The Double-Swing Model - Revision history

Root: /* References */

2013-09-01T16:48:57Z

References

Nabonk at 16:36, 27 June 2013

2013-06-27T16:36:18Z

Nabonk at 15:57, 27 June 2013

2013-06-27T15:57:44Z

Nabonk: /* Dialogical mode */

2013-06-27T15:54:00Z

Dialogical mode

Nabonk: /* Dialectical mode */

2013-06-27T15:53:34Z

Dialectical mode

Nabonk: /* Control mode */

2013-06-27T15:52:49Z

Control mode

Nabonk at 15:51, 27 June 2013

2013-06-27T15:51:55Z

Nabonk at 19:31, 26 June 2013

2013-06-26T19:31:39Z

Nabonk at 19:17, 26 June 2013

2013-06-26T19:17:53Z

Nabonk at 19:17, 26 June 2013

2013-06-26T19:17:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 1 September 2013
Line 78:		Line 78:
	=References=		=References=
	*Yoshikawa, Muneo (1987). “The Double-Swing Model of Cross cultural Communication between the East and the West”, in: Kincaid L., ed., Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives,New York: Academic Press,pp.319-330.		*Yoshikawa, Muneo (1987). “The Double-Swing Model of Cross cultural Communication between the East and the West”, in: Kincaid L., ed., Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives,New York: Academic Press,pp.319-330.
		+
		+	=Presentation for classroom use=
		+	[[Media:Nathalie_B_Doubleswing_Model.pptx]]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 This conceptualization has the attribute that it is neither monoistic „o“, nor dualistic   „o o“, since the Möbius strip shows a clear "Identity-in-Unity" „∞”, with one point of touch during a communicational process. <br>
 <pre style="white-space:-moz-pre-wrap; white-space:-pre-wrap; white-space:-o-pre-wrap; white-space:pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word;">“The Act of meeting between two different beings without eliminating the otherness of each other & without reducing the dynamic tension created with the meeting.”(Yoshikawa 1987:326)"</pre><ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.326.</ref><br>
-The continuous process of anew creation by the dynamic flow of diaological interaction, positions both communicators into a new role: everyone is always an active creator of one's own stimuli and never a passive reactor during the communication.
+The continuous process of anew creation by the dynamic flow of diaological interaction, positions both communicators into a new role: everyone is always an active creator of one's own stimuli and never a passive reactor during the communication. <br>
-=Implications=
+==Benefits and Implications==
-Difference & otherness as positive factors
+Using the double-swing model as a third perspective while meeting different cultures, an individual or a culture is able to recognize the independence of each party and the interdependence of the growing dynamics in that process. There are no barriers to implement these open basic attitude and life stance while interacting man-men, having dialogues between religions, etc. , but a reliable support in the globalized world.
--> essential for growth in communication process
+<br><br>
-Communicator is always active
+To cooperate effectively, those implications were announced by Yoshikawa:<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.328.</ref><br>
--> never a passive reactor to communication, but an active creator of own stimuli
+Difference & otherness of cultures act as positive factors and not as matters e.g. to be afraid of. They are essential for a growing process in communication.<br>
-Dynamic interplay with whole persons
+Furthermore works communication just in a holistic dynamic interplay with the whole persons. There is no room to focus on polarities but to use the polar experiences each party brings along to successfully overcome stereotypes and selective communication.<br>
-->focus polar posits - not polar experiences
+For that a specific awareness of one's self and of the other parties is necessary to achieve a dialogical mode as seen in the figures above. Being aware of differences and similarities, how they developed and

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == Ethnocentric mode==
-Keyword: Selectiveness
+Keyword: Selectiveness<br><br>
 Based on Selectiveness, both A and B do not acknowledge each others uniqueness and differences. Talking out of their own frame of reference, B has no chance to be recognized completely and stands under A.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.320</ref>
 [[File:ethnocentric mode Kopie.jpg]]
 == Control mode==
-Keyword: Manipulation
+Keyword: Manipulation<br><br>
 A is well aware of the differences between A and B, perceiving B as a tool for A's aspirations. The cultural uniqueness is manipulated to achieve A's purposes. <ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.320</ref><br>
 [[File:control mode Kopie.jpg]]
 == Dialectical mode ==
-Keyword: Fusion
+Keyword: Fusion<br><br>
 Depending on the strength of either A or B, they transform their opinion in the superior one. As seen in the second picture, the stronger opinion is the outcome or was fusioned in another opinion C.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.320</ref> In that mode is still no real getting along between two parties archived, since the cultural differences and similarities aren't recognized as a whole matter.<br>
 [[File:dialectical mode Kopie.jpg]][[File:dialectical mode_2 Kopie.jpg]]
 == Dialogical mode ==
-Keyword: Interdependence
+Keyword: Interdependence <br><br>
 Being separated and independent of each other, A and B form a paradoxical relationship. Aware of the uniqueness from each party, the cultural integrity is respected and treated with tolerance.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.321</ref> Using the dynamic process, coming from the ongoing "single" touch, A and B form a union with loosing their own identity.<br>
 [[File:dialogical mode Kopie.jpg]]
 =East & West perspectives=
@@ Line 71: / Line 68: @@
 =Critics=
 What to take care for if “cultures” meet? (concrete examples, best-practices)<br>
 What if own acceptance of „anew-creation“ is not given?<br>
 What about Buber‘s „narrow-ridge“ (face-to-face requirement)? Representative for western thinking?<br>
-What about the Eastern dominance in that model?
+What about the Eastern dominance in that model?<br>
+Can you really use Buber's theory representatively as a Western perspective?<br>
 =Notes=
 <references />

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 == Dialogical mode ==
 Keyword: Interdependence
-Being separated and independent of each other, A and B form a paradoxical relationship. Aware of the uniqueness from each party, the cultural integrity is respected and treated with tolerance.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.321</ref> Using the dynamic process, coming from the ongoing "single" touch, A and B form a union with loosing their own identity.
+Being separated and independent of each other, A and B form a paradoxical relationship. Aware of the uniqueness from each party, the cultural integrity is respected and treated with tolerance.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.321</ref> Using the dynamic process, coming from the ongoing "single" touch, A and B form a union with loosing their own identity.<br>
 [[File:dialogical mode Kopie.jpg]]
 =Development of Diaological mode=

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 == Dialectical mode ==
 Keyword: Fusion
-Depending on the strength of either A or B, they transform their opinion in the superior one. As seen in the second picture, the stronger opinion is the outcome or was fusioned in another opinion C.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.320</ref> In that mode is still no real getting along between two parties archived, since the cultural differences and similarities aren't recognized as a whole matter.
+Depending on the strength of either A or B, they transform their opinion in the superior one. As seen in the second picture, the stronger opinion is the outcome or was fusioned in another opinion C.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.320</ref> In that mode is still no real getting along between two parties archived, since the cultural differences and similarities aren't recognized as a whole matter.<br>
 [[File:dialectical mode Kopie.jpg]][[File:dialectical mode_2 Kopie.jpg]]
 == Dialogical mode ==
 Keyword: Interdependence

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ==Characteristics==
 This conceptualization has the attribute that it is neither monoistic „o“, nor dualistic   „o o“, since the Möbius strip shows a clear "Identity-in-Unity" „∞”, with one point of touch during a communicational process. <br>
-<pre style="white-space:-moz-pre-wrap; white-space:-pre-wrap; white-space:-o-pre-wrap; white-space:pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word;">“The Act of meeting between two different beings without eliminating the otherness of each other & without reducing the dynamic tension created with the meeting.”(Yoshikawa 1987:326)<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.326.</ref>"</pre><br>
+<pre style="white-space:-moz-pre-wrap; white-space:-pre-wrap; white-space:-o-pre-wrap; white-space:pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word;">“The Act of meeting between two different beings without eliminating the otherness of each other & without reducing the dynamic tension created with the meeting.”(Yoshikawa 1987:326)<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.326.</ref>"</pre><ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.326.</ref><br>
 The continuous process of anew creation by the dynamic flow of diaological interaction, positions both communicators into a new role: everyone is always an active creator of one's own stimuli and never a passive reactor during the communication.