Normativity in intercultural communication – what now?

Challenging the idea that ethical consideration and normative reflection are relatively recent in interculturality research, Dominic Busch begins with the assumption that ‘research on interculturality has always built on normative orientations’. To me, as an ethicist, this is neither provocative nor innovative. Yet, from this starting point, Busch is able not only to challenge established interpretations and widespread dichotomic discourses but also to tease out blurred distinctions and complex realities. The finding that there is another way of describing the field, distinct from the dominant positivism vs. poststructuralism debate, is constructive. It offers a new way of categorising different epochs and positions in the field, and, accordingly, reminds us of how such categorisations are rarely absolute and often pragmatic: they simplify complexity, provide analytical tools etc. In other words, Busch’s analysis takes us behind the established labels and under the discursive surface of interculturality research, providing a nuanced alternative to superficial simplicity. Busch’s study addresses ‘normative orientations in research on interculturality’ which he calls a ‘discourse of normativity’. Discourses are indeterminate and notoriously difficult to delimit, and this also applies to this discourse of normativity. While it is fair to give it this label, it also becomes clear from Busch’s article and other contributions in the field, that there are several discourses on normativity, ethics and the role of rights and values, in this field (Casmir 1997; Arnett and Roberts 2008; Cheney, May, and Munshi 2011). Busch distinguishes between positivist and poststructuralist approaches, while others prefer universalist and particularist, modern and postmodern etc. Busch is also not alone in suggesting an alternative. For example, Richard Evanoff has suggested a constructivist approach to intercultural ethics as an alternative to modern and postmodern approaches (Evanoff 2006). However, with good use of grounded theory Busch can identify four epochs with different discursive profiles: pragmatism, modesty, new hope and new explorations. In this way, Busch can claim not only the constant presence of normative orientations, but he also introduces an important issue: the different kinds of normativity. Busch focuses on the normative perspective or ethical compass scholars might be using – intentionally or not, explicitly or implicitly – when researching intercultural communication and developing the discipline. Consciously adopting this kind of ‘orientation’ allows us to discover, or to be reminded of, the normative dimensions of such endeavours. I will argue that such dimensions are abundant in interculturality research. Ethics is therefore not limited to a perspective on intercultural communication, but rather