CHAPTER 36
CO–CULTURAL THEORY
Outline
I. Members of co-cultural groups have less power than members of the dominant
culture.
A. Mark Orbe uses the term co-cultural to refer to marginalized groups of people
who are typically labeled as minority, subcultural, subordinate, inferior, or
nondominant.
B. It’s a neutral term that designates significant differences from the dominant
culture, but with no hint of contempt or condemnation.
C. There are many varied co-cultural groups in the United States, such as women,
people of color, the economically disadvantaged, people with physical
disabilities, the LGBTQ community, the very old and very young, and religious
II. Communication orientation: What they want and what they say to get it.
A. Orbe claims there are nine communication orientations that different co-cultural
group members adopt when trying to survive and thrive within the dominant
group culture.
1. Communication orientation is the term he uses to describe a co-cultural
2. The three goals—assimilation, accommodation, separation—describe the
3. The three communication approaches—nonassertive, assertive, aggressive—
4. A three-by-three model (i.e., crossing preferred outcomes with
communication approaches) yields nine communication orientations.
B. Inside each of the nine communication orientation boxes are shorthand
descriptors of communicative practices.
1. These practices summarize the specific verbal and nonverbal actions that co-
2. The cluster of terms labeling the practices in each box reflects how that
orientation plays out in actual types of behavior.
C. As Orbe listened to co-cultural group members talk about their interactions with
the dominant culture, their words strongly influenced his recognition and
interpretation of the three preferred outcomes, the three communication
approaches, and the nine different communication orientations they form.
1. A nonassertive approach is where “individuals are seemingly inhibited and
nonconfrontational while putting the needs of others before their own.”
3. Orbe pictures the nonassertive and aggressive approaches as anchoring
III. Assimilation as a preferred outcome of communication.
A. For co-cultural group members, assimilation means fitting into the dominant
culture while at the same time shedding the speech and nonverbal markers of
their group.
1. Nonassertive assimilation: Co-cultural members attempt to meet their own
needs as best they can by unobtrusively blending into the dominant society.
a. Emphasizing commonalities—focusing on similarities; downplaying
2. Assertive assimilation: Co-cultural members with this orientation attempt to
fit into dominant structures by “playing the game.”
a. Extensive preparation—Preparing thoroughly prior to interaction.
3. Aggressive assimilation: This is a single-minded, sometimes belligerent
approach, which seeks to be regarded as part of the dominant group and
not as members of a co-cultural group.
a. Dissociating—Trying hard to avoid the typical behavior of one’s co–
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
d. Ridiculing self—Taking part in discourse demeaning to one’s co-cultural
group.
IV. Accommodation as a preferred outcome of communication.
A. Rather than following the other guys’ rules as those trying to assimilate do, co-
cultural members who seek accommodation work at changing the rules to take
their own life experiences into account.
B. As out-group members adapt their behavior to become more similar to that of
the dominant in-group culture, they gain credibility for advocating at least
incremental change.
1. Nonassertive accommodation: By conforming to the norms of the dominant
culture, co-cultural members desire to gain acceptance
2. Assertive accommodation: Co-cultural members whose abilities and
interpersonal skills are valued work cooperatively within the dominant
culture, advocating for the needs of both cultures.
3. Aggressive accommodation: Working within the dominant culture, these co-
cultural advocates offer a prophetic voice calling for major transformation of
structures and practices that hold co-cultural groups down.
V. Separation as a preferred outcome of communication.
A. The co-cultural group members who desire separation work to create and
maintain an identity distinct from the dominant culture.
B. Separatist speech is akin to what Giles labeled divergent communication (see
ch. 34) and is used to accentuate differences between the two cultures.
1. Nonassertive separation: These co-cultural members have an inherent
belief that their lives will be more tolerable when they “stick to their own
2. Assertive separation: Co-cultural members with this orientation make a
strategic decision to remain separate from an oppressive dominant culture.
3. Aggressive separation: This is often employed by a powerful co-cultural
group leader when segregation from the dominant culture seems
VI. Phenomenology—Tapping into others’ conscious lived experience
A. Orbe is convinced that the goals of co-cultural group members and the different
styles of communication they adopt are the key factors because he has great
confidence in the research method that revealed them—phenomenology.
2. Orbe enlisted the help of nearly 100 marginalized people from a variety of
3. This inductive type of qualitative research is akin to what Baxter did with
relationship partners in developing relational dialectics theory (ch. 11),
and how Deetz partnered with corporate employees to form his critical
theory of communication in organizations (ch. 21).
B. It’s a multiple-step process.
1. First, Orbe invited his co-researchers (his phenomenological term for
2. Next, Orbe pored over this record, looking for repeated words, phrases, or
themes that described and gave meaning to their communication.
4. Through this process, he also identified four other factors that influence
how members of co-cultural groups interact with members of the
dominant society: Field of experience, situational context, ability, and
perceived costs and rewards.
VII. Quantitative research supports a qualitative theory.
A. Cultural phenomenologist Orbe teamed up with Michigan State University
behavioral scientist Maria Knight Lapinski to create self-report scales that
measure the two most important dimensions of co-cultural theory.
B. They asked co-cultural members to respond to a variety of statements about
their preferred outcome and communication approach when they are the only
co-cultural person at a dominant culture gathering.
C. The researchers then ran a sophisticated statistical test to determine that co-
cultural group members saw the three preferred outcomes—assimilation,
accommodation, separation—as distinct from each other.
D. For scientific scholars, the results of this quantitative analysis offer assurance
that Orbe’s qualitative interpretation of what his original co-cultural researchers
said was on target.
E. Another fascinating result was the positive relationship between a co-cultural
group member’s desired goals and choice of communication style.
2. Those whose aim was to get those members of the dominant culture to
3. Co-cultural group members who desired separation were more likely to
adopt an aggressive style.
VIII. Critique: An interpretative theory both ambitious and limited.
A. Mark Orbe uses the criteria set forth in Chapter 3 to favorably evaluate his
interpretive theory.
B. His phenomenological methodology is prototypical qualitative research.
C. To read what his co-cultural researchers said is to gain a new understanding of
people who are trying to survive and thrive in a dominant culture created by
privileged men who at least tacitly work to maintain the status quo.
D. Clarity and artistry are the two faces of aesthetic appeal.
1. As for clarity, It’s hard to see how the four additional factors of field of
2. As for artistry, Em regards many of the quotes from co-cultural group
members as found art.
E. Orbe’s stated indebtedness to muted group theory and standpoint theory gives
co-cultural theory a built-in community of agreement among communication
scholars who take a critical approach.
F. Orbe doesn’t call for reform of society or take on the role of advocate. Co-cultural
theory seems descriptive rather than prescriptive.
G. As for clarification of values, rather than show either pity or scorn for those who
are marginalized in the United States, Orbe expresses admiration for how his co-
researchers use or don’t use communication in order to cope as outsiders within
a dominant culture.
Key Names and Terms
Dominant culture
In the US, the empowered group of relatively well-off, white, European American,
nondisabled, heterosexual men.
Co-cultural group
In the US, marginalized groups such as women, people of color, the economically
disadvantaged, people with physical disabilities, the LGBTQ community, the very old
and very young, and religious minorities.
Co-cultural communication
Communication between dominant group and co-cultural group members from the
perspective of co-cultural group members.
Communication orientation
The combination of a co-cultural group member’s preferred outcome and the
communication approach he or she chooses to achieve that goal.
Communicative practices
Aggressive approach
Communication practices that are seen as hurtfully expressive, self-promoting, and
assuming control over the choices of others.
Assertive approach
Communication practices that include self-enhancing, expressive behavior that takes
the needs of self and others into account.
Assimilation
The co-cultural process of fitting into the dominant culture while shedding the speech
and nonverbal markers of the co-cultural group.
Accommodation
The co-cultural process of working to change dominant culture rules to take the life
experiences of co-cultural members into account.
Separation
Principal Changes
This chapter is new in the 10th edition of A First Look.
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• What does it feel like to be a co-cultural member—a minority member in a dominant
culture? Even if you are generally a member of the dominant group, what situations have
you encountered where you feel like an outsider?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of assimilation? Accommodation? Separation? Which
approach do you tend to gravitate toward?
Suggestions for Discussion
Who is “the other” or what defines a co-cultural group?
If you have covered all three culture-based theories, you may already have entertained
a discussion about otherness as it applies to culture. Each of the three theorists (Giles, Ting-
Toomey, and Orbe) cut the pie slightly differently, and it’s worth clarifying this as you get
started. Orbe is the sole critical voice in the bunch. His primary concern is for co-cultural group
members who have little power or privilege as opposed to members of the dominant culture.
But even within a co-cultural group, there may be disagreements of what constitutes
membership. For example, in Native American or First Nations groups, those that are “full
take some time for dominance and privilege to also flip. Dominance (or lack thereof) is a
perception relative to other groups and entrenched practices, not just a numbers game.
Pessimistic or optimistic?
One of Orbe’s aims with co-cultural theory is to give power to co-cultural group members
by identifying their choices, and many have indeed resonated with his menu of options. As an
intellectual exercise, however, it might be worth considering the extent to which these
communication orientations might have (sometimes serious) drawbacks. What might be
negative outcomes of assimilation (such as isolation from fellow co-cultural group members)?
Spiral of silence
Previous editions of A First Look have included a chapter-length treatment of Noelle-
Neumann’s Spiral of Silence, which may have interesting overlaps with co-cultural theory and
is worth exploring with your students. On the textbook’s website, you can access the most
recent version of this chapter in the theory archive (www.afirstlook.com).
A media effects theorist, Noelle-Neumann claimed that people have an inherent,
“quasi–statistical organ” for sensing the public opinion on given issues. If they sense that they
are in the minority, there is a centrifugal force that drives people into silence for fear of
isolation. This chilling effect can be further intensified by media agenda-setters who popularize
majority opinion and further marginalize those on the outside. In her perspective, only the hard
core (the die-hards who thumb their nose at the dominant view) or the avant-garde (who are
ahead of their time) are likely to buck the system and resist the spiral.
In Orbe’ co-cultural theory, members of less-dominant groups are well aware of their
one-down position. Like standpoint theory, they see what opportunities the dominant group
has compared to their own situation; they have a less partial view. If Noelle-Neumann’s theory
Power to the people
Like many other interpretive theorists, Orbe gives people a fair share of agency or self-
efficacy. Even if you are in a non-dominant role, Orbe’s theory argues that you have options.
Your circumstances do not determine your fate; you can choose how you will respond to the
situation. As mentioned in the chapter, these choices might be guided by a host of factors (i.e.
field of experience, situational context, ability, and perceived cost/rewards) but, it seems, the
constrain the options available to co-cultural group members? While it might be emancipating
to be informed of one’s options, it may not always feel that way when faced with a stronger,
more powerful culture.
You might consider a flashback to coordinated management of meaning (ch. 6),
another interpretive perspective. In it, Pearce and Cronen postulate “persons–in-conversation
co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they
create” (p. 66). For Orbe, this may suggest that both the dominant and the co-cultural group
members are co-constructing their realities and are shaped by their choices. The responses to
power-full or power-less circumstances shape our present and influence our future. Once
less ethnically-concentrated community. Separation is possible, but it’s a rough road; the
pressure to assimilate might be enormous. On the other hand, in some US cities, Latino
a janitorial staff might want to distance herself via separation but, as a relatively low-income
person, might not be able to do that and still earn even a fraction of a living wage.
Power to the people… but which people?
Extending the idea above, you might consider discussing with students inequities
between co-cultural groups. At the most basic level, does Orbe bifurcate people into dominant
and co-cultural groups without considering how the various co-cultural groups might have a
structural hierarchy? Some groups, though they are less powerful than the dominant culture,
have relatively more privilege than other non-dominant or co-cultural groups. If groups are
stacked on a metaphorical “totem pole,” how far down the pole is your group? If you have
Being an ally
In Orbe’s theory, the focus in on the less-dominant, less-privileged co-cultural groups. As
noted below, he and colleague Robert Razzante have been crafting a companion theory of the
dominant group, regarding their actions and responses to co-cultural group members. You
might recall that in his research, Orbe spotted a communication practice of “utilizing liaisons—
seeking support from dominant group members you can trust.” These are people who come
alongside and support co-cultural group members and their choices, empowering their voices,
and potentially shielding them from any further marginalization. Sara DeTurk (see citation in
Sample Application Log
Jane
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
As I read this theory, I kept saying to myself “That would never be me. I’d never keep
silent, even when I think I’m the minority.” I’ve always seen myself as opinionated, outspoken,
and direct. Clearly I would favor accommodation but I won’t cave in and just assimilate or pull
away and separate. In my heart of hearts, I think that I wouldn’t bow down to the pressure, I’d
stand my ground. I looked at the strategies of accommodation and I think they all seem
reasonably easy to do—I would be open, seek like-minded people, and genuinely try to build
bridges between myself and the others.
This was all well and good in theory. But in practice, it was harder than I expected. Last
summer, I was on a two-week intensive study-abroad program in South America. I didn’t go
with any of my buddies—it was just me and a bunch of people I didn’t know. Quickly I figured
out that I wasn’t in the majority. I am an evangelical Christian—and most of the people in the
meals. I just wanted to give myself a buffer, a wall between me and them. Even though they
were the more powerful group (and there was more of them), I realize I opted for separation
instead of assimilation. The way I took a stand was by getting away from them altogether.
Exercises and Activities
Be careful to respect students’ desire for speech or for silence
As you approach the content in this chapter, it’s tempting to ask students who clearly
represent co-cultural groups to serve as mouthpieces, actively soliciting their contributions in
your class. While it may be highly valuable to have those students speak on their own behalf, it
should be at their own initiation and volition rather than by being singled out by the instructor
and treated like a spokesperson. Encourage all students—both those who are dominant and
co-cultural group members—to only speak about their own experiences rather than generalize
to all members of a group. Thus, no group is treated as a homogenous entity but instead, and
in keeping with the phenomenological tradition, each person’s experiences are their own. This
group theory instructor’s manual chapter, see “Talking about experiences of muting and
mutedness”). Likewise, if you use online discussion boards, you might be able to allow
students to post anonymously. Lastly, if you plan ahead, you can prompt the students to bring
a written or typed answer that could be read by a fellow classmate.
Parsing out the differences: Nonassertive, assertive, and aggressive
Before diving too far into the theory, you might want to spend a few moments clarifying
the differences between nonassertive, assertive, and aggressive forms of communication.
Nonassertive people submit their own interests to those of others. Assertiveness, pursing
one’s own best interest without denying the rights of others, might appear the golden mean
extension assertively, they may make a responsible request, saying what they want, but not
acting pushy, demanding, or hard-charging, and allowing the professor to make a fair choice—
even if they don’t always get their way. Finally, the aggressive student may demand extra time,
make threats to the professor, or ignore a decision they don’t like—passive aggression.
Other situations that work well as assertiveness role plays include showing up late for a
date or obligation, inconveniencing a friend or partner, sending food back at a restaurant that
doesn’t meet your standards or isn’t what you ordered, or being asked to take on more
responsibility at work when a co-worker is under-performing. Often, I will have a set of
students start the role play but then ask other students to “tag in” and take over the role.
Students can then show different strategies of nonassertiveness, assertiveness, or aggression
(depending on how their “scene partner” is responding). Or they can correct an action started
by the person before them (particularly if it wasn’t going well). Once they are clear on these
Bill of Assertive Rights
An underlying assumption of Orbe’s theory may be that all people have rights. Members
of dominant and co-cultural groups may represent various positions in the social hierarchy and
have differing amounts of perceived (and actual) power but they both have some rights,
particularly rights to how they communicate and how they can expect others to communicate
with them. You might show your students a list or “Bill of Assertiveness Rights” and ask them
to speculate how each item is particularly impacted by your cultural groups’ status. One such
For each of the listed rights, students should consider how that concept is manifested
in or affected by one’s cultural group status. For example, the Bill claims “You have the right to
judge your own behaviors, thoughts and emotions, and to take responsibility for their initiation
and consequences upon yourself.” In Orbe’s theory, as a co-cultural group member, I may
choose to actively distance myself from the dominant group by embracing the stereotypes
when a question is asked of you. While the more powerful culture may feel they are at liberty to
ask and respond, is the same freedom given to a member from the less-powerful culture? Even
if you don’t have time in class to work through each of the twenty items, a few might stimulate
some good conversation.
Reactions of the powerful
As noted in the chapter, Orbe’s concern is for the people in the one-down, co-cultural
position. He presents options for how they might respond to the more dominant culture but
doesn’t speculate on either how the dominant group may also alter their practices to include
the less powerful group, or how the powerful will respond to the actions taken by the co–
cultural members. You might consider developing some working categories, a scheme, a
flowchart, or a typology for the actions or responses of those in power. For example, they might
assist, block, or ignore the attempts of the co-cultural group. You might consider these choices
cooperative, antagonistic, or apathetic. Another way to imagine their actions might be along a
spectrum of acceptance versus rejection. They might accept the co-cultural group “as is” (and
Feature film illustration
A host of films might serve as good examples and your choice may be dictated by a
decision to highlight particular co-cultural groups and their processes of assimilation,
accommodation, or separation. While your choices are nearly endless, the following selections
work well with a discussion of Orbe’s theory as each shows the tension of being in the less
powerful co-cultural group relative to a more dominant and powerful majority culture.
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Some films to consider regarding ethnic/racial co-cultures (particularly African-
Americans) include Get Out (2017), The Butler (2013), 12 Years a Slave (2013), Selma
(2014), Hairspray (John Water’s 1988 original or the 2007 remake), Fences (2016), or
Malcolm X (1992).
Some recent films that highlight the journey of the LGBTQ community include
Brokeback Mountain (2005), Moonlight (2016), The Birdcage (1996), The Imitation Game
(2014), or Carol (2015). In each case, the film demonstrates characters that make different
choices about how to fit into a heteronormative culture.
Some films to illustrate the disabled community’s response to a dominant, able-bodied
culture include My Left Foot (1989), Children of a Lesser God (1986), Murderball (2005), You
Before Me (2016), and the fabulous film Wonder (2017) about a child with Treacher Collins
syndrome trying to fit into a world that doesn’t understand his condition.
Some other options include Lion (2016), about an adopted Indian boy living in
Australia, The Lobster (2015), a dystopian tale about the fate of single people in a pairs-based
society, The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) about an unemployed African-American single father,
Precious (2009) about an overweight, low-income African-American teenager, or In America
(2002) about an Irish immigrant family in America.
Further Resources
Theoretical considerations
Gina Castle Bell, Mark C. Hopson, Melinda R. Weathers, and Katy A. Ross, “From ‘Laying the
Foundations’ to Building the House: Extending Orbe’s (1998) Co-Cultural Theory to
Include ‘Rationalization’ as a Formal Strategy,” Communication Studies, Vol. 66, 2014,
pp. 1-26.
Sara DeTurk, “Allies in Action: The Communicative Experiences of People Who Challenge Social
Injustice on Behalf of Others,” Communication Quarterly, Vol. 59, 2011, pp. 569–590.
Applied contexts
Michael K. Ault and Bobbi Van Gilder, “Polygamy in the United States: How Marginalized
Religious Communities Cope with Stigmatizing Discourses Surrounding Plural
Marriage,” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, Vol. 44, 2015, pp. 307–
328.
Mark Congdon Jr., “What’s Wrong with Me?: An Autoethnographic Investigation of the Co–
Cultural Communicative Practices of Living with Tourette Syndrome during
Adolescence,” Qualitative Report, Vol. 19, 2014, pp. 1-25.
Eun-Jeong Han and Paula Groves Price, “Communicating Across Difference: Co-Cultural Theory,
Capital and Multicultural Families in Korea,” Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication, Vol. 11, 2017, pp. 21–41.
Phyllis Ngai, “The Impact of Teachers’ Communication Approach on Children’s Co-Cultural
Adaptation,” Journal of Intercultural Communication, Vol. 37, 2015.
Other teaching ideas
Elizabeth Root, “Staging Scenes of Co-Cultural Communication: Acting Out Aspects of
Marginalized and Dominant Identities,” Communication Teacher, Vol. 32, 2018, pp. 13–