Huang, Z. M. (2019). Mindfulness and intercultural personhood: Understanding students\u2019 intercultural experience at a culturally-diverse UK university<\/em>. (PhD Education).<\/span><\/p>\n Huang, Z. M. (2020). Intercultural personhood: A non-essentialist conception of individuals for intercultural research.\u00a0Language and Intercultural Communication.\u00a0<\/em>DOI<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Kim, Y. Y.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2008<\/span>).\u00a0Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being<\/span>.\u00a0International Journal of Intercultural Relations<\/i>,\u00a032<\/i>(4), pp.359<\/span>\u2013368<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Kim, Y. Y.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2015<\/span>).\u00a0Finding a \u201chome\u201d beyond culture: The emergence of intercultural personhood in the globalizing world<\/span>.\u00a0International Journal of Intercultural Relations<\/i>,\u00a046<\/i>, pp.3<\/span>\u201312<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Kim’s (2008<\/a><\/span>,\u00a02015<\/a><\/span>) uses intercultural personhood as an alternative model of cultural identity<\/span> in order to challenge the common conception of individuals often being “locked in a provincial interest of one\u2019s ascribed group membership” (2008: p.360). She embraces the complexities of being a human in the intercultural context, including the non-static, open-ended, integrative, transformative, and problematic natures of human beings. Thus, with intercultural personhood<\/span>, Kim provides a humanised, “meta-theoretical” understanding of how individuals, with their plasticity and reflexive capacity, construct their “self” in relation to others as part of a larger whole (2008<\/a><\/span>, pp.360, 367). This constructive sense, or what Ting-Toomey (2005<\/a><\/span>) and Amadasi and Holliday (2018<\/a><\/span>) call negotiation<\/span>, is at the centre of intercultural personhood.<\/p>\n Kim\u2019s model of intercultural personhood, following Erikson (1950<\/a><\/span>), is developed in a way responding to the tension between individual identity<\/span> and group identity<\/span>. It sees identity development as a process of merging two identities (i.e. the individual\/personal and the group\/social) into one (2008<\/a><\/span>, p. 360). To Kim, the development of intercultural personhood involves two interrelated processes: a)\u00a0individuation<\/i><\/span>\u00a0which solidifies a differentiated, particularised sense of the self and other individuals; and b)\u00a0universalisation<\/i><\/span>\u00a0which develops an awareness of the relative and universal aspect of human nature among different social groups (2015<\/a><\/span>, pp. 6-7). This conception of individuals challenges the simplistic and conventional categorisation of people which usually uses national culture<\/span> (or ethnicity) as an untested, defining vector of identity (Titley, 2012<\/a><\/span>, p. 16). By using the term intercultural personhood<\/span>, Kim seeks to move beyond the boundaries of ascribed<\/span> or assigned<\/span> categorisations (2015<\/a><\/span>, p. 6), and to provide a more hybrid<\/span>, liberal<\/span> (Tebble,\u00a02006<\/a><\/span>), creative<\/span> (Huang,\u00a02020<\/a><\/span>) and cosmopolitan<\/span> (Delanty,\u00a02006<\/a><\/span>) space for understanding individuals.<\/p>\n Amadasi,\u00a0S.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>, &\u00a0Holliday,\u00a0A.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2018<\/span>).\u00a0\u2018I already have a culture\u2019: Negotiating competing grand and personal narratives in interview conversations with new study abroad arrivals<\/span>.\u00a0Language and Intercultural Communication<\/i>\u00a0,\u00a018<\/i>\u00a0(2),\u00a0241<\/span>\u2013256<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Delanty,\u00a0G.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2006<\/span>).\u00a0The cosmopolitan imagination: Critical cosmopolitanism and social theory<\/span>.\u00a0The British Journal of Sociology<\/i>,\u00a057<\/i>(1), pp.25<\/span>\u201347<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Erikson,\u00a0E. H.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(1950<\/span>).\u00a0Identity: Youth and crisis<\/i>.\u00a0W. W. Norton Company<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Huang, Z. M. (2020). Intercultural personhood: A non-essentialist conception of individuals for intercultural research.\u00a0Language and Intercultural Communication.\u00a0<\/em>DOI<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Kim, Y. Y.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2008<\/span>).\u00a0Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being<\/span>.\u00a0International Journal of Intercultural Relations<\/i>,\u00a032<\/i>(4), pp.359<\/span>\u2013368<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Kim, Y. Y.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2015<\/span>).\u00a0Finding a \u201chome\u201d beyond culture: The emergence of intercultural personhood in the globalizing world<\/span>.\u00a0International Journal of Intercultural Relations<\/i>,\u00a046<\/i>, pp.3<\/span>\u201312<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Tebble,\u00a0A.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2006<\/span>).\u00a0Exclusion for democracy<\/span>.\u00a0Political Theory<\/i>,\u00a034<\/i>(4), pp.463<\/span>\u2013489<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Ting-Toomey,\u00a0S.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2005<\/span>).\u00a0Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries<\/span>. In\u00a0W. B. <\/span>Gudykunst<\/span>\u00a0(Ed.),\u00a0Theorizing about intercultural communication<\/i>\u00a0(pp.\u00a0211<\/span>\u2013233<\/span>).\u00a0Sage<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Titley,\u00a0G.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2012<\/span>).\u00a0After the \u2018failed experiment\u2019: Intercultural learning in a multicultural crisis<\/span>. In\u00a0Y. <\/span>Ohana<\/span>, &\u00a0H. <\/span>Otten<\/span>\u00a0(Eds.),\u00a0Where do you stand?<\/i>\u00a0(pp.\u00a0161<\/span>\u2013180<\/span>).\u00a0Springer<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Huang’s Further Development of Intercultural Personhood<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I adopt intercultural personhood<\/span> to understand students\u2019 first-person meaning-makings about \u2018who I am\u2019 in their intercultural experience. This first-person perspective (i.e. a constructive sense) cannot be replaced by a second\/third-person perspective (i.e. ascribed\/assigned identity) for understanding individuals as intercultural beings<\/span> (Glas, 2006<\/a><\/span>; Shahjahan,\u00a02019<\/a><\/span>; Splitter,\u00a02015<\/a><\/span>). My adoption of the concept seeks to liberate the conception of individuals from essentialist<\/span>, prescribed<\/span> labels and reductionist<\/span> identifications (Huang, 2020<\/a>). As many interculturalists (e.g. Amadasi & Holliday, 2018<\/a><\/span>; Dervin,\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>; Holliday,\u00a02000<\/a><\/span>) also argue, the essentialist view, as similar to racism, attempts to fit people into preconceived categories which reduce the complexities of humanities, and ignore the liquid nature<\/span> of intercultural learning and experience. Therefore, by adopting a non-essentialist stance<\/span>, I recognise that students participating in the complexities of intercultural experience are persons who can learn and interact, negotiate and conflict, and who have emotions and various states \u2013 all of which constitutes who they are and their changes throughout their intercultural experience.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, Kim\u2019s conceptual formulation of intercultural personhood emphasises a self-other orientation<\/span>. This orientation could, however, reinforce the artificial boundary between the self and others, or the personal and the sociocultural worlds. I do not adopt this self-other orientation and instead, explore the intercultural personhood of individual students by holistically and fluidly connecting the personal outward<\/span> and the social inward<\/span> spectrum of being a person (Erikson, 1950<\/a><\/span>,\u00a01982<\/a><\/span>; Schwartz,\u00a02001<\/a><\/span>). Also, Kim\u2019s use of intercultural personhood<\/em><\/span> tends to be interchangeable with a similar term intercultural identity<\/span> (2015<\/a><\/span>, p. 6). However, the two terms, although interrelated and inseparable, emphasise slightly different aspects of \u2018who I am\u2019 in the intercultural context (Lieblich & Josselson, 2013<\/a><\/span>; Splitter,\u00a02015<\/a><\/span>). I focus on intercultural personhood<\/span> which foregrounds being a person<\/span> in the intercultural context<\/span> rather than the (cultural) characteristics which identify and distinguish a person from others (as is usually associated with identity<\/span>). By focusing on this aspect of personhood<\/span>, I explore the psychological development of \u2018what it means to be an intercultural person\u2019 (Kim, 2008<\/a><\/span>, p. 365) and the common humanity<\/span> (p. 364) (or what Holliday (2018<\/a><\/span>) calls normal humanities<\/span>) in an increasingly fluid world.<\/p>\n Amadasi,\u00a0S.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>, &\u00a0Holliday,\u00a0A.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2018<\/span>).\u00a0\u2018I already have a culture\u2019: Negotiating competing grand and personal narratives in interview conversations with new study abroad arrivals<\/span>.\u00a0Language and Intercultural Communication<\/i>\u00a0,\u00a018<\/i>\u00a0(2),\u00a0241<\/span>\u2013256<\/span>. DOI<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dervin,\u00a0F.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(2011<\/span>).\u00a0A plea for change in research on intercultural discourses: A \u2018liquid\u2019 approach to the study of the acculturation of Chinese students<\/span>.\u00a0Journal of Multicultural Discourses<\/i>,\u00a0
\nKim’s Intercultural personhood (IcP)<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lantern.humanities.manchester.ac.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/kwangho-shin-139-untitled.jpg?resize=304%2C351\")
<\/a><\/p>\n(Image by KWANGHO SHIN from https:\/\/arthur.io\/art\/kwangho-shin\/139-untitled)<\/a><\/pre>\n
\n