Page 419 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Power and dominance in intercultural communication 397

culture as a way of being. Promulgated by highly influential scholars such as
Humboldt, this static concept of culture dominates in the 19th century and also
remains powerful throughout the twentieth century: Culture is understood not as
an activity, but as a product of activity, a system of achievements through which
a society defines itself. The contradiction between activity and entity, however,
never completely disappears: The change from assimilationism to multicultu-
ralism in post-war Australian immigration policy may be taken as evidence of a
recognition of the dynamic elements of the culture concept, yet the actual results
of this change remain doubtful. In their sceptical but sympathetic history of
post-war Australian immigration, Bosworth and Wilton (1984: 36–37) suggest
that even modern Australian multiculturalism is hardly more than a public cel-
ebration of a multiplicity of cultural icons whilst immigrants’ different ways re-
main unrecognized.

2.2. The cultural apparatus and its role in intercultural communication
Is it possible to scientifically instrumentalize and bring to fruition a concept that
is – because of its complex tradition – rather an explanandum than an explan-
ans? Drawing on Gramsci (1983), who reinstated the dynamic aspects of the
culture concept and conceived of it as the practice of critical awareness of so-
cietal processes, Redder and Rehbein (1987) advocate a pragmatic concept of
culture. They conceive of culture as an apparatus, a “functional aggregate of
essentially different action paths determined by certain purposes”. Punctuality,
for instance, is part of the cultural apparatus, an “organised ensemble of societal
[and therefore transindividual; W.T.] experience, ways of thought, forms of rep-
resentation and practices” (Redder and Rehbein 1987: 16). The cultural appar-
atus is the basis for the societal reproduction of the respective domain (for in-
stance punctuality). At the same time, however, it is the basis for criticism and
change when actants become aware of its structure. Because of its importance
for societal reproduction, a cultural apparatus may also be externalized. Then it
takes the form of a societal apparatus, an institution.
Intercultural communication occurs when the differences between two
people’s cultural apparatus become apparent to them (Redder and Rehbein
1987: 18). Due to the aggregate nature of the cultural apparatus, these differ-
ences can lie in the areas of societal experience, practice and language. Intercul-
tural communication in a narrow sense occurs when actants of the same society
who speak the same language encounter a problem that results from differences
in their cultural apparatus. Intercultural communication in a broader sense occurs
when this kind of problem is encountered by actants from different societies
who speak different languages.
What is the systematic place of the cultural apparatus within our daily activ-
ities ? Consider this quasi-empirical example: