Culture, Paradigm, and Communication Theory: A Matter of Boundary or Commensurability?

2014/10/20 by Georgette Wang · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies #Social Media and Politics #Social and Cultural Dynamics

paper · doi:10.1111/comt.12045

openalex publication_date 2014/10/20 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29

Abstract

The discussion on geocultural theory has underscored the urgency for us to re-examine the way cultural differences are handled in academic discourse. Boundaries need to be drawn, because European universality neglects cultural and also paradigm differences. This article argues that as locking universality and particularity in a dualist paradigm is part of the problem, drawing boundaries to concepts and theories will lead to further problems. Borrowing from the Chinese yin/yang dynamic worldview and the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability, the author proposes a methodological framework in which commensurability, rather than universality, is the major concern. The commensurability model and the universality model are compared with examples to illustrate how the former may help advance theory development from a local perspective.

Citations

• The Dynamics of Public Attention: Agenda-Setting Theory Meets Big Data
• The Spiral of Silence a Theory of Public Opinion
• Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest: Observations From Tahrir Square
• The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media

Cited by

• De-westernizing Communication Studies: A Reassessment

Related

• Thinking Dialectically About Culture and Communication
• Researching the Intercultural: Intersubjectivity and the Problem with Postpositivism
• Knowledge Consilience: One Culture, Two Cultures or Many Cultures?
• The Construction and Globalization of the Knowledge Base in Inter-human Communication Systems
• Culture Three Ways: Culture and Subcultures Within Countries