Culture and Conflict Resolution - Assignment Example

Culture and Conflict Discuss the differences between high and low context cultures, including at least 4 specific features of the social organizations in each that contrasts the other. Following this general discussion, relate the preferences for styles of conflict resolution to the social characteristics you outlined. What kind of conflict resolution procedures are common and typical of each type of social organizations, and why? By content, culture involves actual sets of social ideas, beliefs, values, behaviors, symbols, rituals, traditions, and the likes. Politics, religion, even language are part of culture. Culture is in the field of organizational theory and it describes social structure. In an organization, culture has different point of view and different functional context. Generally, culture can be collective and individualistic. It indicates that culture can guide and control individuals behavior and their relationship with other individuals. The fundamental view of culture, when observed, involves cognitive, structure, and system. Culture teaches how people behave, act, and Anthropologists such as Hannerz stated that culture has two-dimensional contents, which are ideas and modes of thoughts and forms of externalization. Culture is different from one social setting to the other. From the above theories, it indicates that, for example, the Chinese and Japanese are considered as high-context culture while the European and North Americans are low-context culture. The Chinese and Japanese are said to be high-context culture because they value people from their behavior, the way they sit down, their body language, their belief, their visual expression, even though when they are silent. The European and North American, on the contrary, are considered, as low-context perceives culture from face-to-face communication and material valued. Kevin Avrunch defined culture as something learned and shared in a social setting. It is passed down from generation to generation and expressed traditionally. Culture can also be created because it represents people with all the dilemmas and problems in everyday social life, including conflicts and disputes. However, culture, said Avrunch, “is never everything and it is never the entire cause of the conflict.” Culture is never the root of a conflict. On the contrary, conflict emerges due to lack of communication and lack of understanding of culture and tradition. Culture has often become the lens through which one perceives there is a conflict. To understand conflict, one needs to go through culture. You cannot understand the way to solve conflict without understanding culture - from language, to religion, and to behavior as well as in what types of social groupings the conflict exist because for each group, it requires different process or approach of conflict resolution. The types of social groups are: (a) primary groups, which are the small groups and they involve people with biological relations. (b) secondary groups are groups consist of people who get together voluntarily and are self-conscious to form and establish a group to pursue certain purpose. Current social group is formed and dominated by secondary group. (c) in-groups are another type of social group whose members feel respect and loyal to each other. This may also include the primary group. (d) reference group is a group that we use to evaluate ourselves and make decision to ensure that we conform to our values and norms within the society or even in our primary group. Conflict resolution is dynamic, adaptable, can be absorbed, discarded, revitalized, and reformed according to the individuals’ background, social background from which the individuals come from, and national experiences. There is no standard for conflict resolution process because it depends on the country and social background and most importantly, the culture. In terms of solving conflict, Kevin Avrunch suggested that it is important to consider culture as the main tool – from language to traditions, words of expressions, behavior, even social and visual expressions. Then learn to accommodate them as you are trying to solve the conflict. Since countries are different one to another, even within a country, the social construction of the society makes the culture is different from one social class to another, and this makes it difficult to apply “one size fits all” approach. Even people who are involved in the conflict are different from one class to another and this makes the approach of conflict resolution to be dynamic. The common process of conflict resolution used in different social groups is different from one group to the other group. Conflict resolution comes in multi forms, including operational conflict prevention, structural conflict prevention, post-conflict procedure, and relational process reestablishment. For (a) primary group, the dispute is often very emotional. To solve conflict in this set of group, practitioners can use direct and indirect approach dealing with emotions and disagreements, & emotionally restrained. Theoretically approach is very beneficial as the practitioners can use it to understand the different emotional expressions. For example, using discussion style (direct and emotional restrained), engagement style (direct and emotionally expressive), accommodation style (direct and emotional restrained), and dynamic style (indirect and emotional expressive). (b) secondary group. In a secondary group, conflict resolution is a triangle process or it uses a third party to go between because it is the most common methodology used. The third party can be a mediator, an elder, a lawyer, a relative, etc. This process is started by first trying to diffuse the anger, to carry and analyze the demand and counter demand, and to work a mutual agreement to a solution. © in-group. Conflict resolution in in-group is a multi-level process and it utilizes various options. These various options include denying that a conflict does exist (avoidance), avoiding explicit action to suppress the conflict (repression), avoiding the conflict and casting it to another party either as portion or whole of the conflict (displacement), managing the conflict to limit its intensity (management), terminating the conflict by changing or altering its driving forces, and using the conflict to achieve new goals or values that may affect the organization as a whole. 2. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having emic and etic approaches to cross-cultural training and conflict resolution. In your answer, include your discussion relative to these two concepts (emic and etic). Also, please indicate how these two approaches can be combined in resolving conflicts. Can you suggest some social arena(s) where these two approaches could be used to resolve conflicts? Conflict resolution today is too much concentrated on political power and the process is even politicized. Consequently, it leads to fighting and war rather than producing peace and tranquility or mutual agreement to peace resolution. This politicization makes culture to become culprit in conflict. Political actors do not communicate but casting blames to other parties as the cause of conflict. Politically, conflict resolution method tend to fail because lack of information and asymmetric information. Even in high-context and low-context culture, communication style should be used as an ethic model and it should be part of conflict. The advantages of using emic and ethic approaches in conflict resolution can be achieved if practitioners would learn to understand cultural difference. The emic approach helps the actor to view the culture from the inside approach or from the ways the members of the parties in conflict see and understand it. It helps the mediator or practitioner to view the problem or conflict from the way the native view it. They can speak and understand the conflict as the native do. The disadvantages of emic approach is that there may be some social labeling because lack of understanding of the local culture. The etic approach, on the contrary, “uses a set of pre-determined universal characteristics,” said Avrunch. Using this universal characteristics, the practitioners are able to compare one culture after another and try to solve the conflict in that particular culture. This method has been widely used among conflict resolutioners. It is a standardized method and also known as “one size fits all.” Though the use of this approach has been a phenomenon, the reality shows that the impact tends to be ongoing conflict and it also spread to the neighboring areas. Although etic approach allows cross-cultural comparison, on the other hand, it reduces cultural diversity that it eventually comes to a degree it can no longer be measured. It has lost its values, norms, standards, and principles. The result is no longer adequate. Etic approach is more appropriate when there is an exact categorization. However, further usage of etic approach, warned Avrunch, would likely diminish cultural diversity or that one culture eliminates the other and in the end, it may spark more conflict or fighting. Avrunch suggested cautiously that using a combination of emic and etic would be the better approach to conflict resolution. His argument is that etic may bring external influence or knowledge in solving conflict but by using emic approach at the same time, the practitioners have better understanding of the culture from the inside and will be able to resolve the conflict more effectively. Some of the area where emic and etic can be used all together, for example, are when one tries to negotiate conflict with the Japanese who are from high-context group. Different from the low-context group where conflict can be resolved through direct or indirect communication, resolve conflict with the Japanese requires greater cultural caution. Before you start your negotiation, the Japanese would first evaluate the way you behave, your words of expressions, your language, and the way you sit down. Even though when you don’t speak, they pay particular attention to your visual expression, body language, and your manner. Indeed using the two approaches would give a better result in conflict resolution. One approach would give the practitioners to learn from the inside, the other approach gives them the opportunity to apply external knowledge. In fact, it is more effective when changes are inside outward than outside inward. Changes that are outside inward would always be a failure. 3. Please describe the nature and the characteristics of constructive conflict and destructive conflict? What approaches should a mediator have in dealing with these types of conflicts? What considerations should be given to the issue of culture when dealing with these two types of conflicts? The nature of conflict is divided into constructive and destructive conflict. Both involve behaviors. Constructive conflict represents behaviors that are adaptable and flexible. According to Augsburger, in his Conflict Medication Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns, conflict is constructive when all parties involved in the conflict resolution are satisfied with the result. They feel that they have achieved the expected outcome. The greater is the number of participants satisfied with the result, the more constructive the conflict is. This type of conflict is productive because the group is them able to “(1) narrow the conflict in definition, focus on issues in dispute so that it can be clearly visualized and stated; (2) limit the particular conflict to the issues of origin and resist the introduction of secondary issues; (3) direct the conflict toward cooperative problem solving and controlled competition…; and (4) trust leadership that stresses mutually satisfactory outcomes” (Augsburger, p. 47). On the contrary, a conflict is destructive when it produces destructive outcome because the participants “are dissatisfied with the outcomes and all feel that they have lost as a result of the conflict” (ibid). It is destructive because it may cause a circle of hostility that may persist for decades as in the history of the African nations such as Sierra Leon. It causes many victims. Innocent women and children were murdered and the damage it causes to the society is irreparable. Destructive conflict is characterized by the participants’ attitude such as (1) they expand the issues while expressing their negative feeling and self-justifications; (2) they release the conflict from its source so it will be continued. They consider their negotiation is insignificant and it is to be forgotten; (3) they create different strategies that are more political and different tactics such as threat, coercion, and deception; and (4) they enlarge it to gain a popular or uniform opinions and obtain a support from leaders who are single-minded and behave militantly. Constructive conflict can be identified when participants are cooperative, while in destructive conflict, participants are destructive and very competitive. While destructive conflict creates destructive atmosphere, nurtures more competition and less participation. Constructive conflict improves cooperation and less competition. Constructive conflicts are sometimes necessary to instill political economic stability in a democratic society, though. Those who are being oppressed economically and discriminated or unfairly treated may spark conflict to demand social change. Since destructive conflict is destructive, it would be more effective if he or she uses constructive approach. In a competitive environment, constructive conflict is more effective because it is more creative and productive, as well as it produces positive change. According to Augsburger, conflict is cultural. It associates with behavior, has hierarchy values, and associates with codes of laws. Conflict is cultural because out of it comes fear, hopes, and the way people deal with competition makes them feel frustrated and aggressive. As each culture has wide variety of traditions that have been interlocking in the peoples’ habits, personality traits, and behavioral patters, conflict can be identified from the way people behave. Conflict may cause disharmony because incompatible goals, ideas, or interests. Sometimes, conflict may turn into violent and cause real damage to persons’ properties, rights, and interests. Cultural conflict sometimes can be a complex issue. However, understanding culture before resolving a conflict would give a better result than resolving a conflict externally inwardly. References Augsburger, D. W. (1992). Conflict Medication Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns. Louisville, KY: WJK. 4. Discuss Kevin Avrunchs central arguments regarding the significance of culture in the generation of social conflict and its resolution. In answering this question, you need to address the following: (a) his notions regarding inadequate ways of thinking about culture According to Avrunch, culture is limited, unrepresented, and ignored because it is over simplified and overly connected to political agenda, and is often expressed in political correctness manner. It is oversimplified through total coherence and systemic nationally and internationally, yet politically induced. He warned though that culture can be used for political purposes, and like human rights issue, political differences could be disguised for cultural differences. Inadequate notion of culture is also the result of the homogeneity of culture – a notion that local culture is free of internal paradoxes and contradictions, a thing that is independent of human behavior, a thing that is independent of human behavior, culture is uniform, individuals poses a single culture that is homogenous across groups, a culture is a custom that is undifferentiated structurally, and that culture is timeless and never change. (b) his critique about the negligence committed by the theorists in international relations about the significance of culture in international conflict The negligence is due to two errors. Said Avrunch, parties involved frame the issue as cultural while it is not cultural and overestimate the impact of culture on a conflict. Or, he added, the theorists tend to underestimate the impact of culture on a conflict and overestimate the impact of culture on conflict. In international sphere, parties involved are quick to frame that human rights issue as cultural issues. It may be ethnic, nationally and that cultural diversity is only a very small portion of the entire issue. Human rights issue is overly simplified as cultural issue while it is the case of capitalism that comes of the western thought. Indeed, most human rights conflict cause social destruction and leave psychological damage to the society. Such conflicts are engineered. Another negligence is that some one may quickly open a debate about human rights in the international world, however, when it comes to human rights issue; it is culturally debated and exaggerated for funding effectiveness. This debate is also politically endorsed and generalized, as parties are emphasizing it on the factor of homogeneity, and eventually, it loses is peculiarity. In practice, the nature of conflict and human rights abuse has become an endemic issue. Human rights violations are perverted and interlocked with culture through a political system. Human rights abuse has been the leading cause of international conflict around the world. It transforms conflict from human rights to culture, spreads it across the society and across the world, but leaves no reconciliation because most actors engage in this conflict resolution tend to use the etic approach – an approach that uses “one size fits all” or a standardized method that always fail. Constant effort of collaboration within national and international stages has also caused lack of support from the government to the ordinary people to preserve culture and cultural identity. (c) your understanding regarding his conceptualization about culture and conflict. The etic approach of conflict resolution has resulted in the diminishing cultural diversity. In fact, the globalization also describes that cultural differences are becoming significantly less important. While cultural diversity is diminishing, human rights issue is mistaken for cultural issue. Human rights abuse have been the leading cause of politically, socially, economically, and cultural deconstruction of nations around the world. This politicization makes conflict resolution to be of no effect. Nevertheless, cultural differences are politicized and it becomes a matter of ethnicity, nationalism, even it becomes an issue of international campaign for globalization. As the cultural diversity is generalized, conflict emerges. This conflict, said Avrunch, a disguise. It is politically motivated to hide certain actions. Sometimes, in conflict resolution, political power is often disguised as well. Cultural diversity importance is raised to disguise certain issues. Their significance is politically introduced, and hence, cultural diversity is used to disguise these certain issues. Culture is different across the world and, said Avrunch, “the difference is real.” It associates with belief, norms, principles, values, language, religion, and is expressed through behavior. These are different from one society to the other and from one nation to the other nation. The greater is the homogeneity of the culture, the equalization, and the generalization of the culture across nations around the world, the more conflict it creates. The more culture is generalized, the more complex the conflict is. The more the etic approach is used as a standardized approach, the more destructive the conflict will be. Each question is numbered and should be answered three pages single typed not to exceed 3 pages per question. References can and should come from these books: Culture and Conflict Resolution by Kevin Avrunch, 2006, Conflict Mediation Across Cultures by David W. Augsburger, 1992 and Cultural Forces in World Politics by Ali A. Mazrui 2005 Read More