adjustment, effectiveness is problematic. Such problems can be viewed as "failure events." Failure events occur when interactions do

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 99

not run smoothly, or when they violate norms, expectations, and preferences, or are somehow inappropriate (Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; McLaughlin, Cody, & O'Hair, 1983; Morris, 1985; Schonbach, 1980). In other words, communication has been unsuccessful. If the interactants wish to improve the situation, they must "align" the in­ teraction. Alignments are conversational improvement strategies for achieving accommodation once a failure event has been encoun­ tered and the identification of alignment specifies those processes that tune the interaction to meet the interactants' preferences (Ball, Giles, & Hewstone, 1985; Morris, 1985). Alignment research empha­ sizes "cooperative efforts to guide the activity rather than efforts of 'offenders' to account for admittedly deviant behavior" (Morris, 1985, p. 70). Thus, alignment research is concerned with restorative processes in problematic situations. These situations hinge, in part, on the cultural appropriateness of the interaction. CULTURAL APPROPRIATENESS

Our study of cultural appropriateness has focused on an under­ standing of the norms for intra- and intercultural communication. Appropriateness connotes normative conduct that is preferred and perceived as resulting in positive outcomes.3 This conduct is con­ textually variant. Because we conceptualize communication as problematic, norms are implicitly and explicitly negotiated as indi­ viduals relate to each other. We assume that persons' conduct in conversation is both reactive and proactive as meanings are cocreated and maintained. As a result, impressions of appropriate­ ness are formed and reformed as persons converse. Appropriate behavior is consistent with situational demands, normative, and sanctioned by the response. This is illustrated fairly well in Brad­ ford, Myers, and Kane's (1999) emic and interpretive study of La­ tino expectations of communication competence. Bradford et al. collected "capta" (Lanigan, 1979) from five focus groups and theo­ retically framed their study using four contextual domains in which competence was expected to have occurred: intracultural-social, intracultural-task, intercultural-social, and intercultural-task. The 3 In this book, rules and norms are used synonymously. Others (e.g., Shimanoff, 1980) dis­ tinguish between the two terms. For purposes of convenience, we use the term norm.

100 • CHAPTER 3

authors explained that some cultures value the relationship much more than task, so they wanted to see where the responses might fit along the constellation of constructs. They discovered, among other items, that interpersonal inclusion, language adaptability, at­ tentiveness, nonverbal immediacy behaviors, and assertiveness were all salient dimensions of Latino identity and competence for these participants. Additionally, the relational climate was very sig­ nificant for comfortable interaction with cultural others. In this case, Latino responses suggested that their cultural expectations were carried with them throughout varying contexts, and although they could function without accenting their own cultural values, they were most competent when they were most familiar with and motivated by the relationship or relational partner. To be most effective, appropriate, and acceptable, intervention programs and research needs to be sensitive to core cultural values, which reference simpatia, familialism, personalismo, and ma­ chismo (Marin, 1989; Marin & Marin, 1991). Simpatia alludes to the need for positive and smooth interpersonal relations. This script incorporates politeness, while discouraging confrontation, criticism, and assertiveness. Familialism indicates the importance placed on loyalty, reciprocity, attachment, dependence, and soli­ darity in close and extended family relationships. The family is con­ sidered a community of emotional and economic support, as well as an important source of attitudinal and behavioral referents. Personalismo refers to a preference for relationships with in-group members in nurturing, empathic, loving, intimate, and respectful contexts and includes respeto, the need to defend one's own and other's personal integrity and allow for face-saving strategies dur­ ing conflict within relationships. Relationships are one of the most salient contextual factors in defining norms. Within a culture, the nature of the relationship between the interactants specifies appropriate and inappropriate conduct. Knowing someone as a friend rather than an acquain­ tance allows one to ask appropriate questions and bring up suit­ able topics. Research on African American norms examines relational parameters, such as considering appropriate conduct and core symbols among acquaintances, friends, and unequal power relationships, especially in conflict situations. Interactants inevitably experience conflict or deviations from social norms in conversations if the relationship is sustained over time. Conflict in

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 101

conversations is often about issues of appropriateness and inap­ propriateness. Individuals may not be able to describe conversational norms. However, they are able to describe specific behaviors that were ap­ propriate or inappropriate in specific situations (Collier, 1989), articulate an overall impression of self or other conduct (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), and make judgements about satisfac­ tion with the conversation and relationship (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). People seem to have an easier time providing ex­ amples of inappropriate behavior than they do describing appro­ priate behavior. All but a few respondents in these studies were able to provide descriptions of inappropriate behaviors, and most of these descriptions were quite detailed. The same was not equally true for appropriate behavior. Besides Bradford et al., several other scholars have also con­ ducted interviews and distributed open-ended questionnaires to study impressions of appropriateness (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984; Mar­ tin et al., 2001). In most of the previously noted studies, respondents were asked to recall a recent conversation with a person from their own or other cultural group. They described the topic, relationship with other(s), context, duration of conversation, and inappropriate or appropriate, effective or ineffective verbal and nonverbal commu­ nication. Respondents were then asked to explain their answers and describe the consequences for self-concept, cultural identity, task ac­ complishment, relationship satisfaction, and more. Respondents in these studies ranged in age from 18 to 55 years old. The majority lived in an urban setting and were employed full-time while attend­ ing college part-time. There were slightly more females than males in these studies. In the following section, we summarize this work on African American cultural appropriateness. We consider first the norms for acquaintances, friends, and unequal power relationships. We conclude with a discussion of norms for conflict. A summary of these norms appears in Table 3.2. Through this work we learn how African Americans handle the problematic elements of interaction and identify the core symbols that represent conversational norms. Each of the core symbols dis­ cussed is exemplary of how the communication theory of identity functions to explore meaningful representations of cultural values embedded in everyday talk among acquaintances, friends, and un­ equal power relationships.

TABLE 3.2 African American Norms

Acquaintances Follow Role Prescription Be Polite Adjust the Content Be Expressive Friends Acknowledge or Respect the Individual Develop Intimacy Appreciate the Culture Be Goal Oriented Unequal Power Relationships Allow Mutual Talk Time Manage Time Appropriately (Do Not Rush) Recognize and Respect Person With Less Power Be Nonverbally Attentive Greet Warmly Avoid Overgeneralizing and Stereotyping Avoid Negative Comments About Cultural Style Be Friendly and Direct Build Trust Slowly Be Helpful With Task Allow Input in Decisions Be Direct Check Out Information

Conflict Adopt Problem Solution Orientation Arguments Should Be Appropriate (Males) Offer Information (Males) Be Credible (Males) Avoid Criticism (Females) Sources: Collier, 1988, 1991, 1992; Collier, Ribeau, and Hecht, 1986.

102

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 103

African American Norms for Acquaintances

Intracultural communication with acquaintances is guided by four primary categories of norms: follow role prescriptions, be polite, ad­ just the content, and be expressive (Collier et al., 1986). These cate­ gories are shared to some extent with Mexican American and European American cultures (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000). All groups place a great deal of emphasis on societal and individual politeness norms, including speaking "proper" English, being courteous, ask­ ing for feedback, actively listening, and taking time to help. How­ ever, these cultures differ in their emphases. African Americans are in the middle of the three groups in their emphasis on role prescriptions, placing more stress on this rule cat­ egory than Mexican Americans and less than European Americans. All groups agree that a person's position or place in the social sys­ tem guides behavior. However, African Americans place the most emphasis on individual roles that express each person's personal­ ity or style and supersede positional or status roles (Allen, 2000a; Pennington, 2000). This finding is consistent with the core symbol of uniqueness, which was synthesized from the communication style literature in chapter 4. The content of the conversation and expressiveness play bigger roles in African American intracultural conversations than for the other groups (Houston, 1997). They stress the need for these con­ versations to be supportive, relevant, and assertive (Houston, 2000b). In this way, the rule for expressiveness overlaps the core symbols of sharing and positivity discussed in chapter 4. Houston (1997, 2000a) noted that Black women's talk interculturally and intraculturally can be conceived in terms of speaking directly, asser­ tively (with fortitude), unabashedly, certainly, caringly, and in some cases these characteristics may be interpreted as confidence; in oth­ ers, they may appear too confrontative. Yet, they are characteristic of how Black women self-report their communicative behaviors and live them out on a daily basis. It is also critical to note that of the 134 participants in Houston's (2000b) study, a category of talk emerged that suggested that Black women value how they talk. Houston (2000b) thematizes these comments as "celebratory." Intercultural conversations with acquaintances have similar norms but with different emphases (Collier, 1988). Politeness is more individual than societal, and greater emphasis is placed on in­

104 • CHAPTER 3

dividual or idiosyncratic norms for politeness by African Americans than by Mexican Americans or European Americans. Role prescrip­ tions are again important, but cultural identity prescriptions are the most important type. African Americans, however, place more em­ phasis on professional roles than do the other two groups. Collier (1988) also found that content norms are more important to African Americans than the other groups, whereas supportiveness is less important in inter- than intracultural conversations for African Americans. Expressiveness, however, is less important to African Americans in intercultural conversations than it is to the other groups, but the reverse is true for intracultural communication. Al­ though we discussed this topic and the limited amount of research on it in the first edition of this book in 1993, this area of study is still underdeveloped.

African American Norms for Friends

Conversational norms with friends share an emphasis on the individ­ ual, but also stress intimacy. We propose that appropriate behavior in these conversations can be represented in four core symbols: (a) ac­ knowledge or respect the individual, (b) develop intimacy, (c) appre­ ciate the culture, and (d) be goal oriented. The high value African Americans place on both collectiveness and relationships is stressed in the communication styles, norms for con­ versing with acquaintances discussed previously, and now here in norms for conversing with friends. The American side of African Amer­ icans' dual identities seems to compete with this collectivistic ten­ dency. For example, a resilient individual identity is expressed through assertiveness and the value placed on individual accomplish­ ment. These norms are consistent with the core symbols of assertive­ ness and uniqueness that are described in chapter 4. Assertiveness and confrontation may be communicated through loud voices and an incisive argumentation style but are counter-balanced by the confir­ mation of the other as a valued relational partner. Thus, as we indi­ cated in previous chapter, there is a dialectical tension between individualism (i.e., uniqueness) and collectivism (i.e., sharing), which requires a style that responds to both forces. Friendship also requires a deep intimacy in the relationship and the conversation, and this is consistent with the core symbol of shar­

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 105

ing discussed in chapter 4 (Diggs & Stafford, 1998; Harter & Duncan, 1998). Talk among friends covers topics such as family, and positive feelings are derived from receiving and giving advice. African Ameri­ cans describe taking specific actions to establish trust as the most critical incident in conversations. Sensitivity, support, affirmation, honesty, and "sisterhood" are also used to describe conversations with friends. This intimacy base supports individuality and allows Af­ rican Americans to criticize one another and assertively request ac­ tions without compromising friendship. These themes are corroborated by Scott (2000a) in her study of culturally derived lin­ guistic markers African American women use when conversing. The third core symbol is an appreciation for the culture, another manifestation of the core symbol, sharing. It is appropriate for friends to discuss their culture. Similarities in beliefs and attitudes and common interests are stressed, and spirituality plays a role for some. Cultural background, itself, is a topic, and expressions of "pride in our roots" are seen as appropriate to these conversations (Jackson, in press-a). The final core symbol is goal orientation. Friends consider it ap­ propriate to accomplish some task. Often this task may be the solu­ tion of some problem, particularly dealing with personal problems through advice. Sometimes the goal is mutual understanding. Goals may include expressing individuality, affirming the individual or the culture, or establishing trust and intimacy in relationships (Jackson & Dangerfield, in press). Thus, this rule category overlaps a number of the core symbols discussed in chapter 4.

African American Norms Within Unequal Power Relationships

Unequal power relationships can be examined in multiple contexts: institutional, organizational, interpersonal, and intercultural rela­ tionships. One example of relational inequity can be found in inter­ actions between European American college advisors or teachers and African American students. This relationship has been examined through a qualitative analysis of recalled conversations (Collier, 1988; Hendrix, 1998a, 1998b). In Collier's (1988) study, African American students said that European American advisors should al­ low mutual talk time, manage time appropriately, show recognition and respect for the student as an individual, attend appropriately

106 • CHAPTER 3

nonverbally, and greet warmly. In addition, advisors should avoid overgeneralizing, stereotyping, or criticizing the student's ability or preparation for college, should avoid negative comments about ac­ cents or language abilities, and should allow adequate time for inter­ action. To reinforce an appropriate relationship, advisors should be friendly, be direct, show respect for the individual student, and al­ low trust to build slowly. In approaching task discussions, advisors should provide adequate advice throughout the meeting, allow a mutual role in decision-making, be direct, and check out informa­ tion to avoid mistakes. Many African Americans expressed distance and anger at advisors who were insensitive, as one comment illus­ trates: "I feel just fine, it is the advisor who has the problem, not me." Clearly, African American students preferred to be respected as indi­ viduals and were willing to end the relationship if they felt stereo­ typed. When examining the instructor's perceptions of relational inequity in the classroom, Hendrix (1998a, 1998b) found that Afri­ can American professors frequently perceived race to be a sustaining factor in perceived credibility among students at predominantly White universities. The respondents suggested that intergen­ erational differences and a sustained climate of racial hostility and social antipathy contributed to these perceptions.

African American Norms During Conflict

Collier (1991) examined communication competence in conflict situ­ ations. Her study of African American males and females examined definitions and strategic management of conflict. First, the study de­ scribes definitions of conflict and identified appropriate conflict be­ haviors. African American males and females were extremely consistent in their definitions of conflict as disagreement, contrary or differing views, and misunderstandings. African American males and females were also asked to describe appropriate and inappropriate conflict management behaviors. Males and females were similar in their description of "problem solution" as appropriate behavior in conflict management. In this format, one interactant brings up a prob­ lem and the other helps by offering a solution or enabling a solution to emerge. One respondent gave the following advice: "I told him to stay in school and that I would help him study." Another said, "We decided together how to solve the problem and deal with our friend."

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 107

Several solutions were offered; among those offered, African American males emphasized that appropriate arguments should be given, information should be offered, and opinions should be credi­ ble. Examples include the following comments: "His case was full of holes." "He overgeneralized and tried to tell me Black Americans and Africans are the same." "You shouldn't try to make a case when you are uninformed." African American females pointed out criticism that was not appropriate. One said, "She told me I was selfish." An­ other reported: "I offended her because I said she was naive." Also, females viewed assertiveness as appropriate but only when the other's rights and views were considered. For example, one female said, "She pushed her own way and opinion and totally disregarded mine," and another reported, "He made no effort to understand my situation." A third example is illustrated in the following comment: "I went too far by telling my friend she should stop smoking if she cared at all about her health." Friendship also plays a role. African American friends had mixed responses about the results of the con­ flict on their friendship. One said that the conflict "will never be re­ solved in my lifetime," while another commented that they "will need several more meetings." Overall, African Americans empha­ sized joint and responsible problem solution and sincere and in­ formed support. Thus far, we have discussed how competence is defined by several factors: effectiveness, appropriateness, skills, knowledge, and moti­ vation. Subsequently, we discussed culturally appropriate African American norms among acquaintances and friends as well as those norms that appear in unequal power relationships and during con­ flict. Now, we move to discuss cultural effectiveness as another major dimension of communication competence. CULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS

Communication is said to be effective if it achieves positive out­ comes (Harter & Duncan, 1998). There are many different ap­ proaches to conceptualizing "positive outcomes." We believe that these outcomes are what members of the culture define them to be; therefore, we reject Parks' (1985) notion that only communication that attains its "goals" is competent because we believe that not all cultures are as goal-oriented as U.S. mainstream culture, nor are all

108 • CHAPTER 3

members of mainstream culture as focused on goals. Consequently, other types of positive outcomes (e.g., those achieved through luck, goodwill, chance, spirituality) may more accurately capture a culture's view of effectiveness under certain circumstances. Recasting these other outcomes into goals honors the Eurocentric view. Our approach to competence, then, is to articulate how mem­ bers of the group say they cope with the problematic nature of communication. Most previous research treats communication as either competent or incompetent (Hammer, 1989; Martin, 1989; Martin & Hammer, 1989; Pavitt & Haight, 1985; Ruben, 1977, 1989; Wiemann, 1977; Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989) or satisfying/dissatisfying (Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Our approach assumes that communication is typically neither effective nor inef­ fective but is better conceptualized as essentially problematic (Babrow, 1995; Coupland, Wiemann, & Giles, 1991), requiring moment-to-moment strategies to correct or adjust to issues as they emerge. Two theoretical constructs form the basis for de­ scribing this process: communication issues and conversational improvement strategies. Communication Issues are the agenda for effective communi­ cation held in common by members of the group. When African Americans were asked to describe satisfying and dissatisfying con­ versations, certain criteria emerged that define the issues that must be dealt with for conversation to be effective. These issues are themes that run through these accounts and answer the ques­ tion, "What does it take to be effective?" If all communication is problematic, then these issues may be seen as the most salient problems. Conversational Improvement Strategies are techniques for deal­ ing with problematic communication as it emerges. These strate­ gies are enacted individually or jointly in order to improve conversations that are not meeting the implicit agenda established by the communication issues. We assume that most conversations do not flow smoothly from start to finish. Instead, they require ad­ justments to manage the issues, or the threat of emerging issues, as they arise. Achieving effectiveness thus becomes a continually de­ veloping and responsive process. Effectiveness implies a communication outcome. Although any number of criteria can be used to assess effectiveness, we propose satisfaction as a central feature and one particularly appropriate to

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 109

this model. Communication satisfaction has been conceptualized as the emotional response to positive expectation fulfillment (Hecht, 1978). Satisfaction is an emotion that is experienced when expectations are met in a positive fashion (Hecht, 1978), such as when people establish effective relationships (Hecht, 1984; Mclaughlin & Cody, 1982), function successfully in new environ­ ments (Vause & Wiemann, 1981), and, in general, lead healthy and successful lives (Diggs & Stafford, 1998; Harter & Duncan, 1998; Rogers, 1961). Previous research has established satisfaction as an emotional response to effective interpersonal encounters (Hecht, 1978; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Issues can be seen as a type of ex­ pectation; satisfaction will result if the issues are managed in a posi­ tive way (e.g., avoiding stereotypes), and dissatisfaction will result from the obverse (e.g., use of negative stereotypes). Likewise, Neuliep and Grohskopf (2000) found that newly introduced interactants tend to perceive higher levels of communication satis­ faction when there are higher levels of uncertainty reduction and disclosure of motives, attitudes, beliefs, and values. This is an im­ portant finding given that little previous research has discovered that uncertainty reduction theory is tied to communication satisfac­ tion, and hence, satisfaction is predicated on disclosure as a pri­ mary factor in relational enhancement. An extension of their findings may be that conversational improvement relies on high levels of satisfaction and disclosure. Further research deserves to be done on this topic. One of our primary research goals has been to articulate the is­ sues and improvement strategies African Americans perceive in their satisfying and dissatisfying conversations with European Americans. This research has utilized a variety of techniques toward this end. Structured and unstructured interviews and open-ended questionnaires have been used to develop the lists of issues and im­ provement strategies, and scalar measures derived from respon­ dents' descriptions of their interactions have been used to compare across groups. We argue that all of these methods access the actor's interpretive framework, although the scalar items provide guide­ posts that orient respondents to issues that we wish to have ad­ dressed in a more specific way than interview questions. In the discussion that follows, we attempt to describe these issues and im­ provement strategies as they emerged in our research with African American informants.

110 • CHAPTER 3

Intercultural Communication Issues

Our research describes seven primary issues African Americans per­ ceive as salient to their communication satisfaction with European Americans (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson, 1992). These issues are negative stereo­ typing, acceptance, emotional expressiveness, authenticity, under­ standing, goal attainment, and powerlessness. Below are descriptions of the issues as African Americans who participated in our interviews and questionnaires describe them. Negative stereotyping is the use of rigid racial categories that distort an African American's individuality. When stereotyping occurs, it runs counter to the core symbol of uniqueness (see chap. 4). These oc­ curred in conversations in which the communication partner racially categorized and ascribed characteristics of the respondent's cultural group rather than treating the person as an individual. African Ameri­ cans told us that they believe that stereotyping is a fact of life in the United States. For example, an African American female reported dis­ satisfaction when her conversational partner "seemed to say to me that she [a third party] was black and you know how they are." In addition, several African Americans discussed a form of nega­ tive stereotyping that could be labeled "indirect stereotyping." This type of stereotyping occurred when the European American dyadic partner talked to the African American about what were believed to be "African American" topics (such as sports or music) and occurred during dissatisfying conversations. Our interview participants claimed that African Americans are very sensitive to indirect stereo­ typing and react with disdain and withdrawal. One African American male commented that the introduction of African American topics by European Americans are an attempt to find common interests, but he labels people who bring them up as "patronizing or unaware." For example, European Americans try to talk to him about basket­ ball, but he does not play or have any real interest in that sport. He told us that he thinks about this type of stereotyping and "believes that many Blacks feel offended. More educated Blacks feel patron­ ized." He also said that he feels that when most Blacks see disliked behavior or do not understand what a White person is saying, "they label the other person as racist." Conversely, an African American female described a conversation as satisfying because she "didn't feel put on the spot to speak for the

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 111

whole of the Black race." Another African American female was satis­ fied when her partner spoke to her "as another person and didn't let my color interfere with the conversation." A female added that lan­ guage is important here. African Americans who speak nonstandard dialect are faced with more frequent stereotyping. She feels that many Whites are "predisposed to see the negatives in blacks." Many of the respondents said they reacted with a great deal of emotion to stereotyping. When present, negative stereotyping is a source of dis­ satisfaction and, perhaps because of the pervasiveness of prejudice, when absent acknowledges the core symbol of uniqueness and is a source of satisfaction. Acceptance is the feeling that another accepts, confirms, and re­ spects their opinions. This issue is tied to the core symbol of sharing identified in chapter 4. Most incidences of acceptance were re­ corded for descriptions of satisfying conversations. An African Amer­ ican female remarked that she was satisfied with one conversation because there was "mutual respect for each other's beliefs."A male commented that many African Americans overcompensate for "cul­ tural deprivation" and "talk rather than listen in order to cover up." Most feel that their opinion is not respected and this leads them to get "more talkative and flippant." He referred to this as "not being taken seriously" by Whites. A female remarked that acceptance may be a problem initially but not after people get to know you. She said, "It depends on how you present yourself." She feels she has the upper hand if a White person does not accept her because she is comfortable with herself, and lack of acceptance means the other person is fearful of her. She sees this as an advantage. A second male pointed out that among African American males acceptance for each other is expressed nonverbally through actions such as similar dress and other signs of inclusion. Paradoxically, acceptance is also expressed while the person acts "cool" or removed. Thus, acceptance is an issue tied to a communication style of talk­ ativeness, flippancy and being cool. Two of the respondents also tied this back to stereotyping, noting that African Americans may try to pre­ empt such behavior by controlling the conversation. One may use styl­ ized interaction to avoid recognizing stereotyping when it occurs. These respondents commented on feelings of equality/inequality, mu­ tual interest, liking, and communication barriers, with the expressed interpretation that the other person accepted him or her.

112 • CHAPTER 3

The third issue is emotional expressiveness, which refers to the communication of feelings and thoughts. This issue is tied to the core symbols of positivity and emotionalism. Although a valued be­ havior in certain contexts, there are those who reported that with­ holding emotions and showing a tough exterior is important. In fact, it was suggested that some African Americans try to project a particu­ larly "tough" or "cold" exterior in order to be seen as "cool." On the other hand, one respondent reported being dissatisfied because she did not express her own emotions; she reported, "I was dissatisfied that I maintained control and did not curse her out." In summary, there are mixed opinions concerning the role of emotional expres­ siveness in conversations. Emotional expressiveness can refer to both one's own and one's partner's expression; lack of expressiveness for either is seen as dis­ satisfying. Expressiveness manifests itself verbally and nonverbally. Although focusing on emotions, expressiveness also includes verbal­ izations of ideas and opinions. A number of African Americans re­ marked that expressiveness should not be limited to the emotional arena. To one male, expressiveness meant saying what you feel— "talking from the heart, not the head." Expressiveness is described as a valued behavior—"getting things off your chest." As presented in these opinions, expressiveness is a desirable attribute. In this sense, expressiveness reflects the core symbol of uniqueness. There are some gender differences in discussions of this issue. Ac­ cording to an African American male, Whites often see Black males as removed from the conversation. He feels this is as a result of "feeling threatened and an attempt to hide a lack of a certain type of knowl­ edge." This leads black males to either withdraw or become even more talkative. Black females are more talkative, although often in a "flippant" manner. He felt that White expressiveness is less of an is­ sue, although their lack of expressiveness would be interpreted as "racist or standoffish." One female stated strongly that Black women do not encourage each other to be emotionally expressive. They have had to be so tough as the head of the household throughout history that now they tend to "talk tough and make fun of White women who are soft." This reflects realism, a core symbol discussed in chapter 4. She said that Black men criticize Black women for this, and some give it as a reason for preferring White women. Both Black men and women stress "being cool" or what Majors and Billson (1993) called "cool

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 113

pose," or not letting the other know what you are thinking or feeling. The remark of the second African American male under acceptance supports this conclusion. Both agreed that there is a lot of anger un­ derlying this. A second female remarked that although expressiveness is impor­ tant to her she feels this is not typical for African American females. "Talking tough" is a way of carrying oneself that is fairly typical mas­ culine positioning (Majors & Billson, 1993). The female respondent feels that White females see themselves as more petite and innocent than Black females, and she agrees with the other female that histori­ cally Black women have had to take charge and this has led to strength. Thus, there is disagreement among these group members as to the role of expressiveness, particularly emotional expressiveness. Al­ though the first group of responses suggests that expressiveness is associated with satisfying experiences, others argue that there are cultural forces that mitigate against expressiveness and result in highly stylized expression that demonstrates a tough exterior. Clearly verbal expressiveness, whether in the stylized talk or more genuine discussion, is valued when it occurs. The appropriateness of emotional expressiveness seems very situational, would require a considerable trust, and would only occur after the barriers had been brought down. The interpretation of expressiveness seems tied to the next issue, authenticity. Authenticity is the label applied to genuineness, with open disclo­ sure being the positive instance and evasiveness the negative. One respondent derived satisfaction from a conversation because he "disclosed information about myself which I usually can't do with someone I don't know well." Another person was dissatisfied be­ cause she "was not direct about what I wanted to discuss with this person and did a lot of beating around the bush." Authenticity was inferred from discussions of private and personal information and from truthfulness. In addition, respondents who felt they could "be themselves" or who perceived the other as expressing opinions openly and freely attribute authenticity to the conversation. The concept of realness pervaded these discussions and question­ naire responses and is consistent with the core symbol of realism identified in chapter 4 (Asante, in press; Orbe, 1998). Some com­ mented on how unusual it was to have this genuine quality in inter­ cultural communication. Their comments indicated that authenticity

114 • CHAPTER 3

might be valued in a White conversational partner, particularly by Afri­ can American females. All agreed that this was a factor in intercultural communication. One African American male commented that there are "so many phony conversations—White people try to impress Blacks with their liberalness." Blacks may or may not see through this, some buying into an illusion of equality. In the South, the illusion is not as social­ ized as the Southwest, and as a result, southern Blacks can see through "authentic" conversations. He commented on patronizing behavior again, noting that "even a sincere effort may come across this way." Again, there may be gender differences in interpretation. Two of the females agreed that this issue is valued highly by African Ameri­ can women, and one commented that it is expressed in the phrase "being real." She continued, commenting that Black women "de­ scribe people in terms of their authenticity regardless of status level." If people are "unpretentious" and "down-to-earth," they are "real." Black women will say "be real" to someone who acts in a pre­ tentious manner. The same individual cited African American litera­ ture that discusses this, including Toni Cade Bambara's Gorilla, My Love, The Johnson Girls, and Gloria Naylor's Women of Brewster Place. The second woman commented that because this is so impor­ tant she "doesn't accept people too readily." Instead, she "listens carefully to understand and assess authenticity." Again, the highly stylized, Africa n America n male self-presentation was commented on. One male noted that among African American males "high talk and stylin' are valued. You dress as if you had money even if you don't." He noted that the symbol of the Cadillac is another example of this image. Not presenting the "real you" is accepted because the self has been demeaned by soci­ ety for so long that it is acceptable to create another image. Al­ though the Cadillac is perhaps not the present-day automobile of choice, which represents the cool pose the respondent is referring to, there is a connection between materialistic items such as cars and clothes that sustains a suave image. Thus, the stylized form of communication may serve a clear purpose in counterbalancing so­ cioeconomic disadvantage of some African American males while, within the group, there is an understanding of what this image re­ ally means. This behavior may not compromise authenticity be­ cause it is understood as a message of strength.

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 115

Further evidence of the importance of authenticity is the frequent admonition to "tell it like it is." This expression is recurrent for Afri­ can American females and males and speaks of straightforward, to-the-point communication as opposed to avoidance of truth through double talking and fancy language (Orbe, 1998). Despite the apparent contradiction of the high-style image creation, authen­ ticity appears to be an important issue for males and females and may additionally reflect a preference in how the White communica­ tor should behave. There may also be gender differences and the cat­ egory may reflect a preference for how the White communicator should behave or emerge only after the other issues have been dealt with. This is consistent with the finding that lack of authenticity is fre­ quently associated with dissatisfaction. Feelings of understanding were also important to interactant sat­ isfaction and may be related to the core symbol of sharing presented in chapter 4. Satisfaction for many respondents was keyed to the feel­ ing that their meaning was successfully conveyed. For example, one respondent reported that "there was a genuine exchange of think­ ing, feeling, and caring." Responses suggesting that information was exchanged and learning took place fall into this theme as well. A greater proportion of these instances was represented in satisfying intercultural conversations. Differing cultural backgrounds may underlie some of these mis­ understandings. A female noted that differences in upbringing may cause problems. She told us that "if people don't share the same life experiences they can't be expected to truly understand each other. If Whites haven't been exposed to Blacks there will be a 'fear of the unknown.'" Achieving objectives or obtaining desired ends from the commu­ nication effort constitute the issue of goal attainment. African Amer­ ican respondents seemed to desire a feeling of accomplishment, feeling satisfied when this was obtained, and dissatisfied when it was not. One respondent noted dissatisfaction because "no information was exchanged in terms of what I was seeking." Goal attainment re­ ferred to the respondent's ability to achieve a desired end, whether that be solving a problem, exchanging information, or finishing a project. Goal attainment was observed more frequently in discus­ sions of satisfying interactions than in dissatisfying interactions. Some respondents suggested that, like expressiveness and au­ thenticity, understanding and goal attainment are interconnected is­

116 • CHAPTER 3

sues. For example, an African American male noted, "Blacks and Whites may come away with different meanings from a conversation because concepts aren't defined in the same way. The members of the cultural groups tend to think in a different manner. Most times blacks don't get a lot from conversations with whites, so when it oc­ curs it is highly valued-like the gates opening." He noted that good conversations, ones that are open and honest, are rare. As a result, Blacks frequently come away from conversations with Whites feeling they have gained little. These discussions emphasized the difficulty of mutual understanding. Without understanding, goals cannot be attained. Thus, both qualities are illusive, but valued. The final issue was labeled powerlessness and described feelings of being controlled, manipulated, and trapped. This can be seen as disconfirming all of the core symbols presented in chapter 4. Con­ versely, satisfaction was manifested when interactants felt they had some control or influence over the conversation. One female ex­ plained her dissatisfaction by saying that the other interactant was "trying to persuade me using subtle tactics and assertiveness." An Afri­ can American male described a dissatisfying conversation in which he did not get an adequate chance to express himself. He said that the other communicator "tried to carry on the conversation all by himself ... he would keep talking and interrupted me whenever I tried to say something." Respondents felt powerless if they were interrupted and did not get a chance to complete their thoughts or felt that the other person controlled the topic. These conversations occurred among peers as well as in the presence of higher status others. A female commented that success, in general, depends on the power relationship and communication skills. If you can articulate what you want and have the power to get it, you will get something out of the conversation. She suggested that one of these factors may be missing for many Blacks in their conversations with Whites. Thus, the expression of power is also important. One male commented that in conversations among African Ameri­ cans there is a lot that "Whites would consider antagonistic or brutal. Whites would be shocked to see this." He cited playing "the dozens"—an African American verbal game that tests wittiness, spontane­ ity, and sharp humor—as an example. This type of assertiveness can be too powerful for White interactants. He said, "Whites wouldn't know how to take you if you acted really assertively. They would feel threatened." Similarly, a second male respondent commented that a

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 117

better label for this issue would be "Mau Mauing," a Black power strat­ egy of extreme assertiveness and confrontation. He suggested that the label "powerlessness may be putting things in White terms." Power and power dynamics play a major role in intercultural rela­ tions and provide a clear example of African American style or code switching (Jackson, 1999a; Jackson, Morrison, & Dangerfield, 2002). African Americans feel that if they practiced the same power strate­ gies with Whites they use with each other their behavior would be badly misinterpreted. Power was an important undercurrent in many of the previous discussions and is reflected in the core symbol, assertiveness, which is used to describe African American communi­ cation style in chapter 4. Overall, however, this issue is most preva­ lent in dissatisfying conversations. Validation of the Issues. The issues were initially obtained through content analysis of responses to open-ended questions in which African Americans described their effective and ineffective in­ teractions with European Americans. Validation was obtained through interviews, additional open-ended questions, and a Likert-style survey. The interviews were conducted with representa­ tives of the group in which the issues were described and commented on (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). These interviews supported ex­ ternal validity. Next, responses to open-ended questions asking for de­ scription of effective and ineffective communication were coded using the issues (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). The coders were able to reliably recognize the issues in these descriptions of intercultural conversations. Finally, Likert-style items were written from the qualitative data to measure each of the issues. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the factorial validity of the is­ sues (Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson, 1992). After identifying the issues, we sought to ascertain their relation­ ship to competent communication. This was accomplished in a series of studies in which satisfaction was used as the criterion of effective­ ness. In each of these studies, the issues were found to be associated with communication satisfaction (Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson, 1992; Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). That is, the presence or absence of the issues or the successful or unsuccessful management of the issues was seen as salient to satisfaction with the interaction. In a quantitative study, the issues explained almost all of

118 • CHAPTER 3

the variance in satisfaction (R= .93), indicating that the issues provide a very effective model of intercultural communication satisfaction from an African American perspective. The relationship between the issues and satisfaction seems to be independent of personal charac­ teristics, such as gender, age, income level, and place of origin (Cali­ fornian or Arizonan).4 Furthermore, these results show that although there is some variation from conversation to conversation and be­ tween methods of data collection, in general the presence of negative stereotyping and powerlessness is dissatisfying, whereas interactions that involve understanding, acceptance, and authenticity are satisfy­ ing. Research also demonstrates some individual differences in per­ ceptions of issues. Older respondents are more likely to see authen­ ticity as an issue than younger respondents, whereas younger respondents are more likely to report goal attainment as an issue (21%) than their older counterparts. In addition, women report that expressiveness is an issue more frequently than men. The issues ap­ pear to be independent of income level, and there were no differ­ ences between California and Arizona respondents. The communication issues are related to cultural-identity labels. African Americans who use different identity labels also seem to dif­ fer in the issues they see as salient to effective intercultural commu­ nication. People who label themselves Black American are most likely to feel negatively stereotyped, with those labeling themselves Black are next most likely, and those using the label African Ameri­ can the least likely to feel this way. Black Americans were also the most likely group to see understanding as an issue. African Ameri­ cans also occasionally perceive this as an issue. Comparisons of the Issues in In-Group and Out-Group Conversa­ tions. In our view, communication competence is a problematic event involving accommodation and adjustment. One of the circum­ stances that makes it problematic involves group membership. People 4 Here we are testing to see if these characteristics mediate the relationship between the is­ sues and satisfaction. Below we examine how the characteristics are related to the issues alone. These findings show that regardless of personal characteristics the issues influence sat­ isfaction. However, these same findings suggest that future research test a model that either predicts the following or that which is related to Fig. 6.1. personal communication characteristics issues satisfaction

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 119

who are considered members of one's own group, called in-group members, are treated differently from those who are perceived as be­ ing outside of the group (out-group members; Giles et al., 1991; Leung & Iwawaki, 1988; Tajfel, 1981). For example, research shows that speech patterns tend to converge when in-group solidarity is be­ ing expressed and diverge when out-group distinctions are being em­ phasized (Giles et al., 1991). So the in-group and out-group status of conversants is one of the ways in which communication is problematic and requires adjust­ ment, accommodation, and negotiation. A communicator must de­ cide whether the other is to be considered a member of the same (intragroup or interpersonal communication) or different (inter­ group communication) group, and this determination must be jointly negotiated with the other person. This reasoning leads us to examine the relationship between the issues and group status (Hecht, Larkey & Johnson, 1992). We hypothesized that different issues would be salient in in-group and out-group conversations. In order to test this hy­ pothesis, we constructed a survey to measure the issues. We de­ cided to add two issues that had emerged among Mexican Americans (Hecht et al., 1990) to test their salience to African Americans with the belief that sometimes issues may be salient that are not reflected in communicators' descriptions of conversa­ tions. These issues were shared worldview (having the same per­ spective on the world) and relational solidarity (close, intimate, personal bonding in relationships). Group membership status was operationalized by relationship intimacy; a scale was used with several items to determine if the relationship was closer, more like a friendship (in-group), or if the relationship was a more distant acquaintance (out-group). The surveys were admin­ istered to 129 African American students and community mem­ bers in Phoenix, Arizona, who were asked to describe a recent conversation with a European American friend or acquaintance and rate their satisfaction with the interaction on a scale designed for this cultural group (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984). Analyses of these data show important differences in the issues sa­ lient to each type of relationship. In-group conversations place greater stress on powerlessness and relational solidarity. Feelings of powerlessness among friends seriously detracted from communica­ tion satisfaction, whereas attaining relational solidarity was a more

120 • CHAPTER 3

important contributor to satisfaction in these conversations. We in­ terpreted these findings to mean that in-group conversations stress control and relational bonding. The analysis for out-group relationships manifested a different pattern. Stereotyping, acceptance, shared worldview, and under­ standing were more salient concerns. We interpreted this to mean that satisfaction among out-group interactants depends more heavily on establishing a common ground (acceptance, shared worldview, stereotyping) and task concerns (understanding). These results demonstrate important differences between in-group and out-group communication. In order to maximize joint outcomes, different issues must be attended to in each type of conversation. The skilled communicator will adjust both linguistically and strategically once a determination of relational status has been made. Comparisons to European Americans. Once we felt confident that the issues were representative of the African American culture, we sought to compare perceptions of these issues across cultural groups. The group we chose for comparison was European Americans. The framework used here was derived "emically" from one cultural group (African American) and tested on a new group (European Americans) for the purposes of comparison (Berry, 1980). We conducted a study to compare African American and European American communication satisfaction issues (Hecht, Larkey, John­ son, & Reinard, 1991). The African American issues again were sup­ plemented by the same two additional issues that emerged from studies of Mexican American communication (described earlier), shared worldview, and relational solidarity (Hecht et al., 1990). A survey was created to measure these issues and administered to 129 African American and 95 European American students and commu­ nity members in the Phoenix, Arizona area. See Table 3.3 for more details about these African American issues. We were surprised to discover that the issues provided an excel­ lent model of satisfaction for both groups. When satisfaction was re­ gressed on the issues, the R2 was .86 for African Americans and .93 for European Americans indicating that the items explained almost all of the variance in satisfaction for each group. We reasoned that perhaps European Americans recognize the same issues once they are pre­ sented to them. It is also possible that there are differences in the

COMMUNICATION

COMPETENCE • 121

TABLE 3.3 African American Issues Issue

Description

Negative Stereotyping

Use of rigid categories that distort individuality (direct and indirect).

Acceptance

The other confirms and respects one's opinions.

Expressiveness

Express thoughts and feelings.

Authenticity

Be genuine and open.

Understanding

Feeling that meanings are successfully conveyed.

Coal Attainment

Achieve goals or desired outcomes.

Powerlessness

Feeling controlled or manipulated.

Sources: Hecht and Ribeau, 1984, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, and Alberts, 1989; Hecht, Larkey, Johnson, and Reinard, 1992.

ways the issues are enacted. Finally, the issues may be salient to dif­ ferent types of conversations for each group. This last alternative was examined in subsidiary data analyses. However, analysis revealed that the issues are used differently by each group. The conversations were separated by cultural group and group status (in-group-out-group). As described earlier, African Americans perceive powerlessness (a control issue) and relational bonding as more salient to in-group conversations and understand­ ing (task issue), stereotyping, acceptance, and shared worldview (the latter three common ground issues) more salient to out-group conversations. European Americans associated goal attainment (task issue), relaxation and stereotyping (common ground issues) with in-group interaction and authenticity, relational solidarity, and acceptance (close bonding issues) with the out-group. The Euro­ pean American pattern mirrors that found in Illinois, Montana, and California samples (Hecht, 1984). This study points out the differences in effective communication between European Americans and African Americans. Although some of these themes have been discussed separately in the main­ stream communicative competence literature (e.g., Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984; Wiemann, 1977) or in Eurocentric approaches to intercultural effec­ tiveness (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978), the issues appear to have different meanings and uses in the

122 • CHAPTER 3

various groups. The similarities, where they exist, may reflect the ef­ fects of acculturation or generalizable themes based on human so­ cial needs of acceptance, self-worth, and bonding. The results of the Hecht, Ribeau, and Alberts (1989) study indicate that where such overlap exists the categories are both experienced and expressed differently in each culture. Hecht et al. (1991) demonstrate that the issues are used differently by these groups and, therefore, also are functionally distinct for each group. The categories of powerlessness and negative stereotyping may be characteristic of many low power groups. They also were found, for example, in Mexican Americans' conversational descriptions and rhetorical analyses of Chicano poetry (Hecht et al., 1990). Power is a pervasive issue in race relations in the United States, and power dif­ ferentials have long existed between mainstream White culture and most other cultural groups. Such groups are denied access to tradi­ tional sources of power, and this position frequently becomes insti­ tutionalized. At the same time, any "out group" is stereotyped when its members are treated categorically rather than as individuals. Sep­ aration of groups tends to deny the mainstream, high power group access to the out-groups except through limited (and often biased) media contact. As a result, powerlessness and stereotyping become salient issues for intercultural communication. Recent studies suggest that racism in the United States now tends to be expressed less directly (Pettigrew, 1981, 1985; Terkel, 1992; Zatz, 1987) or symbolically (Giles & Evans, 1986). For example, Zatz (1987) concluded that the effect of race on court sentencing is mod­ erated by variables such as bail status. While Van Dijk (1987) found direct expression of prejudice in topics of conversations when those conversations are held within the boundaries of an cultural group (e.g., minorities as criminal, lazy, etc.), less direct expressions are found in argument forms (e.g., arguments about immigration, affir­ mative action, learning English). It is interesting to note that these indirect forms may be used in a variety of cultures. In addition to Van Dijk's (1987) comparative study, Wodak (1991) discussed indirect forms of anti-Semitism in Austria, and Stern (1991) noted such forms in Germany, labeling them Philosemitism. Our studies support this interpretation. Although traditional ste­ reotyping was manifested, the less direct expression of stereotyping through the introduction of "African American topics" was also prev­

COMMUNICATION

COMPETENCE • 123

alent. Other forms of "overaccommodating" or "trying too hard" to adjust (Gallois et al., 1988) are similarly interpreted as indirect ste­ reotyping. European American interactants' modification of their own behaviors may appear so strained or extreme that it invokes a feeling of forced behavior or artificiality, "trying too hard." This inter­ pretation is supported by the account of the European American re­ spondent who was pleased that her African American conversational partner accepted her into her group. If such acceptance is overem­ phasized, overaccommodation is likely. Interviews with African Americans confirm this interpretation, providing numerous exam­ ples of this less direct form of stereotyping. These interpretations may set up an "accommodative dilemma." A European American conversing with an African American may let certain topics or statements pass without commenting or acting on them for fear of being called racist or prejudiced. This may set up "attributional ambiguity" in the enactments of the European Ameri­ can and the interpretations of the African American. The interpretation of "trying too hard" as stereotyping is certainly unlikely among European Americans and will be expressed and in­ terpreted differently among other nonmainstream, cultural copopulations in the United States. We have also seen that power­ lessness and stereotyping function differently for each group, with African Americans finding powerlessness most salient in the in-group setting and stereotyping more salient to out-group interac­ tion whereas European Americans manifest the reverse pattern. The sense of powerlessness among Afro-Americans, however, may differ from that of other groups. Lessing, Clarke, and Gray-Shellberg (1981) argued that Afro-Americans lack the in-group loyalty needed for a successful power struggle in the United States. Otto and Featherman (1975) noted that early life-cycle patterns influence feel­ ings of powerlessness. Martineau (1976) pointed out that African American neighborhood instability detracts from a sense of power­ fulness, and this pattern is different for White and African American populations. Thus, the meaning of powerlessness may differ for Afri­ can Americans as a result of both historical and sociological trends. These studies have attempted to articulate an African American perspective on communication that emphasizes the problematic na­ ture of communication. The issues may be seen as the most salient "problems" faced in intra- and intercultural encounters. But success is not an either/or event. Once acceptance has been established, the

124 • CHAPTER 3

communicators cannot merely carry out the remainder of the con­ versation without encountering other problems or the need for fur­ ther adjustment. These continuing concerns lead us to consider conversational improvement strategies.

Intel-cultural Conversational Improvement Strategies

Initial research identified six strategies that African Americans said could be used to improve intercultural communication (Allen, Hecht, & Martin, 1996; Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Martin, Hecht, & Larkey 1994; Martin et al., 2001). Later research expanded this list to 12 strategies. These are conversa­ tional techniques that can be used by African Americans themselves, their European American counterparts, or by either interactant. The 12 strategies are described later with occasional reference to tests conducted on those strategies that were part of the original six. Original Strategies. Six strategies were identified in initial re­ search (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Mar­ tin, Hecht, & Larkey, 1994). These include Asserting Point of View, Positive Self- Presentation, Be Open and Friendly, Avoidance, Inter­ action Management, and Other Orientation. Asserting Point of View was found exclusively as a response to a dissatisfying conversation as a strategy of persuasion and argumentation. Respondents felt that conversations could be improved by arguing their own position and convincing their conversational partner. Statements in the Asserting Point of View category imply active effort to change the other person's mind or obtain agreement rather than simply passively supply­ ing more information for clarification (see Inform/Educate later). Of course, suggestions to supply more information could be intended to persuade or pursue achievement of goals. Examples of this strat­ egy are: "I continue to put across what I believe," "Just simply be more vocal in the conversation this in itself will give you sense of control or power," and "impress on the other person the benefit of the action to them." One male said that a dissatisfying conversation could have been improved if he could "convince him [the conversa­ tional partner] to give the benefit of the doubt" to other people. Sometimes the strategy of assertion was indicated by descriptions of

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 125

communication style. For example, "stress," "assert," or "emphasize my point" were phrases that were placed in this category. Thus, as­ sertiveness applies to both style and substance. Asserting point-of-view was mentioned 43 times. Most of the responses in this category were elicited by either the description of the control-powerlessness issue (44%) or the lack of accomplishing goals (25%). The second category isPositive Self-Presentation. There were two main themes in this category. One theme was to mention or purpose­ fully demonstrate positive attributes or accomplishments in order to impress the other. For example, "I try to make others see what I know" (i.e., "when I'm being talked down to I try to show my intelli­ gence") . The other theme was to behave in a way that contradicts stereotype-based expectations: "I just make sure my actions and conversation don't fit the negative stereotype." Both strategies imply intentionally presenting self in a way that will produce the effect of impressing the other. Positive self-presentation was mentioned most often as a response to stereotyping. The next theme, Be Open and Friendly, was recommended most frequently as a strategy for improving dissatisfying conversations. Respondents expressed a desire to have people consider their ideas or opinions, rather than dismiss them without giving them sufficient consideration. This category is similar to positive self-presentation, but without the self-conscious attempt to impress. Rather, it is usu­ ally phrased with simple admonitions to be tactful and polite and to remain open and friendly (i.e., "be considerate of the other person," "be polite and courteous," "make the person feel not intimidated"). For example, a male wanted the other person to be "more openminded," and a second male said the other person should "be more patient, not assume anything, find out first." This strategy was a de­ sired change in the conversational partner. One female asserted that open-mindedness is not highly valued. She felt that African Americans are more concerned with appearing strong rather than uncertain and saw openness as a White, middle-class female attribute. This is consistent with our data that show that open-mindedness is seen as a strategy for the White interactant to invoke. The strategy appears to be used most frequently when ac­ ceptance and understanding are the issues. The fourth theme was called Avoidance and was suggested as a strategy for dissatisfying conversations. Those who responded with this strategy felt the only recourse was to either avoid the topic or end

126 • CHAPTER 3

the interaction. This strategy is usually simply described as "terminate the conversation," or "I remove myself from the conversation." Other variations include changing the subject, not getting involved with such conversations in the first place, or giving up trying to explain or accomplish anything (e.g., "I don't think it is beneficial to try to change the other person"). For example, one respondent said she could have improved the situation by "not bringing up the subject," whereas another female said the other person could have improved the situation "by leaving my house politely." These instances were very clear-cut and obvious. Respondents felt that certain conversa­ tions should not take place and that certain topics would just have to be avoided with specific people. Due to their conceptual similarity and additional responses indicating overlap, this category combined four of the original categories: Avoid, Give In, Nothing Self Can Do, Nothing Other Can Do. This issue is most frequently evoked when there are problems with goal attainment, acceptance, authenticity, and understanding, whereas the "Giving In" sub-theme is suggested by some when there is a feeling of powerlessness. The fifth strategy, Interaction Management, may occur more fre­ quently among descriptions of satisfying conversations. There are several strategies in this category, from managing the immediate in­ teraction ("take turns," "work toward a compromise"), referring the problem to a later interaction or outside resources, ("request a time to talk it over," "contact personnel director"), or using alternative methods of communicating ("write a note"). Many respondents mentioned regulating the amount of talk and the rate. For instance, one female wrote that a satisfying conversation could have been im­ proved by "just talking a little more," and another female reported that her conversation could have been improved by "more time" to­ gether. Others discussed turn taking. The conversation can be improved if either interactant adopts this strategy and suggestions of Interaction Management are fairly evenly distributed among the various issues. Overall, Interaction Manage­ ment appears to be used when communication is not problematic to improve conversations that do not have any particularly salient is­ sues or is used to divert and redirect the conversation when prob­ lems do occur. Other Orientation occurred most frequently in descriptions of im­ proving satisfying intercultural conversations and included attempts to involve the other person, find common ground, and create identifi­

COMMUNICATION

COMPETENCE • 127

cation. Most of the comments in this category relate to listening to the other person's point of view (e.g., "hear the person out," "learn by lis­ tening," "placing them in our shoes," "ask better questions," and "try to look at from both sides"). Also, bringing up topics that both com­ municants share is suggested and described as a way to establish com­ mon ground, such as to "think or talk about something that both can identify with" or to "talk about something he could have related to." This strategy was used to improve all of the issues, with the highest re­ sponse from the acceptance, authenticity, goal attainment, and un­ derstanding issues. Responses suggest that either interactant can improve the conversation by being more other oriented. Additional Strategies. More recent analyses have identified ad­ ditional strategies. The additional strategies are as follows: Inform/Educate, Express Genuineness, Confront, Internal Management, Treat as Individual, and Language Management (Martin, Moore, Hecht, & Larkey, 2001). We have less information on these and, therefore, they require additional testing. The theme of Inform/Educate is to clarify or give more informa­ tion. The tone of this strategy is more passive than the argumenta­ tion and persuasion tactics described in the Asserting Point-of-View category. For example, a female wanted to educate her partner about slavery in order to help him understand. Other examples include statements such as: "Tactfully educate by giving more information," "we must be ready to provide more information at all times," and "if the conversation is that important, try and explain whatever you feel is being misunderstood." One set of individuals in this category felt that they should be more detailed, factual, and specific. For example, one female wrote that "if I had more facts I could have continued in my point of trying to make him realize these people need help." This was mainly seen as a strategy for the respondent to employ, not the conversational partner. Most often, this suggestion is in re­ sponse to the issue of lack of understanding. However, it is also often used as a strategy to overcome stereotyping. One of the frequently mentioned methods for clarification is to ask questions to assure un­ derstanding, such as to simply "ask them for more information" or "ask what it is they don't understand." This was by far the most fre­ quently mentioned strategy and is used more often in response to the lack of understanding issue.

128 • CHAPTER 3

Expressing Genuineness (i.e., expressing feelings and being honest or genuine, or to "be yourself") is a strategy often mentioned, particularly in response to the issues of feelings not being expressed or a lack of genu­ ineness. One can be open to new ideas and experiences without express­ ing genuineness. This strategy is sometimes presented as a method to lead or model the behavior in hopes that the other will follow. It is similar, but not equivalent to, authenticity. Also, this strategy is used as a response to an unfavorable conversation (i.e., "share your feelings of a lack of ac­ complishment," "ask the person to be for real," or "describe feeling you have about the situation and tell the person 'it makes me feel bad when you ...'"). Such statements might be considered a form of confrontation, but the focus seems to be more on changing the other's behavior by be­ ing completely honest rather than on confronting the other person. This was a popular strategy and is used most frequently in reaction to the ex­ pressing feelings issue and genuineness. Confrontt is described as either a direct confrontation of the issue or using questions to place the burden back on the other person. The object is not to change the other person's mind as in the As­ serting Point-of-View strategy. Confronting is an attempt to articulate precisely how one feels in an effort to be understood. Recommenda­ tions for confrontation strategies include, "State that you feel that the other party feels hesitant about being authentic with you," "cor­ rect misconceptions in a shrewd, effective manner," or "I believe you must always confront stereotyping by saying, 'It sounds as if you are making generalizations that may not be applicable to me."' Examples of questions include: "Just say, 'but how do you feel about it?' If they don't answer, it's obvious that it at least makes them feel uncomfortable" or "ask why and how they got that stereotyp­ ing." These questions are not asking for information as much as they are apparently intended to put the problem back on the shoulders of the other. This strategy is used most frequently when the other per­ son is stereotyping, but it is also used when genuineness is an issue. Internal Management is the next category. Interaction manage­ ment involves coordination of talk; however, internal management in­ volves coordination of one's intrapersonal communication behaviors. Many of the comments did not recommend actual behaviors or scripts that one could use in response to internal management issues. Rather, there were suggestions for how to handle one's internal response, such as how to think or feel about the situation. Usually these sugges­ tions prescribed acceptance, objectivity, and nondefensiveness as in­

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 129

ternal attitudes rather than behaviors. Examples include, "I do my best to control my thoughts," "think first of who you are, how you feel about yourself," and "put situation in proper perspective" (i.e., "lose a battle to win the war"). Internal management is frequently com­ mented on, often in response to the acceptance issue but also used for the other issues as well. The Treat as Individual/Equal category makes direct suggestions to leave race, color, or stereotypical assumptions out of the conversa­ tion, such as to "Talk to each other without having the sense of color in the conversation." Additionally, it includes direct suggestions to treat others as individuals, such as "decisions should be made based on each individual" or "get to know me then judge me." This is not a mat­ ter of finding common ground as with the "other orientation" strategy, but rather treating people with respect because it might be seen as a way to demonstrate that one is dealing with others on equal footing. Other examples included a female who wanted the other person to "not take a self-righteous position" and a second female who would have been more satisfied if her partner "had been less inclined to a su­ perior attitude." This strategy is suggested most frequently in re­ sponse to stereotyping and, for the most part, the expectation was that the other person would adopt this strategy (e.g., "have them eval­ uate me on my own merit"). Language Management only had a few items. However, these seemed to be sufficiently different from the other categories to war­ rant separate treatment. The suggestions were mostly related to avoiding slang and jargon or by articulating clearly in order to be un­ derstood. "Refrain from using unfamiliar jargon" and "talk the same language" are typical examples. Language management was not fre­ quently mentioned and is suggested as a way of responding to the understanding issue. Martin et al.'s (2001) recent study returns to Hecht and Ribeau's (1987) seven conversational improvement strategies, rather than the six mentioned previously: Assertiveness, Open-mindedness, Avoidance, Nothing Can Be Done, Give in, Interaction Manage­ ment, and Other Orientation. Although there is some overlap be­ tween the two lists of strategies, two strategies appear here that are not among the six discussed earlier. Those two are Nothing Can Be Done (related to Nothing Other Can Do discussed later in this chap­ ter) and Give In. Nothing Can BeDone refers to the idea that nothing can be done to improve the conversation. Give In suggests the other

130 • CHAPTER 3

person should concede or apologize as a means of improving or re­ pairing the conversation. Martin et al. (2001) reported that the 113 surveys and 10 interviews conducted revealed that each of these strategies were present in the range of African American conversa­ tional improvement strategies with European Americans, and a total of 12 strategies were used, ranging from aggressive to assertive to nonassertive to accommodating. The results were quite heuristic, as the study discovered that "issues of stereotyping, powerlessness and authenticity seem to call for stronger, more assertive and divergent strategies not identified in previous competency studies" (p. 24). Validation of the Conversational Improvement Strategies. Studies show that use of the original set of improvement strategies is related to satisfaction (Allen et al., 1996; Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht, Ribeau,& Alberts, 1989; Martin, Hecht, & Larkey 1994). Until recently (Martin et al., 2001), research had not addressed the addi­ tional strategies. More research is needed to further explore this most important facet of intercultural communication. Allen, Hecht, and Martin's (1996) meta-analysis of cultural differences considered "whether findings from one cultural setting may or may not replicate or generalize to another cultural setting" (p. 70). The study explored three analyzable outcomes within quantitative research: psycho­ metric, mean or quantity, and process or functional differences. The psychometric studies explore semantic differential responses via self-report data. The authors argued that questions of reliability are critical to psychometric investigations where content homogeneity becomes the primary validity measure. This severely limits the integ­ rity of the findings. Mean difference or quantity studies of culture are also problematic. One example of this is the communication appre­ hension literature that compares reticence across entire countries with the assumption that all people within the countries think and behave alike. Finally, Allen et al. contended that the literature that ex­ plores culture according to process and functional differences is also limited. They asserted, "Process differences indicate that the same variable is functioning or used differently by the different cultures" (p. 71), which is highly unlikely as a consistent feature of multifac­ eted cultural communities. The challenge is to do research that uses a critical lens to examine in-group and out-group differences be­ tween and among cultures but also to be careful in making assess­ ments about whether cultural groups differ entirely, slightly, or not at

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 131

all. We intuitively believe that cultures do differ at least slightly, and Allen et al.'s study has found that these differences are often exacer­ bated by research written that utilizes psychometric, mean and pro­ cess rationales to explain cultural differences. Conversations vary within and among cultures, and so does satisfy­ ing communication patterns. Dissatisfying conversations can be im­ proved by either being more open-minded or by avoiding the topic or the entire conversation, and this is true regardless of age, gender, in­ come, and geography. However, although the improvement strategies influence satisfaction notwithstanding these personal characteristics, research does show that people with family incomes below $25,000 are more likely to suggest interaction management to improve con­ versations whereas those with incomes above this mark were more likely to suggest increased other orientation. For example, in Martin et al.'s (1994) study, the modal family income was $20,000 to $30,000, and these respondents nearly doubled the conversational improve­ ment strategies uncovered in previous studies. Research has also shown that the identity label a person adopts is associated with the strategies she or he is likely to use to improve intercultural conversations (Larkey et al., 1993). Those using the label Black American or African American are more likely to suggest asser­ tiveness to improve conversations than are those who label them­ selves as Black. Conversely, those using Black and Black American are more likely than those using African American to report that com­ munication can be improved by exhibiting more other-orientation. The African Americans we interviewed and surveyed felt that the improvement strategies might work under certain circumstances. However, where stereotyping and acceptance are issues, they did not hold out much hope. One male did not see much hope for im­ proving dissatisfying conversations. Describing it as "bouncing off a brick wall," he said that most Blacks look for keys in the beginning. If they "see signs of racism, patronizing behavior, or other put downs, they turn off quickly." The importance of stereotyping and accep­ tance is stressed here. He also noted that after "the first few minutes of a bad conversation it is almost a lost cause." Others held out some hope when the other issues were salient, feeling that some of the strategies might work but cautioning against placing too much faith in any attempt by African Americans where power is unequal. This is consistent with our findings that indicate that avoidance by the self and open-mindedness by Whites are the two most salient strategies.

132 • CHAPTER 3

The original strategies provide an effective set of remediation tac­ tics for powerlessness, acceptance, understanding, and goal attain­ ment, and a moderately effective set of strategies for stereotyping and authenticity. Additional strategies are needed for expressive­ ness, and these may be present in the extended list provided previ­ ously, but this later list has not yet been tested for its relationship to the issues. Overall,Avoidance and Other Orientation seem to be the most useful strategies across the issues. Intercultural Conversational Improvement Strategies in In-Group and Out-Group Conversations. Our discussion of the communication issues explained the importance of distinguishing between in-group and out-group relationships. We applied the same concept to conversational improvement strategies in an effort to see if different strategies are used with different conversations. A survey measure of the improvement strategies was constructed and administered to the same sample of 129 African Americans de­ scribed previously. After recalling a conversation, respondents were asked to indicate how the conversation could have been im­ proved. Regression analyses were then computed separately for in-group (with friends) and out-group (with acquaintances) con­ versations to see if the choice of improvement strategy was related to the type of issue. Participants used similar improvement strategies are used with the three issues identified with satisfying communication, goal at­ tainment, understanding, and acceptance. Avoidance seems to be the sole strategy used in in-group conversations for these issues, whereas in out-group conversations Other Orientation is used as well. The issue of understanding is an exception. For this issue both Avoidance and Other Orientation are associated with both in-group and out-group conversations. When powerlessness is problematic in in-group conversations, In­ teraction Management is used. In out-group conversations,Nothing Other Can Do and Giving In are strategies used. The issue of stereo­ typing in out-group conversations is associated with Nothing Other Can Do. The relationship between stereotyping and strategies is interest­ ing and not easy to interpret. No strategies were associated with ste­ reotyping for in-group conversations for African Americans and

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 133

Nothing Other Can Do about it for out-group. This is a difficult issue with which people have not learned to contend. Cultural representa­ tives in the Hecht, Ribeau, and Alberts (1989) study said they just "turned off' people they perceived to be racist. The data in this study also indicate that African Americans seem resigned to the lack of con­ trol over racism and feel that little can be done to improve these situ­ ations in distant relationships. Future research is needed to suggest ways of coping with this issue. To summarize, different strategies are used in in-group and out-group conversations on all issues except for understanding. For the three issues identified in satisfying conversations, the strategy most strongly associated with in-group conversations (Avoidance) is described as the joint responsibility of both self and other. Interac­ tion Management, associated with in-group conversations when powerlessness is an issue, also requires joint action. However, additional strategies are identified with out-group conversations—Other Orientation and Giving In—and shift the respon­ sibility to the other interactant. The exception to this is the fact that African Americans feel there is Nothing Other Can Do when power­ lessness and stereotyping occur in out-group conversations. Overall, out-group conversations are associated with strategies that put more of the responsibility on the other person. Here, Other Orientation and Giving In are used when the conversation is ex­ tremely problematic, implying that it is the other person's responsi­ bility to deal with the issues (i.e., should agree with self, not offend me and ask me what I wanted, should be more oriented to me, should practice more other orientation). This focus on the other's responsibilities is somewhat tempered for African Americans' in-group conversations. Avoidance, because it can be seen as a politeness strategy, is often associated with in-group conversations or conversations with close friends. This implies that when there are problems in Authenticity, Goal Attainment, Accep­ tance, and Understanding, both interactants may want to avoid top­ ics that are problematic. A Comparison of African American and European American Conversational Improvement Strategies. An analysis of the issues compared African American and European American communica­ tors (Martin et al., 1994). These analyses indicated that European

134 • CHAPTER 3

Americans did not generally report using the improvement strate­ gies in response to the issues. When significant relationships were observed, they were moderate to weak and always of lesser magni­ tude than those observed for African Americans. These findings tell us that the improvement strategies are more characteristic of African Americans than European Americans. This was true across age groups, as demonstrated by Martin et al.'s (2001) study of 113 Afri­ can Americans aged 22 to 75 years old. There were, however, certain similarities and other more specific differences in the findings across the studies on conversational improvement strategies and commu­ nication issues. The major similarity between European American and African Americans is that, for both groups, Avoidance and Other Orienta­ tion are the most frequently used strategies to improve problematic conversations. It is interesting that the strategies mentioned most frequently are those that require either joint action or the responsi­ bility of the other person. There are few "self" strategies (e.g.,Asser­ tiveness) associated with these issues. In addition, it seems that the more distant the relationships (out-group conversations), the more the strategies focus on the other interactant's responsibility. In contrast, the closer the relation­ ship (in-group conversations), the more joint strategies are used. However, although this general relationship between degree of inti­ macy in conversation and locus of responsibility seems to hold for both groups, there is a difference in the types of strategies used. The major differences revolved around the number of strategies associated with each issue. African Americans seemed to report dif­ ferential patterns of strategy use for Powerlessness and Stereo­ typing (issues generated from dissatisfying communication) and those issues associated with satisfying conversations (Acceptance, Understanding, Goal Attainment). This differential pattern did not emerge in the European American data. This is understandable given that the framework (issues and strategies) was developed from African American samples and in this study was extended to European Americans. The findings for the in-group-out-group distinction also demon­ strate similarities and differences. As noted, African Americans tend to place responsibility on the other for conversational improvement, al­ though less so among members of the in-group. Reliance on the other is even stronger among European Americans, and this extends to

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 135

in-group conversations where Other Orientation, a strategy that the conversational partner is expected to use, is most frequently used. If both groups place more responsibility on the other person for improving problematic interaction, particularly in out-group conver­ sations, it may explain some of the difficulty reported in intercultural communication identified in previous research. Each interactant may feel the other is responsible for improving the conversation, and this is particularly true when relationships are not intimate. The differing expectations between the two groups in in-group and out-group conversations further explains the difficulty. If African American interactants hold expectations that problematic in-group conversations should be improved by some joint conversational strategies and European Americans expect that it is the responsibility of the other person, it is easy to see how misunderstandings and neg­ ative outcomes might occur. This particular mix of approaches to in-group relationships may impose more of the responsibility for im­ proving these conversations on the shoulders of Africans Americans.

Intracultural Communication Effectiveness

Finally, we have also addressed intracultural communication satis­ faction, although in a more limited way (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984). Like the intercultural research, these studies attempted to identify the Af­ rican American perspective on these conversations. Responses to open-ended questions in which respondents described satisfying and dissatisfying conversations were used to construct scalar items in surveys that elaborated the findings. See Table 3.4 for more details comparing African Americans and European Americans with respect to their concerns regarding communication satisfaction. In this research, we focused on intracultural communication among friends in three cultural groups (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984). The study, however, was conducted before the issues had crystallized into their present forms, although the findings parallel the later issues. This work showed that the largest intracultural communication differ­ ences were between Mexican Americans and European Americans, with African Americans closer to European Americans in terms of their intracultural communication patterns. Mexican Americans seem to place greater emphasis on a closely bonded relationship (relational solidarity) with rewards derived from within the relationship. The

136 • CHAPTER 3 TABLE 3.4 A Comparison of African Americans and European Americans on the Issues Salient to Interethnic Communication Satisfaction African American

European American

Overall Powerlessness

Identity

Authenticity

Authenticity

Understanding

Understanding

Acceptance

Acceptance

Relaxation

Coal

Shared Worldview

Relational Solidarity

Control

Task

Powerlessness

Goal Attainment

In-group

Common Ground Relaxation Stereotyping Out-group Task Understanding Common Ground

Close Bonding

Stereotyping

Authenticity

Acceptance

Relation Solidarity

Shared Worldview

Acceptance

Source: Hecht, Larkey, Johnson, and Reinard (1991).

dyadic unit is seen as joined together, with self-interest subsumed in relational interest. The bonding is implicit. The following statement would typify this viewpoint: "We are doing something together that we are both getting something out of." In addition, satisfying commu­ nication for this group also revolves around nonverbal communica­ tion and acceptance of self. More on the Mexican American perspective is presented in Hecht et al. (1990). European Americans, and to a lesser extent African Americans, are more self-oriented, and their rewards tend to be external. From this cultural perspective, the other person is viewed as an external source of rewards for one's self. This perspective might be typified by the following statement: "I'm doing something with you and will get

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 137

my needs met (and you might as well)." In addition, European Amer­ ican and African American groups seem to place greater emphasis on the future of the relationship (this seems to be assumed among Mex­ ican Americans) and explicit confirmation that the message and the relationship are being accepted. Although the differences between African Americans and Euro­ pean Americans were not as pronounced, they were present none­ theless. African Americans seem to require deeper, more intimate involvement in the topic. Intimacy for this group is intrinsic to the re­ lationship, therapeutic, and is built on trust. Greater Other Orienta­ tion is also presented, leading us to conclude that satisfaction for African Americans may revolve around having conversational goals met through the actions of others. Consistent with their position be­ tween the other two groups, bonding seems to be conditional de­ pending on goal attainment and reciprocity. In contrast to African Americans, European Americans place greater emphasis on emotional aspects of conversation and appear to be more future-oriented. This is consistent with previous findings for this group that revealed that communication satisfaction among friends is more strongly influenced by signs of intimacy. These signs confirm several issues: the future of the relationship, the comfortability of the atmosphere, and the emotional tone of the con­ versation (Hecht, 1984). These studies show that the issues of expressiveness, authenticity, understanding, and goal attainment and the conversational im­ provement strategy of other orientation are also salient to African Americans in the intracultural setting. Expressiveness is reflected in an African American emphasis on a deeply intimate involvement in the topic of intracultural interaction. The passion associated with such involvement is communicated through expressive style. Au­ thenticity is also important in intracultural communication. African Americans stress a genuine involvement with the topic and the im­ portance of an intimacy that is intrinsic to the relationship. Com­ bined, expressiveness and authenticity speak to a kind of intimacy that is stressed in in-group conversations. African Americans seem to place particularly high value on trust and helping one another. Understanding and goal attainment also appear to be salient Afri­ can American issues in intracultural communication. African Ameri­ cans seem to require explicit confirmation that both parties are going in the same direction or are on the "same wave length." Rela­

138 • CHAPTER 3

tively unambiguous cues are needed to express understanding when members of this group communicate with each other. As with understanding, in intracultural conversations African Americans seem to desire confirmation that the interactants share the same goals and they are being met. Beyond the issues of understanding and goal attainment is the need for expressions of these outcomes. Here, expressiveness, understanding, and goal attainment seem to merge into an emphasis on explicit confirmation of mutual agree­ ment about where the conversation is going. Finally, research shows that African Americans place more emphasis than European Americans on other orientation in intracultural inter­ action. Thus, it appears that in intracultural settings Other Orienta­ tion may be an issue as well as a means for improving conversation. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we have attempted to articulate an African American perspective on communication competence. These studies are based on the assumptions articulated in the opening chapter. We ex­ amine how culture emerges in social interaction and explicate Afri­ can American perceptions of patterned conduct. A number of sensitizing constructs are used in these analyses. The chapter seeks to describe African American prescriptions for appro­ priate and effective communication. We approach these prescrip­ tions by conceptualizing communication as a problematic event and eliciting the patterns, interpretations, and taken-for-granted ele­ ments of conversation. As a result, we identify conversational issues and improvement strategies. In addition, we use core symbols to represent norms. This work is in its infancy. Although we can point to specific find­ ings, much more research is needed before we can be said to truly understand the African American code of competence and the con­ versational style in which it is enacted. To date we have information about certain issues that appear highly salient to the group and a set of strategies that can be used to improve conversations. Other ques­ tions are equally salient. After viewing Lee Mun Wah's movie Color of Fear, we are presented with a set of questions that make us contem­ plate how cocultural groups perceive and interact with one another: How do African Americans of different economic sectors interact

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE • 139

with one another? How do they interact with other cultural groups with dissimilar class positions? What of the issues in communication between African Americans and other groups (e.g., Mexican Ameri­ cans, Asian Americans, types of European Americans)? What are the patterns to these issues, and how are they related to the culture it­ self? Cultural identities? Communication style? Other methods (e.g., videotaped conversations, ethnographies, experiments) also can be utilized to identify additional issues, learn how the issues emerge, see what other variables influence the issues, and develop a system for classifying and understanding these problematic elements. Do these issues re-appear in relationships over time? Are some more characteristic of earlier stages of relationships? How do power dy­ namics (e.g., in organizations) influence the issues? Our understanding of communication improvement strategies has developed since the 1980s. It initially relied too heavily on quan­ titative data, although our recent study triangulated methods to in­ clude an interpretive approach. More research is needed and ethnographic, rhetorical, and textual inquiry would be heuristic. We need to videotape conversations involving African Americans and observe how the issues are dealt with through specific conversa­ tional acts. We also need longitudinal studies of relationships to learn how friends, co-workers, and married couples manage these is­ sues through relational strategies. For example, how can we use Pennington's (2000) important work on African American women's narratives in the workplace as a springboard for other studies con­ cerning autoethnographies, or how do we use Allen's (2000a) recon­ ceptualization of women in organizations to rethink the intersection between culture, identity, class, and gender standpoint episte­ mologies? We discuss some of these issues in chapter 5. As through­ out this book, we hope our work can be a catalyst for answering questions such as these.

CHAPTER 4

African American

Language and

Communication Styles

I

n chapter 1, we contend that culture is socially emergent and is cocreated, negotiated, and maintained as a function of identity. We also defined culture as a system of interdependent patterns of conduct and interpretation. We began the process of explicating this system in chapter 2, where we describe African American cultural identity. In chapter 3, we discuss modes of communication compe­ tence. However, we also argue that conversation is one of the key as­ pects of culture (Martin et al., 2001; Philipsen, 1987). In this chapter, we focus on characteristic patterns of African American conversation, particularly language and communication styles. African American culture and ethnicity emerge through these social patterns. Communication is multifunctional, accomplishing such goals as providing information, regulating conversational flow, facilitating negotiations of identity, and exercising social control (Jackson, 140

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 141

1999a, in press-b; Patterson, 1983, 1987). One of its more important functions is to express identities, one of which is cultural identity. Some of the communicative properties of identity are discussed in the previous chapter. However, conversational behaviors do more than express identity, and our goal in this chapter is to describe these conversational patterns. The conversational styles of African American culture are charac­ terized in a variety of studies and reflect a unique, cultural mode of conversing that is expressed in language, relationships, as well as verbal, and nonverbal messages. In analyzing these studies, we iden­ tified common themes and inferred their functional properties and underlying core symbols. Reasonable caution must be urged in interpreting research find­ ings concerning African American communication styles. First, most of these studies describe language, verbal messages, and nonverbal messages. They rarely examine the message meanings or functions, although at times these can be inferred. Second, most of these stud­ ies use race as a variable, not ethnicity or culture, and do not con­ sider a sense of self-identity. That is, respondents in these studies are classified by biological or physiognomic characteristics, and not fac­ tors such as traditions, membership, and social organization. These studies also do not consider the degree or type of identification with the groups and may suggest a degree of ingroup homogeneity that is misleading. Third, African American/European American differences are likely to be mediated by variables such as in-group/out-group sta­ tus, gender, socioeconomic status, as well as contextual and regional factors, and these often are not incorporated into research designs. For example, kinesic (body movement) behavior is influenced by both race and gender, with body-lean and eye-gaze differences more pronounced for females than males (Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989; Smith, 1983). In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Black fe­ males look at the conversational partner less and lean toward each other more than White females (Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989; Smith, 1983). Researchers have also observed gender and race differ­ ences in other aspects of male-female relationships (Cazenave, 1983; Clark, 1985; Gray-Little, 1982; Houston, 2000a; Ransford & Miller, 1983; Robinson, 1983), suggesting that African American males are more negatively stereotyped by females of their race and are more traditional about heterosexual, intimate relationships (par­ ticularly middle-class African American males) than other race and

142 • CHAPTER 4

gender groups. White and Parham (1990) provided an excellent summary of many of these issues. Our discussion of Black Feminism (see chap. 2) highlights the ideology, which accompanies several of these differences. As a result, the findings of these studies do not fit neatly into a ho­ mogeneous system. This is not a criticism of the studies that are con­ ducted within their own research traditions, rather an explanation of the difficulty of integrating findings from those with our own per­ spectives. Our discussion of these studies considers culturally cen­ tered language styles, core symbols of communication styles, and other aspects of communication styles. LANGUAGE STYLE

Cultural groups define themselves in part through language, and members establish identity through language use. African Americans are a pluralistic speech community in which regional and social class differences are apparent (Jenkins, 1982; Rickford, 2000; Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Even linguistic behavior in socioeconomically ho­ mogeneous inner-city Black neighborhoods is not necessarily homo­ geneous (Edwards, 1992). Variables such as physical isolation, sociocultural orientation, and age-group affiliations affect social net­ working and linguistic styles. As a result, gender variations may differ by generation. However, even within this diversity, a language varia­ tion known as Black English has been identified as rooted in African American culture (Dillard, 1972; Jenkins, 1982; King & James, 1983; Labov, 1982; Smitherman, 2000; Williams, 1997; R. Wright, 1998). As a result of this language difference and other linguistic markers, Afri­ can Americans often feel the need to switch between their own cul­ turally constituted language code of Black English and that of the more dominant European American society. In the pages that follow, we describe Black English, code, or style switching, and the oral tra­ dition. It is important to note that we deliberately use the terms Ebonics, Black English, and African American Vernacular English interchangeably. For our purposes here, we see the distinctions drawn among scholars when discussing these terms as semantic dif­ ferences. For example, Ebonics, which means "Black sounds," has been considered a phonetic variation that does not account for the political and revolutionary naming of Black English as a distinctive,

LANGUAGE

AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 143

well-structured, legitimate language or language variation of Eng­ lish. Although this argument is an important one to make, we seek to historicize and explain the sociopolitical relevance of Black English and all of the ways it has been studied as a systematized, more-thanslang linguistic vehicle. Another notation that must be made here is that language style is different from communication style in the same way that language is distinguished from communication. Communication style is much broader, potentially less structured, although still observable, and includes nonverbal behavioral codes. Language style includes code switching and verbal style shifting, which is often culturally, socially, and politically constituted and negotiated. Black English rightfully is explored under the rubric of language style with the caveat that no single language can be understood fully by mentioning only stylistic features, so we also explore structure and function as constitutive el­ ements of Black English.

Black English

Black English is a distinctive language code. Some treat it as a dialect of Mainstream American English under the assumption that Africans came to the United States with no knowledge of English and devel­ oped the dialect while learning the mainstream language (Weber, 1991). Others argue that it is a Creole language formed by combining Mainstream American English and native African languages (Jenkins, 1982; Labov, 1982; Smitherman-Donaldson, 1988; Weber, 1991), evolving from largely West African pidgin forms (Blackshire-Belay, 1996; Hecht et al., 2001; Montgomery & Mishoe, 1999). Some of those in this latter group have argued that the dialect position de­ means the language system and the African slaves by assuming that their native language disappeared rather than merging with that spo­ ken by slave owners (Blackshire-Belay, 1996; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Weber, 1991). From this perspective, the study of Black English has been highly politicized because of the tendency to describe the language as a deviant or deficient form of Mainstream or Standard Mainstream American English (Smitherman, 1977; SmithermanDonaldson, 1988). Viewing Black English as a dialect can be inter­ preted as a deficit-deficiency perspective, or a Eurocentric vision, which only describes what appears "missing" or grammatically "incor­

144 • CHAPTER 4

rect" due to ignorance about the structure and historicity of Black English (Perry & Delpit, 1998). For this reason, we will typically use Black English rather than Black Dialect to denote the language form as politically, structurally, and culturally valid. Williams (1997) sug­ gested that the use of the label Ebonics, a term derived from the words ebony and phonics, is an alternative and more positive label. Ernie Smith in Oakland, California created the term; incidentally, the same place where the school board controversy erupted—the one about Ebonics being added to the curriculum. As stated earlier, Ebonics, Af­ rican Mainstream American English, and African American Vernacular English will each appear in the subsequent pages of this chapter as a synonym for Black English. Like other language forms, Black English is governed by rules with specific historical derivations that have been passed on through so­ cialization (Means-Coleman & Daniel, 2000; Wright, 1998). Black English is now recognized as a language form with a unique and logi­ cal syntax, semantic system, and grammar (Blackshire-Belay, 1996; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 1977; SmithermanDonaldson, 1988; Winford, 2000), although its legitimacy has still been called into question (Rodriguez, 2000). Black English varies in its forms depending on which African language influenced it and where in the United States it was developed (Blackshire-Belay, 1996; Smitherman, 1977). Early forms of Black English are scantily and irregularly recorded, but there is strong evidence of the African influence in both early and current forms (Blackshire-Belay, 1996; Smitherman, 1977). These influences are seen most in sentence structure and in semantics. Sentence structures have been influenced profoundly by the rules of the African languages. Although the vocabularies of the enslaved members of multiple tribes were different, most of these languages shared the same structural patterns. For example, subject nouns are followed by a repeated pronoun ("my father, he ..."), questions omit do ("what it come to?"), and verbs do not vary form to indicate tense, but context clarifiers are used instead ("I know it good when he ask me"; Dandy, 1991; Smitherman, 1977). Ebonics evolved from the Niger-Congo African language family. Hecht et al. (2001) noted five characteristics that distinguish Ebonics: homogenous consonant clusters (e.g., "Who you wid?"); as­ pectual be (e.g., "She be actin' like that all the time"); zero copula (e.g., "She so crazy"); double negative (e.g., "I ain't got no mo' left");

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION STYLES » 145

and the unique lexical forms (e.g., "I'm finna go"). Winford (2000) identified three components of Black English, or what he called Afri­ can American Vernacular English (AAVE): habitual be (same as as­ pectual be previously mentioned), perfect done (i.e., "She done did it again") and remote perfect been (i.e., "I been seen that a long time ago"). Finally, Dandy (1991) discussed three cases of "s-" or the ab­ sent "s": pluralization, possession, and third person singular present tense. Dandy demonstrated use of pluralization without an "s" with the sentence "Now I got five cent." Possession without an "s" is ex­ emplified by the sentence "She over Mary house." Finally, the third-person singular present tense is found without an "s" in "He want to act like he don't see me." These examples are commonly un­ derstood and heard speech conventions within the composite Afri­ can American community. The language and its various forms developed in an American con­ text with no language teachers, little encouragement to learn more than a simple form of English, and strict segregation (Daniel & Means-Coleman, 2000; Smitherman, 1977, 2000). It is no surprise that African language patterns and meanings survived and that lan­ guage structure and new words were improvised to create a unique cultural form. Some of these structures and words are often misun­ derstood as grammatically incorrect when, in fact, the created forms communicate special meanings. For example, the use of be or bees and the omission of the verb form to be are both done strategically to communicate a particular meaning (Montgomery & Mishoe, 1999). Using be or bees as in "it bees dat way" indicates a recurring or habit­ ual pattern, while "it's dat way" implies a one-time occurrence. Languages and language variations develop and thrive when both structure and function are sustained over time. Structure includes words, phrases, syntax, sentences, sounds, and all of the grammati­ cal rules that accompany the speaking of the language. Function re­ fers to a speech community that preserves the language via persistent loyalty over time. Black English possesses both of these characteristics. Research has identified at least two main modern forms of Black English, or standard form and nonstandard vernacular (Jenkins, 1982). Standard form is characterized by its own phonetic (sound; Ford, 1998; Gordon, 2000), semantic (Wright, 1998), and syntactic (Montgomery & Mishoe, 1999) system. Speakers of this form tend to weaken final consonants, simplify consonant clusters, and exhibit

146 • CHAPTER 4

general 1-lessness and r-lessness (Hoover, 1978; Jenkins, 1982). Final consonants will not be weakened (e.g., lack of possessive "s" or past tense "ed"), except when such action affects grammar (Montgomery & Mishoe, 1999). In the nonstandard, vernacular form of Black Eng­ lish, Mainstream American English syntax is used with vocabulary, phonetic, and intonation variations that resemble standard Ebonic us­ age (Gordon, 2000; Jenkins, 1982). Despite these distinctions, it is possible to see not only the borrowed structural rules of the original African languages represented in modern-day Black English, but also the translated words, created phrases, and co-opted words provide clues to a cultural heritage fraught with oppression. Baugh's (1983) study of African Mainstream American English also identifies a number of other lexical forms. Lexical items include syllable contractions (e.g., suppose-spoze), variable forestressing of bisyllabic words (e.g., Po-lice, de-tain), and hypercorrection (e.g., picked-pickted). Other unique grammatical usage includes the more recent use of "steady" and "come" which, like the "be" form, are often considered to be incorrectly used. Baugh (1983) suggested looking beyond the camouflage (because they are used similarly to standard forms) to find their Creole nature. They should be under­ stood as meaningful terms used in systematic ways. For example, the word steady is used to clarify the durational or habitual nature of a verb and probably reflects an African derived construction. The fact that Caribbean English also uses this form to modify verbs lends sup­ port for the Creole origin of this usage. Phrases such as "we be steady running" or "he be steady sleeping" demonstrate the function of the term steady, not to be confused with misuse of the adverb steadily of standard dialect. Baugh showed that in cases where the nature of the verb is already clear the term would not be employed (e.g., "They be steady knowing the truth" is not used). There are also variants in Black English usage. Some Black English forms were neither as salient nor as commonly used as others (Ed­ wards, 1992). In Edwards' (1992) study, he found that older African Americans (over 40 years of age) use Black English variants more of­ ten than younger respondents. Additionally, African Americans hav­ ing strong ties to their neighborhoods and social networks (e.g., volunteer work with churches or community centers) are more likely to use African American English vernacular linguistic variants. Other nuances emerged from life and experiences in an op­ pressed segregated U.S. culture, one of which is a set of expressions

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 147

indicative of a strong Christian orientation; hence, phrases are some­ times coded to mean something other than what they would mean to a non-Black listener (Smitherman, 1977). This "double-meaning" is often referred to as signifying, which is also part of a tradition of intro­ ducing new, trendy lexical items. Such double-meaning expressions are used only until those outside the culture discover the true mean­ ing; then new alternate-meaning words and phrases are created. For example, few people still use terms like fresh , dope, smooth, dyna­ mite, or copacetic to describe something that is impressive, fascinat­ ing, or wonderful. These idioms have been replaced by words or phrases like tight, crunk, off the hook, off the sheezie, and off the chain, and even these terms are bound to change. This sustained interest in uniqueness is important to African American culture, as we discuss later in this chapter. The strategic al­ teration of meaning or development of new lexical devices is related to African American rhetorical tropes such as signifyin', polysemy, and indirection. As suggested with the structure of Black English, semantic differ­ ences within Black English have also been influenced by African lan­ guages. Words have been directly borrowed (e.g., okra, jazz), and many phrases or metaphors have been translated, but with a change in the meaning of the English word. For example, reversal of the meaning of "bad" derives from a Mandingo idiom that also uses a negative word to connote a positive meaning. The use of "skin" (as in the outdated phrase "give me some skin") is also a direct translation of a Mandingo phrase used during a handshake. The distinctiveness of African American speech styles has been problematic for group members. On the one hand, speech that marks the individual as a member of the group can be important for in-group acceptance. Here, the use of African American language markers promotes identity and may be reinforced by group mem­ bers. This is true for Blacks in countries other than the United States as well, except African Mainstream American English has gained more attention than any other variation of English (Winford, 2000). For example, in London, England Black teenagers' use of Creole to­ kens and formulaic expressions are embedded in standard London dialect to mark and represent group language in certain contexts (Hewitt, 1986). In this way, Creole use is equated with Black group identity, and teenagers may feel the need to display some facility with the socially marked forms. Hewitt suggested that for this reason

148 • CHAPTER 4

self-reports discursively bound and assessed based on language may demonstrate overuse of this language form. The double bind emerges when one examines the socialization of children growing up in neighborhoods where the speech dominates on the street. Although many parents want their children to learn standard dialect so that they will be able to assimilate and demon­ strate marketable skills in mainstream society, children, and espe­ cially teens, reinforce each other for maintaining the nonstandard dialect. The standard speech styles that are fiercely ostracized in Black urban communities are, of course, the same styles that are re­ warded by mainstream members, which produces a conflict within as each speaker has to make moment-by-moment choices in style. The stigma attached by the dominant U.S. culture to nonstandard dialects and forms may prove costly for African American speech style (Blackshire-Belay 1996; Rickford, 2000; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Rodriguez, 2000; R. Wright, 1998). Rodriguez (2000) surveyed the literature on the Oakland, California Ebonics controversy. The Oakland Public School Board recommended after several meetings that Ebonics be built into the curriculum as a way to "meet students half way" in terms of their cultural orientation. The strategy was to enhance and ensure African American student success, rather than failure in a system designed to affirm the existence of Whites. This sensitized approach to education was dismissed and ridiculed by cit­ izens of all backgrounds at every level of the political and social struc­ ture throughout the country, including the African American literati. However, the strategy was also publicly supported by a comparably small, powerless segment of the nation's population. This was a po­ litical issue that suggested something significant about the power and legitimacy of English as the lingua franca in the United States. The dominant culture has selected Mainstream American English as preferred usage and relegated other forms, Black English among them, to nonstandard, lower prestige status (Jenkins, 1982; Sey­ mour & Seymour, 1979). This rejection of Black English as a legiti­ mate linguistic style has harmed the development of child speakers (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Some children who speak Black English have been inaccurately diagnosed as communicatively handicapped, mentally retarded, or learning disabled (Seymour & Seymour, 1979). These children were diagnosed using tests written in Main­ stream American English and standardized with its native speakers. The poor performance of Black English-speaking African American

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 149

children may result from the nature of the tests rather than inherent deficiencies. These problems continue into adulthood. Speech style is one of the dimensions on which African Americans experience conflict about their cultural identity and self-concept. They often react to the stigma attached to their dialect and speech style with ambivalence, having received messages from their in-group supporting its use and from mainstream culture rejecting Black English as incorrect and de­ viant speech. Tests of European American perceptions of "sounding Black" indi­ cate that negative evaluations do not pervade all judgments. John­ son and Buttny (1982) reported that, contrary to predictions, European American listeners did not respond more negatively on all dimensions to speakers who "sounded Black" than to speakers who "sounded White." The effects depended on the content of the speech. When the content was narrative or experiential, there were no differences attributable to speech style. However, when the topic was abstract and intellectual, "sounding Black" produced lower rat­ ings from European Americans. Respondents were both more aware and more critical of African American speech characteristics when the topic was intellectual. These findings indicate that European Americans do not have uniformly negative, global predispositions toward African American speech, but they selectively bias their evalu­ ations to be consistent with cultural stereotypes. We elaborate on this later when we introduce Rickford's 1972 study, which explores the accuracy of racial identification after hearing a recorded voice. So far, we have discussed the stigmas attached to natural and learned speaking styles as well as language.

Code or Style Switching

African Americans may react to this stigma by enacting language mo­ bility (changing language groups, idioms and/or expressions; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990) or by code or style switching (selective use of Black English and Mainstream American English depending on the situation; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977; Robinson, 1978; Seymour & Seymour, 1979). While in the former, Mainstream Ameri­ can English is used instead of Black English; in code or style switch­ ing, African Americans learn to identify what is acceptable in

150 • CHAPTER 4

different situations and modify their speech to the appropriate style.1 More must be said about the first type. Although Mainstream American English is often the easier alternative when linguistically mobile persons want to avoid stigma in the United States, resistance is another strategy. Instead of conforming, some individuals and groups would rather sustain their commitment to their own mode of speaking or devise new words that morph the language as it is known. McRae (2001) argued that this "hip" style of speaking is highly characteristic of jazz and other musical forms. It is a way to re­ spond to a linguistically constraining set of rules, which at times are counter to the linguistic traditions of African Americans. Both Major (1994) and McRae asserted that musical artists have always intro­ duced new words to affirm the innovative tendencies of African American cultural interactants and the unique conventions discov­ ered in instrumental sounds, sounds that emulate spoken language. Likewise, Dyson (2001) critically assessed the means by which hip-hop and rap music forms reinvent language to express an op­ pressive socioeconomic condition in the United States. Code and style switching is another way to react to stigma. Three types of style or code switchers have been identified (Seymour & Seymour, 1979), and each type varies in facility with the Black Eng­ lish and Mainstream American English. The first group consists of Af­ rican Americans who are less formally educated and have not been formally introduced to the grammar and structure of Mainstream American English. This group has trouble when Mainstream Ameri­ can English usage is situationally sanctioned. The second group is formally educated and fluent in Mainstream American English, but they have difficulty expressing themselves in Black English and, therefore experience problems when Black English is preferred. The final group is educated and able to use both language systems. Rickford (2000) explained that this latter category is where perhaps the majority of African Americans are located. Although public dis­ course suggests that most Blacks want their children to know only Mainstream American English, Rickford explained, We will also have to abandon the unspoken ideology that we [academ­ ics] know everything and the public knows nothing ... I am struck by 1Baugh (1983) preferred the term style switching, reserving the term code switching for truly bilingual situations.

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 151

the fact that most Black parents and educators say they want them­ selves and their kids to have access to the standard as well as the ver­ nacular. And it seems both self-righteous and hypocritical for us to deny the validity of this view. (p. 275)

Although many African Americans are highly skilled code switchers who modify speaking behaviors almost instinctively, over a dozen re­ search studies completed since the 1970s have found that untrained listeners of tape-recorded speaking excerpts can correctly identify the race of the listener 80% to 90% of the time (Rickford & Rickford, 2000, p. 101). Rickford and Rickford (2000) suggested that the tonal­ ity, pitch, rhythm, and inflection of many African Americans is readily identifiable by untrained listeners after as few as these three words are spoken: "Hey, what's happening?" Seymour and Seymour (1979) explained that what Rickford's (2000) has identified as a third group of bilingual speakers is a prototype of pluralistic language use and should be encouraged in educational set­ tings. However, when this pluralism becomes biculturalism (real or pseudo-membership in two cultures often with no real attachments to either; Lian, 1982), the result may be some of the same deficits associ­ ated with exclusive Black English use (De Vos, 1980). We are not en­ tirely convinced by Seymour and Seymour's study because it tends to reproduce the same arguments devaluing Black English for its per­ ceived resistance to standardization, legitimacy, grammatical correct­ ness, and social viability. Although we understand that Seymour & Seymour's study is more than 20 years old, there are many scholars who would agree with their perspective even in the 21st century. We do recognize that code and style switching, as Dandy (1991) suggested, is an identity-maintenance strategy, defense mechanism, and survival activity. Without understanding 'AMAE (African Main­ stream American English) methods of pluralization, possessive mark­ ing and verbal agreement" (Morgan, 1994, p. 331), one can easily apply an oppressive logic and dismiss its structured system of gram­ mar and meaning as nonstructured, unregulated slang, basolect, "broken English" or just talk (Blackshire-Belay, 1996). However, as stated earlier, there is history, structure, function, and ontological sig­ nificance attached to Ebonics. Blackshire-Belay (1996) asserted, It is my aim to assist in wresting the control of the discussion of Ebonics from those who seek to limit African action and agency. Therefore, it has

152 • CHAPTER 4

become necessary to view Ebonics as a created language developed by Africans in response to their environmental situations. Ebonics be­ comes the overall heading for contact languages that have arisen among people of African descent who are dispersed throughout the world. Wherever we find African-descended people, Ebonics is spoken alongside the language of that particular society. (p. 16)

Blackshire-Belay offered a few examples of geographic regions and cultures where Ebonics is spoken, such as in Haiti and Jamaica where both speak Ebonics in creolized forms. Her study introduces a global and diasporic understanding of Ebonics and concurs with the existence of structural dynamics discussed earlier. Code switching also appears in London, where topic and function trigger switches from Black, Creole forms to standard English dialect (Hewitt, 1986). Creoles are typically found in previously colonized communities, and more specifically, are evidence of 15th century European coloni­ zation (Blackshire-Belay, 1996), such as in the case of New Orleans, Louisiana, Jamaica, Brazil, and others. A pidgin is defined as that which has developed from two-language speakers who do not share a common language, so they simplify their speech for limited contact and interaction with other group members. Once that contact is sus­ tained and the pidgin is passed on to the next generation, it is consid­ ered a Creole and becomes the informal "mother tongue" for the hybrid community. Creoles are used to establish in-group identity, and their usage in some cases may also signify aggression. For exam­ ple, among some Jamaican groups, Creole pronunciations increase during arguments or confrontations. Teenagers seem to equate strength and dauntless assertiveness with Creole and use it strategi­ cally with authority figures, such as police, teachers, and youth work­ ers (Rickford, 1993). Where there is a power differential, Creole use takes on political and cultural significance because it denotes assertiveness and group identity. On the other hand, the standard Black English is associated with respect and is likely to be manifested when this is strategically desirable. This is similar to Jones' (2001) interpretive study of Eng­ lish immigrants to the United States. Her semistructured interviews with 34 English immigrants revealed four primary strategies of lin­ guistic loyalty and linguistic identity maintenance. Although many of the participants admit to code switching by disguising their British English accents, they also used these four strategies to reassert their

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES « 153

genuine connectedness to their mother tongue: sarcasm aimed at Mainstream American English, disgust at Americanisms, self-deprecation when speaking Mainstream American English, and physical incapability of reproducing Mainstream American English accents for long periods of time. Jones' study is important to men­ tion because it demonstrates that Creole speakers are not the only language users who undergo stress concerning codes and style switching or have direct concerns about identity negotiation. Style switching is more general and involves more than just lan­ guage choices. Although effective communicators adapt their style to fit the situation regardless of their culture, the power dynamics of U.S. society and the history of African American oppression imbue this type of switching with a political meaning. African Americans may change their behavior to fit the racial and gender composition of the dyad (Shuter, 1982). For example, many African American males ask fewer questions in interracial dyads, and African American fe­ males asked more questions of European American females than of other African American females (Shuter, 1982). In conversations among Black acquaintances, opposite-sex partners tend to be asked more questions than same-sex partners. Even in out-group encoun­ ters, many African Americans demonstrate nonverbal style switch­ ing, which distinguishes itself from European Americans. For example, Booth-Butterfield and Jordan (1989) showed female par­ ticipants a 29-minute excerpt from Jean Kilbourne's video Killing Us Softly, which examined gender and sex-role stereotypes for women. They were then placed into same-race discussion groups led by a fa­ cilitator of the same race. Booth-Butterfield and Jordan (1989) no­ ticed that the verbal and nonverbal interaction styles shifted due to the racial composition of the group. The coders indicated that more body adaptors, more ambiguous gesturing, and less interruptions were present among the White women in the mixed-race setting than in the same-race setting. These were considered signs of dis­ comfort within the heterogeneous group setting. The Black women participants exhibited more positive immediacy behaviors and a greater sense of comfort than the White women. The Black women were rated more talkative and louder, with more smiling, gesturing, interrupting, touching, and laughter. Booth-Butterfield and Jordan (1989) concluded from the four groups of women that "White women, not Black women may show the greatest behavioral adapta­ tion when moving from racially homogenous to racially balanced

154 • CHAPTER 4

[discussion] groups" (p. 13). Although there may have been subtle adjustments that were considered negligible differences from one group to the other in this study, there were some existing differences and adjustments. The heuristic value of this study is the nature of style shifting among socially stratified groups. African Americans adjust their general communication styles in other ways as well, but perhaps not so subtly. African Americans talk with each other to relax, to maintain, or develop the friendship (Scott, 2000a, 2000b), and out of mutual interest (Pennington, 2000); however, African Americans are more likely to talk with Euro­ pean Americans to negotiate status or get position, to obtain favor­ able future evaluations, to be seen as capable of getting along, and for mutual interest (Allen, 1995; Evans & Herr, 1994; Holder & Vaux, 1998). These motivations are reflected in style switching. Conversa­ tions with other African Americans are likely to include enhanced nonverbal immediacy behaviors, lots of laughter, in-group gestures, and lack Mainstream American English; whereas in Black-White con­ versations, there is often restraint and an awareness of grammar (Cheek, 1976; Jackson 1999a; Major, 1994; Smitherman, 1977). Although these choices or style switches are only partially con­ scious or intentional, there are several systematic situational factors that influence the switching, and these factors may combine in vari­ ous ways (Baugh, 1983). Individuals do not use just one style or an­ other. The full range of style choices—from deep slang and full stylistic manner, to toned-down versions of everyday Black English, to increasing the amount of standard forms—all are used in different situations. Major factors influencing style choice, then, include the frequency of contact with conversants, the familiarity of the contact, and the perceptions of the other as a member or nonmember of Black cul­ ture. Other minor factors that may influence style on a moment-bymoment basis include the presence of females, the topic being dis­ cussed, and the intensity of emotion concerning the topic; however, it is not always possible to predict which way such factors will send the switch. Some forms of situationally appropriate style switching are pre­ ferred by African Americans. Selectively adopting Mainstream Ameri­ can English while associating it with being educated and professional is preferred to adopting a form of Black English that resembles Main­ stream American English but does not fully utilize its rules and forms

LANGUAGE

AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 155

(Garner & Rubin, 1986). Conversely, African Americans perceived Black English to be of high linguistic vitality and used it in casual set­ tings with African Americans and European Americans (Garner & Ru­ bin, 1986). Linguistic competency requires the use of both language systems. Persons who do not know when to use "slang," "image," and "street vernacular" for effect rather than as the major form of commu­ nication and who do not use Mainstream American English appropri­ ately for the context are held in low regard and viewed as uneducated or just plain funny (Garner & Rubin, 1986). The importance of code switching is apparent in studies of success­ ful and unsuccessful African American job interviewees (Akinnaso & Ajirotutu, 1982; Pennington, 2000). Akinnaso and Ajirotutu's (1982) study revealed that African American interviewees who were able to adopt more culture-general discourse strategies were perceived more positively. The African American interviewees who appropriately opened and closed their narratives and demonstrated the ability to stylistically signal talk as interview talk were perceived more positively. These candidates assumed a problem-solving mode and used a narra­ tive form to illustrate their strengths as candidates. The less successful candidates, on the other hand, exemplified a more traditional stylistic form: the telling of stories that seemed to be an end in themselves rather than a way to illustrate qualifications for the job. Also, unsuc­ cessful candidates used more back channel cueing (um hum, um um, yeah, and OK) and vowel lengthening. African Americans may code or style switch while embedding an "in-group" message. This accomplishes the purpose of situationally appropriate use of Mainstream American English while signaling ethnic and cultural identities. For example, during interviews Afri­ can Americans were observed to use culturally specific, contextual­ ization cues that are typically understood by persons familiar with African American cultural traditions but misunderstood or missed by middle-class European American interviewers (Hansell & Ajirotutu, 1982). In addition, the strategies used to maintain and control the flow of conversation are also cues of the point-of-view and the rela­ tionship between speaker's intent and meaning. The two observed, embedded stylistic features were prosodic fea­ tures of Black English: rhythmical stress placement and marked into­ nation patterns and formulaic speech, such as the use of metaphor or a "quotational style" (Hansell & Ajirotutu, 1982). African Ameri­ cans shifted pitch, assumed the style of some other character that

156 • CHAPTER 4

was being quoted, and used other nonmainstream paralinguistic features. Such signals were used to negotiate conversational agen­ das and meanings and can be used for one group to gain conversa­ tional control or "run a game" on the mainstream White interviewer. Code and style switching are important features of intercultural conversations. They signify critical incidents or turning points when interaction is influenced by perceptions of competency, power dy­ namics, affect displays, and code variations. Successful and compe­ tent language users must not be defined by their ability to meet foreign standards, but by their ability to recognize and facilitate ef­ fective interaction when variables like power may play a key role in acquiescence. In other words, thus far in this chapter, we have at­ tempted to demonstrate that "effective" interaction cannot always be evaluated by looking at results of conversations but may also be mea­ sured by the process of identity exchange during interaction. Cer­ tainly, there are times when shifting is effective and important for survival. Likewise, there are times when code/style switching is inef­ fective or detrimental. For example, it is hardly an effective interac­ tion or relationship where one person does all of the demanding and the other does all of the accommodating. It may lead to accomplish­ ing said objectives in the short-run; however, temporary or long-term accommodation, by its very nature, leads to resentment. Resentment then may lead to relational deterioration and termina­ tion. Style/code switching is only one indicator of a seemingly effec­ tive interaction potentially going awry.

Oral Tradition

Many researchers have taken a sociolinguistic approach to studying the codes used by African Americans in particular contexts. A com­ mon thread that characterizes these studies is the emphasis on use of language as a means of promoting and maintaining group identity. Much of the work has been influenced by Hymes' ethnography of a speaking framework with its primary focus on norms of contextually appropriate conduct (Hymes, 1972, 1974). Oral traditions and performance are long standing traditions among African Americans (Edwards & Seinkewicz, 1990). African American culture values verbal skills, particularly those couched in interactive and narrative frameworks. One conversational form that

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 157

exemplifies this is traditional African American preaching styles (Ed­ wards & Seinkewicz, 1990). As we have seen in chapter 1, the church plays an important role in African American culture (Karenga, 1993). Likewise, the conversational style of the church's central character, the preacher, is representative of the community. Daniel and Smitherman (1990) explained, "The traditional Black church be­ comes more than a church. It is more than a community. It is a hu­ man phenomenon responding to social and economic upheavals" (p. 28). The Black Church experience is more than a religious cere­ mony; it is a time of communing and relieving stress through emo­ tional catharsis. Many preachers use tonal semantics (elongated articulation, lengthy pauses, rhythmic rate, interjections of expressions like "aha" and "uh huh") to emphasize their message (Hamlet, 1998). They also tend to use several other rhetorical devices. Hamlet (1998) identi­ fied a few of them and names them manifestations of nommo (p. 93): rhythm as a frame of mentality, repetition for intensification, stylin', soundin' out, lyricism, call-and-response, indirection, use of mythoforms, improvisation, and historical contextualization. Nommo refers to the vivacity of the spoken word. These "nommodic" devices (Woodyard, in press) are used to reinforce the theme and to actively engage the audience so that the audience emotes. Affective response is important even when the audience is not a congregation; it is a signal of successful and effective orature. The themes in African American sermons serve to reinforce the values of the community and rules of appropriate behavior. In many cases, such themes call the members of the congregation to repent and take responsibility for their future actions. The role of the preacher is to involve the members of the congregation spiritually, emotionally, nonverbally, and verbally to the extent that the message takes on a nommodic form (Woodyard, in press). Nommo is the gen­ erative power of the spoken word. Jackson (2000b) defined it as the "life-giving mystical force or vivacity offered through verbal and vo­ cal discourse" (p. 33). He further explained that nommo is not the consequence of skillful manipulation as it is in the European-centered rhetorical enterprise; instead, it represents an inde­ pendent, consuming power of the word to stand alone. That is, the word produces its own energy such that the speaker becomes only a vehicle through which the word is transmitted to the audience. This is especially effective among highly spiritual persons who under­

158 • CHAPTER 4

stand that the spirit must take control anyway in order to reach the audience. Nommo is the underlying force that permits audience members to perceive that the preacher is speaking directly to them. Nommo is the mounting intensity that enlivens others and charges them with the responsibility to act on the word. Jackson posited that nommo and magara are similar, except that magara is what sustains the feeling to act or to respond. Both evolve from the spoken word, but magara is the force that is capable of strengthening or weakening another human being via the power and believability of the spoken word; it promotes change. There are also parallels between other forms of communication in church and the larger community. It is important to note the partici­ pative nature of performance in religious and other contexts and the differences in African American and European American norms for expressing approval and disapproval (Woodyard, in press). Williams (1972) observed that African American audiences are likely to check out what is happening all around the audience even as they listen at­ tentively and approve of the performance, which may signal inatten­ tiveness to an European American speaker for instance. Part of this impulse to look around evolves from call and response (Dandy, 1991). The speaker calls with a phrase like "Y'all don't hear me" or "Church, can I get a witness in here?" The audience accepts the call and responds with "Preach reverend," "Tell it like it is," or a simple "Amen!" This highly interactive moment happens quickly and out-group members may wonder why everyone is talking while the minister is speaking to the congregation. On the surface, the re­ sponse may seem interruptive or discourteous to an out-group member; however, the responses above are very important and ex­ pected by the one who issues the call. Call and response also can oc­ cur nonverbally with a wave of the arm, a shake of the head, or a "uh-hmmm" to signify agreement or that the speaker is listening (Daniel & Smitherman, 1990; Jackson, 1995). Edwards and Seinkewicz (1990) noted the tendency of African Americans to transfer this interactive, direct, and engaging style to the multicultural classroom and to use narrative form and a style that includes a "topic associating" organizational frame typically not un­ derstood by White teachers. Kochman (1981) also noted that African Americans tend to apply to the classroom the same rules used for personal interaction in the African American community. Individuals with better speaking abilities tend to be perceived as dominating the

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 159

conversation, and African Americans do not simply debate an idea— they debate the person debating the idea. Foster (1989) combined folklore and performance theories with an ethnography-of-speaking focus on norms in her investigation of classroom conduct of African Americans at the college level. Modeling her design after Piestrup's (1973) study of Oakland, California's public school system, Foster focuses on two primary speech events, "It's cookin' now" and metaphors, used by an African Ameri­ can instructor to incorporate familiar ways of speaking and perfor­ mance norms in the classroom. "It's cookin' now" is the phrase that a student used to describe the performance mode of the instructor and participation by class mem­ bers. Performances were participatory, spontaneous, interactive events, and the tone was perceived to be humorous. Foster (1989) noted that performances by the instructor were stylistically embel­ lished and incorporated figurative language and gestures. There was a shift from Mainstream American English to Black English, and al­ though the talk resembled play, the function was instruction. Metaphors were a second significant speech event used in this classroom. The instructor divided the business management class into groups named after three local Black businesses. Foster (1989) pointed out that the metaphors surrounding successful African American businesses allow participants to develop figurative lan­ guage and interpretations frequently found in African American communities (Mitchell-Kernan, 1971; Smitherman, 1977). In addi­ tion, the metaphor created an atmosphere of what Foster called dy­ namic opposition, in which competition has a cooperative function. Although the groups were distinct and seemingly autonomous, they were charged with a sense of "kujichagulia," or collective responsi­ bility (Karenga, 1993). Such a dialectic force is common in African American communities, compelling individuals to give their best performances while keeping in mind the goal of community cohe­ siveness (Abrahams, 1976; Kochman, 1981). Performance and narrative are aspects of the African American oral tradition that serve the functions of extolling unique verbal skills, showcasing the ability to be assertive. At the same time, they also link speaker to audience and reinforce shared identity, norms, and values. Involvement with audience members is critical, and this involvement occurs through the use of prosodic features and meta­ phors and verbal-nonverbal response patterns. The way in which

160 • CHAPTER 4

conversations are organized, particularly when using a narrative form, may be associational rather than logical, which presumes some predetermined knowledge of the cultural identity of the speaker. In addition, a dialectic of cooperation and competition may be reinforced because appropriate competition reinforces coopera­ tion and African American cultural identity. Finally, African Ameri­ cans' perceptions of code/style shifting may indicate a realistic appraisal of professional context requirement, whereas use of Black English demonstrates a continued pride and positive regard for their own cultural identity. These functions of the oral tradition fore­ shadow the core symbols of African American communication code that are presented in the next section. African American language use, then, is marked by speech styles influenced by Black English and oral traditions and manifested in code switching. Although many African Americans speak Mainstream American English, the speech associated with group membership is marked in other ways. Language use, however, is only part of com­ munication styles. In the next section, we discuss these broader is­ sues of stylistics.

CORE SYMBOLS AND COMMUNICATION STYLE

Communication is more than just language. People use language to create messages that involve topics, strategies, meanings, and verbal and nonverbal styles of expression. Communication styles express the core symbols of the culture and enacted identities. Conversely, the core symbols represent stylistic nodes or tendencies in African American culture. A basic constellation of these symbols can be derived from previ­ ous research. Rose (1982/1983) reviewed work on African American psychology and literature and suggested that there are four basic val­ ues in African American culture: 1. sharing one's life with family and close relationships, 2. uniqueness or individual style, 3. affective humanism or positive attitudes, 4. diunital orientation that views things as both good and evil rather than either/or.

L A N G U A G E AND

COMMUNICATION STYLES « 161

Parham, White, and Ajamu (1999) provided a similar list from their review: 1. emotional vitality, 2.realness, 3. resilience, 4. interrelatedness, 5. the value of direct experience, 6. distrust and deception. These systems are derived from an analysis of existing literature. Each of these characteristics has been noted pervasively across disci­ plines such as psychology, sociology, African American studies, Eng­ lish, and Speech Communication. Noticeably, there is a great deal of overlap between these two independently derived systems, which supports their validity. Similarities exist between sharing and interre­ latedness, and among positivity resilience, and emotional vitality. In addition, we find evidence in the literature on communication styles to support uniqueness and realism. Direct experience and diunital processing describe cognitive styles, and distrust is more closely re­ lated to the problematic nature of intercultural communication, which was explored in chapter 3. Our reading of the styles literature suggests a fifth core symbol, assertiveness. We consider the communication styles associated with the core symbols of sharing, uniqueness, positivity, realism, and assertive­ ness. Communication styles are seen as expressing these symbols and, conversely, shaping and recreating them. Future research may profit from considering the dialectical tensions between uniqueness and sharing, which may reflect competing or dialectic pressures between individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990), and between realism and positiveness. African Ameri­ cans seem to face the competing pressures of sharing both a common identity with the group and a strong drive for individual styles. Simi­ larly, they are presented with the reality of life in the United States but are oriented by cultural styles toward a positive outlook.

Sharing

The core symbol of sharing or endorsing the group reflects collectiv­ ism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990) and is charac­

162 • CHAPTER 4

terized in a number of different aspects of African American styles. This is exemplified by the call-response pattern in which a speaker's statements are affirmed through messages such as "amen," "right-on," and "yes sir" (White & Parham, 1990). The sharing of self and material possessions characterizes the African American family (Rose, 1982/1983). Interconnectedness, interrelatedness, sharing, and interdependence are viewed as central and unifying concepts. Sharing is played out in a variety of communicative forms. These include touch, distance, relationship intimacy, and rituals. Although these are considered separately, each enacts the symbol, and we would expect them to be used together (e.g., touching at close dis­ tances while talking about intimate topics and enacting rituals). Touch. African Americans touch members of their group more than they touch European Americans, and this is even more pro­ nounced after successes such as those in athletics (Halberstadt, 1985; Smith, Willis, & Gier, 1980). This pattern is particularly true of lower-socioeconomic-class African Americans. In addition, interra­ cial dyads are observed to touch less than intraracial dyads among both European Americans and African Americans (Willis, Reeves, & Buchanan, 1976). Interracial touching is less highly valued and not required by the sharing value (Blubaugh & Pennington, 1976). Distance. Distance preferences also enact this core symbol. Close distances signal connectedness and bonding. Across a variety of studies Halberstadt (1985) found that African Americans establish closer distances than European Americans. These close distances be­ gin in childhood when African American children establish closer distances in play and other activities (Aiello & Jones, 1971; Duncan, 1978a, 1978b). Immediacy and Relationship Intimacy. The nonverbal imme­ diacy behaviors of touch and distance signal involvement, connec­ tion, and intimacy. It is not surprising, then, that the literature suggests that African Americans develop closer, more intimate friendships than European Americans (Hammer & Gudykunst, 1987b). Research evidence indicates African American friendships involve deeper, more intimate contact in general (Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984) and across the topics of reli­

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 163

gion, school and work, interest and hobbies, and physical condition (Hammer & Gudykunst, 1987b). Conversely, European Americans tend to develop more intimacy regarding love, dating, sex, emo­ tions, and feelings (Hammer & Gudykunst, 1987b). African Americans do not seem to carry this core symbol of rela­ tional intimacy and immediacy into the out-group relationships with European Americans. African Americans may appear to be indiffer­ ent or uninvolved in their interactions with European American ac­ quaintances and strangers (Asante & Noor-Aldeen, 1984; Ickes, 1984). European Americans are more likely to experience such inter­ actions as somewhat difficult and burdensome, and they thus tend to talk, look at the other, and smile more (Ickes, 1984). Ickes (1984) concluded that compared to African Americans, European Ameri­ cans either anticipate or perceive greater difficulty and awkwardness in these initial interracial interactions and feel a particular responsi­ bility and concern for making the interaction work. These patterns may reflect overaccommodation on the part of European Americans (Giles & Coupland, 1991). Eye contact patterns may account for some of these disparities in level of involvement in intercultural conversations. When European Americans speak, they tend to look at their partner less than they do while listening (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1979; Kendon, 1967; LaFrance & Mayo, 1976; Vontress, 1973). For African Americans, this pattern is reversed, with listeners looking less and speakers looking more (LaFrance & Mayo, 1976). Thus, while speaking, European Americans look less and African Americans look more, and while lis­ tening, African Americans look less and European Americans look more. When these patterns are combined, we can anticipate that when an European American is speaking the interactants will not be looking at each other frequently. This may be interpreted as bore­ dom, lack of interest and low involvement. When an African Ameri­ can is speaking, there is more mutual eye contact than either would expect (LaFrance& Mayo, 1976), and this may be interpreted as in­ tensity, hostility, or power. Rituals. Communication rituals help tie a group together and affirm their interconnectedness. By engaging in rituals, an individual is demonstrating allegiance to the group and communicating an identity. Furthermore, the person is communicating a commitment

164 • CHAPTER 4

to sharing with the group by participating in common activities.A number of rituals have been observed in African American culture. These include call-response sequences (described previously), vari­ ous types of playing the dozens, boasting, and toasting. One ritual is the folkloric speech event known as playing the doz­ ens (Garner, 1983). Percelay Dweck, and Ivey (1995) admitted they are unsure of the origins of the game but have heard anecdotal evi­ dence that it evolved from slavery. When slaves were handicapped, elderly, or no longer capable of working all day, members of this group of perceived misfits would be sold by the dozen at the next slave auction. Naturally, it was insulting and hurtful to be sold at all, especially as damaged property—and slaves were defined as three-fifth human per the U.S. Constitution, so they were thought of as chattel or ordinary property. Smitherman (1995) wrote in the preface of Percelay, Dweck, and Ivey's (1995) book, For a people trying to survive under an oppressive racist yoke, the doz­ ens provided a way, to borrow from Ralph Ellison, to change the joke. The game functioned as an outlet for what countless blues people and Jess B. Simple folk called "laughing to keep from crying." It was a form of release for the suppressed rage and frustration that were the result of being a Black man or woman trapped in White America, (p. 19)

The game is an aggressive contest sometimes using obscene lan­ guage in which the goal is to demonstrate verbal prowess by having the quickest, wittiest comeback insults. This is often accomplished by ridiculing and demeaning the opponent's family members, nota­ bly the mother. Although most non-Black out-group members per­ ceive playing the dozens as a silly game of telling "yo' mama" jokes, it is truly a performance designed to hone verbal skills such as lyrical spontaneity, creativity, and precise, direct, penetrating language use that requires no explanation. Garner (1983) noted, "The game is an important rhetorical device that promotes community stability and cooperation by regulating social and personal conflicts. This expres­ sive game influences, controls, guides or directs human actions in ways consistent with community norms" (p. 47). Abrahams (1963) argued that the dozens is a rhetorical event, an argument that uses a strategy or method of attack. One of the fasci­ nating parts of the game, as Garner alluded to, is the communal na­ ture of the activity. Anyone can be an audience member and anyone

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 165

is allowed to play. The audience referees the competition. Here, we have a return to collectivity, group validation, and call and response. The audience's response to each put-down is a direct indicator of who is winning. Percelay, Dweck, and Ivey (1995) offered the follow­ ing illustration: Speaker A: "Your mother is so fat, she got on a scale and it said, 'One at a time please.'" (p. 42) Speaker B: "Oh yeah, well your father is so dumb, he stole a car and kept up the payments." (p. 52) Speaker A: "That's real funny, 'cause your mama is so dumb, she robbed a bank and hid in a police car." (p. 55) Speaker B: Your mama is so ugly, if ugliness were an album, she'd go platinum, (p. 72) Although there is never a vote taken, the audience's end response makes it clear who won. Garner (1983) identified several strategic forms, including persuasion, legislation, justification, social pres­ sure, play, and instruction. Playing the dozens is also a means of so­ cialization and learning to compete with other males (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Boasting is a ritualized speech act reflecting the oral nature of Afri­ can American communication. Garner (1983) posited that boasting occurs as play and entertainment, and functions to enable the speaker to gain recognition within a group. African American boast­ ing often contains humorous exaggeration (Edwards & Seinkewicz, 1990). Boasting is instrumental in conflicts in order to bring har­ mony and cohesiveness to the group. In addition, African American audience members accompany the performance with verbal and physical reactions, shouts, laughter, applause, and catcalls, and audi­ ence members often serve as referee or even judge of the perform­ ers. The performance cannot succeed without an audience psychologically prepared and able to participate in the event (Ed­ wards & Seinkewicz, 1990). This helps us to recall the National Foot­ ball League's 1990s decision to ban what was considered expressive and boastful displays of unsportsmanlike conduct (i.e., no endzone dancing after a touchdown). This decision came after several African American players created fancy little movements, hand gestures, and the like that aroused the fans in the bleachers. NFL player Ickey Woods was one of those players who was most successful and noted

166 • CHAPTER 4

for this. He started a national dance trend called the "Ickey dance" that had people of all ages contorting their bodies to emulate the endzone dance. Toasting. A final ritual is the toast or epic poem, an exclusively African American, predominantly male, speech event (Edwards & Seinkewicz, 1990). The most popular toasts are the stories (in poetic verse) of "Shine," "Signifyin' Monkey" and "Stagolee" (Lester, 1991; Rickford & Rickford, 2000). In accordance with Rickford and Rickford's claim that toasts are either related to badmen or tricksters, Levine (1977) retold the story of the baddest man in Black folklore, Stagolee. Levine presented several of Stagolee's toasts, one of which is about a man named Billy Lyons who, during a losing streak playing cards with Stagolee, snatched Stagolee's hat off and spit in it. Here is the toast spoken by Stagolee as Billy Lyons begged for his life, claim­ ing he had a wife and two kids, while staring at a .44 pistol: What do I care fo' yo' children, what do I care fo' yo' wife, You taken my new Stetson hat, an' I'm goin' to take yo' life. (p. 414)

Lester's (1991) version of this story indicates that Stagolee's re­ sponse to Billy's plea was "Well that's alright. The Lawd'll take care of your children. I'll take care of your wife" (p. 77). Features of the toast usually include sexual assertiveness, use of taboo four-letter words and scorn for sentimental verbiage. Present-day film examples of this that may be recognizable are badmen Shaft and Dolemite (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). As portrayed in film director John Singleton's movie Shaft, Shaft is a crime-fighter, hero and lover, who at one point in the movie turns to a female character and in his patented "God's gift to women" demeanor says, "It's my duty to please that booty." This is one small example of a character that is known for toasting. It is important to note that badmen like Stagolee are not heralded for their misogyny; the assumption is that women are happy to be with this heroic character that refuses to accept ill treatment. He is ad­ mired for his braggadocio, his bravery and courage, and his ability to defy danger and protect innocent others. He is what hip-hop music has identified as a perennial "roughneck" or "badboy." Trickster toasters are like the Signifyin' monkey and Br'er Rabbit, both of whom are known for outsmarting their opponent, although

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 167

the opponent is usually much bigger. This form of toasting is a return to words as skillfully used tools to defeat an opponent. Again, the purpose of toasts is to develop mythological heroes that demon­ strate courage, assertiveness fortitude, linguistic skill, intelligence, wit, and common sense, all traits we expect our real cultural heroes to have. This trickster tradition has been continued with the advent of cartoons like Tom and Jerry, and Peppy LePew. These cartoons are part of the trickster tradition, but without the commitment to lan­ guage. Toasts are a form of stylistic signifying and wordplay, both of which reinforce African American oral traditions and cultural values.

Uniqueness

Just as sharing acknowledges and endorses the group, uniqueness pays homage to the individual. Because both symbols are important, African Americans try to demonstrate both individuality and com­ monality in interactions with others (Rose, 1982/1983). Ritualized behaviors provide one important arena where these two competing forces may combine. For example, hand slapping has become a styl­ ized, communal activity in which individuals have developed their own, unique style of "slapping five" (Cooke, 1980). Present-day ex­ amples of this would be a greeting involving the forceful touching of knuckles, while hands are forward in a fist. Similarly, both communal (sharing) and individual (uniqueness) values can be seen in dance styles that combine the basic steps or forms with improvisation (Rose, 1982/1983). Recently, Anheuser-Busch company produced a series of televised advertisements known as the "Wuzzzuppppp?!" commercials. These entertaining, exaggerated commercials centered around a single sal­ utation that is repeated as an echo by friends became wildly popular. Although Watts and Orbe (2002) criticized the commercial for its spectacular consumption and commodification of African American culture, it won the 2000 Super Bowl admeter's highest rating. It also won a Cannes film festival award for advertising. The commercial was initially marketed as a film short entitled "True" that was pro­ duced by Charles Stone III. Anheuser-Busch loved it and contacted Stone with an offer to do a 60-second slot for Budweiser Beers. Stone negotiated to have the original characters in the movie in the commercial; they were his friends. The commercial was an instant

168 • CHAPTER 4

success. Its mass appeal, Watts and Orbe argued, was its message of universal male bonding. They asserted, "it is a verbal high-five." Budweiser capitalized on the male bonding idea by including men of different nationalities, but also included an elderly woman in one of their commercials. One version of this commercial ad opened with one guy sitting around on the couch with a remote in one hand and his other hand slipped in his shorts in a typical TV junkie fashion. Then, he gets a phone call from his friend who says, "Wuzzzuppp?!" Of course, he responds in kind, and they then call their other friend so that they can all share in this bonding moment. It is like a group hug. The lingering final syllable of the word adds the extra effect along with the trademark nonverbal gesture of the tongue hanging out of the mouth the whole time the guys are pronouncing the "uppppp?!" part of the greeting. Watts and Orbe are correct that the commercial was clearly filled with African American cultural norms and stylistic speech devices. The communal nature of the three guys echoing each other is parallel to the call and response pattern. Unique greetings have been circulating in the Black community and beyond for decades. The way the "wuzzzuppp" salutation is spoken exemplifies uniqueness and stylized ritual behavior. This dual function (i.e., uniqueness and sharing) can be seen in rit­ ualized boasting. As indicated previously, boasting serves to promote group harmony and cohesiveness and often involves the group in the performance. Conversely, boasting calls attention to the individual by making claims about abilities (Edwards & Seinkewicz, 1990). Kochman (1981, 1990) concluded that African American commu­ nication can be characterized as highly expressive and stylized as a means for signifying individuality and uniqueness. He described ex­ pressive patterns such as the use of direct questions, public debate and argument, more active nonverbal expression, self-presentations through bragging, boasting, and emotional intensity.

Positivity and Emotionality

A high value is placed on being positive (Rose, 1982/1983), having a sense of aliveness, emotional vitality, and openness of feelings, and being resilient about this positivity (Spencer, 1998; White & Parham, 1990). African American culture is infused with a spirit (a knowledge that there is more to life than sorrow, which will pass) and a renewal

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 169

of expressiveness. This symbol of positivity and emotionality has its roots in African culture and expresses the soul and rhythm of that culture in America (Rose, 1982/1983). White and Parham (1990) called on examples of religion and art to support the notion of expressiveness. They noted the transcendent theme of gospel songs that teach that the sorrows will pass and a spiritual hope and joy will triumph. The African American anthem "we shall overcome" exemplifies this. Rose (1982/1983) pointed to the vitality and variety of African American music and dance. White and Parham (1990) also discussed the use of humor as a means to confront hardships. Other writers have described the use of emo­ tionality and "impulsivity" to actively manage life stresses (Jenkins, 1982). African American children are taught to actively manage life's difficulties without signs of stress (Block, 1980). The emotional content of the African American experience is par­ ticularly important, and as a result, partying and "having a good time" have a compelling cathartic power (Cogdell & Wilson, 1980). Expressions of positive emotionality serve the same cleansing func­ tion as religious rituals, and African American decisions often appear to be rooted in feelings and intuition rather than simple rationality (Cogdell & Wilson, 1980).

Realism

Throughout life, African Americans are encouraged to "be real" and express their true self through actions and style (White & Parham, 1990). This value is expressed through individual, stylized, nonver­ bal presentations (Cooke, 1980; Kochman, 1981) and is communi­ cated by several common salutations including "keep it real" and "Stay Black." Both salutations are as much about cultural identity ne­ gotiation (Jackson, 1999a), as the idea of genuine cultural expres­ sion. Katz (1999) described how elementary school teachers in San Francisco and Washington D.C. developed an antiracist approach to teaching marginalized groups. The central premise was that teachers who offer a culturally appreciative, caring, and concerned climate for learning increase successful outcomes for otherwise marginal­ ized students. Concentrating on poor children from crime-ridden neighborhoods, Katz' (1999) study included 88 interviews and 42 school observations total; her objective was to explore how students

170 • CHAPTER 4

of color benefit from a "culturally responsive pedagogy" (p. 497) that allows the kids to "keep it real," or be comfortable communicating and behaving the way they normally do when they are comfortable at home. The results of creating a secondary family context were such that because kids were enabled to "keep it real" in both settings, they were more apt to succeed. Additionally, there was increased involve­ ment of parents at school, increased communication between the child, teacher, and parent, and ameliorated student behavior. So, keeping it real is not just a hip cliche that one can find in a hip-hop song; it is a constitutive feature of African American life. Although African American culture stresses a positive and emo­ tional outlook on life, this is juxtaposed with a strong grounding in reality (White & Parham, 1990). African American culture places a high value on "tellin' it like it is." Again, this realism is reflected in the lyrics of blues and gospel music (White & Parham, 1990) as well as rap and hip-hop music, all of which portray the difficulty of life and advise a cool, steady, and persistent toughness needed to overcome this difficulty (Dyson, 1993, 1997, 2001). In this sense, the value of realism is similar to the diunital perspec­ tive discussed by Rose (1982/1983). Rose argued that African Ameri­ cans see both the good and bad in life and trust that, in the long run, good will triumph. This view requires a realism about the current state of affairs, a trust in fairness, and a positive outlook about the future. The importance of genuineness or "being real" as a communication style is stressed in a number of studies. In research reviewed in chap­ ter 3, genuineness was portrayed as a major issue in intercultural rela­ tionships (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). Kochman (1981) argued that loudness is positively valued because it communicates sincerity and true conviction. It is unclear how the stylized forms of African American style, the importance of individual style, and the emphasis on genuineness or realness are worked out in cultural practices.

Assertiveness Assertiveness, as a communication style, can be described as behav­ ior that stands up for and tries to achieve personal rights without damaging others. African American styles are described as assertive by some, forceful by others, and aggressive by still others. Each is de­ scribing a style of communication that is intense, outspoken, chal­

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 171

lenging, and forward. Some would describe the same style as belligerent and hostile. As a core symbol, assertiveness means standing up for oneself in the face of oppression (Houston, 2000a; Jenkins, 1982). It means taking charge of your own existence. African Americans are taught early in life that they must not only cope with the challenge of the task at hand, be it school or work, but also cope with racism. They learn that they must fight harder for limited resources and cannot af­ ford to be mediocre when anything less than excellence brings fail­ ure. From this emerges the assertive, determined, and confronta­ tional style that is often part of African American coping in a racist world (Houston, 2000b). Assertiveness is acted out in a variety of cultural rituals. One, playing the dozens, has already been described. A second, called woofing, involves a type of threat that is not intended as imminent action (Kochman, 1981). Some people call this "selling woof tick­ ets," during which one threatens to do something harmful that he or she has no intention of doing. Here, the African American com­ municator challenges another individual in order to verbally gain the respect that would have been otherwise won through physical confrontation. African Americans and European Americans differ in their inter­ pretations of these actions (Cheek, 1976; Kochman, 1990). Many of the more assertive and aggressive African American behaviors (e.g., vocal assertion, toasting, boasting, etc.) are not in the realm of typi­ cal, public behavior for European Americans and signal impending physical violence when presented. European Americans may inter­ pret African American behavior as signaling physical confrontation when none is intended, particularly when the behavior includes shouting, animated gesturing, and staring. Kochman (1981) argued that relative confidence in the ability to deal with anger is the basis for these divergent perceptions. European Americans, he argued, are less confident of their ability to control their anger and prevent verbal hostility from becoming physical. As a result, they repress an­ gry feelings as a form of self-control. African Americans have less need to repress these feelings and their expressions because they be­ lieve they can control the escalation of events. A controversy over a rap music video in 1992 illustrates these differ­ ences. The video is called "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" by a group called Public Enemy. The song protests racism in Arizona, particularly

172 • CHAPTER 4

the vote against a Martin Luther King holiday. The video depicts the car bombing and poisoning of Arizona politicians. An editorial in one local paper claimed that the group was embracing violence (Aleshire & Thomason, 1992), and a spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General's Office also called the message violent ("A Rap on Arizona," 1992). However, Chuck D, the leader of Public Enemy, explained the video was "a trip into the fantasy world of Public Enemy" (Aleshire & Thomason, 1992), and the work has been described as a revenge fan­ tasy. A spokesperson for the Arizona African American Political Action Committee argued that the video was neither violent nor did it advo­ cate violence. Instead, Mr. Ealim stated that "you have to understand the symbolism of blowing up the governor's car ... We're advocating the symbolism of killing the idea [of racism]" (Coppola, 1992). In other words, European American audiences took the video as a literal expression of violence and violent intentions, whereas some African Americans argued that the message was just a style of presentation that was representational or metaphorical. OTHER COMMUNICATION STYLES

Thus far, this chapter has discussed communication styles expressive of five core symbols. Not all of the communication styles literature fits neatly into these categories. The next section reviews the remain­ ing literature, examining styles of coping with mainstream U.S. cul­ ture and interpersonal styles. Coping Styles

It is clear that the history of African Americans in the United States has been one that has challenged the resources of group members. In response to their situation in mainstream society, group members have developed coping mechanisms for dealing with racism, dis­ crimination, and prejudice. Six styles of coping have been identified. Each has both positive and negative possibilities for personal and so­ cial adjustment (Harding, 1975; Harrell, 1979; Jenkins, 1982). The styles are problematic in that there is no optimal endpoint or condi­ tion. These styles are called "continued apathy," "seeking a piece of the action," "obsession with counter-culture alternative," "the Black

LANGUAGE

AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 173

nationalist alternative," "identification with an authoritarian solu­ tion," and "historically aware cognitive flexibility," (Stanbeck & Pearce, 1981) and are described in greater detail in Table 4.1. Cross and Strauss (1998) offered five strategies for coping with oppression, which are much more concise than those mentioned previously: buffering, bonding, bridging, code switching, and indi­ vidualism. These were discussed in chapter 2. Buffering is insulating oneself from negative racial energies. Bonding is seeking friendship with others in order to feel connected to people who care. Bridging is alliance-building with racial others in order to understand their ra­ cial beliefs and/or cultural orientations. Code switching has been discussed earlier in this chapter and refers to alterations of behavior to adapt to mainstream expectations. Finally, individualism refers to embracing a worldview that accents independence from others and self-achievement rather than collective achievement. Interpersonal Styles

A number of researchers have examined African American interper­ sonal communication. This work, however, has not been systematic. We chose, therefore, to thematically group these studies into the cat­ egories of relationships, verbal messages, and nonverbal messages. Relationships. A number of researchers have examined factors related to relationships and relationship development. Cross-cultural comparisons of self-disclosure patterns show that European Ameri­ cans are more disclosive than African Americans (Littlefield, 1974; Oggins, Veroff, & Leber, 1993). Hammer and Gudykunst (1987a) stud­ ied culture and uncertainty reduction processes in initial interactions in order to test the applicability of Berger and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The study indicates that the theory does not provide an accurate representation of rela­ tionship development in the African American community. Contrary to predictions, African Americans did not become more confident of their impressions when asking more questions and were not more at­ tracted to people about whom they could make confident predictions (Hammer & Gudykunst, 1987a). This study demonstrates the diffi­ culty of imposing Eurocentric theories as explanations of African American behavior.

TABLE 4.1 African American Coping Styles* Style

Description

Continued Apathy

The person acknowledges the damaging effects of racism but manifests little or no coping strategy for responding to it. A positive consequence of this style is that the person is unlikely to succumb to some of the more damaging kinds of symptoms such as severe psychosomatic reactions (for example, ulcers or hypertension). Conversely, the characteristic tendency of this style to blame the "man" for all troubles can lead to a strong dependency on an external source.

Seeking a Piece of the Action

The person is highly motivated toward achieving competence in certain skills in order to achieve success in mainstream society. The style may result in an improved personal situation with little attention to the effects his or her drive for personal gain have on other African Americans.

The CounterCulture Alternative

This solution represents a mode of living outside both mainstream and African American ethnic cultures in an effort to transcend the struggle. Often, this alternative may include involvement in heavy drug usage, religious or art forms, or the frequent use of any number of consciousness altering techniques. The positive side to this choice can be creative and unorthodox activities with the potential drawback that the person may lose touch with the practical realities of racism.

The Black Nationalism Alternative

This style involves immersion in one of the movements stressing African American identity. This orientation promotes a positive view of African American people and African American culture but may be narrow and rigid in its approach to European American institutions.

Identification with an Authoritarian Solution

Identifying with an authoritarian solution involves dedication to one of any number of groups that require allegiance to a person or an idea. Groups such as Marxism or the Nation of Islam provide the individual with direction and discipline but that person may lose contact with personal perspectives in the over-dependence on the authority.

Aware Cognitive Flexibility

A person using this style is one who is not as sharply defined as the others. It is a position in which the African American is aware of the ambiguities and complexities of the racial situation. This fits a humanistic definition of awareness and orientation to life that recognizes the need to struggle against racism. These people are conscious of alternatives, but also realize that there are presently no comforting or even familiar answers to the issues facing African Americans. This individual stands poised to accept new theory, practice, ideology, and, consequently, new hope. However, there is an ambiguity to such a position and the constant need to reassess and revise one's perspective.

*Sources: Harding, V (1975). The Black wedge in America: Struggle, crisis and hope, 1955-1975. Black Scholar, 7, 28-46. Harrell, J. P. (1979). Analyzing Black coping styles: A supplemental diagnostic system. Journal of Black Psychology, 5, 99-108. Jenkins, A. H. (1982). The psychology of the Afro-American: A humanistic approach. New York: Pergamon Press.

174

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 175

African Americans and European Americans differ in other as­ pects of initial interaction. Kochman (1990) reported differences in the areas of direct questioning, modes of disagreements, negotia­ tion, public debate, argument, and discussion. African Americans exhibit significantly more aggressive versus more passive styles of nonverbal expression, and more self-presentation talk, such as boasting and bragging. Overall, African American speech had a higher emotional intensity. Verbal Messages. African American culture can also be charac­ terized by the type of messages that typify communication. The messages differ in both content and form. African Americans differ from European Americans in the topics they tend to discuss. African Americans are more likely to talk with each other about European Americans and racism, social events, mutual friends, gossip, cloth­ ing, and making money (Scott, 2000a) and more likely to talk with European Americans about the weather, school, work, sports, news, current events, and activities of interest to European Ameri­ cans (Cheek, 1976). There is also a cultural distinctiveness to the strategies used to in­ fluence people. In marital relationships, African Americans tend to be direct and "just tell" their mates their wishes rather than hinting, explaining the situation, offering tangible or personal rewards, or pleading helplessness (Oggins et al., 1993; Roberts, 2000). Spouses tend to be more satisfied if their mates use reward or ex­ pert power than if the mates use coercive or legitimate power. Within the African American community, those in the middle class are more likely to ascribe informational power to their relational partners and to abide by their mates' requests because the mate gave good reasons and persuaded them with convincing informa­ tion (Dejarnett & Raven, 1981). Nonverbal Messages. The final area for consideration is non­ verbal messages. African American styles can be characterized by the structures and forms conveyed without words. Although a number of these nonverbal characteristics have been directly or in­ directly referred to already, some specific descriptions remain in the area of eye contact, body motion, time and vocalics. These are summarized in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2 Nonverbal Message Styles of African American Culture1 Nonverbal Code

Conclusion

Source

Eye Contact2

European Americans look at their conversational partner more frequently and for longer duration than do African Americans across a variety of situations and relationships. Certain types of questions (i.e., about racial topics) invoke longer gazes from both European Americans and African Americans. African Americans prefer authority figures who avert their gaze.

Aiello & Thompson, 1 980; Dorch & Fountaine, 1978; Fugita, Wexley & Hillery, 1974; Garrett, Baxter & Rozelle, 1981; Marcelle, 1976

Body Movement3

African American children move around more than European American children and exhibit a greater variety of movements. African American children face each other less directly (indirect shoulder axis) than do European American children.

Duncan, 1978b; Guttentag, 1982; Johnson, 1971

Time

African Americans are frequently late for scheduled occasions, especially social occasions. Lateness is a logical position within African American subjective reality. Understanding of "Colored People's Time" should be based upon an appreciation of history and economic circumstances. African Americans have not had much input into determining the structure of the system and may show defiance by arriving late. Concern, genuine regard, and respect were communicated by being early, prompt, or by taking the time to do something. Indifference, contempt, disrespect and anger were communicated by being late, not showing up, or taking little time to do something.

Blubaugh & Pennington, 1976; Cogdell & Wilson, 1980; Morton, 1976; Pennington, 1979

Vocal Behavior4

African American children speak to each other less than do European American children. European Americans Fugita et al., 1974; Shuter, tend to talk to males for longer periods, while African Americans spend more time talking to females. Both African 1982; Zimmerman & Americans and European Americans pause longer in response to racially-oriented questions. Brody, 1975

Notes: 1For reviews of ethnicity and nonverbal behavior see Halberstadt (1985), and Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau (1989). 2 Some of the eye contact patterns have been reviewed earlier in the chapter while discussing involvement. These are not repeated here. 3 Much of the body movement research has been presented under discussions of individuality and flair. These will not be repeated here. Vocal behavior (i.e., vocalics or paralinguistics) involves everything that is said other than the words themselves. These behaviors include the sound of the voice, rate of speech, pauses, and amount of talk. As with the other aspects of nonverbal communication, vocal behavior studies have been described previously in this chapter, particularly in regard to loud voices and assertiveness.

LANGUAGE AND

COMMUNICATION

STYLES • 177

SUMMARY

Our discussion of communication styles in this chapter was inhib­ ited by the variable analytic and grounded frameworks used by re­ searchers. What is needed now is a system for understanding these stylistic, cultural markers. Our five core symbols suggest such a framework. Are there other underlying consistencies within the communication styles? Dimensions? Factors? How can we come to understand these as functions of the cultural system? For example, assertiveness seems to be a characteristic of the styles. Are there oth­ ers? How do these fit together? Why did they emerge from this cul­ tural system? What does assertiveness mean to those who use it? What are the consequences of not being assertive? Future research also should address the dialectics between the core symbols we identified. How are the competing pressures for sharing and individualism worked out? The pressures for realism and positivism? Is there an oppositional force to assertiveness or does it reflect the interpenetration of the other dialectics (i.e., uniqueness/sharing, realism/positivity) ? One characteristic of this style raises interesting questions about the enactment of identity. African American communication, particu­ larly that of males, is often described as highly stylized (Hecht, An­ derson, & Ribeau, 1989; Kochman, 1990). Questions have been raised about the genuineness of these stylized forms (Hecht, Ander­ son, & Ribeau, 1989). A respondent made the suggestion that if the style is seen as something natural to or part of the individual, then it is considered genuine. However, those who are perceived as "going along with the crowd" or "posing" in the style are perceived as less authentic (Majors & Billson, 1993), such as gangsta rappers who claim to be from the ghetto when they were really reared in the sub­ urbs. One may ask how an individual's performance comes to be seen as a genuine enactment of a personal identity rather than as a superficial or insincere behavior. In this chapter, we reviewed African American language and com­ munication styles. These are actions that characterize African Ameri­ can interaction. They appear frequently and typically. Although the impulse may be to judge whether they are effective or ineffective and appropriate or inappropriate, the fact is that they are stable curren­ cies in African American communication and deserve to be under­

178 • CHAPTER 4

stood and valued for the cosmology they represent. The average reader is preoccupied with acknowledging and intensely studying European epistemologies because they have become staples in our intellectual diet. We challenge you to also systematically explore Afri­ can American ways of knowing as a legitimate and significant set of contextualized communicative practices without homogenizing Af­ rican American culture or rejecting those who do not fit the norms. Building on the communication styles, strategies, and concerns ex­ pressed here, in the next chapter, we focus specifically on African American communication in cultural, racial, family, marital, inti­ mate, adult, and adolescent, as well as occupational relationships.

CHAPTER 5

African American

Relationships and

Cultural Identity

Negotiation

I

n chapter 3, we discuss communication competence, and in chapter 4, we explore communication styles. In this chapter, we introduce a discussion of the range of African American relation­ ships that are cultural, familial, gendered, and intimate. In some ways, this chapter is cumulative in that some concepts from each chapter covered so far are examined here. For example, in concert with chapters 1 and 2, we explore what it means to be an African American child, adult, sibling, parent, intimate partner, and gendered being. chapters 3 and 4 discuss the notions of conversa­ tional appropriateness, effectiveness, and interest in improvement as indices of competent behavior. This chapter is structured around 179

180 • CHAPTER 5

the idea that identities are appropriately and effectively affirmed and negotiated through relationships. What we do with those relation­ ships determines, in part, how we construct and define our own identities as well as cope with relational stress and identity shifting. We frame the discussion using Jackson's extant identity negotiation theories (Jackson, in press-b; Ting-Toomey, 1999). The negotiation of identity implies that there is a constant exchange of values, ideas, norms, and beliefs in human relationships that shape how we view and are being viewed in our social world. This chapter is divided into four sections exploring the following topics: African American children and youth, African American parenting, African American friendship, dating, and marital relation­ ships, and African American workplace relationships. Gendered identities are examined as standpoint epistemologies at different points in the chapter and, thus, pervade every section. We make no claims to an exhaustive review of the literature or a definitive explo­ ration of the themes discussed. We simply explore how communica­ tion patterns influence and are influenced by the African American relationships we just described. AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND YOUTH RELATIONSHIPS

In 2000, there were 70.4 million children in the United States, practi­ cally evenly divided among three designated age groups: 0 to 5, 6 to 11, and 12 to 17 years of age. In the same year, almost two-thirds (64%) of U.S. children were White, as compared to Hispanic and Afri­ can American children who comprised 16% and 15% of the U.S. pop­ ulation, respectively (Smelser et al., 2001). According to the National Center for Health Statistics (2001), 62% of all African American chil­ dren lived with one parent in 2000, and the National Center for Health Statistics considers those who live in single-parent house­ holds to be at risk. The number of parents in a household and the to­ tal family composition have been linked to the amount and kind of economic and human resources available to the child; and those liv­ ing with only one parent are much more likely than any other group to live in poverty. The poverty threshold for a family of two, including single parent and only child, has been set at slightly below a house­ hold income of $12,000. The National Center for Health Statistics notes that 65%, or approximately two out of three African American

RELATIONSHIPS

AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 181

children are likely to live below the poverty line. As mentioned in chapter 1, the U.S. Census Bureau (2001) noted that 41% of African American families headed only by women are poverty-stricken, and 22% of African American individuals are in poverty. The number of African American families headed by men only is small when compared to women householders; since 1989, men have headed approximately 6% of African American households. Al­ though this number seems negligible, this is a group that is often not studied; hence, much more research needs to be conducted using this population segment. Although there is some disparity in figures between the National Center for Health Statistics (2001) and the U. S. Census Bureau (2001), perhaps due to the 12-month lag between reports, the fact is that African American families are at least twice as likely to live in poverty than their White counterparts; consequently, African American children in poverty are doubly at risk for such fac­ tors as self-destructive behavior like illicit drug use, academic failure, behavioral issues, and lack of financial sustainability (Ondis, Amer­ ica, Gibson-Cline, Dragoon, & Jones, 1996). Although the number of children in poverty has decreased since 1982 (Edelman, 1985), these stunning figures concerning poverty and its side effects have tremen­ dous social, economic, and personal implications for the lives of Afri­ can American children. A discussion of African American children in the 21st century must attend to the intersecting factors of race, gen­ der, and class.

Development of Racial Attitudes Among African American Children

Race, gender, and class each are significant dimensions of African American identity. The racial attitudes that are formed among African American adolescents play an important role in self-definition and intercultural relations. Here, we discuss several studies related to the development of healthy and unhealthy notions concerning race. African American children are introduced to race very early. Some claim this awareness occurs by the age of 3 or 4 years (Comer & Pouissaint, 1992; Kase, 2001) and others argue that this process be­ gins at 5 years of age (M. Wright, 1998). Children's racial awareness is indicated by innocent questions such as "Am I African American?" and comments like "Mommy, I want to be White." These may be pro­ voked by simple acts such as touching another person's hair and no­

182 • CHAPTER 5

ticing the different texture (Jackson, 1999c) or witnessing subtleties in mass mediated images such as cartoons (M. Wright, 1998). Devel­ opment may be influenced by the racial and/or class divisions of the neighborhood in which children are reared. For example, Tatum (1999) contended that children raised in well-to-do suburban areas may face challenges to identity as they find that the majority of their friends or peers at home and school may not look like them. Chideya (2000) agreed but suggested that this can be positive in a household with culturally conscious parents, because African American chil­ dren will begin to hone their code-switching skills, a necessary life­ time survival set of techniques for marginalized group members. On the other hand, the experience may differ for less privileged, low-income urban African American youth who must contend with class differentials. As African American children develop, concerns arise for the en­ during effects of racism. As early as 1939, Clark and Clark suggested a deficit-deficiency model. Racism was seen as scarring the self-image of African American children, resulting in negative racial identifica­ tion, attitudes, and preferences that can only be seen as self-hatred and low self-esteem. Clark and Clark (1939) showed similarly dressed dolls, equal in every respect except skin color, to African American and White preschool children aged 3 to 6 years. Then, they told each child a story and asked him or her to guess which doll the story described. For example, the researchers would say something like, "Here are two girls. Everyone says that one of them is pretty. Which is the pretty girl?" Clark and Clark associated the children's re­ sponses with positive or negative self-image. This study sparked controversy and further research. Although ac­ knowledging racism, many challenged the underlying assumption that African American children's self-concept is inherently unhealthy and deformed. Over the years, both supporting and conflicting re­ search has been reported (e.g., Banks, 1976; McAdoo, 1985; Smith& Brookins, 1997). At issue was the notion that African American youth are inevitably affected by social constructions of race and cannot love themselves (Hopson & Hopson, 1992; Parham, White, & Ajamu, 1999). Instead, these researchers suggested that unhealthy identities are not inevitable and that even in the face of prejudice and discrimi­ nation there are, indeed, paths to healthy, well-adjusted, positive, and secure identities that are resilient and effective in a society that does not always embrace African American identities. Some of these paths

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY NEGOTIATION • 183

might include involvement of children in church, civic, and club-related activities that make an effort to value and celebrate cul­ tural traditions and uniqueness as well as diversity. Other paths might be related to child participation in rites of passage ceremonies, such as those outlined by Hare and Hare (1985), Madhubuti (1991) and Akbar (1991). Certainly, there are many other paths as well. One social balancing agent for cultural and low income or socio­ economic status groups may be contemporary youth's musical inter­ ests. There are a growing number of kids across age, culture, race, and gender groups who are listening to hip-hop and rap music and conforming to the hip-hop culture, including ways of dressing, talk­ ing, and walking (Dyson, 2001). These two-way cultural code switch­ ing patterns may offer a temporary bridge for the class and racial divide among some adolescents. Instead of feeling ostracized from different-race peers, African American kids may be afforded an op­ portunity to experience some measure of social equity due to the prevalence and mass cross-over appeal of hip-hop music. Of course, this is not likely to fully diminish the racist stains of social misery left in urban enclaves and among nonurban African American residents, but it may assist African American kids in feeling that their culture is more valued by non-African American peers.

Race-Related Stress Among African American Adolescents

As Paster (1994) indicated, adolescence by its very nature can be stressful. Adolescence is defined as "that time of life between pu­ berty (ages 10 to 13 years) and young adulthood (ages 18 to 21 years); but, there is much individual variation" (Comer & Poussaint, 1992, p. 292). Responding to peer group pressures, establishing family roles, achieving in school, dealing with pubescent impulses and developing relationships are all stressful activities. It seems that the primary preoccupation among youth is trying to find a sense of connectedness and love from others. African American postelementary school children that live in lowincome urban centers face additional challenges. The urban youth population in general, and African American urban youth in particu­ lar, are reported to place more emphasis on cultural identity than Whites across all class groups and consider it to be the most salient factor in their lives (Yancey, Aneshensel, & Driscoll, 2001). On aver­

184 • CHAPTER 5

age, African American urban youth are disproportionately exposed to a stressful climate of crime, violence, interparental conflict, child abuse, divorce, and other major issues that put them psychologically at risk (Grant, O'Koon, Davis, & Roache, 2000). The protective and adaptive behaviors they develop partially insulate them from distress but in the process may create some other concerns. For example, Af­ rican American adolescent males may develop displaced hypermas­ culine behaviors, like frequent fighting to demonstrate strength and resilience to racism or to counter the stress of poverty (McAdoo & McAdoo, 1993; Rodney & Mupier, 1999). In the search for belongingness, African American youth also dis­ cover those barriers that restrict growth and comfort, one of which is racism (Diggs, 1999). One way that the effects of racism can be coun­ tered is through positive racial and cultural identifications (Daniel& Daniel, 1999). For example, Romero and Roberts (1998) studied per­ ceptions of discrimination among middle-school students from four cultural groups. The researchers discovered a direct and proportion­ ate relationship between one's sense of cultural group belongingness and one's attitudes toward outgroups. African Americans showed the strongest sense of cultural group belongingness and the findings indi­ cated that African American adolescents reported the most positive at­ titudes toward the outgroup. McWhorter (2000) and others would argue that cultural affirmation, trust, and generally positive attitudes among adolescents are steps in the right direction toward mending in­ terracial relations in the United States. However, Paster (1994) ex­ plained, "no matter how preoccupied he is with these issues (i.e., benevolence trust, autonomy), the African American youth cannot es­ cape racism" (p. 218). It is what African American youth do with their experiences with racism that is important. There are other ways that African American culture combats the negative effects of racism. Grant et al. (2000) discovered in their study of coping behaviors among middle-school students that stress and externalized psychological behaviors (like fighting) were re­ duced significantly among adolescents who had strong relationships with their fathers although many of these fathers were outside of the home. However, the internalized symptoms of stress, such as de­ pression or anxiety, still remained among the low-income urban Afri­ can American male and female adolescents. Oddly enough, this study found that the mother figure in the households did not attenu­ ate the internalized or externalized stress for the adolescents at all.

R E L A T I O N S H I P S AND C U L T U R A L I D E N T I T Y N E G O T I A T I O N • 185

The major factor that significantly reduced depression, anxiety and other stressors for girls was religious involvement (Grant et al., 2000). Boys did not report active religious involvement to the extent that girls did, and Grant et al. (2000) argued that that may be one reason for the negligible effect religious involvement had for boys. In general, church attendance has decreased in the composite African American community, and there has been speculation that psychological health has as well (Hopson & Hopson, 1999). The church has always served as a cathartic retreat from exposure to racism and stress-related stim­ uli, so Grant et al. (2000) and Hopson and Hopson (1999) offered sound suggestions evolving from their studies as they propose that Af­ rican Americans of all ages maintain church involvement. Hall (2001) encouraged that African Americans, particularly African American women, not be afraid of exploring non-Christian faiths that also sus­ tain one's relationship to God. Spiritual connectedness to God con­ tinues to be recommended by African American mental health professionals in order to stabilize mental and psychological health (Akbar, 1991; Hopson & Hopson, 1999). African American adolescence, as in other cultural groups, can be a time of stress. However, not all groups suffer the degree of eco­ nomic and social obstacles faced by many members of the African American community. When combined with normal stressors, ado­ lescence can be a very difficult time for African American youth. For­ tunately, the culture, itself, is not without strengths, and these can function as resiliency factors.

African American Adolescents and Educational Achievement

The literature concerning educational achievement among African American adolescents encompasses a wide range of perspectives. Some choose to study educational achievement by emphasizing aca­ demic failure and its potential causes; some studies examine the habits and patterns of academic achievers. McWhorter (2000), author of Losing the Race, hypothesized that academic failure may be linked to student perceptions of race. He believes that African American youth have become ultra-paranoid and, as a result, no longer take responsibility for their actions and achievement. Instead, they just blame all of their downfalls on Whites, including test failure. Although McWhorter's litany of abra­

186 • CHAPTER 5

sive critiques stings, he is partly correct. Some African American youth are racially paranoid, and they have reason to be. At the same time, national studies confirm that African Americans' test scores are very low, and their competencies in mathematics, history, science, and reading are consistent with these scores. There has been some disagreement about the underlying causes of the disparities in educational achievement. Some have suggested that African American students did not perform well educationally because it wasn't popular to be smart (Kunjufu, 1989). From this perspective, it is suggested that some African American kids perceive being smart as "nerdy" and as an attempt on the part of African Amer­ ican student high-achievers to "act White." However, Cook and Ludwig's (1997) field study of 25,000 public and private school children produced no evidence to support that peer pressure concerning "acting White" inhibited learning or achievement. African American high achievers continued to have equivalent aspirations of success as White high achievers. Those African American students who skipped classes, according to Cook and Ludwig, did so for the same reasons the White kids did and shared similar backgrounds to those of the White kids who skipped class. African American honors society mem­ bers self-reported high levels of popularity. Based on this research, we are convinced that structural factors may be at work here, such as teaching style and effectiveness in poorly supported, low-income school districts populated predomi­ nantly by African American students. For example, some have specu­ lated that the structure of U.S. schools may not always be conducive to the cultural needs of African American children (Kunjufu, 1985). As a result, teaching styles such as cooperative learning, wholegroup mastery learning, and school-specific interventions that capi­ talize on cultural strengths have been initiated in schools with large African American populations (Tatum, 1999; M. Wright, 1998). Simi­ larly, Daniel and Daniel (1999) contended that there is evidence to suggest that factors such as "strong limit-setting, child-focused love, high expectations, consistent open communication, positive racial and male identity and active use of community resources" (p. 31) are instrumental to high achievement among African American males, and certainly this would be true for African American females as well. In addition, low-income school districts cannot compete with more affluent, largely European American school districts because they lack resources, such as computers, extensive library holdings, teach­

RELATIONSHIPS

AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 187

ing aids, and salaries to attract and retain the best educators. Finally, racial adaptation is the norm when everything from racial coding of educational textbooks and curriculum to standardized test bias con­ fronts African American youth (Clawson & Kegler, 2000). These all have a direct bearing on student success. Quite simply, if students are not well prepared, then they are much more likely to fail. So, in a sense, McWhorter was right. Many African American stu­ dents are discouraged and turn to racism to justify the obvious ineq­ uities they experience. Without knowledge of the political and economic intricacies of school systems, the low-income school dis­ trict students, who represent the average African American student, have no other explanation for their lack of preparedness. These youths do not feel self-empowered or self-efficacious as they set life goals and prepare to be public citizens (McWhorter, 2000). However, the situation is not hopeless. In addition to the struc­ tural suggestions growing out of cultural strengths discussed in chapters 2 and 3, we suggest an embrace of two sets of coping strate­ gies for alleviating racial stress. One set of strategies was Cross and Strauss' (1998) five identity functions: buffering, bonding, bridging, code switching, and individualism (see our discussion of this in chapter 4). Harris (1995) discusses a simplified bicameral version of this involving two forces: centripetal and centrifugal. Centripetal forces tend to pull marginalized group members closer to their group, and centrifugal forces tend to draw them closer to the domi­ nant group. This is similar to Jackson's (in press-b) notion of identity negotiation, during which interactants choose to negotiate identity by either maintaining who they are, accommodating, or adapting.

Gender Identity Differences Among African American Adolescents and Adults

As the previous discussion indicates, gender identity is critical in in­ fluencing attitudes and achievement in both children and adoles­ cents. African American masculinity and African American femininity as well as African American and White gendered identities are each constructed differently in the United States (Houston, 1997, 2000a; Jackson, 1997). The majority of work in gender studies of adolescents seeks to ex­ plain the sociocultural/structural, cognitive, and behavioral facets of

188 • CHAPTER 5

identity formation (Liben & Signorella, 1987; Miller, Alberts, Hecht, Trost, & Krizek, 2000). Sociocultural/structural research suggests that there are social rewards and costs associated with developing and modeling certain kinds of masculine or feminine behavior. For exam­ ple, Houston (2000b) noted characteristics of African American women's talk such as not being afraid to speak one's mind and being very sure of oneself as distinctive from White women's talk. These cul­ tural tendencies among African American women begin in adoles­ cence (M. Wright, 1998). Family, friends, and neighbors also promote cultural norms and values that children are expected to maintain over time. These are socially and structurally enforced through institutions such as the mass media, music, religion, and others. Other research is concerned with how children cognitively develop gender constancy and subsequently concretize gender role schemata that help explain internal concerns, such as: Who am I? What does my peer group, my family, and the larger society say I should be doing? What is my gender role and how do I embrace it (Harter, 1999)? For example, DeFrancisco and Chathem-Carpenter (2000) interviewed 21 women of different age groups to inquire about what African Amer­ ican women consider to be central aspects of self-esteem. The coresearchers or participants in the study responded with topoi like pride, respect, positive thinking, and use of self-talk to nurture the self. Many of them also indicated that they had been taught at an early age that they would confront racial challenges, but coping with it successfully would lead to a greater life satisfaction. The final dimension of gender studies of adolescents is behavioral research, which is often connected to cognitive research in social sci­ entific studies of identity in an effort to systematically explore how behaviors develop from one's perceptual and attitudinal patterns. For example, Pleck, Sonenstein, and Ku (1994) framed their national study of masculine problem behaviors with male sex-role identity and trait-masculinity theories. In analyzing 1880 surveys and ex­ tended interviews with African American, White, and Hispanic males aged 15 to 19 years, they wanted to know whether sex-role categori­ zations or social-role expectations would influence hypermasculine behavior (e.g., acting out through violence, criminal mischief, sexual promiscuity, academic failure, and drug or substance abuse). Their analysis found that masculine ideologies are associated with delin­ quent and uncontrolled social and academic behaviors. The roles and childhoods of African American adolescents shape the kinds of

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY NEGOTIATION • 189

communicative habits, relational involvements, and cultural identifi­ cations these kids adopt over time. Thus, as an adolescent develops a sense of gender constancy, roles emerge and become visible. The so­ cial construction of roles occurs as a byproduct of identity negotia­ tions. Because gender is a component of culture and roles are attached to gender, it makes sense that as one negotiates gender roles, one is also negotiating cultural values, norms and beliefs. Con­ flict may arise when social role expectancies do not match cultural role expectancies. The identity negotiation process attempts to work through that disparity, and the result is usually assimilation, adapta­ tion, accommodation, or resistance to change. African American boys and girls, young adults, as well as women and men have varying perspectives on gender roles. As Jackson and Dangerfield (in press) pointed out, African American masculinities have been pejoratively defined in almost all gender studies, so the word masculinity conjures bravado, macho rigidity, insecurity, over­ compensation, and defensive impulses to over-assert oneself (Har­ ris, 1995; Harris & Donmoyer, 2000). For Houston (2000b) and Collins (2000), Black womanhood conjures assertiveness, direct­ ness, nurturance, family, an ethic of caring, and a connectedness to self and community. In his case study of masculine peer group relations among young African American boys aged 5 to 6 years old in an inner city, Connolly (1998) observed, For many of the African American boys at East Avenue, their racialized identities were continually constructed and reconstructed within the field of masculine peer-group relations where they have struggled over the various forms of cultural, social and symbolic capital most as­ sociated with masculinity. There appeared to be more traditional ex­ pressions of masculine competence, including who could run the fastest, finish a piece of academic work the quickest, play football most competently, and who had the longest pencil! (p. 96)

The boys had to demonstrate that they could be physical and streetsmart so that they would not be considered a "wuss" or a "wimp," but they also were expected to have "adult knowledge" like general awareness about sex, girls, profanity, as well as the latest movies and music. Many of the African American boys at this school were the epit­ ome of cool and masculinity. They were well respected for exerting masculine traits competently. However, they were being secretly de­

190 • CHAPTER 5

spised and envied by several of the White male classmates who recog­ nized that the African American boys were the school's "walking symbols of masculinity" (p. 97), which in some ways may have called their own masculinity into question. Connolly also observed the White boys "picking fist fights" and starting arguments with the Afri­ can American boys perhaps as a means of reasserting their identity. The African American boys, who were skilled athletically and academi­ cally, came to expect this sort of abuse from the White boys. This be­ came an unresolved cycle of confrontation and reassertion. Connolly's (1998) exploration of African American girls' peergroup relations began as an observation of their public behavior and discourse, and toward the end of his ethnographic observations, he realized that the African American girls had largely private groupings and friendship networks that were not always publicly exposed. With all of the cautions concerning his own male bias and interpretation, Connolly proceeded to explain that African American girls displayed different gender roles in the school, due in part to the teachers assign­ ing them to different tasks and curricular areas. For example, teachers assigned boys math, science, and computer work whereas African American girls were given drawing and creative writing to do. African American boys were chastised more frequently than any other group and reminded of their important roles on athletic teams. African American girls rarely received such treatment. African American boys engaged most frequently in public spaces. However, boys in public constantly interrupted African American girls, so the girls reserved time privately to commune with other girls. This was an involved time where they learned about each other's secrets, relationships, and lives. Boys seemed not to have as much of this private time. Beyond games like "kiss and chase" and sports, African American girls played sophisticated games reinforcing aspirational roles such as "Doctors," "Mummies and Daddies," "Mummies and Babies," and "Shops" (p. 149). In these games, themes of career, love, relationships, family, and marriage surfaced. Literary games were also played, which involved rhyming verse—not rap. Among their peers, African American girls be­ came known for being musical, athletic, and disruptive; they were also considered dominant. African American adolescents develop strong definitions of gender roles, while balancing awareness of social expectations with a gender equitable set of behavioral practices in the household. The behaviors shift in social and interpersonal settings, especially in culturally differ­

RELATIONSHIPS

AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 191

ent contexts. Certainly, there is still much that is unknown about Afri­ can American gendered identities, developmentally, socially, and intraculturally, although it is clear that family life has a direct influence on relationship formations later in life. AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES

Family life has a significant impact on youth development and is a key African American institution. African American families have un­ dergone tremendous change in their composition since the 1980s, but still play a central role in African American lives and identity for­ mation (Mosley-Howard & Evans, 2000). Within this segment, we discuss African American relationships and identities in the context of African American families. By first exploring family structures and networks, we proceed to examine the development of masculine and feminine orientations during adolescence, sibling relationships, informal and formal adoption networks, as well as parental roles. African American Family Structure

Billingsley (1968, 1992) offered a basic classification of family sys­ tems that encompasses African American families: primary, ex­ tended, or augmented families. We provide a general description of these categories and then discuss more unique characteristics of Af­ rican American families. It should be noted that we do not include African American gay and lesbian families due to the paucity of re­ search on this topic. We do not mean to marginalize these relation­ ships and hope that this decision does not suggest that we do. African American gay and lesbian relationships are briefly discussed in the next section. Primary families include nuclear, simple nuclear, and attenuated nuclear families: A nuclearfamily is one with two married adults but no children. A.simple nuclearfamily refers to the popular conception of family with two adults and their child (ren). An attenuated nuclearfamily is one with a single parent present as the sole provider for children who live in the household.

192 • CHAPTER 5

An extended family includes married couples with no biological children who serve as surrogate parents or caregivers for a niece, nephew, cousin, or some other relative. Extended families also are comprised of existing simple nuclear or attenuated nuclear families with additional cohabitating relatives. The final family type is the augmented family, which includes nonrelated persons such as roomers, boarders, or long-term guests who live with a primary or extended family. Primary, extended, and augmented families are functional variations of African American family life that can be seen in other cultures as well. African American families span all three systems; however, no discussion of African American families is complete without refer­ encing the tremendous influence extended kinship networks have on African American families, which is the reason for the prevalence of extended and augmented family structures. These family varia­ tions are very common in African American communities through­ out the United States. Boyd-Franklin (1989) criticized North American family therapists for being unfamiliar with African Ameri­ can family networks and labeling nonnuclear networks pathologi­ cal. As Hill (2001) argued, a dual-parent household with two children has never been the norm for U.S. culture, even among non-African American households. During slavery, families were di­ vided, and wives and children could not even take the husband and father's last name; instead, they would take the name of the master and many African Americans still have masters' names today. De­ spite the fact that loving African American couples were disallowed to legally marry as slaves, hence having to "jump the broom" to sig­ nify a communally sanctioned nuptial ceremony, African American families still survived because they were resilient, spiritually driven, and possessed adaptive flexibility. They survived as a com­ munity that raised children. Even when fathers and/or mothers were not present, the community took care of the child and his or her needs. This family structure of communal and extended family involvement still exists today; it does not exist as pathology, rather as a strong intact family system and, in many cases, a cultural stronghold (Hill, 2001). Hill (2001) and Boyd-Franklin (1989) argued that there is strength in the multinetwork family system of African Americans. There is something unique added to the family climate when reciprocity or shared support from extended family members becomes common.

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY NEGOTIATION • 193

Boyd-Franklin gave at least two examples of reciprocity worth men­ tioning: the role of grandmother and the role of the church. Grandparents, especially grandmothers, are typically caregivers themselves, even as they age. Healthy grandparents, who tend to as­ sist sons and daughters with childrearing and/or childcare, may func­ tion in this capacity until the end of their natural lives. This structure ensures long-lasting intergenerational ties. Silverstein and Bengston (1997) explained the prominence of intergenerational solidarity, a concept that suggests that elder care is a mirror reflection of the care grandparents offer to grandchildren when they are young. The el­ dest members of the family are frequently considered the griots (en­ trusted keepers of communal knowledge and wisdom), informal family historians, and the wisest, most respected members of the family. As elders in African American families and communities, they often exemplify nurturance and knowledge. Daniel and Effinger (1996) recalled the "bosom biscuits," or words of wisdom, relayed by their grandparents. Daniel and Effinger's study of "lifelong les­ sons for living" explored the "bosom biscuits" learned by African American faculty from their primary caregivers. The study is unique in that it recaptures the significance of the "oral tradition" in African American culture. The type of advice given related to being altruistic, nonviolent, caring, honest, trustworthy, fair, helping, ethical, in con­ trol, responsible, arduous, assertive, punctual, conscientious, sexu­ ally discrete, financially responsible, confident, spiritually connected to God, goal-directed, as well as proud. Men and women primary caregivers offered these bosom biscuits. Some of the advice was given solely by males, some solely by females, and several bosom biscuits were relayed by both genders. For example, the advice given solely by males often related to financial management, punctuality, and being in control. The advice given solely by the female primary caregiver related to being caring, honest, assertive, trustworthy, fair, nonviolent (except for self-defense), sexually discrete, helpful to vul­ nerable others, proud, and goal-directed. This specific account corresponds with the vast amount of litera­ ture concerning how African American men and women construct their masculinities and femininities around certain values (Blake& Darling, 1994; Bush, 1999; Collins, 2000; Davis, 1998, 1999; hooks, 1995; Houston, 2000b; Hunter & Davis, 1994; Jackson, in press-a; Spencer, 1998). Daniel and Effinger's (1996) study also reflects the roles primary caregivers and extended family members play in teach­

194 • CHAPTER 5

ing younger family members about love, responsibility, resilience, morals, and religious faith. African American grandparents, like Afri­ can American primary caregivers, are actively involved with teaching the importance of a relationship with God, even more active than White grandparents and primary caregivers (Hunter, 1997; Stolzenberg, Blair-Loy, & Waite, 1995). The church serves a major function as an extension of parenting relationships and kinkeeping networks. It is more than a place of spiritual rejuvenation. The strong religious orientation of traditional African American families is indicative of a communal orientation, an intrinsic need to gather and fellowship with people who share simi­ lar values. The values of shared responsibility and trust are embed­ ded in the religious set of experiences throughout the composite African American community. African American churches are among the few places where African Americans still have strong leadership and are able to pull together communal and economic resources for community improvement. Talent, leadership, initiative, emotional support, caring, caregiving, and cultural expressiveness can be wit­ nessed in traditional African American churches (Kane, 2000). Both the role of grandmothers and the role of the church in African Ameri­ can families are exemplary of extended kinkeeping networks and shared support. Each allays some of the pressures and limitations that accompany single-parent childrearing. With almost one of every four African American children being born out of wedlock, the effects on African American children seem staggering. Marital instability and dissolution have potentially dam­ aging effects on children; however, few studies, if any, have proven conclusively that offspring are maladapted or less functional be­ cause of divorces (Dickson, 1993). Still, there is a common belief that divorce is unlikely to play a positive role in child development (Amato, 1993; Chideya, 1999; Lawson & Thompson, 1999). How­ ever, evidence suggests it really depends on several factors: the short-term versus long-term effects, the circumstances of the divorce and remarriage (e.g., gender of the child, age of the child, length of time since divorce, number of transitions), and most important the degree of conflict between the parents (Buchanon, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991, 1996; Emery, 1994). Although not proven conclu­ sively, research indicates that divorce can have potentially harmful short-term effects on children. Children of divorcees tend to have more symptoms of psychological maladjustment, lower academic

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 195

achievement, more social difficulties, and poorer self-concepts (Hetherington, 1993, 1999). Many children also experience decline in their economic circumstances, fear of abandonment of one of their parents, and decrease in contact with their noncustodial parent (Lawson & Thompson, 1999). However, children vary greatly with respect to how they respond to divorce (Hetherington, 1999). In the long-term, the differences between children of divorce and the children of continuously intact families are small (Amato& Keith, 1991). What really seems to make a difference is not the divorce per se, but the degree of conflict between the former spouses (Braithwaite, Olson, Golish, Soukup, &Turman, in press). For exam­ ple, Golish and Caughlin (in press) contended that children's feel­ ings of being caught between the two parents are a strong predictor of avoidance, distancing, and dissatisfaction behaviors exhibited to­ ward their parents. Likewise, Amato found that parents' interper­ sonal behavior problems that coincide with divorce predict their children's marital difficulties and own interpersonal problems later in life (Amato, 1996; Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995). However, people's deficit perceptions of divorce do not match many of the find­ ings that in the long run, children are quite resilient to divorce if there are positive parenting behaviors occurring across and within households (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000). One indicator of the effects of divorce on African American chil­ dren is how they develop into adults and how they function within adult relationships. Dickson (1993) persuasively argued that African American girls and boys are indubitably impacted by marital dissolu­ tion among parents and gain, to some degree, cues from their par­ ents about how to relate to future mates. She explicitly identified the African American mother-daughter relationship as one that is char­ acterized by frequent and intense training about how to behave with males and general life success. Dickson explains that African Ameri­ can girls rely on multiple relatives for female role modeling, includ­ ing grandmothers, mothers, and aunts. This affords African American girls the opportunity to concentrate much more on cul­ tural, social, and developmental aspects of womanhood before at­ tending to issues of femininity. In contrast, African American boys continue to be preoccupied with masculinity rather than manhood. Jackson and Dangerfield (in press) explained this preoccupation by introducing a model of African American Masculine Identity and state that five factors affect African American males' positionalities:

196 • CHAPTER 5

struggle, independence, achievement, recognition, and commu­ nity. They define masculinity as a perceptual category of identity that is constantly in flux, as juxtaposed to manhood, which they de­ fine as a behavioral category in flux. This is an important distinction given the social construction of masculinity and evidence that Afri­ can American manhood is inextricably linked to possibilities of fi­ nancial attainment and sustainability. For example, Hill's (2001) longitudinal study of southern-reared African American men from 1920 to 1990 reveals that race or skin color has long been directly correlated with adult attainment. His archival research of child­ hood census records and tracing of African American men's lives re­ vealed that the darker the skin of the individual, the more likely the person was to live rather modestly over a period of time. Hill identi­ fied this as an effect of the "mulatto advantage" and argued that ra­ cial differences have historically affected life chances in the last 100 years among this population. The mulatto advantage is likely to hold true among African Ameri­ can women as well (Russell, Hall, & Wilson, 1993). Jackson and Dangerfield's model may also be useful in traversing African Ameri­ can gender boundaries; hence, a similar set of definitions may be ap­ plied to African American femininity and womanhood. However, the way African American women position themselves is likely to be a bit different because there is a greater emphasis on caring, nurturing, assertiveness, and directness as communicative norms (Houston, 2000a, 2000b). These communicative characteristics are carryovers from childhood that extend into marital, dating, mating, and paren­ tal relationships (Gaines, 1997; Gaines, Rios, Granrose, & Bledsoe, 1999; Webster, Orbuch, & House, 1995). Because the average duration of nearly half of African American marriages is about 12 years (Kposowa, 1998), the number of African American children that are a part of single-parented households some time before the age of 18 years old is relatively high. There are many studies (McAdoo, 1999; Orbuch, Veroff, & Hunter, 1999; Rob­ erts, 2000) that suggest that African American families and marriages are plagued by structural pressures such as racism, unequal employ­ ment opportunities, healthcare, low economic resources, and other pressures that limit life, family, and marital satisfaction. This is said to have deleterious effects on the sustainability of the family as a cohe­ sive unit and may lead to marital dissolution (Cherlin, 1998; Dick­ son, 1993; McAdoo, 1999). The overall effects of the interactive and

R E L A T I O N S H I P S AND C U L T U R A L I D E N T I T Y N E G O T I A T I O N * 197

structural aspects of Black families are discussed at length in the next section on African American Relationships. Webster et al. (1995) contended that adult children with family backgrounds involving single-parent households tend to divorce sooner than those of two-parent households. Moreover, children of single-parent households report marital strain more often than those of two-parent households. These results may suggest that chil­ dren of single-parent households are likely to communicate more frequently and honestly with their relational partners about how they feel about one another, or it could suggest that they enact more destructive, nonaffirming behaviors learned from observing dis­ solved, damaged, and/or dysfunctional parental relationships. The assumption often made about divorcees is not just that they were in­ compatible, but also that they were either unable to manage destruc­ tive conflict effectively or severely violated relational rules such as trust (Canary, Cupach, & Messman, 1995). Another reason for high divorce rates according to developmental psychologists is that marital conflict may evolve because the spouse witnessed destructive or unstable parental relationships as a child and figured that was the correct way of behaving. On the surface, some of these reasons seem porous. The latter claim is flawed rea­ soning for several reasons, one of which is because it improperly as­ sumes that couples only get divorced when there is counter­ productive conflict, rather than conflict related to altered sexual preference for example. In other words, if conflict is frequently de­ fined as "discrete, isolated disagreements as well as chronic rela­ tional problems" (Canary et al., 1995, p. 23), then continuous, nonisolated and concrete disagreements may be ruled out prematurely. Another slippage in this reasoning is that it suggests that all children with divorced or separated parents will process adolescent observa­ tions of parental marriage the same way and function homoge­ neously in their own future relationships. Webster et al. (1995) admitted, "The process whereby marital stability becomes repeated in successive generations is not well understood" (p. 405). Before moving on to other aspects of African American families, there is one characteristic of families, their cultural or racial compo­ sition, that is an important consideration of African American and other marginalized group families. It is, perhaps, characteristic of how we think about culture and race in the United States that issues of multiracial families and marriages are seen as larger concerns to

198 • CHAPTER 5

marginalized group communities. We believe that issues of identity and identity development lie at the roots of these concerns. Interracial marriages and mixed ancestry are paramount identity concerns. African American youth, especially those with mixed par­ entage, struggle with negotiations of identity (Diggs, 1999; Goldstein, 1999; Kato, 2000; Orbe, 1999). Historical and social con­ straints only add to the conundrum; after all, it was not until 1967 with the Supreme Court case Loving vs. The State of Virginia (Ely, 1998) that interracial marriages were considered constitutional (Orbe, 1999). Nonetheless, evidence suggests that African Ameri­ cans have always been and continue to be more favorable toward in­ terracial romantic relationships than Whites, but African American women, no matter how great their attitude toward interracial friend­ ships may have been, hold more prejudicial attitudes toward interra­ cial romantic relationships than African American men do (Mills, Daly, Longmore, & Kilbride, 1995). This signifies the challenges of naming identity and living in a social context defined in large part by race. With these challenges, a question that often arises is whether the interracial couple and their children will choose to vacillate be­ tween cultural worldviews, values, and perspectives or decide to commit to one cultural worldview and defend their position. This is a critical question that is subconsciously and consciously answered by foster and nonfoster children in elementary school and beyond on an almost daily basis (M. Wright, 1998). The often close-knit set of sibling relationships in African American families most likely helps to alleviate some of the pressure of stress related to fragmented paren­ tal relationships and/or structural dynamics.

Sibling Relationships

Sibling relationships provide one of the salient layers or levels within the family system. Gudykunst and Lee (2001) posited, "The interac­ tion between parents and children and interaction among the sib­ lings is an important part of the study of family communication" (p. 81). Although sibling relationships survive in specific family con­ texts, there are a few universal characteristics of sibling studies. In Af­ rican American families, however, there is often a tendency to have siblings that function as part of kinkeeping networks, and this facili­ tates long-lasting relationships with siblings.

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 199

Although African American primary nuclear families have exten­ sive and frequent contact with siblings and their families, many do not feel they are able to rely on each other for instrumental support (e.g., financial) in times of extreme need (Timmer, Veroff, & Hatchett, 1996). This makes sense given that the U.S. Census Bu­ reau reported in 2000 that 23.6% of African Americans lived below the poverty level. It is difficult to offer financial resources when one does not even have enough for oneself. When financial resources are scarce, there is mounting evidence that extended family net­ works and sibships offer increased emotional support, affection, contact, and interaction as a means of being assistive (Akhtar & Kramer, 1999; Ellison, 1990; Mosley-Howard & Evans, 2000; White, 2001). Another interesting pattern in African American family life is that larger sibships have a higher likelihood to live in close proxim­ ity and be compatible. The common threads throughout the sibling research include: genetic similarities and sociobiological tendencies, environmental shaping of identity, shared family history and culture, and compli­ mentary family roles (Weisner, 1989). For obvious reasons, Weisner argued, many siblings are alike. With the exception of foster chil­ dren, siblings not only share an average of 50% of their genetic ma­ terial, but they are also often raised to be largely compatible with one another or at least share the same living space. Even social sib­ ling research, which accounts for biologically unrelated children who live together, contends that brothers and sisters who are raised together tend to develop strong long-term bonds (Akhtar & Kramer, 1999). Conversely, there also is a vast literature set concerning sibling ri­ valry, hatred, and envy. Although this is highly characteristic of the nondescript, although apparently White, sibling relationships dis­ cussed in the majority of sibling research, the extent of sibling rivalry in the composite African American community may be attenuated by a collectivistic cultural orientation toward the world (McAdoo, 1999). It is antithetical to a collectivistic cosmology to hold a peren­ nial grudge against a family member when emotional support and companionship is the family norm (Harris, 1995). As a result, African American siblings tend to be highly cohesive and highly adaptable family members (McAdoo, 1999; Olson et al., 1982). As Gudykunst and Lee (2001) surmised, cultures that accent interdependent selfconstrual will most likely promote close sibling relationships and

200 • CHAPTER 5

frequent communication with their siblings and overall family. The primary exceptions to this are individual cultural members who adopt an individualist orientation or identity function (Cross & Strauss, 1998). Research on birth order and single children is a standard way of un­ derstanding personality traits and complex behaviors of siblings (Weisner, 1989). African American sibling relationships exist in nu­ clear and extended family networks or systems. In these arrange­ ments, the older sibling is responsible for helping to rear the younger children. The younger children also tend to model the behavior of the older sibling caregiver(s) (Akhtar & Kramer, 1999; Ervin-Tripp, 1989). The children function more holistically than White siblings, meaning that household chores are divided fairly evenly and males are reared so that they learn traditionally or popular female gender-role activi­ ties, such as cleaning dishes and washing clothes (Ervin-Tripp, 1989; McAdoo, 1999). Gender communication and expectations of siblings in African American families emphasize role flexibility, responsibility for maintaining close kinship bonds, and resilience. Adult and adoles­ cent family members share the workload in the home and have been socialized to see shared division of labor as ordinary, rather than unfair or burdensome as in some European American house­ holds (Taylor et al., 1997). Although African Americans and Whites report equivalent caregiving of mentally ill children and siblings, Whites report a significantly greater caregiving burden than African Americans (Horwitz & Reinhard, 1995). Likewise, sibling care­ givers that were African American indicated less caregiver burden than White sibling caregivers. Padgett (1997) and Stommel, Given, and Given (1998) offered one reason for the disparity in caregiver stress; both research teams reported that African American care­ givers are much more likely than European American caregivers to rely on secondary helpers, extended family, or older children to as­ sist with household duties including childcare. Naturally, this alle­ viates the caregiving burden for African American families, who typically have much more intricate and involved extended family networks than Whites. With increased role flexibility and household chores for children often comes increased accountability. That accountability typically leads to a greater responsibility even in caregiving as exemplified when older siblings participate in babysitting, younger sibling bed­

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 201

time preparation, and sometimes in overall household decisionmaking. Role flexibility is heightened in single-parent households. Although this seems to place an inordinate amount of stress on a nonadult family member, it is partly done to instill independence, maturity, and resilience, which are characteristics that are essential for African American youths in low-income urban neighborhoods. This is especially true where racial homogeneity is a conspicuous cue into class and racial differences that divide the masses (Miller, 1999; Plummer, 1995; Spencer, 1998). Socialization in African Amer­ ican families is designed to facilitate interpersonal competency, workplace success, and strong family ties. This socialization begins with the parent-child relationship.

Parent-Child Relationships

It seems clear from the literature that attitudes, roles, and ap­ proaches to parenting vary by culture (Coleman et al., 2000), and we know that parenting style is an important dimension of African American families (Jambunathan, Burts, & Pierce, 2000). When ex­ amining parent-child relationships, the most frequent themes that emerge from extant research are parental communication, social­ ization, involvement, disciplinary beliefs, and behaviors, as well as respect for authority. African American parents are typically socialized to be stricter than European American parents (Taylor, Tucker, Chatters, & Jayakody, 1997). There is considerable evidence that African Ameri­ can parents across socioeconomic classes tend to use physical pun­ ishment as a discipline measure more often than do European Americans (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998; Hill & Sprague, 1999; Jambunathan et al., 2000). African American families also are likely to employ such measures as increased household duties or a harsher rotation of chores as strategies for instilling responsibility, discipline, as well as respect for parental authority (Kunjufu, 1985). Of course, this does not stop them from employing milder mea­ sures of discipline, such as time-outs, where the child is directed to sit alone for the number of minutes (perhaps matching his or her age), or the count-down approach, where the child is ordered to stop doing something and is given a 5-second countdown before receiving further punishment (Comer & Pouissaint, 1992).

202 • CHAPTER 5

Informal and Formal Adoption Networks

Parenting, sibling relations, extended family, and kinkeeping net­ works are all inextricably linked to adoption in African American cul­ ture. This includes both informal adoption such as an aunt and uncle adopting a nephew, which occurs outside the legal system, as well as the more formal procedures that involve the government. Before ex­ ploring informal and formal adoption networks, it is important to note that adoption is an option rarely discussed when mentioning American motherhood. Wegar (2000) rationalized that this is be­ cause motherhood in North America is so closely tied to biological reproduction and fertility. It is shocking to hear that a woman has left her children to be raised by the father, although it is not unexpected to hear that a man is a dead-beat dad, especially an African American father (Blake & Darling, 1994; Bush, 1999). We may avoid discussing adoption for women in general or African American women in par­ ticular because it has been stigmatized as something people do when they are physically incapable of having kids. African American infor­ mal and formal adoptive family interaction and relationships are missing from the literature on family communication; therefore, we contend they need to be studied by communicologists as well as other social scientists. Informal Adoption. Boyd-Franklin (1989) described informal adoption or childkeeping as a service that has circulated in the com­ posite African American community since slavery. At its most funda­ mental level, it endorses the African proverb "it takes a village to raise a child." Often "baby boomer" African Americans reminisce of times when a child would misbehave in public and an African American member of the community would immediately discipline the child, and then notify the parents so that the child would be chastised again when he or she arrived home (Mosley-Howard & Evans, 2000). These are described as the glory days because that kind of collective responsibility is rarely seen in urban enclaves. It survives to some de­ gree in small niches in rural America and small towns where every­ one knows everyone else. The informal adoption network Boyd-Franklin spoke of also includes extended family members (such as an adult sibling) who cannot or will not take care of a child, so the child goes to live with his or her grandmother, aunt, uncle, or some other relative.

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY NEGOTIATION • 203

Adoption studies are gradually gaining attention in scholarly re­ search. Boyd-Franklin (1989) alluded to this topic in her discussion of informal adoptive families as augmented families, in which chil­ dren are raised by individuals who do not share any blood relation­ ship. Fictive kinship networks, comprised of Godparents and "play" mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, may also include members of the church one attends as well. It is well documented that during slavery times many African American female housekeep­ ers occupied the role of fictive mother. Informal adoptions may also occur temporarily as a grandmother keeps her grandchildren while the child's parent is serving a short military stint overseas or for a host of other reasons. Informal adoptions are much more common than formal adoptions of African American children. Formal Adoptions. Formal adoptions are seldom discussed in communication studies, and very little if any research in the commu­ nication discipline discusses African American foster families or Afri­ can American adopted children. What little literature exists tends to focus on transracial adoption due to its currency in the popular press. This literature focuses on both legal and sociological/developmental aspects. Here, as with interracial marriage, the issues revolve around identity and, in particular, the potential for identity confu­ sion among the offspring of such relationships. Identity confusion is the primary concern of the National Associa­ tion of African American Social Workers (NABSW), who passed a res­ olution in 1972 opposing transracial adoption due to three primary reasons: necessity of lifelong self-determination of all African Ameri­ can people; necessity of young African Americans to identify with their composite community from birth; and the idea that African Americans need African Americans to build a strong nation. Each of these rationales center around an anxiety associated with White fos­ ter parents disconnecting the African American child from the Afri­ can American community. It is the responsibility of social work agencies to place foster children in safe, secure, nurturing environ­ ments. The question is, once we know the prospective foster parents have passed all emotional, psychological, physical safety clearances, the primary concern is the context in which the child will live. Natu­ rally, there was and still is much controversy about this as depicted by the HBO movie release Losing Isaiah. The opposition turned to Afri­ can Americans to ask why they were not adopting these African

204 • CHAPTER 5

American children if they were so concerned. The immediate re­ sponse was that African Americans were prohibited from participat­ ing in the foster care system for years, and now there is an increase in African American family adoptions (Hollingsworth, 1999). The issue remains unresolved, although the NABSW has recently modified their stance to welcome transracial adoption as a last re­ sort. The deeply entrenched fear in this debate is that African Ameri­ can families are characterized by heavy contact with extended family and non-African American families tend not to be, so the African American child may grow up qualitatively disadvantaged in terms of his cultural identity. The other side to the argument is that the child is no better off if left in the state's custodial care his or her entire child­ hood, which, without diminishing the importance of cultural iden­ tity issues, many would agree may be the greater disadvantage and disservice to the child. There have been speculations that the differ­ ence in attitudes concerning transracial adoption may not be solely racial, but also generational. With this speculation comes the sentiment that "Generation Xers" are much more likely to adopt transracially than "Baby Boomers" largely because of the liberal mindsets (McAdoo, 1996). Those born between 1946 and 1964 are known as "Baby Boomers." They have been discussed in the literature not only because of their different outlook on life, but also because of population growth that occurred during the previously noted period. In the last five to six decades, no generation of babies has exceeded the number of babies born during the baby boom. "Generation Xers" born 1965 to 1989 are noted for being liberal minded, underemployed, and overeducated, although seemingly apathetic to life (Sacks, 1996), and they are also known for being the generation that is smallest in number, unmatched as a nu­ merical minority since the mid 1950s (National Center for Health Statistics, 2001). "Generation Y" is being studied now, although there are fewer projections about their behavior and attitudes. With an increase in population growth beginning 1990 to the present, Generation Y African Americans seem better positioned, numeri­ cally, to have the greatest social impact if they carry with them a dete­ riorated set of racial biases (McWhorter, 2000). Regardless of the public discussion of the desirability of cross-racial adoption, the fact remains that is occurring. The question, then, changes to how parents negotiate identity concerns and the ultimate effects on children. Steinberg and Hall (2000) offered a practical

RELATIONSHIPS

AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 205

guide to raising a culturally different child. One of the most important social issues they urge White parents to discuss with their young Afri­ can American children is race and its social construction. Patton (2000) agreed and suggested that African American children are often more willing to discuss race with their parents prior to being con­ fronted with it because they feel that they are being warned and the topic seems new. After experiencing it, it seems unfair that they had to endure it so unexpectedly, and that may lead to a subtle resentment toward their parents. Race is such a critical component of interracial adoption efforts because too many parents do not care to learn about the African American child's racial and cultural heritage; therefore, they have nothing to tell them about it. Psychologists argue this may lead to inferiority complexes, lowered self-esteem, and may have re­ sidual effects that lead to academic failure or low educational achieve­ ment, in addition to other factors. Parental love is indubitably the most important supply needed for foster families to function health­ fully, but critics suggest that love is not enough to sustain the African American foster child (Simon, Alstein, & Melli, 1993).

Motherhood

Regardless of the family structure and other variables, motherhood, like womanhood and femininity, is socially and culturally constructed and plays a central role in families including those in African American culture. The archetypal (mainstream) American mother is nurturing, unconditionally loving, responsible, caring, attentive, intelligent, cre­ ative, arduous, spiritually minded, and indivorceable from the family. Mothers of African descent are matriarchs, having led African Ameri­ can families for centuries. Although the composite African American community perpetually celebrates mothers, mothers have the heavy burden of being held responsible for the delinquent behaviors of their children. This is often not a burden shared with African American men, except to suggest that child delinquents are subconsciously pro­ testing the absence of their fathers from the home. It should be noted, nonetheless, that African American mothers do provide a sturdy buffer from problem behavior (Collins, 2000). This perception is reinforced through popular culture. Song lyrics like "I'm every woman" by Whitney Houston and Chaka Khan (Khan & Houston, 1998) and "I'm not your superwoman" by Karyn White

206 • CHAPTER 5

(White, 1990), remind listeners that African American women, par­ ticularly mothers, feel overwhelmed as they are expected almost single-handedly to heroically manage family, work, education, community, household maintenance, and anything else that occurs. This situation gave rise to standpoint theory in the critical cultural studies literature (Collins, 2000; Harding, 1987). According to Col­ lins (2000), standpoint theory is useful for helping to frame the set of challenges that encapsulate African American women's experi­ ence. Standpoints refer to sociocultural locations or positions from which marginalized beings activate their agency to define their own experience without dominant and controlling strictures (Allen, 2000a; Harding, 1987; Houston, 2000a, 2000b). As Allen (2000a) noted, standpoints are achievements as well as perspectives. They speak to African American women's triumphs and tribulations as well as their role in redefining and recreating sociocultural spaces. Of course, all persons—including those from the dominant or main­ stream culture—have standpoints that represent their ways of know­ ing and seeing the world. Nonetheless, standpoint epistemologies have been developed by feminist voices in order to describe women's experiences, particularly marginalized group women's ex­ periences, and these experiences are often articulated via narrative, which affords marginalized persons the opportunity to speak for themselves about themselves. These narratives name the terms of their experience and acknowledge a reality that is theirs and not something they inherited from a dominant group that has imposed itself on them. Collins (2000) asserted in her discussion of African American feminist standpoints that The institution of African American motherhood consists of a series of constantly renegotiated relationships that African American women experience with one another, with African American children, with the larger African American community, and with the self. (p. 118)

Essentially, what Collins described is African American women's cultural identity negotiation through a series of decision points. Afri­ can American women may choose to adapt to a social expectation of being a "superwoman" as Karyn White suggested in her song with that title, or she may reject the imperative. She is likely to rely on kin­ ship networks for childkeeping, emotional support and other activi­ ties or to renegotiate childcare arrangements with her spouse, if present, to share the load more evenly. She may choose to cocreate

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION

• 207

some collaborative behaviors with her children in order to get them to be role-flexible while assisting her in keeping the family stable. This can be accomplished by asking the children to accept more re­ sponsibility as she grants them more autonomy and social choices. She may also renegotiate her role with the community and start anew by coconstructing fictive kin networks, redesigning the divi­ sion of labor, as well as initiating and developing friendships. In a household, identity negotiation can also involve recreation of rules and dynamics of the household, such as disciplinary tactics in order to accommodate the spouse. Likewise, the spouse concedes or rene­ gotiates his role in order to accommodate the wife. This latter situa­ tion is much more likely when a spouse is present. These decisions help to explore the identities of African American women. Collins (2000) also spoke specifically of three types of African American motherhood: bloodmother, othermother, and the women-centered network. The bloodmother is self-explanatory. The othermother is similar to what we discussed earlier as informal adoption arrangements where blood relatives or fictive kin take fa­ miliar children into their home as if the child were their own. One situation that might cause such a temporary arrangement is when an unemployed parent is trying to financially recover after losing a well-paying job. This informal adoption is typically arranged for a temporary or short period of time, although sometimes among blood relatives, such as grandmothers, informal adoptions begin to appear permanent as months and years pass. Finally, effective women-centered networks are well-organized, reliable networks of usually related women who share childkeeping duties as well as other family care responsibilities. They are comprised of bloodmothers and othermothers, such as aunts, nieces, cousins, sisters, and grandmothers. This is very similar to community-based childcare and works well to sustain the family. African American motherhood is necessarily complex. Given the demographics, in addition to social and political pressures, struggle is inevitable, but tremendous evidence suggests that African Ameri­ can people and African American families are resilient and have been since their inception. Even in dual-parent households, African Amer­ ican families continue to struggle, but thrive. Although the African American middle class has widened, class issues are not the only con­ cern facing African American womanhood, African American fami­ lies, and African American institutions.

208 • CHAPTER 5

Fatherhood

Despite popular myth, African American fatherhood is critical to the development of African American family life. Fatherhood has so often been tied to a man's ability to financially sustain his family or "bring home the bacon" that many African American men feel inadequate when this basic criterion can not be met due to unemployment or chronic joblessness (Akbar, 1991; Madhubuti, 1991). Fatherhood is much more than being able to provide financial security; it also en­ compasses role modeling and parental nurturance. The aspects that often characterize fatherhood, however, get enwrapped in explana­ tions of masculinity, so our review here is partly limited by this pre­ dominate feature of the literature on fatherhood. Hill (2001) posited, An important issue for African American parents is the extent to which ... structural inequities and diminished roles of men affect socializa­ tion of sons ... Understanding that their sons face many obstacles and even dangers in expressing masculinity, parents may develop higher expectations for daughters than for sons and be more tolerant and self-indulgent with sons. (p. 503) Hill articulated a common concern for African American families. The old adage is that African American parents tend to "Raise their daughters and love their sons." Consequently, research suggests sons are typically disciplined less and told about racial barriers whereas daughters are taught racial pride (Hill, 2001). Although the evidence is still inconclusive, it is likely that this approach to childrearing is damaging to African American males as they develop their identities and co-construct their masculinities. Several of the major and consistent themes within the literature concerning African American fatherhood and manhood are roleconstruction, parental absenteeism, and constitution of masculinity. We discuss each of these in the framework of McAdoo and McAdoo's (1993) four-part role typology. McAdoo and McAdoo (1993) listed four primary roles African American fathers enact in families: pro­ vider, decision-maker, child-rearing, as well as family and marital in­ fluence. These socially constructed roles are directly linked to financial and overall household stability. Stability is key because it is a socially affirming characteristic of manhood, and the implicit foun­

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 209

dational premise of American manhood is that all fathers must be men, not just males and certainly not boys. Manhood is socially de­ fined by one's ability to provide a stable, comfortable, safe, protec­ tive environment for his family. Everything else concerning his role is entwined with his masculinity, such as assertiveness, courage, strength, perseverance, resilience, realism, and spirituality. So, the four roles African American men enact are grounded in an archetypal formation of manhood that is arguably materialistic, capitalist, and mostly irrespective of his needed physical presence in the home. First, his role asprovider is financially driven on the surface. It seems that he is simply invested in "putting food on the table" and "clothes on the family member's backs"; however, this is how he demonstrates his love, care, nurturance, emotional attachment, and attentiveness to the family (Jackson & Dangerfield, in press). Even an absent father rationalizes that his financial contribution or child sup­ port remuneration suggests he cares. He might also explain, on the other hand, how his personal circumstances, such as chronic unem­ ployment, prohibit him from contributing but that he will do so as soon as he can. Regardless of the situation, he may be preoccupied with his manhood and masculinity in such an intense way that it gets inextricably attached to his parental responsibility to assist with household stability. Anecdotal evidence suggests that much of this is tied up in the historical responsibility of the male slavehand to work in the fields all day (Staples, 1987). The second role mentioned is that of the decision-maker (McAdoo & McAdoo, 1993). Fathers in dual-parent households, father-headed single-parent households, and even absent fathers tra­ ditionally have carried the primary role as disciplinarian and decision-maker. Resource theory (McAdoo & McAdoo, 1993) sug­ gests that this may be problematic because there is typically a direct and proportionate relationship between the amounts of resources one brings to the household and the amount of decision-making power one has. Resource theory works well in asymmetrical rela­ tionships. However, where African American men are not bringing material resources into the family or in contemporary African American families led by "Generation Xers," families and spouses are more likely to be free-willed and expectant of balance and eq­ uity in relationships; either resource theory is inappropriate, or these inequities make this a difficult context for the preservation of identity negotiation. Nonetheless, fathers do anticipate playing a

210 • CHAPTER 5

principal or primary role in making decisions concerning the household, and this is typical across class groups in the composite African American family (McAdoo & McAdoo, 1993). The third role is as child-rearer. In 1993, McAdoo and McAdoo no­ ticed that few studies had systematically examined the role of fathers as child-rearer. This lacuna in the thinking about fatherly roles is partly due to the habitual pathologizing of African American males as irresponsible, never-present fathers. To date, there are still few em­ pirical investigations of fathers who are spiritually-minded, partici­ patory, assistive, educated, communally involved, goal-driven, responsible, caring, nurturing, loving, sane, successful, noncrimi­ nal, heterosexual African American males. These features of African American fatherhood seem contradictory to the common depiction of fathers in the literature (Jackson & Dangerfield, in press). Re­ search consistently informs us that father-absent homes are the norm and that children respond to the absence in different ways; some become hypermasculine and have lowered self-esteem, whereas others are satiated by love, nurturance, and support from their absent fathers when they can get it (Rodney& Mupier, 1999). The final role mentioned by McAdoo and McAdoo (1993) is family and marital influence, which is also problematized by the concentra­ tion of marital conflict, incompatibility, and dissolution. One of McAdoo's (1988) earlier studies suggests that when a child observes her father's nurturance of his wife it leads to greater father-child rela­ tionship satisfaction levels. Three fatherly roles as provider, decision-maker, and child-rearer describe the traditional understandings of ascriptions to fatherhood. Although the literature suggests that there is equity in household chores and decision-making among many contemporary African American families (Lawson & Thompson, 1999), this does not appear to be evident in the roles described by McAdoo and McAdoo (1993). Much more research is needed to ex­ plore the multiple functions and roles African American fathers have in the family. African American families, with their varied structures and net­ works, can be understood as a complex cultural systems that in­ cludes sibling, parenting, adoptive, and kinkeeping relationships and is enhanced by factors such as race, class, and gender. Although African American families are affected by structural and social con­ straints, they remain resilient and strong. As stated earlier, African American families are not the only ones experiencing these con­

RELATIONSHIP S AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 211

straints; in fact, although it is unfortunate, single-parent households and marital dissolution are quite common. These factors have a po­ tentially enormous influence on childrearing and family stability. As researchers interested in exploring how to improve American fami­ lies, especially African American families, it is necessary to explore relationships up to marriage in order to gain further insight into how relationships evolve, develop, and extend to family life. AFRICAN AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP, DATING, AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS

In this section, we explore other types of African American personal relationships. As with the family, these relationships have some ele­ ments in common with mainstream or dominant culture but, at the same time, unique culture features. At the same time, these relation­ ships are connected to our discussion of families. African American male friendships, for example, seem to derive some of their solidar­ ity from the prevalence of female-headed households and the result­ ing need to bond with males outside the household. Similarly, these relationships, like family life, face some of the same points of stress that permeate the book—particularly that of identity negotiation, racism, and economic hardship. This section includes a discussion of each of these threads, while commenting on the current status of these relationships among Afri­ can Americans. As before, we have found little research on African American gays and lesbians. We include a short section within our discussion of mating relationships but reassert our sensitivity to marginalizing groups. Adult Friendship Networks

Adult friendships are an important extension of our earlier discus­ sion of adolescent peer group networks. Although there are many heterosexual friendships among African American men and women, same-sex heterosexual friendships are also common and serve to val­ idate masculine, feminine, and/or androgynous behaviors, as well as relational styles. Among African American men, male bonding is ex­ tremely important; it becomes the primary means by which a boy be­ gins the process of becoming a man. Therefore, the influences he has

212 • CHAPTER 5

in his relationships are critical. It is likely he will still establish his Afri­ can American masculine positionality as involving struggle, recogni­ tion, achievement, independence, and community (Jackson & Dangerfield, in press); however, the friends he has will facilitate the meaning of these dynamics with him. They become confidantes with whom he maintains a close, open, and expressive relationship (Rob­ erts, 1994). Contrary to popular literature, scholarly research con­ firms that African American men relate well emotionally with others. Contrary to popular stereotypes, they do not define their identities to intimidate others, but instead African American masculinity is a perceptual self-understanding of strength, fortitude, and common sense. In describing their friendships, Roberts (1994) noted that Afri­ can American males think of their friends as loving brothers. They think of their relationships with their friends as characterized by trust, openness, caring, and honesty. Heterosexual African American women's same-sex friendships are also unique. Recent studies suggest that African American women tend to have stronger same-sex intracultural friendships than inter­ cultural friendships (Houston, 2000a; Samter, Whaley, Mortenson, & Burleson, 1997). Countless studies warn that African American women's experiences cannot be understood through the rendered understandings of men or non-African American women (Davis, 1998; Gluck & Patai, 1991; Houston, 2000b; Pennington, 2000; Scott, 2000a). The power of hegemony in the lives of African American women's lives is impactful. Bell, Orbe, Drummond, and Camara's (2000) study revealed that African American women constantly code switch with White women and sometimes feel that socially defined modes of beauty, success, and competence limit heterosexual African American women's same-sex, same-race relationships. This affirms Scott's (2000a) and Houston's (2000a, 2000b) studies, which suggest that African American women's talk shifts from a comfortable, relaxed tone, and lexicon when around African American women to a profes­ sional tone when around White women. These are conscious shifts that are noticeable to African Americans and require no explanation within the group. African American women tend to naturally relate to one another as real and fictive kin (Bell et al., 2000; Collins, 2000). "In the comfort of daily conversations, through serious conversation and humor, African American women as sisters and friends affirm one another's humanity, specialness, and right to exist" (Collins, 2000, p. 97). Their relation­

RELATIONSHIP S AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 213

ships become networks that assist with everyday survival, sustenance, and overall life satisfaction. Lorde (1984) recounted, "Traditionally, African American women have always bonded together in support of each other, however uneasily and in the face of whatever allegiances which militated against that bonding" (p. 49). These testimonies offer evidence that African American women's lives are intergenerationally, interpersonally, and intraculturally affirmed through strong relation­ ships with other African American women. Interpersonal Solidarity and Loving Relationships

Interpersonal solidarity and communication competence are not only important for friendship but also central to how African Americans see love as well. Harter and Duncan (1998), for example, found a strong as­ sociation between interpersonal solidarity and communication compe­ tence among African American college students. Those persons who are able to demonstrate supportive behaviors and constructive acts like empathy, behavioral flexibility, affiliative-expressiveness, and interac­ tion management were more likely to have relationships characterized by enhanced affection, nonverbal immediacy, and symbolic expres­ sions of love. Furthermore, in their study, there was a slightly stronger relationship between communication competence and interpersonal solidarity among African American males. In fact, the relationship was stronger among African American males than among European Ameri­ can males. This finding contradicts the pathological stereotypes of Afri­ can American masculine expressiveness, which suggest that African American males do not exhibit caring, loving, and nurturing; instead they must maintain a hard, emotionally impermeable exterior. Re­ cently, authors like Karenga (1993), Madhubuti (1991), Akbar (1991), Jackson and Dangerfield (in press), and Kunjufu (1985) have initiated discussions of culturally-particular African American dual-gender be­ haviors like emotional expressiveness, affection, love, relational sup­ port, and egalitarianism to explore this side of African American male persona, especially in dating relationships. Dating Relationships

Dating relationships in the United States have been viewed as forms of social exchange. In mainstream culture, people are seen as seeking to

214 • CHAPTER 5

maximize rewards and minimizing costs in relationships. At the same time, they want to have their contributions to relationships recipro­ cated by their partners. The units of exchange (i.e., those elements that are rewarding or costly and for which people seek reciprocity) in­ clude physical, psychological, emotional, or material resources. These two elements, social exchange and the norm of reciprocity, have been combined into Resource Theory (Foa & Foa, 1974). Re­ cently, this approach has been extended to consider how investments lead to commitment. The resulting theory, called the Investment Model of Romantic Commitment (Cox, Wexler, Rusbult, & Gaines, 1997), posits that relational commitment is derived from partner satis­ faction, investments, and available alternatives. Although derived from mainstream culture, these theories have been applied to help us understand African American romantic relationships. Gaines (1997) examined two interpersonal resources: affection and respect. Contrary to his expectation that their resources would be reciprocated in kind (i.e., giving respect would lead to receiving respect), he found that affection-giving behaviors led to both more affection and more respect in return, but respect-giving behaviors did not lead to more respect. One limitation of his analysis was the fact that he usually had only one person from each couple participat­ ing. In a follow-up study, Gaines, Rios, Granrose, and Bledsoe (1999) found that there was a significant and fairly proportionate level of in­ terpersonal resource exchange among all couples. Power is another resource that is exchanged in dating relation­ ships. Dougherty and Duncan (1998) posited that African American men exert power in dating relationships beginning at the first point of contact. The authors offered an example involving the nonverbal behaviors of a African American male in a nightclub setting. They speculated that the man exhibits a posture that can best be described as a "cool pose" (Majors & Billson, 1992), or that set of behaviors that represents a sense of control and mastery of one's emotions, whether positive or negative. They implied that African American males continue the cool pose throughout the premarital phases of the relationship and possibly into marriage. It is exemplified by ap­ pearing resilient, relaxed, confident, and unmoved by emotionally charged relational situations. The drawbacks of this disposition is chronic withdrawal from conflict, not communicating feelings with one's partner, and sending unintended messages of rejection to one's partner. These drawbacks can be severe because they send

RELATIONSHIPS

AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 215

conflicting messages about love and romance. The intent is to ex­ hibit strength and savoir-faire, rather than dismissive, incompetent, and dysfunctional communicative behaviors. Beyond the mere exchange of resources, it seems that relation­ ships develop through the investments people make in them. Davis, Williams, Emerson, and Hourd-Bryant (2000) used the investment model to frame their investigation of relationship commitment among single African American women and men. It appears that, as in other aspects of their relationships, many African Americans face unique challenges to relational commitment. Davis et al. (2000) pointed out that "African Americans are proportionately the largest group of unmarried people in the United States. They are, as a group, the least likely to marry, stay married or remarry" (p. 4). With that in mind, Davis et al. (2000) explained that the underlying impe­ tus for the study was to uncover the reasons for noncommitment. The popular assumptions, as stated in volumes of nonscholarly writ­ ings on African American relationships, have been that African Amer­ icans remain single for several reasons: scarcity of suitable romantic prospects; perceived heterosexual African American male fear of Af­ rican American women's career and life success; perceived lack of heterosexual African American male egalitarianism; and the sex ratio that suggests that African American men have "greater numbers of available romantic alternatives than women" (p. 9). As African American dating partners search for "Mr. or Ms. Right," the issue becomes what they mean when they say that and how will­ ing they are to negotiate their expectations (Burgest, 1990; Ruvolo & Ruvolo, 2000). Unfortunately, as Burgest (1990) acknowledged, in­ terpersonal relationships are often plagued by sexual game-playing and fears of commitment. The insecurities and anxieties become ex­ acerbated by movies like John Singleton's Baby Boy, which depicts African American relationships as irreparably pathological. The im­ ages of African American women are as starving, immature, codepen­ dent, sexually insatiable relational utilities. The mass-media production of negative imagery contributes to the actual and per­ ceived psychodynamic malaise that many unmarried couples fear will be a part of their committed relationships. The solutions require personal, relational, spiritual, and communal rethinking of positive, functional, and healthy relationships. Davis et al. (2000) examined the attitudes and relationships of at­ tendees of a National Association of African American MBAs confer­

216 • C H A P T E R 5

ence. They concluded that perceptions of high relational investment led to high partnership satisfaction and less concern for available re­ lational alternatives; therefore, commitment among African Ameri­ can unmarried individuals is predictably related to the three-part model of partnership satisfaction, investments, and available alter­ natives. Investment is an alternative way to examine interpersonal resource exchange and is intricately tied to issues of equity and power. Investment is also an important way to frame discussions of commitment. Marital Relationships

Marriage is considered the penultimate level of relationship commit­ ment. As noted throughout this chapter, African American relation­ ships face a great deal of pressure, and this is perhaps felt most strongly among African American marriage partners. As a result, the rate of African American marriages has declined in recent years, and there are more single-parent households now than in the last four decades. At the same time, the level of conflict is quite high, and the rate of African American divorces are on the rise, suggesting that the nature of the African American marital contracts does not mirror that for mainstream culture. These differences are expressed in the paths to marriage. Individ­ uals typically move through at least four stages prior to marriage: dating, best friend, lover, and engaged (Nicotera, 1997). Interest­ ingly enough, sexuality and marriage are usually unassociated with friendship (Garcia & Rivera, 1999). As suggested throughout this section of the chapter, African Americans differ from other cultures in their progression through these mateship stages, and much of this is likely to have a strong relationship to both resource and invest­ ment paradigms. However, African American marriage contracts are founded on similar primary (e.g., honesty, communication, trust, caring, pa­ tience, and understanding) and secondary (intelligence, physical at­ traction, sexual appeal, respect, affection, and support) values (Nicotera, 1997). In the absence or attenuation of these critical ele­ ments, like those in mainstream culture, African American marital re­ lationships suffer. One way to examine some of the problems and issues that stifle re­ lationships is to examine communication difficulties, patterns, and

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY NEGOTIATION • 217

habits. Marital happiness and quality is predicated on at least four major factors according to recent research: spiritual compatibility, support of spouse, frequency of destructive conflict, and reciprocity of affection and sexual satisfaction (Acitelli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1997; Gaines, 1997; Lawson & Thompson, 1999; McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). Lawson and Thompson's (1999) inter­ views with 50 recent (within the last 3 years) African American male divorcees uncovered many themes, one of which was spiritual in­ compatibility as a reason for the divorce. One respondent shared, I realized that I had selected a mate not taking into account whether or not my spiritual values 'would conflict with her values. In fact, when I reclaimed a higher spiritual consciousness, the marriage ended. I saw that materialism was the basis for Etta's values versus the religious val­ ues in my life. (p. 87)

Lawson and Thompson (1999) explained that church attendance is central to African American relationships and has been historically. Religious practice and beliefs also have a direct impact on nonconjugal family networks that involve children. Childrearing practices are connected to many religious doctrines, and churches prescribe appropriate forms of disciplining and raising children so that they parallel the values of the religion. In the absence of religion, relationships are said to be susceptible to increased confusion and conflict (Baker-Fletcher, 1996). The discussion of destructive and constructive conflict is impor­ tant to relationship development researchers. Destructive acts, such as physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, lead to deteriora­ tion in communication and healthiness in the relationship, whereas constructive acts facilitate communication, satisfaction, equitability, stability, and happiness (Acitelli et al., 1997). Likewise, constructive acts are synonymous with spousal support. Affirming behaviors, pos­ itive feedback, and acceptance are crucial components of lasting marriages. McLoyd et al. (2000) found that African American couples and families have more conflict and are more tolerant of it than Euro­ pean American couples. This seems counterintuitive, because recent research indicates that highly distressed couples exhibit highly nega­ tive behaviors (Canary etal., 1995). Of course, African Americans and European Americans also relate differently. Openness, directness, self-confidence, verbal expressiveness, and accelerated speech may

218 • CHAPTER 5

be offensive to many European Americans because it is not their communication style. It may seem discourteous to speak openly and confrontatively because it may connote disrespect to a European American (Kochman, 1981). Sexual gratification is another element often cited as a factor of marital happiness (Oggins, Veroff, & Leber, 1993). There is a direct relationship between relational satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. For example, using a self-developed paradigm coined The Interper­ sonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction, Byers, Demmons, and Lawrance (1998) hypothesized "satisfaction with the sexual relation­ ship would be greater to the extent that, in the sexual relationship, relationship satisfaction is high and the level of rewards exceeds the level of costs" (p. 259). The results indicated that self-reported per­ ceptions of greater relational rewards than costs led to a sense of re­ lational satisfaction. When relationally satisfied, the respondents reported having greater sexual satisfaction. Although not directly re­ lated to longevity, the link between relational and sexual satisfaction is a possible predictor of a similar correlation in marriages. This would be an interesting future study. Marital relationships can be tenuous in an era where the divorce rates are approximately 50%, and the average length of marriage in the United States is less than 10 years. The factors that lead to marital happiness have become the thematic currencies in popular dis­ course about relationships from television sitcoms to films to selfhelp workshops, tapes, and books. African American marriages are affected by both structural and interpersonal factors. Structural fac­ tors such as employment, career mobility, and education contribute to a sense of financial security and stability in the family, which then relates to the resources available for children, household mainte­ nance, and general life satisfaction. Interpersonal factors such as spiritual compatibility, relational support, constructive behaviors, and sexual satisfaction may affect the well being of African American marriages. As stated earlier, the declining rates of marriage and in­ clining rates of childbirth coupled with African Americans getting married later in life presents a serious dilemma for the future of Afri­ can American families, especially because parent-child relationships are affected by marital conflict, divorce, and postdivorce child ad­ justment (Comer & Pouissaint, 1992; Kramer & Baron, 1995). African American couples are also characterized by differing power, interaction patterns, and marital satisfaction. Roberts (2000)

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 219

found that most couples were equal in the number of nonnurturing behaviors, such as interruptions. Interruptions were found among both husband and wife, and more than half of the couples were clas­ sified as egalitarian with regard to assertiveness. More satisfied cou­ ples reported equality of talk time, positive regard, and fewer and equal interruptions. More recent literature suggests that couples who regulate, manage, and resolve conflict well tend to have more rewarding and longer-lasting marriages than those who do not (Orbuch, Veroff, & Hunter, 1999; Staples & Johnson, 1993). Although perceived incentives leading toward marriage are debat­ able, it is clear that sustained relationships are comprised of caring, nurturing, supportive, loyal, and genuine relational partners who codefine satisfaction in their relationships with one another. Thus far, we have presented some reasons why marriages succeed and rea­ sons why some deteriorate. We have also discussed recent research that has examined African American relationships from childhood to adulthood and within multiple relational contexts. Next, we exam­ ine the workplace as a site where relationships are negotiated and codefined while in interaction with cultural others. Recent research indicates that African Americans have severe de­ clines in marriage rates (38.9%) and lead the nation in divorce rates (10.7%) (McLoyd et al., 2000). McLoyd et al. also noted declines in the rates of marriages and later age at first marriage, along with concomitant trends such as higher proportions of unwed moth­ ers, higher percentages of single-headed households ... and higher numbers of poor households, (p. 1072)

Among pregnant women under the age of 20 years old in the United States, African American women are responsible for 23% of babies born. So, it is not that African Americans are having fewer ba­ bies, but rather they are less likely to get married simply due to preg­ nancy than African American women did in the 1960s and more likely to have out-of-wedlock children (Taylor, Tucker, Chatters, & Jayakody 1997). This is yet another important generational distinc­ tion between "baby boomers" and "generation Xers." Taylor et al. (1997) explored demographic trends in African American families and discovered that African Americans have experienced high sexrole imbalances and high rates of male unemployment, thereby con­ tributing to fewer "marriageable" men or higher relational dissatis­ faction. Lichter, McLaughlin, and Ribar (1997) claimed that

220 • CHAPTER 5

demographic trends toward greater financial stability among African American women increases women's economic independence from men and reduce[s] incen­ tives to marry. Improved economic status also allows women to leave unhappy marriages, unmarried mothers to live independently from older adult members, and pregnant unmarried women to choose sin­ gle motherhood over abortion, adoption and marriage. (p. 114) This economically driven perspective to relational choice-making has some merit but fails to account for the rather consistent set of Af­ rican American women who have come to expect African American men to experience employment problems at some point and value the relationship over his financial self-sustainability. These are all is­ sues that plague African American committed relationships; how­ ever, they are also challenges that can be overcome. As previously mentioned, there are strategies that can be employed, which may en­ hance African American heterosexual and homosexual relationships that are leading to or inclusive of marriage. However, homosexual relationships require further examination here. Homosexual Relationships

Homosexual relationships continue to survive in a climate of resis­ tance to multiplicity of sexual preferences. Indeed, the assumption among many is that sexuality is not really a negotiable choice. By pro­ claiming a homosexual identity, one immediately distances oneself from the composite heterosexual community which, of course, is why many homosexuals keep their sexuality secretive or "closeted." With social distance may come social penalties, such as community ostracism, violence, and discrimination. Within the composite African American community, there is still public disdain for homosexuality. As Hutchinson (2000) pointed out, Ice Cube and Louis Farrakhan outwardly express dislike for ho­ mosexual relationships. In fact, Hutchinson claimed that Farrakhan "made it almost part of his divine mission to attack homosexuality" (2000, p. 4). Hutchinson poignantly described the fear African Amer­ ican men have toward African American gay men, which is tied to im­ ages and social constructions of African American masculinity as quintessentially heterosexual.

RELATIONSHIPS

AND CULTURAL

IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 221

Like American women (Houston, 2000b), those in the composite gay community face a multiple-jeopardy predicament. As a result, Af­ rican American gay and bisexual men are less likely than White gay and bisexual men to disclose their sexuality, to participate in groups comprised of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, or to have gay and bisex­ ual friends (Kennamer, Honnold, Bradford, & Hendricks, 2000). Kennamer et al. (2000) speculated that the dual social stigma of race and sexuality was perhaps too overwhelming for them to "come out of the closet" and live a gay lifestyle. Recent national studies indicate that African American gay men perceive their composite cultural communities to be more homophobic than the composite White community (Stokes & Peterson, 1998; Woodyard, Peterson, & Stokes, in review). Despite this rejection, African American gay men and women still claim a strong cultural identification. When openly gay-identified African American men and women choose to disclose, they tend to open up to a female family member first, such as a mother or sister, followed by brothers, fathers, other close relatives, and then the distant relatives (Mays, Chatters, Cochran, & Mackness, 1998). It is clear that many wait because of perceived ho­ mophobia. This is problematic because sexual disclosure is a critical event in the lives of homosexuals and may determine whether they de­ velop a positive homosexual identity (Mays et al., 1998). African American gay and lesbian relationships face several institu­ tionalized barriers that inhibit decisions of pursuing marriage, a le­ gal right that only exists in limited geographical regions. Some of the barriers are legal rights to property, childbearing, child adoption, and health and insurance benefits (Kurdeck, 1996). Institutional resistance to homosexual lifestyles is also found in African American churches (Woodyard et al., 2001). Fullilove and Fullilove (1999) stated that although there is ambiguity toward ac­ ceptance of homosexuality in many churches, "gays in the church are responsible for creating the music and other emotional moments that bring worshipers closer to God. That gays have this role in the church is a widely known, but largely unaddressed truth" (p. 1121). This investigation of stigmas of homosexuality included interviews with 51 clergy in the New York City area. The results indicated that there are suspicions that gay men are accepted in African American churches solely because of their musical talents. One 60-year-old in­ terviewee stated, "... when I was a kid of 10, 12, when I first started playing the piano, I used to hear ministers say they were going to find

222 • C H A P T E R 5

them a real sissy to play music in the church" (p. 1123). This private valuation of homosexuals, as direct and offensive as it is, never was projected publicly. There is a real divergence on homosexual acceptance in African American churches. Some churches are very open with their disap­ proval, some remain ambivalent, and still others embrace homosexu­ als. The silence of some African American churches is disturbing for many reasons, but a primary reason is that African American churches are the most successful, enduring institutions in the composite Afri­ can American community. They are in a position to support HIV/AIDS prevention efforts but often fail to do so because they do not want to publicly endorse homosexual relationships. This becomes a move to sanction, constrain, and discipline African American gay and lesbian physical bodies and desire (Moore, 1998; Ongiri, 1997). These legal, informal, and religious attempts to control African American gays and lesbians are, in a sense, asking them to assimilate into a heterosexual world as well as accept the largest identity nego­ tiation imperative of their lives. Unfortunately, this sort of arrange­ ment would require them to disavow key, indeed defining, elements of their identity. As a result, many African American gay men and women are in constant negotiation to define and redefine their sex­ ual and cultural identities as they face ascribed identities that de­ mean and threaten them. Although research suggests that gay and lesbian couples experience levels of relational satisfaction and per­ sonal commitment that equal those of heterosexuals (Kurdeck, 1996), their challenges are great, and this may be particularly true for African Americans. AFRICAN AMERICAN WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS

This section briefly explores race, culture, and gender in organiza­ tions. Organizational culture and culture in organizations are two distinct concepts. Whereas organizational culture refers to myths, heroes, values, norms, and communication patterns and structures that characterize an organization's ethos, ways of doing business, and ways of relating to each other, culture in organizations is more closely related to ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity. Most organizations, as institutions, find it too complex to initiate postmodern arrangements that account for multiculturalism rather

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

NEGOTIATION • 223

than monocultural diversity (Deetz, 1992; Deetz & Kersten, 1983) despite that such practices are profitable (Lindsley, 1998). It is rela­ tively simple to hire people who do not look alike; however, the chal­ lenge is to shift perspectives to value productive work patterns consonant with cultural practices. Multiculturalism is distinguished from cultural diversity in that multiculturalism is concerned with in­ cluding and valuing multiple and diverse groups. Substantial research has been done to demonstrate that many eu­ rocentric workplace organizations are not conducive to the needs of marginalized groups (Teboul, 1999). For example, Dickens and Dickens (1991) argued that African Americans are more expressive, direct, time-flexible, emotional, and relationship-oriented than Whites, who dominate workplace organizational leadership in the United States. However, Dickens and Dickens also claimed that Afri­ can Americans are penalized for these qualities on an almost daily ba­ sis in corporate America, even managers in leadership positions. Corporate America has been known to expect assimilation into orga­ nizational cultures and sometimes demand that all employees com­ ply or be chastised and summarily dismissed. This process of cultural identity negotiation is stifling for many Af­ rican men and women. Pennington's (2000) intensive interpretive study of six African American women's workplace organizational ex­ periences revealed that these African American women were abruptly terminating their employment from workplace organiza­ tions for a variety of reasons, among them organizational dissatisfac­ tion, pursuit of a spiritual calling, and readiness to shift life goals. To address only the first reason, organizational dissatisfaction is the most common reason for quitting the workplace, especially for Afri­ can American women, who, like all other women groups in the United States, are still grossly underpaid compared to men. Pay ineq­ uity is pandemic with the Bureau of Labor Statistics now reporting that women make 77% of the salaries men do in the United States. African American men and women lead organizations differently. Dickens and Dickens (1991) posited that African American men are more accommodating than African American women, yet equally as strict in management decision-making. However, Parker's (in re­ view) study reveals that African American women executives tend to enact five primary aspects of culture-centered leadership: open­ ness in communication, interactivity, participative decision-making, and empowerment of employees through challenges

224 • CHAPTER 5

to produce results and boundary-spanning communication. Her investigation sought to examine how African American women managed to temper organizational norms of leadership with a strong accent on cultural and gendered epistemologies such as nurturance, openness, and full ability of subordinates to express themselves and their views respectfully without reprimand. Parker indicated that the participants redefined control as empowerment rather than competition or distance and that this noncompetitive orientation is indicative of a collectivistic and cooperative African American worldview. African American women, Collins (1990) argued, have dual memberships as members of their in-group and members of the oppressed out-group of women. African American women are sometimes more closely aligned with African American men, sometimes more closely aligned with European American women, and sometimes aligned with neither group. African Amer­ ican women are called on to negotiate these contradictions, and hence, another particular dialectic of identity emerges for African American women. In managing this dialectic of identity, African American women share an epistemological frame. One characteristic of this frame­ work is its emphasis on experience as a criterion of meaning. In ad­ dition, African American women use dialogue to assess knowledge claims and are committed to an ethic of caring and of personal ac­ countability (Collins, 1990). An Afrocentric feminist perspective to the study of African American women taps the experience of African American women and acknowledges the context of oppression in which they live. Therefore, such a frame is a better representation of the African American female experience. We have just begun to appreciate the differences between male and female African American cultural identities in workplace orga­ nizations. Collier (1991) found that there were similarities and dif­ ferences in the way that African American males and females managed conflict and this needs to be extended to account for how conflict is managed differently by African American men and women in workplace organizations. Future research is necessary to begin to understand how women and men come to know who they are as African American men and women and what they think are appropriate norms and positive outcomes in their contact with one another within workplace organizations and beyond.

RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY NEGOTIATION • 225 CONCLUSION

This chapter touched on the vast amount of issues, concerns, and needs of African American relationships. By systematically reviewing the array of relationships from adolescence to adulthood, dating to marriage, friendship to family, and acknowledgment of race to rac­ ism in varying contexts, we attempted to introduce another set of rel­ evancies that must be addressed by those interested in African American communication research. One of the areas of African American identity that merits particular attention is its relationship to gender, culture, and sexuality. For ex­ ample, very few studies have touched on homosexual adoption or African American homosexual life relationships in general. Hetero­ sexual adoption among African Americans is centralized in Social Work studies and focuses on structural factors, legal status, and moral arguments. Communication research of these topics is com­ pletely missing, although critical. As discussed previously, identity is multifaceted with these themes frequently emerging as hierarchi­ cally superordinate. Furthermore, the interplay of factors such as these continue to create multiple-jeopardy dilemmas for African American men and women. For this reason, many recent studies approach research of African American cultural and communication patterns from a feminist point of view and call for the study of African American women as a distinct cocultural group (Collins, 1990; Davis, 1998; hooks, 1989; King, 1988). Feminist scholars, such as Collins (1990), point out that women share a history of gender oppression and such experiences transcend divisions created by race, social class, religion, and culture (Hartsock, 1983; Jaggar, 1983; Rosaldo, 1974; Smith, 1987). Collins (1990) pointed out that African American women have access to both Afrocentric and feminist traditions. This alternative epistemol­ ogy is used by African American women to reflect the intersection of values and ideas—something that Africanist scholars identify as char­ acteristically 'African American" and that feminist scholars describe as characteristically "female." Although this chapter offers an intricate map of relational con­ texts, clearly the study of African American relationships has just be­ gun. The complexity of the questions yet to be answered call for multiple methods and conceptual approaches that will span and

226 • CHAPTER 5

crosscut disciplinary lines. Although it will always be important to keep in mind the structural factors that contextualize these relation­ ships, we need to know more about the processes through which these structures are instantiated or experienced and the processes through which African Americans relate to each other as well as other relational partners.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions

T

his book discusses African American communication and cul­ ture. We have examined research and talked to and surveyed African Americans in an attempt to explain the social, politi­ cal, economic, and historical context of African American communi­ cation, understand their cultural identity, describe their communication styles and competencies, and contextualize their di­ verse intracultural identities in varying relationships. These efforts have led us to a number of conclusions and to begin development of a new theory of identity that operates as a companion to the commu­ nication theory of identity showcased in the first edition. In this chapter, we briefly highlight some of these conclusions and re-articulate the Communication Theory of Identity and the Cultural Contracts Theory. Finally, we consider methodological issues that transcend areas of research and then suggest applications of the findings to African American lives. STATUS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE UNITED STATES

It is clear that conditions in the United States have not been condu­ cive to positive African American self-images and intercultural rela­ 227

228 • CHAPTER 6

tionships. African Americans remain the only cultural group in the United States who were forcibly brought here in chains, primarily as slaves and a few as indentured servants. Although modest accounts indicate that approximately 10 million Africans were shipped to the Americas as slaves by the British, Dutch, and French (Axelson, 1999), anthropological and historical records indicate as many as 20 million Blacks were shipped to the United States while many more died en route (Diop, 1991; Williams, 1987). This atrocious event, where hu­ man beings were inhumanely stacked on top of each other on a large boat but in small corridors for days and unable to move, has been called the maafa (translated "the great disaster"), the middle pas­ sage, and the holocaust of enslavement (Asante & Abarry, 1996; Karenga, 1993). With the maafa, legal segregation, reactions to re­ construction, the development of Jim Crow, lynching, and racism in education, employment, and other areas of social life, police brutal­ ity, political redlining, church racism, and mass mediated images de­ picting Black pathology, African Americans have experienced extreme repression, discrimination, and slow recovery from oppres­ sion. Although there are some signs that prejudice might be decreas­ ing (Gordon, 1986; McWhorter, 2000) and economic conditions are improving, the overall trends are still not positive and leave African Americans with almost no respite from structural devaluation. The complex issues creating African American social reality are mul­ tifaceted. Race, class, age, disability, sexual, and gender discrimination interact in a manner that challenges the institutions that usually pro­ vide group stability and hope for a better tomorrow. In addition, a de­ cline in the domestic economy for all U.S. residents seems to ensure that the poor will remain separated from the "American Dream" and experience continued marginalization of their identities. Further­ more, work in life-span development research suggests that improve­ ments in intercultural social relationships are highly dependent on the events that shape an age cohort and the quality of interactions; thus, it may be difficult to alter the dynamics within a cohort if the quality of interactions are affected by race or some other structural variable (MacLaury & Hecht, 1994). More intra- and intercultural re­ search on African American identities and relationships across the life span are needed to clarify this conclusion, but the fact remains that marginalization of African American identities persist. Due in part to the disadvantaged status of African Americans in the United States, most of the research dealing with this group is con­

CONCLUSIONS • 229

ducted from a Eurocentric perspective. We acknowledge that our own work has been strongly influenced by these traditions. How­ ever, we represent as accurately as we can the composite African American perspective as expressed to us by the bearers of this cul­ tural tradition. We believe this work is part of a larger movement away from putting European Americans at the center of the research experience (the assumed norm) and toward understanding various groups within their own cultural frameworks. This move is reflected in the catchword multiculturalism which is being used by some in­ stead of cultural diversity, tolerance, or assimilation as a signpost for embracing, rather than "dealing with," cultural differences. The cul­ tural roots of the composite Black experience, which extends be­ yond the shores of the United States, and the persistence of racism in spite of organized political resistance have accentuated the resil­ ience and uniqueness of African American life and culture. In chapter 2, we discuss theory and research on self, identity, and cultural identity. Relatively few paradigms have emerged that synthe­ size the diverse approaches on identity and fully integrate communi­ cation beyond the Communication Theory of Identity (CTI). We predicate our work on the assumptions that culture is socially and historically emergent, is cocreated and maintained as a function of identity, and is constituted as a system of interdependent patterns of conduct and interpretation. Thus, identity is central to our study of culture and communication. For this reason, we decided to apply two innovative communica­ tion perspectives to the study of African American cultural identity. This means that we use what we know about communication to de­ velop our existing CTI and also to construct a Cultural Contracts Theory of identity negotiation. We hope that in deriving these new theories we can explain aspects of cultural identity that can only be revealed through a communication orientation. Both CTI and Cul­ tural Contracts Theory are embedded in our descriptive and explan­ atory research and offered here in preliminary and tentative form in order to encourage testing by the research community. COMMUNICATION THEORY OF IDENTITY

Our primary concern in chapter 2 was to understand the communica­ tive processes involved in the development, maintenance, and revi­

230 • CHAPTER 6

sion of identity. In this pursuit, we encountered sociological, psychological, and anthropological approaches. These approaches stress individual and social conceptualizations of identity. The indi­ vidual conceptualization is associated with social psychology and views identity as a characteristic of the person and personality. From this perspective, identity is a person's way of perceiving self. The so­ cial conceptualizations are derived from sociology and anthropology and view the self as centered in social roles and societal practices. Our emphasis on the communicative aspects of identity changes these foci. In attempting to articulate this approach to identity, we seek to integrate these divergent perspectives and add a communica­ tion emphasis. The basic premise of this new theoretical stance is that identity is inherently a communication process and must be un­ derstood as a transaction in which messages and values are ex­ changed. These messages are symbolic linkages between and among people that, at least in part, are enactments of identity. That is, we, as communicators, would like to believe we are simply talking to oth­ ers; instead, we are also exchanging codes of cultural personhood. The new theory, originally articulated in the first edition of this book and in Hecht (1993), extends identity beyond individual and societal constructions to the interaction and complements the view of social identity located in roles and role theory with the basic premise that identity is communicative and relational.

Basic Concepts of the Communication Theory of Identity

In chapter 1, we presented a number of sensitizing concepts to de­ scribe communication and culture. These include communication as problematic, identity, and identity negotiation. Combining these, we see identity as problematic communication, a conceptualization that becomes the bases for the communication theory of identity. Our approach utilizes the other sensitizing constructs as well. Identity, itself, may be seen as a core symbol. As we have seen, soci­ eties orient themselves around their concept of identity and research­ ers have bifurcated these orientations into individualist and collectivist camps. Identity becomes a way of understanding constella­ tions of behaviors that can be interpreted as creating, expressing, pro­ tecting, negotiating, and changing identity. Within this larger, cultural concept of identity, there exist smaller systems of meanings and be­

C O N C L U S I O N S • 231

haviors that can also be considered the core symbols of a particular type of identity. For example, researchers have argued thatpower is a core symbol around which gender roles historically have been orga­ nized in the United States (Collins, 2000; Henley, 1977; hooks, 2000). Identities also prescribe modes of conduct. Defining who you are tells you what you should be doing. One can view competence on an individual level as the successful enactment of identity. Relationally, one can say that competent conversation confirms the identities of all interactants. Communal identities become the means for public communication. Code, conversation, and community also provide ways of under­ standing identity. Identity is a code for being. It provides the means for understanding self, interaction, relationships, and society by de­ fining the nature of self and social life. There are at least two ways in which identity is a conversation. First, identity may be viewed as a narrative told to oneself or existing within a culture. Second, identity is enacted as a way of doing conversation. Finally, the notion of com­ munity is fundamental to identity. Identities are located in commu­ nal memberships. Philipsen (1987) argued that the function of cultural communication is to provide shared and individual identi­ ties. This is accomplished through the creation, affirmation, and en­ actment of identities. Philipsen (1987) identified three prominent forms of cultural communication by which this is accomplished: rit­ ual, myth, and social drama. These forms achieve the functions of uniting groups, coordinating action, and defining boundaries. Ritual is defined as "a communication form in which there is a structured sequence of symbolic acts, the correct performance of which constitutes homage to a sacred object" (Philipsen, 1987, p. 250). Philipsen provides the example of the "call-response" ritual sequence in African American churches. As described by Daniel and Smitherman (1976), the sequence consists of a call by a minister, and a response by the congregation promotes unity. A myth is a symbolic narrative whose function is to bind together the thoughts of a group and promote coordinated social action (Philipsen, 1987). Philipsen cited as an example Hannerz's (1969) study of "street corner mythmaking," where African American males gather to tell stories about successful confrontations with Eu­ ropean American society. These myths help create and crystallize community standards and criteria, which allow smoother coordi­ nation of interaction.

232 • C H A P T E R 6

Finally, Philipsen (1987) described social dramas as events dur­ ing which actors are concerned about a group's rules and negotiate their legitimacy and scope. The drama unfolds when there is a breach of group standards that results in a crisis. When the crisis is re­ solved, the offender may be reintegrated into the community. Through these dramas, community rules boundaries are redefined and enforced. In addition to these cultural forms, we believe that identity is also enacted in a form called everyday interaction or everyday talk (Duck, 1990). In many ways, the mundane workings of everyday ex­ istence provide a powerful statement of identity by building the roots of those identities into the most frequent human actions. Fur­ thermore, these interactions and the elements of identity they enact exist on both content and relationship levels (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Thus, they comment on the topic or substance of interaction as well as the relationship between the people. For example, the phrase "I don't do windows" not only sets limits on behaviors, but it also achieves a humorous statement of relationship and provides im­ portant information regarding self-perception. It is through these forms and functions that individuals and com­ munities define and communicate a shared sense of identity and the emergent quality of identity manifests itself. We agree with Hoelter (1985) that social networks, interactive groupings of people, are central to identity. However, identity also can be maintained symbol­ ically (Gans, 1979). Symbolic identities require the individual to en­ act rituals and performances, but they may be maintained without actual interaction with reference groups/networks. Conversely, because reality is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), we believe that it is not only participation in the network and group roles per se that matter, but also the meanings as­ signed to such actions. It is not enough to know that a person interacts with a certain group or maintains symbolic representations of group membership. We also must ascertain what that interaction or symbol means to the person and communicates to others. Labels and core symbols represent the semantic properties of these interpretations. Finally, identity is understood as problematic. Identity is a mes­ sage that exists on competing levels (e.g., individual/social) and is in­ fluenced by diverse social (e.g., individualism/collectivism) and individual forces. Counter- and co-identities push and pull us. Peo­ ple, groups, and places change in a continual transactional process

CONCLUSIONS • 233

that alters the codes and prescriptions we live under. In this nebu­ lous nexus of mediating and moderating variables, identities are cre­ ated, negotiated, defended, and modified. These basic concepts provide a structure and language to discuss the Communication Theory of Identity. As an interpretive process, these structures require a frame of reference. Those frames of refer­ ence discussed here allow us to locate core symbols, prescriptions, codes, conversations, and communities as sensitizing constructs.

Frames of Reference

Our communicative analysis of identity has lead us to a theory that ex­ plicates four frames of identity: personal, enacted, relational, and communal. The theory builds off of the integrative work of De Vos and Roosens. De Vos (1982) argued that cultural identity exists on four levels: social structure, social interaction, subjective experience, and fixed patterns of behavior and emotional expression. Similarly, Roosens (1989) maintains that cultural identity consists of overlap­ ping cultural, social, and psychological dimensions. The current ap­ proach accepts neither De Vos' structuralism perspective nor Roosens' dimensional approach, but substitutes the interpretive cul­ tural perspective and the dialectical approach articulated in chapter 1. Furthermore, the theory adds a relational dimension and a communi­ cation emphasis. The four frames define for us the "location" of identity. Identity is "stored" within individuals, relationships, and groups, and is commu­ nicated within and between relational partners and group members. Even when identity is symbolic and face-to-face interaction with other members is cut off, communication rituals use symbols to bind groups together. These four levels or frames permeate all understandings of identity and may be considered individually, in pairs, or groups. Frames are means of interpreting reality that provide a perspective for understanding the social world (Hecht, 1984). Synonyms such as levels and layers can be used as well. More recently, a holographic metaphor has been used to conceptualize these layers or levels (Hecht & Baldwin, 1998). Although some see the construct of frame, layers, and levels as static, linear, unidimensional, and/or separate, Hecht and Baldwin argued that the holographic metaphor suggests multidimensionality and holism. Like a holographic photographic im­

234 • C H A P T E R 6

age, identity can be examined from all angles (from various frames or layers) with the view (frame) shaping what you see. At the same time, the entire image is present in every part of the holographic image just as all frames of identity are present in any single one. Frames, themselves, exist on two levels. In their most abstract us­ age, there are researcher-adopted frames of reference that are analo­ gous to other ontological and epistemological positions that orient the researcher's "viewing lens." These frames tell us what to look for and where to look. For example, the communal frame might focus a researcher on the rituals or norms handed down to new members. At this level of analysis, the frames are sensitizing constructs for social re­ search. However, the frames are not only research or analytical per­ spectives but are also the ways people have of conceptualizing their own identity. People who see themselves as invested in what they do (e.g., "I am an artist") are emphasizing the enacted level, whereas those whose self concept is tied to their image as a relational partner (e.g., "I am a father") are more concerned with the relationship level. Here the frames act as organizing principles for social life. Similarly, gang membership, religious affiliation, and corporate memberships all emphasize the communal level. So the frames are useful to re­ searchers and are also part of the lived experience of social actors. The Interpenetration of Frames. These levels, layers, or frames of identity do not exist isolated from each other. Instead, they may operate jointly as when the personal and communal frames match, or there may be a dialectical tension between and among the levels. For example, Montgomery (1992) discussed the tension between what we would call personal and relational enactments as couples seek to define self and relationship through communication. Mont­ gomery also discussed the tensions between what we call relational identity and communal identity as the couple seeks to negotiate its own relational definition and co-orient it with that provided by the cultural group. Similarly, personal meanings are not only expressed in enactment but also created through enactment. In fact, one can only come to know a personal identity through its enactment and, conversely enactments must be of a personal, relationship, and/or communal frame. These interpenetrations have become the sub­ stance of our emerging research agenda (e.g., Hecht & Faulkner, 2000; Hecht, Faulkner, et al., in press). Thus, a communication anal­

CONCLUSIONS • 235

ysis of identity considers how individuals frame and enact their per­ sonal identity and how these identities are relationally and communally expressed, negotiated, and defined. Our notion of interpenetrating frames provides the basic struc­ ture for the communication theory of identity. In the next section, we attempt to articulate the basic assumptions of the theory, starting first with overall assumptions and then articulating the assumptions associated with each of the frames.

Basic Assumptions of the Theory

Our assumptions are derived from the discussion of the nature of identity in chapter 2 and applied to each of the frames as well as their interpenetrations with each other. It is our belief that these assump­ tions are observable/testable, but some may view them as more axi­ omatic in nature. The nine overall assumptions are as follows: 1. Identities have individual, enacted, relational, and communal properties; 2. Identities are both enduring and changing; 3. Identities are negotiable; 4. Identities are affective, cognitive, behavioral, and spiritual; 5. Identities have both content and relationship levels of interpretation; 6. Identities involve both subjective and ascribed meanings; 7. Identities are codes that are expressed in conversations and define membership in communities; 8. Identities have semantic properties that are expressed in core sym­ bols, meanings, and labels; 9. Identities prescribe modes of appropriate and effective commu­ nication. It should be noted that many of these assumptions, particularly as­ sumptions 1,2,4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 describe dialectical relationships. For example, there is a constant tension and oppositionality between the enduring and changing aspects of identity. Although the core of identity may remain relatively constant, its expression may change. These changes then manifest themselves in pressure to change the core. Particularly troublesome at times is the dialectic between sub­ jective and ascribed identities. We rarely see ourselves exactly as oth­

236 • CHAPTER 6

ers see us nor do our personal identities typically match communal expectations for our roles or groups. When these gaps are minimal, they may not be problematic, but often times these gaps are conse­ quential such as when this dialectic is manifested in stereotyping. Identity as a Personal Frame. Identity is a personal frame of reference for the individual stored as self-cognitions, feelings about self, and/or a spiritual sense of self-being. As a characteristic of the in­ dividual identity has been known as self-concept or self-image and provides an understanding of how individuals define themselves in general as well as in particular situations. The following are the as­ sumptions of Identity as Personal Frame: 1. Identities are hierarchically ordered meanings attributed to the self as an object in a social situation; 2. Identities are meanings ascribed to the self by others in the social world; 3. Identities are a source of expectations and motivations. Identity as an Enactment Frame. Identities are enacted in so­ cial interaction through communication. This frame focuses on the messages that express identity. Not all messages are about identity, but identity is part of all messages. Thus, identity may be expressed as part of a message or may be the central feature of the message, and messages may express more than identity (i.e., they tell us about the task, relationship, and so on). Within a single speaking turn, one may provide an identity-rich message along with those that are less ex­ pressive of identity and more expressive of some other communica­ tive function. The characteristics of Identity as Enactment are: 1. Identities are emergent; 2. Identities are enacted in social behaviors, social roles, and symbols. Identity as a Relationship Frame. Because communication has both content and relationship dimensions (Watzlawick et al., 1967), it is impossible to consider Identity as Enactment without also con­ sidering Identity as Relationship. Identities are mutually con­ structed in social interaction. One party's social behavior merges

CONCLUSIONS • 237

with another's in a relational perspective that defines identity as a mutual property; mutual because it is jointly negotiated and because it is a property of the relationship. Thus, identity is relational in four ways. First, identity is relational because people define themselves in terms of others and shape their enactments to their interactional partners. The person I am with you is not the person I am with someone else. Second, identity is rela­ tional because people define themselves in terms of their relation­ ships. People gain identity through relationships with others such as marital partners, occupations, and friendships. Third, identity is re­ lational because relationships, themselves, take on identities, and the dyad becomes an entity. A dating couple establishes an identity as a couple, which aligns it within the larger group. This property seems consistent with the notion of relationships as cultures (Mont­ gomery, 1992; Wood, 1982). Finally, identities exist in relationship to other identities. This applies within the individual (e.g., one of your identities in relationship to another of your identities) or between people (e.g., leaders require followers; teachers require students). Thus, identity is jointly constructed for participants, emerges out of social interaction, and is a property of the relationship (i.e., relational identity). Identities also exist in relationship to each other. Identity as Relationship shares the assumptions of Identity as Enactment, al­ though this time the focus is on the mutual or relational aspects. 1. Identities emerge in relationship to other people; 2. Identities are enacted in relationships; 3. Relationships develop identities as social entities. Identity as a Communal Frame. There is also a communal frame to identity (Philipsen, 1987; Middleton & Edwards, 1990). Identity is something held in the collective or public memory of a group that, in turn, bonds the group together. Thus, the group is the locus of identity (i.e., the group has the identity), not the individual, the conversation, or the relationship. Communities define a reper­ toire of identities that are jointly held/remembered and taught to new members. The characteristics of Identity as Personal Frame may be transposed to Identity as Communal Frame. For example, a com­ munity will have a hierarchy of identities, with some identities more central to its notion of membership than others. In addition, the fol­ lowing proposition is offered:

238 • CHAPTER 6

1. Identities emerge out of groups and networks. We should note that this frame is often difficult to grasp for people with individualistic ontological views. For example, those who view the world through a social psychological lens often translate this into how individuals define their communities—something we would define as the interpenetration of individual and communal frames. Although we can see reflections of communal identities in individual's expressions, the communal identity transcends any one indi­ vidual and can most clearly be seen in group products (e.g., cultural artifacts, like television shows, cities, and neighborhoods) and com­ munal actions (e.g., group rituals and practices).

Applications of the Theory

When we first began to examine African American identity we were primarily interested in the labels people chose to describe their cul­ ture, the meanings assigned to those labels, and the communication that expressed the identity. Labels and meanings had initially been conceptualized as the personal frame of identity, whereas the com­ munication was seen as the enactment of identity. But our respon­ dents' answers did not conform to our preconceived categories. They discussed the communal aspects of identity when they told us about the ancestral roots reflected in their label usage and the assimilationist pressures of mainstream society. They also told us about the relationship frame when telling us about social approval and relationships with in-group and out-group members. Our exploration of communication competence has begun to identify the problematic elements of intercultural communication between African Americans and European Americans. The theory of identity helps us to reinterpret recent research findings (Collier, 1996; Hecht, Larkey & Johnson, 1992). Hecht et al.'s (1992) study tested a model of intercultural communication presented in Fig. 6.1 (see Model #1). This model was not supported by structural equations modeling, although the regression of satisfaction on issues and identity pro­ duced a very strong effect. These findings were initially disappoint­ ing. However, by reconceptualizing the elements of the model, we now understand that the issues are, at least in part, an enactment of

CONCLUSIONS • 239

identity. The revised model that is presented as Model #2 in Fig. 6.1 more accurately reflects this new theoretical position (Faulkner & Hecht, in press). Conceptually, cultural labels, identity salience, and communication issues cannot be causally separated as in Model #1 because they are all part of identity (personal and enacted respec­ tively) and interpenetrate each other. A more complete model would add relational and communal frames. In fact, differences emerged when analyses were conducted separately for friends and acquaintances and for the African American and European American cultural communities. A second application of CTI can be found in Jackson's (1999a) study of African American and European American identity negotia­ tion. His triangulated study involved surveys and interviews with Af­ rican American and European American college students. His examination of CTI's five sensitizing constructs—core symbols, pre­ scriptions, code, conversation, and community—revealed that Afri­ can American and European American respondents diverge in their interpretations and use of these constructs in their everyday lives. One example of this self-reported variance in cultural interpretation is exemplified by the core symbols expressed by European American students to describe their cultural self-definition. The core symbols were the following: a picnic on Memorial Day; fireworks on the

FIG. 6.1. Models of Interethnic Communication.

240 • CHAPTER 6

Fourth of July; Gilligan's Island and Brady Bunch reruns; power; and military dominance. The African American students identified strug­ gle, power, progress, beauty, music, matriarchal family structure, and spirituality as core symbols. Lindsley (1999) used this approach to study intercultural communi­ cation in the maquiladoras (i.e., U.S.-owned factories in Mexico). Her ethnographic observations uncovered three types of problematic com­ munication between Mexicans and Americans: negative stereotyping, language inequality, and cultural problems that played out in different ways at individual, relational, and communal levels. For example, nega­ tive stereotypes were reflected in self-perceptions (individual), other perception (relational), and media images (communal). The analyses go on to comment on how these play out in problematic communica­ tion. For example, the failure of U.S. managers to understand commu­ nal norms about identity (e.g., face saving) leads them to misinterpret individual identity expressions. Similarly, there are some disconnects between what Americans know (personal identity—they should speak Spanish) and what they do (enacted identity—they speak English) that lead to ineffective communication and relationships. Lindsley used the theory and her observations to articulate a layered model of problem­ atic communication. A fourth application of CTI is Hecht and Faulkner's (2000) recent study. The examination of layers considers all potential aspects of iden­ tity and how they influence and are influenced by one another. For ex­ ample, Hecht and Faulkner's study of Jewish Americans (2000) reveals how the interplay between personal (whether Jewish identity was cen­ tral or peripheral) and relational (whether the person was a stranger, acquaintance, or friend) levels affected if, how, when, and to whom they chose to reveal their Jewishness. Furthermore, participants in the study described how they dealt with their personal self-concepts as Jews at the same time they contended with others' perceptions of their Jewish­ ness. Other work by Hecht and colleagues (Hecht et al., in press) showed that a communal representation of Jewish Americans in the television show Northern Exposure influenced how participants' per­ sonal, enacted, and relational identities played out. For instance, the common assumption that all Jews are New Yorkers, expressed at vari­ ous times during the series, bothered some participants in the study be­ cause many people ascribed a "New York" identity to them because they are Jewish. Some even felt "less Jewish" because they are not from New York. The overlap or interpenetration of communal identity (media

CONCLUSIONS • 241

messages in which only New York Jews are shown) with the relational identity (ascription by others) influenced personal identity (feeling less Jewish or that one's Jewishness is questioned) and demonstrates the layering property of identity. A final application of the CTI is Hecht et al.'s (2001) cross-cultural linguistic study of how the four interpenetrating frames of CTI—personal, enacted, relational, and communal—may function in African and African American, Mexican and Mexican American, and Asian and Asian American cultures. Each composite cultural worldview was explained in order to highlight values that distinguish in-group and out-group linguistic and communication behaviors. Each of the previously mentioned applications of CTI speak to the diverse con­ texts in which CTI can be employed and to the broad-ranging impli­ cations for the study of multidimensional, multilayered identities. CULTURAL CONTRACTS THEORY

Although the Communication Theory of Identity posits that identities are negotiated, it does not develop this notion in much depth. Identity nego­ tiation is a key element of this and other theories of identity (TingToomey, 1999) but not well understood as it relates to U.S. domestic cul­ tures. Cultural Contracts Theory was developed to fill this void. Cultural Contracts Theory presupposes that all human beings have cultural [identity] contracts. Cultural contracts are necessary because when people interact their identities will overlap to greater or lesser extent, and contracts are needed to preserve, protect, and define the self. The situation is complex because the individuals' identities are played out in juxtaposition to each other and within cultural contacts. What happens if both interactants see themselves as "leader"? What if there are cultural differences in their definitions of leadership? What if both want to enact their identities in response to another? These simi­ larities and differences between identities must be dealt with through interaction as people co-orient to each other. This co-orientation pro­ cess can be seen as "identity negotiation" and the resulting agreement as a "contract." There are varying degrees of cooperation and flexibil­ ity in this negotiation process out of which emerges a "contract" that specifies the rules and conditions for mutual identity management. The theory posits that identities are negotiated via cultural con­ tracts at every stage of relationship development, irrespective of con­

242 • CHAPTE R 6

text, from initial interaction to relational termination. Moreover, these negotiations can impinge on one's own self-definition playing out the dialectic between ascribed and self-identities and/or that be­ tween personal and relational identities. As Jackson (1999a) noted: negotiation of cultural identity is a process in which one considers the gain, loss, or exchange of their ability to interpret their own reality or worldview. If it is discovered that one has negotiated part or all of her cul­ tural identity, then that can be translated to mean that she has conceded a dimension of her cultural locus of control. As a natural consequence of this negotiation, it can be argued that she has also, in the process, for­ feited certain cultural values, traditions and/ or norms (which serve to define who she is) within that communication episode, (p. 10)

Negotiation is an important metaphor to describe the process of identity recognition, relational coordination, and value exchange via interaction. It suggests that identities are not simply conceded while communicating; rather, there is an attempt to hold onto aspects that define who one is. As with any negotiation, one can either choose to abide by an existing contractual arrangement or sign another con­ tract. Although the concept of identity negotiation is simple, it is not always clear what is being negotiated, especially because identities are nonmaterial. The cultural contracts paradigm is being introduced to make sense of what is actually being negotiated. Cultural identity negotiation is significant to studies of African American communication because it reflects the dual consciousness imperative that many African Americans concern themselves with on a frequent basis. It also helps to explain the stress and incumbent cop­ ing devices used to overcome exhaustive code switching and multiple reacculturation. For example, Gudykunst and Kim (1997) discovered that constant recurrences of adjustment, accommodation, adapta­ tion, and acculturation often lead to reentry problems. Gudykunst and Kim suggested that symbols and language are two facets of iden­ tity that function subconsciously and mindlessly but become major signposts of cultural identification, especially when observed by strangers or outgroup members. Basic Premises

The cultural contracts theory is based on three premises or axioms about the processes and/or outcomes of identity negotiation en­ gagement (Jackson, in press-b):

C O N C L U S I O N S • 243

1. Identities require affirmation; 2. Identities are constantly being exchanged; 3. Identities are contractual. Identities Require Affirmation. Although there are multiple ways to think of identity, it essentially refers to a self-definition that is communicatively affirmed or validated by others (Jackson, 1999a). Postcolonialist and psychiatrist Frantz Fanon (1967) went so far as to say that "to speak is to exist for the other," which suggests that there is an interdependent function to human interaction. The "I," acting as subject, has a direct relationship to the "Other," which functions as the dialectical object; therefore, each comes to understand the self by knowing what the self is not. In other words, we know what it means to be rich by contrast to what it means to be poor. We know what is right by also acknowledging what is wrong. Foucault labeled this the principle of exteriority: the idea that external observations and representations of the self facilitate the ontological development of the interior. Identities Are Constantly Being Exchanged. Communication is inevitable and happens all of the time (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Even when we think we are not communicating, we may be. It is this en­ during feature of interaction that sustains identity negotiation as both a personally and socially developmental activity. Furthermore, as the Communication Theory of Identity points out, there is an identity function to all communication. That is, in addition to other functions, communication expresses self. Thus, it is simple to sug­ gest that humans communicate constantly, but it is much more com­ plicated to argue effectively for how one exchanges identities or portions of identities while interacting. As Ting-Toomey (1999) ex­ plained in his analysis of cross-cultural adaptation, ontological dif­ ference implies a need for relational coordination. There are a number of approaches to this negotiation process. The cultural competence literature presumes that racial coordination should occur unilaterally, then forcing adaptation. Ting-Toomey (1999) disagreed with this claim and asserted that it is faulty to think that a stranger should always adapt to a host, regardless of context. Likewise, in environments where cultures cohabitate such as in the United States, for instance, it is inaccurate to assume that European Americans will never need to adjust to an African American relational

244 • CHAPTER 6

context. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there is not one clear host for every situation. While European Americans are typically empowered and the dominant culture, one can imagine con­ texts in which this is not true (e.g., a jazz club, basketball court, histori­ cally black college, minority-run business). Furthermore, the logic requires binary contrasts that always include European Americans, ig­ noring the dynamics, for example, of Latino or Asian interaction. The fact is identities shift and are being constantly exchanged. Identities Are Contractual. There is a socially, politically, and culturally binding feature to all cultural contracts enacted via com­ munication. Consequently, there are penalties incurred when one breaches the contract. Likewise, there is a commitment to the con­ tractual arrangement that must be acknowledged. Naturally, social rules and laws govern behavior and become guideposts for accept­ able and normal interaction. Essentially, these restrictions are so­ cially agreed on, and compliant behavior confirms your signature on the contract. McPhail's (1994, 1998) rhetorical paradigm, coined complicity theory, explains that this behavior affirms essentialist ways of knowing. The severe danger inherent in agreeing to disagree is the possibility of human oppression, structural/political con­ straints, and inhibited social transformation. Beyond the three pre­ mises just mentioned, the theory is incomplete without an articulation of the notion of contracts.

Basic Assumptions of Cultural Contracts Theory

In addition to the three premises, the theory makes a series of gen­ eral assumptions that emerge from both the literature on identities as well as previous studies we have conducted on how intercultural relationships are formed and sustained. The assumptions may be seen as postulates because we propose that they are testable. There are six general assumptions: 1. Human beings cannot exist without culture; culture is the basic or­ ganizing unit of social processes. 2. Cultural contracts are necessary for the sake of preserving, protect­ ing, and defining the self; hence, everyone has at least one.

CONCLUSIONS • 245

3. Cultural difference among human interactants presupposes a need for coordination, which is manifested in cultural contracts. 4. Every time people communicate, they are communicating their identities by expressing how they see the world and what they value. 5. If contracts are breached, there are penalties associated with this "rule" violation, one of which may be community ostracism. 6. When a contract breach or violation occurs, one of three actions will take place in varying degrees: termination or rupture of the re­ lationship, tendering of a new or revised contract, or settling with or without penalty due to perceived high value of the relationship and low assessment of damage (see Table 6.1). The assumptions are predicted to hold true across boundaries of age, culture, disability, religion, gender, and sexuality.

Cultural Contract Types

At some point in our lives, we all have to decide to accept and abide by the cultural values, norms, beliefs, and communication patterns of a given culture as a template for how to behave; hence, we all have cultural contracts reflective of our worldview. This worldview shifts over time and during critical incidents with relational part­ ners. The term cultural contracts refers to the end product of iden­ tity negotiation; hence, every "signed" or agreed on cultural contract has a direct impact on one's identity. The effect on identi­ ties, whether it is a shifting or solidifying move, depends on the sig­ nificance of the initiating incident and/or nature of the identity negotiation process. Use of the word cultural is deliberate. It is impossible to exist without culture. Even if one is unable to articulate the particulari­ ties of the cultural value system to which he or she subscribes, there are still cultural patterns of interaction, rules, and norms that guide everyday behavior (Jackson, 1999a; Ting-Toomey, 1999). So, with this cultural contracts paradigm, there is no such thing as a noncultural or culturally generic contract, and everyone has at least one cultural contract because humans are essentially cultural beings. The word cultural is only used to remind readers that every interaction evokes and affects the cultural self.

246 • CHAPTER 6

There are three cultural contract types: Ready-to-sign, QuasiCompleted, and Co-Created. Metaphorically, each contract type is a result of how identities have been personally and socially con­ structed and explored. Ready-to-sign cultural contracts are prenegotiated, and no fur­ ther negotiation is allowed (Jackson, in press-b). These contracts are designed to promote assimilation or maintain one's own worldview. "Signing," or relational coordination, may or may not be the goal. Those who seek to introduce a ready-to-sign contract are often firmly entrenched in their own perspective and are not interested in oth­ ers' worldviews. They presume conformity with certain values or patterns of communicating. Essentially, they take their cultural un­ derstandings into every encounter and have no interest in learning about other cultural traditions, values, norms, and beliefs. Cultures, languages, and norms survive in part through their insularity, and the world is too complex to negotiate identity in every encounter. The child we talked about in chapter 4, who, with the support of his mother refused to cut his cornrowed hair to meet school regula­ tions because of his cultural heritage, chose not to sign a readyto-sign cultural contract. He felt it would diminish the importance of his definitive stance against appearing uniform in behavior, culture, and nonverbal communication. Some may read this as him exercis­ ing a protest masculinity; instead, it may be considered a cultural contract negotiation that stalemated. As the most rigid of the contract types, the ready-to-sign cultural contract is the the type that dominant groups often "hold in their pocket." Dominant groups almost instananeously, and often sub­ consciously present ready-to-sign contracts to marginalized group members. For example, the reason that language forms like Ebonics have not reached full political legitimacy as a language form is be­ cause of the North American ready-to-sign contract that refuses to recognize the standards, structure, and function of Ebonics. With English as the lingua franca of the United States, there is concern that other language variations or full-fledged languages will be validated, then contesting English as the appropriate and normal standard of American speech. With dominant groups, signing anything other than a ready-to-sign cultural contract is rarely the goal of interaction or relational coordination. Quasi-completed cultural contracts are partly prenegotiated and partly agreements to relationally coordinate one's identities with

CONCLUSIONS • 247

those of another. This is perhaps the most common type of cultural contract, although they are ordinarily short-term or temporary epi­ sodes of identity shifting. People code switch every day when they go to work, school, or participate in formal public events and activities. Signers of the quasi-completed contract are usually not ready to fully cocreate and not necessarily ruling out maintaining their own worldview. These persons "straddle the fence" in terms of their com­ mitment to relationally coordinate. They would rather maintain some measure of comfort with their environments and worldview. Arguably, some quasi-completed contacts are "signed" as self-protection in order to avoid stress. For African Americans, however, such contracts are often contami­ nated by prejudice and discrimination. For example, some African Americans try to "talk proper" on the telephone by changing their to­ nality and inflection to "sound White" in order to avoid racially bi­ ased treatment such as linguistic profiling (Ford, 1998; Rickford & Rickford, 2000). As Baugh (2000) explained, linguistic profiling re­ fers to racial identification via speech patterns recognized as audi­ tory cues and has been discussed in recent criminal proceedings from the O. J. Simpson trial to the 1999 trial of Clifford v. Kentucky. Another instance of identity negotiation using quasi-completed contracts is a recent study by Davis (1999), where she explored the attitudes and opinions of African American women professors and suggested that African American women depend on an "ethic of care" in a professional and social environment that deprives them of valuation, nurturance, and recognition. She opined, 'African Ameri­ can women have a place, but not an importance in the academy" (p. 6). Sentiments like these suggest that African Americans cross cul­ tural boundaries every day to function in a workplace that is not con­ ducive to their cultural and personal needs, so they sign quasicompleted contracts to attenuate the denial of validation. Finally, co-created cultural contracts are fully negotiable with two parameters being personal preferences or requirements. Cocreated cultural contracts are the ideal kinds of social agreements we would like to have with cultural others because they provide the optimal means of relational coordination across cultures and signal that the relationship is fully negotiable and open to differences. If a cultural contract is co-created, there is full acknowledgment and valuation of cultural differences. Cultural differences are not ignored, yet do not become the only reason the two relational partners are together.

248 • CHAPTER 6

Signing this type of contract indicates an openness and embrace of other ways of seeing the world. The emphasis is truly on mutual sat­ isfaction rather than obligation to one another or each other's re­ spective cultures. At the same time, cocreated contracts are behavioral. That is, a mere talk about harmony and cohesiveness does not manifest into a cocreated contract; one must also demonstrate the unconditional ap­ preciation and valuation of the other person. This is perhaps dis­ cussed and exhibited most as it relates to romantic interpersonal relationships, especially interracial ones. When two persons of differ­ ent cultures with equal power are not coerced to enter into a relation­ ship, the metanegotiations that take place around roles, functions, and rules becomes very important. The cocreated contract stipula­ tions for a Black-White romantic relationship typically must include acknowledgment and appreciation of the cultural ancestries, values, norms, beliefs, practices, and patterns that govern their behaviors as individuals and as partners. Each cultural contract is about relation­ ship coordination. A relationship can be structured well but undergo changes that significantly alter the composition of the relationship, in which case the partner must renegotiate their contract or the way in which they respond to and relate to each other. African Americans and other marginalized group members tend to seek relationships where cocreated cultural contracts can be signed. With a strong emphasis on being real, genuine, positive, unique, car­ ing, and committed to community, African Americans seek relation­ ships where these features are present and consistent facets of interaction. Although identities shift, mature, and are negotiable, the cocreated contract discards pretenses and creates safe spaces for relational growth. It allows for ultimate trust and openness while fa­ cilitating the unpacking of all the social, emotional, and psychologi­ cal "baggage" we all carry as human beings, some of which is directed toward one another through enacted prejudices. At the same time, this is the type of contract often signed by "multi­ cultural persons" who attempt to traverse cultural boundaries as if they are natives or belong to every culture. However, this is not the point of the genuinely cocreated contracts that are predicated on open communication between persons who know they are cultur­ ally different and would like to exchange and negotiate, not investi­ gate, values, norms, patterns, and practices. Multicultural persons do not want to admit they have their own culture that distinguishes

CONCLUSIONS • 249

them from others; instead, they prefer to get others to see that we are all the same and that culture does not matter except to provide contextualized rules of behavior. The multicultural person signs this cocreated cultural contract because she refuses to acknowledge that she is really invested in ready-to-sign contracts. It is unlikely such a person will maintain a cocreated cultural contract for long. Quasi-completed and cocreated cultural contracts are most com­ mon among marginalized group members. As Jackson (1999a) sug­ gested, only marginalized groups are obligated to negotiate quasi-completed or cocreated contracts. They have no choice if they are to be successful. The vacillation that characterizes quasi-completed contracts is the hallmark of marginalization. Domi­ nant group members tend to sign such cultural contracts as sympa­ thizers, allies, and anti-establishment activists. Reactions to contract breaches are best presented graphically (see Table 6.1). TABLE 6.1 Reactions to Cultural Contract Breaches Penalty

No Penalty

Terminate State of Contract

New/Revise Settle

Based on this discussion of contract types, twelve additional as­ sumptions or postulates are articulated: 1. Although important, there is not necessarily a mutual interest in relational coordination, identity negotiation, or intercultural com­ petence among all human interactants. 2. A contract will only be completed or "tendered" if there is a strong desire or perceived need for it, even if it is forcibly signed for the sake of survival. 3. When there is unequal power among interactants, strategic com­ munication and/or negotiation will take place. 4. There is a direct and proportionate relationship between power and self-efficacy. 5. As cultural loyalty increases, so does the likelihood of "ready-tosign" cultural. 6. Cultural contracts can be either temporary/episodic or longterm/enduring.

250 • CHAPTER 6

7. Because multiple identities are functioning simultaneously within communicative contexts, they may also be negotiated simulta­ neously. 8. Identities are dynamic, not static, and they emerge during interac­ tion with others. 9. Communicators' personal histories and antecedent interactions influence the degree to which they are open to entering into iden­ tity negotiations with others. 10. The attempt to function as a multicultural person may not always be as profitable as it sounds; it is often stressful, shocking, and iso­ lating. 11. If there is no perceived need to relationally coordinate, then there will also be a greater resistance to cocreating cultural contracts. 12. Marginalize people are more likely to experience cocreated and quasi-complete contracts whereas mainstream cultures are more likely to offer ready-to-sign contracts. The basic concepts and assumptions of the cultural contracts ap­ proach can be applied in a variety of contexts, which we have de­ scribed throughout the book and will expound on later in this chapter. The impact such an approach may have on future research can be quite impressive if applied to marginalized groups like women, homosexuals, people with disabilities, elderly persons, and political activist groups like environmentalists. We present the theory as one vehicle for understanding the profound nature of human interaction processes and the construction and negotiation of identity. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In developing these theories, our work has evolved from an empha­ sis on the concept of identity exchange, cultural labels, their mean­ ings, and their enactments to a detailed exploration of the identity negotiation process and function of personal, enacted, relational, and communal frames of cultural identity. Because the theoretical perspectives emerged out of our work, much still needs to be done to fully apply both CTI and the new Cultural Contracts Theory. The three contract types—ready-to-sign, quasi-completed, and cocreated contracts—as well as the communal and relational aspects of CTI were derived from our interpretations of interviews and ques­

CONCLUSIONS • 251

tionnaires. Respondents described their identity in terms of their re­ lationships with other people (e.g., equality, power, assimilation, adaptation, acculturation) and membership in a group (e.g., who "we" are and multicultural self-definition). The communal identities are implied by the patterns that emerged in the personal identities, but they must be explored on a group level. Suggestions for develop­ ing this line of research can be considered across all four frames, for each individual frame, and for the interpenetration of frames. Across all three cultural contracts and the four interpenetrating frames, we must develop a better understanding of how cultural iden­ tities develop and change. Are there key events that mark "critical inci­ dents" or "turning points?" Are there stages that characterize initial development, identity maintenance, and/or change over time? How are changes in one frame (e.g., personal identity) played out in the other frames? How are these changes linked to historical trends and life-span development? Clearly the use of the label Black increased during the 1960s under the influence of the Black Power social move­ ment and has now moved to the label African American with the pro­ nouncements of leaders such as Jesse Jackson. This trend may reflect an increasing emphasis on culture rather than race. Will new labels re­ place the ones we have now, or will labels be dispensed as multicul­ tural categorization becomes a fixture in census reports, employment applications, political and economic decisions concerning allocation of resources, and everyday relational discourse? Numerous questions also remain about the enacted frame and the overall nature of identity negotiation. Are all behaviors to be consid­ ered enactments of identity? At the very least, certain behaviors are more salient to the enactment of identity than others. How does this come to be? Do people become aware of behaviors that, when per­ formed, are enactments of identity? How are these behaviors inter­ preted? Work on impression formation may inform this inquiry (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), but more direct links to identity are needed. When do people consciously and strategically perform these behav­ iors to enact an identity? Do others perceive this as strategic? Goffman's (1959) studies of facework and Ting Toomey's (1999) re­ cent extensions provide a beginning to this process. Will identity ne­ gotiations shift with changing demographics? Will there be an enhanced communally based problem of severe intracultural iden­ tity shifting and cultural contract-making as African Americans defy the "one-drop rule," which suggests that one drop of Black ancestral

252 • CHAPTER 6

blood makes one Black? Each of these questions hinges on how cul­ tural interactants process the changing nature of identity in an in­ creasingly multicultural social world. These studies of enactment might also profitably apply Philipsen's notions of ritual, myth, and social drama. How do we enact personal identities through individual rituals (e.g., combing or straightening hair, ironing socks, eating vegetables only, making up our beds each morning), relational identities through dyadic rituals (e.g., coded talk among same-sex friends, nicknames, secret signals, common dress style), and communal identities through group rituals (e.g., Kwanzaa, or other cultural events, spectator sports, bridal showers, mass education)? What myths and social dramas mark each of these? The relational level of identity is one that has received scant atten­ tion except in the organizational area (e.g., Scott, Gorman, & Cheney, 1998). We must consider more directly how people in pairs (e.g., friends, romantic partners, siblings) and groups (e.g., families, churches, clubs, cliques) establish a relational identity and consider the cultural aspects of these. African American churches as well as fra­ ternities and sororities would be excellent groups to study because they combine rich cultural traditions with the dynamics of collective behavior. Furthermore, we must understand how intra- and inter­ cultural relationships come to establish these identities. Questions of intercultural marriages, homosexual life partnerships, and friend­ ships are particularly salient because of their prevalence in contempo­ rary society and potential to explain the intricacies of cultural social worlds. The role of social networks in cultural identity is also an im­ portant area of study. How are our social relations associated with our personal and enacted identities? Are there particular social support systems for cultural identities and what roles do these play? Recent emphases on social cognition across the social sciences suggest an approach to the communal frame that may be profitable. In particular, the construct "cognitive prototype" may be useful in exploring communal conceptions of African American communica­ tion and communicators. Prototypes are models or exemplars. For example, students have a prototype of teacher that tells them what an ideal teacher or a certain type of teacher (e.g., student-oriented, easy) is like. Pavitt and Haight (1985) have begun to articulate the structures of European American prototypes. Their work suggests that prototypes also should have a content domain. We might ask, then, what prototypes are held within the African American commu­

CONCLUSIONS • 253

nity? While social cognition scholars typically proceed at the individ­ ual level of analysis—and this may be a useful place to start—we might also ask how identities are reflected in cultural forms such as African American dance, art, literature, film, music, and narratives. More work is also needed to examine these contracts and frames and their interpenetrations. As we struggle with trying to fit new theo­ retical frames into existing methodological competencies, we are still utilizing tools such as correlations and surveys in a rough operational­ ization of this approach. We began by looking at trends or similarities among persons using a common personal identity as means to get at communal identity. It is now clear that a primary focus on the commu­ nal frame and an understanding of how the communal is interpen­ etrated with the other frames is going to require rhetorical/critical analyses (e.g., Hecht et al., 1990) and ethnographies (e.g., Carbaugh, 1989). Also, we are unaware of how various cultural contracts may be revised over time, or how multiple contracts may be simultaneously signed when speaking in small groups, or when no contract is signed with a newly introduced interactant because of no perceived need to do so. Another question is what aspects of African American commu­ nication style are characteristic of which personal and communal identities? What happens when an individual's personal identity does not match the communal identities of the peer group? What happens when they match very closely? Similarly, enactment and relationship foci will require direct ob­ servations in addition to self-reports. More observations, oral narra­ tives, auto-ethnographies, and textual-archival research must be initiated to get at the varied subtleties in lived African American expe­ riences. A method of stimulated recall in which interactants view and provide interpretations of videotapes of recently completed interac­ tions can complement observer analyses. Through combining these methods, we obtain descriptions of interaction from the perspec­ tives of people who are removed from the interaction and can match those with the self-perceptions of the actors. By interviewing the dyad together about their relationship and having nonparticipants code the relational properties of their talk, we can also better under­ stand both the relationship frame and the process of cultural con­ tract exchange, relational coordination, and cultural identity negotiation. If identities are negotiated in everyday conversations and if iden­ tity negotiation is a process, then we need much more information

254 • CHAPTER 6

about the negotiation process itself. What happens when an avowed or self-selected identity (African American) is different from an as­ cribed or imposed identity (friend)? Are there discursive cues in con­ versational texts that indicate avowed and ascribed identity (Collier & Thomas, 1988)? Can such cues be pinpointed through content analyses of texts? Also, what functions do buffers (Cross & Strauss, 1998) have in the development, rejection, or maintenance of cul­ tural contracts? Moreover, we need to identify the scope, conditions, salience, and intensity with which particular identities are adopted. Are there par­ ticular conditions that co-vary with strong and intense advocacy of African American identities? It may be that when individuals are the single representative of their cultural group, they are much more likely to think of their composite cultural identity in certain ways (Jackson, 1999c; Saenz & Lord, 1989). It may also be that in conflict with members of an out-group, the intensity of identity avowal may be stronger. Similarly, we need to understand how multiple identi­ ties are enacted simultaneously. Rarely is a single identity so super­ ordinate that it completely dominates the person. Instead, in any situation an individual must balance multiple and, at times, compet­ ing identity demands just as communities must articulate coherent identity clusters or sets. One particularly interesting application of this situation occurs when one or more of the identities are closetable (e.g., not easily ascribed). The management of closetable identi­ ties and the resulting negotiation of contracts should be highly problematic. It should be clear that both theories, especially Cultural Contracts Theory, are in the early stages of development. Their promise is to open new doors to understanding cultural identity and its negotia­ tion. Their challenge is to work through the complexities it suggests and live with the vagaries and indeterminacies that it incorporates. In the next section, we use the CTI and Cultural Contracts theories to re­ interpret our work on cultural labels and communication compe­ tence in order to provide a more specific example of its use and scope.

Research Methodology

Our research and theory developments provide frameworks for un­ derstanding cultural identity and intra- and intercultural communica­

CONCLUSIONS • 255

tion. These works also suggest methodological directions for future research. In this section, we consider some of these directions. In our discussion to this point, there are numerous calls for meth­ odological diversity. We are firmly committed to a research strategy of triangulation—approaching research questions from different methodological stances (Denzin, 1978). Each stance (oral narra­ tives, interview, focus groups, ethnography, survey, experiment, and so on) has its own advantages and disadvantages. We believe that by juxtaposing these methods we can overcome their individual biases. Our respective research programs have included various research methodologies that can be compared and contrasted in order to "tri­ angulate" or validate findings. We have used focus groups, open- and closed-ended surveys and interviews to obtain respondents' descrip­ tions of recalled conversations, their impressions and interpreta­ tions of others' conduct, and their evaluations of the extent to which conduct was appropriate/inappropriate and effective/ineffective. These methods also have been used to validate and extend the find­ ings (e.g., Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). Data have been collected at a variety of locations throughout the United States including the Midwest, Southeast, East, Southwest, and West, although the latter three locations predominate in our work. The research teams have been multicultural in their composition and have included both male and female researchers and coders. Our work also has informed us about methodological issues par­ ticularly salient to African Americans. We start this discussion by de­ scribing the issues that have been raised in our research. We will then review some of the issues that other researchers have pointed to in their discussions of studies involving African Americans. In the beginning of our work, we sought to avoid placing Euro­ pean Americans at the norm or the center of our work by working with African American participants only. However, some of the Afri­ can American participants felt that investigating only members of their group was racist in itself. These people felt that we were placing too much of a burden on them to account for intercultural relation­ ships. This was particularly true when we asked about communica­ tion improvement strategies. In this concern, they were joined by journal reviewers who felt that despite asking what either party could do to improve the conversation, asking only African American respondents implied it was their exclusive responsibility. This strat­ egy also invokes a binary contrast between European Americans and

256 • CHAPTER 6

African Americans, ignoring the role of other groups in the lives of Af­ rican Americans. A second complaint from our research participants was directed at the entire area of study. These people interpreted our questions as assuming that African Americans are particularly concerned (per­ haps overly concerned) about their conversations with European Americans. Like many African American researchers across the social scientific and humanistic disciplines, there are sufficient admoni­ tions against examining African American particularity with Euro­ pean American cultural lenses. The research participants described earlier thought they were being given the mandate to see their lives as juxtaposed to someone other than themselves, essentially, that they must assimilate their identities to Whites. The message being communicated to them was that their lifeworld was not sufficient enough to be studied as a distinctive worldview, so it must be predi­ cated on their ability to be, act, and talk like Whites and be ever con­ cerned about their relationships with Whites. As we discussed in chapters 3 and 5, this is a reasonable concern for African Americans. Here we see a possible reaction to "minority" status and powerless­ ness. The respondents reacted to the perceived ethnic aspect of the question, ignoring the responsibility of successful communicators to be aware of what others think. This interpretation led them to ar­ gue that African Americans were no longer concerned or should no longer be concerned with how European Americans perceived them. Thus, they were upset by our questions. This stance is reflected in Collier's (1988) study that demon­ strated that inappropriate European American advisor behaviors had less impact on the self-concept of African American college stu­ dents than other cultural groups. In fact, the African American stu­ dents recommended that the student should just leave the office and end the advising relationship if an advisor was rude or stereotyped. Respondents said that their self-concepts were not and should never be determined by European Americans. A third area of concern about our approach to cultural labeling was raised primarily by scholars. We used the labels (e.g., Black, Black American, African American) to reflect the differences within the community, arguing that the use of a single label implied a mis­ taken homogeneity. Michaels (1982), for example, argued that the la­ bel Black mistakenly obscures religious, linguistic, regional, and class differences within the group. Other scholars opposed our use

CONCLUSIONS • 257

of labels to reflect different types of cultural identities, arguing that by subdividing the group we were diffusing its power. Some respondents also approached us and argued that because we were pinpointing differences between African Americans and other cultures, we were actually reinforcing stereotypes and preju­ dices while validating the false dichotomy of Black-White race rela­ tions. Blacks are not the only culture affected by the social construction of race or racism. It has been argued that even their re­ lationships with other marginalized groups are tainted by this false dichotomy (Tatum, 1999; M. Wright, 1998). The respondents' point also was that describing African Americans as a group would simply teach the readers of the research that African Americans were all sim­ ilar to one another and different from everyone else. The respon­ dents were quite uncomfortable with the attention being placed on differences across groups and the lack of attention being placed on the differences within the cultural group. This attention to differ­ ences reflects the core symbol of respect for the individual, as de­ scribed in chapter 3, and is the impetus for including descriptions of both intra- and intercultural relationships in chapter 5. Two objections were voiced about our use of African American re­ search assistants in some studies. The first of these was raised by po­ tential African American participants being recruited into the study by our research assistants and the second was raised by our research assistants themselves. Some community members were concerned that European American researchers were using African American as­ sistants as "fronts." While less polite terms were also used, the per­ ception and the objection was that African Americans were being exploited for the purposes of the European American researchers. This is not a new concern, but it recurs because of the perception that studying African American people over the years has not signifi­ cantly influenced the patterns of racism and discrimination and that there is reasonable suspicion that some White researchers may em­ ploy etic interpretations of African Americans and publicly disguise them as emic ones. Related research supports the notion that the race of the inter­ viewer influences responses of both European American and African American respondents (Athey Coleman, Reitman, & Tang, 1960; Hatchett & Schuman, 1975; Williams, 1964). These effects are found when the topics are militant, sensitive, or express hostility toward a group, when the social distance between the interviewer and inter­

258 • CHAPTER 6

viewee is high (particularly when the interviewee is an African Ameri­ can with less education and lower socio-economic status), and when dealing with racial opinions rather than facts. More militant male in­ terviewees are likely to manifest this pattern that seems to hold across geographic regions in the United States. Furthermore, there is sup­ port for the notion that African American respondents provide more extreme opinions to African American interviewers and less extreme information to European Americans. Thus, there are patterns of less frankness and decreased accommodation that influence responses. A different issue was raised by the African American students who helped us develop and apply the category systems. These assistants were particularly sensitive about being asked to speak for the group. They felt there were times when they were expected to tell us how all African Americans communicated with European Americans. All of these issues have validity. In a sense, we practiced a form of separatism by examining only African Americans and did privilege their conversations with European Americans by focusing their at­ tention on these particular interactions. Dividing the group by la­ bels does create smaller, less powerful groups and highlighting differences within the community can, potentially, create rifts. Fur­ thermore, on some level, we were "using" the research assistants by asking them to recruit other African Americans and/or to tell us about their community, even when the researcher was African American. These issues will probably always be present in the perceptions of African Americans asked to participate in research projects. The history of the group in the United States may sensitize them to be­ ing "studied" as a form of exploitation. We apologize for contrib­ uting to this perception. Our primary suggestion to other researchers is more effective communication. Participants, re­ search assistants, and coders need to be told enough to under­ stand the purpose of the study. When faced with these objections, it is clear that sometimes we did not do an effective job communi­ cating our goals. What can be done? Overall, it is important to keep in mind the history of race relations. If the researchers are European American they must go beyond the normal means to eliminate suspicions as with any study involving researchers who are out-group members. Even if the researchers are African American, they must be sensitive

C O N C L U S I O N S • 259

to these issues. We recommend three specific strategies. First, the researcher should probably accompany the assistant on at least preliminary recruitment contacts (e.g., with representatives of the group). Second, questionnaires should be pilot tested for language and interpretation. Third, research assistants should read previous articles and research papers to understand the line of research, and their role as a coder should be limited to that of a cultural represen­ tative. That is, they can tell us their experience and their under­ standing of the experiences of others they know, but they can never speak for the group nor should they be asked to "speak for" their cultural group. One technique for operationalizing these suggestions can be seen in several of our studies that asked respondents to describe the be­ havior of specific people or to describe specific conversations. Re­ spondents are asked about the conduct of others with whom they were familiar. Then, coders are asked to identify patterns in the par­ ticular data set. In this way, neither respondents nor coders are asked to speak for all African Americans. Other issues also are relevant to the use of questionnaires with Af­ rican Americans. It has often been argued that questionnaires should not be used in cultures other than those for which they were created without appropriate checks (e.g., Cronbach, 1984; Eysenck, 1983). However, one may extend this argument to members of various cul­ tures as well. In one of our studies we developed separate scales for measuring the communication satisfaction of African Americans, Mexican Americans, and European Americans from each group's de­ scriptions of specific conversations (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984). Others have noted cultural differences in responses to questionnaires. Bachman and O'Malley (1984) found that African Americans tended to be more extreme in their response style. Finally, we would like to comment on the use of coders in some of our research. In several of the studies, coders first individually categorized descriptions of appropriate or inappropriate behavior and then discussed the episodes on which they disagreed. In this manner, categories emerged as a consensually negotiated and in­ terpreted system of meanings. Next, the categories were used to code the data. Again, disagreements over the placement of acts in categories were negotiated. The final codings, too, were jointly ne­ gotiated and interpreted.

260 • CHAPTE R 6

We believe that these methods produce analyses that reflect an intersubjective interpretation of respondents' descriptions. How­ ever, there is a "value added" element to the procedures. The first and third authors of this book collaborated in their first experi­ ence of coding by means of discussion and consensus in 1986. Since then we have witnessed the richness of the negotiations as a source of data in its own right. These discussions enhanced the coding systems and improved our understanding of the data. We now propose an additional step in the analysis. A textual analysis of coding discussions and differences in interpretations would be a substantial addition to the literature on cultural and inter­ cultural communication, particularly when culturally diverse cod­ ing teams are used.

Practical Applications

Finally, we feel our work has application to the lives of African Ameri­ cans and the people they interact with in U.S. culture. Unfortunately, these applications are just now filtering into our work. We believe that theory and research can be tested through such application—effective social theory should be applicable to the lives of group mem­ bers. For example, the first author here was part of a team that developed and implemented a culturally grounded drug prevention program among African American and Latino adolescents in Phoe­ nix, Arizona. Based on cultural resiliencies and narratives, the result­ ing "keepin' it REAL" curriculum reduced alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use among 7th-grade adolescents in Phoenix public schools (Hecht et al., 2000). Several other practical applications may be derived from the re­ sults of our research. Some of these have been suggested in this chapter and throughout the book. At the broadest level, these find­ ings inform us about the issues salient to African Americans and sug­ gest a repertoire of strategies for improving conversations. Recent events around the world have highlighted concerns about intergroup relations. Prejudice and discrimination on a global level are societal concerns. However, their local manifestations in bullying and other forms of victimization are manifest among youth. We be­ lieve that applications of our identity models can shed light on these problems and their solutions. We see bullying and victimization as

CONCLUSIONS • 261

emerging out of identity as well as identity negotiation. As a result, we believe that if youth can learn different ways of enacting identities and negotiating contracts, intergroup relations can be improved. These findings also have important implications in the counseling arena. Collier (1988) found frequent rule violations by European American advisors that are very damaging to their relationships with African American students. The counseling literature abounds with criticisms of the cultural bias inherent in the dominant training model and counseling style being taught (Atkinson et al., 1979). Cli­ ents are expected to self-disclose readily, to talk openly about feel­ ings, and to adapt to the dominant culture's perception of psychological well-being. It is clear that these criticisms apply to aca­ demic advising as well. Academic advising can be improved through greater attention to the identities described in chapter 2, the styles and core symbols articulated in chapter 3, and the communication issues and improvement strategies explained in chapter 4. Education is still another area in which we hope our research can be applied. Universities such as Stanford, University of California at Berkeley, and Arizona State University have instituted requirements for courses in "American culture" and/or multiculturalism. The infor­ mation in this book may prove useful as text material in these courses. In addition, educators who are teaching African American students or teaching teachers of African American students may use this book to become more familiar with African American cultural identity linguistic distinctiveness, and communication style. Under­ standing these identities and styles and the problematic nature of intercultural interaction may enable student-instructor relation­ ships to be more positive and productive (Jackson et al., in press). Similarly, the information may prove useful to those in the service professions (e.g., health care professionals, government workers, community outreach personnel. CONCLUSION

This book examines African Americans and their perceptions of iden­ tity and communication. In this concluding chapter, we explain two paradigms for examining cultural identity and provide directions for future studies. However, descriptions of African American communi­

262 • C H A P T E R 6

cation must continually evolve as the social and historical context changes and the identities and communication styles unfold. As ex­ plained in the first chapter, this book is meant as a beginning, tracing one approach to the study of the communication of African Ameri­ cans and other cultural groups.

REFERENCES

A rap on Arizona. (1992, January 9). The Arizona Republic, p. A12. Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. (1983)- Across-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-67. Abrahams, R. D. (1963). Deep down in the jungle. Chicago: Aldine Press. Abrahams, R. D. (1976). Talking Black. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Acitelli, L., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1997). The changing influence of interper­ sonal perceptions on marital well-being among Black and White couples.Jour­ nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 291-304. Adler, P (1982). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicul­ tural man. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. AielloJ., &Jones, S. (1971). Field study of the proxemic behavior of young school children in three subcultural groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psy­ chology, 19, 351-356. Aiello, J., & Thompson, D. (1980). Personal space, crowding, and spatial behavior in a cultural context. In I. Altman, A. Rapaport, & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human be­ havior and environment: Advances in theory and research: Vol 4. Environ­ ment and change (pp. 107-178). New York: Plenum. Akbar, N. (1991). Visions for Black Men. Tallahasse, FL: Mind Productions. Akhtar, S., & Kramer, S. (1999). Beyond the parental orbit: Brothers, sisters and others. In S. Akhtar & S. Kramer (Eds.),Brothers and sisters: Developmental, dynamic and technical aspects of the sibling relationship (pp. 25-43). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. 263

264 • REFERENCES

Akinnaso, F., & Ajirotutu, C. S. (1982). Performance and ethnic style in job inter­ views. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 119-144). New York: Cambridge University Press. Alba, R. (1985). The twilight of ethnicity among Americans of European ancestry: The case of Italians. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 8, 134-158. Aleshire, E, & Thomason, A. (1992, January 9). Video branding Arizona as racist is rapped back. The Arizona Republic, pp. Bl, B6, B7. Allard, R., & Landry, R. (1994). Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality:A comparison of two measures. In R. Landry & R. Allard (Eds.), Ethnolinguistic vitality (Special issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language), 108,117-144. Allen, B. J. (1995). Diversity and organizational communication. Journal of Ap­ plied Communication Research, 23, 143-155. Allen, B. J. (2000a). Learning the ropes: A Black feminist critique. In E Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communicationfrom fem­ inist perspectives (pp. 177-208). NewburyPark, CA: Sage. Allen, M., Hecht, M. L., & Martin, J. M. (1996). Examining the impact of culture: Some suggestions from examining Martin, Hecht, and Larkey. World Commu­ nication, 25, 69-78. Altman, L, Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psy­ chology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 107-160. Altman, K. E., & Nakayama, T. K. (1991). Makinga critical difference: A difficult dia­ logue. Journal of Communication, 41, 116-128. Amato, P (1993). Children's adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses and em­ pirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23-28. Amato, E R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 628-640. Amato, R R., & Keith, B. (1991). Farental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46. Amato, E R., Loomis, L., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73, 895-915. Antaki, C., Condor, S., & Levine, M. (1996). Social identities in talk: Speakers' own orientations. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 35, 473-492. Aronson, J., Quinn, D., & Spencer, S. (1998). Stereotype threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and women. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 85-105). New York: Academic Press. Asante, M. K. (1980). Afrocentricity: The theory of social change. Buffalo, NY Amulefi. Asante, M. K. (1987). The afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Asante, M. K. (1990). Kemet, farocentricity, and knowledge. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Asante, M. K. (1998). Identifying racist language, linguistic acts, and signs. In M. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating Prejudice (pp. 87-98). NewburyPark, CA: Sage. Asante, M. K. (2000). The painful demise of eurocentrism: An afrocentric re­ sponse to critics. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Asante, M. K. (in press). The future of African American rhetoric. In R. L.Jackson & E. Richardson (Eds.), Understanding African American Rhetoric: Classical origins to contemporary innovations. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Fress. Asante, M. K., & Abarry A. (Eds.). (1996). African intellectual heritage. Fhiladel­ phia: Temple University Fress.

REFERENCES • 265

Asante, M. K., & Noor-Aldeen, H. S. (1984). Social interaction of Black and White college students. Journal of Black Studies, 14, 507-516. Associated Press. (2000, December 3). Boys face expulsion over hairstyle.Centre Daily Times, p. 5A. Athey, K. R., Coleman, J. E., Reitman, A. E, & Tang, J. (1960). Two experiments show­ ing the effect of the interviewer's racial background on responses to questions concerning racial issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 244-246. Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1979). Counseling American minori­ ties: A cross-cultural perspective. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Axelson, J. (1999). Counseling and development in a multicultural society (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Brooks/Cole Publishers. Babad, E. Y, Birnbaum, M., &Benne, K. D. (1983). The socialself. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Babrow, A. S. (1991). Tensions between health beliefs and desires: Implications for a health communication campaign to promote a smoking cessation pro­ gram. Health Communication, 3, 93-112. Babrow, A. S. (1995). Communication and problematic integration: Milan Kudera's "Lost Letters" in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. Communica­ tion Monographs, 62, 283-300. Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to ex­ tremes: Black-White differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 491-509. Baker-Fletcher, G. K. (1996). Xodus: An African American male journey. Minne­ apolis: Fortress. Baldwin, J. (1990). Notes on an Africentric theory of Black personality. In T Ander­ son (Ed.), Black studies: Theory, method, and cultural perspectives (pp. 133-141). Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press. Ball, E, Giles, H., & Hewstone, M. (1985). Interpersonal accommodation and situa­ tional constraints: An integrative formula. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication and socialpsychology (pp. 263-286). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bambara, T. C. (1981). Gorilla, my love. New York: Random House. Banks,J. A. (1981). Multi-ethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Banks, S. R (1987). Achieving "unmarkedness" in organizational discourse: A praxis perspective on ethnolinguistic identity.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 171-189. Banks, W C. (1976). White preference in Blacks: A paradigm in search of a phe­ nomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1179-1186. Baraka, I. A. (1963).Bluespeople: Negro music in White America. New York: Morrow. Barresi, C. M. (1990). Ethnogerontology: Social aging in national, racial and cul­ tural groups. In K. F. Ferrero (Ed.), Gerontology: Perspectives and Issues (pp. 248-265). New York: Springer. Baugh, J. (1983). Black street speech: Its history, structure and survival. Austin: University of Texas Press. BaughJ. (2000). Racial identification by speech. American Speech, 75(4), 362-364. Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectic perspective on communication strategies in rela­ tionship development. In S. W Duck (Ed.), A Handbook of Personal Relation­ ships (pp. 257-274). New York: John Wiley.

266 • R E F E R E N C E S

Baxter, L. A., & Simon, E. E (1993). Relationship maintenance strategies and dia­ lectical contradiction in personal relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 225-242. Beebe, L. M., & Giles, H. (1984). Speech accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5-32. Bell, K., Orbe, M., Drummond, D., & Camara, S. (2000). Accepting the challenge of centralizing without essentializing: Black feminist thought and African American women's communicative experiences. Women's Studies in Commu­ nication, 23(1), 41-62. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipson, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communica­ tion. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. Berger, E (1966). Identity as a problem in the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Sociology, 7, 105-115. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Bernal, M. E., Saenz, D. S., & Knight, G. E (1991). Ethnic identity and adaptation of Mexican American youths in school settings. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 13, 135-154. Berry, J. (1980). Introduction to methodology In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Hand­ book of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-28). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Berry, M. F., & Blassingame, J. W. (1982). Long memory. New York: Oxford Univer­ sity Press. Billingsley, A. (1968). Black Families in White America. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Billingsley, A. (1992). ClimbingJacob's Ladder: The enduring legacy of African American families. New York: Simon & Schuster. Blackshire-Belay C. A. (1996). The location of ebonies within the framework of the Africological paradigm.Journal of Black Studies, 27(1), 5-23. Blake, W., & Darling, C. (1994). The dilemmas of the African American male.Jour­ nal of Black Studies, 24(4), 402-415. Blank, R. (2001). An overview of trends in social and economic well-being, by race. In N. Smelser, W. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. 1, pp. 21-39). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Block, C. B. (1980). Black Americans and the cross-cultural counseling and psy­ chotherapy experience. In A. J. Marsella & P. B. Pedersen (Eds.), Cross- cultural counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 148-164). Elmsford, NY Pergamon. Blubaugh, J., & Pennington, D. (1976). Crossing differences: Interracial commu­ nication. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bochner, A. E, & Kelly, C. W (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philos­ ophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23, 279-301. Bond, M. H., & Hewstone, M. (1986). Socialidentity theory and theperception of intergroup relations in Hong Kong. Unpublished manuscript.

REFERENCES • 267

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Jordan, F. (1989). Verbal and nonverbal adaptation among racially homogeneous and heterogeneous. Southern Communication Journal, 54, 253-272. Bourhis, R. Y. (1985). The sequential nature of language choice in cross-cultural communication. In R. L. Street, Jr. &J. N. Capella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 120-141). London: Edward Arnold. Bourhis, R. Y, Giles, H., & Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a "subjective vitality" questionnaire for ethnolinguistic groups.Journal of Multi­ cultural and Multilingual Development, 2, 145-155. Boyd-Franklin, N. (1989). Black families in therapy. New York: Guilford. Bradford, L., Myers, R. & Kane, K. (1999). Latino expectations of communicative com­ petence: A focus group interview study. Communication Quarterly, 47(1), 98-117. Braithwaite, D. O., Olson, L., Golish, T. D., Soukup, C., & Turman, E (in press). "Becoming a family": Developmental processes represented in blended family discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research. Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimina­ tion: Individualistic versus group-level strategies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 243-266). San Diego: Aca­ demic Press. Brewer, M. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal group situation.Psychological Bulletin, 56, 307-324. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents' experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1029. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996).Adolescents after di­ vorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bumpass, L. (1984). Children and marital disruption: A replication and update. Demography, 21,71-81. Burgest, D. (1990). Sexual games in Black male/female relations.Journal of Black Studies, 27(1), 103-116. Burke, P J. (1980). The self: Requirements from an interactionist perspective. So­ cial Psychology Quarterly, 43, 18-29. Burke,P.J., & Franzoi, S. L. (1988). Studying situations and identities using experi­ ential sampling methodology. American Sociological Review, 53, 559-568. Burke,P.J., & Tully J. (1977). The measurement of role/identity SocialForces, 55, 881-897. Bush, L. (1999). Am I a man?:A literature review engaging the sociohistorical dy­ namics of Black manhood in the United States. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 23(1), 49-57. Byers, E. S., Demmons, S., & Lawrance, K. (1998). Sexual satisfaction within dat­ ing relationships: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfac­ tion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 257-267. Galloway-Thomas, C., & Lucaites, J. (1993). (Eds.). Martin LutherKing, Jr. and the sermonicpower ofpublic discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group differences. American Psychologist, 22, 817-829. Canary, D., Cupach, W, & Messman, S. (1995). Relationship Conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cappella, J. N., & Planalp, S. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal con­ versations III: Interspeaker influences. Human Communication Research, 7, 117-132.

268 • REFERENCES

Carbaugh, D. (1987). Communication rules in Donahue discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 21, 31-61. Carbaugh, D. (1988). Comments on "culture" in communication inquiry. Com­ munication Reports, 1, 38-41. Carbaugh, D. (1989). Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donahue. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social identities in American scenes. Albany, NY SUNY Press. Cazenave, N. A. (1983). Black male-Black female relationships: The perceptions of 155 middle-class Black men. Family Relations, 32, 341-350. Cheek, J. M. (1976). Assertive Black... puzzled White. San Luis Obispo, CA: Im­ pact Publications. Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 401-408. Cheek, J. M., & Hogan, R. (1983). Self-concepts, self-presentations, and moral judgments. InJ. Suls &A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 249-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communica­ tion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cherlin, A. (1998). Marriage and marital dissolution among Black Americans. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29, 147-158. Chideya, F. (1995). Don't believe the hype: Fighting cultural misinformation about African Americans. New York: Plume. Chideya, F. (2000). The color of our future. New York: William Morrow & Co. Clark, K., & Clark, M. (1939). The development of consciousness of self in the emergence of racial identification among Negro preschool children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 591-599. Clark, M. L. (1985). Social stereotypes and self-concept in Black and White college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 753-760. Clawson, R., & Kegler, E. (2000). The race coding of poverty in American govern­ ment college textbooks. Howard Journal of Communications, 11,179-188. Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). Models for the sequential construc­ tion of accounting episodes: Situational and interactional constraints on message selection and evaluation. In R. L. Street, Jr. &J. N. Capella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 60-69). London: Edward Arnold. Cogdell, R., & Wilson, S. (1980). Black communication in White society. Saratoga, CA: R & E Publishers. Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade in progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288-1307. Collier, M. J. (1988). A comparison of intracultural and intercultural communica­ tion among acquaintances: How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36, 122-144. Collier, M. J. (1989). Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Cur­ rent approaches and directions for future research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 287-302. Collier, M. J. (1991). Conflict competence within African, Mexican, and Anglo American friendships. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 132-154). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

REFERENCES • 269

Collier, M. J. (1992). Ethnic friendships: Enacted identities and competencies. Manuscript submitted for publication. Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friend­ ships. Communication Monographs, 63, 314-336. Collier, M. J., Ribeau, S., & Hecht, M. L. (1986). Intercultural communication rules and outcomes within three domestic cultural groups.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 439-457. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y Y Kim & W B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communica­ tion (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1989). Cultural identity in inter-cultural com­ munication: An interpretive perspective. In W Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Theorizing intercultural communication: International and intercultural communication annual, 12 (pp. 94-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Collins, P H. (1990). The social construction of Black feminist thought. In M. Malson, E. Mudimbe-Boyi, J. O'Barr, & M. Wyer (Eds.), Black women in Amer­ ica (pp. 297-326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Collins, R H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. ComerJ. P, & Pouissaint, A. (1992). Raising Black children: Two leading psychia­ trists confront the educational, social, and emotionalproblemsfacing Black children. New York: Plume. Connolly, R (1998). Racism, gender identities, and young children. New York: Routledge. Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication Monographs, 58, 179-194. Conyers,J., Jr., &Barnett, A. (1998). African history, culture and social policy: A collection of critical essays. Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publi­ cations. Cook, P., & Ludwig, J. (1997). Weighing the burden of "acting White": Are there race differences in attitudes toward education?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(2), 256-278. Cooke, B. G. (1980). Nonverbal communication among Afro-Americans: An initial clarification. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (2nd ed., pp. 139-160). New York: Harper & Row. Coppola, C. (1992, January 15). Black groups back Public Enemy. Tempe Daily News Tribune, p. Bl. Cose, E. (1993). The rage of a privileged class. New York: HarperCollins. Cote, J. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The cultureidentity link and identity capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 417-428. Coupland, N., Coupland, J., & Giles, H. (1991). Language, society, and the el­ derly. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Coupland, N., Wiemann, J. M., & Giles, H. (1991). Talk as "problem" and commu­ nication as "miscommunication": An integrative analysis. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.),Miscommunication and problematic talk (pp. 1-17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Covin, D. (1990). Afrocenticity in o movimento Negro unificado./OMra«/ of Black Studies, 21, 126.

270 • REFERENCES

Cox, C., Wexler, M., Rusbult, C., & Gaines, S. (1997). Prescriptive support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(1), 79-90. Crewe, J., & Spitzer, L. (1999). (Eds.). Act of memory: Cultural recall in thepres­ ent. Hanover: University Press of New England. Cronbach, L. J. (1984). The essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Cross, S. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 673-697. Cross, W E., Jr., Clark, L., & Fhagen-Smith, R (1998). Black identity development across the life span: Educational implications. In E. Hollins & R. H. Sheets (Eds.), Race, ethnic, cultural identity and human development: Implications for schooling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cross, W E., & Fhagen-Smith, P (1996). Nigrescence and ego identity develop­ ment. In R B. Pederson, J. G. Draguns, W J. Lonner, & G. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures, (pp. 108-123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cross, W E., Jr., & Strauss, L. (1998). The everyday functions of African American identity. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective. New York: Academic Press. Crouch, S. (1995/1996). The afrocentric hustle.Journal of Blacks in Higher Edu­ cation, 10, 77-82. Dandy, E. (1991). Black Communications: Breaking down the barriers. Chicago: African American Images. Dangerfield, C. (2001). Mapping race, school segregation, and Black identities in Woodville, Mississippi: A case study of a rural community.Journal of Rural Community Psychology, E4(1). [online]. http://www.marshall.edu/JRCP/ Daniel, J. L., & Daniel, J. E. (1999). African American childrearing: The context of a hot stove. InT. Socha& R. Diggs (Eds.), Communication, race and family: Ex­ ploring communication in Black, White and biracialfamilies, (pp. 25-43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daniel, J., & Effinger, M. (1996). Bosom biscuits: A study of African American intergenerational communication. Journal of Black Studies, 27, 183-200. Daniel, J., & Smitherman, G. (1976). How I got over: Communication dynamics in the Black community. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62(1), 26-39. Daniel, J., & Smitherman, G. (1990). How I got over: Communication dynamics in the Black community. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact. (27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daniel, J. L., & Means-Coleman, R. (2000). Mediation of ebonies.Journal of Black Studies, 31(1), 74-95. Davis, F. J. (1996). Who is Black?: One nation's definition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Davis, L., Williams, J., Emerson, S., & Hourd-Bryant, M. (2000). Factors contribut­ ing to partner commitment among unmarried African Americans. Social Work Research, 24(1), 4-15. Davis, O. I. (1998, Spring). A Black woman as rhetorical critic: Validating self and violating the space of otherness. Women's Studies in Communication, 21(1), 77-89. Davis, O. I. (1999, Summer). In the kitchen: Transforming the academy through safe spaces of resistance. WesternJournal of Communication, 63(3), 364-381.

REFERENCES • 271

Day, R., Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking of older and younger children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 79-94. Deaux, K., & Ethier, K. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective. New York: Academic Press. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and thepolitics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press. Deetz, S. A., & Kersten, A. (1983). Critical models of interpretive research. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacinowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 147-172). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. DeFrancisco, V, & Chathem-Carpenter, A. (2000). Self in community: African American women's view's of self-esteem. Howard Journal of Communica­ tions, 11, 73-92. Dejarnett, S., & Raven, B. H. (1981). The balance, bases and modes of interper­ sonal power in Black couples: The role of sex and socioeconomic circum­ stances. Journal of Black Psychology, 7, 51-66. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act:A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. De Vos, G. A. (1980). Ethnic adaptation and minority status.Journal of Cross-Cul­ tural Psychology, 11, 101-124. De Vos, G. A. (1982). Ethnic pluralism: Conflict and accommodation. In G. A. De Vos & L. Romanucci-Ross (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Cultural continuities and change (pp. 5-41). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. De Vos, G. A., & Romanucci-Ross, L. (1982a). Ethnicity: Vessel of meaning and em­ blem of contrast. In G. A. De Vos & L. Romanucci-Ross (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Cultural continuities and change (pp. 363-390). Chicago: University of Chi­ cago Press. De Vos, G. A., & Romanucci-Ross, L. (1982b). Introduction. In G. A. De Vos & L. Romanucci-Ross (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Cultural continuities and change (pp. ix-xvii). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewart, J. (1989). The state of Black America: 1989- New York: National Urban League. Dickens, E, & Dickens, J. (1991). The Black manager: Making it in the corporate world. Cincinnati, OH: AMACOM. Dickson, L. (1993). The future of marriage and family in Black America.Journal of Black Studies, 23(4), 472-491. Diggs, R. (1999). African American and European American adolescents' percep­ tions of self-esteem as influenced by parent and peer communication and sup­ port networks. In T. Socha & R. Diggs (Eds.), Communication, race and family: Exploring communication in Black, White and biracialfamilies s (pp. 105-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Diggs, R., & Stafford, L. (1998). Maintaining marital relationships: A comparison between African American and European American married individuals. In V Duncan (Ed.), Towards achieving Maat: Communication patterns in African American, European American, and Interracial Relationships (pp. 191-202). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. DillardJ. L. (1972). Black English: Its history andusage in theUnitedStates. New York: Random House.

272 • REFERENCES

Diop, C. A. (1991). Civilization or barbarism. New York: Lawrence Hill Books. Dorch, E., & Fountaine, G. (1978). Rate of judges' gaze at different types of wit­ nesses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 1103-1106. Dougherty, D., & Duncan, V (1998). Perceptions of power and conflict manage­ ment strategies in African American dating relationships. In V Duncan (Ed.), Towards Achieving Moat: Communication patterns in African American, Eu­ ropean American, and Interracial Relationships, (pp. 61-78). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Douglas, W (1983). Scripts and self-monitoring: When does being a high self-monitor really make a difierence? Human Communication Research, 10, 81-96. DuBois, WE. B. (1903). The souls of Black folks. New York: New American Library. Duck, S. W (1990). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5-28. Duncan, B. L. (1978a). The development of spatial behavior norms in Black and White primary school children. Journal of Black Psychology, 5, 33-41. Duncan, B. L. (1978b). Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 118-137. Duncan, V (1998). An afrocentric quantitative approach to the study of relation­ ships including African Americans. In V Duncan (Ed.), Towards achieving Maat: Communication patterns in African American, European American, and interracial relationships (pp. 11-28). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Dyson, M. (1993). Reflecting Black: African-American cultural criticism. Minne­ apolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dyson, M. (1997). Between God andgangsta rap: Bearing witness to Black cul­ ture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dyson, M. (2001). Holler if you hear me: My search for Tupac. New York: Basic Civitas Books. Edwards, V, & Seinkewicz, T. J. (1990). Oral cultures past and present. Cam­ bridge: Basil Blackwell. Edwards, W F. (1992). Sociolinguistic behavior in a Detroit inner-city Black neigh­ borhood. Language in Society, 21, 93-115. Ellison, C. (1990). Family tie, friendships and subjective well-being among Black Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(2), 298-310. Ely, J. H. (1998). If at first you don't succeed, ignore the question next time?Group harm in Brown v.Education and Loving v. Virginia. Constitutional commen­ tary, 15(2), 215-223. Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York: Guilford Press. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1989). Sisters and brothers. In P Zukow (Ed.), Sibling interaction across cultures (pp. 184-196) New York: Springer-Verlag. Evans, K., & Herr, E. (1994). The influence of racial identity and the perception of discrimination on the career aspirations of African American men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(2), 173-184. Eysenck, S. B. G. (1983). One approach to cross-cultural studies of personality. AustralianJournal of Psychology, 35, 381-391. Fairchild, H. H. (1985). Black, Negro, or Afro-American? The differences are cru­ cial. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 47-55. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, White masks. New York: Grove.

REFERENCES • 273

Faulkner, S. L., & Hecht, M. L. (in press). Tides in the ocean: A layered approach to culture and communication. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars. Mahwah, NJ: Law­ rence Erlbaum Associates. Fine, G. A., & Kleinman, S. (1983). Network and meaning: An interactionist ap­ proach to structure. Symbolic Interaction, 6, 97-110. Fisher, G. (1998). The mindsets factor in ethnic conflict. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and mo­ tivation on attention and interpretation. In M. E Zanna (Ed.), Advances in ex­ perimental socialpsychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press. Fitzgerald, T. K. (1974). Social and cultural identity. Southern Anthropological So­ ciety Proceeding, 8, 1-4. Foa, IL, & Foa, E. (1974). Societal Structures of the Mind. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Ford, B. (1998). Talkin' proper. American Quarterly, 50(1), 125-129. Foster, M. (1989). "It's cookin' now": A performance analysis of the speech events of a Black teacher in an urban community college. Language in Society, 18,1-29. Franklin, J. H. (1988). A historical note on Black families. In H. E McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed., pp. 23-26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Frazier, E. F. (1962). Black bourgeoisie. New York: Crowell, Collier &Macmillan. Frazier, E. F. (1963). The Negro church in America. New York: Knopf. Fugita, S. S., Wexley, K. N., & Hillery J. M. (1974). Black-White differences in non­ verbal behavior in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 343-350. Fullilove, M. T, & Fullilove, R. (1999). Stigma as an obstacle to AIDS action. The American Behavioral Scientist, 42(7), 1117-1129. Gaines, S. (1997). Communalism and the reciprocity of affection and respect among interethnic married couples Journal of Black Studies, 2 7(3), 352-364. Gaines, S., Rios, D., Granrose, C., & Bledsoe, K. (1999). Romanticism and inter­ personal resource exchange among African American, Anglo, and other inter­ racial couples. Journal of Black Psychology, 25(4), 461-489. Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1988). Communica­ tion accommodation in intercultural encounters. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 157-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ganiere, D. M., & Enright, R. D. (1989). Exploring three approaches to identity development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 283-295. Gans, H. J. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2, 1-20. Garcia, S., & Rivera, S. (1999). Perceptions of Hispanic and African American cou­ ples at the friendship or engagement stage of a relationship.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(1), 65-86. Garner, T. E. (1983). Playing the dozens: Folklore as strategies for living. Quar­ terly Journal of Speech, 69, 47-57. Garner, T. E., & Rubin, D. L. (1986). Middle class Blacks' perceptions of dialect and style shifting: The case of Southern attorneys.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 33-48.

274 • REFERENCES

Garrett, G., Baxter, J., & Rozelle, R. (1981). Training university police in BlackAmerican nonverbal behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 217-229. Garza, R. T, & Herringer, L. G. (1987). Social identity: A multidimensional ap­ proach. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 299-308. Gates, H. L. (1998). The two nations of Black America. PBS Frontline. Retrieved January 21,2002, fromhttp:/Avww.pbs.orgAvgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/ Gates, H. L., & West, C. (1996). The Future of the Race. New York: Vintage. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1976). From the native's point of view: On the nature of anthropologi­ cal understanding. In P. Rabinow & W. M. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science (pp. 225-241). Berkeley: University of California Press. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Gettone, V (1981). Negative label. Association of Black Psychologists'Newsletter, 12(2), 3-11. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Lin­ guistics, 15, 87-105. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y, & Taylor, D. (1977). Towards a theory of language in eth­ nic group relations. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relationships (pp. 307-348). London: Academic Press. Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Commu­ nication, contexts, and consequences. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., & Evans, A. (1986). The power approach to intergroup hostility.journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 469-485. Giles, H., & Hewstone, M. (1982). Cognitive structures, speech, and social situa­ tions: Two integrative models. Language Sciences, 4, 187-219. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199-242). Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1986). Perceived threat, ethnic commitment and interethnic language behavior. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: Current research (pp. 91-116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psycho­ logical approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Soci­ ology of Language, 68, 69-99. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation: The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication year­ book 10 (pp. 13-48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Giles, H., & Robinson, W. P. (2001). The new handbook of language and social psychology. New York:Wiley. Gilroy, P. (1995). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. Cam­ bridge, MA: Harvard. Gilyard, J. (1996). Let's flip the script: An African American discourse on lan­ guage, literature, and learning. Detroit: Wayne State University. Gluck, S., & Patai, D. (1991). Women's words: The feminist practice of oral his­ tory. New York: Routledge.

REFERENCES • 275

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goldberg, D. T. (1990). Racism and rationality: The need for a new critique.Phi­ losophy of the Social Sciences, 20, 317-350. Goldstein, J. (1999). Kinship networks that cross racial lines: The exception or the rule? Demography, 36(3), 399-407. Golish, T. D., & Caughlin, J. (in press). I'd rather not talk about it: Adolescents' and young adults' use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies.journal of Applied Communication Research. Gordon, C. (1968). Self-conceptions: Configurations of content. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social inter action (pp. 115-136). New York: Wiley. Gordon, L. (1986). College student stereotypes of Blacks and Jews on two campuses: Four studies spanning 50 years. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 200-201. Gordon, M. J. (2000). Phonological correlates of ethnic identity: Evidence or di­ vergence. American Speech, 75(2), 115-136. Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York, Norton. Graham, L. O. (2000). Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class. New York: Harper. Grant, K., O'Koon, J., Davis, T, & Roache, N. (2000). Protective factors affecting low-income urban African American youth exposed to stress. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(4), 388-417. Gray, H. (1989). Television, Black Americans, and the American dream. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 376-386. Gray-Little, B. (1982). Marital quality and power processes among Black couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 633-646. Greenwald, A. G., Bellezza, F. S., & Banaji, M. R. (1988). Is self-esteem a central in­ gredient of self-concept? Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 14,34-45. Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. (1988). The influence of social identity and inti­ macy of interethnic relationships on uncertainty reduction processes. Human Communication Research, 14, 569-601. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y .Y. (1997). Communicating with Strangers. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Gudykunst, W B., & Lee, C. (2001). An agenda for studying ethnicity and family communication. Family Communication, 1(1), 75-85. Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the com­ munication of identity. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 1-21). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gutman, H. (1976). The Black family in slavery and freedom: 1750-1925. New York: Random House. Guttentag, N. (1982). Negro-White differences in children's movement. Percep­ tual and Motor Skills, 35, 435-436. Gyant, L., & Atwater, D. F. (1996). Septima Clark's rhetorical and ethnic legacy: Her message of citizenship in the civil rights movement. Journal of Black Studies, 26, 577-592. Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal. New York: Ballantine Books. Halberstadt, A. G. (1985). Race, socioeconomic status, and nonverbal behavior. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 227-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

276 • REFERENCES

Hall, A. G. (2001). Soul talk: The new spirituality of African American women. New York: Inner Traditions International. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying prac­ tices (Culture, Media and Identities). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hamlet, J. (1998). Understanding African American oratory: Manifestations of nommo. In J. Hamlet (Ed.), Afrocentric visions: Studies in culture and com­ munication (89-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hammer, M. R. (1989). Intercultural communication competence. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.),Handbook of international and intercultural com­ munication (pp. 247-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hammer, M. R., & Gudykunst, W B. (1987a). The effect of ethnicity, gender, and dyadic composition on uncertainty reduction in initial interaction.journal of Black Studies, 18, 191-214. Hammer, M. R., & Gudykunst,W.B. (1987b). The influence of ethnicity and sex on social penetration in close friendships.journal of Black Studies, 17,418-437. Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of inter­ cultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Inter­ cultural Relations, 2, 382-393. Hannerz, U. (l969).Soulside: Inquiries into ghetto culture and community. New York: Columbia University Press. Hansell, M., & Ajirotutu, C. S. (1982). Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 85-94). New York: Cambridge University Press. Harding, S. (1987). (Ed.). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Harding, V (1975). The Black wedge in America: Struggle, crisis, and hope, 1955-1975. Black Scholar, 7, 28-46. Hare, N. (1991). The Black Anglo-Saxons. Chicago: Third World Press. Hare, N., & Hare, J. (1985). Bringing the Black boy to manhood. San Francisco: The Black Think Tank. Harre, R. (1989). Language games and texts of identity. In J. Shotter & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 20-35). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Harrell, J. P (1979). Analyzing Black coping styles: A supplemental diagnostic sys­ tem.Journal of Black Psychology, 5, 99-108. Harris, F. R., & Curtis, L. A. (1998). The millennium breach: The American di­ lemma, richer and poorer. Washington, DC: Eisenhower Foundation. Harris, S. (1995). Psychosocial development and Black male masculinity: Implica­ tions for counseling economically disadvantaged African American male ado­ lescents. Journal of Counseling &Development, 73, 279-287. Harris, T. (1999). Interrogating the representation of African American female identity in the films "Waiting to Exhale" and "Set It Off." Popular Culture Re­ view, 10(2), 43-53Harris, T. (2000). Bringing ethnicity, class, gender and age from margins to the center. Communication Theory, 10(2), 251-257. Harris, T, & Kalbfleisch, P. (2000). Interracial dating: The implications of race within romantic relationships. Howard Journal of Communications, 11, 49-64. Harris, T, & Donmoyer, D. (2000). Is art imitating life?: The construction of gen­ der and racial identity in "Imitation of Life." Women's Studies in Communica­ tion, 23(1), 91-110.

REFERENCES • 277

Harter, L., & Duncan,V (1998). Romantic diversity: Exploring gender, race, com­ munication competence and interpersonal solidarity in intimate relationships. In V Duncan (Ed.), Towards achieving Maat: Communication patterns in Af­ rican American, European American, and interracial relationships, (pp. 61-78). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Harter, S. (1999). Theconstructionof the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford. Hartsock, N. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specif­ ically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.), Dis­ covering reality (pp. 283-310). Boston: D. Reidel. Hasian, M., & Carlson, C. (2000). Revisionism and collective memory: The struggle for memory in the Amistad affair. Communication Monographs, 67(1), 42-62. Haskins, E. W (1984). Black: Defiance, sensationalism and disaster. Et. Cetera, 41, 398-401. Hatchett, S., & Schuman, H. (1975). White respondents and race-of-interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 523-528. Headland, T, Pike, K., & Harris, M. (1990). Ernies and etics: The insider/outsider debate. Vol. 7. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hecht, M. L. (1978). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Quarterly Journal of 'Speech', 64, 47-62. Hecht, M. L. (1984). Satisfying communication and relationship labels: Intimacy and length of relationship as perceptual frames of naturalistic conversations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 201-216. Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002:A research odyssey toward the development of a com­ munication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76-82. Hecht, M. L., Andersen, P. A., & Ribeau, S. A. (1989). The cultural dimensions of nonverbal communication. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Hand­ book of international and intercultural communication (pp. 163-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hecht, M. L., & Baldwin, J. R. (1998). Layers and holograms: A new look at preju­ dice. In M. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating Prejudice (pp. 57-86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hecht, M., & Faulkner, S. (2000). Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closet­ ing of Jewish American identity. Communication Studies, 51(4), 372-387. Hecht, M. L., Faulkner, S. L., Meyer, C., Niles, T. A., Golden, D., & Cutler, M. (in press). Jewish American identity: A communication theory of identity analysis of the television series "Northern Exposure." Journal of Communication. Hecht, M.Jackson, R. L., Lindsley, S., Strauss, S., &Johnson, K. (2001). Language and ethnicity: Layering identities as frames. In H. Giles & W. P Robinson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 429-450). New York: Wiley. Hecht, M. L., Larkey, L. K., Johnson, J. N. (1992). African American and European American perceptions of problematic issues in interethnic communication ef­ fectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19, 209-236. Hecht, M. L., Larkey, L. K., JohnsonJ. N., & ReinardJ. C. (1991, May). A model of interethnic effectiveness. Paper presented to the International Communica­ tion Association Convention, Chicago. Hecht, M. L., Marsiglia, F. F., Elek-Fisk, E., Graham, J. W, Miller-Day M., & Kulis, S. (2000, June). Preliminary evaluation of the Drug Resistance Strategies project:

278 • REFERENCES

A test of cultural appropriateness in program content. In Eighth Annual Meet­ ing of the Society for Prevention Research, Montreal, Canada. Unpublished manuscript. Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1984). Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communication. International Journal of Intercultural Rela­ tions, 8, 135-151. Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1987). Afro-American identity labels and communica­ tive effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 319-326. Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1991). Sociocultural roots of ethnic identity:A look at Black America. Journal of Black Studies, 21, 501-513. Hecht, M. L., Ribeau, S., & Alberts, J. K. (1989). An Afro-American perspective on interethnic communication. Communication Monographs, 56, 385-410. Hecht, M. L., Ribeau, S., & Sedano, M. V (1990). A Mexican American perspective on interethnic communication. International Journal of Intercultural Rela­ tions, 14, 31-55. Helms, J. E. (1990). An overview of Black racial identity theory. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 9-32). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hendrix, K. (1998a). Student perceptions of the influence of race on professor credibility. Journal of Black Studies, 28, 738-763. Hendrix, K (1998b). Black and White male professor perceptions of the influence of race on classroom dynamics and credibility.journal of Negro Education, 49,1-2. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Herskovits, M. (1941). The myth of the Negro past. Boston: Beacon. Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia longitudinal study of di­ vorce and remarriage with a focus on early adolescence:.Journal of Family Psy­ chology, 7, 39-56. Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Family functioning and the adjustment of adolescent siblings in diverse types of families. In E. M. Hetherington, S. H. Henderson, & D. Reiss (Eds.), Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioning and ad­ olescent adjustment. Monographs of the society for research in child develop­ ment, 64, 1-25. Hewes, D. E., & Planalp, S. (1987). The individuals' place in communication sci­ ence. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication sci­ ence (pp. 146-183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hewitt, R. (1986). White talk Black talk: Inter-racialfriendship and communica­ tion amongst adolescents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup per­ spective on the "contact hypothesis." In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Con­ tact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). London: Basil Blackwell. Hill, R. B. (1989). Critical issues for Black families by the year 2000. In J. Dewart (Ed.), The state of Black America: 1989 (pp. 41-61). New York: National Urban League. Hill, S., & Sprague, J. (1999). Parenting in Black and White Families: The interac­ tion of gender with race and class. Gender and Society, 13, 480-502. Hill, S. A. (2001). Class, race, and gender dimensions of child-rearing in African American families. Journal of Black Studies, 31(4), 494-508.

REFERENCES • 279

Hill, S. T. (1984). The traditionally Black institutions of higher education, 1960 to 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Hoelter, J. W (1985). The structure of self-conception: Conceptualization and measurement.journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,1392-1407. Hoffman, J. E. (1985). Arabs and Jews, Blacks and Whites: Identity and group rela­ tions.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 271-237. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Holder, J., & Vaux, A. (1998). African American professionals: Coping with occu­ pational stress in predominantly White work environments.Journal of Voca­ tional Behavior, 53, 315-3 3 3. Hollingsworth, L. (1999). Symbolic interactionism, African American families and the transracial adoption controversy. Social Work, 44(5), 443-453. Holloway, J. (199O). Africanisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Honeycutt, J., Knapp, M. L., & Powers, W. (1983). On knowing others and predict­ ing what they say. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 157-174. hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage: Ending racism. New York: Henry Holt Co. hooks, b. (2000). All about love: New visions. New York: HarperCollins. Hoover, M. R. (1978). Community attitudes toward Black English.Language in Society, 7, 65-87. Hopson, D. P., & Hopson, D. S. (1992). Different and wonderful: Raising Black children in a race-conscious society. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hopson, D. S., & Hopson, D. P (1999). Thepower of the soul: Pathways topsycho­ logical and spiritual growth for African Americans. New York: William Mor­ row & Co. Horowitz, D. (1975). Ethnic identity. In N. Glazer & D. Moynihan (Eds.), Ethnicity: Theory and experience (pp. 111-140). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Horton, J. (1976). Time and cool people. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Interculturalcommunication: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 274-288). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Horwitz, A., & Reinhard, S. (1995). Ethnic differences in caregiving duties and burdens among parents and siblings of persons with severe mental illnesses. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 138-150. Houston, M. (1997). When Black women talk with White women: Why dialogues are difficult. In A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, & V Chen (Eds.), Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity and communication (2nd ed., pp. 187-194). Los An­ geles, Roxbury. Houston, M. (2000a). Multiple perspectives: African American women conceive their talk. Women and Language, 23, 11-17. Houston, M. (2000b). When Black women talk with White women: Why the dia­ logues are difficult. In A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, & V Chen (Eds.), OurVoices: Essays in culture, ethnicity and communication. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Hudson, J. B., & Hines-Hudson, B. M. (1999). A study of the contemporary racial attitudes of Whites and African Americans.Western Journal of Black Studies, 23(1), 22-34. Hughes, M., & Demo, D. H. (1989). Self-perception of Black Americans: Selfesteem and personal efficacy. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 132-159Hunter, A. (1997). Counting on grandmothers: Black mothers' and fathers' reli­ ance on grandmothers for parenting support. Journal of Family Issues, 18(3), 251-269.

280 • REFERENCES

Hunter, A., & Davis, J. (1994). Hidden voices of Black men: The meaning, struc­ ture and complexity of manhood. Journal of Black Studies, 25(1), 20-40. Hutchinson, E. O. (2000). My gay problem, your Black problem. In D. Constantine-Simms (Ed.), The greatest taboo: Homosexuality in Black com­ munities. Los Angeles: Alyson books. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ickes, W. (1984). Composition in Black and White: Determinants of interaction in interracial dyads.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,1206-1217. Imahori, T. T., & Lanigan, M. L. (1989). Relational model of intercultural commu­ nication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 269-286. Isaacs, H. R. (1975). Idols of the tribe: Group identity and political change. New York: Harper & Row. Isajiw, W. W. (1974). Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1, 111-124. Jackson, J. S., & Gurin, G. (1989). National survey of Black Americans, 1978-1980. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research. Jackson, R. L. (1995). Toward an Afrocentric methodology for the critical assess­ ment of rhetoric. In L. A. Niles (Ed.), African American rhetoric: A reader (pp. 148-57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Jackson, R. L. (1997). Black manhood as xenophobe: An ontological exploration of the hegelian dialectic. Journal of Black Studies, 27(6), 731-750. Jackson, R. L. (1999a). The Negotiation of CulturalIdentity. Westport, CT Praeger. Jackson, R. L. (1999b). White space, White privilege: Mapping discursive inquiry into the self. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 55(1), 1-17. Jackson, R. L. (1999c). Mommy, there's a nigger at the door: Personal narratives, an­ ecdotes and episodes of race.Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(1), 4-7. Jackson, R. L . (2000a). So real illusions of Black intellectualism: Exploring race, roles, and gender in the academy. Communication Theory, .70(1), 48-63Jackson, R. L. (2000b). Africalogical Theory Building: Positioning the Discourse. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 22, 31-41. Jackson, R. L. (2002). Exploring African American identity negotiation in the acad­ emy: Toward a transformative vision of African American communication scholarship. Howard Journal of Communication, 12(4), 43—57. Jackson, R. L. (in press). Cultural contracts theory: Toward an identity negotiation paradigm. In P Sullivan & D. Goldzwig (Eds.), Communities, creations, and contradictions: New approaches to rhetoricfor the twenty-first century. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Jackson, R. L., & Dangerfield, C. (2002). Defining Black masculinity as cultural property: An identity negotiation paradigm. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jackson, R. L., & Garner, T. (1998). Tracing the evolution of race, ethnicity, and culture in communication studies. Howard Journal of Communication, 9(1), 47-56. Jackson, R. L., Morrison, C. D., & Dangerfield, C. (2002). Exploring cultural con­ tracts in the classroom and curriculum: Implications of identity negotiation and

REFERENCES • 281

effects in communication curricula. In J. Trent (Ed.), Promoting the Success of Students of Color in Communication (pp. 123-136). Washington, DC: National Communication Association & American Association of Higher Education. Jackson, R. L, Shin, C. I., & Wilson, K. B. (2000). The meaning of Whiteness: Criti­ cal implications of communicating and negotiating race. World Communica­ tion, 29(1), 69-86. Jacob, J. E. (1989). BlackAmerica, 1988: An overview. InJ. Dewart (Ed.), The state of Black America: 1989 (pp. 1-7). New York: National Urban League. Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. (191G). Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press. Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. Jambunathan, S., Burts, D., & Pierce, S. (2000). Comparisons of parenting atti­ tudes among five ethnic groups in the United States.Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31(4), 395-406. Jaynes, G. D., & Williams, R. M.Jr. (Eds.). (1989). A common destiny.• Blacks and American society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Jeffres, L. (2000). Ethnicity and ethnic media use. Communication Research, 27(4), 496-535. Jenkins, A. H. (1982). The psychology of the Afro-American: A humanistic ap­ proach. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Jenkins, A. H. (1990). Dynamics of the relationship in clinical work with AfricanAmerican clients. Group, 14, 36-43. Jewell, K. S. (1985). Will the real Black, Afro-American, Mixed, Colored, Negro, please stand up? Impact of the Black social movement twenty years later.Jour­ nal of Black Studies, 16, 57-75. Johnson, F. L., & Buttny, R. (1982). White listeners' responses to "sounding Black" and "sounding White": The effects of message content on judgements about language. Communication Monographs, 49, 33-49. Johnson, K. (1971). Black kinesics: Some nonverbal communication patterns in Black culture. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.),Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 181-189). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jones, K. W (2001). "I've called 'em tom-ah-toes all my life and I'm not going to change: Maintaining linguistic control over English in the U. S. Social Forces, 79(3), 1061-1094. Jones, R. L. (Ed.). (1980). Blackpsychology (2nded.). New York: Harper & Row. Kane, C. (2000). African American family dynamics as perceived by family mem­ bers. Journal of Black Studies, 30(5), 691-702. Karenga, M. (1993). Introduction to Black studies. Los Angeles: University of Sankore Press. Kase, L. (July, 2001). Talking to kids about race. Parents, 101-109Kashima, Y (1995). Introduction to the special section on culture and self. Jour­ nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 603-605. Kato, S. (2000). Coats of many colors: Serving the multiracial child and adoles­ cent. Journal of Family and Consumer Services, 92(5), 37-40. Katriel, T. (1987). Rhetoric in flames: Fire inscriptions in Israeli youth movement ceremonials. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 444—459. Katriel, T, & Philipsen, B. (1981). "What we need is communication": "Communi­ cation" as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 301-317.

282 • REFERENCES

Katz, A. (1999). Keepin' it real: Personalizing school experiences for diverse learn­ ers to create harmony and minimize interethnic conflict. TheJournal of Negro Education, 68(4), 496-510. Kealey, D. J. (1989). A study of cross cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practi­ cal applications. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 13,387-428. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 71, 359-372. Kennamer, J., Honnold, J., Bradford, J., & Hendricks, M. (2000). Differences in disclosure of sexuality among African American and White gay/bisexual men: Implications for HIV/AIDS prevention. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12 (6), 519-531. Kershaw, T. (1998). Afrocentrism and the Afrocentric Method. In J. Hamlet (Ed.), Afrocentric Visions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Khan, C., & Houston, W (1998). I'm every woman. ChakaKhan. [CD]. New York: Warner Brothers. Kim, Y Y (1986). Introduction: A communication approach to interethnic rela­ tions. In Y Y Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: Current research (pp. 9-18). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. King, D. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness. In M. Malson, E. Mudimbe-Boyi, J. O'Barr, & M. Wyer (Eds.), Black women in America (pp. 265-296). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. King, N. (2000). Memory, narrative, identity: Remembering the self. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. King, N. G., & James, M. J. (1983). The relevance of Black English to intercultural communication. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Western Speech Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM. Kitayama, D., & Burnstein, E. (1988). Automaticity in conversations: A reexamina­ tion of the mindless hypothesis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 219-224. Klag, M. (1991). Association of skin color with racism. Journalof American Medi­ cal Association, 265, 499-503. Knapp, M. L., Ellis, D. G., & Williams, B. A. (1980). Perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Communication Monographs, 47, 157-174. Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kochman, T. (1990). Force fields in Black and White communication. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 193-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown. Kposowa, A. (1998). The impact of race on divorce in the UnitedStates.Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29, 529-548. Kramer, L., & Baron, L. (1995). Intergenerational linkages: How experiences with siblings relate to the parenting of siblings.Journal of Social and Personal Rela­ tionships, 12(1), 67-87. Krizek, R. L, & Stempien, D. R. (1990). Networks and practiced culture: The maintenance of symbolic ethnicity among the Phoenix Irish. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Dublin, Ireland. Kuhn, M. H. (I960). Self-attitudes by age, sex, and professional training. Sociolog­ ical Quarterly, 1, 39-55.

REFERENCES • 283

Kunjufu, J. (1985). Developing positive self-imaging and discipline in Black chil­ dren. Chicago: African American Images. Kunjufu, J. (1989). To be popular or smart'. Chicago: African American Images. Kurdeck, L. (1996). The deterioration of relationship quality for gay and lesbian cohabitating couples: Afiveyear prospective longitudinal study. PersonalRela­ tionships, 3(4), 417-440. Labov, W. P. (1982). Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society, 11, 165-201. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during con­ versations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547-552. Lampe, E E. (1982). Ethnic labels: Naming or name calling? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 5, 542-548. Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In J. J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 36-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lanigan, R. L. (1979). The phenomenology of human communication. Philoso­ phy Today, 23(1), 3-15. Larkey, L. K., & Hecht, M. L. (1991). A comparative study of African American and Euroamerican ethnic identity. Paper presented at the International Con­ ference for Language and Social Psychology, Santa Barbara, CA. Larkey, L. K., Hecht, M. L., & Martin, J. N. (1991, November). What's in a name: Expressions of African American ethnic identity. Paper presented at the West­ ern States Communication Mini-Conference, Annenberg School of Communi­ cation, Los Angeles. Larkey, L. K., Hecht, M. L., & Martin, J. N. (1993). What's in a name?African Ameri­ can ethnic identity terms and self-determination. Journal of Language and So­ cial Psychology, 12(4), 302-317. Lavender, A. D. (1989). United States ethnic groups in 1790: Given names as suggestions of ethnic identity.Journal of American Ethnic History, 9,36-66. Lawson, E., & Thompson, A. (1999). Black men anddivorce. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lemann, N. (1991). The promised land: The great Black migration and how it changed America. New York: Knopf. Lessing, E. E., Clarke, C. C., & Gray-Shellberg, L. G. (1981). Black power ideology: Rhetoric and reality in a student sample. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 71-94. LesterJ. (1991). Black folktales. New York: Grove. Leung, K., & Iwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 35-49. Levine, L. (1977). Black culture and Black consciousness: Afro-American folk thought from slavery to freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lian, K. F. (1982). Identity in minority group relations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 5, 42-52. Liben, L., & Signorella, M. (1987). Children's gender schemata. London: Jossey-Bass. Lichter, D., McLaughlin, D., & Ribar, D. (1997). Welfare and the rise of femaleheaded families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 112-143. Lincoln, C. E. (1984). Race, religion and the continuing American dilemma. New York: Hill & Wang.

284 • REFERENCES

Lindsley, S. (1998). Communicating prejudice in organizations. In M. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating Prejudice (pp. 187-205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lindsley, S. L. (1999)- A layered model of problematic communication in U.S. owned maquiladoras in Mexico.Communication Monographs, 66,145-167. Littlefield, R. P. (1974). Self-disclosure among Negro, White, and Mexican-American adolescents.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 133-136. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press. Lustig, M., & Koester, J. (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal commu­ nication across cultures (2nd ed). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Lustig, M. W, & Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). Methodological issues in the study of intercultural communication competence. In R. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence (pp. 153-167). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. MacLaury, S., & Hecht, M. L. (1994). Interethnic relationships across the life span. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), The encyclopedia of adult development. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Madhubuti,H. R. (1991).Blackmen: Obsolete, single, dangerous?:AfrikanAmerican families in transition: Essays in discovery, solution, and hope. Chicago: Third World Press. Major, C. (1994).Juba tojive: A dictionary of African American slang. New York: Penguin. Majors, R., & Billson, J. (1993). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America. New York: Simon & Schuster. Marcelle, Y (1976). Eye contact as a function of race, sex, and distance. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4238A. Marin, G. (1989). AIDS prevention among Hispanics: Needs, risk behaviors, and cultural values. Public Health Reports, 104, 411-415. Marin, G., & VanOss-Marin, B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Markus, H., & Sentis, K. (1982). The self in information processing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 41-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., & Hecht, M. L. (2001). Ethnic labels and ethnic identity as predictors of drug exposure and use among middle school students in the southwest. The Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 21-48. Martin, J. N. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication com­ petence: Everyday communicators' perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 303-332. Martin, J. N. (1994). Intercultural communication competence. In R. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), International and intercultural communication annual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martin, J. N., & Butler, R. (2001). Towards an ethic of intercultural communica­ tion research. In V Milhouse, M. Asante, & R Nwosu (Eds.), Transcultural reali­ ties: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural com­ munication competence: Everyday communicators' perceptions. Interna­ tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 303-332.

REFERENCES • 285

Martin, J. M., Hecht, M. L., & Larkey, L. K. (1994). Communication improvement strategies for inter-ethnic communication: African American and Euroamerican perspectives. Communication Monographs, 61, 236-255. Martin, J., Moore, S., Hecht, M., & Larkey, L. (2001). An African American perspec­ tive on conversational improvement strategies. Howard Journal of Communi­ cations, 12(1), 1-27. MartinJ. N., Krizek, R., Nakayama, T., & Bradford, L. (1999). What do White peo­ ple want to be called?: A study of self-labels for White Americans. In T. Nakayama & J. Martin (Eds.), Whiteness: The communication of social iden­ tity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory, 9(1), 1-25. Martineau, W H. (1976). Social participation and a sense of powerlessness among Blacks: A neighborhood analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 17, 27-41. Massey, D. (2001). Residential segregation and neighborhood conditions in U.S. metropolitan areas. In N. Smelser, W Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America be­ coming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. 1, pp. 21-39). Washing­ ton, DC: National Academy Press. Mays, V, Chatters, L., Cochran, S., & Mackness, J. (1998). African American fami­ lies in diversity: Gay men and lesbians as participants in family networks Jour­ nal of Comparative Family Studies, 29(1), 73-87. McAdoo, H. R (1988). Black families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McAdoo, H. P (1996). Transgenerational patterns of upward mobility in African-American families. In H. P McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (3rd ed., pp. 148-168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo, H. P (1999). Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo, J. L. (1985). Modification of racial attitudes and preferences in young Black children. In H. P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: So­ cial educational and prenatal environments (pp. 243-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo, J. L., & McAdoo, J. B. (1993). The African American fathers' roles within the family. In R. Majors & J. Gordon (Eds.), The American Black male. (485-494). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interaction (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press. McLoyd, V, Cauce, A., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and pa­ rental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1070-1093. Mclaughlin, M., & Cody, M. J. (1982). Awkward silences: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of the conversational lapse. Human Communication Re­ search, 8, 229-316. McLaughlin, M., Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Com­ munication Research, 9, 208-224. McPhail, M. (1994). The rhetoric of racism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. McPhail, M. (1998). From complicity to coherence: Rereading the rhetoric of Afrocentricity. Western Journal of Communication, 62(2), 114-140. McPhail, M. L. (1996). Zen in the art of rhetoric. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

286 • REFERENCES

McRae, R. (2001). What is hip? And other inquiries in jazz slang lexicography. Notes, 57(3), 574-584. McWhorter,J. (2000). Losing the race: Self-sabotage in Black America. New York: Free Press. Mead, G. H. (1934).Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Means-Coleman, R. (2000). African American viewers and the Black situation comedy: Situating racial humor (2nd ed.). New York: Garland. Michaels, E. (1982, May). Race and ethnicity. Confused variables in survey re­ search. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Con­ vention, Boston. Middleton, D., & Edwards, D. (1990). Collective remembering. London: Sage. Milhouse, V, Asante, M., & Nwosu, P (2001). Transcultural realities: Interdisci­ plinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Miller, D. (1999). Racial socialization and racial identity: Can they promote resil­ iency for African American adolescents? Adolescence, 34(135), 493-501. Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people. Chicago: SRA. Miller, M., Alberts, J., Hecht, M., Trost, M., & Krizek, R. (2000). Adolescent Rela­ tionships and Drug Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mills J., Daly, J., Longmore, A.,& Kilbride, G. (1995). Anote on family acceptance involving interracial friendships and romantic relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 129(3), 349. Mincy R. B. (1989) Paradoxes in Black economic progress: Incomes, families, and the underclass. Journal of Negro Education, 58, 255-269. Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1971). Language behavior in a Black urban community (Working Paper No. 23). Berkeley: University of California Language Behavior Research Laboratory. Montgomery, B. M. (1984). Individual differences and relational interdepen­ dence in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 11, 33-60. Montgomery, B. M. (1992). Communication as the interface between couples and culture. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15 (pp. 475-507). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Montgomery, M., & Mishoe, M. (1999). He bees took up with a yankee girl and moved up there to New York: The verb bees in the Carolinas and its history. American Speech, 74(3), 240-281. Moon, D. G., & Rolison, G. L. (1998). Communication of classism. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 122-135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moore, D. (1998). The frame of discourse: Sexuality, power and the incitement of race. Philosophy Today, 42(1), 95-107. Morgan, M. (1994). Theories and politics in African American English.Annual Re­ view of Anthropology, 23, 325-345. Morris, G. H. (1985). The remedial episode as a negotiation of rules. In R. L. Street, Jr., & J. N. Capella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative be­ haviour (pp. 70-84). London: Edward Arnold. Moseley-Howard, S., & Evans, C. (2000). Relationships and contemporary experi­ ences of the African American family: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Black Studies, 30(3), 428-452. Moses, W (1994). Black messiahs and Uncle Toms. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Musgrove, F. (1977). Margins of the mind. London: Methuen.

REFERENCES • 287

Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). Code-switching. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 217-237). Oxford: Blackwell. Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern de­ mocracy (2 vols.). New York: Harper & Bros. Nakayama, T. K., & Penaloza, L. N. (1994). Madonna traces: Music videos through the prism of color. In C. Schwichtenberg (Ed.), The Madonna connection: Rep­ resentational politics, subculture identities, and cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview. Natale, M. (1975). Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic communication as a function of social desirability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol­ ogy, 32, 790-804. National Center for Health Statistics (2001). America's children: Key national in­ dicators of well-being, 2001. Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. National Opinion Research Center. (1991). Survey of social attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research. National Opinion Research Center. (2000). General social survey. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago and NORC. Naylor, G. (1988). The women of Brewster Place. New York: Viking. Nero, C. (2000). "Fixing" ceremonies: An introduction. In E. Hemphill (Ed.), Cer­ emonies, (pp. xi-xxii). San Francisco: Cleis Press. Neuliep, J. W, & Grohskopf, E. L. (2000). Uncertainty reduction and communica­ tion satisfaction during initial interaction: An initial test and replication of a new axiom. Communication Reports, 13(2), 67-77. Nicotera, A. M. (1997). The mate relationship: Cross-cultural applications of a rules theory. New York: State University of New York Press. Nobles, W W (1979). Mental health support systems in Blackfamilies. Washing­ ton, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Obidinsky E. (1978). Methodological considerations in the definition of ethnicity Ethnicity, 5, 213-228. Oggins, J., Veroff, J., & Leber, D. (1993). Perceptions of marital interaction among White and Blacknewlyweds.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 65, 495-511. Olebe, M., & Koester, J. (1989). Exploring the cross-cultural equivalence of the be­ havioral assessment scale for intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 333-348. Olivas, M. A. (1989). An elite priesthood of White males dominates the central ar­ eas of civil-rights scholarship. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. Bl-2. Olson, D., Cubbin, H., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1982). Families: What makes them work. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ondis, G., America, H., Gibson-Cline, J., Dragoon, M., & Jones, C. (1996). Conti­ nental United States. InJ. Gibson-Cline (Ed.), Adolescence from crisis to cop­ ing: A thirteen nation study. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann. Ongiri, A. (1997). We are family: Black nationalism, Black masculinity, and the Black gay cultural imagination. College Literature, 24(1), 280-294. Onwumechili, C., Nwosu, P, Jackson, R. L., & James-Hughes, J. (in press). In the deep valley with mountains to climb: Exploring multiple reacculturation. In­ ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations.

288 • REFERENCES

Orbe, M. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power and communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Orbe, M. (1999). Communicating about "race" in interracial families. In T. Socha & R. Diggs (Eds.), Communication, race and family: Exploring communica­ tion in Black, White and biracialfamilies, (pp. 167-180). Mahwah, NJ: Law­ rence Erlbaum Associates. Orbe, M., & Harris, T. (2000). Interracial communication: Theory into practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Orbuck, T., Veroff, J., & Hunter, A. (1999). Black couples, White couples: The early years of marriage. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp. 23-43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Otto, L. B., & Featherman, D. L. (1975). Social stratification and psychological an­ tecedents of self-estrangement and powerlessness. American Sociological Re­ view, 40, 701-719. Oyserman, D., & Harrison, K. (1998). Implications of cultural context: African American identity and possible selves. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Preju­ dice: The target's perspective. New York: Academic Press. Padgett, D. (1997). The contribution of support networks to household labor in African American families. Journal of Family Issues, 18(3), 227-250. Padilla, A. M., Ruiz, R. A., & Alvarez, R. (1983). Community mental health services for the Spanish speaking/surnamed population. In D. R. Atkinson, G. Morton, & D. W Sue (Eds.), Counseling American minorities (2nd ed., pp. 181-203). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Parham, T, White, J., & Ajamu, A. (1999). The psychology of Blacks: An African centered perspective. New York: Prentice-Hall. Parker, P S. (2002). African American women executives' leadership communica­ tion within dominant culture organizations: (Re)Conceptualizing notions of collaboration and instrumentality. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 42-82. Parks, M. R. (1985). Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal competence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 171-204). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Paster, V (1994). The psychosocial development and coping of Black male ado­ lescents: Clinical implications. In R. Majors & J. Gordon (Eds.), The American Black male: His present status and his future. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Pub­ lishers. Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: Afunctionalperspective. New York: Springer. Patterson, M. L. (1987). Presentational and affect-management functions of non­ verbal involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 110—122. Patton, S. (2000). Birthmarks: Transracial adoption in contemporary America. New York: New York University Press. Pavitt, C., & Haight, L. (1985). The "competent communicator" as a cognitive pro­ totype. Human Communication Research, 12, 225-242. Pearce, W B. (1989). Communication and human condition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Pearce, W B., & Cronen, B. (1980). Communication, action and meaning. New York: Praeger.

REFERENCES • 289

Pennington, D. L. (1979). Black-White communication. InM. Asante, E. Newmark, &C. Blake (Eds.), Handbook of interculturalcommunication (pp. 383-402). Beverly Hills: Sage. Pennington, D. L. (1993). Culture as symbolic: The challenge of intercultural com­ munication. InJ. Ward (Ed.), African American communications: An anthology in traditional and contemporary studies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Pennington, D. L. (2000). African American women quitting the workplace. New York: Edwin Mellon. Percelay J., EKveck, S., & Ivey M. (1995). Double Snaps. New York: Quill. Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (Eds.). (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language and the education of African American children. New York: Beacon. Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary perspective: A model of managing the disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communica­ tion Theory, 4, 311-332. Petronio, S. (2000). The boundaries of privacy: Praxis of everyday life. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures, (pp. 37-49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pettigrew, T. F. (1981). Race and class in the 1980s: An interactive view. Daedalus, 110, 233-255. Pettigrew, T. F. (1985). New Black-White patterns: How best to conceptualize them? American Sociological Review, 11, 329-346. Phelps, R., Taylor, J., & Gerard, R (2001). Cultural mistrust, ethnic identity, racial identity, and self-esteem among ethnically diverse Black university students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79(2), 209-216. Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking "like a man" in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13-22. Philipsen, G. (1987). The prospect for cultural communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory. Eastern and western perspectives (pp. 245-254). New York: Academic Press. Piestrup, A. M. (1973). Black dialect interference and accommodation of read­ ing instruction in first grade [Monograph]. Berkeley: University of California, Language Behavior Research Laboratory. Pleck, J., Sonenstein, F, & Ku, L. (1994). Problem behaviors and masculinity ideol­ ogy in adolescent males. In R. Ketterlinus & M. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent Prob­ lem Behaviors. Issues and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Plummer, D. (1995). Patterns of racial identity development of African American adolescent males and females. Journal of Black Psychology, 21(2), 168-180. Ransford, H. E., & Miller, J. (1983). Race, sex and feminist outlooks.American So­ ciological Review, 48, 46-58. Rawlins, W E. (1983). Openness as problematic in ongoing friendships: Two con­ versational dilemmas. Communication Monographs, 50, 1-13Rickford, J. (1972). Sounding Black or sounding White: Apreliminary investiga­ tion of afolk hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. Rickford, J. (1993). Phonological features in African American pidgins and Creoles and their diachronic significance. In S. S. Mufwene (Ed.), Africanism in Afro-American language varieties (pp. 346-366). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Rickford, J. (2000). Sociolinguistics and the Public: Digging and being dug in re­ turn. American Speech, 75(3), 273-275.

290 • REFERENCES

Rickford, J., & Rickford, R. (2000). Spoken soul: The story of Black English. New York: Wiley. Rickford, J. R. (1972). Sounding Black or sounding White: Apreliminary investiga­ tion of afolk hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. Roberts, G. (1994). Brother to brother: African American modes of relating among men. Journal of Black Studies, 24(4), 379-390. Roberts, L. (2000). Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as predictors of marital distress.Journal of Marriage and the Fam­ ily, 62, 693-708. Robinson, C. R. (1983). Black women: A tradition of self-reliant strength. Women & Therapy, 2, 135-144. Robinson, P. W (1978). Black quest for identity. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing. Rodney, H., & Mupier, R. (1999). Behavioral differences between African Ameri­ can male adolescents with biological fathers and those without biological fa­ thers in the home. Journal of Black Studies, 30(1), 45-61. Rodriguez, A. (2000). Diversity as liberation (Vol. II): Introducing a new under­ standing of diversity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Romero, A., & Roberts, R. (1998). Perception of discrimination and ethnocultural variables in a diverse group of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21(6), 641-656. Roosens, E. E. (1989). Creating ethnicity: The process of ethnogenesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ros, M., Cano, I., & Huici, C. (1987). Language and intergroup perception in Spain. Language and Social Psychology, 6, 243-259Rosaldo, M. (1974). Women, culture, and society: A theoretical overview. In M. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture and society (pp. 17-42). Stan­ ford, CA: Stanford University Press. Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon. Rose, L. F. R. (1982/1983). Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of Black culture and personality. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 10, 320-338. Rosenberg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self (Reprint ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger. (Original work published 1979) Rota, J. (1990). Notes on theory, concepts and issues in communication and cul­ tural identity. Paper presented at the International Communication Associa­ tion convention, Dublin, Ireland. Ruben, B. D. (1977). Guidelines for cross-cultural communication effectiveness. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 470-479. Ruben, B. D., (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Inter cultural Relations, 13, 229-239. Rubin, R., Martin, M., Bruning, S., & Powers, D. (1993). Test of a self-efficacy model of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Quar­ terly, 41(2), 210-220. Russell, K., Hall, R., & Wilson, M. (1993). The color complex: The politics of skin color among African Americans. New York: Doubleday & Co.

REFERENCES • 291

Ruvolo, A., & Ruvolo, C. (2000). Creating Mr. Right or Ms. Right: Interpersonal ide­ als and personal change in newlyweds. Personal Relationships, 7(4), 341-362. Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y (1990). Language and social identification. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 211-229). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R. Y, Phang, S. W, & D'Eye, J. (1987). Language attitudes and vitality perceptions: Intergenerational effects amongst Chinese Canadian com­ munities.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 287-307. Sacks, P (1996). Generation Xgoes to college: An eye-opening account of teach­ ing in postmodern America. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co. Saenz, D. S., & Lord, C. G. (1989). Reversing roles: A cognitive strategy for undo­ ing memory deficits associated with token status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 698-708. Samp, J. (2000). Relationship and self-driven influences on goal characteristics for problematic events: Components of a cybernetic cycle. Communication Studies, 51(4), 329-351. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The deconstruction of self. In J. Shotter & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 1-19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Samter, W., Whaley, B., Mortenson, S., & Burleson, B. (1997). Ethnicity and emo­ tional support in same-sex friendship: A comparison of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Euro-Americans. Personal Relationships, 4(4), 413-430. Sandefur, G., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J., Mannon, S., & Meier, A. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic demographic trends. In N. Smelser, W. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. 1, pp. 40-102). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sanderson, A., Dugoni, B., Hoffer, X, & Myers, S. (2000). Doctorate recipients from the United States Universities: Summary Report 1999. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Schneider, D. (1976). Notes toward a theory of culture. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 197-220). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Schonbach, E (1980). A category system for account phases. Europeanjournal of Social Psychology, 70, 195-200. Scott, C. R., Gorman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336. Scott, K. (2000a). Crossing cultural borders: "Girl" and "Look" as markers of iden­ tity in Black women's language use. Discourse and Society, 11,2. Scott, K. (2000b). Broadening the view of Black language use: Toward a better un­ derstanding of words and worlds. In A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, & V Chen (Eds.), Our Voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity and communication (3rd ed., pp. 164-170). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Scott, K. (2000c). Developing a framework for cultural competence. In A. Gilliam, K. Scott, P. Carr, & K. Braxton (Eds.), Cultural competence for pro­ viding technical assistance, evaluation and training for HIV prevention programs: A research synthesis. Atlanta, GA: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

292 • REFERENCES

Scotton, C. M. (1983). The negotiation of identities in conversations: A theory of markedness and code choice. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Lan­ guage, 44, 115-136. Seymour, H. N., & Seymour, C. M. (1979). The symbolism of ebonies: I'd rather switch than fight. Journal of Black Studies, 9, 397-410. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shorter, J., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1989). Texts of identity. London: Sage. Shuter, R. (1982). Initial interactions of American Blacks and Whites in interracial and intraracial dyads.Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 45-52. Silverstein, M., & Bengston, V (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the struc­ ture of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Jour­ nal of Sociology, 103(2), 429-460. Simon, R., Alstein, H., &Melli, M. (1993). The casefor transracialadoption. Uni­ versity Publishing Association. Singelis, T, & Sharkey, W (1995). Culture, self-construal and embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 622-644. Slugoski, B. R., & Ginsburg, G. P (1989). Ego identity and explanatory speech. In J. Shorter & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 21-36). London: Sage. Smelser, M. J., Wilson, W J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among Black female dyads: An as­ sessment of intimacy, gender, and race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55-67. Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Smith, D. E., Willis, F. N., & Gier, J. A. (1980). Success and interpersonal touch in a competitive setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 26-34. Smith, E. P, & Brookins, C. (1997). Toward the development of an ethnic identity measure for African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 23(4), 358-377. Smith, R. C. (1982). Black leadership: A survey of theory and research. Washing­ ton, DC: Howard University Institute for Urban Affairs and Research. Smith, S. S., & Moore, M. R. (2000). Intraracial diversity and relations among Afri­ can Americans: Closeness among Black students at a predominantly White uni­ versity. American Journal of Sociology, 106(1), 1-39. Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin' and testifying The language of Black America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Smitherman, G. (1994). Black talk: Words and phrases from the hood to the amen corner. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co. Smitherman, G. (1995). If I'm lyin' I'm flyin'. In J. Percelay, S. Dweck, & M. Ivey (Eds.), Double Snaps. New York: Quill. Smitherman, G. (1997). "The chain remain the same:" Communicative practices in the hip hop nation. Journal of Black Studies, 28(1), 3-25. Smitherman, G. (2000). Black talk: Words and phrases from the hood to the amen corner. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Smitherman-Donaldson, G. (1988). Discriminatory discourse on Afro-American speech. In G. Smitherman-Donaldson & T. A. Dijk, (Eds.), Discourse and dis­ crimination (pp. 144-175). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

REFERENCES • 293

Socha, T. J., & Diggs, R. C. (1999). Communication, race, and family: Exploring communication in Black, White, and biracial families. Mahwah, NJ: Law­ rence Erlbaum Associates. Spellers, R. E. (1998). Happy to be nappy: Embracing an Afrocentric aesthetic for beauty. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in Cul­ tural Contexts, (pp. 70-78). Moutainview, CA: Mayfield. Spellers, R. E. (in press). The kink factor: African American mother/daughter per­ spectives on negotiating Black hair/body politics. In R.Jackson & E. Richardson (Eds.), Understanding African American rhetoric: Classical origins to con­ temporary innovations. Carbondale, 111: Southern Illinois University Press. Spencer, M. (1998). How do neighborhoods enhance or interfere with families' abilities to raise children: Resiliency and fragility factors associated with the contextual experiences of low resource urban African American male youth and families. Unpublished manuscript. Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in the intercultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 241-268. Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of (in)competence.Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158. Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). Communicating interculturally: Becoming competent. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W R. (1984). Interpersonal communication compe­ tence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A component model of relational compe­ tence. Human Communication Research, 10, 575-600. Staiano, K. V (1980). Ethnicity as process: The creation of an Afro-American iden­ tity. Ethnicity, 7, 27-33. Stanbeck, M., & Pearce, W B. (1981). Talking to "the man": Some communication strategies used by subordinants and their implications for intergroup rela­ tions. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67, 21-30. Staples, R. (1971). Towards a sociology of the Black family: A theoretical and methodological assessment Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33,19-138. Staples, R. (1987). The urban plantation: Racism and colonialism in the post civil rights era. Oakland, CA: The Black Scholar Press. Staples, R., & Johnson, L. (1993). Black families at the crossroads. New York: Jossey-Bass. Steinberg, G., &Hall, B. (2000). Inside transracial adoption. New York: Perspec­ tives Press. Stephan, W, & Stephan, C. (1992). Intergroup anxiety. In W. B. Gudykunst &Y.Y Kim (Eds), Readings on communicating with strangers, (pp. 16-29). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Stephenson, G. M. (1981). Intergroup bargaining and negotiation. InJ. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 168-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stern, F. (1991, March). Anti-Semitic and philosemitic discourse in postwar Ger­ many. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, Santa Barbara, CA. Stokes, J.,& Peterson, J. (1998). Homophobia, self-esteem and risk for HIV among African American men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Preven­ tion, 10, 278-292.

294 • REFERENCES

Stolzenberg, R., Blair-Loy, M., & Waite, L. (1995). Religious participation in early adulthood: Age and family life cycle effects on church membership. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 84-103. Stommel, M., Given, C, & Given, B. (1998). Racial differences in the division of labor between primary and secondary caregivers. Research on Aging, 20(2), 199-217. Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1984). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 311-378). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sudarkasa, N. (1980). African and Afro-American family structure: A comparison. Black Scholar, 11, 37-60. Sudarkasa, N. (1988). Interpreting the African heritage in Afro-American family or­ ganization. In H. E McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed., pp. 27-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sue, D. W, & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Swinton, D. (1989). The economic status of Black Americans. InJ. Dewart (Ed.), The state of Black America: 1989 (pp. 9-39). New York: National Urban League. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Informa­ tion, 13, 65-93. Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Dif­ ferentiation between social groups (pp. 27-60). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human categories and social groups. Cambridge, UK: Cam­ bridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York: Basic Books. Taylor, R., Tucker, M., Chatters, L., & Jayakody R. (1997). Recent demographic trends in African American family structure. In R. Taylor, S.Jackson, & L. Chat­ ters (Eds.),Family life in America, (pp. 41-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Teboul, J. C. (1999). Racial/ethnic encounter in the workplace: Uncertainty, information-seeking and learning patterns among racial/ethnic majority and minor­ ity new hires. Howard Journal of Communications, 10(2), 97-122. Terkel, S. (1992). Race: How Blacks and Whites think and feel about the Ameri­ can obsession. New York: New Press. Tienda, M. (1989). Race, ethnicity and the portrait of inequality: Approaching the 1990s. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 23-52. Timmer, S., Veroff, J., & Hatchett, S. (1996). Family ties and marital happiness: The different marital experiences of Black and White newlywed couples.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(3), 335-359. Ting-Toomey S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y Y Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in interculturalcommunication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York Guilford. Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, W, Wright, T, & Oetzel, J. (2000). Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four U.S. ethnic groups. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47-81.

REFERENCES • 295

Triandis, H. C., Hui, C. H., Albert, R. D., Leung, S. M., Lisansky,J., Diaz-Loving, R., Plascencia, L., Marin, G., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Individual models of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1389-1404. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individ­ ualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. London: Basil Blackwell. Turner, R. (1968). The self-conception in social interaction. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 93-106). New York: John Wiley. U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Poverty in the United States: 2000. (USDOC Publica­ tion No. P60-214). Washington, DC: Author. Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Vause, C. J., & Wiemann, J. M. (1981). Communication strategies for role inven­ tion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 241-251. Vontress, C. E. (1973). Counseling: Racial and ethnic factors. Focus on Guidance, 5, 1-10. Wah, L. M. (Producer/Director), & Hunter, M. (Co-Producer). (1994). The color of fear [videorecording]. United States: Stir-Fry Productions. Wah, L. M. (Producer/Director). (1995). The Color of Fear. [Motion picture]. United States: Stirfry Seminars and Consulting. Wallace, L. (200 la, June). Are Black shoppers treated unfairly? An expensive new reason to care, http: www.diversityinc.com/insidearticlepg.cfmPsubmenuID Wallace, L. (2001b, June). More banks protecting the bottom line by testing for ra­ cial bias. Diversitylnc.com. http: www.diversityinc.com/insidearticlepg.cfmPsubmenuID Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Acculturation and adaptation of British residents in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 395-397. Watts, E., & Orbe, M. R (2002). The spectacular consumption of "True" African American culture: "Whassup?!" with the Budweiser Guys? Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 1-20. Watzlawick, P, Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human com­ munication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton. Webb, J. T. (1972). Interview synchrony: An investigation of two speech-rate mea­ sures in the automated standardized interview. In A. W Siegman & B. Pope (Eds), Studies in dyadic communication (pp. 115-133). Oxford: Pergamon. Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961-977. Weber, S. N. (1981). Black power in the 1960s: A study of its impact on women's liberation. Journal of Black Studies, 11, 483-498. Weber, S. N. (1991). The need to be: The sociocultural significance of Black lan­ guage. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),Interculturalcommunication: A reader (6th ed., pp. 277-282). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Webster, P, Orbuch, T, & House, J. (1995). Effects of childhood family back­ ground on adult marital quality and perceived stability. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 404-432.

296 • REFERENCES

Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. New York: Basil Blackwell. Wegar, K. (2000). Adoption, family ideology, and social stigma: Bias in community attitudes, adoption research and practice. Family Relations, 49(1), 363-370. Weisner, T. (1989). Comparing sibling relationships across cultures. In P Zukow (Ed.), Sibling interactionacross cultures (pp. 11-25). New York: Springer-Verlag. West, C. (1993). Keeping faith. New York: Routledge. White, C. L. (1989). Measuring ethnic identity: An application of the Burke-Tully method. Sociological Focus, 22, 249-261. White, C. L., & Burke, PJ. (1987). Ethnic role identity among Black and White college students: An interactionist approach. Sociological Perspectives, 30, 310-331. White, J. (1990). Superwoman. OnKaryn White. [CD]. New York: Warner Brothers. White, J. L., & Farham, T. A. (1990). The psychology of Blacks: An African-American perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis./owrnal of Marriage and the Family, 63(2), 555-568. Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative compe­ tence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213Wilder, D. A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 177-194. Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduc­ tion of intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 213-257). New York: Academic Press. Williams, A. P (1972). Dynamics of a Black audience. In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin' and stylin' out: Communication in urban Black America (pp. 101-106). Ur­ bana: University of Illinois Press. Williams, C. (1987). The destruction of Black civilization: Great issues of a race from 4500 B.C. to 2000 A.D. Chicago: Third World Press. Williams, J. A. (1964) Interviewer-respondent interaction: A study of bias in the information interview. Sociometry, 27, 338-352. Williams, R. (1997, January). Ebonics as a bridge to standard English. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 13(2), B1-B2. Willis, F, Reeves, D., & Buchanan, D. (1976). Interpersonal touch in high school relative to sex and race. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 843-847. Wilson, A. N. (1998). Blueprint for Black power: A moral, political, and eco­ nomic imperative for the twenty-first century. New York: Africa World Press. Wilson, R. (1989). The state of Black higher education: Crisis and promise. In J. Dewart (Ed.), The state of Black America: 1989 (pp. 121-135). New York: Na­ tional Urban League. Wilson, W J. (1978). The declining significance of race: Blacks and changing American institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, WJ. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and publicpolicy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, W J. (1997). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Random House. Winford, D. (2000). Plus Ca Change: The state of studies in African American Eng­ lish. American Speech, 75(4), 409-411. Wiseman, R. L., Hammer, M. R., & Nishida, H. (1989). Predictors of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Rela­ tions, 13, 349-370.

REFERENCES • 297

Wodak, R. (1991). Turning the tables: Anti-Semitic discourse in post-war Austria. Discourse &Society, 2, 65-83. Won-Doornink, M. J. (1985). Self-disclosure and reciprocity in conversation: A cross-national study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 97-107. Wood, J. (1982). Communication and relational culture: Bases for the study of hu­ man relationships. Communication Quarterly, 30, 75-83. Woodson, C. (1969). The Miseducation of the Negro. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers. Woodyard, J. (in press). Africalogical rhetorical theory and criticism: Re-constructing communication constructs. In R. Jackson & E. Richardson (Eds.), Innovations in African American Rhetoric: An orature perspective. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Woodyard, J., Peterson, J., & Stokes, J. (2002). Let us go into the house of the Lord: Participation in African American churches among young African American men who have sex with men. Manuscript for publication. Wright, M. A. (1998). I'm chocolate, you 're vanilla: Raising healthy Black and bi­ racial children in a race-conscious world: A guide for parents and teachers. New York: Jossey Bass. Wright, R. L. (1998). Sociolinguistic and ideological dynamics of the ebonies con­ troversy.Journal of Negro Education, 67(1), 5-15. Wright, R. L., & Hailu, H. F. (1988/1989). Conceptualizing language as ideology. Howard Journal of Communications, 1(4), 174-186. Yancey, A., Aneshensel, C., & Driscoll, A. (2001). The assessment of ethnic identity in a diverse urban youth population. Journal of Black Psychology, 27(2), 190-208. Zatz, M. S. (1987). The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing.Journal of Research in Crime Delinquency, 24, 69-92. Zimmeran, B., & Brody, G. (1975). Race and modeling influences on the interper­ sonal play pattern of boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 591-598.

This page intentionally left blank

AUTHOR INDEX

A A rap on Arizona, 172 Abarry, A., 7, 9, 10, 12, 59, 74, 228 Abe, H., 91, 121 Abrahams, R. D., 159, 164 Acitelli, L., 217 Adler, E, 96 Aiello,;., 162, 176 Ajamu, A., 161, 182 Ajirotutu, C. S., 155 Akbar, N., 183, 185, 208, 213 Akhtar, S., 199, 200 Akinnaso, R, 155 Alba, R., 68 Alberts, J.K., 7, 36, 59, 65, 74, 80, 86, 95, 101, 110, 117, 121, 122, 124, 130, 133, 170, 188, 255 Aleshire, P, 172 Allard, R., 72 Allen, B. J., 74, 103, 139, 154, 206 Allen, M., 124, 130 Alstein, H., 205 Altman, I., 69 Altman, K. E., 52 Alvarez, R., 88 Amato, P. R., 194, 195

America, H., 181 Andersen, P A., 38, 65, 91, 176, 177 Aneshensel, C., 183 Antaki, C., 66, 69, 73 Aronson, J., 56 Asante, M. K., 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 52, 53, 59, 64, 71, 74, 77, 96, 113, 163, 228 Associated Press, 60 Athey, K. R., 257 Atkinson, D. R., 163, 261 Atwater, D., 77 Axelson,J., 228

B Babad, E. Y, 64 Babrow, A. S., 37, 93, 108 Bachman,J. G., 259 Baker-Fletcher, G. K., 217 Baldwin,;. R., 48, 51, 61, 233 Ball, E, 99 Banaji, M. R., 55 Banks,J. A., 83 Banks, S. P., 5, 57, 64, 70 Banks, W. C., 182 299

300 • AUTHOR INDEX

Baraka, I. A., 20 Barnes, H., 199 Barnett, A., 9 Baron, L., 218 Barresi, C. M., 77 Baugh, J., 146, 150, 154, 247 Baxter, J., 176 Baxter, L. A., 52 Beavin, J. H., 54, 232, 236, 243 Beebe, L. M., 72, 97 Bell, K., 212 Bellah, R., 56 Bellezza, F. S., 55 Bengston, V, 193 Benne, K. D., 64 Berger, C. R., 173 Berger, P., 30, 64, 232 Bernal, M. E., 68 Berry, J., 120 Berry, M. F., 77 Billingsley, A., 191 Billson, J., 112, 113, 177, 214 Birnbaum, M., 64 Blackshire-Belay, C. A., 143, 144, 148, 151, 152 Blair-Loy, M., 194 Blake, W, 193, 202 Blank, R., 15, 16, 25 Blassingame, J. W, 77 Bledsoe, K., 196, 214 Block, C. B., 169 BlubaughJ., 162, 176 Bochner, A. P., 121 Bond, M. H., 49, 50 Booth, A., 195 Booth-Butterfield, M., 141, 153, 162 Bourhis, R. Y, 54, 58, 66, 68, 72, 73, 97, 98, 149 Boyd-Franklin, N., 192, 202, 203 Bradac,J.J., 72, 96 Bradford, L., 58, 79, 99, 221 Braithwaite, D. O., 195 Branscombe, N. R., 77, 78 Brewer, M., 50 Briggs, S. R., 64 Brody, G., 176 Brookins, C., 182 Brown, B. B., 69 Brown, R., 71 Bruning, S., 98 Buchanan, C. M., 194 Buchanan, D., 162 Bumpass, L., 24 Burgest, D., 215

Burke, P J., 47, 51, 53, 54, 66, 80, 82 Burleson, B., 212 Burnstein, E., 46, 95 Burts, D., 201 Bush, L., 193, 202 Butler, R., 92 Buttny, R., 149 Byers, E. S., 218

C Calabrese, R.J., 173 Galloway-Thomas, C., 20 Camara, S., 212 Campbell, D. T., 50 Canary, D., 197, 217 Cano, I., 72 Cappella,J. N., 97 Carbaugh, D., 32, 33, 35, 47, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, 253 Carlson, C., 65 Cauce, A., 217, 219 CaughlinJ., 195 Cazenave, N. A., 141 Chathem-Carpenter, A., 188 Chatters, L., 200, 201, 219, 222 Cheek, J. M., 47, 64, 154, 171, 175 Chen, G. M., 91, 96 Cheney, G., 252 Cherlin, A., 196 Chideya, F., 24, 54, 182 Clark, K., 182 Clark, L., 48, 70, 76 Clark, M., 182 Clark, M. L., 141 Clarke, C.C., 123 Clawson, R., 187 Cochran, S., 222 Cody, M.J., 99, 109 Cogdell, R., 169, 176 Coleman, J. E., 257 Coleman, M., 195, 201 Collier, M. J., 4, 5, 34, 35, 36, 37, 57, 58,

59, 64, 66, 69, 91, 97, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 224, 238, 254, 256, 261 Collins, P H., 189, 193, 205, 206, 207, 212, 224, 225, 231 Corner,J.P., 181, 183, 201, 218 Condor, S., 66, 69, 73 Connolly, P., 189, 190 Conquergood, D., 29 Conyers, J., Jr., 9

AUTHOR INDEX • 301

Cook, P., 186 Cooke, B. G., 167, 169 Cook-Gumperz, J., 27 Coppola, C., 172 Gorman, S. R., 252 Cose, E., 18 Cote, J., 62 Coupland, J., 38, 72, 89, 96, 119 Coupland, N., 37, 38, 72, 73, 89, 96, 97, 108, 119, 123, 163 Covin, D., 11, 12 Cox, C., 214 Crewe, J., 65 Crocker,;., 71 Cronbach, L.J., 259 Cronen, B., 37 Cross, S., 55 Cross, W. E., Jr., 26, 48, 56, 67, 70, 74, 76, 77, 173, 187, 200, 254 Crouch, S., 10 Cubbin, H., 199 Cupach, W. R., 36, 91, 92, 93, 96, 101, 121, 197, 217 Curtis, L. A., 13 Cutler, M., 58, 234, 240

Dewart, J., 7 D'Eye, J.,72 Dickens, F., 223 Dickens, J., 223 Dickson, L., 194, 195, 196 Diggs, R. C., 74, 105, 109, 184, 198 DillardJ. L., 142 Diop, C. A., 12, 228 Donmoyer, D., 189 Dorch, E., 176 Dornbusch, S. M., 194 Dougherty, D., 214 Douglas, W, 95 Douvan, E., 217 Dragoon, M., 181 Driscoll, A., 183 Drummond, D., 212 DuBois, W. E. B., 10, 23, 75, 89 Duck, S. W, 232 Dugoni, B., 19 Duncan, B. L., 162, 176 Duncan, V, 74, 105, 107, 109, 213, 214 Dweck, S., 164, 165 Dyson, M., 20, 150, 170, 183

E D Daly,J., 198 Dandy, E., 144, 145, 151, 158 Dangerfield, C., 7, 62, 63, 67, 105, 117, 189, 195, 209, 210, 212, 213 Daniel, J. E., 184, 186 Daniel,J. L., 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 89, 145, 157, 158, 184, 186, 193, 231 Darling, C., 193, 202 Davis, F.J., 58, 83 D a v i s , J . , 193 Davis, L., 215 Davis, O. I., 51, 74, 78, 193, 212, 225, 247 Davis, T., 184, 185 Day, R., 201 De Vos, G. A., 4, 5, 40, 49, 50, 64, 66, 67, 151, 233 Deaux, K., 64, 67, 68, 70 Deetz, S. A., 30, 223 DeFrancisco, V, 188 Dejarnett, S., 175 Delpit, L., 144 Demmons, S., 218 Demo, D. H., 83 Denzin, N. K., 27, 33, 255

Edwards, D., 65, 237 Edwards, V, 156, 157, 158, 165, 166, 168 Edwards, W. F., 89, 142, 146 Efflnger, M., 9, 89, 193 Eggerling-Boeck,J., 14 Elek-Fisk, E., 260 Ellemers, N., 77, 78 Ellis, D. G., 71 Ellison, C., 199 Ely,J. H., 199 Emerson, S., 215 Emery, R. E., 194 Enright, R. D., 61 Erikson, E. H., 67 Ervin-Tripp, S., 200 Ethier, K., 64, 67, 68, 70 Evans, A., 122 Evans, C., 191, 199, 202 Evans, K., 154 Eysenck, S. B. G., 259

F Fairchild, H. H., 55, 62, 79, 80 Fanon, F., 243

302 • AUTHOR INDEX

Faulkner, S. L., 58, 69, 79, 234, 239, 240 Featherman, D. L]., 123 Feldstein, S., 97 Fhagen-Smith, P., 26, 48, 70, 76, 77 Fine, G. A., 66 Fine, M., 195, 201 Fisher, G., 46, 57 Fiske, S. T., 71, 251 Fitzgerald, T. K., 52 Foa, E., 214 Foa, U., 214 Ford, B., 145, 247 Foster, M., 159 Fountaine, G., 176 Franklin,J. H., 10, 23 Franklyn-Stokes, A., 37, 72, 73, 96, 97, 123 Franzoi, S. L., 51, 66 Frazier, E. F., 8, 9, 20, 23 Fugita, S. S., 176 Fullilove, M. T., 221 Fullilove, R., 221

G Gaines, S., 196, 214, 217 Gallois, C., 37, 72, 73, 96, 97, 123 Ganiere, D. M., 61 Ganong, L., 195, 201 Gans, H.J., 232 Garcia, S., 216 Garcia, W, 103 Garner, T. E., 2, 4, 62, 155, 164, 165 Garrett, G., 176 Garza, R. T., 50, 51 Gates, H. L., 18, 21 Geertz, C., 4, 27, 28, 29, 34, 36, 63 Gerard, P., 56 Gergen, K.J., 64 Gettone, V, 79 Gibson-dine, J., 181 Gier,J. A., 162 Giles, H., 4, 26, 37, 38, 49, 54, 56, 58, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 89, 96, 97, 98, 99, 108, 119, 122, 123, 149, 163 Gilroy, J., 3 Gilyard, J., 78 Ginsburg, G. P, 52 Given, B., 200 Given, C., 200 Gluck, S., 212 Goffman, E., 62, 251

Goldberg, D. T., 59 Golden, D., 58, 234, 240 Goldstein,J., 198 Golish, T. D., 195 Gordon, L., 51, 228 Gordon, M.J., 145, 146 Gould, S.J., 5 Graham, J. W, 260 Graham, L. O., 20, 54, 66 Granrose, C., 196, 214 Grant, K., 184, 185 Gray, H., 74 Gray-Little, B., 141 Gray-Shellberg, L. G., 123 Greenwald, A. G., 55 Grohskopf, E. L., 109 Gudykunst, W. B., 49, 50, 70, 91, 96, 97, 121, 162, 163, 173, 198, 199, 242 Gumperz, J. J., 27 Gurin, G., 78 Gutman, H., 23 Guttentag, N., 176 Gyant, L., 77

H Hacker, A., 13 Haight, L., 108, 252 Hailu, H. F., 71 Halberstadt, A. G., 162, 176 Hall, A. G., 185 Hall, B., 219 Hall, R., 58, 196 Hall, S., 63 Hamlet, J., 20, 157 Hammer, M. R., 49, 50, 70, 91, 97, 108, 121, 162, 163, 173 Hannerz, U., 231 Hansell, M., 155 Harding, S., 206 Harding, V, 172, 174 Hare, J., 183 Hare, N., 57, 183 Harre, R., 62, 65, 71 Harrell, J. P., 172, 174 Harris, F. R., 13 Harris, M., 92 Harris, S., 187, 189, 199 Harris, T., 2, 55, 58, 68, 74, 189 Harrison, K., 55, 62, 82 Harter, L., 105, 107, 109, 213 Harter, S., 188

AUTHOR INDEX • 303

Hartsock, N., 225 Hasian, M., 65 Haskins, E. W, 81 Hatchett, S., 199, 257 Headland, T., 92 Hecht, M. L., 4, 7, 12, 36, 37, 38, 42, 47, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 108, 109, HO, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 143, 144, 162, 170, 176, 177, 188, 228, 230, 233, 234, 238, 239, 240, 241, 253, 255, 259, 260 Helms, J. E., 77 Hendricks, M., 221 Hendrix, K., 74, 105, 106 Henley, N. M., 231 Herr, E., 154 Herringer, L. G., 50, 51 Herskovis, M., 8 Hetherington, E. M., 195 Hewes, D. E., 62 Hewitt, R., 147, 152 Hewstone, M., 49, 50, 71, 99 Hill, R. B., 12 Hill, S. A., 192, 196, 201, 208 Hill, S. T., 22 HilleryJ. M., 176 Hines-Hudson, B. M., 2 Hoelter, J. W, 47, 232 Hoffer, T., 19 Hoffman, J. E., 58, 81, 82 Hofstede, G., 65, 161 Hogan, R., 47 HolderJ., 154 Hollingsworth, L., 204 HollowayJ., 8, 9 Honeycutt, J., 71 HonnoldJ., 221 hooks, B., 193, 231 Hoover, M. R., 146 Hopson, D. R, 182, 185 Hopson, D. S., 182, 185 Horowitz, D., 5 Horton, J., 176 Horwitz, A., 200 Hourd-Bryant, M., 215 House, J., 196, 197 Houston, M., 103, 141, 171, 187, 188, 189, 193, 196, 206, 212, 221 Houston, W, 205

Hudson, J. B., 2 Hughes, M., 83 Hui, C. H., 62, 161 Huici, C., 72 Hunter, A., 193, 194, 196, 219 Hutchinson, E. O., 220 Hymes, D., 28, 34, 36, 156 I

Ickes, W, 5, 49, 163 Imahori, T. T., 91 Isaacs, H. R., 56 Ivey, M., 164, 165 Iwawaki, S., 119 J

Jackson, D. D., 54, 232, 236, 243 Jackson, J. S., 78 Jackson, R. L., 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 31, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 78, 80, 84, 94, 96, 98, 105, 117, 140, 143, 144, 154, 157, 158, 169, 180, 182, 187, 189, 193, 195, 209, 210, 212, 213, 239, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 249, 254 Jacob, J. E., 12 JaffeJ., 97 Jaggar, A., 225 Jambunathan, S., 201 James, M. J., 142 James-Hughes, J., 46, 51 Jayakody, R., 200, 201, 219 Jaynes, G. D., 14, 19, 24, 25, 83 Jeffres, L., 2, 3 Jenkins, A. H., 68, 76, 78, 82, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 169, 171, 172, 174 Jewell, K. S., 77, 80 Johnson, F. L., 149 Johnson, J. N., 110, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 136, 238 Johnson, K., 7, 12, 47, 62, 78, 80, 94, 143, 144, 176, 240 Johnson, L., 219 Johnson, E, 4, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 96 Jones, C., 181 Jones, K. W, 152 Jones, R. L., 7

304 • AUTHOR INDEX Jones, S., 162 Jordan, F., 141, 153, 162

K Kalbfleisch, P, 58, 74 Kane, C, 194 Kane, K., 99 Karenga, M., 9, 10, 59, 74, 75, 77, 157, 159, 213, 228 Kase, L., 181 Kashima, Y, 47, 63 Kato, S., 198 Katriel, T., 35, 59, 71 Katz, A., 169 Kealey, D.J., 91 Kegler, E., 187 Keith, B., 195 Kelly, C. W, 121 Kendon, A., 163 Kennamer, J., 221 Kennedy, A., 95 Kershaw, T., 11 Kersten, A., 30, 223 Khan, C., 205 Kilbride, G., 198 Kim, Y. Y., 5, 96, 242 King, D., 225 King, N. G., 65, 142 Kitayama, D., 46, 95 Klag, M., 78 Kleinman, S., 66 Knapp, M. L., 71 Knight, G. P., 68 Kochman, T., 7, 97, 158, 159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 177, 218 Koester,J., 91, 94 Kozol, J., 22 Kposowa, A., 196 Kramer, L., 218 Kramer, S., 199, 200 Krizek, R. L., 58, 60, 79, 188 Ku, L., 188 Kuhn, M. H., 51 Kulis, S., 82, 260 Kunjufu, J., 186, 201, 213 Kurdeck, L., 221, 222

L Labov, W. P., 142, 143 LaFrance, M., 163 Lampe, P. E., 79, 80 Landry, R., 72

Langer, E.J., 46, 95 Lanigan, M. L., 91 Lanigan, R. L., 99 Larkey, L. K., 4, 38, 42, 47, 71, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 101, 110, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 136, 140, 238 Larsen, A., 199 Lavender, A. D., 79 Lawrance, K., 218 Lawson, E., 194, 195, 210, 217 Leber, D., 173, 175, 218 Lee, C., 198, 199 Lemann, N., 7 Lessing, E. E., 123 Lester, J., 166 Leung, K., 119 Levine, L., 166 Levine, M., 66, 69, 73 Lian, K. F., 56, 57, 58, 64, 68, 69, 151 Liben, L., 188 Lichter, D., 219 Lincoln, C. E., 21 Lindsley, S., 7, 12, 47, 62, 78, 80, 94, 143, 144, 223, 240 Littlefleld, R. E, 173 Longmore, A., 198 Loomis, L., 195 Lord, C. G., 254 Lorde, A., 213 Lucaites, J., 20 Luckmann, T., 30, 64, 232 LudwigJ., 186 Lustig, M., 94 Lustig, M. W., 92, 93

M Maccoby, E. E., 194 Mackness, J., 222 MacLaury, S., 77, 228 Madhubuti, H. R., 84, 183, 208, 213 Madsen, R., 56 Major, C., 150, 154 Majors, R., 112, 113, 177, 214 Mannon, S., 14 Marcelle, Y., 176 Marin, G., 100, 199 Markus, H., 63 Marsiglia, F. F., 82, 260 Martin, J., 4, 38, 42, 47, 101, 124, 127, 129, 130, 134, 140

AUTHOR INDEX • 305

Martin, J. M., 124, 130, 131, 133 Martin, J. N., 6, 58, 71, 76, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 108, 131 Martin, M., 14, 98 Martineau, W. H., 123 Massey, D., 14 Mayo, C., 163 Mays, V, 222 McAdoo, H. P., 23, 24, 196, 199, 200, 210, 204 McAdoo, J. B., 184, 208, 209, 210 McAdoo, J. L., 182, 184, 208, 209, 210 McCall, G.J., 51 McCracken, C., 201 McCusker, C., 62, 161 McLaughlin, D., 219 McLaughlin, M. L., 99, 109 McLoyd, V, 217, 219 McPhail, M. L., 3, 59, 244 McRae, R., 150 McWhorter, J., 77, 78, 184, 185, 187, 204, 228 Mead, G. H., 61 Means-Coleman, R., 74, 145 Meier, A., 14 Melli, M., 205 Messman, S., 197, 217 Meyer, C., 58, 234, 240 Michaels, E., 5, 256 Middleton, D., 65, 237 Miller, D., 201 Miller, G. R., 49, 71, 95 Miller,J., 141 Miller, M., 188 Miller-Day, M., 260 Mills,J., 198 Mincy, R. B., 7 Mishoe, M., 143, 145, 146 Mitchell, F., 13, 14, 16, 23, 180 Mitchell-Kernan, C., 159 Montgomery, B. M., 52, 62, 234, 237 Montgomery, M., 143, 145, 146 Moon, D. G., 54 Moore, D., 222 Moore, M. R., 96 Moore, S., 4, 38, 42, 47, 101, 124, 127, 129, 130, 134, 140 Morgan, M., 151 Morris, G. H., 99 Morrison, C. D., 117 Morten, G., 163, 260 Mortenson, S., 212 Moseley-Howard, S., 191, 199, 202 Moses, W, 10

Mulac, A., 72, 96 Mupier, R., 184, 210 Musgrove, F., 67 Muxen, M., 199 Myers, R., 99 Myers, S., 19 Myers-Scotton, C., 64 Myrdal, G., 13 N

Nakayama, T. K., 6, 52, 54, 58, 79 Natale, M., 97 National Center for Health Statistics, 180, 181, 204 National Opinion Research Center, 16, 75, 77, 81 Nero, C., 74 Neuberg, S. L., 71, 251 Neuliep,J. W, 109 Nicotera, A. M., 216 Niles, T. A., 58, 234, 240 Nishida, H., 91, 108 Nobles, W. W., 23 Noor-Aldeen, H. S., 96, 163 Nwosu, P., 46, 51

o O'Koon, J., 184, 185 Obidinsky, E., 5 Oetzel, J., 103 Oggins, J., 173, 175, 218 O'Hair, H. D., 99 Olebe, M., 91 Olivas, M. A., 6 Olson, D., 199 Olson, L., 195 O'Malley, P. M., 259 Ondis, G., 181 Ongiri, A., 222 Onwumechili, C., 46, 51 Orbe, M., 3, 5, 47, 54, 55, 68, 98, 113, 115, 198, 212 Orbuch, T., 196, 197, 219 Otto, L. B., 123 Oyserman, D., 55, 62, 82 P

Padgett, D., 200 Padilla, A. M., 88 Parham, T. A., 142, 161, 162, 168, 169, 170, 182

306 • AUTHOR INDEX

Parks, M. R., 107 Paster, V, 183, 184 Patai, D., 212 Patterson, M. L., 141 Patton, S., 205 Pavitt, C., 108, 252 Pearce, W. B., 37, 64, 75, 173 Penaloza, L. N., 6, 54 Pennington, D. L., 2, 57, 103, 139, 154, 155, 162, 176, 212, 223 Percelay, J., 164, 165 Perry, T., 144 Peterson, G., 201 Peterson, J., 221 Petronio, S., 69 Pettigrew, T. F., 26, 122 Phang, S. W, 72 Phelps, R., 56 Philipsen, B., 35, 71 Philipsen, G., 4, 35, 39, 40, 56, 59, 64, 140, 231, 232, 237 Pierce, S., 201 Piestrup, A. M., 159 Pike, K., 92 Planalp, S., 62, 97 Pleck, J., 188 Plummer, D., 201 Pouissaint, A., 181, 183, 201, 218 Powers, D., 98 Powers, W, 71

Q

Rickford, R., 142, 143, 144, 148, 151, 165, 166, 247 Rios, D., 196, 214 Rivera, S., 216 Roache, N., 184, 185 Roberts, G., 212 Roberts, L., 175, 196, 218 Roberts, R., 184 Robinson, C. R., 141 Robinson, P. W, 149 Robinson, W. P., 26, 56 Rodney, H., 184, 210 Rodriguez, A., 144, 148 Rogers, C. R., 109 Rolison, G. L., 54 Romanucci-Ross, L., 5, 40 Romero, A., 184 Roosens, E. E., 233 Ros, M., 72 Rosaldo, M., 225 Rosaldo, R., 29 Rose, L. F. R., 160, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170 Rosenberg, M., 63 Rosenthal, D., 72 Rota, J., 65, 71 Rozelle, R., 176 Ruben, B. D., 91, 108 Rubin, D. L., 155 Rubin, R., 98 Ruiz, R. A., 88 Rusbult, C., 214 Russell, K., 58, 196 Ruvolo, A., 215 Ruvolo, C., 215

Quinn, D., 56

R Ransford, H. E., 141 Raven, B. H., 175 Rawlins, W. E., 52 Reeves, D., 162 Reinard, J. C., 120, 121, 122, 136 Reinhard, S., 200 Reitman, A. P, 257 Ribar, D., 219 Ribeau, S.A., 7, 36, 37, 38, 59, 62, 65, 71, 74, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 91, 95, 97, 101, 102, 103, 110, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 129, 130, 133, 135, 136, 162, 170, 176, 177, 253, 255, 259 Rickford, J., 142, 143, 144, 148, 150, 151, 152 165, 166, 247

s Sachdev, I., 58, 66, 68, 72, 73, 149 Sacks, P, 204 Saenz, D. S., 68, 254 Samp, J., 55, 61 Sampson, E. E., 63, 64, 65 Samter, W, 212 Sandefur, G., 14 Sanderson, A., 19 Saville-Troike, M., 36 Schneider, D., 4, 29, 34, 36 Schonbach, P., 99 Schuman, H., 257 Scott, C. R., 252 Scott, K., 58, 71, 78, 79, 95, 97, 105, 154, 175, 212 Scotton, C. M., 64

AUTHOR INDEX • 307

Sedano, M. V, 36, 37, 119, 120, 122, 136, 253 Seinkewicz, T. J., 156, 157, 158, 165, 166, 168 Sentis, K., 63 Seymour, C. M., 68, 148, 149, 150, 151 Seymour, H. N., 68, 148, 149, 150, 151 Shapiro, R., 103 Sharkey, W., 55 Sherif, M., 49 Shimanoff, S. B., 36, 99 Shin, C. I., 57 Shotter, J., 64 Shuter, R., 153, 176 Signorella, M., 188 Silverstein, M., 193 Simmons, J. L., 51 Simon, E. P., 52 Simon, R., 205 Singelis, T., 55 Slugoski, B. R., 52 Smelser, M. J., 13, 14, 16, 23, 180 Smith, A., 141 Smith, D. E., 162, 225 Smith, E. P., 182 Smith, R. C., 19 Smith, S. S., 96 Smitherman-Donaldson, G., 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 58, 71, 74, 78, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 157, 158, 159, 164, 231 Socha, T. J., 74 Sonenstein, F., 188 Soukup, C., 195 Spellers, R. E., 31, 60 Spencer, M., 168, 193, 201 Spencer, S., 56 Spitzberg, B. H., 36, 38, 91, 92, 93, 96, 101, 108, 109, 121 Spitzer, L., 65 Sprague, J., 201 Stafford, L., 105, 109 Staiano, K. V, 81 Stanbeck, M., 75, 173 Staples, R., 23, 209, 219 Starosta, W.J., 91, 96 Statham, A., 51 Steinberg, G., 219 Steinberg, M., 49, 71, 95 Stempien, D. R., 60 Stephan, C., 47 Stephan, W, 47 Stephenson, G. M., 50 Stern, F., 122

StokesJ., 221 Stolzenberg, R., 194 Stommel, M., 200 Strauss, L., 56, 67, 74, 76, 173, 187, 200, 254 Strauss, S., 7, 12, 47, 62, 78, 80, 94, 143, 144, 240 Stryker, S., 51 Sudarkasa, N., 23 Sue, D., 3, 4 Sue, D. W, 3, 4, 163, 260 Sullivan, W, 56 Swidler, A., 56 Swinton, D., 16

T Tajfel, H., 40, 49, 50, 64, 71, 119 Takeuchi, D., 217, 219 Tang, J., 257 Tatum, B. D., 182, 186, 257 Taylor, D., 54, 58, 66, 72, 98, 149 Taylor, J., 56 Taylor, R., 200, 201, 219 TeboulJ. C., 223 Terkel, S., 122 Thomas, M., 57, 58, 66, 69, 254 Thompson, A., 172, 194, 195, 210, 217 Thompson, D., 176 Tienda, M., 16 Timmer, S., 199 Ting-Toomey, S., 46, 48, 57, 64, 69, 91, 95, 103, 180, 241, 243, 245, 251 Tipson, S., 56 Triandis, H. C., 62, 161 Trost, M., 188 Tucker, M., 200, 201, 219 TullyJ., 47, 51, 53, 54 Turman, P., 195 Turner, J. C., 49, 50, 64, 71 Turner, R., 52 U

U.S. Census Bureau, 181

V Van Dijk, T. A., 6, 26, 122 VanOss-Marin, B., 100 Vause, C. J., 109 Vaux, A., 154

308 • AUTHOR INDEX

Veroff, J., 173, 175, 196, 199, 217, 218, 219 Vinsel, A., 69 Vontress, C. E., 163

w Waite, L., 194 Wallace, L., 19 Ward, C., 95 Watts, E., 167 Watzlawick, P., 54, 232, 236, 243 Webb, J. T., 97 Weber, R., 71 Weber, S. N., 77, 143 Webster, P., 196, 197 Weedon, C., 62, 64 Wegar, K., 202 Weisner, T., 199, 200 West, C., 3, 18 Wexler, M., 214 Wexley, K. N., 176 Whaley, B., 212 White, C. L., 80, 81, 82 White, J. L., 142, 161, 162, 168, 169, 170, 182 White, L., 199 Wiemann, J. M., 37, 91, 108, 109, 121 Wilder, D. A., 71 Williams, A. P., 158 Williams, B. A., 71 Williams, C., 12, 228 Williams, J. A., 215, 257

Williams, R. M., Jr., 14, 19, 24, 25, 79, 83, 142, 144 Willis, F. N., 162 Wilson, A. N., 19, 21, 59 Wilson, K. B., 57 Wilson, L., 217, 219 Wilson, M., 58, 196, 199 Wilson, R., 17, 23 Wilson, S., 169, 176 Wilson, W;., 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 180 Winford, D., 144, 145, 147 Wiseman, R. L., 91, 108, 121 Wodak, R., 122 Won-Doornink, M. J., 71 Wood, J., 237 Woodson, C., 10 Woodyard, J., 157, 158, 221 Wright, M. A., 79, 83, 144, 145, 148, 181, 182, 185, 188, 198, 257 Wright, R. L., 71, 142 Wright, T., 103

Y Yancey, A., 183 Yee-Jung, K., 103

z Zatz, M. S., 122 Zimmerman, B., 176

SUBJECT INDEX

A AAVE, see African American Vernacular English ABC Primetime Live, 18-19

Accenting individualism, 67

Acceptance, 111, 120, 131, 222

Accommodative dilemma, 123

Accountability, 200-201

Acquaintances, 103-104

Action orientation, 81

Adjustment, 96, 97

Adolescents, 183-185

Adoption, 202-205

Adult relationships, 195

Advice, 193

Affection, 214

Affective dimension, self-concept, 55

Affective response, 157

Affirmation, 243

Africa, 8-9

African American communication, see Communication African American culture, see Culture African American Masculine Identity, 195-196

African American Vernacular English (AAVE), 145

African Americans -Black conversion, 80

church membership and identity types, 57-58

communication competence, 96-97,

103-104, 108

conversations with other African Americans, 154

cultural contracts theory, 248

cultural identity, 73-87

interpretative approach to culture/ communication, 29-30

conversation improvement strategies intercultural/intracultural, 133-135, 136

labeling, 131

language style and Black English, 142

problems with cultural affiliation, 3

struggle in United States, 6-7

African Mainstream American English (AMAE), 151

Africanisms, 8

Africanist view, 23

Africculture, 11

309

310 • SUBJECT INDEX

Africology, 10-11

Afrikan label, 84

Afrocentrism, 10-12, 224

Age, 77, 134, 146

Alignment, 99

Allegiance, 163-164

AMAE, see African Mainstream American English Ancestral heritage, 5, 8-9

Anti-Semitism, 122

Anxiety, 215

Appropriate communication, 36-37, see also Communication Appropriateness criteria, 92-95, 99-102

Arizona, racism, 171-172

Aspirational roles, 190

Asserting point of view, 124-125, 128

Assertiveness communication style and core symbols, 170-172

Creole language, 152

marital relationships, 219

norms for communication competence, 105

Assimilation, 68-69, 96, 223

Attributional ambiguity, 123

Augmented family, 192

Authenticity, 113-115, 118

Authority figures, 152

Avoidance, conversational improvement strategies, 132, 134

communication competence, 124,

125-126, 131

Aware cognitive flexibility, 173, 174

Awareness, 95, 181

B Baby Boomers, 204

Baby Boy, 215

Bantu people, 8-9

Behavior, 142, 184, 188, 233

Belief systems, 35, 62, 248

Belongingness, 184

Bias, 204

Biculturalism, 66, 150

Birth order, 200

Bisyllabic words, 146, see Black English Black-African American conversion, 80

Black American, 85, 86, 87, 131, see also

African Americans Black channel cueing, 155

Black church, see Church

Black consciousness, 48

Black English, see also Creole language; Pidgin cultural identity, 74, 78

language style, 143-149

Black label, see also Labeling cultural identity, 83-85, 86, 87

conversational improvement strategies, 131

other minority groups, 80-81

Black nationalist alternative, 173, 174

Black-Negro conversion, 76

Black orators, see Orators Black Power movement, 53, 251

Bloodmother, 207

Boasting, 165

Body motion, 175, 176

Bonding, 67, 135, 173, 199

Bosom biscuits, 193

Boundary control process, 69

Br'er Rabbit, 166-167

Bridging, 67, 173

Buffering, 67, 173

Business ownership, 13, 17

c Cadillac, 114

California, 148, see also Ebonics Call-response, 158, 162, 231

Caregiving, 193, 200

Cartoons, 167

Categorization, 61

Caucasians, 23

Centrifugal forces, 187

Centripetal forces, 187

Change, constant, 52

Childrearing, 208, 210

Children/youth relationships, 180-191

Christian orientation, 147, see also Church Church affiliation in contemporary U.S. society, 20-21

attendance and race-related stress, 185

homosexual relationships acceptance, 222

parental function in African American families, 194

preaching styles, 157

Cities, unemployment, 19

Civil Rights movement, 13, 22

SUBJECT INDEX • 311

Classrooms, multicultural, 158

Co-created contracts, 246, 247-248, 249,

see also Cultural contracts, theory Co-culture, 5, 55

Code, 4, 39-41, 231

Code switching Black English, 149-156

communication as cultural process, 29

communication styles, 173

cultural contracts theory, 247

hierarchical organization of identity, 55

language style, 149-156

process of identity, 67

racial attitudes development in children, 182

Cognitive development, 188

Cognitive prototype, 252

Co-identities, 53-54, 56

Collective memory, 65

Collective responsibility, 159

Collectivism, 65, 161-162

Colleges, 22

Communal consciousness, 48

Communal frame of reference, 233, 234,

237-238, 240

Communication accommodation theory, 72-73, 97

African Americans in contemporary U.S. society, 26-27

definition, 1

competence, see Competence, communication cultural identity, 87

episode, 37

field and interdisciplinary definition of identity, 48

identity and social interaction, 64, 65

issues, 108

patterns, 9

children from single-parent households, 197

problematic events, 37-39

problematic part of cultural affiliation, 2-3

style, core symbols assertiveness, 170-172

other, 172-176

positivity and emotionality, 168-169

realism, 169-170

sharing, 161-167

uniqueness, 167-168

theory of identity applications, 238-241

basic assumptions, 235-238

basic concepts, 230-233

frames of reference, 233-235

overview, 229-230

Community definition of ethnic, 6

family structure during slavery, 192

communication theory of identity, 231

identity as communal frame, 237-238

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 39-41

Competence, communication cultural appropriateness, 99-107

cultural effectiveness conversational improvement strategies, 124-135

intercultural issues, 109-124

intracultural, 135-138

overview, 107-109

definition, 91-99

interpersonal solidarity, 213

intercultural and cultural identity, 69

as problematic, 38-39

Complicity theory, 244

Composite African Americans, 7, 10-12

Conduct code and cultural identification, 46

communication theory of identity, 231

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 32,

36, 39-41

Conflict boasting and communications styles, 165

norms and communication competence, 106-107

resolution and marital relationships, 219

effects on children, 195, 197

withdrawal in dating relationships, 214

Confrontation, 105, 128

Consonants, 145-146, see also Black English clusters, 143-144, 145

Content, 54-55, 232

Continued apathy, 172, 174

Conversation communication competence cultural appropriateness, 99

312 • SUBJECT INDEX

divergence and cultural differences/patterns, 98

intercultural issues, 94, 118-124

norms, 103, 105

communication styles, 154

communication theory of identity, 231

definition and link to culture, 4

identity types, 57

improvement strategies, 124-125

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 33,

39-41

social and identity, 64

Cool pose, 114, 214

Coolness, 112-113

Coping strategies, 172-173, 187

Co-population, 55

Core symbols communication competence cultural appropriateness, 100, 101

norms, 103, 104, 105

identity, 59-60

communication theory, 230

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 34-37, 40

Corporeal zones, 59

Counseling, 260-261

Counter-culture alternative, 172, 174

Counter-identities, 53, 54, 56

Creole language, see also Black English; Pidgin Black English derivation, 143, 146

tokens and formulaic expressions, 147

cultural identity, 74

historical background, 152

spoken and code/style switching, 153

Cult of victimology, 77

Cultural affiliation, 3

Cultural appropriateness, 99-102

Cultural behaviors, 22-23

Cultural communication, 2

Cultural consciousness, 46

Cultural contracts cultural identity, 70

theory basic assumptions, 244-245

basic premises, 242-244

interpretative approach to culture/ communication, 30, 31

overview, 241-242

types, 245-250

Cultural differences, 96-99

Cultural effectiveness, see Competence, communication, cultural effectiveness Cultural group, 97-98

Cultural identity African Americans, 73-87

communication, 1-2

hierarchical organization, 53

concept and characterization, 69-71

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 31-32, 41-42

negotiation cultural contracts theory, 241-242

workplace, 223

role, 45

symbolic maintenance, 60

Cultural labels, see Labeling Cultural Nationalism movements, 59

Cultural norms, 188

Cultural properties, 54

Cultural space, 65

Culturally informed criteria, 93

Culture African Americans contemporary U.S. society, 26-27

norms for communication competence, 105

origins, 8-9

definition, 4

interpretative approach communication as cultural process, 28-33

sensitizing constructs, 33-42

role, 3

D Daily life, 27

Dating, 213-216

Day care, 25

Decision making, 30, 106, 209-210, 223

Deconstructionists, 64

Defensive narrowness, 67

Deficit-deficiency model, 182

Delinquency, 205-206

Demands, counter- and co-identity, 54

Demographic trends, 219-220

Desegregation, 22

Destructive conflict, 217, see also Conflict Dialectic concept, identity

SUBJECT INDEX • 313

communication theory, 235

hierarchical organization, 52

social interaction, 62-63, 65, 66

types, 58

Dialects, 9, 81

Diaspora, 59

Disassembling, 75

Discipline, 201, 202, 208

Disclosure, 109, 113

Discrimination, 77, 228

Disgust, 153

Dissatisfaction, 131, see also Satisfaction Distance, 162

Diunital perspective, 170

Divorces African American, 219

family in contemporary U.S. society, 24

effects on children and family structure, 194-195, 196-197

Dominant groups, 246

Double-meaning expressions, 147, see also Black English DuBoisian double consciousness, 66

Dyadic interactions, 93

Dynamic opposition, 159

E Ebonics, see also Black English controversy in California, 148

cultural contracts theory, 246

evolution and characteristics, 143

language style of African Americans, 142

spoken, 152

vernacular form of Black English, 146

Economic attainment, 196

Economic growth, 13

Education, see also Teachers/teaching achievement, 185-187

communication theory of identity and cultural contracts theory, 261

contemporary U.S. society employment, 13

institutions, 21-23

social structure, 19

cultural differences in communication competence, 98

Effectiveness criterion, communication, 92-95

intracultural, 135-138

Elders, 193

Elite, 19

Emic perspective, 92, 99

Emotion orientation, 81

Emotional expressiveness, 112

Emotionality, 168-169

Empiricist perspective, 23

Employment, 13-15, 16

Enacted frame of reference, 233, 234,

236, 240

Enslavement, 9, 10, see also Slavery Environment, 93

Epic poem, see Toasting Episodic system, 93

Equality, 219

Ethnic glossing, 82

Ethnic groups, 4-5

Ethnic identity, 47

Ethnicity, 3, 5, 45-46

Ethnolinguistic identity theory, 71-73

Eurocentrism, 6, 91-92, 143, 228-229

European Americans, -African American comparison applications of communication theory of identity, 239

communication competence, 96-97

cultural effectiveness, 109

intercultural issues, 119, 120-124

intracultural, 135, 136

norms, 103, 104

communication styles, 173, 175, 176

core symbol of sharing, 162-163

conflicts in marital relationships, 217

conversational improvement strategies, 133-135

Everyday interaction/talk, 232

Exchanges, 243-244, see also Cultural contracts theory Expressiveness, 103, 169

Extended family, 192, 202

Externally ascribed identity, 58, see also Identity Eye contact, 163, 175, 176

F Factor analysis, 117

Failure events, 94, 98-99

Familialism, 100

Familiarity, conversants, 154

Family institutions in contemporary U.S. society, 23-26

314 • SUBJECT INDEX

role of father, 210

structure and African Americans, 191-198

Farrakhan, Louis, 220

Father-absent homes, 210

Fatherhood, 208-211

Fear, 220

Feelings, 112

Females adult friendship relationships, 212-213

communication competence authenticity, 114

emotional expressiveness, 112-113

powerlessness, 116

stereotyping, 109-110

understanding, 115

cultural identity, 74

gender identity differences among adolescents and adults, 188-190

norms during conflict, 106-107

presence and male conversations, 154

Feminism, 31

Financial resources, 199

Financial stability, 220

Folklore, 63, 159

Formal adoption, see Adoption Formulaic expressions, 147

Foster parenting, 203, 204

Frames of reference cultural identity, 70

communication theory of identity, 233-235

Frazier hypothesis, 9

Friends adult networks, 211-213

intracultural communication effectiveness, 135

norms for communication competence, 104-105

Future directions, 218, 250-261

G Game playing, 190, 215

Gender communication competence authenticity, 114

emotional expressiveness, 112

intercultural issues, 109-110

norms, 103

powerlessness, 116-117

identity differences among adolescents and adults, 187-191

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 31

labeling and cultural identity, 86

language style variations, 142

norms during conflict, 106-107

sibling relationships, 200

style switching, 153

Generation Xers, 204

Generation Y, 204

Genuineness, 128

Giving in, 126, 129-130, 132

Glass-is-half-empty/glass-is-half-full debate, 14

Goals, communication competence cultural effectiveness, 107-108

intercultural issues, 115-116, 118,

121

norms, 105

Gospel music, 20-21, 169, 170

Government, 35

Grammar, 146, see also Black English Grandparents, 193, 203

Griots, 193

Groups differentiation and social categorization, 49-50

membership and communication competence conversational improvement strategies, 132-133

cultural identity, 70-71, 78

intercultural issues, 118-119, 121

process of identity, 66

oral tradition use, 156

status, 118-119

H Hairstyles, 60

Haiti, 152

Hand slapping, 167

Happiness, 217, 218

Health, 14

Hegemony, 212

Heritage, 84-85

Herskovits-Frazier debate, 8-9

Heterosexuals, 212, see also Relationships Hierarchical organization, 51-56

SUBJECT INDEX • 315

Hip-hop music, 150, 183

Historical background, 7

Historical records, 228

Holistic notions, 62

Holocaust, 59

Home ownership, 24-25

Homophobia, 221

Homosexual relationships, 220-222, see also Relationships Household chores, 200

Hypercorrection, 146, see also Black English I

ICC, see Intercultural communication competence Ice Cube, 220

Ickey dance, 165

Identification with an authoritarian solution, 173, 174

Identity, see also Individual entries cocreation and maintenance of culture as function, 30

concept, 46

cultural, 69-71

African American, 73-89

development of racial attitudes in children, 182

diffusion, 67

enhancement, 68

ethnolinguistic, 71-73

flexibility, 67

hierarchical organization, 51-56

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 31-32

interracial families, 198

negation, 68

negotiation applications of communication theory, 239

contact with others, 30-31

mothers, 207

strategies, 68

process, 66-69

self concept, 47-49

social categorization, 49-51

social interaction, 61-66

types, 56-61

Images, 79, 114-115

Immediacy, 162-163, see also Communication style

Improvement strategies, conversational cultural effectiveness, 108-109

intercultural, 94, 95, 124-135

Incarceration, 13

Income, 16, 17, 25

Indirect stereotyping, 109, see also Stereotyping Individual accomplishment, 105

Individual construct, 4

Individual system, 93

Individualism, 56, 62, 65, 173

Inequality, 16-18

Inform/education, 127

Informal adoption, see Adoption In-group/out-group membership attitudes and race-related stress, 184

code/style switching, 155

conversational improvement strategies, 132-133, 134

Creole language, 152

intercultural issues and communication, 118-119

Insecurity, 215

Institutions, contemporary, 20-26

Instructors, 159

Integrationalists, 75

Integrative model, 93

Interaction management, 124, 126, 132

Interactive response, 158

Intercultural communication competence (ICC), see also Competence, communication appropriateness and effectiveness criteria, 92-95

knowledge, motivation, and skills, 95-96

Intercultural conversations, 156

Intercultural interactions, 59

Intercultural issues, 109-124

Intergenerational solidarity, 193

Intergroup differences, social categorization and identity, 50

Internal management, 128-129

Internally defined identity, 58, see also Individual entries Internet, access, 15

Interpenetration, 65, 66, 234-235

Interpersonal factors, 218

Interpersonal solidarity, 213

Interpersonal styles, 173, 175-176

Interracial families, 198, see also Family Interruptions, 219

Intervention programs, 99

Interviews, 101, 155

316 • SUBJECT INDEX

Intimacy, 105, 134

Intracultural communication, 135-138

Investment, 215, 216

Investment model of romantic commitment, 214

J

Jamaica, 152

Jewish Americans, 240

Job interviews, 155

Jump the broom, 192

K Kink factor, 31

Kinship networks, 192

Knowledge, 95-96, see also Competence, communication Kujichagulia, see Collective responsibility

L Labeling communication theory of identity, 232, 238

cultural identity, 71

African Americans, 77, 78-79,

80-85

conversational improvement strategies, 131

scholarly concerns, 256

trends, 251

Language communication as cultural process, 29

conversational improvement strategies, 129

identity, 68

cultural, 71

mobility, see Code switching style Black English, 143-149

code switching, 149-156

oral tradition, 156-160

Latent function, 79

Latinos, 99-100, see also Mexican Americans Legal rights, 221

Lexical forms, 146, see also Black English Life expectancy, 14-15

Likert scale, 117

Linguistic behavior, see Behavior, linguistic Linguistic competency, 155

Linguistic markers, 105

Linguistic profiling, 247

Load sharing, 205-206

Location of identity, 62, 233

London, England, 152

Longitudinal studies, 3

Losing Isaiah, 203-204

Loving relationships, 213

M Ma'at, 52

Maafa, 10, 228

Machismo, 100

Mainstream American English, 143, 146,

150, 154-155

Mainstream culture, 75-76, see also Cultural identity Maladjustment, 194-195, see also Divorces Males bonding, 168, 211-212

communication competence authenticity, 114

emotional expressiveness, 112

goal attainment, 116

interpersonal solidarity, 213

powerlessness, 116-117

stereotyping, 109

cultural identity, 74, 86

gender differences in adolescents and adults, 188-190

norms during conflict, 106-107

Mandingo idioms, 147, see also Black English Manifest function, 79

Manifestations of nommo, 157

Maquiladoras, 239

Marginalized groups, 67-68, 79, 249, see

also Minority groups Marital relationships, 216-220, see also Relationships family in contemporary U.S. society, 24

instability, 194

Masculinity, 195-196, 209, 212, see also

Males Master's name, 192, see also Slavery Mateship stages, 216

SUBJECT INDEX • 317

Matriarchy, 205, see also Motherhood Mau Mauing, 117

McAdoo/McAdoo framework, 208-210

Meanings, 35, 55, 145, 232

Media, 3, 74

Membership, community, 40-41, 49-50

Messages, 236

Meta-analysis, 130

Metaphors, 147, 159, 171-172, 233

Methodological diversity, 254

Mexican Americans, see also Latinos Black labeling and cultural identity, 80

communication competence, 103,

104, 122, 135

Middle class, 19, 22, 23, 175

Migratory patterns, 60

Minority groups, 55, 68, see also

Marginalized groups Misunderstanding, 37

Mother-daughter relationships, 195

Motherhood, 205-207

Motivation, 95-96, 154

Mulatto advantage, 196

Multiculturalism cultural contracts theory, 248-249, 250

need for, 3-4

workplace, 222-223

Multiracial families, 197-198, see also Family Music, 20-21, 169, 170, 183

Myth, 231

N NABSW; see National Association of African American Social Workers Names, European, 79

National Association of African American Social Workers (NABSW), 203,

204

National Center for Health Statistics, 180-181

National Research Council (NRC), 13-14,

16

Negotiation, identity, 30-31

Negro-Black conversion, 76

Niger-Congo language family, 143, see also Ebonics Nigrescence model, 48

Nommo, 157-158

Nonstandard dialect, 148, see also Black English

Nonverbal behavior, 214

Nonverbal markers, 72, 73

Nonverbal messages, 175-176

Norms, 94, 101, 102, see also Rules

Nothing can be done category, 129

Nothing other can do, 133

Nouns, 143, see also Black English NRC, see National Research Council Nuclear family, 191, see also Family

o Objective group memberships, 58-59

Open-mindedness, 131

Openness/closeness, 52

Openness/friendliness, 124, 125

Oppression, 74

Oral tradition elders and family structure, 193

language style, 156-160

Orators, 21

Other-orientation communication as problematic, 38-39

conversational improvement strategies, 124, 126-127,

131, 132, 134, 135

Othermother, 207

Outcomes, 107-108

Out-group membership, see In-group/out-group membership Outreach programs, 21

Over-accommodation, 38-39, 123

P

PACKAGE, 81-82

Pan Africanism, 75

Paranoia, 186

Parent-child relationships, 201, see also Family Passing, 75

Peer groups, 97-98, 189, 190

Perceptions Black English, 149, 155

group and social categorization, 50

intercultural issues and communication competence, 118, 120

interpretative approach to culture/communication, 32-33

318 • SUBJECT INDEX

labeling and cultural identity, 80-81

Performance theory, 159

Permanence, 34, see also Marital relationships Personal frame of reference, 233, 234,

236, 240

Personalismo, 100

Personhood, 64

Philosemitism, 122

Phonetics, 145-146, see also Black English Pidgin, 143, 152, see also Black English;

Creole language Piper Nigrum, 81

Playing the dozens, 164, 171

Pluralism, 66

Pluralization, 145, see also Black English Politeness, 103

Political dimension, 81, 82, 86, see also

Cultural identity Politics, 153, see also Style switching Positivity 50, 168-169

Poverty contemporary U.S. society, 17, 18, 24,

25

race-related stress in adolescents, 184

single-parent families, 180-181

Power communication competence, 96, 97,

105

communication theory of identity, 231

Creole language, 152

dating relationships, 214

Powerlessness, 116-117, 119, 121, 122,

123, 132, see also Competence,

communication Preacher, 157

Preaching styles, 157

Pregnancy, 219

Prejudice, 198, 228, 247, see also Racial

discrimination; Racism Prescriptions, 34-37

Pride, Black, 84-85

Primary family structure, 191-192, see also Family Privacy issues, 33

Problematic events, 94, see also Competence, communication Problems, 106-107

Pronunciation, 152

Prosody, 155, see also Black English Provider, 208, 209

Psychological construct, 47

Psychological studies, 48

Public Enemy, 171-172

Put-downs, 165

Q Quasi-completed contracts, 246-247,

249, see also Cultural contracts theory Quebec, Canada, 68

Questions, open-ended, 101, 117

R Race biological basis and ethnicity/culture differentiation, 5-6

cultural identity as parent concept, 45-46

perception and academic failure, 185

study in North America, 13

transracial adoptions, 205

Racial attitudes, 181-183

Racial discrimination, 18-19, see also Prejudice; Racism Racism, see also Prejudice; Racial discrimination core symbol of sharing and communication styles, 171-172

cultural identity, 77-78

effects in children, 182

employment, 14

indirect expression, 122

stress in adolescents, 184

Rap music, 150, 183, see also Music

Ready-to-sign contracts, 246, see also Cultural contracts theory Real communication, 35

Realism, 169-170

Realness, 113-114

Reciprocity 214, 217

Reduction theory, 109

Regression analysis, 132

Rejection, 148, see also Black English Relational bonding, 120, 121, 122

Relational commitment, 215

Relational frame of reference, 233, 234,

236-237

Relational level, 252

Relational resources, 70

Relational system, 93

Relationship coordination, 248

Relationship intimacy, 162-163, see also Intimacy

SUBJECT INDEX • 319

Relationship levels, 232

Relationships culture identity negotiation children and youth, 180-191

family structure, 191-198

fatherhood, 208-211

friendship, dating, and marital relationships, 211-222

informal/formal adoption networks, 202-205

motherhood, 205-207

parent-child relationships, 201

sibling relationships, 198-201

workplace relationships, 222-224

communication styles, 173

cultural appropriateness and communication competence, 100

Reliability, 130

Religion, 20-21, 185

Research methodology, 254-260

Residential segregation, 26

Resource theory, 209-210, 214

Resources, 186-187

Respect, 35, 100, 214

Responsibility, 133, 200-201

Rhetorical devices, 157

Rights, 84-85

Rites of passage ceremonies, 183

Ritualized boasting, 168, see also Boasting Rituals, 163-166, 231

Rivalry, 199

Role construction, 208-209

Role flexibility, 200-201

Rules, 36-37, 99, see also Norms

S Same-sex relationships, 212, see also Relationships Sarcasm, 153

Satisfaction, 117-118, 120

School, 186, 190

Secondary education, 22, see also Education Seeking a piece of the action, 172, 174

Self-concept determination by African Americans, 256

identity, 47-49

personal frame, 236

social interaction, 61, 63, 65

Self-consciousness, 48

Self-definitions, 84

Self-deprecation, 153

Self-efficacy, 98

Self-esteem, 48, 55-56, 188

Self-expression, 35

Self-image, 182

Self-orientation, 136-137

Self-presentation, 124, 125

Selling woofing tickets, 171

Semantics, 143, 147, see also Black English

Sensitizing constructs, 33-42

Sentence structure, 143, see also Black English Separatism, 75

Sermons, 157

Sex-role imbalances, 219

Sexual gratification, 218

Sexuality, 220, 221

Shaft, 166

Sharing, 161-167

Shucking, 75

Siblings, 198-201

Signify in Monkey, 166

Simpatia, 100

Single-parent families at-risk children, 180

church and grandparent role in families, 194

communication patterns of children, 197

two-parent and family in contemporary U. S. society, 24, 25

Situational techniques, 68

Skin, use, 147, see also Black English Slang/jargon, 129

Slapping Five, 167

Slavery, 192, 202, see also Enslavement

Social categorization, 49-51

Social-constructed role, 208

Social-cultural dimension, 81, 82

Social construct, 4

Social dramas, 232

Social exchange, 214

Social expectations, 190

Social grouping, see Social categorization Social interaction, see also Identity communication theory of identity, 233

identity, 61-66

relationship frame, 236-237

Social networks, 57-58, 232, 252

Social-personal identity, 86, see also Identity

320 • SUBJECT INDEX

Social reality, 37

Social roles, 56, 188-189

Social structure contemporary U. S. society, 16-20

communication theory of identity, 233

Social work agencies, 203

Socialization, 165

Socially marked forms, 147

Societal codes, 23, 25

Socioeconomic status, 162, 182-183

Sociopolitical relevance, 143

Solidarity, 120

Speech, see also Black English accommodation and communication competence, 97-98

distinctions, 147

ethnolinguistic identity theory, 72

language morphing, 150

styles, 149

Spiritual incompatibility, 217

Spouses, 175

support, 217

Stability, 208-209

Stagolee, 166

Standard forms, 145-146, see also Black English Standpoint theory, 206

Status, 227-229

Steady, use, 146, see also Black English Stereotypes/stereotyping, see also Cultural identity; Identity communication competence, 121,

122, 123

cultural effectiveness, 109

improvement strategies, 128, 131,

132-133

intercultural issues, 109, 110, 120

communication theory of identity, 239-240

cultural identity, 71, 80-81

hierarchical organization of identity, 56

norms within unequal power relationships, 106

Stigma, 148, 149, 150, 221

Stress cultural identity, 78

process of identity, 67

race-related in adolescents, 183-185

Structural equations modeling, 238

Structural liberalism, 19-20

Structural pressures, 196, see also Marital relationships Style switching, 149-159

Subjective experience, 233

Subjective group memberships, 58-59

Success, 74-75, 94

Superordinate identities, 51, 53, see also

Identity Superwoman, 205, 206

Support, 104, 199, 217

Syllable contractions, 146, see also Black English Symbolic identity, 59-60, 232, see also

Identity Syntactic system, 145-146, see also Black English

T Taboo words, 166

Talking, 103

Teachers/teaching, 169, 186, 193-194,

see also Education Televangelism, 21

Temporal consistency, 52

Tension, 97, 105, 234

Test failure, 185

Thoughts, 112, see also Competence, communication Time, 175, 176

Toasting, 166-167

Tomming, 75

Tonal semantics, 157

Topic, involvement, 137

Touch, 162

Transracial adoptions, 203, 204, see also

Adoptions Treat as individual/equal, 129

Tribes, 12

Tricksters, 166-167

Trust, 105, 248

20-Statements Test, 51

Two-factor solutions, 82

Typicality, 70, see also Cultural identity

U Uncertainty reduction theory, 173

Understanding, 115, 120, 121

Unemployment, 17, 19, 219, 220

Uniqueness, 147, 167-168

United States, contemporary society culture and communication, 26-27

employment, 13-15

institutions, 20-26

social structure, 16-20

SUBJECT INDEX • 321

status of African Americans, 227-229

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 19

United States Census Bureau, 17

United States Department of Commerce, 15

Urbanization, 13

V

Validation, 117-118, 130-132

Variations, 146, see also Black English Verbal messages, 175, see also Messages Verbal skills, 164

Verbs, 143, 146, see also Black English

Vernacular form, 146, see also Black English Vitality, 72, 73

Vocabularies, 143, see also Black English Vocalics, 175, 176, see also

Communication styles

w Wage inequality, 14

Wages, 16-18

Well-being, indicators, 15

White collar jobs, 16

Women-centered network, 207

Woods, Ickey, 165

Woofing, 171

Workplace relationships, 222-224, see also Relationships Worldviews cultural contracts theory, 245, 246,

247, 248

cultural identity, 70

intercultural issues and communication, 121

interpretative approach to culture/communication , 4 3

Wright, Richard, 1

Wuzzuppppp commercials, 167-168