Intercultural communication ethics: an Asiacentric perspective

ABSTRACT

Ethical issues in international and intercultural communication have garnered a considerable amount of scholarly attention for the past four decades. Most debates and discussions, however, have been confined to the pros and cons of ethical universalism and relativism and to Eurocentric philosophical discourse. The present article takes an Asiacentric approach to theorising humanity, diversity, and communication, explores Asian cumulative wisdom as a resource of ethical ideas and insights, and formulates five principles of intercultural communication ethics: (1) recognition and respect; (2) reaffirmation and renewal; (3) identification and indebtedness; (4) ecology and sustainability; and (5) rootedness and openness. These ethical principles of intercultural communication from an Asiacentric perspective are preliminary in nature and remain subject to reflection and revision. They need to be further substantiated in comparison with those from other Western and non-Western premises and practices of ethical communication. Nevertheless, they will offer new parameters and systematics for the ethics of communicating across nations and cultures in the global community.

KEYWORDS:

• Asiacentricity
• ethics
• global community
• intercultural communication
• tradition

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Yoshitaka Miike (Ph.D., University of New Mexico, USA) is Professor of Intercultural Communication at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, where he has been on the faculty since 2004 and chaired the Department of Communication from 2013 to 2015. He is also Senior Fellow at the Molefi Kete Asante Institute for Afrocentric Studies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is best known as the founding theorist of Asiacentricity in the communication discipline. He co-edited The Global Intercultural Communication Reader (Routledge, 2014). He served as Chair (2013–2014) of the International and Intercultural Communication Division of the National Communication Association (USA) and as Review Article Editor (2011–2016) of the Journal of Multicultural Discourses. His research interests include the history of the field of Asian communication theory, non-Western traditions of communication ethics, and aspects of Japanese culture and communication. He is currently Visiting Professor at Seinan Gakuin University in Fukuoka, Japan.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 With reference to these limitations, there are two major challenges of theorizing intercultural communication ethics especially from non-Western vantage points. First, Hamid Mowlana (2003) shrewdly pointed out that religion is posed as the Other of philosophy in Eurocentric intellectual universe. This arbitrary division must be overcome with a view to enlarging the theoretical horizons of global ethics and common values. Second, cultural differences for dialogue and communication for community must be addressed and articulated. Christine B. N. Chin (2004), who underlined the importance of communication for the realisation of the moral self in and for human collectivities in the globalisation era, emphatically asserted that the communication-morality nexus should be at the heart of theoretical inquiry as it carries ramifications for a wide range of research on human rights, diversity management, international education, development and social change, and civil governance. In political and economic spheres, however, ‘cultural differences matter … to the extent that they have to be examined and understood largely for the purpose of control’ (70), and that ‘communication plays an important role only to the extent that it is seen and practiced as the transmission or exchange of information’ (76).

2 To my knowledge, Nobleza C. Asuncion-Landé (1979), a Filipina pioneer in international and intercultural communication research, edited the first groundbreaking volume on the ethics of communication within and across cultures. William S. Howell (1981, 1982), who wrote Foreword for her volume, also presented two conference papers on intercultural communication ethics at the annual meetings of the Speech Communication Association. His early reflections focused on the difficulty of applying universal ethical principles in value-laden cultural contexts.

3 Cees J. Hamelink (2015) commented on the two opposing positions of ethical universalism and relativism and advocated that both universalists and relativists should shift from ‘colonial universalism’ and ‘indifferent relativism’ to ‘cosmopolitan universalism’ and ‘caring relativism’:

For ‘cosmopolitan universalism’ the principles of communal responsibility and collective welfare stress the need to accept reciprocal obligations among the members of a society. ‘Caring relativism’ searches—while respecting differences in judgment—with compassion to deal with such common human experiences as suffering and death. (254)

4 Notable exceptions about cross-cultural comparisons of communication ethics in Western and non-Western traditions include Christians and Traber (1997), Collste (2016), Cooper (1989), Ishii (2008), and Jensen (1992, 2001). Based on the comparative studies of Christians and Traber (1997), Christians (2007) is of the opinion that the sacredness of life, human dignity, truth, and nonviolence are four universal values in ethical communication. See Adhikary (2012), Babbili (2001), Cheng (1997, 2001), Dissanayake (2014), Dragga (2006), Ishii (2009), Mowlana (2014a), and Tu (2009) for Confucian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic reflections on ethics and morality.

5 For further elaboration on Asiacentricity, see Miike (2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2018), Miike and Yin (2015), and Yin (2009). The Asiacentric idea as an overarching metatheoretical framework owes its intellectual debt to Molefi Kete Asante’s Afrocentric paradigm and Maulana Karenga’s Kawaida philosophy. For Afrocentricity, see Asante (1994, 2013, 2014, 2015) and Asante and Miike (2013). For Kawaida, see Karenga (1997, 2008, 2010, 2014).

6 In recent years, there has been a scholarly zeal to unnecessarily deny Asian commonalties and similarities by overemphasizing the dynamic, complex, and hybrid nature of Asian cultures and uncritically affirm Eurocentric constructions of universality and globality. Strangely enough, to argue that Asian cultures are converging to (U.S.) European cultures is cosmopolitanism, but to assert that Asian cultures have much in common is essentialism. In critiquing Kwame Anthony Appiah’s denial of any cultural unity of African peoples, Kwame Gyekye (1987) pondered:

How can universality in terms of the human culture be achieved if one denies—or takes an attitude of ambivalence toward—some form of unity or degree of similarity among contiguous cultures? Those of Africa have for centuries experienced interpenetration through exchanges and borrowing of ideas, institutions, art, and technology. If throughout the centuries, some aspects of contiguous cultures cannot be acknowledged to have coalesced, despite movements of people and ideas, then the universality he envisages for human culture will be a myth. (xxx)

7 In this particular connection, it is of the utmost importance for us to endorse and espouse the idea of ‘thick intersectionalities.’ Thick intersectionalities can delve into the process of self-criticism and reinvention as they enable us to subject cultural traditions into close scrutiny from various social locations and to discern and decipher cultural politics and complexities. See Yep (2010) for the concept of ‘thick intersectionalities’ and its application.

8 Reciprocity in the principle of interdependence and indebtedness can apply in most Asian cultures, but it is practiced differently in interpersonal relationships. Generally speaking, the Japanese feel obligated to return their indebtedness (e.g., in gift-giving) as soon as possible. The Chinese, on the other hand, reciprocate their exchanges in a longer time span. The act of repaying the debt of gratitude quickly can be taken as a sign of the intent to end the relationship (Miike 2014). Filipino/as are similar to the Chinese in this regard. Asuncion-Landé (1990) noted:

Philippine society values close stable relationships of mutual aid. Any favor given is seen as part of the process of building such relationships. The immediate return of a favor is not necessary and may in fact not be desired since it could imply a wish not to become involved in a stable relationship. But long-term obligation is nevertheless created. (218–219)

Maruyama (1994) touched on remembrance and reciprocity in relation to decision-making when he discussed cultural similarities between Navajos and the Japanese. Whenever any collective decision is made, some people are inconvenienced while others will benefit. The compensation is usually made at another time. Thus each individual’s inconveniences are recorded in everyone’s mind for such compensation.

9 Robert T. Oliver (1981), a U.S. American trailblazer in Asian rhetorics and communication, expressed a similar view on communication as an indicator of ecology:

The ebb and flow of communication within a community determine how the members of the community regard themselves and others and controls the general modes of their thought and behavior. Control of communication equates with control of the society. Finally, the quality of the communication reveals and reflects the quality of the civilization of the community. (49)

Ngũgĩ (2016) also conceived ‘the contact of cultures as the oxygen of the human community’ (111) and encouraged us to ‘facilitate the generation of more oxygen, thus enabling a shared human inheritance of the best in all faiths, doctrines, cultures, and languages’ (112).

10 From the perspective of Confucian humanism, Tu (2008) posed the following ten questions about moral reasoning. Taken together, they concerned themselves with the five ecological themes and their tensions:

1. Which way is more congenial to social integration, viewing ourselves as isolated individuals or as centers of interpersonal relationships?

2. Even if we use quantifiable material conditions to define and measure our well-being, can we afford to cut off ourselves from the spiritual moorings of our cultures?

3. If success is solely measured as wealth and power to the exclusion of other goods, such as social capital, moral influence and exemplary teaching, how can we transmit cherished values to the next generation?

4. How can we expect others to respect our way of life, if we disregard what they themselves regard as meaningful and worthwhile?

5. Can our society prosper without inculcating in individuals a basic sense of duty and responsibility in addition to rights-consciousness?

6. Can we afford to focus our attention on the rule of law without emphasizing civility and trust in ordinary daily social intercourse?

7. Can liberty as an intrinsic value generate a humane society without distributive justice?

8. Can instrumental rationality alone right inequality without sympathy and compassion?

9. Should our culturally pluralistic world deliberately cultivate shared values as a common ground for organic social solidarity?

10. As we become more keenly aware of our earth’s vulnerability and depletion of natural resources, what steps must we take to preserve her? (329–330).