While effective definitions of culture and broader theories of intercultural complexity can help frame the work of professional communicators on worksites and projects of international importance, these definitions and theories may not fully prepare practitioners for complex motives at play in the development of some transnationally momentous documents. Moreover, even though professional communicators may benefit from working definitions of national and communal cultures, such knowledge and articulations are not enough when transnationally disparate jurisdictions intersect decision-making. These administrative assemblages (see A. Ong, 2005, 2006, 2008) function as hierarchies that complicate intercultural work in ways professional communicators have not fully considered. Intentional to the scope of this paper, I associate these jurisdictions, or administrative assemblages, with larger sovereignties, nation states that in their breadth map over and subsume the diverse cultural milieus much recent professional communication scholarship has examined without considering the role these assemblages play in distributing local power globally in outcomes that are not always just for human populations. (For such scholarship see, for example, Bokor, 2011; Dura, Singhal, & Elias, 2013; Fang & Rajkumar, 2013; Hunsinger, 2006; Price, Walton, & Petersen, 2014; Raju, 2012; Savage & Mattson, 2011; Savage & Matveeva, 2011; Sun, 2006; Towner, 2013; Voss & Flammia, 2007; Warren, 2006; Yu, 2010.)

Included in

Rhetoric Commons