Asiacentric Communication Ethics and Competence Asia is diverseand dynamic. It is a region of cultural complexity, continuity, andchange, although the term signifies a certain geographical locationin the world, designates a common historical and political struggleagainst Western imperialism and colonialism, and implies sharedreligious-philosophical foundations and cultural heritage (Miike,2003a). Asian nations are plural societies. They “have a dominantcommunity and a number of minority communities divided on the basisof language, religion, caste, and ethnicity living together under asingle polity” (Goonasekera, 2003, p. 368). Chen and Starosta(2003) vividly depict such a place of remarkable variety andvitality: Indonesia is largely Muslim, yet it contains a largeHindu enclave in Bali. Indians were also imported to parts ofMalaysia, and Buddhism, started in India, [but] can hardly be foundthere now, except [as] a political reaction to casteism. Instead,it has taken root in China, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. Shintoismthrives in Japan, but maybe nowhere else. Asia has some massivecities, but 80% of some Asian countries are rural. India and Chinahave 800 language varieties or dialects. (p. 1) Obviously,therefore, all Asian communicators do not subscribe to theabove-discussed five propositions. These propositions do notnecessarily reflect the way Asians actually communicate inreal-life situations. Nevertheless, they serve as theoreticallenses from which to see an Asian version of humanity and to viewAsian thought and action. They are designed to provide much foodfor thought in rethinking the nature and ideal of humancommunication in Asia and beyond from an alternative vantage point.For example, the advent of the global village and the crisis of thehuman condition have made it compelling to ruminate oncommunication ethics and competence in intercultural contexts(Chen, 2005; Miike, 2009b; Tehranian, 2007). There have beenextensive discussions on Eurocentric biases in the definitions andcomponents of these key concepts (e.g., Chen & Starosta, 2008;Ishii, 2009; Shuter, 2003; Xiao & Chen, 2009). We can reexaminecurrent conceptualizations of communication ethics and competencefrom the five Asiacentric propositions. They suggest that anethical communicator can (1) remind herself or himself and othersof interrelatedness and inter- dependence through communication,(2) discipline and cultivate herself or himself without beingoverly self-centered through communication, (3) develop her or hisaltruistic sensitivity to the sufferings of others, (4) feel her orhis obligation to remember the debts that she or he has receivedand to try to return them in one way or another, and (5) speak upfor greater harmony and morality. Just like many proponents ofAsian values who are often misunderstood by Western conservativeintellectuals (Mahbubani, 2002), I am not asserting that theseAsiacentric viewpoints on humans communicating are superior toEurocentric ones, but I am protesting that they are not inferior tothem. They are rooted in the Asian worldview and yet may besharable along with those rooted in, say, the African worldviewtoward what Tu (2006, 2007) calls “a dialogical civilization” orwhat Sitaram (1998) calls “a higher humanity.” In Sitaram’s (1998)view, such a truly human civilization “is not an extension of anyone culture; rather it would be the essence of all cultures of theentire humanity” (p. 13). Hence, there is room for Asiacentric, aswell as Afrocentric and other non-Western, contributions. As Asante(1993) avers, there is also “space for Eurocentricity in amulticultural enterprise so long as it does not parade asuniversal. No one wants to banish the Eurocentric view. It is avalid view of reality where it does not force its way” (p.188).
Summarize, with examples, the five Asiacentric communicationpropositions.
