(based on Mark Orbe, 1998; by Daniel Chand, COM 372, ISU, Fall, 2003)
Many writer prefer
“co-culture” to “subculture” to demonstrate that all cultures live together
within a single geographic area, without one being any better or worse “sub”)
than the other. Many feel that the advantage of this usage is that it
allows us to realize that White is only another ethnicity that exists alongside
other identities [a notion we will come back to at the end of the semester.
However, there are some interesting readings some may want to read early on the
notion of Whiteness,
such as Peggy McIntosh’s famous article, “Whiteness:
Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Others see a disadvantage of the usage
of “co-cultures” to describe all cultural groups in the
Orbe takes the second
approach, using “co-culture” to describe a disadvantaged or marginalized group
in a society.
§
Overview: The main focus of this
theory is to explain how people in a co-cultural group (as Orbe uses the term)
communicate when talking to people of the dominant group. People choose
different strategies, such as trying to eliminate stereotypes, “passing”
(trying to go along as a member of the dominant group), working to build connections
with the dominant group, or even avoiding the dominant group (for example, by
creating Black churches or organizations, working within the “Rainbow
coalition” of businesses, etc.). The theory is
not just about the specific behaviors, or even the two dimensions by which
these can be divided in figure below, but about a fuller explanation for why
people make the communicative choices they do.
§
Assumptions: While Orbe talks about “influences” on the
communication choices co-cultural members make, and the word “influences”
suggests a ‘realist,’ ‘determinist’ view of the world (that is, suggests that
factors cause or influence people to do certain things, as suggested by the scientific perspective of social
research), his research suggests otherwise. Most of his work uses focus groups,
interviews (for example, a study of how African American men use communication
with and about White people) and rhetorical media analysis (such as examples of
African American men in The Real World,
or an analysis of those “Whassup?” Budweiser guys. The critical focus of the
theory (that is, that construction of identity of a co-cultural group exists within
the power structures of a dominant society, in resistance to that
society, make this theory more critical than the original statement of the CTI, though Orbe cites
Hecht and Collier’s work in the constructing of his theory. That is, this is
more of a critical theory than the
CTI, as I read it.
§
Mark Orbe, the author of the theory,
is associate professor of communication at
§
Background: As evidence of the
critical (social change) nature of this theory, Orbe in many of his writings
frames the background of the theory in terms of two feminist theories. Each of
these theories focus originally on communication between men and women, but
Orbe contends that what they say would apply easily to interethnic
communication. [NOTE: If you are explaining the theory for an exam or journal,
remember, this is the background
to the theory. It is not the theory itself! If you focus only on the
background, your essay will be severely limited! [These are my own,
off-the-cuff summaries, not meant to reflect the full theories!]
o
Standpoint
theory suggests that minority members
(and women) have a different understanding of the world than dominant culture
members (and men). All understandings are only partial, but those in
the subordinated group often have a fuller understanding because (a) the
understandings and meanings of the dominant world frame their existence, so
they must understand them; and (b) it is often not in the interests of the
dominant world to understand minority groups—then they might have some sense of
responsibility for changing the world!
o
Muted
group theory
suggests that minority cultures (like
women) are silenced (muted) in several ways by the dominant culture. For
example, (a) dominant cultures (and men) write the dictionaries, make the
movies (and Webpages), and write the history, framing the world in terms of
their reality; (b) dominant cultures (and men) put down, deride, and devalue
other ways of talking, communicating (by calling it “nagging,” “superficial,”
etc.); (c) minority members (and women) who try to speak in the dominant
culture language are often still rejected (women who are direct, assertive in
the workplace are b****es, etc.). Because of this, women (and minority members)
must create, maintain their own means of speaking, create new words to describe
their experience (such as “date rape” and “sexual harassment” for women), and
create their own communicative forms of resistance against the dominant
culture.
1. Assimilation – trying to get rid of all cultural differences in
an attempt of fit into the dominant culture.
2. Accommodation – insisting that the dominant culture reinvent or
change the rules of society so it can incorporate the life experiences of each
co-culture group.
3. Separation – rejecting the notion of forming a common bond with
dominant group and seeking to maintain separate group identities outside the
dominant structure.
1. Nonassertive – behaviors in which individuals are seemingly
inhibited and non-confrontational; putting the needs of others before one’s
own.
2. Assertive – communication practices that encompass self-enhancing expressive
behavior that takes into account the needs of others and one’s self.
3. Aggressive – communication practices that can be perceived as
hurtfully expressive and self-promoting.
Aggressive practices assume control over the choices of others.
Orbe’s Co-Cultural Communication
Orientations, p. 110
|
|
Separation |
Accommodation |
Assimilation |
Nonassertive
|
Avoiding Maintaining interpersonal barriers |
Increasing visibility Dispelling stereotypes |
Emphasizing commonalities Developing positive face Censoring self Averting controversy |
|
Assertive |
Communicating self Intragroup networking Exemplifying strengths Embracing stereotypes |
Communicating self Intragroup networking Using liaisons Educating others |
Extensive preparation Overcompensating Manipulating stereotypes Bargaining |
|
Aggressive |
Attacking Sabotaging others |
Confronting Gaining advantage |
Dissociating Mirroring Strategic Distancing Ridiculing Self |
From M. P. Orbe, M. P. Constructing co-cultural theory: An
explication of culture, power, and communication, p. 110 (c) 1998.
Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications.
Thought Questions (and journal
ideas!):
§
How
might Orbe’s Co-Cultural Theory explain the class tension that this New
York Times Article reports within the Black Community?
§
Recall
a time that you were in a “co-cultural” communication situation. You may have
been the member of the “co-culture” (a cultural group that is at a power
disadvantage in relation to the dominant group)—or you may have been in the
dominant group. Thus, the grid in CCT of specific behaviors may explain what
you did or what the other person did. Special note: These are behaviors that
oppressed groups, not dominant groups engage in (we still don’t have a good
theory to describe what behaviors dominant members engage in!). Note that the grid
combines two of the 6 “influences” of behavior in an interaction. How might any
of the other behaviors (e.g., background experience) led to the behaviors the
communicators used in the interaction?
Content for Exam:
§
Know main ideas (only) of Standpoint theory,
muted group theory
§
Know overall explanation of theory
and how it differs from CTI
§
Know the 6 influences, especially the
two that lead to the development of the grid.
§
Know the 3 positions of the 2 axes of
the grid (don’t need to know the specific behaviors)
Note: Essay question might involve
choice b/t CTI and CCT to explain a scenario!