Difference between revisions of "The Double-Swing Model"
| (12 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
How to respect cultural uniqueness in terms of differences and similarities?<br><br> | How to respect cultural uniqueness in terms of differences and similarities?<br><br> | ||
| − | According to Yoshikawa, the Double-Swing model presents a way to close these gaps and supports a constructive intercultural communication between individuals and cultures. With both communicating parties understanding communication as an infinite process, they change during the intercourse and reach a higher position of tolerance and knowledge to deal with intercultural differences and similarities. | + | According to Yoshikawa, the Double-Swing model presents a way to close these gaps and supports a constructive intercultural communication between individuals and cultures. With both communicating parties understanding communication as an infinite process, they change during the intercourse and reach a higher position of tolerance and knowledge to deal with intercultural differences and similarities.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.319</ref> |
=Modes of Encounter= | =Modes of Encounter= | ||
| − | There are different ways of encounter and communication on which Yoshikawa built his dialogical mode of communication when individuals or cultures come across. | + | There are different ways of encounter and communication on which Yoshikawa built his dialogical mode of communication when individuals or cultures come across.<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.320</ref> |
== Ethnocentric mode== | == 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== | == 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 == | == 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 == | == 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= | =East & West perspectives= | ||
| Line 53: | 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> | 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> | <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> |
| + | That way every party is able to recognize the whole living subject and not only some characteristics in the dialogue, as described before in the different modes of encounter. | ||
| − | =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. |
| − | + | <br><br> | |
| − | + | To cooperate effectively, those implications were announced by Yoshikawa:<ref>Yoshikawa 1987, p.328.</ref><br> | |
| − | + | 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> | |
| − | + | 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> | |
| − | + | 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 | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
=Critics= | =Critics= | ||
| + | Although Yoshikawa provides a cross cultural concept of appropriate behavior, there are remaining open questions, e.g. as followed:<br> | ||
What to take care for if “cultures” meet? (concrete examples, best-practices)<br> | 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 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 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= | =Notes= | ||
| − | |||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
=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]] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:48, 1 September 2013
Basic questions
How to deal with the globalised world in terms of the interpersonal, international and intercultural relations?
How to respect cultural uniqueness in terms of differences and similarities?
According to Yoshikawa, the Double-Swing model presents a way to close these gaps and supports a constructive intercultural communication between individuals and cultures. With both communicating parties understanding communication as an infinite process, they change during the intercourse and reach a higher position of tolerance and knowledge to deal with intercultural differences and similarities.[1]
Modes of Encounter
There are different ways of encounter and communication on which Yoshikawa built his dialogical mode of communication when individuals or cultures come across.[2]
Ethnocentric mode
Keyword: Selectiveness
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.[3]
Control mode
Keyword: Manipulation
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. [4]
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.[5] 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.
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.[6] Using the dynamic process, coming from the ongoing "single" touch, A and B form a union with loosing their own identity.
East & West perspectives
Yoshikawa's theory of the Double-Swing model and seeing persons as being complete in relationships, is based upon the Buddhist philosophy of "soku" and Austrian Jewish philosopher Martin Buber's "I-Thou Relationship".
Western Perspective: Martin Buber and his "I-Thou-Relationship"
Overall Problem: In the world collocates Unity and Diversity. How to deal with that?
Buber sees the human life in a "two-fold moment", between distance and relation.
Not carrying out a solution for the biased problem, Buber was confronted with three stages of modes before reaching his "I-Thou-Relationship" philosophy, that is positioned in the dialogical mode of communication and encounter. Trying to attain a solution in mysticism, e.g. mythologies and philosophies of Orient, he still wondered how unity is created and reached an "existential stage" since individuals are irreplaceable notwithstanding mysticism claimed.
Eventually Buber apprehends the dialogical mode and shifts into the idea of "Inter"subjective unity that can be reached best with face-to-face meetings.
Constructing his Philosophy of Dialogue he distinguishes between the related moments of "I-IT" and "I-THOU" relationships. Whilst "I-IT" abides the experience one has with an individual or a culture, forming perceived happenings into abstracted objects, the "I-THOU" part recognizes the whole living subject and the relation one has with "Thou" without restricting to few experienced points.
The Buddhist philosophy "soku"
Basic idea: Nothing in the world exists independent of a web of conditioning factors.
To deal with that idea, there are two ways: one in "Clinging" to that fact of conditioning matters and accepting that there is either one or two.
Another way is the "Middle Way" by recognizing, that there are two matters, although one cannot say whether it is one or two.
"Soku" stands for "not one, not two" and is based upon the Japanese 即非("Soku-hi), which is a term of the Kyoto School of Eastern philosophy. Yoshikawa describes, that the world is a complementary Interplay of the world of category and non-category, and uses this paradoxical relationship between "not one, not two" for his third perspective, the double-swing model.
The Double-Swing Model
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.
“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)"
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.
That way every party is able to recognize the whole living subject and not only some characteristics in the dialogue, as described before in the different modes of encounter.
Benefits and Implications
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.
To cooperate effectively, those implications were announced by Yoshikawa:[8]
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.
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.
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
Critics
Although Yoshikawa provides a cross cultural concept of appropriate behavior, there are remaining open questions, e.g. as followed:
What to take care for if “cultures” meet? (concrete examples, best-practices)
What if own acceptance of „anew-creation“ is not given?
What about Buber‘s „narrow-ridge“ (face-to-face requirement)? Representative for western thinking?
What about the Eastern dominance in that model?
Can you really use Buber's theory representatively as a Western perspective?
Notes
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.