Intercultural competence as an aspect of the communicative ...

put forth not only definitions but whole models of ICC which are discussed in a separate
section.
2.3.4. Criticism of ICC definitions
Since ICC is a complex concept, it is no wonder that authors and researchers do
not always agree on its conceptualization. Some even claim that the term has become ‘an
educational cliché […] fashionable to use, although no one seems to know exactly what it
means’ (Simensen 2003 as cited in Lund 2008).
Some authors (Bennett 1998; Van de Vijver, Leung 2009) would argue that
intercultural competence relies mostly on personal characteristics. They list attitudes or
orientations (attitudes toward other cultures and diversity in an organization or country),
personality traits (cultural empathy and emotional intelligence), skills relevant in crosscultural
encounters (negotiation skills and mastery of relevant languages) and actual
behaviour in intercultural encounters as some of them. Bennett emphasizes the
importance of subjective culture over objective for successful intercultural interaction.
However, if this were so, then any research would be cumbersome and long and probably
would not include enough of background data to justify or explain particular behaviours.
There are scholars who criticize the definitions of intercultural competence which
personify culture, as individuals meet other individuals in the context of culture, and not
the culture itself (Dervin 2010; Hannerz 2001; Wikan 2002). Hofstede claims that
cultures ‘are wholes, and their internal logic cannot be understood in terms used for the
personality dynamics of individuals’ (Hofstede 2001: 17). With this criticism, scholars
also point out to the fact that cultures are presented as singular, that is, that when a learner
faces a particular situation in another culture, the presupposition is that there have not
been any previous cases of mixing, encountering of cultures, which is, more often than
not, unlikely.
The definitions of ICC may point to the feeling of cultural homogeneity,
especially those that have their roots in the positivist paradigm (Boumard 2006 as cited in
Dervin 2010: 162) and might suggest a ‘superadaptation’ when interculturality takes
place. It would seem that a learner would acquire a system of fixed cultural elements
which would allow them to communicate with the speakers of a particular culture (Dervin
2010). However, in one’s own culture there are many encounter with very different
people, so intercultural encounters cannot be simplified in that way.
61