What Is Co Culture In Communication

what is co-cultural communication? why is co-cultural communication important?

Sami is an Arabic given name that can indicate “elevated” () or “sublime.” However, it is in fact an unabbreviated Arabic term formed from the verbs samaa () and yasmo (), both of which imply to transcend, and which means to rise above. This is derived from the root samaa (,), which implies to be lofty, exalted, distinguished, or notable in a formal sense.

  1. Every culture has a social hierarchy that gives certain groups more privileges than others. In most societies, groups with more privilege have a tendency to create the institutions that allow for communication to take place. The dominant group is responsible for defending and enforcing its position within society. Difficulties in advancement for non-dominant groups are caused by dominating communication mechanisms. Despite the fact that various disadvantaged groups come from a variety of different origins, their positions in society are quite similar
  2. If co-cultural theories are to function within the limitations of the dominant society, they must establish their own set of communication tactics.

Almost every culture has some sort of social hierarchy that gives certain groups preferential treatment over others. Societies are shaped by the institutions that allow for communication to take place between members of privileged groups; As part of maintaining and enforcing its social status, the dominant group Difficulties in advancement for non-dominant groups are caused by dominating communication structures; However, despite the fact that various disadvantaged groups come from a variety of different origins, their positions in society are quite similar.

If co-cultural theories are to function within the limits of the dominant society, they must establish distinctive communication tactics to do so.

  1. For example, family, friends, social groupings, etc., are factors that impact and form an individual’s or group’s life experience and realities. The adaptive decisions made in response to a given event or set of circumstances are referred to as situational context. Capabilities are the physical and psychological aspects that determine a culture’s capacity to communicate
  2. They are often referred to as “ability factors.” Costs and benefits that are perceived: the advantages and drawbacks associated with various acts
  3. Aggressive, non-aggressive, and assertive communication approaches are examples of communication approaches used by individuals or groups while engaging in conversation. The activity that will result in the desired consequence is referred to as the preferred outcome. A person’s assimilation, separation, or accommodation are the three primary types of integration. Assimilation is the process of being integrated and removing any cultural disparities. In the context of culture, accommodation refers to efforts to foster and create collaborative strengths that help to retain both the dominant and non-dominant cultures. Separation refers to situations in which people make deliberate attempts to avoid developing any significant links with the dominant culture, and in many cases, with other co-cultural groups.

It is possible to develop a matrix of multiple co-cultural communication strategies by combining the desired outcomes (assimilation, separation, and accommodation) with the communication methodologies, which results in the following descriptions of the various co-cultural communication strategies: Also, see: What are the most important aspects that influence cross-cultural interaction? How do various co-cultural communication tactics differ from one another? sources:

  • In a matrix of several co-cultural communication techniques, the intended results (assimilation, separation, and accommodation) are intersected with the communication approaches, resulting in the following 26 co-cultural communication strategies: further information may be found at When it comes to intercultural communication, what are the most important elements to consider? What are the various tactics for intercultural communication? sources:

Photograph courtesy of the Chattanooga School of Languages

Co-cultural communication theory – Wikipedia

The frameworks ofmuted group theory and viewpoint theory served as the foundation for co-cultural communication theory. Muted group theory, first developed by Shirley and Edwin Ardener in the mid-1970s, is the foundation of co-cultural communication theory. During their fieldwork, the Ardeners learned from other cultural anthropologists that most other cultural anthropologists performing ethnography in the field were only talking to the leaders of the communities, who were overwhelmingly adult males.

  • Ardener, 1975).
  • Ardener, 1978).
  • According to communication professors Stanback and Pearce (1981), these non-dominant groupings are referred to as “subordinate social groups.” In their study, they identified four methods in which non-dominant groups tend to communicate with dominant groups.
  • To those in the lower-status group, these activities have a completely different connotation, making them two entirely distinct modes of communication with entirely different ramifications for relations between the two groups “.

According to Kramarae (1981), “those experiences specific to subordinate group members frequently cannot be properly communicated within the confines of the dominant communication system.” She proposed that members of these groups develop other modes of communication in order to express their feelings.

A study conducted by Kramarae (1981) examined three assumptions of muted group theory as they related to communication between men and women, concluding that women have historically been muted by a male-dominated communications system.

Women’s experiences with and opposition to their own subordination were the primary focus of Standpoint Theory’s application as a feministtheoretical framework.

Among the fundamental tenants of point-of-view theory is the idea that it “aims to meaningfully include subordinate groups’ lived experiences into the process of scholarly inquiry.” In other words, representatives of underrepresented groups are invited to participate as co-researchers.


The idea of co-cultural communication was developed in 1996 by Mark Orbe, a professor at Western Michigan University’s School of Communication, when he discovered that previously used terms for the groups under discussion had negative implications. A number of names have been used to refer to earlier research that looked at the communication patterns of different co-cultural groups. He draws on these studies to support his argument. Orbe was the first to refer to this style of study as “co-cultural communication theory,” and he was also the first to use the term.

Orbe merged the frameworks of muted group theory and viewpoint theory to reach at five key principles that constitute co-cultural theory.

“Co-cultural theory tries to reveal the commonality among co-cultural group members as they function in dominant society while substantiating the great range of experiences across and within groups,” according to Orbe.


Since the publication of “Laying the foundation for co-cultural communication theory: An inductive approach to studying “non-dominant” communication strategies and the factors that influence them” (1996), Orbe has published two books describing the theory and its application, as well as several studies on communication patterns and strategies based on different co-cultural groups. He presents an outline of co-cultural theory in his 1997 paper, “A Co-cultural Communication Approach to Intergroup Relations,” which includes an explanation of the process through which co-cultural group members strategically pick alternative communication styles.

The paper “From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co-cultural communication theoretical model” by Orbe (1998b) defined nine co-cultural orientations based on the intersections of three communication approaches: non-aggressive, assertive, and aggressive — with three preferred outcomes: separation, accommodation, and assimilation — and nine co-cultural orientations based on the intersections of three communication approaches: non-aggressive, assertive, and aggressive.

During the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association in Detroit in 2000, Orbe and C.

Greer gave a paper titled “Recognizing the Diversity of Lived Experience: The Utility of Co-Cultural Theory in Communication and Disabilities Research.” A presentation on “Multiracial/ethnic identity: A co-cultural approach” was given by Heuman in 2001 at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, which was held in Cincinnati.

  • In 2004, Orbe utilized co-cultural theory as a basis to investigate the methods through which public discussion might be promoted across cultural borders.
  • In this book chapter, Orbe and Spellers (2005) discuss the roots of co-cultural theory from the viewpoints of their respective fields of study, as well as the implications of their findings for future research.
  • The scales’ construct validity and reliability were examined in two investigations, which were published in the journal Co-Cultural Theory (C-CTS).
  • Two writers used Orbe’s (1998) co-cultural theory model, which consists of nine communication orientations and twenty-six communication practices, to determine how members of co-cultural groups respond to acts of prejudice in their communities.

The tales of the participants were coded by two authors using qualitative content analysis. The study also provided a framework for future research initiatives. The following are the 26 communication practices:

Practice Brief Description
Averting Controversy Keeping the conversation away from potentially dangerous or controversial subject areas
Extensive Preparation Preparing extensively on matters of controversial topics before interacting with dominant group members
Overcompensating Avoiding discrimination by overt attempts to become a “superstar”
Manipulating Stereotypes Conforming to common stereotypes in order to exploit the dominant group members for personal gain
Bargaining Arranging a deal with dominant group members in which both parties agree to ignore co-cultural differences
Dissociating Avoiding stereotypes within one’s co-cultural group
Mirroring Behaving like a dominant group member to make one’s co-cultural identity hidden
Strategic Distancing Avoiding co-cultural group members to be perceived as an individual
Ridiculing self Participating in communication that is demeaning to other co-cultural group members
Increasing visibility Covertly maintaining co-cultural presence within a dominant structure
Dispelling stereotypes Challenging stereotypes by being one’s self
Communicating self Interacting with dominant group members authentically
Intragroup Networking Working with co-cultural group members who share philosophies, convictions and goals
Utilizing Liaisons Working with dominant group members who can be trusted for support, guidance and assistance
Educating Others Educating dominant group members of co-cultural norms and values
Confronting Using aggressive methods including ones that may violate the rights of others, to assert one’s voice
Gaining Advantage Talking about co-cultural oppression to provoke dominant group members
Avoiding Avoiding dominant group members, especially certain activities or locations where an interaction is likely
Maintaining Barriers Using verbal and nonverbal cues to impose a distance from dominant group members
Exemplifying Strengths Promoting past accomplishments to society of co-cultural group members
Embracing Stereotypes Applying co-cultural stereotypes to dominant group members in a positive way
Attacking Personally attacking dominant group members’ self-concept
Sabotaging others Taking the ability of dominant group members to fully embrace their privilege inherent in dominant structures
Emphasizing Commonalities Finding common ground with dominant group members while downplaying or ignoring differences
Developing Positive Face Being polite, considerate and attentive to dominant group members
Censoring Self Saying nothing when dominant group members say offensive or inappropriate things about co-cultural group members
You might be interested:  The Analysis Of Culture As A Symbolic System Is Part Of Which Anthropological Approach

Jungmi Jun, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina’s School of Journalism and Mass Communications, released an essay in 2012 based on her research “Why are Asian Americans so deafeningly quiet? Negotiation Strategies of Asian Americans in the Face of Communicative Discrimination “a paper published in the Journal of Intercultural and International Communication. The paradigm of co-cultural theory developed by Orbe was used to investigate two problems by the author. One is what kinds of racially discriminatory messages are targeted towards Asian Americans, and another is what kinds of communication tactics are used by Asian Americans to negotiate such signals with others who are not Asian Americans.

According to the findings of the study, Asian Americans are more likely than other groups to use nonaggressive responses to racially discriminatory messages as a result of internal and external factors such as emotional shock and humiliation, a lack of knowledge about appropriate responses, peer pressure, and strategic intent.


  1. A First Look at Communication Theory (Mark Orbe on Co-Cultural Theory, Part 1), retrieved 2019-02-06
  2. A First Look at Communication Theory (Mark Orbe on Co-Cultural Theory, Part 1) (retrieved 2019-02-06)
  3. A First Look at Communication Theory (Mark Orbe on Co-Cultural Theory) (retrieved 2019


  • Ardener, E., and Ardener, E. (1978). There are a few remaining issues in the analysis of events. Pages 103–121 in G. Schwinner’s (Ed.) The yearbook of symbolic anthropology, edited by G. Schwinner Hurst & Ardener, S. (London: Hurst & Ardener, S.) (1975). Women’s Perceptions. Malaby Press, London
  • Camara, S. K., and Orbe, M. P. Camara, S. K., and Orbe, M. P. (2010). A co-cultural communication inquiry into the analysis of strategic reactions to discriminatory behaviors was conducted. Dixon, L. D., Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 83–113
  • Dixon, L. D., Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 83–113
  • Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. D., Dixon, L. (2001). Co-cultural theory by Mark Orbe makes significant contributions to the field of intercultural communication study in terms of naming concerns. Heuman, A., gave a paper at the Central States Communication Association’s annual meeting in Cincinnati
  • Heuman, A., et al (2001). A co-cultural method to understanding multiracial/ethnic identity. Presentation at the Central States Communication Association’s annual conference in Cincinnati
  • Jun, J. Paper delivered at the Central States Communication Association’s annual meeting
  • (2012). Why are Asian Americans deafeningly quiet? Negotiation methods employed by Asian Americans in the face of communicative prejudice. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, doi: 10.1080/17513057.2012.720700
  • Kramarae, C. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, doi: 10.1080/17513057.2012.720700
  • (1981). Women and Men Have Their Say. Newberry House, Rowley, Massachusetts
  • Lapinski, M. K., and Orbe, M. (2007). It has been demonstrated that the Co-Cultural Theory Scales have construct validity and reliability. Communication Methods and Measure, 1(2), 137–164
  • Orbe, M. Communication Methods and Measure, 1(2), 137–164 (1996). An inductive approach to researching “non-dominant” communication methods and the factors that impact them serves as the foundation for co-cultural communication theory. Communication Studies, 47(3), 157–176
  • Orbe, M. Communication Studies, 47(3), 157–176
  • (1997). Intergroup relations are approached via the lens of co-cultural dialogue. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 24, 36–49
  • Orbe, M. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 24, 36–49
  • (1998a). Culture, power, and communication are discussed in detail in the course of constructing co-cultural theory. Sage Publications
  • Orbe, M. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (1998b). From the perspective(s) of traditionally marginalized groups: Explanation of a theoretical model of co-cultural dialogue in context. Communication Theory, 8, 1–26
  • Orbe, M., and Greer, C. M. Communication Theory, 8, 1–26
  • (2000). Recognition of the diversity of lived experience: The use of co-cultural theory in communication and disability research M. Orbe gave a paper at the annual conference of the Central States Communication Association in Detroit
  • The paper was written by M. Orbe (2004). A case study of the 2000-2002 community-based civil rights health initiative demonstrates the use of co-cultural theory and the spirit of dialogue. In G. M. Chen and J. Starosta (Eds. ), Dialogue Among Diversities (pp. 191–211), there is a dialogue among diversities. National Communication Association
  • Orbe, M., and Spellers, R. E., eds. Washington, DC: National Communication Association (2005). From the peripheries to the heart: using co-cultural theory in a variety of settings. Intercultural communication theory and research, edited by Wbgaudykunst, pages 173–191, New York: Springer-Verlag. Sage Publications
  • Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  • Ramirez-Sanchez, R. (2008). Embracing Marginalization from Within: Extending Co-Cultural Theory Through the Experience of Afro Punk Howard Journal of Communication, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 89–104
  • Smith, D. E., Howard Journal of Communication, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 89–104 (1987). “The daily world as problematic: a feminist sociology of knowledge,” a feminist sociology of knowledge. Northeastern University Press
  • Stanback, M. H., and Pearce, W. B. Boston: Northeastern University Press
  • (1981). Members of “subordinate” social groupings employ a variety of communication styles while conversing with “the man.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 67, no. 21, pp. 21–30

External links

  • Western Michigan University School of Communication
  • Central States Communication Association
  • Western Michigan University School of Communication

Chapter Outline

  1. Both culture and co-culture are defined as the language, beliefs, traditions, and practices that are shared and taught by a group of people. A person’s perspective and concept of culture are important considerations. In co-culture, the perception of belonging to a group that is a component of a larger culture is expressed.
  1. Groups with which we identify are referred to as in-groups. Out-groups are groups that we consider to be distinct from us. The component of one’s self-concept that is founded on one’s belonging to a group is referred to as social identity.
  1. It is the process that happens when individuals of two or more cultures or co-cultures communicate messages in a way that is impacted by their differing cultural perspectives and symbol systems, both verbal and nonverbal, in order to achieve mutual understanding. S alience is defined as the weight that is linked to a certain person or phenomenon. Figure 2.2 depicts a model that illustrates the relationship between interpersonal relationships and intercultural communication and demonstrates that some interpersonal transactions do not contain any cultural elements while others are almost entirely intercultural and do not include any personal dimensions. Cultural distinctions are diverse, since there are different ways in which communication differs from one culture to the next. It is possible that there are more distinctions within cultures than there are between civilizations.
  • Five subtle but important values and norms that affect the way individuals of a society communicate are captured by five subtle but important values and norms
  1. High-context versus low-context cultures— Low-context cultures rely significantly on subtle, often nonverbal indicators to preserve social harmony, whereas high-context cultures rely heavily on overt, often nonverbal cues to maintain social harmony. When it comes to assisting themselves, members of anindividualistic culture see their major responsibility as helping themselves, as opposed to members of an acollectivistic culture, who see their primary responsibility as helping their in-group
  2. The degree to which individuals of a community tolerate an unequal allocation of power is described by the term “power gap.” Uncertainty avoidance is a word that is used to describe the degree to which individuals of a culture feel threatened by uncertain circumstances and the extent to which they attempt to avoid them. Achievement cultures place a strong priority on monetary achievement and concentrating on the job at hand, whereas nurturing cultures place a high value on the support of relationships and focusing on the task at hand
  1. Race is a category that was formed to describe variations between individuals whose ancestors originated in various parts of the world, such as Africa and Europe. When it comes to describing individual variations, race is a secondary factor
  2. Ethnicity is more typically employed. One’s ethnicity is the degree to which a person feels they belong to a group, generally on the basis of nationality, culture, or some other common point of view.
  1. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) are all types of people that identify as LGBTQ.
  1. Being honest can help people feel more real and that they are part of a supportive co-culture
  2. But, disclosure can be dangerous. People may be taken aback or judge you harshly. The social atmosphere has been more accepting of LGBTQ persons than it had been in the previous years.
  1. Age-related communication reflects both culture and biology in equal measure. We learn how to “do” different ages as we progress through life. Western societies place a high value on youth, and views on aging are overwhelmingly negative rather than positive. People who assume that older persons have communication difficulties are less inclined to contact with them and, when they do connect, are more likely to use condescending language. When various generations come together to work, communication difficulties might result.
  1. People’s communication styles can be significantly influenced by their social status. People in the United States categorize themselves as working class, middle class, or upper class. First-generation college (FGC) students may experience intercultural strain as a result of having to live in two different environments.
  • Due to the fact that various cultures have diverse verbal and nonverbal communication methods, codes are tied to culture.
  1. The verbal codes used by different languages throughout the world are both similar and distinct.
  1. Linguistics and identity – If you live in a community where everyone speaks the same language, then language has little impact on your sense of self. In contrast, when some members speak a dominant language and some members speak a minority language, a strong sense of belonging to an out-group is felt. Three cultural differences can be identified in verbal communication styles:
  1. It is possible to be direct or indirect
  2. To be elaborate and concise, or to be formalandinformal.
  • Nonverbal communication is something that all humans have in common. There is a vast range of variances in nonverbal behavior between people. Messages are decoded
  1. In attribution, someone else’s action is interpreted in order to make sense of it. Because most behavior is ambiguous and might have numerous meanings, the attribution process can result in incorrect interpretations.
  1. The desire to converse successfully with strangers, as well as with people from various cultures, is described by motivation and attitude, respectively. When dealing with communicators from other cultures, one’s level of tolerance for ambiguity is determined by the level of uncertainty one is comfortable with. To be effective intercultural communicators, one must be willing to embrace and encourage uncertainty. It is necessary to be open-minded in order to be free of ethnocentrism, which is the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others, and prejudice, which is a harsh and intolerant attitude toward people who are members of an out-group. To be effective communicators, communicators must have a thorough understanding of various cultures and be able to identify acceptable communication strategies.
  1. Observing the behaviour of individuals of another culture and putting them into practice effectively is known as passive observation. Learning about intercultural communication through active tactics such as reading, viewing films, and asking experts and people of the other culture how to behave are all effective ways to gain knowledge. It is self-disclosure when you are willing to share personal information with persons from the other culture with whom you wish to communicate.
  1. To make the transition from culture shock to adaption, patience and endurance are required.
You might be interested:  What Do You See As The Main Value Of Human Creative Expression For Contemporary Culture

What You Need to Know About : Co-Cultural Theory

In communication theory, co-cultural theory is a concept that is intended to give insight into the communication habits of persons who have little societal influence. Cocultural theory, which arose largely from the study of Mark Orbe, is concerned with the ways in which culture and power influence communication. There are many elements of society that have historically been classified as belonging to subcultural or minority groups that are the subject of the idea. The term “cocultural group” is preferred by this hypothesis.

  • Recent research has employed this model in the study of a variety of additional populations, including the homeless, first-generation college students, immigrants, and foreign students, among others.
  • The principles of muted group and viewpoint theories informed these fundamental investigations, which employed an inductive phenomenological approach to compile inductive accounts of ordinary communication in the workplace.
  • Co-cultural theory is founded on five assumptions, each of which mirrors a core principle found in muted group or viewpoint theory, and each of which is discussed below.
  • When it comes to men, European Americans, physically fit people, heterosexual couples and those from the middle or upper classes in the United States, dominating group members are numerous and diverse.
  • The third premise of co-cultural theory investigates how the actuality of dominant group power affects members of nondominant groups, particularly those who are marginalized.
  • When it comes to co-cultural groups, the fourth assumption acknowledges the distinctions that exist within and between them; but, it also recognises the parallels which exist both inside and across groups that hold comparable social positions.
  • It is likely that such behaviors will differ both within and across various co-cultural groups in the future.

Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Floss have collaborated on this project (2009). The Communication Theory Encyclopedia is a resource for those interested in communication theory. USA:SAGE. Penanggungjawab naskah:Gayes MahestuEdwina Ayu KustiawanGayes MahestuGayes Mahestu

Co-Cultural Theory and Communication

It was Mark Orbe’s scholarly study that resulted in the development of co-cultural communication theory, also known as co-cultural theory for short. It is possible to comprehend how historically underrepresented group members interact within social systems dominated by cultural groups that have, through time, gained dominant group status through the use of a co-cultural theoretical approach. By investigating the communicative lived experiences of underrepresented group members in the United States, Orbe and colleagues laid the groundwork for the theory’s development.

According to the idea, lived experiences of co-cultural group members are centrally located, and occasions in which cultural diversity is considered as prominent are highlighted.

Based on a research approach centered on discovery, six factors were identified as being critical in the selection of specific co-cultural practices: field of experience, abilities, perceived costs and rewards (communication approach), preferred outcome (outcome), and situational context (situational context).

Intellectual and Methodological Background

There are a variety of philosophical and methodological underpinnings on which co-cultural theory is constructed. Furthermore, it relies on two distinct theoretical traditions: muted-group theory and feminist perspective theories. For co-cultural theorizing, the works of anthropologists such as Shirley Ardener (Ardener 1975, 1978) and communication researcher Cheris Kramarae (Kramarae 1981) offered a springboard for theorizing based on muted groups. It is explained in detail in Orbe 2005 how muted-group theory and co-cultural theory are interconnected.

Phenomenology, as defined by Lanigan (1988), serves as the basic methodological foundation for the development of co-cultural theory and theory of culture.

  • S. Ardener’s article from 1975 is cited as “Ardener, S. 1975.” Women’s perceptions. Malaby Street, London. This book provides a basic exposition of muted-group theory, as well as examples of its application. It discusses how dominant groups construct communication systems that promote their own worldviews and establish the proper language norms for the rest of society, all from an anthropological perspective. S. Ardener’s 1978 book focuses on how subordinate groups are rendered “inarticulate” or “silent” (or both) as a result of this process
  • Ardener, S. 1978. In society, the nature of women is defined by the following criteria: Halsted Publishing Company, New York. Ardener, an anthropological, claims in this book that each civilization has a muted-group dynamic, which may be observed in his research. She contends that organizations that operate at the top of the sociopolitical hierarchy have a significant influence on the prevailing communication system that is used by the whole society. With this in mind, it should be noted that in any culture where uneven power connections are maintained, the language and experiences of some groups are made “inarticulate.”
  • Folb, E. (1994-06-02). Who’s got a spot at the top of the stairs? Dominance and nondominance issues in intracultural communication are discussed. A reader’s guide to intercultural communication L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter edited this volume, which contains chapters 119–127. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California. The author provides insight into the importance of examining the communication methods of “nondominant” group members, or those persons who have not historically had access to influence dominant culture, in the chapter he has written on the subject. This early work was pivotal in the development of the term “co-cultural” (as opposed to minority, subcultural, or other terms) as a method of acknowledging power relations and the agency of individual and group communication practices
  • Harding, S. 1991
  • Harding, S. 1991. Whose science is it, exactly? Whose expertise is it, exactly? Thinking about things from the perspective of women’s life. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Positionality theory, a foundational concept in co-cultural theory, is described in this book as a feminist theoretical framework that may be used to investigate the lived experiences of women as they engage in and resist their own subordination. As a result of Harding’s concepts, it was possible to investigate unique communication tactics utilized by subordinate, or co-cultural, group members of a society
  • Hartsock (1983), National Council on Co-Cultural Communication. The feminist point of view: laying the groundwork for a feminist historical materialism that is uniquely feminist. In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science is a collection of essays addressing the nature of reality. 283–310 in S. Harding and M. D. Hintikka’s edited volume. D. Reidel & Company, Boston. It is a main source that describes feminist-standpoint theory, which is one of the theoretical building blocks for co-cultural theory, and it is included in this book chapter. This early essay by Hartsock demonstrates how the theory is founded in Marxian study of working-class conditions and how it may be used to investigate the lives of those in lower positions
  • Kramarae, C. 1981.Women and men speaking Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts. Muted-group theory, one of the theoretical building blocks of co-cultural theory, is described in detail in this book, which is a valuable resource. Women in a male-dominated society are typically treated as second-class citizens, as argued by Kramarae in this volume, which contains the most comprehensive application of muted-group theory in the field of communication. Lanigan, R. L. 1988. Merleau-thematics Ponty’s in communicology and semiology are examples of phenomenology of communication. Duquesne University Press is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This book presents an in-depth examination of the applicability of phenomenological inquiry in the context of communication study. It is the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty in particular that the author draws upon, and he describes the philosophical underpinnings of phenomenology in relation to discovery-oriented, humanistic research, including, for example, the research that resulted in the development of co-cultural theory
  • Orbe, Michael P. 2005. Conceptualizations of co-cultural theory as a means of carrying on the tradition of theorizing from the edges 28.2: 65–66. Women’s Language 28.2: 65–66. In this brief paper, based on a presentation given at the Muted Group Theory Conference, which was held at George Mason University in 2005, the author describes how muted-group theory serves as the foundation for co-cultural theory. A second point raised by the author is how co-cultural theory builds on a tradition of marginalized thinking and applies it across a wide range of fields
  • Stanback, M, and W B Pearce. 1981. Members of “subordinate” social groupings employ a variety of communication styles while conversing with “the man.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 21–30 DOI:10.1080/00335638109383548 As a result of its approach to the study of marginalized groups, this piece is crucial to co-cultural theory since it recognizes that these individuals must somehow work within the restrictions given by their self-concepts, goals, and knowledge of dominant-group expectations. Individuals from “subordinate” social groups employ certain methods (for example, tomming, passing, shucking, and dissembling), which are identified by the authors.
You might be interested:  What Is Corporate Culture

Return to the top of the page Users who do not have a membership will not be able to view the entire material on this page. Please subscribe or log in to continue.

How to Subscribe

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available to individuals and institutions through subscription and permanent access. For additional information or to speak with an Oxford Sales Representative, please visit this page.


  • Affiliation Processes and Communication
  • Activism Media
  • Adherence and Communication
  • Adolescence and the Media
  • Adverts, Political Televised and Other
  • Adverts, Children and Other Media
  • Agenda Setting Annenberg, Walter H.
  • Annenberg, Walter H. Argumentation
  • Applied Communication Research Methods
  • Communication Research Methods Audience Fragmentation
  • Audience Studies
  • Attitude-Behavior Consistency
  • Attitude-Behavior Consistency Bakhtin, Mikhail
  • Bakhtin, Mikhail The Effect of Jumping on the Bandwagon
  • Jean Baudrillard was a French philosopher who lived in the 1960s and 1970s. Blockchain and Communication
  • Pierre Bourdieu
  • Blockchain and Communication Equity in a company’s brand
  • The British and Irish Magazine’s history may be found here. Manuel Castells is a public service broadcaster who works in the media capture industry. censorship, civic responsibility, and celebrity and public persona The Civil Rights Movement and the Media
  • CNN
  • Co-Cultural Theory and Communication
  • Codes and Cultural Discourse Analysis
  • The Civil Rights Movement and the Media
  • Cognitive Dissonance, Collective Memory, Communication, and Comedic News are all topics covered in this course. apprehension of communication
  • Communication campaigns
  • Communication, concepts and definitions, communication history, communication law, communication management, communication networks
  • Communication, philosophy of
  • Community attachement
  • Community structure approach
  • Computer-mediated communication
  • Content analysis, crisis communication, critical and cultural studies, cross-tool and cross-media effects, cultivation
  • Culturing
  • Culturing Environmental Communication, Ethnography of Communication, Experiments, Communication in the Family The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a government agency that regulates communications. Studies on Feminist and Queer Video Games
  • Feminist Theory
  • Focus Groups
  • Food Studies and Communication
  • Press Freedom
  • Food Studies and Communication Gatekeeping, Gender, and the Media are some of the topics covered. Global Englishes
  • History of Global Media
  • Organizations of Global Media
  • Global Englishes Glocalization
  • Goffman, Erving
  • Habermas, Jürgen
  • Goffman, Erving Habituation and Communication
  • Health Communication
  • Hegemony
  • Hermeneutic Communication Studies
  • Heuristics
  • Homelessness and Communication
  • Habituation and Communication
  • Apps for hooking up and dating
  • The Influence of the Media on a Negative Attitude
  • Identification with fictional characters in media
  • Theoretical Identity, Cultural Identity, Image Repair Theory, Implicit Measurement, Impression Management, Indexing, Infographics Information and Communication Technology for Development
  • Information Management
  • Information Overload
  • Information Processing
  • Infotainment
  • Information Technology for Development
  • Information and Communication Technology for Development Harold Innis is a communication specialist who specializes in instructional communication and integrated marketing communications. The terms interactivity, intercultural capital, intercultural communication, tourism and
  • Intercultural communication, worldview in
  • Intercultural conflict mediation, intergenerational communication, intergroup communication, international communications, interpersonal communication, interpersonal LGBTQ communication, interpretation/reception, journalism, journalism, alternative journalism, journalism and trauma, journalism, citizen journalism, and history are all used in this article. The terms interactivity and intercultural capital are used in this article. Merton, Robert K.
  • Merton, Robert K. Murdoch, Rupert
  • Message Characteristics and Persuasion
  • Muckraking
  • Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Approaches to
  • Multinational Organizations, Communication and Culture in
  • Rupert Murdoch Narrative
  • Organizational Change and Organizational Change Communicat
  • Organizational Communication
  • Organizational Communication, Aging and
  • Parasocial Theory in Communication
  • Participatory Action Research
  • Participatory Democracy
  • Communication between patients and their healthcare providers
  • Peacebuilding and Communication
  • Persuasion and Social Influence
  • Persuasion, Resisting
  • Photojournalism
  • Political Advertising
  • Political Communication, Normative Analysis of
  • Political Economy
  • Political Knowledge
  • Politics Marketing
  • Politics Socialization
  • Polls, Opinion
  • Priming
  • Product Placement
  • Propaganda
  • Proxemics
  • Public Opinion
  • Public Relations
  • Public Sphere
  • Queer Intercultural Communication
  • Que The media portrayal of women, small-group communication, social capital, sociological change, social cognition, social construction, social identity theory and communication, social interaction, social movements, social network analysis, social protest, sports communication, stereotypes Communication Strategy
  • Surveillance and Communication
  • Strategic Communication Telecommunications History and Policy
  • Symbolic Interactionism in Communication
  • Tabloidization
  • Telecommunications History and Policy Television
  • Television, Cable
  • Textual Analysis and Communication
  • Third Culture Kids
  • Third-Person Effect
  • Time Warner
  • Transgender Media Studies
  • Transmedia Storytelling
  • Two-Step Flow
  • Uses and Gratifications
  • Television
  • WikiLeaks, Whiteness Theory in Intercultural Communication, Youth and the Media, Zines and Communication, Video Games and Communication, Violence in the Media, Virtual Reality and Communication, Visual Communication, Web 2.0, Web Archiving, Webcare, Whistleblowing, Whiteness Theory in Intercultural Communication, Youth and the Media, Zines and Communication, Video Games and Communication, Violence in the Media, Virtual Reality and Communication, Visual Communication, Web 2.0, Web Archiving, Webcare

Theorizing Co-Cultural Communication

INQUIRE ABOUT MANUSCRIPTS The Howard Journal of Communications2012 Special Issue: Theorizing Co-Cultural Communication is published by the Howard University Press. Mark P. Orbe is the Guest Editor for this issue. Submission The deadline for submissions is October 1, 2011. Over the past many years, The Howard Magazine of Communications (a TaylorFrancisGroup product) has established itself as a premier journal of study that investigates the inextricable link between culture and communication. It has continuously included cutting-edge research that has elevated the communication experiences of underrepresented group members from the fringes to the center of academic inquiry.

Co-cultural communication refers to the various ways in which traditionally underrepresented group members negotiate their culturallocations/standpoints in societies where dominant group experiencesbenefit from societal privilege and institutional power, as well as the diverse ways in which dominant group members negotiate their culturallocations/standpoints.

It is the goal of this special issue to publish studies that contribute to the advancement of theory about cross-cultural communication.

Applicants are encouraged to submit manuscripts that focus on any and all forms of co-cultural communication and methodological frameworks; however, preference will be given to those authors who can demonstrate how co-cultural understanding transcends the experiences of a single cultural group within a specific setting.

Mark P.

He may be reached at (269) 387-3132.

An electronic file of the manuscript (including a 200-word abstract) prepared for blind review as a WORD document, as well as a separate file containing the title of the manuscript, author contact information, a brief author bio, key terms, and manuscript history (if applicable), should be submitted [email protected]@gmail.comno later than October 1, 2011, and a separate file containing the title of the manuscript, author contact information, a brief author bio, Before submitting papers, authors are highly requested to read the “Information for Authors” section of the website.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *