The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 92
With significant interaction and unlimited accessibility come the inevitable contrasts in how people make sense of, experience, and treat one another and the environment. When cultures collide, the impact can be devastating on individuals, groups, and society at large. In a world that is familiar with culturally based conflicts at the group level, there is a sense that culturally derived rifts occur increasingly in day-to-day life and at more personal microlevels than ever before. Thus, there is great need to stop and reflect on how to understand and effectively manage the tensions that arise as a result of our increasingly multicultural existence.
In this chapter, we offer an introduction to the relationship of multiculturalism, conflict, and conflict resolution. First, we present an overview of multiculturalism as a social movement—the good, the bad, and the practical—in a manner distinct from but not unrelated to conflict. We then link multiculturalism with conflict resolution theory and practice through a reflection on the implications of multiculturalism for how we define good research and practice and a discussion of how a multicultural conflict lens compares and contrasts with the study of culture and conflict. We devote the second part of the chapter to the presentation of a theoretical approach to the management of multicultural conflict: the integrity-adaptivity model (I-AM), which provides an integrated approach to managing conflict in a culturally and multiculturally congruent fashion.
MULTICULTURALISM AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT
The literature on multiculturalism is interdisciplinary in nature, with important contributions from education, psychology, philosophy, history, sociology, and political science. As a by-product of the diverse approaches to multiculturalism, it has become a multifaceted concept with varying shades to its definition. In the broadest sense, multiculturalism refers to the presence of and significant interaction between different cultures in a geographical space (Gutmann, 1993). The appeal of this definition is the simplicity and applicability it offers to scholars and practitioners regardless of one’s intellectual roots. At the same time, however, such a generalist take minimizes what makes multiculturalism a construct imbued with passion and purpose. More than a look into the presence of diversity, multiculturalism takes into account the implications of living in a diverse society, where issues of status, power, privilege, and politics often take center stage. It pertains to how dominant cultures perceive, relate to, and treat the various subcultures within a society. History and experience tell us that the resulting social hierarchies typically confer superiority on the dominant culture and marginalization and discrimination on subcultures, to varying degrees (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999).
Fowers and Richardson (1996) offer a definition of multiculturalism that emphasizes its normative role as a social movement: “Multiculturalism is a social-intellectual movement that promotes values of diversity as a core principle and insists that all cultural groups be treated with respect as equals” (p. 609). Stemming from atrocities associated with the Holocaust, colonization, and both direct and institutionalized forms of racism in the post–World War II United States, support for multiculturalism rose as a component of the broader “human rights revolution” (Wessendorf, 2010, p. 35). A spirited characterization of the term, one quickly understands why multiculturalism is an energizing concept, with strong supporters and harsh critics anchoring a continuum of beliefs and opinions. Its three core elements of identity, recognition, and social justice play an important role in mobilizing an approach to intergroup relations that prioritizes mutual respect and equality in managing difference (Taylor, 1994).
Taylor (1994) positions multiculturalism as a political call for the recognition of identity. He contends that when individuals or a group, because of their cultural difference, are denied recognition, their collective identity is experienced as tainted and insignificant within the mainstream understanding of what is good, ideal, and desirable. This lack of recognition has an oppressive effect on individuals, restricting their ability to enact with pride and confidence their authentic selves in the context of their cultural identity. Thus, in its most political form, multiculturalism as a movement seeks to mitigate the lack of acknowledgment of identities through advocating special rights and policies for groups whose culture is in danger of being ignored, squelched, or demeaned. In other words, it seeks social justice.
However, two somewhat contradictory strategies have developed in response to calls for justice through multiculturalism (Marsh, 1997; Meyer, 2010). The first focuses on the values of direct interaction and communication between members of different cultural groups in service of a more multicultural society. Such interactions provide opportunities for cultural differences to be shared and communicated in a manner that helps to foster greater multiculturalism. This is the sentiment expressed in e pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.” The second strategy emphasizes the importance of maintaining cultural uniqueness. More insular cultural practices can protect the uniqueness of a local culture of a nation or area and therefore strengthen its cultural diversity. A common aspect of many policies following this approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as dominant or central (Mooney-Cotter, 2011). To some degree, multicultural societies require both.
Multiculturalism as a political movement has been recognized for several notable contributions. First, it provides a normative framework for enacting liberal ideals of dignity, freedom, and equality within organizations and communities. By championing these as basic human rights, it impresses on groups and societies the need to uphold the civil liberties afforded everyone, regardless of culture. Second, multiculturalism supports the recognition and survival of distinct cultures in an evolving world with increasingly blurred international boundaries and intermingling of groups. When actions are taken to safeguard culturally relevant values and norms, communities feel more secure that their group’s existence is not only recognized but appreciated. Third, a multicultural frame seeks to engender in everyone the capacity for empathy, perspective taking, and critical reflection—and in members of dominant groups particularly—resulting in increased cultural intelligence, or the “capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (Earley and Ang, 2003). From scholars to practitioners, leaders to managers, teachers to medical professionals, stretching beyond one’s worldview to question the generalizability of our assumptions and behaviors fosters greater intercultural competence. Fourth, using a multicultural frame can facilitate the advancement of organizations and societies. Benefits include heightened creativity (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neale, 1998; Harrison, Price, and Bell, 1998), increased learning and individual effectiveness (Thomas and Ely, 1996), and stronger organizational performance (Kochan et al., 2003; Richard, Murthi, and Ismail, 2007).
With all its promise, multiculturalism is not without its problems, and critics have been quick to note limitations. Although one of the goals of multiculturalism is to ensure the dignity and rights of all individuals and groups, there are instances in which an unmitigated approach to multiculturalism reinforces the oppression of certain subgroups within cultures. For example, if the goal of multiculturalism is to respect and uphold, without exception, a cultural group’s beliefs and practices, then what happens when a culture engages in the oppression of women through acts such as clitoridectomy and honor killing (Boege, 2006)? This is a dilemma within multiculturalism, because in prioritizing the rights of cultures to live according to their internally derived standards, the rights and liberties of certain low-power subgroups within cultures are potentially violated (Gutmann, 1993). This tension arises from the faulty assumption that there exists uniformity within a culture regarding the acceptance and justness of its traditions. The norms and values defining a culture are likely to be highly influenced by its dominant members, and groups holding such prominence are often determined by systematic differences in age and gender (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Consequently the multicultural elements of identity, recognition, and social justice need to be consi
dered not only in relations between cultures but in relations within cultures as well. Ultimately, valuing and respecting difference cannot usurp addressing systemic inequities, lest the multicultural approach fail to deliver on one of its basic tenets (Purdie-Vaughns and Waltons, 2011).
Furthermore, multicultural societies have been found to strain levels of trust and social cohesion. Putnam (2007) conducted an extensive study investigating the effects of multiculturalism on social trust. Surveying nearly thirty thousand people in forty American communities and controlling for class, income, and other factors, his analysis revealed that racial diversity in a community was associated with greater the loss of trust. He found that generally:
Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. (Putnam, 2007, p. 150–151)
It seems that in more diverse communities, we distrust people both different from us and similar to us.
Despite the tensions and challenges of multiculturalism, there does not seem to be reason enough to throw the principles out with the problems. Volpp (2001) makes a compelling case regarding the detriment of pitting rights and equality-based ideologies against one another, for they need not be mutually exclusive. She argues that feminist criticisms of multiculturalism tend to focus on what are deemed the oppressive aspects of minority cultures (e.g., clitoridectomy in Sudan) and obscure the cultural aspects of gender-oppressive acts existing in Western liberal societies in general (e.g., gun violence against women in the United States). She writes,
In this discourse, feminism also stands for “rights” and multiculturalism stands for “culture.” . . . Each term is presumed to exclude the values of the other. Feminism is presumed not to value the rights of minority cultures; multiculturalism is presumed not to value the rights of women. Constructing feminism and multiculturalism as oppositional severely constricts how we think about difference. (p. 1203)
APPLICATIONS OF MULTICULTURALISM
Today there are several noteworthy applications of multiculturalism employing the spirit of its principles and objectives. For example, multicultural education offers an important critique of and alternative to traditional Western approaches to curriculum design and pedagogy. It is “a progressive approach for transforming education that holistically critiques and responds to discriminatory policies and practices in education” (Gorski, 2010). Woven together by ethics of social justice, educational parity, and critical pedagogy, multicultural education is ultimately about the transformation of self, schools, and society. Banks (1993), a seminal scholar on multicultural education, offers a multipronged approach to school reform covering educational content, pedagogy, teacher and student attitudes, and school culture that provides an exemplary model for comprehensive change.
Another fruitful application of multiculturalism is in the area of counseling psychology. A call to the profession was made in 1992 by Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis for better multicultural competencies and standards. They delineated three broad competency areas: self-awareness regarding cultural values and biases, awareness of client’s worldview, and culturally appropriate intervention strategies. The seriousness with which the call has been taken is evident in the guidelines published by the American Psychological Association (2003) for realizing multiculturally appropriate practice, education, and research in psychology writ large (Sampson, 1993). The guidelines outline competencies in terms of cultural self and other awareness, responsiveness to and knowledge of the culturally different, employment of diversity concepts, and consideration of cultural issues in research.
The area of multicultural organizational development and consultation (MODC) (Jackson and Holvino, 1988; Sue, 2008) is another promising application of multiculturalism. MODC assists organizations in understanding how various diversity dimensions, including race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, affect individuals, institutions, and society (Sue, 2008). It “focuses specifically on multicultural organizational development (MOD) in which the primary goal of the consultant is to enhance the organization’s ability to adapt to and use diversity to maintain or improve effectiveness by providing for equal access and opportunity” (Sue, 2008, p. 158–159). A multiculturally competent consultant seeks and embraces occasions to dismantle oppressive structures of power and privilege within organizational systems, using various techniques and tools to break down individual and group resistance to change.
These applications are a testament to the usefulness of multicultural principles in various aspects of societal and organizational life, offering a practical social justice orientation to managing diversity.
Multiculturalism and Conflict: Reflections on the Meaning of Conflict and Resolution
In the application of multiculturalism to education, Banks (1993) emphasizes the notion of knowledge construction, which concerns how doctrine and wisdom inherently reflect the assumptions, values, and ideologies of those who create it. Multiculturally sensitive practice calls for recognition of various types of knowledge, reflection on dominant and subordinated types of knowledge, and debate about the interpretation of knowledge. This critical eye toward the construction of knowledge has similarly been applied to the meaning of conflict and the recommended strategies for resolution.
Rooted primarily in Western ideals and principles and dominated in practice, theory, and research by white Americans and Europeans, conflict resolution as a field is culturally bound (Deutsch, 2005; Faure, 1995; Lederach, 1995). This is not to suggest that conflict and dispute resolution professionals do not value cultural issues, because they do (Avruch, 2003), and attention to issues of diversity has increased dramatically in the field (Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus, 2006). But despite promising trends, conflict resolution cannot escape a history that in its origins paid insufficient attention to issues of difference (Avruch, 2003). For instance, Burton and Sandole (1986), asserted a generic theory of conflict, one that disregards the role of culture in favor of universal human needs, such as identity, meaning, development, and consistency. Critics, however, noted that the identification of universal needs is itself influenced by culture and therefore not an objective process (Avruch, 1987). Attention to the intercultural generalizability of conflict resolution principles and propositions is certainly appropriate given its application beyond Europe and North America as a process for ameliorating various forms of contention (Faure, 1995; Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse, 1999). Indeed, conflict resolution has global appeal and necessity.
Helping to unpack bias in mainstream approaches to conflict analysis and resolution, Salem (1993) identified several Western assumptions that undergird the field, suggesting that our interpretations of the main constructs related to peace, time, change, and conflict are often not universally shared. For instance, he contrasts Western linear assumptions regarding change through cause-and-effect processes with alternative perspectives such as change through dialectics and synchronicity. In addition, Salem argues that as Western societies thrive economically and technologically, there is a higher sense of confidence in the attainability of collaborative, win-win solutions to problems, an assumption not likely to be held in societies and subcultures with turbulent histories and economic stagnation or decline. In addition, he argues that predominant attention is often paid in the field to the role of human agency in conflict, which could be challenged culturally in collectivist societies, or alternatively attributed to explanations related to ideology, religiosity, and spirituality. Furthermore, in nonrelativistic cultures that hold tightly to right-wrong and zero-sum schemas, integrative strategies based on constructive values can be experienced as near-futile options.
&nbs
p; The cultural variation in perceptions and beliefs regarding conflict and dispute resolution is undeniable (Avruch and Black, 1991; Gelfand, Nishii, Holcombe, Dyer, Ohbuchi, and Fukuno, 2001). To bolster the cross-cultural generalizability of conflict resolution theory and research, Faure (1995) suggested that “we start from the beginning, avoiding from the very start the domination of American perspectives” (p. 53). He recommended incorporating multicultural perspectives and voices at the start of initiatives designed to explore or research conflict-related concepts and practices, with the thinking that this would be a good way to ensure cultural inclusion as a basic process in conflict analysis and resolution. While this seems to be a radical solution, it does beg us to consider where we go from here.
The eminent American conflict resolution scholar Morton Deutsch (1995) suggests a path forward that honors the efforts and progress of the field and integrates culturally conscious ways of knowing:
My brand of grandiosity is at the level of constructs, not at the level of phenomena. It is my hope that our field can develop constructs and then be able to specify the relationships among them so that they are applicable across cultures and time, and to different types of social actions. The phenomena to which one would relate the underlying constructs (“interdependence,” “trust,” “hostility,” “influence,” “goal,” “cooperation,” “competition,” “conflict”) would vary considerably from culture to culture, from one type of social actor to another, from one situation to another. Thus, hostility would be manifested differently in Japan than in the United States and would be expressed differently between nations than between people. But presumably hostility would have the same basic relation to the other constructs in the theory in the various contexts. (p. 125)