Asian Communication Tradition and Communicative Rationality: Rethinking Models for Intercultural Studies

Asian Communication Tradition and Communicative Rationality: Rethinking Models for Intercultural Studies fu, Millersville University of Pennsylvania Abstract Communication between cultures is part and parcel of globalization process. In cross-cultural communication on a global scale, different cultures privilege different modes of discourse not only at uneven levels of complicity and/or simplicity but also resorting to distinct repertoires of meanings. Differences in communication patterns have been problematized, studied, and interpreted in a myriad of ways and perspectives, but models for communicative choices are often limiting: they are more confined to the realm of descriptive treatments than committed to normative judgments for cultural transaction. In this paper, the author focuses on recent studies advancing an Asian theoretic model that can help address similar concerns in the West. The author also offers thoughts on the similarity and relevancy of the Asian model to the Western theory. Introduction Globalization has opened up new venues worthy of scholarly pursuit. Of numerous subjects sharing a connection with globalization, nothing seems to join closer company than studies on intercultural communication. If by intercultural communication, we mean encounters between different groups, societies, and peoples, it is hardly a new field of investigation; it is clear that this subject matter can be situated within tribal contacts almost as early as the beginning of any civilization. But nothing in recorded human history equals globalization, the ubiquitous context in which people of different cultures interact on a daily basis. In a broad sense, intercultural communication studies emerged simultaneously along with earliest efforts to construct knowledge about human beings and their behaviors, because one way of knowledge construction is inevitably to observe and compare different modes of thoughts and actions. As such, when Plato, for example, elaborated on the differences between speech and writing in the framework of the alphabetic system, he actually provided inspiration for later theorists of various kinds to formulate theories about cultural differences allegedly caused by different linguistic systems. Scattered in the writings of almost all the philosophers are reflections on intercultural issues. Just from the perspective of language alone, Hegel, Kant, Marx, Heidegger, Derrida and the like have all mentioned on the Chinese writing system and its impact on Chinese culture and communication (see, 2001). And the list goes on and on. 71

As an independent field of investigation, intercultural studies are a recent academic phenomenon. Its development is set against the backdrop of the growing interest in communication and culture in general. Many of the theories and frameworks employed in studying other cultures and communication patterns have originated in the West and are, therefore, subject to carrying a Western bias (Lu, 1998). Additionally, due to historical limitations, these studies are mostly preliminary, simply describing foreign communication patterns and comparing them to those of North America, and they rarely go beyond the surface to explore the roots of such differences (Yum, 1988, p. 374). But this situation has changed tremendously in the last two decades as a new generation of scholars many of them being Asian descendents began to publish their significant research on Asian communication from an insider s perspective. Their investigations are wide-ranging: they delve into philosophical foundations, analyze key concepts, and, most importantly, formulate Asian theories or frameworks in an effort to better understand communication issues globally. This paper will focus on recent studies advancing a theoretic model that can help address similar concerns in the West. The author will also offer thoughts on the similarity and relevancy of the Asian model to the Western theory. Relational Orientation Framework and Harmony Theory To a large extent, Asian communication studies are a response to the early studies on intercultural communication. Pioneering studies from scholars including Edward Hall and Geert Hofstede inspired a new generation of students of Asian communication. In the United States alone, organizations such as the International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies, the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, and the Association of Chinese Communication Studies have become increasingly visible with their members conducting solid research. And publications such as Intercultural Communication Studies and Human Communication: a Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association have devoted entire issues or major parts of their issues to areas concerning Asian communication. Works appear in three different areas: Philosophically, scholars who have a unique background in Asian history and culture examine the roots that account for distinct communication patterns. As Yum (1988) stated that communication is fundamentally a social process, and that, as such, it is influenced by the philosophical foundations and value systems of the society in which it is found (p. 375). A plethora of studies explicate the impact of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism on communication (e.g., Chen & Chung, 1994; Cheng, 1987; Chuang, 2004; Crawford, 1996; Dong & Day, 2004; Ng, 1998/1999; Yum, 1987, 1988). Conceptually, scholars comb through major concepts such as guanxi (relationships), ren (benevolence), li (rite), mianzi (face), bian (argumentation), and yuan (predestined relation) in Asian culture and explore their linkages with philosophical underpinnings and communication practices (e.g., & Holt, 1991, 1993; Lu & Frank, 1993; Jia, 2001; Xiao, 1996, 2002). Not satisfied with merely offering explanations, scholars at the same time made efforts to advance a theoretic model or framework of Asian communication patterns and therefore contribute to the understanding of human communication. Building on their knowledge of Chinese culture and philosophy, and of Western scholarship, these scholars have identified relationships and harmony as key to understanding Asian communication. In one of earlier, in-depth studies on Asian communication, Yum (1988) wrote: It is argued that East Asian communication patterns differ from those of North America because of the Eastern 72

emphasis on social relationships as opposed to North American emphasis on individualism. To interculturalists, the emphasis on relationships remains the trademark of the East communication tradition, which prioritizes collective values (Shepherd, 1992). Chen and Starosta (2003) very clearly stated: Epistemologically, the meaningful understanding of the holistic structure of the universe is embedded in the relational connection of all things. Thus, human communication is a relational process in which interactants constantly adapt and relocate each other in the network of interdependence (pp. 5-6.). Whereas relationship is communication in process, harmony remains the ultimate goal for communication. As a cardinal value of Asian cultures, harmony is recognized for its normative function governing the Asian way of life. Therefore, an Asian communication theory revolving around harmony is in place. Chen (2001) argued that the goal of Asian communication is to achieve a harmonious state of human relationships, and as such, the ability to achieve harmony in speech transaction is the ability to enhance communication competence in the Asian context. Seen in this light, harmony is rather another aspect of relationship orientation. Axiologically, Chen and Starosta (2003) wrote, harmony pervades the interdependent connectedness of the great whole of the universe. and Asians use it as the guidance of regulating the transforming and never-ending process of human communication (p. 6). An Asian communication theory built on the notion of harmony has its heuristic value globally: Harmony in this sense is a more broad and holistic concept and refers to harmony on every level in the whole universe (Miike, 2003, p. 44). The emphasis on relationships as the communication process and harmony as the goal is essentially to place individuals in the web of social networks and collective transactions. The relationship orientation framework and harmony theory give more credence to Hall s high- and low context concept and Hofstede s collectivistic-individualistic dimension. The most important contributions to understanding different cultures and communication are arguably made by Hall and Hofstede. Hall s investigations were broad-ranged and profound, from non-verbal to verbal communication. The high- and low-context concept is widely used as a powerful explanatory tool to capture cultural differences. Hall (1976) maintained that people in high-context cultures rely heavily on relationships verbally and non-verbally to sustain conversations and achieve communicative goals. Hofstede (1980) on the other hand, through his formidable, large scale studies, summarized five major dimensions that separate cultures from one another. Among the five dimensions, the collectivistic-individualistic dimension is the most fundamental and has been frequently cited and interpreted. According to Hofstede, people in collectivistic cultures often put the group interest before their own, suppressing their individualistic impulses. The framework of a relational orientation and the theory of harmony are advanced through the lens of Asian tradition and its vocabulary. Rather than being a supplement to Hall s and Hofstede s studies, they are better equipped with a term logy to address theoretic foundations as well as theoretic origins concerning Asian communication (Dong & Day, 2004, p. 102). Additionally, an Asian model based on a framework of a relational orientation and the theory of harmony not only unequivocally identify the key characteristics of Asian communication and what sets it apart from the prevailing tendencies of the West, but they can also offer the West a corrective, as the West rethinks and reassesses its own communication 73

and cultural values. It is here that we have found a survey of the recent studies on Western communication and philosophical tradition is the most interesting. In the West, there has been a conscious effort to question the predilection toward strategic, purposive action only oriented toward a measurable goal and to affirm humanistic relationships, reciprocity, and respect as a means to achieve consensus and understanding. Communicative Rationality The emphasis on relationships and harmony is very much in line with Habermas theory of communicative action and the use of communicative rationality. Just as the concept of relational communication or harmony is anchored in profound Chinese philosophical thought, the concept communicative rationality is a philosophical response to the question of rationality in the West context. To help illuminate the philosophical problem of the West, Habermas (1968/1971) postulates the existence of three deep-seated interests of human beings, to which three categories of knowledge and rationality correspond the technical knowledge, in the technical control of the world around us, the practical knowledge in understanding each other, and the emancipatory knowledge in freeing ourselves from structures of domination. Following the critical stance of Horkheimer and Adorno in particular, and the decline of the West theme in general, Habermas takes the position that modern Western society has seen an unbalanced expansion and domination of the technical interest: The drive to dominate nature becomes the drive to dominate other human beings. Habermas maintains that instrumental rationality which accounts for the unbalanced expansion of technical interest is linked with the old episteme that favors subjectivity and individuality. Sharing the Weberian concern that Western society became instrumentalized due to the over-expansion of purposive rationality that treated social actions only as the means-ends relation without due respect to social relationship, Habermas (1985/1987) offered his thoughts on modern philosophy that privileges the subject and the subjectivity, or the individual and individuality in cultural sense. Habermas argued that guided by this philosophy, the only aspects of action open to objective appraisal are the effectiveness of a causal intervention into an existing situation, and that the use of language with an orientation to consequences seems to decrease the value of speech acts as the model for action oriented to reaching understanding. As a result, what counts as fundamental is not the interpersonal relation between at least two speaking and acting subjects a relation that refers back to reaching understanding in language but the purposive activity of a solitary acting subject (Habermas, 1981/1984, p. 279) The subject and subjectivity are no longer privileged. By the same token, the object and objectivity have no rational basis. To move out of the dominant world view that privileges subjectivity and one-sided rationality, Habermas resorts to communicative action in which subjectivity is replaced by intersubjectivity that focuses on independence and an orientation toward understanding: I have called the type of interaction in which all participants harmonize their individual plans of action with one another and thus pursue their illocutionary aims without reservation communicative action (Habermas, 1981/1984, p. 294). Fundamental to the paradigm of mutual understanding expounded by communicative action is the performative attitude of participants in interaction, who coordinate their plans for action by coming to an understanding about something in the world. When ego carries out 74

a speech act and alter takes up a position with regard to it, the two parties enter into an interpersonal relationship (Habermas, 1985/1987, p. 296; italics mine). The core of Habermas theory of communicative action placing an unprecedented emphasis on interpersonal relationships has much in common with the value of the Asian communication tradition. The Western revolt against the subject and subjectivity is a move toward the Asian tradition. Asian communication scholars through their own research arrive at similar observations. Yum (1988) acutely observed that individualism which is not accompanied by commitments to larger entities eventually forces people into a state of isolation (p. 386). To echo this feeling, Chen and Starosta (2003) observed: Isolation based on polarization and dichotomization tends to lose its meaning of mutual dependence that dominates Asian existence (p. 6). From Rhetoric to Communication Coincidently, a similar move toward an emphasis on relationships and intersubjectivity is part of the development of rhetoric and speech communication in the United States. For the purposes of our analysis, we roughly divide contemporary understanding of rhetoric into Neo-Aristotelianism and the new rhetoric. Whereas Neo- Aristotelianism was mainly concerned with public address and political debate over matters of public interests, the new rhetoric shifted its focus on communication as a universal and unique human characteristic. To reclaim rhetoric as a study of public discourse aimed at immediate effects rather than permanence or beauty is the focal point of Herbert Wichelns landmark essay, Literary Criticism of Oratory. Following Aristotle, Wichelns (1925) regarded rhetorical activities as strategic and purposive acts. Accordingly, rhetorical criticism means to be an assessment of such acts: It [rhetorical criticism] regards a speech as a communication to a specific audience, and holds its business to be the analysis and appreciation of the orator s method of imparting his ideas to his hearers (p. 209; italics mine). Donald Bryant s (1953) definition of rhetoric some twenty years later had a similar teleological tone, as he defined it as the rationale of informative and suasory discourse (p. 404; italics mine). The narrow view that rhetoric is only confined to public address oriented toward persuasion lost its charm when Kenneth Burke s works became widely read among students of rhetoric. To define the human being as the language user, to regard use of language as always rhetorical, and to assert that the human situation is the rhetorical situation, Burke in his prolific writings broadens the horizon of rhetoric (e.g., Burke, 1957). Because of the ubiquitous nature of rhetoric in human communication and symbolic action, persuasion is no longer an appropriate word for the definition of rhetoric. Burke (1967) holds that the key word for old rhetoric is persuasion while the key word for new rhetoric is identification (p. 60). The move from classical teleological rhetoric to the new rhetoric oriented toward understanding is well explicated by philosopher and rhetorician Henry Johnstone. Much in line with Habermas, Johnstone (1970) contended that the Western problem in communication stems from the over-emphasis of the self. In Toward an Ethics of Rhetoric, Johnstone (1981) flatly rejected the classical teleological view of rhetoric. He labeled those teleological rhetorical theories as completely subservient to an ethical standard wholly external to it [rhetoric]; rhetoric is to be no more than the means used to achieve an end nonrhetorically certified as good (p. 305). In Johnstone s view, the rhetoric that causes the chain thus to 75

break is dehumanizing and immoral: It is the rhetoric of the tyrant, of the insulter, of the seducer (p. 308). The conceptualization of the new rhetoric by Burke and Johnstone shares an affinity with Habermas theory of communication action. They also bear much resemblance to the Asian communication tradition. Imbedded in the key concept of identification is recognition of interdependence and interactions among the participants of the speaking community. To see rhetoric not as a strategic device but as an embodiment of ethics practiced and realized in the very process of communication is a marked departure from the dominant Western tradition. Language and Communication and Modes of Discourse The shift from subject-centered rationality to intersubjective or communicative rationality, from classical rhetoric to communication or new rhetoric(s), is a shift from the mode of discourse subject to instrumentalization to modes of discourse oriented toward reaching understanding. In diagnosing the pathologies of modern rationality, Max Weber argues that the victory of modern science over religion has fragmented the social totality. The separate spheres of technology, art and sexuality, and ethics will inevitably lead to irrationality, to what Weber called the iron cage. The technologizing of the lifeworld, in Habermas words, the colonialization of the lifeworld, is the result of one-sided rationality. Is this iron-case the inherent result of the Western language, communication, and dominant mode of discourse? We may even say that Aristotelian rhetoric has strong technological and teleological implications. Adumbrated in Aristotle s Rhetoric is a set of functional and teleological terms that for the most part transcended Western history until very recent paradigmatic shifts. The instrumental sense lies very much in Aristotle s definition of rhetoric: the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion (Aristotle, 1954, p. 22). As an instrument like dialectic, rhetoric is faculties for providing arguments ; it has no separate subject and belongs to no definite science (Aristotle, p. 26). When Aristotle defines rhetoric as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion, is he planting the seed of instrumentality in Western rhetorical thought? When an actor/rhetor publicly debates a matter of common interest, how should he or she advance arguments in a way not to manipulate but to achieve understanding? The flaws in the teleological model of using language are clearly addressed by Habermas (1981/1984) when comparing with different modes of communication: The teleological model of action takes language as one of several media through which speakers oriented to their own success can influence one another in order to bring opponents to form or to grasp beliefs and intentions that are in the speakers own interest. This concept of language developed from the limit case of indirect communication aimed at getting someone to form a belief, an intention, or the like is, for instance, basic to intentionalist semantics (p. 95). Our previous discussion has pointed to the possibility and the potential of the technologized nature of Western communication. Associated with the rhetorical tradition is the Western reliance on logic in advancing views and arguments. Not only can the level of abstraction in logical arguments often filter out the non-discursive forms of cultural meanings, it can also create barriers that prevent people of other cultures from engaging in equal and 76

meaningful communication. In his study of the words in shaping Western technological culture and individual psychology, Ong (1966) also argues that the Western rhetoric helped the logical aspect of human reasoning: Other cultures, too, once they had writing, at least in many cases gave systematic attention to oral performance. But there was a difference. What was distinctive about the organization of rhetoric among the Greeks was the close alliance of the art with another subject which, if we expect a considerably later and much less developed discipline in India, was an exclusively Western invention: formal logic. Logic and rhetoric have always been uneasy bedfellows, but in the West they have been bedfellows nevertheless pretty well from the beginning (p.3). This traditional view of Western argumentation favoring logic, science, and discursive form even presents problems within its own culture. This mode of discourse not only eliminates the diverse cultural meanings of communication, but prevents participation of the general public as well. In a review of Habermas Facts and Norms, Hohmann (1998) discussed potential problems associated with such discursive form. Hohmann argued that the exclusive focus on what is perceived as purely rational, to some extent, privileges certain types of discourse over others: To begin with, it is not merely the use of technical jargon, which impedes communication between the culture of experts and the general public on civic issues. Rather, it is the dried-up and bleached-out nature of rationalistic academic discourse that is purged of explicit personal and affective elements and thus of any recognizable human context (p. 366). If embedded in a particular system of language and cultural tradition is a predilection for a particular mode or modes of discourse, what are the new rules needed to govern communicative transactions between speaking participants from different language backgrounds? Or, at the very least, what are issues that participants in the global context have to be mindful of in order to sustain a conversation truly oriented toward understanding? This concern is a serious one. In cross-cultural communication on a global scale, different cultures privilege different modes of discourse not only at uneven levels of complicity and/or simplicity and but also resorting to distinct repertoires of meanings. Such a pressing issue confronts the international business community on a daily basis. Clearly, argumentation styles are quite different in both Eastern and Western cultures. Thinking within the Aristotelian logical tradition, which is dominant in most Western cultures, may not be understood by people from a culture which emphasizes a more holistic approach to thinking (see Dahl, 1998; Cohen, 2002). As more and more scholars reflect upon usability of the dominant mode of discourse, an Asian theory on communication emphasizing relationship and harmony seems timely. From a totally different academic path, Tannen (1998) arrived at the same conviction in the new model of communication: In conversation, we form the interpersonal ties that bind individuals together in personal relationships; in public discourse, we form similar ties on a larger scale, binding individuals into a community (p. 25). 77

Concluding Remarks Presently, many studies on intercultural communication, often descriptive in nature, encourage a cultural mindfulness or awareness. It is clear that these studies take a position that cultural and communication differences must be respected. It is not clear, however, how two speaking parties should deal with and negotiate the different perspectives in their transactions. In other words, is there a normative theory that provides a framework for the choices during the intercultural communication? This normative question of choice begs for answers. At the theoretical level, cultures have secured their validity claims. But at the practical level, there seems to be no substantial developments. In today s universities and colleges, for instance, while diversity is embraced in different forms such as through cultural festivities of Latino Month, African American Month, and Asian Month, norms legislating and assessing the behaviors and performances are still locked in the old culture of domination. One example is teaching evaluations. In the last several decades, a large number of people of different cultural backgrounds have become faculty members, an important part of whose portfolio for tenure and promotion often include student teaching evaluations. As we have argued, people of different cultures favor different modes of communication. Instructors from Asian countries seem to be more indirect and less confrontational. They seem to have a different knowledge base and cultural repertoire. On almost all the evaluation instruments, there are items that assess whether an instructor made good use of class time, had clear and well organized presentations, and was an effective teacher. Behind the construction of these questions is a Western mind trapped in the old tradition. Due to cultural differences, an Asian professor may hold what Hall (1984) coined polychromic time orientation. In the presentation category, the professor may also evoke an Asian mode of organization without observing much of the Western formal logic. Additionally, Asian modes of communication can be less goal-oriented and seemingly less toward strategic action effective communication in the Western sense. Under these circumstances, the Asian professor or any other professor from a different cultural background for that matter would be most likely unfavorably viewed and rated. This study is preliminary. With this in mind, a new line of investigation could be opened up. More research studies could be conducted to assess the level of integration. This would invite empirical data that shows: 1) whether, statistically, there exists a significant difference in evaluations for similar items pertaining to the use of class time, organization of materials, stimulation of interest, and the overall rating of effectiveness in teaching received by international professors, 2) whether, statistically, there exists a significant difference in the perceptions of the students on their professors due to cultural backgrounds and ethnical origins, and 3) whether international professors themselves are consciously or subconsciously evoking their own cultural ways of communication. To conclude this study, it is appropriate to evoke the traditional Chinese legend about the Duke She, an enthusiastic admirer of the imaginary dragon. His fascination with the dragon has led him to cover all his walls with drawings about the animal. When a real dragon learns about his walls and visits, the Duke is scared and escapes. As society makes efforts to embrace different cultures and modes of communication, the privileging and institutionalizing of one mode of discourse becomes increasingly ironic. 78

References Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric. In Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle. Trans. W. Roberts. New York: Random House. Bryant, D. (1953). Rhetoric: Its Function and Its Scope. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39, 401-424. Burke, K. (1957). The Rhetorical Situation. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Communication: Ethical and Moral Issues (pp. 63-275). London: Gorden and Breach Science Publishers. Burke, K. (1967). Rhetoric Old and New. In M. Steinmann (Ed.), New Rhetorics (pp. 59-76). New York: Scriber s Son., C. (2001). Civilization and Barbarism?: Deconstructing Logocentrism in the Works of Several Communication Scholars. Intercultural Communication Studies,. X(2), 121-144., H., & Holt, G. (1991). More than relationship: Chinese interaction and the principle of Guan-his. Communication Quarterly, 39, 251-271., H., & Holt, G. (1993). The concept of yuan and Chinese interpersonal relationships. In S. Ting-Toomy & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 28-57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chen, G., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 93-105. Chen, G. (2001). Toward transcultural understanding: A harmony theory of Chinese communication. In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante, & P. O. Nwosu (Eds.), Transcultural realities: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations (pp. 55-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chen, G., & Starosta, W. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: A dialogue. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 1-15. Cheng, C. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary communication theory. In D. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives (pp. 23-44). New York: Academic Press. Chuang, R. (2004). An examination of Taoist and Buddhist perspectives on interpersonal conflicts, emotions, and adversities. In F. Jandt (Ed.), Intercultural communication: A Global reader (pp. 38-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cohen, R. (2002). Negotiating across cultures. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press. Crawford, L. (1996). Everyday Tao: Conversation and contemplation. Communication Studies, 47(1/2), 25-34. Dahl, S. (1998). Intercultural skills for Business. London: ECE Publishing. Dong, Q., & Day, K. (2004). A relational orientation to communication: Origins, foundations, and theories. Intercultural Communication Studies, 13(1), 101-111. Habermas, J. (1968/1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. Jeremy Shapiro. Boston MA: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1985/1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 79

Habermas, J. (1981/1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston MA: Beacon Press. Hohnmann, H. (1998). Rhetoric in the public sphere and the discourse of law and democracy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84, 358-370. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY. Anchor Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jia, W. (2001). The remaking of the Chinese character and identity in the 21 st century: The Chinese face practices. Westport, CT: Ablex. Johnstone, H. (1970). The Problem of the Self. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Johnstone, H. (1981). Toward an Ethics of Rhetoric. Communication, 6, 305-314. Lu, X., & Frank, D. (1993). On the Study of Ancient Chinese Rhetoric/Bian. West Journal of Communication, 57, 445-463. Lu, X. (1998). Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century, B. C. E.: A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Miike, Y. (2003). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. Intercultural Communication Studies, XII(4): 39-63). Ng, R. (1998/1999). The influence of Confucianism on Chinese persuasion: The past, the present, and the future. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 2(1): 75-86. Ong, W. (1971). Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology: Studies in the Interaction of Expression and Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House. Wichelns, H. (1925). The literary criticism of oratory. In A. Drummond (Ed.), Rhetoric and public speaking in honor of James A. Winans. New York: Century. Xiao, X. (2002). Li: A dynamic cultural mechanism of social interaction and conflict management. In G. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution Westport CT: Albex Publishing(pp. 39-49). Xiao, X. (1996). From the hierarchical ren to egalitarianism: A case study of cross-cultural rhetorical mediation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82, 38-54. Yum, J. (1987). Korean philosophy and communication. In D. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives (pp. 71-86). New York: Academic Press. Yum, J. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patters in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 375-388. 80