culture which changes when we (as members of our own culture) change the way we talk, dress or work. At the same time Williams’ definition makes no distinction between “superior” or “inferior” cultures, furthermore everybody has their specific “way of life”. This can explain why this definition is still referred to frequently in the field of popular culture studies.

The dynamic character of culture is also described by Lull (1995, p. 132) who states that culture is “never a completely given or permanent state of affairs”. He also claims that the effects of globalisation leading to political states with many different ethnic groups and lifestyles make culture “a far more complex, personalized matter today” (Lull, 1995, p. 130). This statement can not be overemphasised while we are living in a world which is forever changing, and throughout development of communication technologies the process of changing itself seems to be accelerating. At this point an attempt to refer to as many definitions of culture as possible shall not be made, as this would go beyond the purpose of this essay. Important for our analysis is the result that definitions of culture can only be general and can never describe a specific culture. Culture is constantly changing and therefore dynamic. A description of a specific culture can only be accurate at a specific time. Thus, this description after publishing tends to be outdated.

Nevertheless there is the question how people in their society create their cultural identity. Martin & Nakayama (2000, p. 111) differentiate three approaches of how the construction of identity can be seen. The social psychological perspective emphasises that personal identity is built up by the self and at the same time in relation to a specific group membership. From a communication perspective identity is build up through communication with other people. In this way the dynamic character of identity is emphasised. The third approach goes even further: The critical perspective wants to analyse which forces - historical, economical or political forces - are behind the construction of identities. This approach seems to be the most appropriate in order to understand both the dynamic and artificial (i.e. constructed) character of identity. Identities therefore are not natural phenomenon but constructed by people or, more exactly, their societies with special purposes. If we have a look

3

at ‘The Quiet American’ - which serves as a practical reference in this essay - the identities of Alden Pyle, Thomas Fowler and Phuong are not chosen individually by each character. ¹ It is obvious that analysing which specific forces build up an identity is quite a complex process. Many forces in a society participate in the construction process, so identifying and isolating the forces is difficult and probably not possible in every case.

The important point is that identities - as the whole culture - are “never stable but are always changing” (Martin & Nakayama, 2000, p. 116). This is only logical because the society and its needs are changing as well, constantly forming new types and criteria of identities. Different kinds of identities can be observed, among them gender identity, age identity, racial and ethnic identities or religious identity ² (Martin & Nakayama, 2000, p. 118-127).

Different identities lead to different communication styles. By making a rough distinction we can differentiate a direct communication style in Western societies and an indirect communication style in Asian societies (considering that this can only be made by generalising different styles we find in both the Western and Asian worlds). These different communication styles can clearly be found in ‘The Quiet American’. 3

¹ In the movie we can differentiate the three identities of the main characters: The American idealist, who behaves as “a man of action” and intends to change Vietnam (“We are here to save Vietnam from all of that.”); the British realist, who respects the status quo; and finally the Vietnamese identity, which is broken due to European colonialism and invasion. It is obvious that these identities are mainly constructed by the national societies. The individual identity of the characters can only be built up within the fixed framework given by their societies.

² Perhaps one of the strongest identities that can be found in ‘The Quiet American’ is the religious identity of Fowler’s wife. Even though she is not a visible character her strong religious identity is always present through Fowler when he speaks about his planned divorce to Phuong or in the form of her letters: “I don’t believe in divorce. My religion forbids this.”

³ Pyle is representing a direct communication style and on his second meeting with Fowler he uses Fowler’s first name “Tom”. In opposition, Fowler addresses Pyle with his family name trying to maintain a distance in their communication. Fowler uses a direct communication style as well. But only in the role of his job as a journalist who has to think “in headlines” for Western newspapers. Phuong is representing a pure indirect communication style. Often Fowler speaks instead of her, e. g. during the interrogation by the French officer, which also shows the hierarchy in this colonial society. When confronted with the communication style of Pyle (by his marriage proposal and his declaration of love with the words “I fell in love with you”) she feels embarrassed, not knowing how to deal with this direct address. At the same time Fowler ironically comments on Pyle’s communication style by stressing his own different way of communicating: “Shouldn’t you be on one knee?”.

4

The relation between specific identity and specific communication style ⁴ is also supported by Singer who states that “every identity group has a culture of its own” (Singer, 2000, p. 28). An important part of every culture for Singer is the language and the way of thinking. But Singer asserts that every society is built from different groups so that not all members of a society automatically share the same identity and therefore the same cultural behaviour. Furthermore, each individual is “culturally unique” (Singer, 2000, p 28).

This position emphasises individual lifestyles and differing perceptions people have of the world. In this sense Singer’s thesis can be seen as correct and more accurate than generalisations of cultures described by other authors. On the other hand this position makes it clear that a theoretical description of a society is quite complex and sometimes impossible. Singer’s position also supports the constructed and dynamic character of culture in general. For Singer the way people perceive the world is determined through their environment (i. e. their culture) and therefore constructed (Singer, 2000, p.36). Eventually, in situations of cross-cultural communication perceptions of reality are more important than the reality itself (Singer, 2000, p. 52). This position is evidently based on the theory of radical constructivism, which sees concepts and perceptions of humans as constructions and not directly based on the outer world which can never be perceived in an objective way. Singer’s argumentation is helpful to understand that different communication styles (as well as the related cultures) are never “true” or “wrong”. ⁵ When dealing with other cultures and their communication styles it is more reasonable to consider why specific misunderstandings happen and not to forget that both the self perception and the perception of another culture is a construction. No way of perceiving reality and communicating can claim to be “objective”.

If we come in contact with another culture for the first time, we mostly experience the problematic issue of stereotypes. Stereotypes in cross-cultural communication are both problematic and unavoidable. First of all, stereotypes of “other” cultures can be found in popular culture (especially in advertising and news) and are simplified images of the real culture. Racial stereotypes about black

⁴ It is remarkable that Phuong is forced to communicate in the languages of Vietnam’s invaders: French and English. Even this, reflecting the position of Vietnam, weakens her position in communication situations. Therefore, she often appears naive, showing a different communication style only when talking with her sister.

⁵ Pyle is a character who shows no understanding for the Vietnamese way of thinking and communicating. He always refers to the “right” American way of life. In contrast to this, Fowler is aware of the relative character of culture and knows that Western values cannot be applied to Vietnam (“Liberty is a very Western word”). Consequently, he does not want to change the Vietnamese culture into a supposed “superior” one.

5