Characteristics of Intercultural Conflict

One way to think about intercultural conflictis to consider it from dialectical perspective. Let's see how this works in a specific example. Managers in the sorting or assembly plants along the Mexican-U.S. border were interviewed as a result of which many examples of conflict were found. For example, Mexican managers thought that the U.S. managers were often rude and impolite in their dealings with each other and the workers. The conflict between U.S. and Mexican managers can be viewed as both individual and cultural. That is, each manager probably approaches conflict in a unique way and at the same time shares ideas about how conflict should be handled with members of the same nationality. Also, intercultural conflicts can be seen as both personal and social: the conflicts occur on a personal level, but the context (multinational corporations) plays a role, too. We can also use the history/past-present/future dialectic. Although these conflicts occur in the present, they are also influenced by the history of U.S.-Mexico international relations. This complicated history is characterized by economic and military domination by the United States and includes periods of implicit and explicit hostilities and resentments.

Issues surrounding language may be important to intercultural conflict. When you don't know the language well, it is very difficult to handle conflict effectively. On the other hand, some silence is not bad. Sometimes it provides a "cooling off" period for things to settle down. Depending on the cultural context, silence can be very appropriate.

Two Orientations to Conflict: Conflict as Opportunity vs. Conflict as Destructive

Is conflict good or bad? Should conflict be welcomed because it provides opportunities to strengthen relationships? Or should it be avoided because it can only lead to problems for relationships and groups? What is the best way to handle conflict when it arises? Should we talk about it directly, deal with it indirectly, or avoid it?

It's not always easy to figure out the best way to deal with conflict. And what does culture have to do with it? To answer some of these questions, let’s first describe two very different ways of thinking about conflict. Then we'll outline some of the ways in which culture and conflict are related.

Conflict as Opportunity

This orientation to conflict is the one most commonly represented in U.S. interpersonal communication texts. Conflictis usually defined as involving a perceived or real incompatibilityof goals, values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or more interdependentindividuals or groups (Cupach & Canary, 1997; Hocker & Wilmot, 1998). This viewpoint is shared by many Western cultural groups. According to David Augsburger (1992), this approach to conflict is based on four assumptions:

- Conflict is a normal, useful process.

- All issues are subject to change through negotiation.

- Direct confrontationand conciliation [reconciliation, harmonization] are valued.

- Conflict is a necessary renegotiation of contract, a redistribution of opportunity, release of tensions, and renewal of relationships.

Let's examine these assumptions more fully.

Conflict may be a difficult process, but ultimately it offers an opportunity for strengthening relationships. Although this orientation to conflict recognizes that many people don't enjoy conflict, it emphasizes the potentially positive aspects. The main idea is that working through conflicts constructively results in a stronger, healthier, and more satisfying relationship (Canary, Cupach, & Mess-man, 1995). From this perspective, there are additional benefits for groups working through conflict: They can gain new information about people or other groups, they are able to diffuse more serious conflict, and they can increase cohesiveness [connectedness] when engaging in conflict with other groups (Filley, 1975).

Consider the second and third assumptions. Individuals should be encouraged to think of creative, even far-reaching solutions to conflict resolution. Furthermore, the most desirable response to conflict is to recognize it and work through it in an open, productive way. In fact, many people consider conflict-free relationships to be unhealthy. Relationships without conflict may mean that partners are not resolving issues that need to be dealt with.

Finally, because conflict is a renegotiation of contract, it is therefore worthy of celebration. This Western-based approach suggests a fairly neutral to positive orientation to conflict, but it is not shared by all cultural groups. Let's look at another orientation.

Conflict as Destructive

Many cultural groups view conflict as ultimately unproductive for relationships. This perspective may stem from spiritual or cultural values. Although we must be cautious about generalizing, this viewpoint is generally shared by many Asian cultures (reflecting the influence of Confucianism and Taoism), and in the United States by some religious groups, such as Quakers and Amish. According to Augsburger (1992), the four assumptions underlying this perspective are:

- Conflict is a destructive disturbance of the peace.

- The social system should not be adjusted to the needs of members; rather, members should adapt to established values.

- Confrontations are destructive and ineffective.

- Disputants should be disciplined.

Again, let's examine these assumptions. Consider the first one: Most Amish, for example, think of conflict not as an opportunity for personal growth but as almost certain to destroy the fabric of interpersonal and community harmony. When conflict does arise, the strong spiritual value of pacifismdictates a non-resistant response — often avoidance. Consider the second assumption, that members of the society should adapt to existing values. Among the Amish, legal and personal confrontation is avoided wherever possible. Silence and avoidance are often used to manage conflict. Avoidance of conflict extends even to a refusal to participate in military confrontation. Amish children are instructed to turn the other cheek in any conflict situation, even if it means getting beaten up by the neighborhood bully. This emphasis extends to personal and business relationships; Amish would prefer to lose face or money rather than escalate conflict.

Similarly, cultural groups influenced by Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, and Shinto traditions share a common tendency toward absence of verbal aggression, absence of direct expression of feelings, and avoidance of confrontation.

Cultural groups that see conflict as destructive often avoid low-level conflict. However, another appropriate response is to seek intervention from a third party, or intermediary.On an informal level, a friend or colleague may be asked to intervene. Intermediaries are also used by those who think that interpersonal conflict provides opportunities. However, in those cases they are most often used in formal settings. People hire lawyers to mediate disputes or negotiate commercial transactions. Or they engage counselors or therapists to help families or individuals resolve or manage relational conflicts. Whereas confronting conflict is ultimately desirable, intervention is a less desirable option.

Finally, consider the fourth assumption, that disputants should be disciplined. Discipline is a means of censuring conflict. After all, the community celebrates its success in regaining harmony; it does not celebrate participants' contribution to the community's change and growth through conflict.

What are the basic principles of nonviolence applied to interpersonal relations? As Hocker and Wilmot (1998) point out, our language makes it difficult even to talk about this approach. Words and phrases like passive resistance and pacifism sound lofty and self-righteous. Actually, nonviolence is not the absence of conflict, and it is not a simple refusal to fight. Rather, it is a difficult (and sometimes very risky) orientation to interpersonal relationships. The "peacemaking" approach

• Values strongly the other person and encourages his or her growth

• Attempts to de-escalate conflicts or keep them from escalating once they start

• Attempts to find creative negotiation to resolve conflicts when they arise

.

Researcher Stella Ting-Toomey (1997) describes how these two orientations are based on different underlying cultural values involving identity and face saving. In the more individualistic approach, espoused by most interpersonal communication textbooks, the concern is with the individual saving his or her own dignity. The more communal approach espoused by both Amish and Japanese cultures and by other collectivist groups is more concerned with maintaining the harmony of interpersonal relationships and saving the dignity of others. For example, in classic Chinese thought, social harmony is the goal of human society — in personal virtue, marriage, family, village, and nation:

If one is entangled in conflict, the only salvation lies in being so clear-headed and inwardly strong that he is always ready to come to terms by meeting the opponent halfway. To carry the conflict to the bitter end has evil effects even when one is in the right, because the enmity is then perpetuated.