The role of culture in many ways can determine the direction of many conflict situations. Errors in attribution, perception, and communication within a cultural context can create major blocks to attempts at negotiation, mediation, or other problem solving activities.(Deutsch, 1991) That it is why in conflict situations, attention to cultural interaction and communication is paramount. This 3 part article will focus on three important aspects of intercultural communication in conflict.
Culture and Conflict Resolution
The base idea of culture in many conflicts is that often culture has very little to do with the actual conflict. Instead, it is made salient as a defensive mechanism or as a rallying point by which a community can become mobilized. Therefore, if intercultural communication can be made and these effects ameliorated, then the overall tensions and barriers to resolution of the conflict can be reduced. The major form of culture that will be examined here is that of cultures role in the creation of identity. When looking at identity in the form of culture, there are a number of issues one must take into consideration when resolving conflicts. The basic assumptions here are that culture creates a unique set of characteristics, meanings, and values that can be used to categorize and inform identity. This can often have the effect of distinguishing one individual or group from others. It is this categorization based on distinguishing characteristics that can enhance the perception of differences between groups. (Tajfel, 1970) This perception of differences can lead to out-group derogation and a reification of in-group superiority often formulated as ethnocentrism. This is further explained by Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (1981). Within this framework, ethnocentrism is almost inevitable in creation of identity. Recently these propositions have been questioned by scholars such as J. Berry who argue that instead more concrete secure group identity can lead to a more tolerant and open view towards out-group (Berry, 1984). Though the research does provide validation for both theories there is a question of relationship explained by theories such as Realistic Group Conflict Theory(Cambell, 1965) that view the creation of ethnocentrism as a response to a threat to the individual. Therefore, it is possible for a tolerant out-group interaction due to a secure in-group identity to become ethnocentric in response to real threats to that security. The Integrated Threat Theory(Stephan & Stephan, 2000) expands this idea not only to realistic threats but to symbolic threats, anxiety, and negative stereotyping. Ethnocentrism then in regards to cultural differences can play a vital role in the creation and continuation of conflict between different cultural groups. Furthermore, strong ethnocentric beliefs can reduce the likely hood of productive interactions between groups that can lead to successful resolution.(Deutsch, 1991) Therefore, when creating a process of intercultural dialogue or conflict resolution, ethnocentrism must be addressed. Research has found that one of the major effects of ethnocentrism on conflict resolution is in-group bias. Often these biases revolve around moral traits such as trustworthiness, peace loving, and honesty. (Deutsch, 1991) When these traits are limited to only the in-group, out--groups are then often perceived as the opposite.
There is evidence however, that ethnocentrism can be reduced through the institution of intergroup cooperation.(Blake, Shepard, & Mouton, 1964; Brewer, 1986; Sherif, 1966) The most effective types of cooperation often involve situations in which superordinate goals are made salient and the context and duration of the contact is optimized.(Pettigrew, 1998) This idea of optimal situations for contact such as the contact theories of Allport(1954) and Pettigrew(1998) can not only play an important role in reduction of ethnocentrism but also the overall effectiveness at any conflict resolution attempt.
Another important factor in cultural conflict is the issue of communication. Often communication between conflicting groups can be described as “unreliable and impoverished.”(Deutsch, 1991, p. 40) Miscommunication or lack of communication can hamper true dialogue and can help reify the perceptions of untrustworthiness and between group differences that ethnocentrism creates. Communication also plays the role of the gateway to the possibilities of cultural understanding, empathy and perception that are paramount to positive intercultural contact.
The role of culture can in many ways determine the direction of many conflict situations. Errors in attribution, perception, and communication within a cultural context can create major blocks to attempts at negotiation, mediation, or other problem solving activities.(Deutsch, 1991) That it is why in conflict situations in which culture may be a salient construct of identity attention to cultural interaction and communication is paramount.
Part II: The Role of Empathy (available next week)
Read Entire Article HERE
Part II: The Role of Empathy (available next week)
Read Entire Article HERE
Reference List
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.
Bennett, M. J. (1979). Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 407-422). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact (pp. 11-27). New York: Academic Press.
Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing intergroup Conflict in Industry. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Brewer, M. B. (1986). The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup contact. In S. Worchel & W. A. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelsen-Hall.
Broome, B. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy for teaching intercultural communication. Communication Education, 40, 235-249.
Broome, B. (1993). Managing differences in conflict resolution: The role of relational empathy. In D. Sandole & H. Van Der Merwe (Eds.), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Cambell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentrism and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. . Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.
Deutsch, M. (1991). Subjective features of conflict resolution: Psychological, Social, and Cultural Influences. In R. Vayrynen (Ed.), New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation. London: Sage.
Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261-274.
Feshbach, N. D. (1989). Empathy training and prosocial behavior. In J. Groebel & R. A. Hinde (Eds.), Aggression and war: Their biological and social bases (pp. 101-111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, R. J. Interactive conflict resolution: A social-psychological approach to resolving violent ethnopolitical conflict. In M. Fitzduff & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The Psychology of Resolving Global Conflicts (Vol. 3). London: Praeger Security International
Fisher, R. J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Fowler, S. M., & Blohm, J. M. (2004). An analysis of methods for intercultural training. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training. London: Sage.
LeBarron, M. (2003). Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A New Approach for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and effective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 613-623.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. (2003). Peacemaking Circles: From Crime to Community. St.Paul, Minnesota: Living Justice Press.
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving Identity Based Conflicts in Nations, Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sherif, M. (1966). In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The Role of Empathy in Improving Intergroup Relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729-743.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 23-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ting-Toomy, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training. London: Sage Publications.
0 comments:
Post a Comment