Communication Production as a Primary Criterion for the Effectiveness of Intercultural Communication
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2021-11-4-50-58
Abstract
The article reveals and substantiates the thesis that the production of forms of communication is the main criterion for the effectiveness of intercultural communication. The concept of active intersubjectivity, which focuses on the joint meaning formation, forming a local sphere of intersubjectivity, allows us to model the production of forms of communication in intercultural communications. The article discusses the attributes of active intersubjectivity that should be considered when modelling cross-cultural communications and the features of modelling active intersubjectivity as the production of forms of communication in cross-cultural communications. Public practices of active intersubjectivity that can be used to optimize cross-cultural communication are discussed. The conclusion states that the processes of active intersubjectivity in cross-cultural communications need consulting support and lists the requirements for consultants who can provide this support.
About the Authors
A. G. Tyurikov
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander G. Tyurikov - Dr. Sci. (Sociology), Professor, Head of the Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications
Moscow
A. Ya. Bolshunov
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey Ya. Bolshunov - Cand. Sci. (Psychology), Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications
Moscow
S. A. Bolshunova
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sofia A. Bolshunova - Research Fellow, Centre for Social Expertise and Development
Moscow
References
1. Okolnishkova I. Yu. Analysis of approaches to assessing the effectiveness of marketing communications. Vestnik YUURGU. 2011;28(245):134–142. (In Russ.).
2. Belozertsev A. V. Communicator parameters in communication models. Lingua mobilis. 2014;3(49):32–44. (In Russ.).
3. Nasibullin R. T., Fazlyev A. A. Matrix model of communication feasibility. Sotsial’naya politika i sotsiologiya. 2010;8(62):533–539. (In Russ.).
4. De Jaegher H., Di Paolo E. Participatory sense-making. An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 2007;(6):485–507.
5. Gallagher S. Two Problems of Intersubjectivity. URL: https://www.academia.edu/20554561/Two_Problems_of_Intersubjectivity?email_work_card=view-paper.
6. Husserl E. Cartesian meditations. Moscow: Academic Project; 2010. 229 p. (In Russ.).
7. Husserl E. Selected works. Series “University Library of Alexander Pogorelsky”. Moscow: Publishing House “Territory of the Future”; 2005. 464 p. (In Russ.).
8. Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action. St. Petersburg: Nauka; 2001. 379 p. (In Russ.).
9. Drain Chris. Cognition, activity and content: N. Leontiev and the enactive origin “of ideal reflective content”. Epistemology & Philosophy of Scienc e. 2018;55(3):106–121.
10. Di Paolo Ezequiel A., Rohde Marieke, De Jaegher Hanne. Horizons for the Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction, and Play. URL: https://www.academia.edu/2082265/Horizons_for_the_enactive_mind_Values_social_interaction_and_play?auto=download&email_work_card=download-paper.
11. Froese T., Shaun Gallagher. Getting interaction theory (IT) together: Integrating developmental, phenomenological, enactive, and dynamical approaches to social interaction. Interaction Studies. 2012;13(3):436–468.
12. Fuchs T., De Jaegher H. Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. URL: https://www.academia.edu/11325878/Enactive_intersubjectivity_Participatory_sensemaking_and_mutual_incorporation.
13. De Jaegher H., Di Paolo E. Making Sense in Participation: An Enactive Approach to Social Cognition. URL: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1089.4002&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
14. Shchedrovitsky G. P. On the boards. Public lectures on philosophy by G. P. Shchedrovitsky. Moscow: Publishing House Polit; 2004. 196 p. (In Russ.).
15. Vygotsky L. S. Psychology of child development. Moscow: Smysl Publishing House, Eksmo Publishing House; 2004. 512 p. (In Russ.).
16. Derrida J. The Ghosts of Marx. The State of Duty, the Work of Sorrow and the New International. Moscow: Logos-altera, Publishing House “Esse Homo”; 2006. 256 p. (In Russ.).
17. Turner V. Symbol and ritual. Moscow: The main editorial office of oriental literature of the Nauka Publishing House; 1983. 277 p. (In Russ.).
18. Shchedrovitsky G. P. Sign and activity. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura; 2005. 463 p. (In Russ.).
19. Dervin Brenda, Naumer Charles M. Sense-making. URL: https://www.academia.edu/393263/Sense-Making.
20. Wong Paul T. P. Meaning-Centred Counselling. URL: https://www.academia.edu/783625/Meaningcentered_counseling.
Review
For citations:
Tyurikov A.G., Bolshunov A.Ya., Bolshunova S.A. Communication Production as a Primary Criterion for the Effectiveness of Intercultural Communication. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2021;11(4):50-58. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2021-11-4-50-58
Views:
345
Email this article 