Prolegomena to a Better Definition of Intercultural Communication: The Concept of Culture

• Author: Cristinel Munteanu
• Pages: 474-480

European Integration - Realities and Perspectives. Proceedings 2016

474

Prolegomena to a Better Definition of Intercultural Communication:

The Concept of Culture

Cristinel Munteanu1

Abstract: The aim o f our paper is to lay the foundations for an adequate definition of intercultural

communication, a very important and highly used no tion nowadays due to the present complex reality it

refers to. Since the terminological phrase “intercultural communication” involves the previous knowledge of

two other concepts, communication and culture, both equally “polysemantic”, we will try to establish, first of

all, the “common core” for each of them in turn. For the beginning, we will attempt to clarify here, by means

of essential distinctions, the concept of culture, planning to discuss the concept of communication in another

paper.

Keywords: intercultural communication; culture; communication; essential distinctions; unitary designation

1. Introduction

In a famous and influential American handbook of intercultural communication, Communication

between Cultures, written by Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter, it is stated, from the very

beginning, the fact that “intercultural communication involves interaction between people whose

cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough to alter the communication event”

(Samovar & Porter, 2004, p. 15). The two authors do not forget to add that their book “is about the

role of culture in communication”. However, when dealing with the notion of culture, Samovar and

Porter deplore “the elusive nature of the term”, observing that “culture is ubiquitous,

multidimensional, complex, all-pervasive, and difficult to define” (Samovar & Porter, 2004, p. 32),

also quoting the opinion of authorities such as L.E. Harrison and S.P. Huntington (the editors of the

volume Culture Matters. How Values Shape Human Progress, published in 2000), according to whom

“the term culture, of course, has had multiple meanings in different disciplines and different

contexts” (apud Samovar & Porter, 2004, p. 32). What is more, they also mention A.L. Kroeber and C.

Kluckhohn’s book from 1952, Culture. A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, in which are

listed 164 definitions of culture found in the anthropology literature. The conclusion is the following:

“Definitions of culture range from those that are all-encompassing (it is everything) to those that are

narrow (it is opera, art, and ballet).” (Samovar & Porter, 2004, p. 32).

1 Senior Lecturer, PhD, “Danubius” University of Galati, Faculty of Communication and International Relations, Address: 3

Galati Boulevard, 800654 Galati, Romania, Tel.: +40 .372.361.102, fax: +40.372.361.290, Corresponding author:

cristinel.munteanu@univ-danubius.ro.