International Conference on Journalism & Mass Communications (Singapore)

5th Annual International Conference on Journalism and Mass Communications
JMComm 2016
10-11 October 2016
Singapore

Conference Theme
“JOURNALISM, MEDIA AND MASS COMMUNICATION IN THE AGE OF INFORMATION”

Mass media is seen in nearly every facet of our daily lives and technology is constantly altering the way we live. The technology boom that has been felt around the world has forever changed communication as we know it and has greatly impacted our personal and professional lives. Presently, the media as a vehicle of social change influence appearance, language, family, status, politics, and religion.

Certain differences exist between information, entertainment, and communication in today’s society, particularly in relation to mass media. These various media interactions have converged in our current society in a number of ways and have impacted social relations through the way we communicate with one another. Educational implications require an understanding of the complex world through interdisciplinary scholarship, critical viewing, new values, and an examination of the impact of the mass media.

With all the new technology, digital tools and connectivity, one of the most interesting fallouts has been the intensification of social connections… connecting the world as a single place, and creating a greater awareness of opinion, bias, and raw news. The intersection of globalization, communication, and journalism defines an important and growing field of research, particularly concerning the public sphere and spaces for political discourse.

Full paper submission deadline: 25 April 2016

Refugees, Germany, Willkommenskultur and Intercultural Communication

Guest PostsResponse to Dominic Busch’s guest post by Peter Praxmarer

I find myself in almost full agreement with what Dominic Busch writes.

In particular, I find his reflections on language in what he calls “internal social discourse,” pertinent and well taken. Also, the fact that “the cultural argument” has been hijacked by the far right and the national populists, in our times, is not surprising. This would, by the way, merit a little more research: attention to the culture of others has more often than not been a child of animosity, enmity, hostility, rejection if not outright war, as the history of exclusion, but also of conquest, colonialism, imperialism, and domination in general, amply testifies. As we (should) know, the very idea of “intercultural communication” as a more or less independent field of study, research and practical application was born during WWII, as part of the “war effort” of the US (viz. Leeds-Hurwitz). From this, also, stems the particular and sometimes incongruent vocabulary of the field, which is utterly US-social-science-lingo dominated, with some inroads from languages which still claim their droit de cité in the global social science supermarket (or, more benignly stated, the Global Republic of Letters), e.g. French and German. The field of study called intercultural communication became less war-related only later (but not everywhere), when  nation- and culture-crossing processes and constellations other than war started to play a more important role in the modern world-system (to follow Immanuel Wallerstein’s still pertinent terminology, preferring it to the shallow term “globalization”) – but it has kept its very peculiar vocabulary, at least in the mainstream.

Aside from that, while reflecting upon the present discourse on refugees in Germany and the “cultural” problems of the more or less autochthon residents (the “Old Germans”, as Busch cites a fellow professor in his piece) with them, it is worthwhile also to reflect on the position of the very term Kultur in Germany. In Germany, and not only during Nazi times, there has long existed an attitude which was described as Am deutschen Wesen mag/soll die Welt genesen, meaning that German culture is the remedy for all other (cultural) ills, all over the world. The Allied Propaganda posters, both in WWI as in WWII, took up this cultural theme. Thus, e.g., US War Propaganda during WWI showed a Mad German Brute holding a club with written Kultur on it, or an US Sleeping Beauty by the name of Civilization, calling every man, woman and child to war  – these and similar illustrations were meant to convey that deutsche Kultur is not so peaceful as other civilizations. In historical perspective, one has to agree. Looking into what was done in the name of German Kultur and how Kultur was used during WWII and before, would just confirm the very xenophobic and worse essence of it, inhumanely and most horrendously. (Caveat: Allied war propaganda is not presented here as an authoritative source, but only to provide a stark illustration of the use of the cultural argument; and many other than German “cultures” and “civilizations” certainly also have their share in war, conquest and violence-in-the-name-of-culture, epitomized, e.g., by “The White Man’s Burden” or the “mission civilisatrice”.)

Therefore, and also in view of the fact that the populist right wing and nationalistic parties have been able to hijack the term “culture” for their purposes, it is so good to see how civil society in Germany has constructed a new culture which is not national or völkisch, nor aggressive or expansionist, but welcoming: Willkommenskultur. In addition, even the counterpart to civil society, the German state, not least through its Chancellor, is, to varying degrees and for various reasons, in favor of taking in refugees, as is, again for still other reasons and purposes, the economy and a great part of the media. A beautiful page in the otherwise not always so beautiful book of contemporary Europe. And also a great example of (co-)constructed (inter-)culture, as well as of the fact that  “culture” never stands alone and cannot be meaningfully explained without taking into account history, society, economy, the polity, as well as, in our day and age, the many influences and experiences of mediated virtual reality in all its forms.

Yet, I also want to mention a point of potential disagreement with what Busch writes, regarding the role of Intercultural Communication Studies and Research. It is certainly true that the term “culture” has been critically evaluated, and the field is rapidly moving away from an essentialist and relatively static position to a more constructivist interactional and dynamic view of culture, in very simple terms privileging “communication” and “inter” over “culture”. However, by and large the main concern of intercultural communication research has been predominantly either relatively elite or middle-class or strictly utilitarian, covering, e.g. management or other professional groups, hospitals, schools, the military, police, development cooperation, etc. Relatively rarely concerned with, e.g., social integration per se (if not in special trainings for social workers, etc.), or with social integration from below (viz. the reference to Conflict Discourse Ethnocentrism in Busch’s text). In other words, the field has been center- and middle-class- or elite-focused, and not periphery- and non-elite, and where non-elite, then mostly only in terms of social management of deviations from norms or dangers from (culturally defined) others. This has also impacted our methodology: we have not always tried to understand, but we have been “overstanding”, as Raimon Panikkar so masterly phrased it already a quarter of a century ago. This is exacerbated when interculturalists (have to) jump on data-driven “fast science” jets instead of cultivating philosophy-fertilized “slow science” gardens, since this leaves no time to reflect either on the cui bono question or on participative methods or more sophisticated research questions than the ones required and funded by the global social science marketplaces – and it most certainly does not give a voice to those directly researched upon and with. Also for these reasons (conceptual, exemplified by “culture”, as well as methodologically), I would argue, we have so little to say when it comes to refugee crises, or to horrorism/terrorism, or to many other social “problems”. One reason why “the cultural argument” has been so successfully hijacked by the right and the nationalists, could therefore probably be that the interculturalists have far too long worked – even if engaging in what Busch calls a “sophisticated” debate – with a de-historisized, de-socialized, de-materialized, de-economized, de-politicized and overly value-oriented and psychologized concept of culture (and communication, for that matter). In other words, if one wants to understand (parts of) social reality in terms of culture and communication (and “inter” dynamics and processes), one has to look at it as what Busch calls, following Michel Foucault a “Dispositiv” (“dispositif” or “apparatus” in Foucault’s terminology). Likewise, it is necessary to overcome the “Unbearable Lightness of Communication Research”, as The International Communication Gazette tellingly titles its forthcoming 2016 Special Issue.

This critical look at the field is of course not meant to belittle the many initiatives of academic interculturalists in Germany, of which “Helfern helfen” of the intercultural campus of the Interkultureller Hochschulverband is but one. Or the numerous other initiatives undertaken by people who have studied intercultural communication and want to put their knowledge to good use; not to forget all those who practice sustainable – and sustained — intercultural communication in their daily dealings with the Stranger, the Migrant, the Refugee, the Other. It is simply a call for more “social” intercultural communication studies – more social in more than one sense.

Download the entire post as a PDF.

U Utah Asia Campus job ad (Korea)

Non-Tenure Track Assistant Professor (Lecturer) at University of Utah Asia Campus

The University of Utah’s Department of Communication invites applications for one to two non-tenure track lecturer positions in Communication beginning July 1, 2016, for appointment at the University of Utah Asia Campus (UAC) in Songdo, Korea. Songdo, Korea, is about an hour southwest of Seoul and close to the Incheon International Airport. The UAC is a campus of the University of Utah. All non-language courses are taught in English.

Lecturers will teach courses from the following list of courses offered at the UAC: Analysis of Argument, Principles of Public Speaking, Introduction to News Writing, Theoretical Perspectives in Communication, Intercultural Communication, Introduction to Media Business & Ethics, Visual Communication, Digital Journalism, Video Production, Principles of Advertising, Cross Cultural Documentary Communication, Visual Editing, Strategic Communication Theory & Practice, Magazine Writing, Mass Communication Law, PR Cases & Campaigns, and Media Ethics. An abbreviated description of these courses may be found online.

Successful candidates will be excellent teachers. The standard annual teaching load for lecturers at the UAC is 4/4. Qualified applicants will have a Ph.D. in Communication (A.B.D. candidates will be considered) or a terminal degree in a closely related discipline or interdisciplinary program and a record of, or demonstrated potential for, teaching excellence.

Formal review of applications will begin April 8, 2016 and will continue until the position is filled. Applicants must submit a cover letter highlighting teaching experiences and credentials, a CV, a writing sample, evidence of teaching excellence, and a list of three references. Apply online.

Questions about the position may be directed to Kent A. Ono, Department Chair and Search Committee Chair.

Watershed Professor of City Futures (University of the West of England job ad)

Watershed Professor of City Futures
University of the West of England, Bristol – Film & Journalism
Closing date: 31 March 2016

An ambitious university, UWE Bristol is committed to advancing knowledge, inspiring people and transforming futures.

The Faculty of Arts, Creative Industries and Education is seeking to appoint a Professor who will investigate the inter-relationships between Bristol’s citizens, its public spaces, and the digital creative interventions allowed by the context of ubiquitous and pervasive computing. Embedded within the city, in dialogue with partners and projects, the post-holder will bring an insider vantage-point to a critical examination of the practices and impacts of digital media in the city region and beyond.

The Watershed Professor of City Futures will be based at the Digital Cultures Research Centre in the Pervasive Media Studio, within UWE’s City Campus, but will engage in an interdisciplinary dialogue across the University. The postholder will work closely with the Watershed’s digital innovation processes, including the Playable City initiative and the growing international network of partners in that project.

The Digital Cultures Research Centre (DCRC) enables, supports and promotes world-leading research into innovative creative practices – economies, pleasures, publics – in a context of rapid digital transformation. We study the application, practices and politics of emerging technologies; we critically reflect on their ethics, values and aesthetics.

The current focus of the DCRC is on four broad research themes: Playable Media, Future Documentary, The Automation of Everyday Life and Creative Economy. 2015/2016 sees the Centre hosting research seminar series on Cultural Value and the Anthropocene, and holding the fourth i-Docs Symposium – the UK’s only conference on interactive documentary. The Rooms festival marks the culmination of the REACT project, with evaluation and publication underway. Meanwhile, a new MA in Creative Producing is in development for 2016, in collaboration with Pervasive Media Studio.

If you would like an informal discussion, please contact Peter Rawlings.

Salary details:
UWE Bristol operates a competitive merit pay scheme for its professors which can significantly extend the baseline salary.

Grants for Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation (USAID)

FY 2016 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities (Global Reconciliation Fund)
Agency for International Development
Deadline: April 25, 2016
Amount: Upper $1,500,000USD, Lower $100,000USD

The United States Government, as represented by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM), invites applications for funding from qualified entities to carry out activities that mitigate conflict and promote reconciliation by bringing together individuals of different ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds from areas of civil conflict and war in the following countries: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Liberia, Macedonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal (including cross-border programming with Guinea, Guinea Bissau, and The Gambia), Sri Lanka, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

see also:
US Aid People-to-People Peacebuilding

Media & Environment: Teaching in/about the Anthropocene

Teaching Media Quarterly
Call for Lesson Plans: Teaching Media Quarterly Vol. 4, No. 2
“Media and Environment: Teaching in/about the Anthropocene”
Submission deadline: Earth Day, April 22, 2016

Teaching Media Quarterly seeks lesson plans that ask students to critically engage with the complex relationship between media and the environment. We ask for submissions that explicate the role of media discourses and media technologies in light of growing concerns about an array of environmental issues including, but not limited to, climate change, drought, food justice, resource extraction, and migration. We encourage pedagogical perspectives informed by research and activism that examine the natural sciences, journalism, materiality, popular culture, and cultural studies within the context of environmental thought.

We invite submitters to consider the following potential topics as inspiration:
– Media technology and their material consequences
– News media and climate change/justice
– Representations of nature and/or environmentalism in popular culture
– Green and environmentalist media
– Greenwashing and corporate communications
– Advocacy campaigns produced by students and/or social movements

Teaching Media Quarterly Submission Guidelines
All submissions must include: 1) a title, 2) an overview (word limit: 500 words) 3) comprehensive rationale (using accessible language explain the purpose of the assignment(s), define key terms, and situate in relevant literature) (word limit: 500), 4) a general timeline, 5) a detailed lesson plan and assignment instructions, 6) teaching materials (handouts, rubrics, discussion prompts, viewing guides, etc.), 7) a full bibliography of readings, links, and/or media examples, and 8) a short biography (100-150 words).

Please email all submissions using the TMQ.Submission.Template (2) (.docx) in ONE Microsoft Word document.

Review Policy
Submissions will be reviewed by each member of the editorial board. Editors will make acceptance decisions based on their vision for the issue and an assessment of contributions. It is the goal of Teaching Media Quarterly to notify submitters of the editors’ decisions within two weeks of submission receipt. Teaching Media Quarterly is dedicated to circulating practical and timely approaches to media concepts and topics from a variety of disciplinary and methodological perspectives. Our goal is to promote collaborative exchange of undergraduate teaching resources between media educators at higher education institutions. As we hope for continuing discussions and exchange as well as contributions to Teaching Media Quarterly we encourage you to visit our website.

CFP WFI Student Grants for Social Justice

Call for proposals
Villanova University’s Waterhouse Family Institute for the Study of Communication and Society (WFI) is pleased to ANNOUNCE OUR NEW STUDENT GRANT PROGRAM for 2016/17, and OUR INAUGURAL CALL FOR PROPOSALS (DUE APRIL 22, 2016).

The WFI—endowed by Lawrence Waterhouse, Jr., and housed within Villanova University’s Department of Communication—was founded on the principle that students, scholars, activists, and practitioners of communication have an important role to play in the creation of a socially just world. In addition to our WFI Research Grant program, which supports the work of Communication scholars engaging questions of social justice, we are pleased to announce the creation of a program geared to undergraduate students interested in engaging Communication and social justice!

This program was inspired in the Summer of 2014 by a proposal designed and directed by three Villanova undergraduate alums (who, at the time, were ineligible for our existing faculty research grant program). Moved by the proposal, the WFI provided a grant of $12,660 to Lauren Colegrove, Andrew Balamaci, and Nashia Kamal to assist them in continuing to build on the relationships they had established through Villanova’s (WFI-funded) Social Justice Documentary Film Program. They proposed to teach journalism and reporting skills to the high school students at Heritage Academy in Essiam, Ghana, and, further, to help the school establish a newspaper for their students. Going even further, two of these remarkable young Communication activists are now working on a project in Bangladesh for Summer 2016!

So if you know of any students who are innovative, creative, and passionate about social justice—and who would be able to do great things if only they had the budget and opportunity—then please encourage them to submit a proposal to the new WFI Student Grant Program. Proposals are due no later than Friday, April 22, 2016.

Beginning in 2016-17, the WFI will award up to $10,000 to support an undergraduate student-driven project that demonstrates an innovative connection between communication and social justice.

These projects:
–       must center upon undergraduate (not graduate) students in Communication, although faculty may be involved as advisors and/or instructors of record;
–       must meaningfully connect Communication students to the creation of social justice;
–       must be primarily carried out during Fall 2016 and/or Spring 2017.

Although we do not limit our grants to a specific area of Communication, or particular kind of communication advocacy, all projects supported by the WFI have two things in common: they draw upon and engage topics central to the study and practice of Communication, and they specifically engage communication in terms of its impact on the world around us, its ability to create social change.

WFI Student Grants are available to project leaders who are full-time undergraduate students enrolled in good standing at any US institution of higher education. Awards will be no greater than $10,000 for the 2016-17 academic year. These funds may be applied to the acquisition of resources or equipment, technology, travel, event planning, and/or any other appropriate project related expenses. However, these funds may not be used to provide or supplement faculty or student salaries. Funds will be available beginning in July 2016, for use throughout the 2016-17 academic year; again proposals are due no later than April 22, 2016.

For more details on the WFI and this grant program—including specific information on the grant application requirements and proposal submission—please visit: http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/communication/wfi/studentactivities.html

Questions concerning eligibility, or the nature of projects we support, please contact the Director of the WFI, Dr. Bryan Crable.

CFP Seen but not Heard: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Child Migrants & Refugees

Call for Chapter Abstracts
Seen but not Heard: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Child Migrants and Refugees (Lexington Books)
Edited by:
Mary Grace Antony, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, Schreiner University
Ryan J. Thomas, Assistant Professor of Journalism Studies, University of Missouri-Columbia

Amid unprecedented mass migrations across the globe stemming from civil wars, political unrest, and economic turbulence, the plight of refugees and migrants weighs heavily on policymakers and concerned citizens. Among these displaced individuals, child migrants and refugees represent an especially vulnerable and largely overlooked category of would-be immigrants. As immigration rhetoric and policies become increasingly harsher, child migrants represent a complex immigrant group with the propensity to evoke compassion and concern. This edited collection aims to provide a rich array of interdisciplinary and multi-method perspectives on child migrants.

We seek a variety of contributions that explore child migrants, be they refugees and asylum-seekers or unaccompanied minors pursuing a better life. We especially welcome interdisciplinary contributions that encompass a variety of disciplinary (e.g., psychology, sociology, history, public policy, cultural studies, literature, etc.), theoretical (e.g., rhetorical, semiotic, post-positivist, interpretivist, critical/cultural, etc.) and methodological (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, etc.) perspectives.

Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following areas:
1. Child refugees
2. Unaccompanied youth migrants
3. Factors contributing to child migration in home countries
4. Reception of child migrants in host countries
5. Challenges faced by child migrants
6. Historical overview of child migrants
7. Legal procedures for child migrants

All abstract submissions must be original work, not under consideration at any other publication. Abstracts must be typed in MS Word, consist of no more than 250 words, and must address: (a) the specific disciplinary, theoretical, and methodological perspective, (b) the rationale for examining child refugees and migrants, (c) outline the scope of the potential chapter (e.g., case study, survey responses, historical overview, etc.).

Please submit your abstract by email to Mary Grace Antony by April 15, 2016.

Any queries or correspondence may be directed to Mary Grace Antony, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, Schreiner University, Kerrville, TX, USA.

Some Observations on Internal Social Discourses on the Recent Increase of Refugee Immigration into Germany

Guest PostsSome Observations on Internal Social Discourses on the Recent Increase of Refugee Immigration into Germany

Guest post by Dominic Busch
Professor of Intercultural Communication and Conflict Research
Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany

[A couple of weeks ago, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz asked me to write down some remarks on the current situation of Germany receiving a growing number of refugees. It is an honor for me to be allowed to say something on that topic. And at the same time – being a member of the society under discussion – the topic seemed to be so overly complex to me that I felt I was not able to write something off the cuff. After some consideration, I have tried my very best, and still, I fear that I might have forgotten or overseen one or another aspect.]

In international news coverage, Germany recently has been referred to as having been approached by an increasing number of refugees and immigrants from Africa, the near East as well as from South Eastern Europe (see either this excellent quantitative visualization, or this textual introduction with many links to the news).

Here, I would like to provide some remarks on this discourse as well as on how the discourse relates to ideas of intercultural dialogue. I cannot but write these remarks from a perspective that must be acknowledged as a highly personal one. Writing as a white German male professor at a university in Germany, and having been born in Germany, I am in a privileged position. I cannot contribute from the perspective of migrant experiences. I am part of that wealthy world where some (not too many) refugees have arrived, and civil society grows in strength and self-confidence by successfully accommodating them, donating, teaching refugee children German language in newly installed “welcoming classes”, etc. Critics of my contribution may well refer to the fact that I have not been personally involved in any challenging situations in the context of refugee movements.

Still, I would like to give it a try from the perspective of intercultural communication, my field of research. Even more, I would like to warmly invite readers of this contribution to add their perspectives and thoughts in this blog’s comment section below!

The Basic Assumptions of European Political Discourse on Refugees

Inside Germany, refugee immigration has been by far the predominant news topic for the last ten months. Migration had not been a topic of much consideration in the German national news discourse as it is now. Recent surveys have repeatedly confirmed that, even today, for a large part of the Germans the refugee phenomenon is an issue that they do not experience except via news media. Nevertheless, almost everybody seems to have an opinion on the topic. The arrival of refugees centrally can be dealt with as an issue of socially constructed news discourse. Keeping that constructionist aspect in mind may better help in understanding the central characteristics of the debate: it is primarily lead by attempts to finding a position and attitude for a whole society facing a situation some of the people feel as being insufficiently prepared for. In other words, German society is faced with a new situation and they cannot clearly see where it will lead.

The Construction of Unpreparedness

To start with, the primary reaction of the EU as well as many of its member states concerning the increasing immigration of refugees is that they were not prepared for this. Overall, political discourse builds upon the assumption that the increasing immigration is an event that could not have been foreseen. From this initial perspective, discourse draws the legitimation for needing to look for new solutions – and (in case of need) to break with former principles. So, for example, some EU member states have decided to act autonomously in terms of the refugee movement, although they had previously agreed upon following common decisions of the EU on these matters. Specifically, some of the EU member states have autonomously decided to close their borders to refugees, while others have decided to limit the number of refugees they are willing to accept.

Germany

In the case of Germany, one central ignition to the debate may be seen in Chancellor Merkel’s now famous statement “wir schaffen das” [we can do this]), first pronounced during a press conference on August 31, 2015 and encouraging society that they (and the state) have the means to welcome and accommodate the growing number of refugees. Furthermore, taking the perspective of international human rights, Merkel avowed that moral behavior will not allow for limiting numbers of refugees arriving as long as they are fleeing prosecution or other significant dangers. Stating that, Merkel took a position that is more open towards immigrants than the one taken by her own political party’s center-conservative attitude.

From that point onwards, simply put, it can be said that German society has been split into two groups – one group supporting Merkel’s openness across any political camps, and another group campaigning for an enforced stop of further immigration as well as for expelling those immigrants that already have entered the country. Beyond this overall dichotomy, the debate has some further nuances, all speaking either for one political camp or the other one. Generally this divide may accurately be described by distinguishing between the “old” Germans and the “new” Germans, terminology introduced earlier by Professor Naika Foroutan, who is based in Germany. Foroutan sees a large part of Germany’s population as representing the new Germans, and being open for aspects of globalization, migration and internationalization. Separate from them, however, Foroutan sees a part of the population that determines national identities on the basis of origin. Foroutan terms these the old Germans.

Over the past one or two years, discourse on refugees into Germany has grown into political upheaval. Newly founded political parties have entered several regional parliaments after a strong gain of votes during recent elections within some of Germany’s regions – propagating right-wing totalitarian and anti-Muslim attitudes.

The Inescapability of Being Part of Conflict Discourse

So these are the basic facts. The question now: what does this have to do with intercultural dialogue? First of all: A look at contemporary German discourse strongly teaches that there are no “facts”. The stronger and the more pervasive a political debate and conflict grows, the more it becomes evident that (as authors like Holliday and Dervin have stated for the field of intercultural communication, recently) any statement on the topic is automatically political. Even although academic research, above all, claims to analyze social phenomena from a distance that allows far-sighted reflection and multiple perspectives, any academic statement turns out to support either one or the other opinion. This is the case for writing, but even more, it is an issue for social discourse, which no longer accepts any neutral position but immediately categorizes any statement into one of the political camps. To date, researchers have not been pulled into escalated conflict. But since some extreme right-wing groups claim that the German national press media frequently lie, media discourse takes up a clear position within the debate. For the time being, most of the national media voices are pro refugees – to some degree perhaps just to counter the extreme right’s accusations. Remembering Spivak’s famous phrase, it regrettably goes without saying that here again, refugees – despite standing at the center of the debate – have no voice at all.

In sum, although I have long been convinced of constructionist and critical discourse analytic approaches to social communication anyway, the situation in German discourse just described makes it clear in a very painful way that once you are in a conflict situation, you will be constrained by your position as a party to that conflict, and you will not be able to pull yourself out of that situation by your own bootstraps. Even if you want to, society will not let you. Thus, from a discourse perspective, German society has maneuvered into an intractable internal conflict more quickly than might have been expected.

Conflict Discourse Ethnocentrism

Another aspect that comes to mind from the perspective of intercultural research is the observation that the debate on refugees is, to a breathtaking degree, ethnocentric. German news discourse and social discourse construct the phenomenon of increased refugee immigration into Germany as a singular and particular case that cannot be compared to any similar cases, whether in the past or in any other country in the present. From this perspective, the vast field of existing international research on migration is not considered relevant. Even more, the debate largely ignores the fact that international migration, and flight-based migration in particular, have been a worldwide phenomenon for centuries, and that, in fact, they are seen as a central characteristic of contemporary processes of globalization. Instead, a discourse of self-victimization of citizens of Northern Europe is being promoted. This ethnocentric perspective hinders political and social discourse from considering the phenomenon of increased immigration from a distance and in a wider context. Instead of well-considered orientations, society constrains itself to the search for ad hoc solutions. Even more, a general feeling of helplessness, hopelessness, and despair on the issue of immigration pushes social discourse into a situation of feeling under pressure. This pressure results in a situation of perceived conflict where participants narrow their perspectives rather than widening them to find creative solutions. Social discourse gradually adopts a tone of conflict discourse. As a consequence, even those political camps that actually endorse the reception of refugees tend to construct the increased immigration as a problem, a threat, and even a crisis. The notion of a refugee crisis today is commonly mentioned in German national news media, although even this notion has to be understood to be a construction – with many potential alternatives. Again and again, some authors thus warn that the language and rhetoric of contemporary discourse on immigrants is taking a more and more dehumanizing style – at the expense of the refugees.

Strategic Culturalization vs. Anti-Culturalism and Culture as a Taboo

Although research on intercultural communication and on intercultural dialogue has developed a vast range of highly sophisticated and differentiating notions of culture, these notions have not played any considerable role in contemporary social discourse. Instead, supporters of right-wing parties opposing the reception of refugees strategically have made use of rather crude and essentialist notions of culture. Until this happened, scholars might have believed that their research had overcome such outdated concepts. Instead, assumed cultural differences between refugees and Germans are being used to foment fear of future social and/or cultural conflict inside the country. Cultural particularities are made responsible for a putatively higher crime rate and even terrorism. In other words, talking about culture in the debate on refugees has so thoroughly been monopolized by extreme right-wing voices that the rest of the political camps see only one chance to oppose them: Instead of arguing for more differentiating (e.g. interactionist or constructionist) concepts of culture, residing political parties as well as news media act as if their only option is to completely ignore and deny the existence of culture as a phenomenon. For supporters of non-right-wing political camps, talking about culture has become taboo. Speaking the language of intercultural research, an anti-culturalism here (again) turns out to be the only morally acceptable attitude. To some degree, intercultural research is significantly threatened by this taboo. Social and political discourse here passes up the chance of gaining insights into how cultural identities are co-constructed in both face-to-face and media interaction, and how their construction can be activated in cooperative as well as in discriminating ways. In short, a careful look at the role of culture and its force as a discursive construction might help in finding ways to transcend the conflict discourse, yet these ways seem to be blocked by that very discourse at the moment.

Insights into the genuinely constructionist nature of social and political discourse may turn out to be the only chance for evading and escaping the conflict circle that has been described here. Even though this line of argument may perhaps give the impression of being abstract, and even complex, interculturalists, opinion makers, and the news media should be highly encouraged to contribute to establishing this perspective.

Download the entire post as a PDF. See the response prompted by this post, by Peter Praxmarer.

CFP Civic Education Homestay Small Grants (US DOS for Bosnia & Herzegovina)

Civic Education Homestay Small Grants Program
Department of State
U.S. Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina

This small grants competition will support projects designed explicitly to promote interaction and the development of tolerance between the ethnically, religiously, and geographically diverse communities of Bosnia and Herzegovina through home-stay exchange programs. In addition to the core exchange program activities, the proposals should include a component in which participants will stay in the homes of fellow participants from different ethnic or religious backgrounds, and engage both youth and their families in volunteer projects in both communities. Priority will be given to innovative programs that bring together youth (ages 12-24) from communities across ethnic, geographical, and administrative lines and engage large numbers of youth in community improvement activities in each host town. The deadline for submission of proposals is April 08, 2016. To receive application forms and/or more information, please contact DOS at SarajevoHomestayBiH@state.gov, by phone +387 33 704 285 or by fax: + 387 33 704 432.

Amount
Upper $15,000USD Lower $1USD
Up to $15,000 may be available.

Eligibility
Only non-profit organizations, educational and cultural institutions, and independent media that are based in and legally registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina are eligible to apply.