The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 93
Multiculturalism, Culture, and Conflict
Thus far we have discussed multiculturalism as an approach and a movement that proposes guidelines for equitably and inclusively managing the increasing cultural diversity in today’s societies. If the charge of multiculturalism is to ensure recognition, equality, fairness, and the safety of identities, then its relationship to the study and practice of conflict could be seen as a lens through which to examine and ensure a socially just understanding, analysis, and resolution of conflict. Before we delve into the particulars of this lens, a brief discussion on the similarities and differences between multicultural and cultural approaches to conflict study will help provide conceptual clarity (also see chapter 25 in this Handbook).
When we talk about conflict, is a distinction between multiculturalism and culture useful? Several years ago, one of us served in a supporting role at an intercultural awareness training for a culturally diverse organization. One of the training exercises had each person share a norm or artifact about his or her nationality or ethnicity. One woman from a Latin American nation explained that in her culture, if a man saw a woman on the street and found her attractive, it was not only acceptable but expected that he indicate his liking for her through verbal expression: whistling, complimenting her physical appearance, shouting a term of endearment to her. Some outward display of affection was generally viewed favorably by women. Now suppose an exchange such as this occurred, but the man and woman do not share the same understanding. A man whistles at a woman as she walks by on a public street. The man sincerely believes his gesture to be complimentary, but it is not perceived as such by the woman; rather, she believes it to be demeaning and intrusive. Is this a cultural conflict or a multicultural conflict? Does it matter?
We can define culture as “shared often unspoken, understandings in a group that shape identities and the process of making meaning,” (LeBaron and Pillay, 2006, p. 26). Avruch (2003) identified three ways in which culture is conceived in the domain of conflict resolution:
Culture as constituted by norms, values, and beliefs, which provide the context for understanding rules of appropriate behavior during times of conflict
Culture conceived as “affecting significant perceptual orientations toward time, risk or uncertainty, affect (in self and others), hierarchy, power, or authority” (p. 354)
Culture as composed of mental models, schemas, scripts, or maps and takes forms such as language, symbols and metaphors
The latter two conceptions shed light on why cross-cultural praxis is heavily focused on communication patterns and styles and why there is a rich tool kit for managing communication processes across cultures (Avruch, 2003).
Based on this composition of cultural conflict theory, there is alignment with the multicultural perspective; broadly, the content and process of culture matter. In order to understand and resolve both multicultural and cultural conflicts, knowledge of the unique beliefs, values, perceptual orientations, and schemas of social groups are vital for negotiating across difference. Both schools would agree that with this knowledge, there must also be openness and adaptivity of mind, body, and emotion in the face of difference. In the case of culture, harmony can be neither a method nor a result when there is resistance to accepting the cultural differences of another. In the case of multiculturalism, identities cannot be recognized and justice cannot prevail when the boundaries of one’s cultural conceptions are narrow, rigid, and exclusive. Therefore, conflict perspectives from a multicultural and a cultural lens converge on the importance of cultural knowledge and adaptation to its content and process.
This similarity between the two approaches is also met with several notable differences. First, the culture perspective offers a more neutral orientation to the study of conflict across difference. Culture from this perspective is descriptive of social groups, and these descriptions are used to make meaning of intergroup conflict and to suggest viable management alternatives. The culture approach to conflict illuminates the particularities of culture-near and culture-distant experiences in an attempt to land on appropriate and sensitive methods and practices for engaging culturally different others in preventing and deescalating conflict. In an admittedly overly simplistic example, two culturally different groups in the process of resolution may ask, “Given our culture—its norms, expectations, beliefs, etc.—and given your culture—its norms, expectations, beliefs, etc.—how can we negotiate across these differences to problem solve fairly and effectively?” (see Kimmel, 2006).
Multiculturalism, however, is anything but neutral. By emphasizing the power and status imbalances that exist between groups, it is prescriptive of how such asymmetries can and should be reduced. The brunt of attention is not about a particular culture, yours or mine, but focus is placed on each culture’s relationship to the other and their standing within a larger power and privilege context of intergroup relations. For two culturally different groups in conflict, the question then becomes, “Given our culture’s standing and sociopolitical history as it relates to your culture’s standing and sociopolitical history, how can we negotiate across these differences to problem-solve fairly and effectively?”
Another distinction between multiculturalism and culture concerns the degree of importance paid to harmony. In the various culture-focused avenues within conflict theory and analysis, there is the cross-cultural variety, explicating the specific conflict maps of various cultures; there is the intercultural perspective, honing in on the implications of similarities and differences in conflict modes and styles between cultures; and there is the transnational perspective, the study and application of strategies with effectiveness in multiple cultures (Avruch and Black, 1991). Implicit in these approaches is the concern for understanding culture so as to achieve and maintain harmony in and across human relationships, preferably with constructive, low-risk processes and outcomes. The multiculturalist perspective on conflict, in its deliberate attack on injustice, gives much less prominence to the role of harmony. Undeniably multicultural conflicts characterized by harmonious processes and outcomes are appealing, but multiculturalists acknowledge and prepare for often tumultuous and protracted journeys to equity and equality.
Returning to our illustration of the man who whistles at a woman as she passes, it is likely obvious at this point that the lens with which one views the situation does matter and that it is both a cultural and multicultural incident. From the cultural and multicultural point of view, one might use lenses of national, ethnic, and gender contexts to make sense of the situation. However, the cultural intervention might place emphasis on misunderstanding and norm differences, while the multicultural intervention might place more emphasis on sexual politics and gender hierarchies.
There is another similarity between multiculturalism and culture that represents a shared weakness of both perspectives. The critique on multiculturalism as overestimating the homogeneity of culture is also a critique regarding many cultural approaches to conflict theory, research, and practice. Assumptions of culture as an embodiment rather than something that is embodied, as static and uniform, and as traditions and customs rather than a form of locally derived consciousness, have acted as obstacles to a more nuanced understanding of culture-based conflicts (Avruch and Black, 1991). These assumptions foreshadow an increasingly relevant limitation associated with both multiculturalism and culture-based strategies: the complexity and dynamism of culture has increased as social identities have multiplied and intersected.
For one of us, this limitation has acute relevance. Born to an African American mother and Puerto Rican American father, she has yet to read any description of these cultures that accurately conveys or intuitively resonates with her experience. There is no nicely packaged review, for instance, of what African–Puerto Rican American culture is, let alone what conflict means to this group or how one should engage with them when in conflict. In situations that potentially violate identity, recognition, or justice for individuals with multiple iden
tities, cultural and multicultural lenses fall short of appropriate analytical and practical tools to resolve conflict.
Showing the importance of understanding multiple identities, a recent study by Kim-Jo, Benet-Martínez, and Ozer (2010) examined the conflict styles of biculturals (Korean Americans) in comparison to monoculturals (European Americans and Koreans). Given the previously identified conflict style differences between members of more individualistic (European Americans) and collectivistic (Korean) cultures, the researchers were interested in how exposure to both types of cultures would influence conflict management strategies. They found that Korean Americans used the individualistic style of competing more than Koreans did and that they also used the collectivistic style of avoidance more than Koreans did. This illustrates that how we experience culture and conflict is a function of our constellation of identities, and this becomes even more complicated when we consider the hegemonic variation among identities.
The relationship of multiculturalism, culture, and conflict resolution is both complex and complementary. It is our hope that we have provided meaningful distinctions and caveats on how both lenses affect ways of seeing and not seeing the relationship between cultural differences and conflict. However, the research in these areas remains disjointed, and much remains to be explored and validated. We propose that providing a framework for understanding the core conditions and competencies needed to successfully address both cultural and multicultural conflict will assist researchers in conducting studies with greater coherence, focus, and rigor and will support practitioners in enhancing constructive and mitigating destructive forms of multicultural conflict.
A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO MANAGING MULTICULTURAL CONFLICT: THE INTEGRATION-ADAPTATION MODEL
The model we present here integrates the aims, values, and strategies of both the cultural approach to conflict management, which emphasizes the harmonious navigation of difference in conflict, with the multicultural approach, which champions notions of equity, justice, and fairness in disputes. It does so by highlighting the core competencies and strategies needed for managing cultural and multicultural conflict in both a just and constructive manner. Thus, the core foci of the model are fairness and fit.
The integration-adaptation model (I-AM) takes a dynamical systems theory (DST) approach to multicultural conflict and its resolution (see Nowak and Vallacher, 1998; Vallacher, Coleman, Nowak, and Bui-Wrzosinska, 2010; Vallacher et al., 2013). This approach has a few basic tenets (for elaboration, see Coleman, 2011; Vallacher et al., 2013):
It focuses on the longer-term patterns of multicultural conflict dynamics in social systems (e.g., organizations and communities) rather than on episodic or shorter-term interactions and outcomes.
It recognizes that these patterns are affected by a complex, dynamic constellation of factors (attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, interactions, policies, structures, and so on) and suggests that actionable, high-impact solutions that are informed by an awareness of this complexity and dynamism can lead to constructive changes in the patterns.
It emphasizes the emotional context of multicultural conflicts: the reservoirs of positivity and negativity that gather over time and shape the interests, thoughts, and actions of disputing groups and parties.
It aims to increase the probabilities for more constructive and less destructive multicultural conflict patterns to emerge and stabilize in social systems.
DST suggests that all social systems, whether families, organizations, or nations, have two functional tasks: internal integration and external adaptation (Svyantek, 1997). Internal integration—coming together—helps to define what it means to be a member of a particular group or organization and provides a normative context for interaction within it. This occurs within ethnic groups, religious groups, socioeconomic classes, schools and universities, business organizations, cities and nations. Such integration makes it meaningful, purposeful, and predictable to act as a member of the group and affects feelings of identity, esteem, status, and inclusion (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Integration can result in social identities and group processes that are anywhere from open, flexible, complex, and inclusive to closed, rigid, simplistic, and exclusive (Coleman and Lowe, 2007; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). The values and norms espoused by the group are then replicated across different generations of members through processes of selection, socialization, sanctioning, and rewards (Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995), leading to more or less stable patterns of inclusive to exclusive interactions within and between groups.
In cultural and multicultural conflict, integration helps define what disputants most value, believe, and hold sacred as members of a group. Whether they value money and status, honor and dignity, or the care and feeding of the poor is largely defined by the types of families, groups, and organizations in which they were socialized and live in today. In other words, the degree to which people integrate and identify with their group memberships and the degree to which these identities are threatened determines their core concerns in intergroup conflict, particularly with regard to the fairness and respect their groups are shown relative to other groups (Crosby, 1984; Gurr, 1970; Pruitt, 2006; Pruitt and Kim, 2004, Runciman, 1966; Tyler and Smith, 1998). When these concerns are low, conflicts tend toward more negotiable resource conflicts (Rothman, 1997); when they are high, they tend toward more intractable identity conflicts; and when identity conflicts persist, they contribute to repositories for negativity between members of the groups, which can set the context for dramatic escalation of the conflict (see chapter 37 in this Handbook).
In contrast, processes of external adaptation allow people and groups to interact with their external environment in a manner that fits and thus enables them to survive and thrive in changing circumstances. In multicultural conflict, achieving external fit requires the skill and ability to employ strategies and tactics that are appropriate to a given conflict culture, which are determined by the expectations of the other party (i.e., their assumptions, styles, and preferences) and the norms, values, and constraints imposed by the broader environment (e.g. national culture or formal organizational roles). Employing a behavioral approach that is congruent with these demands places two requirements on the individual. First, one must be able to assess the demands of the situation, understanding what is appropriate in a given setting by attending to the relevant cues. Second is the ability to respond behaviorally in a way that is fitting with the situation. Failing to assess cultural differences and norms accurately or to respond in ways congruent with the situation can also lead to negative outcomes and consequences in conflict.
Both the internal and external concerns and pressures that act on individuals in multicultural conflicts have potential negative consequences. When driven by strong internal concerns for group integration, an individual may find himself or herself unresponsive to environmental cues and therefore employing conflict strategies that are ill fitting and inappropriate to the situation, potentially increasing tension in the relationship and escalating the conflict. Conversely, when an individual’s approach to conflict is buffeted purely by situational demands, their approach, while fitting, may be unnatural to the actor, be viewed as inauthentic by the other party, and lead, perhaps unnecessarily, to being unable to meet their individual goals (e.g., as one party is “forced” to accommodate the other party). Neither of these situations is optimal.
Thus, a tension exists. Problems can occur when an individual becomes too internally focused and rigid or consistently responds purely in a manner that is dictated by the situation. Therefore, we suggest developing the competencies and conditions for integrative adaptivity, which allow individuals and groups to strike a balance between honoring their values and identity, on the one hand, and constructively navigating the environment in which they operate, on the other. As Coleman, Kugler, Bui-Wrzosinska, Nowak, and Vallacher (2012) suggest, what is necessary and useful in dynamic conflicts is the capacity to be flexible while maintaining integrity, to move effectively betw
een various conflict management strategies and tactics, while also achieving one’s own goals and maintaining a sufficient sense of integrity. As much of the literature in cultural psychology and conflict is about either lack of fit or lack of awareness of need for fit, our approach emphasizes the skills that contribute to adaptivity and fit. In addition, as the literature on multiculturalism emphasizes justice and fairness, our approach also places focus on the need for skills, processes, policies, and structures of accountability that are required for bringing about fair processes and outcomes.
We next elaborate on the micro- and macroskills, processes, and structures that research has identified as enhancing the four core components of the I-AM model: awareness, accuracy, adaptivity, and accountability (see table 27.1 for a summary of relevant strategies and interventions).
Table 27.1 I-AM-Inducing Strategies and Interventions at the Individual and Organizational Levels
Awareness
Awareness refers to the cultural assumptions, cultural rules, racial-ethnic identities, privilege, class, and other components of the worldview of ourselves and others.
Individual Level.
Awareness at the individual level requires the recognition of self, other, and contextual factors likely to play a role in multicultural conflicts. An individual should aim to become aware of his or her own cultural assumptions, values, and expectations and how these influence perception and behavior. For instance, an awareness of the impact and consequences of microaggressions, defined as “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (Sue, 2010, p. 3), is critical. Research has documented the deleterious effects that microaggressive acts can have on individuals, including experiences of isolation, frustration, stress, and self-doubt (Solozarno, Ceja, and Yosso, 2000; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, and Solorzano, 2009), as well as feeling that their voices are being muted at work, resulting in frustration and anger (Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, and Ginossar, 2004).