Cross-Cultural Communication—Retrospective and Prospects
James W. Chesebro
Keynote Address at the Speech Communication Association of Puerto Rico
in San Juan, Puerto Rico on December 1, 2000
This convention marks the twentieth anniversary of the Speech Communication
Association of Puerto Rico. My purpose in this address is to celebrate this anniversary. I want to
celebrate both the past twenty years and look forward to the next twenty years.
A Retrospective: The Last Twenty Years
First, our history: Our celebration today is a twentieth anniversary. Such an anniversary
is a time for remembering, commemorating, praising, and honoring those people who had made a
twentieth anniversary possible but also those decisions that have shaped and determined this
Association during these last twenty years. For our relatively new friends and new colleagues
here today, I’ll be constructing a history for you, a history of the who, the why, and the what of
the Speech Communication Association of Puerto Rico (SCAPR) as a professional
communication association.
How should I construct this history? For me, three events are outstanding and
determining.
The first event was simply holding the first convention and having the courage to identify
it as the “first annual convention.” And, several defining policies were established at this first
convention.
Central to the success of any first convention is who is selected as its first
organizer. I clearly remember when we decided to select the First Vice President and person to
organize this first convention. The job required someone with determination, who would and
could act, who could organize from scratch, who would emphasize inclusion rather than
exclusion, and who could function in a cross-cultural way, seeking to unify both mainland and
Puerto Rican concerns. We all concluded at the time that Joan Fayer had that Texas
determination, dedication, commitment and sensibilities that were required to create the first
convention. The decision was appropriate; the decision was marvelous. Joan Fayer remains-some twenty years later--one of the most central figures in this Association, a figure who has
made us professional, but was also humane, committed to larger professional goals, and sane,
rationale and sensible. Joan, we love you!
Beyond the first organizer of this convention, I would also draw attention to the theme of
this first convention, “cross-cultural communication.” When this Association was conceived, we
were particularly aware that the International and Intercultural Communication Annual was only
six years old, and cross cultural communication was only beginning to emerge as a legitimate
area of study and research. But, we were also particularly aware that more diversity was required
in how cross-cultural communication was to be approached. For example, if you examined its
content, the first issue of the International and Intercultural Communication Annual focused on
cognitive anthropology, cultural studies through film, and cross cultural training for mental health
workers. These applied perspectives in this first issue now seem narrow indeed. Accordingly,
offering a broader and more eclectic perspective, in the first SCAPR convention program in 1981,
Joan Fayer wrote:
Welcome to the first convention of the Speech Communication Association of
Puerto Rico. The papers that will be presented represent a wide range of
communication interests. Those that address the central theme of the convention,
Cross Cultural Communication, approach the subject from diverse points of
view. The presentations should increase our individual knowledge as well as
make a contribution to existing research in cross cultural communication.
1
While some variations have been tried, every year, for twenty years, a diverse approach to crosscultural communication has been the defining theme of this convention.
One final note about our first convention: We were all exploring with how and in what
ways this convention would be professional and scholarly. Many of the papers presented at this
first convention were predominantly personal, if not esoteric, statements about unique crosscultural experiences. Procedures or methods were needed that reflected and allowed us to
integrate these personal and unique experiences. Indeed, many of the papers employed
predominantly anecdotal evidence to support their claims. This Association was extremely
fortunate that James McCroskey decided to attend its first convention. In the final program of the
convention, aptly entitled “SCAPR First Annual Convention—Reflections,” Michael Prosser,
Robert Shuter, and I were asked to reflect on the meanings of the first convention and how it
might be improved. Jim McCroskey had attended this reflections program, and in his deep and
booming voice, Jim advocated the use of more traditional methods when arguing for claims about
effective cross-cultural communication. Jim’s early plea did not go unnoticed, for since that time,
all papers at the convention have been selected for the contribution they make to communication
scholarship. Indeed, I think, Jim McCroskey’s every existence and constant presence at this
convention represents for all of us a reminder of our commitment to a rigorous and systematic
study and approach to cross-cultural communication. Every scholarly association must have its
McCroskey if it is to be scholarly.
In all, then, the first event shaping this Association was how its first convention was
organized. This first convention was a model for subsequent conferences. The theme continued
for twenty years. Indeed, the guard tower of the old San Juan fort has continued for twenty years
to represent this convention. More profoundly, the cross-cultural theme and the decision to link
mainland and Puerto Rican communication researchers have persisted for twenty years.
But, a second shaping event of this Association occurred ten years later, in 1990,
when we celebrated the tenth anniversary. By the tenth anniversary, what was clear was that this
Association had developed its own unique type of convention. It has its own history. It had its
own way of doing things that were a fairly unique feature of the Speech Communication
Association of Puerto Rico, such as the 25 minute time allocation for each speaker. Part of the
uniqueness was reflected in the news release Joe Ferri had prepared and released after the
convention. Additionally, a convention had emerged; we began to have keynote speakers who
somehow examined the communication and cultural links between mainland United States and
Puerto Rico. At the tenth anniversary, Theodore Otto Windt, Jr. of the University of Pittsburgh
gave such a keynote address. Likewise, panels emerged to celebrate those who could no longer
be at the SCAPR convention. For example, a panel was held at the tenth anniversary to honor the
late John F. Wilson (for whom we subsequently named the debate that will occur tomorrow
night). On this panel celebrating John Wilson were Thomas W. Benson of The Pennsylvania
State University, Herman Cohen of The Pennsylvania State University, and Lawrence W.
Rosenfield, then at Queens College in New York City.
While a host of other activities defined this convention, one outstanding event of the
tenth anniversary was the roundtable discussion dealing with cross-cultural communication as a
“joint project” of the National Communication Association and SCAPR. Jim Gaudino, Elizabeth
Hernandez, Joan Fayer, and Joe Ferri participated in this roundtable discussion.
But, it was also at the tenth anniversary that we also realized that we could not do it all.
We recognized that we had realized three of our four original objectives, but that the fourth
objective would likely remain forever elusive.
The first objective had clearly been realized. Mainland and Puerto Rican communication
researchers were clearly interacting. When Joe Ferri and I wrote our “founders’ statement” in
1990 for the tenth anniversary, we noted: “Not only should Puerto Ricans become our colleagues
at conventions on the mainland, our colleagues on the mainland need to share the culture and
heritage of Puerto Rico.”
2
The second objective was also realized. Joe Ferri and I had designed and began to
implement a more coherent and complete communication curriculum at the University of Puerto
Rico. We had hoped that this Association’s existence and its conventions would lead support to
the creation of a new major in communication at the University of Puerto Rico. And, of course,
the communication major is now a reality at the University of Puerto Rico.
Our third objective was that this Association would constitute a “powerful, exciting
scholarly environment” that “would stimulate research regarding communication in Puerto Rico.”
In this regard, a host of studies regarding communication in Puerto Rico have now appeared in
mainland professional communication association publications.
But, our fourth objective has never really been realized. Joe Ferri and I had hoped that
SCAPR would function as a foundation for creating a link among Central, Latin, and North
American communication researchers. That foundation has never been established. When I was
President of the National Communication Association in 1996, I did establish the foundation for a
conference with FELAFACS (Federacion Latinoamerican de Facultades de Comunicacion
Associations). The following year, we held the “First Communication Conference of the
Americas” in Mexico City, in February of 1997. While extremely successful, that effort also
clearly demonstrated that international conferences cannot easily be created and maintained. The
hours of human effort, organizing issues, and cost for participating associations and members are
extremely high. So, while SCAPR could not establish a link among Central, Latin, and North
America, I am now resigned that such an effort may not be reachable for at least another twenty
or twenty-five years. I remain convinced, however, that we—as a discipline--ignore a potentially
valuable resource by not linking Central, South, and North American communication researchers.
Whenever such a link has been established this Association, the National Communication
Association, or the World Communication Association, it has proven invaluable. We need
only—at this point—to find a way of making the link permanent.
Before I leave this history of this Association, one third and final event must be
mentioned, an event that has dramatically shaped each and every one of us who were present at
the founding of this Association on October 23, 1980. One of the founders of this Association,
Joseph Michael Ferri, who was also one of the most special people I have ever met, died on June
7, 1996, in Johnston, Rhode Island. While he hated to let anyone know his age—he even deleted
his age from his dissertation—Joe was born on December 27, 1930, and he died at age 65. I first
met Joe in 1974 when he became my teaching assistant at Temple University when he was getting
his Ph.D. I mention Joe’s death now as a key factor in the last twenty years of this Association,
because he was one of the founders of this Association. But, also because Joe had a style that
allowed him to “make it all work” with ease, grace, and a gentle sense of humor. I have often
thought—since his death—that something was missing from SCAPR that we could not replace. I
was right. Joe was truly unique. But, we also have new friends now, friends that are extending
the cross-cultural communication scholarship and fellowship Joe so strongly believed in. But,
Joe—without whom not!
So, we have an Association with a twenty-year history. The history has been shaped by
events such as the first convention and a tenth anniversary convention that had developed a host
of unique characteristics and features. And, it has been shaped most profoundly by people who
have launched it. These included all of the initial founders including Joan Fayer, Joe Ferri, Alma
Simounet de Geigel, Lowell Fiet, Iris Gonzalez, William Bradford, and Carmen Judith Curt-Nine
as well as later friends of the Association such as Jim McCroskey, Bernie Brock, Dan Millar,
Jerry Allan, Virginia Richmond, Dale Bertelsen, Joan O’Mara, George Borden, Ronald Burke,
Harold Drake, Deborah Borisoff, Mary Mino, Sally Mettler, and Dan Hahn. And, a host of
National Communication Association Presidents have also contributed to SCAPR as keynote
speakers and presenters including Beverly Whitaker Long, Mike Osborn, Gus Friedrich, Mark
Knapp, Dennis Gouran, Dale Leathers, Dave Zarefsky, Bruce Gronbeck, Sharon Ratliffe, Judith
S. Trent, John A. Daly, Orlando Taylor, and next year, Judy Pearson.
3
So, a retrospective of the last twenty years: SCAPR is very much an association shaped
by the particular individuals who have each organized us and spoken for us. We have truly been
a group of mainland Americans and Puerto Ricans exploring the meanings of cross-cultural
communication together.
What now?
A Prospective: The Next Twenty Years
What are the prospects for the new twenty years for SCAPR?
I freely admit that there are a host of practical issues we could deal with here. Certainly,
SCAPR needs to think about forging new alliances with other associations when holding this
convention. And, yes, we need to reinvigorate mainland participation again. Some have
suggested that this conference needs to be held every other year which—I think—would be a
terrible decision, simply because the conference would lose its regularity, its momentum, and its
place within the memory of its mainland members. But, all of these are matters to be handled at a
business meeting of the Executive Council rather than here.
In terms of a future of SCAPR, your crystal ball is as good as mine. But, of certain
things, I am truly convinced.
There is little question in my mind that the future of the Speech Communication
Association of Puerto Rico will be socially and symbolically constructed. Accordingly, when it
comes to how we organize and how we act in concert, our intentions are the best indications of
what will be. If we elect to make SCAPR central to what we do and how we do it, the future of
SCAPR will be strong and decisive. And, I hope—above all else—that we each make a decision
for that end. Nothing will determine the future of SCAPR more decisively than what we want it
to be.
Beyond self-determination, I am hoping that we can reconceive the structure and nature
of the conference itself. Certainly, the Friday and Saturday days of scholarly presentations are
appropriate. But, I am wondering if we could use the Thursday preceding this conference as a
service component of the Association. We have some truly outstanding scholars attending this
conference. We could also benefit from their ability to render scholarly service in the form of
workshops. We might arrange to have some of our presenters arrive a day early to lead
workshops in their specialization.
In some cases, a workshop might deal with implementing a research strategy or design.
For example, how many of us can handle meta-analysis in our classrooms? Some of the recent
analyses produced by meta-analysts suggest that television accounts for only 8 percent of the
effects on cognitive structures.1 That finding is amazing. Do you know how it is derived? What
is meta-analysis and how does it work? How can we use its findings in the classroom? Does it
reveal or conceal important understandings about cross-cultural communication?
But, other workshops might be more substantive in emphasis. For example, interpersonal
communication courses are common enough. But, are we as prepared to suggest and recommend
intervention strategies as we might be? I was trained with Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson’s
Pragmatics of Human Communication2 that stemmed from Bateson3 and the bank of structured
See: Michael Morgan and James Shanahan, “Two Decades of Cultivation Research: An Appraisal and
Meta-Analysis,” Communication Yearbook 20, ed. by Brant R. Burleson (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1997), pp. 1-45; and, “Meta-Analysis and Mass Communication Criticism,” Critical Studies
in Mass Communication, 16 (September 1999), 370-384.
1
2
Paul Watzlawick, Janet Helmick Beavin, and Don D. Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A
Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967). For a
related extension of this approach in terms of its therapeutic implications, see: Paul Watzlawick, The
Language of Change: Elements of Therapeutic Communication (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers,
1978).
4
family interviews4 which proclaimed that paradoxes were normal in human communication and
that rejection was essential part of honest communication. Thirty years later, in a book that seems
to make far more sense than Pragmatics of Human Communication, Neil S. Jacobson and
Andrew Christensen tell us in Acceptance and Change in Couple Therapy5 that rejection is a
counter-productive intervention strategy; it causes repeated arguments and chronic unhappiness in
interpersonal relationships. They propose the use of acceptance therapy, a process of accepting
other’s differences and appreciating their individual sensitivities. This compassion should reduce
the need to use conflict and ultimately even change the troubling behavior. Perhaps it works;
perhaps it doesn’t. Perhaps it depends on the culture. I’d like to see us hold a workshop in
interpersonal communication intervention strategies with an emphasis on cross-cultural
understandings.
Indeed, let’s hold workshops exploring a host of communication concepts, theories, and
methods from a cross-cultural perspective. Can we design workshops to test the meaning and
value of acceptance therapy from two or three different cultural perspectives? Or, can we design
workshops to explore a host of different interpersonal principles from several cross-cultural
perspectives? Virtually any and all of our major conceptions in communication—even basic
concepts such as ethos, pathos, and logos—require exploration from a cross-cultural perspective.
Workshops here might provide a vehicle for immediate experiences with and understandings of
these notions from several different cultural perspectives.
For me, these workshops should be directed at the undergraduates, graduates, and faculty
of the universities of Puerto Rico. I suspect others will say that a transition should be employed,
in which those attending this conference should be strongly encouraged to attend. In the short
term, any number of transitional strategies might be employed to establish these workshops. But,
in my view, this Association needs to renew its commitment to its service commitment to crosscultural communication in Puerto Rico.
Finally, let me underscore the immediate need for us to examine the new communication
technologies, such as the Internet, in terms of cross-cultural communication. I am particularly
concerned about the globalization-localization dichotomy that is now so frequently articulated.
The Internet is increasing the speed at which we need to consider this issue. Certainly the issue is
with us when the National Geographic tells us in its August 1999 issue that, “As the new
millennium approaches, modern technology extends human life spans and levels of comfort. But
it also destroys thousands of remote cultures.”6 In this regard, Ken Hale, president of the
American Linguistic Society of America, tells us that up to half of the world’s 6,000 languages
will die out within the next 100 years if current technologies continue as they have.7
While the lost of these cultures and languages may be of concern to us, I am more
concerned about those cultures and languages that remain and how the globalization-localization
dichotomy is used to explain cultural and linguistic transformations. For example, Asia is
3
See, e.g., Gregory Bateson, Naven (2nd ed) (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958); and, Gregory
Bateson, Exchange of Information about Patterns of Human Behavior, paper read at the Symposium on
Information Storage and Neural Control, Houston, TX, 1962.
4
See, e.g., Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967), pp. 107-117, and especially pp. 111-117.
Neil S. Jacobson and Andrew Christensen, Acceptance and Change in Couple Therapy: A Therapist’s
Guide to Transforming Relationships (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1998).
6
Joel L. Swerdlow, “Global Culture,” National Geographic, August 1999, pp. 2-5.
5
See: David L. Wheeler, “The Death of Languages,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 20, 1994,
pp. A8-A9 and A16-A17. Also, see: Alexander Stille, “Speak, Cultural Memory: A Dead-Language
Debate,” New York Times, September 30, 2000, pp. A17 & A19.
7
5
changing as international corporations begin to penetrate its various cultures. We have a case
study before us. McDonald’s has now opened 158 franchises in Hong Kong. There is now one
McDonald for every 42,000 residents in Hong Kong compared to one McDonald for every 30,000
Americans in the United States.8 Most amazing of all, McDonalds is the only social institution
that has ever made the residents of Hong Kong line up for service.
But, most of the time, the issue will not be globalization or localization, but some merger
of the two. Most of the time, cultures will not be destroyed, but just altered in some significant
ways. In this regard, English is unlikely to displace a native language, but when they operate
side-by-side, both English and the native language will change. Indeed, I am also convinced that
there are some ways in which the Internet could be used to preserve the diverse languages of the
world.9
I do, however, think we need to explore the role of communication technologies as a
cognitive force affecting cultural systems. We need to avoid simplifications that say the issue is
globalization or localization. I would propose that we need to ask how the new communication
technologies—such as computers and the Internet—structure our perceptions and determine how
we perceive. Subsequently, we need to ask how these new perceptions affect and alter the
meanings conveyed by specific cultures.10 In virtually every case, the change will only be a
modification, but these modifications can make a profound difference in what is sustained and
what is lost in a cultural system.
In all, we need to embrace the new technologies. We need to appreciate what
computerization and the Internet can and has already done. But, we also need to examine it in
terms of its tendency to transform cultural systems verbally and nonverbally. Such an exploration
falls—it seems to be—directly within the province of the Speech Communication Association of
Puerto Rico.
So, in short, what of the future of the Speech Communication Association of Puerto
Rico?
SCAPR always has been and always will be no more than a social and symbolic
construction. SCAPR is what we make it. Our own commitment and self-determination will
decide what shape this Association has done and will do. Towards that end, I do think we need to
invest in new workshops that give us practical experience in how new notions function crossculturally. But, more than anything, we need to apply the cross-cultural perspective of this
Association to the entire range of new technologies we are now encountering. For myself, the
Speech Communication Association of Puerto Rico is now at the edge of what can and should be
James L. Watson, “China’s Big Mac Attack,” Foreign Affairs, 79 (May/June 2000), pp. 120-134. Also,
see: Allen R. Myerson, “America’s Quiet Rebellion Against McDonaldization,” New York Times, July 28,
1996, Section 4, p. E5; Anthony DePalma, “19 Nations See U.S. as a Threat to Their Cultures,” New York
Times, July 1, 1998, p. B1; John Kifner with David E. Sanger, “Financial Leaders Meet as Protests Clog
Washington,” New York Times, April 17, 2000, pp. A1 and A8; John Kifner, “In This Washington, No
‘Seattle’ Is Found, by Police or Protesters,” New York Times, April 19, 2000, p. A12; Robert Gilpin with
Jean Millis Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21 st Century
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000); “March Madness,” The New Republic: A Journal of
Politics and the Arts, May 1, 2000 (Issue #4,450), p. 9; Franklin Foer, “Meet the New New Left: bold, fun,
and stupid. Protest Too Much,” The New Republic: A Journal of Politics and the Arts, May 1, 2000 (Issue
#4,450), pp. 21-23; Michael Blake, “Rights for People, Not for Cultures,” Civilization (August/September
2000), pp. 50-52; and, Barbara Crossette, “Globalization Tops 3 Day U.N. Agenda For World Leaders,”
New York Times, September 3, 2000, Section 1, pp. 1Y and 4Y.
8
Michael Pollak, “World’s Dying Languages, Alive on the Web,” New York Times, October 19, 2000, p.
D13.
10
I began to explore these issues in: James W. Chesebro and Dale A. Bertelsen, Analyzing Media:
Communication Technologies as Symbolic and Cognitive Systems (New York: The Guilford Press, 1996).
9
6
a profound—if not overwhelming—new application of the perspective that has guided it so well
during the last twenty years. The new technologies—more than any other human construction—
need to be examined as cross-cultural experiences. Such an application will be instructive, but it
may be the context in which the identity of diverse cultures of the globe can be retained.
In all, I do hope that twenty years from now, I am asked to deliver the 40th anniversary
address for this Association, for this an Association that I have been proud to be a member of for
the last twenty years. And, god willing, the next twenty years.
Thank you for your time and attention.
7