Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

Socio-Cultural Differences and Intercultural Communication

in Social Participation Experiences

Daniel Mato
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
and
Universidad Nacional Tres de Febrero, Argentina

Translated from Spanish by

Emeshe Juhász-Mininberg

Abstract: This article discusses the main theoretical and methodological aspects of the
intercultural communication analytical perspective that I have developed to respond
to specific research needs. This perspective is based on the idea that institutional and
collective social actors are heterogeneous entities because they comprise a variety
of internal parties, as I have been able to observe in my field research experience.
Intercultural communication involves, therefore, multidimensional exchanges
between heterogeneous agents that build meaning and struggle over it within their own
group as well as with the other social agents. Meaning is something that is negotiated,
transformed, appropriated, and can often be a subject of dispute. For that reason, the
study of intercultural communication should center on social processes, not just verbal
utterances. Close examination of social practices and relations enable us to understand
how differences are articulated and how meaning is transformed.

Keywords: Intercultural communication, social participation, interculturality,

interculturalism, social change

1. Introduction

The research projects I have been working on since 1990 have required that I develop an
intercultural analytical approach that suits the various specific cases I have studied throughout
the years in the context of my line of research on Culture, Communication, and Social
Transformations, which has led me to re-think and broaden the applications of Intercultural
Communication Studies. In this article I discuss the main theoretical and methodological
aspects of this approach to intercultural analysis.

2. On the Idea of “Culture”

To begin, I would like to point out that in the line of research that I have been developing,
the idea of “culture” does not denote a “thing” or a set of “things,” neither does it point to a
set of attributes that may be interpreted as “objective” characterizations of a particular group
of social subjects. Instead, the term “culture” denotes a perspective of analysis --that is, a

101
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

particular way of looking at and analyzing social processes. Nevertheless, this approach to
understanding the idea of “culture” does not disregard the fact that for those social actors whose
worldviews are articulated around the ideas of culture and/or identity such notions constitute
significant aspects of their experience that are lived as such — and which from that point of
view are real and in no way fictitious.
This “cultural perspective” orients our research, enabling us to focus on the meaning of
social actors’ practices; that is, how meaning is produced, how it circulates, how it is reproduced
and transformed, how it is negotiated, how it guides social actors’ practices, and how it may
come to conflict with other meanings. It is these very questions that, for the past twenty years,
have oriented specific research projects within this line of research. At the same time, these
projects have progressively enabled us to formulate the theoretical framework in the terms that
I will discuss in this presentation (Mato 1990, 1992, 1998a, 2000, 2005, 2008a, 2008b, 2011a;
Mato, Ed. 2003, 2005, 2004, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Mato and Maldonado, Eds., 2007; Mato,
Maldonado and Rey, 2011).
The research projects undertaken within the framework of this line of research, as well
as studies conducted by other researchers, have allowed us to confirm that social actors are
constituted as such through the production of representations of particular identities (be they
individual or group identities), that give meaning to their programs and forms of social action.
Depending on the particular case, these productions of identity may span just a few years of
history, several decades, or even centuries, as is the case, for example, with some churches, with
nations and their States, or with indigenous peoples. Actually, the duration of these processes
through time depends on the narratives of identity that social actors assume, on who formulates
these narratives and what moment of origin they point to, and on when what is considered to be
their particular history begins.
The production of these representations of identity necessarily and correlatively involves
the production of representations of difference regarding those who are considered to be the
“other”: other nations, other peoples, other collectives, as the case may be. The identities of
the thus constituted different social actors tend to be associated with, and at the same time
accompanied by, the strengthening of differences in terms of perceptions, interpretations and
representations of social experiences that each actor develops --and which are, therefore, the
ones that each agent “truly” experiences.
Indigenous peoples and nation-States are not the only entities to possess differentiated
identities and cultures, as it is possible to observe the development of the process of identity
production at a much smaller scale. We thus see that many social actors (including researchers
on the topic) speak of institutional, corporative, scientific, and juvenile cultures, among many
others. In these processes it is usually possible to identify the existence of a variety of voices
within the institutions and collective actors, each with different perceptions and interpretations
of what makes up the particular “culture” or “identity” considered as characteristic of the
collective to which they “feel” they belong. For example, there tend to be differences between
young people and the elderly, men and women, groups that are more or less exposed to contact
and exchange with other actors, between those who own and control certain resources and
those who own and control others, etc. According to the above observation, we can maintain
that the ideas of “culture” and “identity” result from “ways of seeing things,” and that is why

102
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

they often tend to be the object of differences and conflicts, even within social aggregates that
share feelings of belonging to the same group.
Social actors relate to one another in very diverse contexts and points in time, and in very
different ways. All of them, however, involve specific forms and modalities of communication,
be it to collaborate, to negotiate, to make alliances or to set up confrontation, or even to “go to
war.”
These forms and modalities of communication encompass not only “contents” expressed in
words, gestures, images, and sounds, but also other elements that cannot always be expressed
in such ways and which are related to values, temporalities, mechanisms, and forms of
decision-making (a simple example: alternatively, by majority, or by consensus), and others
that depending on the case and its context, may vary in importance and differ in meaning.
Furthermore, such forms and modalities of communication are not only “mediated” through
what we usually recognize as “means of communication” (speech, writing, audiovisual
media, Internet, etc.), but also through shared experiences, whether in real time or not, as for
instance rituals, ceremonies, etc., and other more or less structured or institutionalized elements
(including casual encounters or informal gatherings) that, depending on the case, point in time
and context, have or acquire more or less importance or different meaning.
The similarities and differences between social actors’ interpretations, their “views” and
“cultures” give place to the rise of affinities, empathies, negotiations, alliances, conflicts, and
confrontations. Numerous studies demonstrate how this occurs among all sorts of different
social actors, in diverse social contexts, be it “large” national political processes or “small”
processes that take place in more local contexts, and even within large and small institutions
(see, for example, Albo, 1991; Anderson, 1983; Ardao, 1980; Barth, 1976; Benessaieh, 2004;
Brysk, 2000; Conklin & Graham, 1995; Fischer , 2001; Fox, 1990; Fuller, 2005; García
Canclini, 1988; Geertz, 1973; Gellner, 1983; Handler & Linnekin, 1984; Hobsbawm & Ranger,
1983; Mato, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998a, 2000, 2005, 2008a, 2008b, 2011b; Meisch, 2002;
Mijares, 2004; Ortiz, 2005; Pancho et al., 2004; Rappaport, 2005; Ribeiro, 2000; Rogers,
1996; Sotomayor, 1998; Universidad Autónoma Indígena e Intercultural, 2007; Universidad
Intercultural Amawtay Wasi, 2004; Wagner, 1981, 1986; Yúdice, 2002).

3. Interculturality and Intercultural Communication

This line of research is also based on the idea that all human practices have a certain
meaning for the social actors who carry them out, as well as for other actors, such as those
who observe them or are affected by them. The meaning that actors ascribe to their practices,
however, usually differs from the meaning assigned to them by those who observe or experience
those practices. This is why it is indeed potentially productive to analyze social processes not
just from a cultural perspective, but also from an inter-cultural perspective. That is, from a
perspective that considers not only how certain formulations of meaning guide the practices
of particular social actors, but that also examines the relationships between social actors from
the vantage point of the exchanges of meaning between them. To construct such a perspective
and an applicable methodology entails the “deconstruction” of some commonly accepted
and well-established interpretations regarding the ideas of interculturality and intercultural

103
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

communication.
In order to work in that direction, it may be productive to take into account the following
scenario. It is commonly accepted that cultural differences among individuals are often the
seed that can lead to “misunderstandings” and/or other communication “problems” that may
lead to conflicts. A related notion is that “intercultural communication” is a field that can be
summarized as one that is mainly concerned with issues of good or poor communication. In
contrast, in Latin America, for instance, the idea of interculturality is mainly applied in the field
of Bilingual Intercultural Education, while in Europe the term tends to be used especially in
reference to studies and policies regarding immigrants. Connected to these types of uses, the
ideas of “cultural differences,” “interculturality,” and “intercultural communication” tend to be
associated –also in a reductive manner—almost exclusively with ethnic, linguistic, religious,
and/or national referents.
Interestingly, these limited (and limiting) uses of the ideas of “interculturality” and
“intercultural communication” are commonly accepted even today when the uses of the idea
of “culture” have broadened considerably. There are numerous studies on different types of
“cultures” such as corporate, institutional, professional, disciplinary, gender, generational,
urban, local (not necessarily ethnic), social class or group, etc. Nevertheless, the ideas of
“interculturality” and “intercultural communication” are rarely applied to the analysis and
understanding of relationship experiences among social actors where there exist appreciable
differences in terms of their “cultures,” “worldviews,” “rationalities,” or particular stances on
what constitutes “common sense” –and these may refer to institutions, professions, academic
disciplines, gender, generation, locality, social class or group, etc. This is precisely the type of
application that we are interested in discussing here.
Our interpretation of the idea of interculturality necessarily depends on how we interpret
the idea of culture. This study bases its point of departure on a representation of the concept of
“culture” that is associated with the processes of production, dissemination, appropriation, and
transformation of meaning that are significant in social practices. We are, therefore, working
with a notion of culture that is not associated a priori solely with ethnic, national or linguistic
referents; furthermore, it cannot be reduced to certain specific types of representations, artifacts,
and “practices,” and as a result is not limited to the “arts” -- be they “folk” or “elite”-- or to the
“cultural industries” or the notions of culture generally espoused by ministries or departments
of “Culture”. Rather, it encompasses the various aspects of production, dissemination,
appropriation, and transformation of meaning that are significant in the most diverse social
practices, including those that are generally considered as exclusively economic, political,
legal, etc.
Given these problems and points of departure, it is appropriate to begin the reflection on
the idea of “interculturality” with a deliberately open position. The universe of potential uses
of this notion thus includes all those cases in which named or perceived differences regarded
as “cultural” or of “meaning,” “world view” or “rationality” appear not only in relation to
ethnic, national, or linguistic referents but also in relation to a broad variety of other referents
such as professional, occupational, organizational, institutional, gender, generational, religious,
“class,” social position, territory, and political ideology among others.
Given this framework, it is not plausible to think that there is an “objectively” delimited

104
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

field of issues that can be thought of a priori as particularly “intercultural” matters, whereas
others are not. On the contrary, the field of social experiences that can be analyzed using this
type of conceptual framework is indeed very open.

4. On the Ideas of “Interculturality” and “Interculturalism”

There is an additional matter that can have important consequences even though it may
appear to be a small detail. I am referring to the difference between “interculturality” and
“interculturalism”. The suffix “ism” denotes a particular orientation of thought and/or action;
thus, “interculturalism” refers us to a set of policies and practices (governmental or not) that
are oriented toward building certain types of experiences or social orders. If we are careful to
take into account this differentiation, it will be easy to understand that conceptually the idea of
“interculturality” is, in itself, simply descriptive and may include cases of collaboration among
agents that perceive one another as “culturally” different, as well as cases of conflict and even
confrontation.
Nonetheless, there is usually no distinction made between interculturality and
interculturalism. Moreover, in certain contexts –in the case of Latin America particularly in
those associated with the idea of Bilingual Intercultural Education—a priori assumptions
assign positive traits to the notion of “interculturality.” I would like to recount, in contrast, an
interesting personal experience from a few years back when, within the context of a broader
conversation, I casually asked three colleagues with whom I was having dinner whether the idea
of “interculturality” was used in their respective countries. One of my colleagues was from
Benin, the other from Pakistan, and the third from India. The first one said that in Benin this
idea was associated with inter-ethnic relations and inter-ethnic conflict, while the other two said
that they associated the idea with inter-religious conflict. All three cases, remarkably, focused
on the idea of conflict, not on the notion of policies oriented to building harmony, which is what
the idea of interculturality tends to be associated with in the Americas and Western Europe.
In terms of those interpretations, it is interesting to observe that while in Latin America
the most frequent interpretations of the idea of interculturality tend to associate it with the
idea of “interculturalism,” and thus attribute it positive values that are sought to be achieved
through intercultural bilingual education programs, there are, nevertheless, indigenous leaders
and intellectuals who have a negative view of the concept. In fact, some indigenous leaders
and intellectuals have stressed in interviews that the idea of “interculturality” has also been
used and/or is used for the purposes of “acculturation.” And this is not coincidental, as the
first written registries of the term that I have been able to identify in the Spanish language
point to the fact that this idea derives from the contributions of US Applied Anthropology to
“technical cooperation” programs in healthcare that since 1951 have been under way in Brazil,
Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, with US funding and technical assistance. As the renowned
US anthropologist George Foster explained in an evaluation of these programs contained in
a document written for the Smithsonian Institution, the programs were aimed to achieve the
gradual substitution of traditional beliefs with modern ideas about healthcare and disease
prevention, to increase people’s willingness to seek treatment from a medical doctor, and to
replace traditional knowledge with “modern ideas” (Foster 1955[1951], p. 28). In line with this

105
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

orientation, with differences that for practical reasons cannot be discussed at this time, and with
contributions to the further development of the idea of interculturality and its relationships and
differences with the notion of “acculturation,” the Mexican anthropologist Gonzalo Aguirre
Beltrán published in the 1950s two books that had significant impact not only in Mexico, but
also in other Latin American countries (Aguirre Beltrán, 1994 [1955], 1992 [1957]).
Apparently, it was based on these programs and other similar ones, as well as a result of
the aforementioned publications, that the idea of “interculturality” arose and was disseminated,
being appropriated and re-formulated from political, ethical, and theoretical perspectives by
indigenous intellectuals and leaders as well as organizations. The idea is thus redefined as social
actors formulate interpretations of life experiences within national societies that are resistant to
recognizing and valuing cultural differences. The idea of interculturality is, therefore, used to
develop theoretical frameworks, and to organize people and guide their struggles within these
national societies. The problematic past of the uses of the idea of interculturality, along with
some recent experiences that are still too close to them, has given place to two different ways
of using and conceptualizing the term that, nevertheless, appear to have convergent agendas.
On the one hand, there is a growing number of indigenous and Afro-descendant leaders and
intellectuals — as well as educators, anthropologists, sociologists, and other professionals who
maintain collaborative relationships with them-- who tend to speak in terms of “interculturality
with equity.” On the other hand, there is probably a greater number of them who ignore or have
decided not to dwell on the negative past of the idea of “interculturality” and have instead opted
to use the term without a qualifying adjective, assigning it values of mutual acknowledgement
and respect (Bonfil Batalla, 1992, 1993; Dávalos, 2002, 2005; Degregori, 1999; Fernández
Salvador, Ed., 2000; Fuller, Ed., 2005; García Canclini, 2004; Macas, 2001, 2005; Mato,
2008a, 2011a, Mato, Ed. 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Rappaport 2005; Tubino 2002).

5. Returning to the Reflection on Interculturality and Intercultural Communication

The idea of interculturality is currently applied in a variety of contexts to a broader universe

than the one most often referenced by specialists in “interculturality” and “intercultural
communication.” In an article published a couple of years ago, I illustrated through numerous
concrete examples that the idea of interculturality is explicitly or implicitly applied by different
types of social actors (for instance, governmental agencies, social and political organizations,
etc.) in multiple contexts. It is used to refer to different types of relationships and articulations,
including forms of collaboration, conflict and/or negotiation, that social agents establish with
one another when their “cultural” differences turn out to be significant with regard to the
issue(s) that are the reason for their more or less lasting relationships (Mato, 2009b).
Additionally, I have also registered its use in scholarly journals, professional training manuals,
and social organization and governmental and inter-governmental agency publications. I can
therefore say that at this time the idea of “interculturality” is used in explicit ways — at times along
with other “neighbor” categories, (especially those of “multiculturality” and “pluriculturality”)
— as well is in more implicit ways, not only by researchers and authors of professional training
texts in the fields of anthropology, sociology, communication, management, business, publicity
and marketing, tourism, healthcare, education, development, translation, political science,

106
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

international relations, philosophy, and law, but also by governmental and inter-governmental
agencies (working on issues such as healthcare, education, justice, migration, citizenship,
housing, development, tourism, “cultural sector,” and “cultural industries” among others). It
is also used by political parties, businesses, organizations of indigenous and Afro-descendant
peoples, organizations focused on specific interests (human rights, sexual orientations, etc.),
religious leaders, and professionals working on applied practices in various specialty areas,
among others (Mato, 2009b).
In contrast to that broad diversity of applications, in the academic field of intercultural
communication, where the idea of interculturality is used prolifically, we are faced with an
interesting situation. The bibliography in both English and Spanish points to two main types
of studies: those focused on interpersonal communications and those focused on mediated
communications. Generally speaking, in both cases these studies center primarily on
experiences related to linguistic, ethnic, and national differences in various types of spaces
such as cities, schools, tourism, businesses, borders, health centers, etc. (Alsina, 1999; Baraldi,
2006; Grimson, 2000; Gudykunst & Mody, Eds. , 2002; Kim & Gudykunst, Eds., 1988). There
are relatively few studies that concentrate on what we could call communication and inter-
medial experiences, though there are some that examine the articulations between orality,
writing, and audio-visual media (Mato, 1990; Ong, 1982) and even in regards to the Internet
(García Canclini, 2004).
The most surprising feature of the research approaches that are explicitly framed within the
field of “intercultural communication,” however, is that despite the significant breadth of the
uses and applications of the term “interculturality”, as discussed above, seldom will one come
across concrete “intercultural communication” studies that examine communication through the
differences between the various types of “cultures,” such as business, institutional, professional,
occupational, “class,” and others. These types of studies, which are of particular interest to
our research, tend to be found in other fields, such as management, sociology, economic and
development anthropology, legal anthropology, citizenship, international relations, and others
mentioned earlier in this article.
In a field study that we conducted in Las Casitas de la Vega, an urban settlement of low-
income social sectors in the city of Caracas, we examined the relationships between various
groups of inhabitants and two State agencies, one of them a provider of water services and
the other of Internet services (Mato, Maldonado & Rey, 2011). This study offers insight into
the importance of differences of “rationalities” or types of “common sense,” and as such of
“cultures” associated with institutional referents and with professional referents inside the
institutional ones, as well as –in a simplified manner—with referents of locality and ideological
and/or axiological orientation within the concerned set of inhabitants. Communication between
these diverse “worlds,” however, is not usually the object of analysis within the field of
“intercultural communication.”
The study conducted in that sector of Caracas allowed us, among other things, to observe
how those various “cultures,” “worldviews” or “rationalities,” in a general and all-encompassing
manner, are expressed in the ways in which the particular problems and projects that are the
reason for the relationships between the various social actors involved in the management
of water and computer services in Las Casitas de la Vega are “lived” (that is, how they are

107
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

perceived and interpreted in an “automatic” or compulsive fashion). Moreover, it also allowed

us to see how communication between these actors takes place based on those differences, as
differences are the point of departure for how interpretations and meaning are “negotiated,”
and how actions are undertaken. These cases illustrate in a practical manner how various
interpretations of certain problems, and the ways in which they are tackled, correspond to the
various “cultures,” “worldviews,” “rationalities” or “forms of common sense” of the actors that
are linked with one another precisely because of these matters, and in relation to which each
one has his/her own interpretation. It can be said that these actors have thereby shaped forms
of intercultural communication with one another. Even though the actors involved did not use
the term “intercultural communication,” our field research enabled us to see how they were at
times aware of the fact that their exchanges respond to different forms of logic or rationalities.
I would like to point out, furthermore, that this field research overlapped temporarily with
another research project that was being conducted along the same theoretical lines, but in
whose framework there are eleven case studies being carried out in seven countries by eleven
researchers. This group of case studies examines the experience of intercultural communication
in the following types of situations: between an environmental action organization, educators
and indigenous individuals regarding the use of “natural resources,” between indigenous
individuals and governmental offices regarding the issuance of birth certificates, between
settled inhabitants of a particular area and international immigrants, between a national parks
agency and peasants, between a railroad company and urban dwellers who are to be displaced
by the railroad, between a neo-natal intensive care service and the patients’ families, between
healthcare systems and indigenous patients, between indigenous students and non-indigenous
educators, between indigenous organizations and a state-run forestry agency, and between
various groups of peasants and unions in conflict and a state-run agency. These other case
studies also illustrate how the various interpretations of the concrete issues at hand that link the
different actors involved respond to their particular “cultures,” “worldviews” or “rationalities.”

6. Intercultural Communication in Social Participation Experiences

Beginning in the 1960s, numerous and very diverse initiatives that revolve around the
idea of “participation” have been undertaken in Latin America. Some of them have been
promoted by governments, inter-governmental agencies, and multilateral agencies, and have
been associated with, for example, ideas about development, healthcare, education, urban
improvement, and gender equality. Other initiatives, of a more critical or alternative character,
have been promoted by various types of social organizations, churches, political parties, labor
unions, or organizations of peasant farmers, indigenous peoples, neighborhoods, women, etc.
It is generally believed that social experiences that include the democratic participation
of more social sectors and groups tend to be better able to set into motion the knowledge,
abilities, creativity, and efforts of a greater and more diverse number of interested parties, and
thus achieve the envisioned goals with greater effectiveness. Alongside, however, there is also
the recognition that the involvement of a plurality of actors with a plurality of interests and
“rationalities” also tends to bring differences to the fore, which can eventually lead to conflicts
(Cerqueira & Mato 1998, Mato 1998b).

108
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

In this line of research, the expression “social participation” is used in a broad manner to
encompass institutionally framed experiences; however, it is not limited to them as it is also
used to refer in a broad sense to experiences in which two or more social actors “take part,”
whether institutionally framed or not.
Non-institutional modalities of participation can often be observed in various types of
grassroots self-management experiences. Even though these types of experiences can occur
in different social environments, they are particularly frequent among social groups that
arrive in big cities looking for a place to settle. This tends to be the case of migrants who
hail from smaller remote cities or from rural areas within the country or from neighboring
ones, and which can be or include indigenous and/or Afro-descendant individuals. Generally
speaking, these are human groups that are forcibly displaced from their prior settlements due
to situations of violence, unemployment, “natural” catastrophes –beyond what is known about
the human factor involved in such occurrences—, and others. These groups of people create
new settlements, or extensions of existing ones, in big cities, where they generally are unable to
rely on enough previously developed urban and sanitary infrastructure and their ownership of
the land is precarious. This is pretty much the story of the inhabitants of the community of Las
Casitas de La Vega, which was the site where we conducted the above-mentioned field research
(Mato, Maldonado & Rey, 2011).
In these types of circumstances we can often observe forms of collaboration that in some
cases represent updated forms of cooperation and collective work that come from indigenous
and Afro-descendant traditions that in some cases have gone through centuries, or at least
decades, of re-working in rural communities that do not have an explicit ethnic identification.
I am not attempting to idealize the experiences that take place in low-income communities
since they are also subject to situations that could be qualified as undesirable because they affect
the democratic quality of participation, be it as a result of vanguardist positions of some of the
members, conformist stances of others, and also selfish positions of others who stand to benefit
from vanguard and collective efforts without contributing to them, along with other situations
that impair participation of members due to various reasons. These circumstances and problems
vary from country to country, from one community to another, and are associated, for example,
with factors of gender, religion, ethnicity, particular physical conditions, location, unusual
working hours (for instance, as in the case of night watch personnel, paramedics and others),
family and work obligations that are greater than those of the majority of the members in the
community, etc. In order to understand those dynamics and relationships, it is most productive
to study participation with an intercultural communication approach that seeks to understand
the differences and relationships between diverse sectors inside population groups that at times
are deemed, perhaps somewhat naively, to be homogeneous. Additionally, it is necessary
to acknowledge the existence of the particular “institutional cultures” of the intervening
governmental and non-governmental agencies — in whose framework, furthermore, the
differences, relationships, and conflicts between different “professional” and/or “occupational”
cultures must be studied.
For these reasons, in addition to the conceptual ones related to the idea of “intercultural
communication” discussed at the beginning of this text, the analysis of “intercultural
communication” aspects in this line of research is not limited to an attempt at describing and/

109
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

or analyzing the “misunderstandings” that often arise in the relations between “culturally”
different social actors, seemingly due “solely” to language differences. On the contrary, the
conceptualization that guides this line of research seeks an understanding of the micro-processes
of production and negotiation of meaning that occur in concrete experiences of participation.
This is why this line of research is not focused on the minute analysis of specific verbal
expressions, neither is it centered on examining the role of technological devices (media).
While we do recognize the need to consider these types of aspects, we try not to let them
distract us from other aspects that in no way are less important. I am referring, for example,
to the convergences and divergences between sensibilities, memories, feelings, values,
identifications and productions of identity, prejudices, uses and values of time, and other
apparently “intangible” aspects that are part of the fabric of the relations between actors.
In order to study the particularities of any experience of social participation it is necessary,
therefore, to begin by identifying who participates, and who does not, and why. What may be
an obstacle that prevents the participation of some and what facilitates it for others? A second
aspect to examine is the type of activities pursued by those who participate. A third aspect is
related to the analysis of the ways in which actors participate — that is, how they participate—,
as well as how those who apparently are not participating may, in fact, be participating but in
very particular or less visible ways – that is, “in their own way”—such that others may perceive
them as not participating (Cerqueira & Mato, 1998).
In this type of research it is necessary to produce an ethnography of participation, searching
for information about which are the spaces where and the times when particular participation
activities take place. As, for example, when and where meetings are conducted to exchange
points of view, generate consensus, make decisions, as these may not occur in structured spaces
or times that are explicitly programmed. These types of aspects are in no way secondary; on the
contrary, they often condition who participates and in which activities because there are places
and times that are not accessible to all potentially interested actors, or because the ways in
which information circulates and the “circuits” through which it does are not equally accessible
to all (Cerqueira & Mato, 1998; Urrutia Ceruti, coord., 1995).
In order to study a social participation experience from an intercultural communication
perspective (in the broadest sense of the term, as used in this line of research), it is, furthermore,
imperative to observe on a micro scale the processes of production, circulation, appropriation,
re-signification, and/or transformations of formulations of meaning that occur in the relations
between the involved social actors. In this regard, it is important to stress that the goal is to
study process, not just discourse objects; thus, field observation is not only productive, but
also indispensable. It is essential to study all of this in the daily dynamics as they relate to the
concrete matters that are the reason for the relations between those actors, seeking to link both
their interpretations of those particular matters and the courses of action they propose with their
respective “world views,” “cultures,” or “rationalities.”
To conclude, I believe it would be of interest to share with you some of the key questions
that guided the field research we conducted in Las Casitas de la Vega because I think that they
may be useful for other research projects. The main questions that guided our work were the
following: Who participates and in what? Who does not participate and why? Why do they
or do they not? How do those who participate do it? How do those who apparently are not

110
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

participating are in fact doing so — in which particular ways or less visible ones? What are the
spaces and times at which specific participation activities take place? What are the significant
differences between the actors’ discourses/views? How are those differences expressed?
What “key” ideas do the actors have/mobilize? How, when and where are they expressed?
What are the spaces and the practices to negotiate/mediate meaning in the participation
experiences? How do they occur? Who builds them, sustains and/or modifies them? When?
What are the appropriations, constructions and/or re-significations of meaning that occur in
social participation experiences? What does each actor understand as participation and as non-
participation? How does each actor narrate/interpret the situation of social participation being
studied? How does he/she experience it or live it? How does each actor see him/her/itself in
regards to the social participation experience being studied? How does he/she/it see the others?
What might the differences be between the “us” and the “others”? How do actors define the
situation that has given place to the experience of social participation being studied? What are
the assessments they consider as legitimate? What is considered right, and what is considered
wrong?
These questions should be coupled with the recognition that institutions and social groups
are not homogenous. In the research conducted in Las Casitas de la Vega, there was no reason
to assume beforehand that the “the community” would be a homogenous whole –and, in fact,
we were able to confirm this as the study took place. Similarly, there was no reason to assume
a priori that all the representatives of the two government agencies involved (Hidrocapital and
the National Center for Information Technologies) would be neutral “transmitters” of a one
and only “institutional culture,” including axiological and ideological positions within these,
as we, in fact, were also able to confirm. Moreover, we were able to observe the importance of
differences among professionals working for the same governmental agency but with diverse
professional cultures.

7. Final Remarks

Our field research in Las Casitas de la Vega, presented here as an illustrative example,
— as well as other studies I have developed in the context of my line of research on Culture,
Communication, and Social Transformations (Mato, 1990, 1992, 1998a, 2000, 2005, 2008a,
2008b, 2011a; Mato, Ed., 2003, 2005, 2004, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Mato & Maldonado, Eds.,
2007; Mato, Maldonado & Rey, 2011) — shows us that intercultural communication does not
involve unidimensional exchanges between two homogeneous social agents. Rather, it involves
multidimensional exchanges between social agents that are heterogeneous, as each comprises
a variety of internal parties; moreover, these social agents build meaning and struggle over it
within their own group as well as with the other social agents. Additionally, the issue of meaning
is not just a matter of words, as it does not necessarily concern something that is correctly
or incorrectly understood, but something that is negotiated, transformed, appropriated, and
often a subject of dispute. Intercultural communication is about social processes, not just
about verbal utterances. We need to study social practices and relations to understand how
differences are articulated and the effects on how and why meaning is transformed.

111
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

References

Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. (1992 [1957]). El proceso de aculturación y el cambio socio-cultural

en México. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. (Original: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, 1957).
Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. (1994 [1955]). Programas de salud en la situación intercultural.
México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. (Original: Instituto Nacional Indigenista, México,
1951).
Albó, Xavier. (1991). El retorno del Indio. Revista Andina, 9(2), 299‑366.
Alsina, Miquel Rodrigo. (1999). Comunicación intercultural. Barcelona: Anthropos.
Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined communities. London: Verso.
Ardao, Arturo. (1980). Génesis de la idea y el nombre de América Latina. Caracas: Centro de
Estudios Latinoamericanos Rómulo Gallegos.
Baraldi, Claudio. (2006). New Forms of Intercultural Communication in a Globalized World.
The International Communication Gazette, 68(1), 53-69.
Barth, Fredrik. (1976). Introduction. In Fredrik Barth, (Ed.), Los grupos étnicos y sus fronteras.
La organización social de las diferentes culturas (pp. 9-49). México D.F.: Fondo de
Cultura Económica. (Originally published as Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social
Organization of Culture Difference, 1969).
Benessaieh, Afef. (2004). Civilizando la sociedad civil? La cooperación internacional en
Chiapas durante los años noventa. In Daniel Mato (Ed.), Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad
civil en tiempos de globalización (pp. 33-51). Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo. (1992). Identidad y pluralismo cultural en América Latina. Buenos
Aires & San Juan de Puerto Rico: Fondo Editorial CEHASS & Editorial Universidad de
Puerto Rico.
Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo (Ed.). (1993). Hacia nuevos modelos de relaciones interculturales.
México, D. F.: CONACULTA.
Brysk, Alison. (2000). From tribal village to global village. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Cerqueira, María Teresa & Mato, Daniel. (1998). Evaluación participativa de los procesos de
participación social en la promoción y desarrollo de la salud. In Jesús Armando Haro &
Benno de Keijzer (Eds.), Participación comunitaria en salud: evaluación de experiencias
y tareas para el futuro (pp. 21-64). Hermosillo (México): El Colegio de Sonora & Oficina
Panamericana de la Salud (OPS).
Conklin, Beth & Laura Graham. (1995). The shifting middle ground: Amazonian Indians and
eco‑politics. American Anthropologist, 97(4), 695‑710.
Dávalos, Pablo. (2002). Movimiento indígena ecuatoriano: Construcción política y epistémica.
In Daniel Mato (Ed.), Estudios y otras prácticas intelectuales latinoamericanas en cultura
y poder (pp. 89-98). Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO)
& Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Dávalos, Pablo. (Ed.). (2005). Pueblos indígenas, estado y democracia. Buenos Aires: Consejo
Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO).
Degregori, Carlos Iván. (1999). Multiculturalidad e interculturalidad. In Educación y diversidad

112
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

rural (pp. 63-69). Lima: Ministerio de Educación.

Fernández Salvador, Consuelo. (2000). Diálogo intercultural. Memorias del Primer Congreso
Latinoamericano de Antropología Aplicada. Quito: Escuela de Antropología Aplicada,
Universidad Politécnica Salesiana.
Fischer, Edward F. (2001). Cultural logics & global economies. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Foster, George. (1955 [1951]). Análisis de un programa de ayuda técnica. México DF: Instituto
Nacional Indigenista. Serie Mimeográfica. 2nd Reprint. (Original: Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C., 1951).
Fox, Richard. (1990). Nationalist ideologies and the production of national cultures. Washington
DC: American Ethnological Society.
Fuller, Norm. (Ed.). (2005). Interculturalidad y política. Desafíos y posibilidades. Lima: Red
para el Desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en el Perú.
García Canclini, Néstor. (1988). Culturas híbridas. México: Grijalbo.
García Canclini, Néstor. (2004). Diferentes, desiguales y desconectados. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gellner, Ernest. (1983). Nations and nationalisms. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Grimson, Alejandro. (2000). Interculturalidad y comunicación. Bogotá: Norma.
Gudykunst, William & Mody Bella. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of international and intercultural
communication (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Handler, Richard & Linnekin Jocelyn. (1984) Tradition, genuine or spurious. Journal of
American Folklore 97(385), 273-290.
Hobsbawm, Eric & Ranger, Terence. (1983). The ivention of tradition. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
Kim, Young Yun & Gudykunst, William B. (Eds). (1988). Theories in intercultural
communication. Newbury: Sage Publications.
Macas, Luis. (2001). Diálogo de culturas. Hacia el reconocimiento del otro. Yachaykuna, 2,
44-55.
Macas, Luís. (2005). Reflexiones sobre el sujeto comunitario, la democracia y el Estado.
Interviewed by Daniel Mato. Caracas: Colección Entrevistas a Intelectuales Indígenas
Nº 3. Programa Globalización, Cultura y Transformaciones Sociales, CIPOST, FaCES.
Universidad Central de Venezuela. http://www.globalcult.org.ve/entrevistas.html
Mato, Daniel. (1990). Interculturalidad en la constitución y difusión de la “Literatura Oral”.
Escritura 15(29), 59‑75.
Mato, Daniel. (1992). Disputas en la construcción de identidades y “Literaturas orales" en
comunidades indígenas de Venezuela: Conflictos entre narradores y papel de investigadores
y editoriales. Revista de Investigaciones Folklóricas (Universidad de Buenos Aires) 7,
40‑47.
Mato, Daniel. (1994). Procesos de construcción de identidades en América "Latina" en tiempos
de globalización. In Daniel Mato (Ed.), Teoría y política de la construcción de identidades
y diferencias en América Latina y el Caribe. Caracas: UNESCO‑Nueva Sociedad.
Mato, Daniel. (1995). Critica de la modernidad, globalización y construcción de identidades
en América Latina y el Caribe (pp. 251-261). Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.

113
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

Mato, Daniel. (1998a). The transnational making of Representations of Gender, Ethnicity,

and Culture: Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations at the Smithsonian Institution’s Festival.
Cultural Studies 12(2), 193-209.
Mato, Daniel. (1998b). Problems of social participation in Latin America in the age of
globalization. In Thomas Jacobson & Jan Servaes (Eds.). Theoretical approaches to
participatory communication (pp. 51-75). Creskill (NJ): Hampton Press.
Mato, Daniel. (2000). Transnational networking and the social production of representations of
identities by indigenous peoples’ organizations of Latin America. International Sociology,
15(2), 343-360.
Mato, Daniel. (2005). Social production of representations of ideas of civil society. The role
of transnational networks of local and global actors. Comparative American Studies 3(4),
471-495.
Mato, Daniel. (2008a). Différence culturelle, interculturalité et enseignement supérieure en
Amérique Latine. Profil et contribution de certaines universités indigènes de la région
Andine. Cahiers de la recherché sur l´éducation et les savoirs 7, 49-66.
Mato, Daniel. (2008b). Transnational relations, culture, communication and social change.
Social Identities. Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture 14(3), 415-435.
Mato, Daniel. (2009a). All industries are cultural. A critique of the idea of ‘cultural industries,’
and new possibilities for research. Cultural Studies 23(1), 70 - 87.
Mato, Daniel. (2009b). Contextos, conceptualizaciones y usos de la idea de interculturalidad.
In Miguel Angel Aguilar et al. (Eds.), Pensar lo contemporáneo: De la cultura situada a
la convergencia tecnológica (pp. 28-50). Barcelona & México: Anthropos & Universidad
Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa.
Mato, Daniel. (2011a). Forms of intercultural collaboration between institutions of higher
education and indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples in Latin America. Postcolonial
Studies 14(3), 331-346.
Mato, Daniel. (2011b). There is no “universal” knowledge, intercultural collaboration is
indispensable. Social Identities 17(3), 409-421.
Mato, Daniel. (Ed.). (2003). Políticas de identidades y diferencias sociales en tiempos de
globalización. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Mato, Daniel. (Ed.). (2004). Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de
globalización. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Mato, Daniel. (Ed.). (2005). Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de
globalización. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Mato, Daniel. (Ed.). (2008). Diversidad cultural e interculturalidad en educación superior.
Experiencias en América Latina. Caracas: Instituto Internacional de la UNESCO para la
Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe (IESALC-UNESCO).
Mato, Daniel. (Ed.). (2009a). Educación superior, colaboración intercultural y desarrollo
sostenible/buen vivir. Experiencias en América Latina. Caracas: Instituto Internacional
de la UNESCO para la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe (IESALC-
UNESCO).
Mato, Daniel. (Ed.). (2009b). Instituciones interculturales de educación superior en América
Latina. Procesos de construcción, logros, innovaciones y desafíos. Caracas: Instituto

114
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

Internacional de la UNESCO para la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe

(UNESCO-IESALC).
Mato, Daniel & Maldonado, Alejandro. (Eds.). (2007). Cultura, y transformaciones sociales.
Perspectivas latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Mato, Daniel; Maldonado, Alejandro & Rey, Enrique. (2011). Interculturalidad y comunicación
intercultural. Propuesta teórica y estudio de experiencias de participación social en la
gestión de servicios públicos en una comunidad popular de la ciudad de Caracas. Caracas:
Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Meisch, Lynn. (2002). Andean entrepreneurs. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mijares, María Martha. (2004). Ciudadanía, sociedad civil, redes sociales o el constante
reacomodo a los nuevos términos. Debemos aprender a hablar de nuevo? In Daniel Mato
(Coord.), Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de globalización (pp. 53-65).
Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Ong, Walter. (1982). Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen
& Co.
Ortiz, Pablo. (2005). Representaciones sociales, autonomía y desarrollo: Banco Mundial y
pueblos indígenas amazónicos de Ecuador en los albores del siglo XXI. In Daniel Mato
(Coord.), Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de globalización (pp. 33-
51). Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Pancho, Avelina et al. (2004). Educación superior indígena en Colombia, una apuesta de futuro
y esperanza. Cali: Universidad de San Buenaventura Cali.
Rappaport, Joanne. (2005). Intercultural Utopias. Durham: Duke University Press.
Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. (2000). Cultura e política no mundo contemporâneo. Brasilia: Editora
Universidade de Brasília.
Rogers, Mark. (1996). Beyond authenticity: Conservation, tourism, and the politics of
representation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Identities, Global Studies in Culture and Power
3(1-2), 73-125.
Sotomayor, María Lucía. (Ed.). (1998). Modernidad, identidad y desarrollo. Bogotá: Instituto
Colombiano de Antropología.
Tubino, Fidel. (2002). Interculturalizando el multiculturalismo. In Onghena, Yolanda (Ed.),
Interculturael. Balance y perspectivas. Encuentro internacional sobre interculturalidad.
Barcelona: Fundac.
Universidad Autónoma Indígena e Intercultural. (2007). La universidad autónoma, indígena
e intercultural – UAIIN: un proceso para consolidar y cualificar la educación indígena y
comunitaria en el marco de la interculturalidad. Print document. Popayán (Colombia):
UAIIN, Componente del Programa de Educación Bilingüe e Intercultural (PEBI) del
Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca.
Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi. (2004). Sumak Yachaypi, Alli Kawsaypipash
Yachakuna / Aprender en la sabiduría y el buen vivir / Learning wisdom and the good way
to live. Quito: Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi.
Urrutia, Ceruti. (Coord.). (1995). Formas de comunicación y toma de decisiones en comunidades
campesinas. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.
Wagner, Roy. (1981). The invention of culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

115
Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 1 (2012) Mato

Wagner, Roy. (1986). Symbols that stand for themselves. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Yúdice, George. (2002). El recurso de la cultura: Usos de la cultura en la era global. Barcelona:
Gedisa.

Author Note

Daniel Mato holds a doctorate in Social Sciences and is Principal Researcher at the National
Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) and the Universidad Nacional Tres
de Febrero, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he develops his line of research on Culture,
Communication, and Social Transformations. Since 2007, he has been the Chair of the Project
on Cultural Diversity, Interculturality and Higher Education at the UNESCO Institute for Higher
Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (UNESCO-IESALC). He was a Professor of
Social Sciences at the Universidad Central de Venezuela (1979-2010) where, at the Center
for Postdoctoral Studies, he created the Program on Culture, Communication, and Social
Transformations (1990-2010). He has also been a Visiting Professor at several universities in
Latin America, Spain and the United States. He has chaired the Section on “Culture, Politics
and Power” of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), as well as the Working Group
on “Culture and Power” of the Latin American Council on Social Sciences (CLACSO).
This article is a revised version of a keynote lecture delivered at the XVII International
Congress of the International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies, San
Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, June 7-10, 2011.
This text was translated by Emeshe Juhász-Mininberg. She holds a Ph.D. in Spanish &
Latin American literatures from Yale University (1996), and has done post-doctoral work in
the field of the social sciences. She was a Member of the Research Team for the Culture,
Communication and Social Transformations Program of the Center for Postdoctoral Studies
(CIPOST), Universidad Central de Venezuela (2003-2010). She currently works as a writer,
translator, and freelance editor. She has published several articles on globalization, culture, and
national identity.

116