The E-Journal of Intercultural Relations, Fall 1998, Vol. 1(4)   Originally Posted: 10/31/98; Revised: 1/19/99   Interviews: On The Past and Future of Intercultural Relations Study

An Interview with Fred L. Casmir Interviewed by William B. Hart Editor, The Edge Dr. Casmir was interviewed via e-mail.

 

The Past: Where Have We Been?

Hart: How do you see the history of intercultural relations study? When and where did the study of ICR begin? How did it develop from there?

Casmir: I see the history of intercultural relations studies through the eyes of someone who is primarily interested in the communication aspects of the area -- humans communicating (process) who are from different cultural or sub-cultural and co-cultural backgrounds. Basically, however, I see many or even most of the studies related to the broader field or area of interest emerging from specific interests of the United States' government and in academic disciplines which could make contributions to our understanding of the emerging role of the United States as a world power with international and intercultural responsibilities throughout the world.  Interestingly enough, I see the emergence of intercultural relations within the United States developing later, much as a step-child, following similar trends to those in the international arena. 

Because of the academic environment in which this area of concern developed, related to the status, fiscal and other constraints, the area developed on the basis of competing interests, with little interaction between the extant disciplines or their representatives, until quite recently.  In intercultural communication studies the prominent era of development was the 1970's.

Hart: What were the major accomplishments in intercultural relations study in the past?

Casmir: The major accomplishments must really be seen within specific academic disciplines, since there has been little dialog or interaction which has helped to bring about cross-disciplinary results. However, I would see the fact that within a relatively short period of time of approximately 40-45 years, awareness of the need for better understanding of intercultural relations has begun to permeate virtually every field, from the sciences to the humanities, from education to health care.

The negative aspects of these developments are directly related to the prominence of "academic turf" and the academic "reward system." By that I mean that integrative or cooperative efforts are rare, leading to duplication, "re-inventing the wheel" over and over again, and little agreement on what the needs of society and our world are. As a result it has taken a long time to convince even government and business organizations directly involved in international and intercultural efforts to find ways to benefit from the fairly extensive, available expertise in this area. Partly that is the result that too little has been done to make available information easily accessible to those who need it. In other words, even those of us interested in intercultural communication have done too little to effectively communicate our insights to those outside of our own academic "sub-culture."

Hart: Who has played an important role? What have been the most influential approaches to the study of ICR?

Casmir: Obviously, I would consider the area of intercultural communication as my only area of real "expertise." The most important "approaches to the study of" intercultural relations have, to a large extent, been defined and decided upon by two factors:

• The total socio-cultural environment for academic efforts in general.
   
• The predominant model or approach/es  -- including generally valued theories and research methodologies -- in a given discipline in general (one in which the researcher, theorist or practioner saw his/her "logical" home or with which he or she identified with the academy).

That means that most of the research was based on models which dominated the academy at a given time -- be that "scientific" or "humanistic," be that quantifiable or qualitative research. Basically, the area or field has been too weak to assume a leadership position, thus followership has been more frequent -- assuring those producing research and other work more ready acceptance for their work both in their larger academic disciplines and a better chance of publishing their work.  Of course, some approaches developed during conducive socio-cultural periods, like the evolving ethnographic and related studies that were more prominently identified with intercultural relations, but they still were, basically, the result of larger trends in the study of human behaviors and interactions.

Hart: What role did the social, political and technological context play in the development of the study of intercultural relations?

Casmir: I have really answered those questions above. It is my belief that all development in all areas of human study and research are constrained by, impacted by, and encouraged by larger socio-cultural settings. Those include as sub-areas the political settings of specific societies, global economic and political concerns, and the development of various technologies. It would be my contention (see Burke's The Day the Universe Changed) that all these factors are part of a never-ending stream of events, reactions to events, and attempts to make sense of events which are important components in an ongoing process which causes specific focus or foci in any area of our work -- including efforts in the academy. A historic awareness of such processes helps us to understand the nature, the temporary nature of our insights and the possibilities for future development. Any use of technology, while in part driven by its availability, will in the long run be dictated by the larger socio-cultural settings, which in part, but only in part, it helps to shape. I have mentioned above a major stimulus for the development of the intercultural affairs interest/s in the United States (and, I believe elsewhere) was the impact of WWII and the evolving international and intercultural interactions which resulted from that definitive event -- which, once again, greatly impacted the socio-cultural settings of states in our world.

Hart: What is your personal story as a scholar in the study of intercultural relations? What attracted you to the field? What is your academic background?

Casmir:   In many ways I was not attracted to an existing field -- but, with others, decided that our socio-cultural environment required our involvement as communication scholars. We were more in a "founding" mode than a "joining mode." 

My own bi-cultural background -- I was born in Germany and lived there through the Nazi period -- had, undoubtedly an impact on my academic interests. My early work dealt with the rhetoric of Hitler, and my contact with German scholars in the speech field further connected me back to the country of my birth. That interest also led to an early edited volume with L. S. Harms on International Studies of National Speech Education Systems (Pacific Speech Association, 1970). It was an easy step from there to contacts with colleagues in the speech and speech communication field in the United States, especially Bill Howell, Michael Prosser, Robert T. Oliver, John Condon, George Gurganus, Larry Samovar, Dean Barnlund, and a number scholars from other disciplines like Harry Triandis, Edmund Glenn, and Edward Stewart, who had bi-cultural or extensive overseas experience. 

As a result discussions began in the early 1970's to share common interests and the need for a greater intercultural and international emphasis in our studies and contributions to our society. The latter, that is application, involvement, social responsibility were distinguishing features in our early discussions of the "future of the field." It is one of my interests to see that kind of application and involvement continued. The subject matters of our work are too important to be shared only among academicians;  it is my conviction that they should be made available for use and for the benefit of many others in our world. 

My own history as a teacher and researcher at Pepperdine College and Pepperdine University, where I have been teaching for some 42 years, made it possible to ask the university to provide financial and other support when I decided that in 1974 a journal related to international and intercultural communication needed to be published.   [Casmir began editing The International and Intercultural Communication Annuals in 1974. ]  My long stay at Pepperdine, in no small measure, resulted from an environment in which I was encouraged to innovate, to build and to challenge -- all central factors in my life. While I could not convince the Speech Communication Association to provide the necessary funds for such a project, my own university was willing to do so for the initial three years. Similarly Pepperdine, which had recently bought and developed its own facilities for an overseas campus in Heidelberg, Germany, sponsored the first meeting between European and U.S. speech scholars in Heidelberg.