Page 473 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Communities of practice in the analysis of intercultural communication 451

3.2. Social networks
The most significant difference between being a member of a social network
and a member of a community of practice is whether or not that membership is
actively or passively defined. Membership in some social networks may be de-
fined by (relatively) conscious choices, but social networks can also be defined
passively. That is, you might think, “I like the way she talks to her daughter. I’d
like to get to know her better”, and this conscious choice could establish a net-
work of parents at a kindergarten. On the other hand, more passive patterns of
association can define you as a member of a network, for example, by regularly
attending regional meetings of a political party. Not all members of this network
would necessarily have interpersonal engagement. In other words, while all
communities of practice are a kind of social network, not all social networks are
communities of practice.

3.3. Social identity theory
Tajfel’s (Tajfel and Turner 1986, see also Spreckels and Kotthoff in this volume)
social identity theory contends that we all possess many identities, some of
which are defined largely in interpersonal terms and some of which are defined
largely in intergroup terms. This distinction between personal and group iden-
tities is a structural idealization; it is hypothesized that all identities are defined
as being more or less interpersonal and intergroup. In addition, Tajfel indicates
that he suspects there is no such thing as a purely personal identity, even in in-
teractions where interlocutors believe they are focusing on the idiosyncracies of
their mood, personalities, or the immediate context, their responses will be con-
ditioned by previous experiences that they have subsequently generalized over
groups.
Social identity theory proposes that comparison between individuals and
groups is a fundamental cognitive and social process. Moreover, comparisons of
this nature are seen as highly functional, since typically the process serves to as-
sert positive aspects of one’s ingroup identity. This can be seen in the following
examples from the Studmuffins, the casual women’s team whose members in
some respects (we have seen) are happy to emphasize aspects of their feminin-
ity. In example (4), Sonia invokes an explicit contrast between the way Stud-
muffins approach their matches and “a boy’s [game]”. Example (5) provides an
interesting counter-point to this, in which Jo makes it clear that for all their
“tooting” around the pitch (see example 3), their identity is not a stereotypically
female one. They are emphatically not the kind of women who play netball.