Co-cultural communication theory

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. (July 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Co-cultural communication theory was built upon the frameworks of muted group theory and standpoint theory. The cornerstone of co-cultural communication theory is muted group theory as proposed in the mid 1970s by Shirley and Edwin Ardener. The Ardeners were cultural anthropologists who made the observation that most other cultural anthropologists practicing ethnography in the field were talking only to the leaders of the cultures, who were by and large adult males. The researchers would then use this data to represent the culture as a whole, leaving out the perspectives of women, children and other groups made voiceless by the cultural hierarchy (S. Ardener, 1975).^[1] The Ardeners maintained that groups which function at the top of the society hierarchy determine to a great extent the dominant communication system of the entire society (E. Ardener, 1978).^[2] Ardener's 1975 muted group theory also posited that dominant group members formulate a "communication system that support their perception of the world and conceptualized it as the appropriate language for the rest of society".^[3]

Communication faculty Stanback and Pearce (1981) referred to these non-dominant groups as "subordinate social groups". They noted 4 ways in which the non-dominant groups tend to communicate with the dominant groups. They also asserted that "From the perspective of the dominant group, the behaviors in each form of communication are appropriate. However, the meaning of these behaviors to the members of the lower-statused group are quite different, making them different forms of communication with different implications for the relations among the groups".^[4]

In the study of communication, Stanback and Pearce as well as Kramarae used muted group theory to help explain communication patterns and social representation of non-dominant cultural groups Kramarae (1981) believed that "those experiences unique to subordinate group members often cannot be effectively expressed within the confinements of the dominant communication system".^[5] She suggested that people within these groups create alternative forms of communication to articulate their experiences. Although, Kramarae used muted group theory to communications strategies of women she suggested that the framework can be applied with equal validity to a number of dominant/non-dominant relationships (Orbe, 1996).^[6]

Kramarae (1981) presented three assumptions of muted group theory as applied to communication between men and women concluding that women traditionally have been muted by a male-dominated communications system. Additionally, Kramarae proposed seven hypotheses originating in muted group theory.^[7] Standpoint theory was mainly used as a feminist theoretical framework to explore experiences of women as they participate in and oppose their own subordination, however, (Smith, 1987) suggested that the theory had applications for other subordinate groups.^[8] A basic tenet of standpoint theory is that it "seeks to include the experiences of subordinate groups within the process of research inquiry in meaningful ways".^[9] In other words, the members of the underrepresented groups become co-researchers.

The theory of co-cultural communication was introduced in 1996 by Mark Orbe, professor in the School of Communication at Western Michigan University, when he found previously used names for the groups under consideration to have negative connotations. He cites previous studies which looked at the communication styles of different co-cultural groups which were referred to by a variety of terms. Orbe was the first to refer to this type of work as "co-cultural communication theory". Orbe states, "in the past researchers have used a variety of terms to describe co-cultural communication: "intracultural" (Sitaram and Cogdell, 1976); "subordinate", "inferior", "minority" (Stanban and Pearce, 1981); "sub-cultural" (Pearson & Nelson, 1991); (Folb, 1994); and "muted group" (Kramarae, 1981)."^[10][11]

Orbe combined the frameworks of muted group theory with that of standpoint theory to arrive at five fundamental concepts which describe co-cultural theory. Orbe states, "co-cultural theory seeks to uncover the commonalities among co-cultural group members as they function in dominant society while substantiating the vast diversity of experiences between and among groups."^[12]

Since the introduction of co-cultural theory in "Laying the foundation for co-cultural communication theory: An inductive approach to studying "non-dominant" communication strategies and the factors that influence them" (1996), Orbe has published two works describing the theory and its use as well as several studies on communication patterns and strategies based on different co-cultural groups.

In Orbe's "A Co-cultural communication approach to intergroup relations" (1997), he provides an overview of co-cultural theory, including an explanation of the process by which co-cultural group members strategically select different communications styles

Orbe (1998a) "Constructing co-cultural theory: an explication of culture, power, and communication", presents the theoretical framework for co-cultural theory including the development of the theory, clarification of the co-cultural communication process, and limitations and future directions for its use. Orbe (1998b) "From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co-cultural communication theoretical model", in which he designated 9 co-cultural orientations based on the intersections of three communication approaches: Non-assertive, Assertive, and Aggressive with 3 preferred outcomes: Separation, Accommodation and Assimilation.

In 2000, Orbe and C. M. Greer presented a paper: "Recognizing the diversity of lived experience: The utility of co-cultural theory in communication and disabilities research" at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, in Detroit. In 2001, Heuman presented "Multiracial/ethnic identity: A co-cultural approach" during the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association in Cincinnati. During the same meeting Dixon presented "Naming issues in the future of intercultural communication research: The contributions of Mark Orbe's co-cultural theory".

In 2004, Orbe used co-cultural theory as a foundation to explore the processes by which public dialogue can be facilitated across cultural boundaries.^[13] Orbe and Spellers (2005) reflected in this book chapter on the origins of co-cultural theory from the perspectives of their different areas of research as well as point to implications for future work.^[14]

Orbe & Lapinski (2007)published the design of a self-report measure of the two components of co-cultural theory, preferred outcome and communication approach, and provides evidence from two studies for the construct validity and reliability of the co-cultural theory scales (C-CTS).^[15]

Ramirez-Sanchez (2008) examines the possibility of applying co-cultural theory to co-cultural groups that are marginalized in a larger co-cultural context and to "offer a complex cultural context to which co-cultural theory can be applied and generate questions that could serve to enrich the analytical scope of co-cultural theory and its implications".^[16]

In 2010, Camara and Orbe published the article "Analyzing Strategic Responses to Discriminatory Acts: A Co-Cultural Communicative Investigation" in the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. Two authors utilized Orbe's (1998) co-cultural theory model of the 9 communication orientations and 26 communication practices to identify how co-cultural group members response to the acts of discrimination. Two authors used qualitative content analysis to code the participants' stories. The paper also oriented the directions of future research. The 26 communication practices are as follows:^[17]

In 2012, Jungmi Jun, an assistant professor of the School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of South Carolina published her article "Why Are Asian Americans Silent? Asian Americans' Negotiation Strategies for Communicative Discriminations" in the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. The author utilized Orbe's co-cultural theory model to explore two questions. One is what types of racially discriminatory messages target Asian Americans; another one is what communicative approaches do Asian Americans apply to negotiate those messages. The paper used content analysis to code 176 stories gained through an online survey. The research found that Asian Americans tend to use nonassertive approaches to respond to racially discriminatory messages due to internal/environmental factors including emotional shock and humiliation, a lack of knowledge of proper responses, peer pressure, and strategic intent.

Co-cultural communication theory, often referred to as co-cultural theory, is a framework within the field of communication studies that focuses on the interactions between dominant cultures and co-cultural groups within a society. Developed by Mark Orbe in 1996, this theory emphasizes the communication strategies and experiences of marginalized or non-dominant groups as they navigate within a predominantly dominant culture.

The theory posits that within any society, there exist co-cultural groups with distinct norms, values, beliefs, and communication practices that differ from those of the dominant or mainstream culture. These co-cultural groups can encompass various communities based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, and other identity markers.

Co-cultural theory explores how individuals or groups from these co-cultural backgrounds adapt, negotiate, and strategize their communication behaviors within the dominant culture to achieve their goals, overcome challenges, and address the power differentials inherent in the societal structure. Co-Cultural Communication Theory provides a crucial framework for understanding the dynamics of communication between dominant cultures and co-cultural groups.

Understanding the framework developed by Mark Orbe in 1996 is crucial to comprehend how co-culture operates. The co-culture theory was created to provide a voice for minority cultures. Orbe's identified five primary points and five significant factors associated with co-culture theory. These primary factors serve to identify the preferred outcomes concerning intercultural communication.

Co-cultural communication theory posits three potential outcomes in the co-cultural communication process: assimilation, accommodation, or separation.

Co-cultural communication theory highlights three commonly recognized outcomes or strategies: assimilation, accommodation, and separation. These strategies reflect how co-cultural groups navigate their interactions with the dominant culture.

• Assimilation involves the adoption of the dominant culture's norms, values, behaviors, and communication patterns. The goal is to integrate into the dominant society by minimizing cultural differences and adapting to the mainstream culture's expectations. Assimilation aims to gain acceptance, access resources, and reduce discrimination or marginalization experienced by the co-cultural group. However, it can result in the loss of cultural identity, language, and traditions.
  • Assimilation: fitting into the main culture while also diminishing one’s own culture.

• Accommodation refers to retaining cultural identity while adapting certain aspects of communication to align with the dominant culture. Accommodation allows for a balance between maintaining one's cultural heritage and making adjustments to facilitate smoother interactions with the dominant culture. Co-cultural groups practicing accommodation might selectively modify their communication styles or behaviors to navigate within the dominant culture without fully assimilating.
  • Accommodation: to encourage one another to maintain their own main culture.

• Separation involves maintaining distinct cultural practices, norms, and communication patterns without seeking assimilation or accommodation into the dominant culture. Co-cultural groups opting for separation emphasize preserving their cultural identity and autonomy. This strategy may lead to limited interaction with the dominant culture, creating boundaries to protect their traditions, language, and values. However, it might also result in social isolation or exclusion from opportunities available within the dominant society.
  • Separation: resisting to become involved or overtaken by the main culture.

These outcomes or strategies are not mutually exclusive and can be fluid, depending on the context, goals, and experiences of co-cultural groups. Individuals or groups may employ a combination of these strategies in different situations or at various stages of their interactions within the dominant culture. Co-cultural Communication Theory recognizes the complexities of these strategies and emphasizes the agency of co-cultural groups in choosing how to navigate their communication and cultural integration within a diverse society.

Assimilation, as per the co-cultural communication theory, pertains to the phenomenon whereby individuals or groups from co-cultural backgrounds adopt the dominant culture's norms, values, behaviors, and communication patterns. This assimilation typically transpires due to the aspiration to conform to the mainstream culture, gain acceptance, and mitigate communication and social integration obstacles.

Assimilation is a process that often results from a desire to conform to mainstream culture, gain acceptance, and overcome communication and social integration barriers. This decision is driven by various factors, including the need to access resources, opportunities, social mobility, and mitigate discrimination, prejudice, or marginalization experienced by the co-cultural group. Assimilation is often viewed as a coping mechanism used by co-cultural groups to thrive within the dominant societal framework.

However, the process of assimilation is complex and multifaceted, carrying both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, assimilation can facilitate smoother interactions and communication between co-cultural groups and the dominant culture, leading to increased access to employment, education, and social networks, thereby enhancing the overall quality of life for individuals or groups seeking assimilation.

On the other hand, assimilation can come at a cost. Individuals may lose their cultural identity, language, traditions, and heritage. The pressure to conform to the dominant culture's norms might lead to feelings of alienation, internal conflict, and a sense of disconnect from one's roots. Co-cultural individuals must navigate between preserving their cultural identity and assimilating into the dominant culture.

Moreover, assimilation does not guarantee complete acceptance or integration into the dominant culture. Co-cultural individuals may face challenges such as cultural bias, microaggressions, or systemic barriers that hinder their full integration, regardless of their efforts to assimilate.

Regarding communication, assimilation entails adopting the language, communication style, and nonverbal cues prevalent in the dominant culture. This may involve altering speech patterns, body language, or even modifying cultural practices to align with the dominant group's expectations. Through assimilation, co-cultural groups aim to bridge communication gaps, minimize misunderstandings, and establish rapport with the dominant culture.

Lastly, assimilation as a strategy within co-cultural communication theory reflects the intricate balance between preserving cultural identity and adapting to the dominant culture. While it may facilitate smoother interactions and increased opportunities, it also poses challenges related to cultural erosion and identity conflict. Understanding assimilation within the framework of co-cultural communication theory is crucial to appreciating the complexities of intercultural interactions and the diverse ways in which individuals negotiate their identities within a multicultural society.

Assimilation can be nonassertive, assertive and or aggressive.

• Aggressive assimilation: They do a lot of mirroring while also ridiculing their own culture to assimilate into the main culture.
• Nonassertive assimilation: They emphasize the common things of their cultures, while also developing a positive face.
• Assertive assimilation: This can be a bit stereotypical, as they bargain and prepare themselves to disassociate with their own culture.

Feminist standpoint theory, or FST, is a theory that helps explain that while most people believe that everyone has their own standpoint to share their perspective it is not true for others. People and their opportunity to access standpoints relatively depend on power status and resources that are available to them. According to West and Turner "people in higher-power positions don't achieve standpoints because standpoints require critical reflection on, and opposition to, the power structure" (West & Turner, 2021). FST has three main features that Orbe saw as an excellent support for CCT. First, FST establishes the recognition that people belong to multiple social groups which results in multifaceted identities. Secondly, FST expresses the prominence and influence that power has in the social world. "From the perspective of FST, power privileges members of the dominant group (DGMs) and oppresses members of non-dominant, or co-cultural, groups (NDGMs). NDGMs are not allowed authority and the issues raised by their standpoints are ignored" (West & Turner, 2021). Last, FST highlights the connections between communication behaviors and standpoints. West and Turner (2021) accentuated that there is a pattern with those who share standpoints also practice similar communication styles. Looking to FST, communication is the catalyst for change and that happen through standpoints of the people that do not belong to dominant groups or high-powered individuals.

According to West and Turner (2021), the three assumptions of co-cultural theory are:^[18]

1. When a culture's organized in a hierarchy, certain groups are favored over others and power is awarded based on this preference
2. The "lived experiences" of underrepresented groups are valuable and must be identified and embraced.
3. Members of underrepresented groups, although differing from each other in many ways and representing widely different lived experiences, share an "outsider" view of the dominant culture.

The first assumption leads to Orbe's belief that power and hierarchical structure create the rifts between groups; therefore, this results in the creation of dominant and non-dominant groups within the society. The second assumption goes back to the point made in the feminist standpoint theory that people of marginalized groups need to be heard and those people's experiences must be accounted for. Dominant groups tend to put a damper on the potential influence of the non-dominant culture's voices. The third assumption of CCT states that members of non-dominant groups all share a common understanding of what it is to be an "outsider", this can lead to non-dominant groups connecting and communicating because they have a mutual aspect that affects them equally from the society (Orbe & Roberts, 2012).

• Ardener, E. (1978). Some outstanding problems in the analysis of events. In. G. Schwinner, (Ed.), The yearbook of symbolic anthropology. pp. 103–121. London: Hurst.
• Ardener, S. (1975). Perceiving Women. London: Malaby Press.
• Camara, S. K. & Orbe, M. P. (2010). Analyzing strategic responses to discriminatory acts: A co-cultural communicative investigation. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 83–113.
• Dixon, L. D. (2001). Naming issues in the future of intercultural communication research: The contributions of Mark Orbe's co-cultural theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Cincinnati.
• Heuman, A. (2001). Multiracial/ethnic identity: A co-cultural approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Cincinnati.
• Jun, J. (2012). Why are Asian Americans silent? Asian Americans' negotiation strategies for communicative discriminations. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, doi:10.1080/17513057.2012.720700
• Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and Men Speaking. Rowley, MA: Newberry House.
• Lapinski, M. K., & Orbe, M. (2007). Evidence for the construct validity and reliability of the Co-Cultural Theory Scales. Communication Methods and Measure. 1(2), 137–164.
• L. West, R., & H. Turner, L. (2021). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application (7th ed.) [E-Book]. McGraw-Hill.
• Orbe, M. P., & Roberts, T. L. (2012). Co-cultural theorizing: Foundations, applications & extensions. Howard Journal of Communications, 23(4), 293–311.
• Orbe, M. (1996). Laying the foundation for co-cultural communication theory: An inductive approach to studying "non-dominant" communication strategies and the factors that influence them. Communication Studies. 47 (3), 157–176.
• Orbe, M. (1997). A Co-cultural communication approach to intergroup relations. Journal of Intergroup Relations. 24, 36–49.
• Orbe, M. (1998a). Constructing co-cultural theory: an explication of culture, power, and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Orbe, M. (1998b). From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co-cultural communication theoretical model. Communication Theory, 8, 1–26.
• Orbe, M. and Greer, C. M. (2000). Recognizing the diversity of lived experience: The utility of co-cultural theory in communication and disabilities research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Detroit.
• Orbe, M. (2004). Co-cultural theory and the spirit of dialogue: A case study of the 2000–2002 community-based civil rights health project. In. G. M. Chen & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Dialogue among diversities (pp. 191–211). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
• Orbe, M. and Spellers, R. E. (2005). From the margins to the center: utilizing co-cultural theory in diverse contexts. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 173–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ramirez-Sanchez, R. (2008). Marginalization from Within: Expanding Co-cultural Theory Through the Experience of the Afro Punk. Howard Journal of Communication. 19(2), 89–104.
• Smith, D. E. (1987). "The everyday world as problematic: a feminist sociology of knowledge". Boston: Northeastern University Press.
• Stanback, M. H. and Pearce, W. B. (1981). Talking to "the man": Some communication strategies used by members of "subordinate" social groups. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 67, 21–30.
• Song, Z. (2018, February 2). Integrated co-cultural Communication Accommodation Strategies. Proceedings of International Academic Conferences.
• Thesunshineisours. (2020, July 9). What are the main factors that affect co-cultural communication? what are the different co-cultural communication strategies?. ECOSYSTEMS UNITED.
• Glenn, C.L. & Johnson, D.L. (2012). "What they see as acceptable:" A co-cultural theoretical analysis of Black male students at a Predominantly White Institution, Howard Journal of Communications, 23(4), 351–368. doi:10.1080/10646175.2012.722817
• Song, Z. (2018, February 2). Integrated co-cultural Communication Accommodation Strategie. Proceedings of International Academic Conferences.
• Thesunshineisours. (2020, July 9). What are the main factors that affect co-cultural communication? what are the different co-cultural communication strategies?. ECOSYSTEMS UNITED.
• Glenn, C.L. & Johnson, D.L. (2012). "What they see as acceptable:" A co-cultural theoretical analysis of Black male students at a Predominantly White Institution, Howard Journal of Communications, 23(4), 351–368. doi:10.1080/10646175.2012.722817
• Cohen, M., & Avanzino, S. (2010). We Are People First: Framing Organizational Assimilation Experiences of the Physically Disabled Using Co-Cultural Theory. Communication Studies, 61(3), 272–303. {{doi|10.1080/10510971003791203}}
• Camara, S., & Orbe, M. (2010). Analyzing Strategic Responses to Discriminatory Acts: A Co-Cultural Communicative Investigation. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 83–113. {{doi|10.1080/17513051003611602}}
• Ramírez-Sánchez, R. (2008). Marginalization from Within: Expanding Co-cultural Theory Through the Experience of the Afro Punk. Howard Journal of Communications, 19(2), 89–104. {{doi|10.1080/10646170801990896}}
• Sollitto, M., & Cranmer, G. A. (2019). The Relationship Between Aggressive Communication Traits and Organizational Assimilation. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(2), 278–296. {{doi|10.1177/2329488415613339}}

• Western Michigan University School of Communication
• Central States Communication Association