Transforming Communication about Culture: Critical New Directions

Books

Edited by: Mary Jane Collier

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Volume XXIV, 2001

    Editor

    Mary Jane Collier, University of Denver

    Editorial Assistant

    Katia Campbell, University of Denver

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Acknowledgements

    First, I thank my editorial assistant, Katia Campbell, doctoral student in the School of Communication at the University of Denver. Katia made certain that the review process occurred in a timely manner, kept authors informed, and provided insightful commentary regarding the introductory and concluding dialogue chapters. In addition, Teresa McPhee, master's student in international and intercultural communication, deserves my thanks for her eye to detail and thoughtful feedback during final copy- editing. I also am grateful to the dean of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, as well as to the provost at the University of Denver, for continuing to provide me with funding for an editorial assistant. I appreciate the voice of Margaret Seawell, executive editor at Sage Publications, who continues to advocate for the annual as a site of outstanding scholarship in inter national and intercultural communication.

    The reviewers for Volume 24 earned my respect and admiration; they ensured that each chapter received rigorous and thorough commentary. They not only contributed their expertise to strengthen the work of more senior scholars but also took the time necessary to give supportive feed back to beginning scholars. My sincere appreciation goes to Guo Ming Chen, Victoria Chen, Fernando Delgado, Jolanta Drzyewiecka, Mitch Hammer, Marouf Hasian, Michael Hecht, Radha S. Hegde, Tamar Katriel, Young Kim, Wenshu Lee, Casey Lum, Judith Martin, Thomas Nakayama, Kent Ono, Diana Rios, Raka Shome, Dolores Tanno, Diane Waldman, Richard Wiseman, and Gust Yep.

    Finally, I thank Radha Hegde, Wenshu Lee, Thomas Nakayama, and Gust Yep for collaborating on the “Dialogue on the Edges” chapter (Chapter 9). Each of the four is an example of intellectual breadth and depth that is charting our course and transforming our views of culture and communication. Each voices an unceasing commitment to overcoming injustice with an authenticity and humility that is extremely powerful. Each was willing to fully engage in the risky terrain of a critically en gaged, reflexive, unfolding conversation. I respect, admire, and thank them for what they are contributing individually and collectively to the field of communication and culture.

    Transforming Communication about Culture: An Introduction

    Volume 24 of the International and Intercultural Communication Annual addresses the theme of transformation. This idea connotes the ways in which people's lives and experiences across the globe are being trans formed by technological changes, media institutions, political ideologies, and social forces. In the midst of such enabling and constraining forces, individuals and groups also are redefining communities, redrawing the boundaries of identity groups, and co-creating new ways of relating with each other. Rather than being a sequence of time or identifiable phase with a beginning or end, transformation is a continuous process of changing and evolving, with all of the paradoxical blockages, backward slides, blind advances, and false starts that accompany a sense of potential and renewal.

    The kind of global and local transformation that characterizes the worlds in which we live contains issues that are modern and postmodern as well as a healthy skepticism and critique about our knowledge-building processes and resulting claims. As scholars/teachers/practitioners, we are being called on to rethink our assumptions about what drives our scholarly work, what constitutes scholarship, and who benefits from it. We have entered into a space in which we are beginning to address these and other such issues, and as a result, ideas about who we are and what we do are changing in fundamental ways. A critical turn is thus becoming evident in scholarship about (inter)cultural/national communication, and the chapters in this volume are exemplars of situated examinations of hierarchy and privilege, agency, and voice. In particular, the various authors question the politics of our scholarship and the nature of knowledge- building endeavors and ask that we pay more attention to the consequences and implications of our work.

    Broadening the Scope of (Inter)Cultural/National Communication

    The chapters in this volume demonstrate the value in broadening what traditionally has been known as “international” scholarship and was de fined as messages that have particular form (usually mediated or institutional policy) and cross particular geographic places (national borders). The first eight chapters, for example, include a critique of kokusaika as a privileging of white, Western, and Japanese ethnic positions; liminal identifications of relocated Arab-American diaspora group identifications that are socially constructed through communicative performances of humor; the rhetorically based identifications crafted by Taiwanese political leaders and poets; the hybridity of positions evident in group discourse of Indian young adults in discussions of international television; and portrayals of femininity and diverse audience responses to the film Fire.

    In addition, the research projects compiled in this volume examine diverse texts and discourses and employ a variety of analytical frameworks. For example, authors focus on the press, films, television, Internet sites, poetry, literature, interviews with groups and individuals, observed community meetings, and recalled personal conversations. As would be expected, the authors choose a variety of analytical orientations to orient their gaze toward the texts of interest. For example, authors in the first eight chapters use combinations of rhetorical analysis of political speeches and newspaper texts, diverse critical approaches (for the most part using critical humanist rather than critical structuralist approaches1) to discourses and images, a particular type of engaged critical ethnography, and interpretive orientations to mediated texts and public speeches.

    Problematizing Nation and Culture

    The scholars agree that talking about culture and nation as solitary constructs rather than as multiple forces and enactments no longer is useful. Nor is it theoretically valid to assume that culture can be easily synthesized into that which is produced or constituted in a particular geographical place or by a group of people who have similar ancestry or traditions. For example, to assume that ethnic categories such as Arab-American and Latino may be equated with political and identity locations, or with normative patterns in generic use by group members, neglects the vast differences in voices and experiences of the group members and the broader historical and social structures that contribute to and constrain Arab- American and Latino identifications.

    The work in this volume demonstrates the recognition that scholars, teachers, and practitioners construct and produce what nation and culture are known to be in historically situated sites and moments of time.

    Nation-ness, as well as nationalism, are cultural artifacts of a particular kind. To understand them properly, we need to consider carefully how they have come into historical being, in what ways their meanings have changed over time, and why, today, they command such profound emotional legitimacy.

    … Once created, they became “modular”—capable of being transplanted, with varying degrees of self-consciousness, to a great variety of social terrains, to merge and be merged with a correspondingly wide variety of political and ideological constellations. (Anderson, 1991, p. 4) … Nation is an “imagined political community.” (p. 6)

    The scholars in this volume, through situated studies and in the concluding “cyber-dialogue,” argue that the world and the ways in which we relate to each other and the media have changed over the past few decades, and scholars of (inter)cultural/national communication need to incorporate those changes into what we study. The ways in which scholars think about and engage culture also are being transformed to bring embodied ideas of the “doing” of culture into the study of culture. Culture is being recognized as imagined, constituted in communication, and constrained by social structures and ideologies over a trajectory of time by people and institutions. Such reformulations of culture require us to rethink, reframe, and add to our previous orientations to culture.

    More specifically, authors in this volume approach culture as liminal space and contested identifications. For example, Hay and Kline (Chapter 8) describe culture as that which is constructed by Arab-American diaspora group members through humor and narrative. Chang (Chapter 2) de scribes the imagined community evident in varied rhetorical forms establishing what it means to be Taiwanese. Schiffman and Subervi-Vélez (Chapter 7) point to how overarching stereotypes of Latinos and their politics are contested by various voices in print media. And Supriya (Chapter 5) uncovers the tensions between codes of “honorable” and “shameful” conduct and the contradictory voices of abused Indian women and the broader Indian communities in the United States.

    Identifications and Locations

    The authors in this volume have taken up the challenge to move beyond a focus on isolated cultural groupings based on place or peoples to begin to scrutinize intersections of nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, and classes. They point out that the level of knowledge may be too abstract and essentializing and may mask issues of hierarchy and privilege when focusing on overly broad groupings such as nationality without considering intersecting locations of ethnicity and gender/sexualities. West and Fenstermaker (1995) note, “Conceiving of race and gender as ongoing accomplishments means we must locate their emergence in social situations rather than within the individual or some vaguely defined set of role expectations” (p. 25). They add, “An understanding of the accomplishment of race, gender, or class constituted in the context of the differential ‘doings’ of the others” (p. 32) is essential to pinpoint how intersecting categorizations become a means of exerting domination.

    In this volume, Malhotra and Crabtree (Chapter 3) and Supriya (Chapter 5) examine (inter)national and gendered identities among Indians in India and in the Asian Indian community in the United States, respectively. Hay and Kline (Chapter 8) address national, ethnic, class, and gender identities among Arab-Americans as they are accomplished in situated discursive events. Fujimoto (Chapter 1) aptly illustrates how nationality and ethnicity may be conflated and the importance of viewing not only how that is accomplished but also who is served by such positionings. Moorti (Chapter 6) studies enactments of hybridity in her examination of the contested responses of the Indian community to the film Fire.

    Identifications are approached by the authors in this volume as structural impositions evident in institutional voices, media influences, and community hierarchies in combination with situated constructions of individual voices. Each chapter illustrates the importance of acknowledging a range of contexts of study—historical trajectories, institutional and structural forces, social and material conditions, and immediate situations —related to identifications. Identity locations are presented as combinations of involuntary reactions as well as proactive redefinitions demonstrating individual agency and counterhegemony.

    There are several analyses that point us to tensions between individual identification and group identifications and issues of agency. The responses of Supriya's (Chapter 5) informant/research collaborator residing at a women's shelter illustrate her personal and public struggle to survive and escape the abuse of her husband in the midst of being ostracized as shameful by the patriarchal voices in the Indian community. Ambivalence and appropriation of identity groupings are evident in the work of Hay and Kline (Chapter 8) and their examination of how humor is used to reinforce a particular Arab-American community's liminal and traveling identities.

    Moorti (Chapter 6) and Supriya (Chapter 5), among others in this volume, demonstrate that Indian group and personal identifications are complex and dynamic and that language practices occur within a matrix of power relations. Schiffman and Subervi-Vélez (Chapter 7) illustrate the dangers of attempting to generalize about ethnic group membership based on “experts” or “objective” media spokespersons or to generalize about people or political views held by those identifying as Latino in the United States. All of the chapters exemplify views that reflect movement beyond the traditional idea that intercultural communication is that which occurs between two people who come from different places, between people who have different ancestries, or between group members who have different worldviews. Communication involves, more often than not, the engagement of multiple cultural identifications and occurs in a space of intersecting historical and social forces.

    Critical Perspectives

    The authors in this volume generally orient their studies through the use of a critical theoretical perspective or conclude interpretive and rhetorical analyses with a call for critical research. Viewed collectively, the authors make some similar claims and arguments. For example, one claim made directly by the contributors to the cyber-dialogue (Chapter 9) is that we miss a large part of the picture when we ignore issues of social justice and ethics and when we discount or overlook the broader historical and political context in which communicative phenomena are placed. Fujimoto (Chapter 1), in her chapter on Japanese-ness, whiteness, and the other, illustrates that group alignment is inherently hierarchical, occurs along multiple trajectories and for multiple groups in local and global placements simultaneously, and functions to marginalize groups such as the burakumin. It clearly is not appropriate, therefore, to predict from or assume similarity among people on the basis of their Japanese residency or ancestry.

    We are better served as scholars and/or practitioners by asking who has the privilege of defining the criteria for group or community membership location, what is the means through which hierarchy and status are established, and who benefits from particular locations. The contributors to the cyber-dialogue in the concluding chapter note as problematic that our camera lenses that capture communicative phenomena often are pointed at those subjects who can be objectified, are most accessible, have the least to lose by participating, and are willing to pose for close-ups. The scholars in this volume provide examples of ways of broadening our gaze and increasing the relevance of our work to the lived experiences of more of us.

    What is common across the chapters, including the cyber-dialogue at the end of the volume, is attention to description and critique of nationalized discourse and communicative texts that promote nationalism as dominant group ideology. Several authors address how the discourse of dominant groups—whether national, ethnic, religious, or patriarchal— functions to suppress other groups. Malhotra and Crabtree (Chapter 3) and Moorti (Chapter 6) address the use of such discourse in accomplishing the establishment of constraints on the actions of Indian women. Supriya (Chapter 5) points to cultural codes and core symbols used by community voices to attempt to control Indian women by constructing them as having “no shame.”

    Chang (Chapter 2) describes the ways in which political leaders, working alongside other writers and artists, construct the character of Taiwanese national identity. Fujimoto (Chapter 1) points the readers to multiple sites—including educational textbooks, Internet forums, media reports by political analysts, and scholarly forums—in which institutional voices establish hierarchical relationships and distancing of others. Schiffman and Subervi-Vélez (Chapter 7) describe the ways in which Latinos and their political standpoints are constructed and their roles and resources are positioned by the English-language print media.

    The discussions of Schiffman and Subervi-Vélez (Chapter 7), Chang (Chapter 2), Roy (Chapter 4), and Moorti (Chapter 6) clearly illustrate and reinforce the need to uncover essentializing, homogenizing, and negative representations of others. The contributors to the cyber-dialogue (Chapter 9) argue convincingly that who we are as cultural beings is first and foremost political because some of us have more agency and resources to define ourselves than do others, and they issue a call for scholars/teachers/practitioners to acknowledge that what we do and how we do it have unequal consequences and impacts.

    Incorporation of Contexts of History and Structural Forces

    All of the authors in this volume include discussions of history in their examinations of culture and communication. The scholars in the cyber-dialogue (Chapter 9) point out that it is important to reflexively examine and carefully interrogate the history and development of (inter)cultural/ national communication into a subdiscipline to recognize the context from which many of us speak. More than 50 years ago, Edward T. Hall began to work with the Foreign Service Institute in the United States.2 Largely as a result of Hall's work, ideas about culture were linked to communication, a partnership of business and corporate interests within and outside of the United States was born, and a new academic specialization of intercultural communication emerged. The roots of this area of the discipline thus came about through collaborations between anthropologists and international corporate interests (including the Peace Corps) that needed personnel who were prepared to relocate to countries outside of the United States. It is important to remember that economic and political circumstances such as these produced an emphasis on views of culture as styles of communicating shared by groups of people in particular places and contributed to the value placed on social psychological prediction of successful adaptation behaviors and competent skills.

    Scholars in this volume advocate for strengthening the role of context (historical, institutional, social, normative, and situated) to enable us to better understand communicative phenomena related to culture. Not only are gender, race, and class ongoing accomplishments, but “we cannot determine their relevance to social action apart from the context in which they are accomplished” (West & Fenstermaker, 1995, p. 30). The authors in this volume replace etic generalizability with situated contextual accounts that also include reflexive examination of author positionality and location. Roy's analysis of the ways in which international forces and satellite television are “demonized” in the Indian press (Chapter 4) moves beyond content analysis of press coverage by showcasing the need for including attention to historical, economic, and political contexts so as to understand the ways in which metaphors can be hegemonically used by institutional media. Malhotra and Crabtree's discussion (Chapter 3) features the ways in which Indian audiences, given their varied sociopolitical locations, construct localized interpretations of some satellite television programming in counterhegemonic ways.

    The role of ideologies and institutional policies and practices addressed in this volume comprises legislative outcomes, legal rulings, economic forces, constructed histories passed down through educational texts and lectures, government, mediated and institutional policies, and social norms related to who is an acceptable member of the group. The authors of the cyber-dialogue (Chapter 9) at one point remind the readers about the importance of multivocality and multiple contexts. They note that defining oneself as “American” means something different to the African American Democrat who was denied access to the ballot box in Florida in the 2000 U.S. presidential election from what it means to the white, European American Republican who voted for George W. Bush and celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court decision of the outcome of the election.

    Dialectic Tensions and Dualistic Contradictions

    Martin and Nakayama (1999) argue that dialectic approaches provide one window through which scholars may theorize and better engage the contradictory forces that characterize culture and communication. Whereas Baxter and Braithwaite (in press) describe social dialectics as unified opposites in dynamic interplay and as relationally and dialogically constructed in discourse, several authors in this volume address competing social and structural dualities and dialectic forces that emerge in a variety of communicative forms and texts. The authors' approaches are consistent with Baxter and Braithwaite's claim that relating and social interaction are processes of contradiction.

    More specifically, Roy (Chapter 4) uncovers mediated claims about the homogenizing forces of globalization, on the one hand, and the heterogeneity of localization, on the other, that emerge in the print media coverage of satellite television in India. He notes that both are required oppositions in the production of Indian nationalism today. Fujimoto (Chapter 1) addresses insider-outsider distinctions among Japanese identifications. Supriya's (Chapter 5) analysis delineates how honor and shame implicate one another in positioning and group alignments. Malhotra and Crabtree (Chapter 3) contrast dualistic forces such as spiritual and material, home and outer world, and traditional (uncolonized) and politically charged (contemporary) in their interview discourse from media executives and audiences of privatized satellite television. Rather than reifying overly dualistic assumptions and interpretations, they illustrate how the young adult television audience in India ruptures the binaries of local and global.

    Moorti (Chapter 6) provides evidence of the alternative positions and multiplicity of voices across religious, political, and gendered positions among those who supported the release and viewing of the film Fire, those who argued for taking it out of theaters, and those who argued for alterations in the film such as changing the names of characters. In addition, Schiffman and Subervi-Vélez (Chapter 7) provide media quotes from various Latino spokespersons developing arguments for the heterogeneity of Latinos in the United States and offer evidence of contradictory portrayals of Latinos as either a strong economic force or economically poor. Chang (Chapter 2) analyzes the contradictory metaphors of being an “orphan of Asia” and becoming “Moses” as evidence of very different Taiwanese identity locations and illustrations of different levels of agency.

    Dialogue on the Edges

    The concluding chapter features a different form of scholarly engagement, an unfinished conversation that took shape and form as a cyber- dialogue among five scholars about the study of, instruction about, and praxis in a world of cultures. In the cyber-dialogue, five scholars whose work and itineraries have taken a critical turn, and whose involuntary identifications and embodied experiences differ, engage the issues that characterize the ferment and transformation occurring in many academic disciplines today and are specifically evident in scholarship about culture and communication. In the chapter, the authors interrogate existing conceptualizations of culture and propose alternative situated orientations to culture that are politically situated, historically contexted, and socially contested.

    The final chapter is a call to continuously interrogate our assumptions through a particular kind of dialogue about difference—a dialogue with those speaking from different identity locations and having different itineraries. It is a demonstration of moving beyond categorical judgments of others and ourselves through a sustained discussion over many months and the value of requesting and providing clarifications and explanations. The contributors describe personal narratives of how power and privileged locations become enacted as the means through which dominating occurs, how the establishing of political hierarchies left them feeling marginalized as individuals and group members, and how they exerted individual agency to reject and reform cultural locations and itineraries. Our discussion in the cyber-dialogue is a celebration of the importance of personal narrative and auto-ethnographic reflecting coupled with deliberate and invitational dialogue with each other.

    What emerges from the cyber-dialogue is not only an argument for recognizing the politics of our intersecting cultural identifications but also the necessity of a commitment to social justice and ethics similar to that described by Frey, Pearce, Pollock, Artz, and Murphy (1998): “A concern with social justice from a communicative perspective thus identifies and foregrounds the grammars that oppress or underwrite relationships of domination and then reconstructs those grammars” (p. 112). Our chapter also is an illustration of what can be accomplished in a collaborative and stimulating relationship based on the ongoing participation of five histories, intellectual positionings, hearts, and voices.

    Four broad sets of questions emerged and helped to structure our cyber-dialogue. First, what is the nature of international/cultural communication scholarship? What are key issues that scholars/teachers/practitioners need to engage in their work? Second, what is (are) the problem(s) that need(s) to be addressed in this dialogue? How is the field of scholarship around internationalization, culture, and communication shifting? How can we characterize this current ferment in the field? Third, how does this shift and ferment affect us as scholars, and how does it affect people in our field? Why should we care about this ferment? Fourth, what can we do to address these concerns? What should be the agenda for scholars of international/cultural communication?

    What the readers will find is that we did not systematically answer each question in sequential order, although each scholar did respond to all of the questions. Our cyber-dialogue reflects a process that was much more messy and complex than orderly. The collaborators concur that our unfinished cyber-dialogue illustrates the nature of rich intellectual conversation that is lived and engages each of us on a deep level; there always is more to say and more to ask of each other. Most certainly, there always is more to learn. The current volume of the International and Intercultural Communication Annual exemplifies such an opportunity.

    Notes

    1. See Martin and Nakayama (1999) for a discussion of the distinction between these two approaches.

    2. See Leeds-Hurwitz (1990) for a historical overview.

    References
    Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflection on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
    Baxter, L., & Braithwaite, D. (in press) Social dialectics: The contradictions of relating. In B.Whaley & W.Samter (Eds.), Contemporary communication theories and exemplars. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Frey, L., Pearce, W. B., Pollock, M., Artz, L., & Murphy, B. (1998). Looking for justice in all the wrong places: On a communication approach to social justice. Communication Studies, 47, 110–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979609368467
    Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes on the history of intercultural communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 262–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639009383919
    Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory, 9, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00160.x
    West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender & Society, 9, 8–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124395009001002
  • Author Index

    About the Editor

    MARY JANE COLLIER (PhD, University of Southern California) teaches in the Department of Human Communication Studies, School of Communication, at the University of Denver. Her research focuses on the social construction of and structural constraints affecting the enactment of interrelated cultural identities and negotiation of intercultural relationships. Her work has appeared in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Communication Monographs, Communication Quarterly, and Howard Journal of Communications as well as various scholarly texts and books. She is editor of Volumes 23 to 25 of the International and Intercultural Communication Annual.

    About the Contributors

    HUI-CHING CHANG (PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- paign) is Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research interests lie in Chinese relationships and communication, cross-cultural communication, and critical ethnography. She has published in Discourse Studies, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Research on Language and Social Interaction, Intercultural and International Communication Annual, Communication Quarterly, and Critical Studies in Mass Communication, among others.

    ROBBIN D. CRABTREE (PhD, University of Minnesota) is Chair of Communication at Fairfield University, where she teaches courses in media studies, communication and social change, and globalization. Her research has focused on the role of media in social movements and revolution, media effects across cultures, and international service-learning.

    ETSUKO FUJIMOTO (PhD, Arizona State University) is Assistant Professeor in the Department of Communication at Southern Oregon University. Her current research interests include negotiations, expressions, and representations of social and cultural identities, multiculturalism, and transnationalism.

    KELLIE D. HAY (PhD, Ohio State University) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Rhetoric, Communication, and Journalism at Oakland University. She specializes in postcolonial theory, ethnography, and feminist cultural studies. She teaches communication theories and critical/cultural studies. Her current research grapples with theories of diaspora and how they are negotiated in Arab-American communities in the United States.

    RADHA S. HEGDE (PhD, Ohio State University) teaches in the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University. Her research and teaching center on questions of postcoloniality, race, gender, and identity, with a focus on Third World women. Her work has appeared in journals such as Communication Theory, Communication Studies, Women's Studies in Communication, and Violence Against Women.

    SUSAN L. KLINE (PhD, University of Illinois) is Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Ohio State University. She has published on the social construction of identity, the development of communication capabilities, argumentation practices, social cognition and message design strategies, and communication practices in new media technologies. Her work has appeared in journals such as Communication Research, Communication Education, Argumentation, and Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

    WENSHU LEE (PhD, University of Southern California) is affiliated with San Jose State University. “In 1983, I crossed the Pacific Ocean from Taipei to Los Angeles to study for my PhD in communication arts and sciences. My scholarly locations have changed from a social scientist, to a critical intercultural communication scholar, to a postcolonial feminist, to (now) a transnational womanist along with my academic itineraries from the University of Southern California, to San Jose State University, to Bowling Green State University. Currently, I am interested in incorporating the politics of location into the issues of women, sexuality, labor, and justice in three areas of my daily life—the United States, Taiwan, and Mexico—between the 1960s and 2001. I welcome inquiries and cyber- dialogues through e-mail (wenshulee@aol.com).”

    SHEENA MALHOTRA (PhD, University of New Mexico) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Women's Studies at California State University, Northridge. She is an Indian citizen with experience in the Indian film and television industries. She worked as an executive producer and commissioning editor of programs for BiTV (Business India Television) and in the Indian film industry as an assistant director to Shekhar Kapur (director of Bandit Queen and Elizabeth). Her academic work from 1992 through 1999 focused on the cultural implications of satellite television in India, with particular interest in gender issues.

    SUJATA MOORTI (PhD, University of Maryland) is Assistant Professor at Old Dominion University. Her research interests include transnational communicative practices, global media cultures, feminist media studies, and postcolonial theories. Her book, Color of Rape: Gender and Race in Television's Public Spheres, is forthcoming. She has published in Social Text, Genders, and Journal of Film and Popular Culture, among others.

    THOMAS K. NAKAYAMA (PhD, University of Iowa) is Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication and Director of the Asian Pacific American Studies Program at Arizona State University. His research interests focus on questions of identity, particularly racial, sexual, national, and sociocultural ones, as they are constructed in public discourses. He has been a visiting scholar at the University of Iowa and the University of Maine and has been a Fulbright scholar at the Université de Mons-Hainaut in Belgium. His work has appeared in Communication Theory, Critical Studies in Media Communication, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Journal of Communication, Quarterly Journal of Speech, and Text and Performance Quarterly as well as in various other journals, books, and texts.

    ABHIK ROY (PhD, University of Kansas) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at Howard University. His research interests include intercultural communication, communication theory, and cultural studies and media. He is the author of several articles on media representations of gender, race, and aging across cultures.

    MARYANNE SCHIFFMAN received her BA in economic development studies from the University of California, Berkeley. She currently is pursuing her doctorate in political science at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where she specializes in citizenship and public sphere issues in the countries of Colombia and Brazil.

    FEDERICO A. SUBERVI-VÉLEZ (PhD, University of Wisconsin- Madison) is Professor of Communication and Graduate Adviser in the Department of Radio-TV-Film at the University of Texas at Austin. His teaching, research, and publications focus on the mass media and ethnic groups, especially Latinos in the United States. He also conducts research about mass communication and diversity in Brazil and about the media in Puerto Rico, his home country. He serves on academic editorial boards and as an adviser to public and private corporations that deal with diversity and media.

    KARUDAPURAM E. SUPRIYA (PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign) teaches intercultural and international communication in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. She has published in interdisciplinary journals such as Women and Performance and a special issue on women and violence in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. She also has written book chapters on white social identity and postcolonial theory in communication studies. She currently is a Cultures and Community fellow at the University of Wisconsin and was a fellow at the Center for Twenty-first Century Studies. Her book, Shame and Recovery: Mapping Identity in an Asian Women's Shelter, will be published by Peter Lang, New York.

    GUST A. YEP (PhD, University of Southern California) is Professor of Speech and Communication Studies and Human Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University. He is co-author of the forthcoming Privacy and Disclosure of HIV/AIDS in Interpersonal Relationships and editor of the forthcoming Queering Communication. His work has been published as chapters in numerous scholarly books and texts as well as in journals such as Communication Quarterly; Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences; International Quarterly of Community Health Education; Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity; Journal of Homosexuality; and Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. He is the recipient of more than a dozen research grants and several teaching and community service awards.


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website