KC2: Cosmopolitanism Translated into Portuguese

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing translations of Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting KC#2: Cosmopolitanism, which Miriam Sobre-Denton wrote for publication in English in 2014, and which Filipa Subtil has now translated into Portuguese. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC2 Cosmpolitanism_PortugueseSobre-Denton, M. (2018). Cosmopolitanism (Greek). (F. Subtil, trans). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 2. Retrieved from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/kc2-cosmopolitanism_portuguese.pdf

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

KC2 Cosmopolitanism Translated into Greek

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing translations of Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting KC#2: Cosmopolitanism, which Miriam Sobre-Denton wrote for publication in English in 2014, and which Anastasia Karakitsou has now translated into Greek. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC2 Cosmopolitanism_GreekSobre-Denton, M. (2017). Cosmopolitanism [Greek]. (A. Karakitsou, trans). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 2. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/kc2-cosmopolitanism_greek.pdf

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Key Concept #2: Cosmopolitanism Translated into Persian

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing with translations of the Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting  KC2: Cosmopolitanism, which Miriam-Sobre-Denton wrote in English in 2014 as the first in the series, and which Ramin Hajian Fard has now translated into Persian. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC2 Cosmopolitanism_ PersianSobre-Denton, M. (2016). Cosmopolitanism [Persian]. (R. H. Fard, Trans). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 2. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/publications/

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue
intercult.dialogue[at]gmail.com


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Key Concept #2: Cosmopolitanism Translated into German

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing with translations of the Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting  KC#2: Cosmopolitanism, which Miriam Sobre-Denton wrote in English in 2014, and which Dominic Busch has now translated into German. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC2 Cosmopolitanism_GermanSobre-Denton, M. (2016). Kosmopolitismus. (D. Busch, Trans). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 2. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/kc2-cosmopolitanism_german.pdf

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Save

Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue #2

Key Concepts in ICDThe second issue of Key Concepts in intercultural Dialogue is now available. Click on the thumbnail to download the PDF. Lists organized  chronologically by publication date and numberalphabetically by concept in English, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

CosmopolitanismSobre-Denton, M. (2014). Cosmopolitanism. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 2. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/key-concept-cosmopolitanism.pdf

The Center for Intercultural Dialogue is publishing a series of short briefs describing Key Concepts in intercultural Dialogue. The logic is that different people, working in different countries and disciplines, use different vocabulary to describe their interests, yet these terms overlap. Our goal is to provide some of the assumptions and history attached to each concept for those unfamiliar with it. As there are other concepts you would like to see included, send an email to the series editor, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz. If there are concepts you would like to prepare, provide a brief explanation of why you think the concept is central to the study of intercultural dialogue, and why you are the obvious person to write up that concept.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Building bridges from theory to practice

I’m currently teaching a course on communication theory.  It’s an undergraduate class, one of those that’s designed to recruit majors.  Recently, one of my students, Joel, raised his hand in class.  You know the type:  he’s talkative, friendly and bright, a bit overbearing, and trying to figure out ‘what does it all mean’.  And that is precisely what he asked in the middle of a lecture/discussion on the importance of communication theory:  “But Miriam, what’s the point?  How does this stuff work in the real world?  Why should I care?”

It’s an age-old question, and one that students and teachers alike often struggle with, particularly in the social sciences and the humanities:  what is the connection between abstract, above-the-clouds theory and the pragmatic, day-to-day life we lead in the world?  But the question is, really, neither mundane nor naïve.  Indeed, I would argue that, in intercultural communication, this question is particularly important and yet woefully under-addressed.  We come up with all of these amazing theories to describe alienation, assimilation, identity processes, cultural difference—but we publish them in reputable journals and exorbitantly-priced textbooks and provide ‘in real life’ examples primarily at the undergraduate level.  Meanwhile, interculturalists who work in the world (outside of academic research), in such areas as refugee counseling, immigration, study abroad, international business, etc., are often working with little-to-no theoretical training, or with outdated approaches to difference such as the U-Curve or Iceberg models.

Where is the dialogue between theorists and practitioners?  What’s the point of doing such great and important work, on theories such as cosmopolitanism, hybridity, critical race theory, and others, if they are only accessible to other academics?  Those of us who identify as critical intercultural scholars are constantly talking about teaching others that difference should be embraced rather than feared, and yet here we are, talking in a language that is only accessible (literally, in terms of access to academic articles; and figuratively, in terms of being able to translate the academese we learn in graduate school) to a small portion of the population: those most like us.

In a discussion of intercultural dialogue, we would do well to listen to questions like Joel’s—the “how does this work” and “why should I care” questions.  If we are the idealists that the field really demands, then shouldn’t we be taking our work outside of the academy and applying it to those who need it, such as those who work with migrant populations, underserved urban youth, patients without health insurance, and on and on?  How can we build bridges between the important work that is done by university researchers and the communities we intend to serve?

I don’t propose that we stop building intercultural theory.  I think the work we do in intercultural research, particularly with today’s critical and postcolonial turns, is imperative to thriving in a world in which difference is coming closer to our doors rather than farther away.  However, with this divide between town and gown, between theory and practice, particularly in intercultural communication research, too much is lost in the translation.  I’d like to call for creative ways of applying academic theory to real world contexts, in ways that get our students jazzed about life beyond college, to see futures for their intercultural understandings of the world they learn in the classroom.  Programs such as Dr. Amy Stornaiuolo’s work with adolescent literacy, called Space2cre8, are heeding such calls, but there is room for so much more.  Students like Joel, those who understand that there could be more to theory than just memorization and regurgitation on an exam, can start to build these bridges, but only once we realize that our work needs to go further.  Let’s get this conversation moving outward, starting by answering Joel’s question:  “You should care because this work is essential to living in a multicultural world.”  This is the opening of our dialogue.

————————————————————–
Miriam S. Sobre-Denton
Assistant Professor | Intercultural Communication
Southern Illinois University Carbondale

msd

Miriam Sobré-Denton

RESEARCHER PROFILE

Miriam Sobré-Denton is an assistant professor of intercultural communication at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Her research focuses on critical cosmopolitanism for intercultural communication, education for global competency in underserved communities, white privilege and Latina/o identities, postcolonialism and identity hybridity. Miriam received her Ph.D. from  Arizona State University in 2009; her dissertation was a 2 ½ year ethnography of a cosmopolitan social group. Miriam is also a Faculty Reader for the Master of Arts in Intercultural Research at the Intercultural Communication Institute.  She received her MA from the University of Texas at Austin and her BA from the University of Puget Sound. 

Miriam Sobre-Denton

Her publications include the following:

Sobré-Denton, M.S., & Bardhan, N. (2013). Cultivating cosmopolitanism for intercultural communication:  Communicating as a global citizen.  New York:  Routledge.

Bardhan, N., & Sobré-Denton, M.S. (in press, 2013). Interculturality, cosmopolitanism and the role of the imagination: A perspective for communicating as global citizens.  In M. Rozbichi (ed.), Perspectives on interculturality.  New York:  Palgrave-MacMillan

Hess, A., & Sobré-Denton, M.S. (in press, 2013).  Hidden constructions of whiteness in the American Judiciary:  A critical rhetorical analysis of the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor.  Communication Studies. 

Sobré-Denton, M.S. (2012).  Stories from the cage:  Autoethnographic sensemaking of workplace bullying, gender discrimination and white privilege.  Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 41(2), 220-250.

Sobré-Denton, M.S. (2012).  Landscaping the rootless:  Defining cosmopolitan identity in a postcolonial world.  In M. Orbe & N. Bardhan (eds.), Identity research in intercultural communication.  Lexington Books.

Sobré-Denton, M.S., & Simonis, J. (2012).  Do you talk to your teacher with that mouth? F*ck:  A Documentary and profanity as a teaching tool in the communication classroom.  Communication Teacher, February 24, 2012, 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2012.659196.

Sobré-Denton, M.S. (2011). The emergence of cosmopolitan group cultures and its implications for cultural transition: A case study of an international student support group.  International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 79-91.

McEwan, B. & Sobré-Denton, M.S. (2011).  Virtual third cultures:  Social media, cultural capitol, and the creation of cultural spaces.  Intercultural New Media Forum:  Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 252-258.

Martin, J.N., Sobré-Denton, M.S., & Kristjánsdóttir, E.S. (2011).  The Impact of a Summer Research Experience on Undergraduate Science Majors.  International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(16), 7-20.

Sobré-Denton, M.S. & Hart, D. (2009).  Mind the gap:  Application-based analysis of cultural adjustment models.  International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 538-552.

Miriam is currently working on research involving cosmopolitanism, the social imaginary, and social media activism, as well as putting together a certification for global competency for teachers with the group GlobalWise.

Intercultural Dialogue and New Media Research

Job adsI recently sat down with Robert Shuter, director of the Center for Intercultural New Media Research, to talk about possible overlaps in our areas of interest. Here’s a brief summary.

Intercultural dialogue typically assumes people from different cultural backgrounds interacting face-to-face, with the intention of coming to some understanding of their areas of similarity and especially difference. Intercultural new media research examines the relevance of culture for mediated communication, specifically when using any of the new social media.

There is an obvious need for research into the ways in which technology can be used to facilitate intercultural dialogues. A few possibilities have already been investigated. One approach examines efforts to link students (especially those studying intercultural communication or learning a language) with peers located in different countries. As yet, there is only a little published research on this topic. A very different form of virtual intercultural dialogue involved placing large electronic screens in public spaces in Australia and Korea, facilitating virtual interaction between populations not typically in dialogue, and then analyzing the results.

Other studies have examined virtual collaboration but collaboration is frequently missing requisite dialogic elements like empathy and deep understanding. At the same time, it may lead to intercultural dialogue, and perhaps is a precursor to dialogue. Hence, the question remains: Is intercultural dialogue possible in the virtual world?

One possible answer may be found by considering Fred Casmir’s concept of third culture. Casmir posited that individuals from different cultures can optimize their relationship through the development of a third culture which combines elements of each of their cultures into a new whole. Dialogue is necessary to develop a third culture, which Casmir argues cannot be achieved without empathy and deep understanding of others. Once achieved, a third culture provides an ideal climate to interact because it is mutually accepting, supportive, and cooperative.

As Shuter puts it in a recent publication (2012): “Although third cultures are difficult to create in the physical world, some research suggests that they may be more achievable in virtual communities. McEwan and Sobre-Denton (2011) argue that the ease of technological access to cultural others combined with reduced social and economic costs significantly increase the probability of developing third cultures in the virtual world. Virtual communities, unlike organic ones, do not require leaving ones domicile to be an active member nor are they plagued by face threats due to social errors, according to the authors. In fact, new media provides users with technological tools to manage social distance, which McEwan and Sobre-Denton suggest increase cultural risk taking and experimentation, leading more readily to virtual third cultures.” (p. 225)

Andreas Pöllmann adapts Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital to propose the relevance of intercultural capital. Essentially this expands beyond intercultural proficiencies (the typical list of intercultural skills, competencies, sensitivities required for intercultural competence) to include more subtle elements. A few examples to make his proposal concrete: those who are bilingual are especially useful in multilingual groups; those with international work experience can most quickly find their footing when sent to yet another country to conduct business. Such individuals should find their skills and experiences valued, and themselves much in demand, whether as employees or friends. The implications of cultural capital are enormous, as they suggest that those in the third world who are multilingual have something of great value that many in the first world lack. The question will be: how does intercultural capital play out in new media contexts?

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue

See the following articles for references to supplement these comments:

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (Forthcoming). Intercultural dialogue. In K. Tracy (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. New York: Wiley.

McEwan, B., & Sobre-Denton, M. (2011). Virtual cosmopolitanism: Constructing third cultures and transmitting social and cultural capital through social media. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 252–258.

Pöllmann, A. (2013). Intercultural capital: Toward the conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical investigation of a rising marker of sociocultural distinction. Sage Open, April-June 2013, 1-7. Available from
http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/2/2158244013486117.full

Shuter, R. (2012). Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(3), 219-237. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475759.2012.728761