Caltrop Matrix of Identity
comparisons and ingroup identification are treated by empirical scholars in fixed but
conditional ways rather than through a dialectic perspective, in which we can appreciate the
richness of identity’s contextual (including historical) issues (Gudykunst & Forgas, 1992;
Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). The dialectic nature of identity is reflected in the
complementary relationships between intergroup comparisons and ingroup identifications
rather than constrained by such mutuality. The unconditional coexistence and mutual
influence of ingroup identification and intergroup comparison constitutes the dialectic nature
of identity. Therefore, more and more scholars begin to realize that identities are formed
through all levels of communications including both enculturation and acculturation (e.g.
Eisenberg, 2001; Hecht et al, 2005; Jung & Hecht, 2004; Mendoza et al, 2002).
The multiplicity, subjectivity, and interactivity of identity are correlated to and asserted
by communicative activities (Hecht et al, 2005; Mendoza et al, 2002). Within the current
establishment of intercultural communication, scholars who define themselves in different
perspectives have disparate sets of research questions and correlative methodologies
approaching the fundamental relationship between identity and communication (Mendoza et
al, 2002). Different perspectives have different angles, focuses, and strengths in terms of
understanding the nature of identity and its impacts on communication. Identity is a cross-
perspective topic perhaps due to its multifaceted and dialectic nature, and its essentiality in
intercultural communication studies.
Caltrop Matrix of Identity (CMI):
Conceptualizing Identity as a Complexity Construct
8
Convention