Interpretive and Critical Approaches to Social Conflict

Both the interpretive and critical approaches tend to emphasize the social and cultural aspects of conflict. Conflict from these perspectives is far more complex than the ways that interpersonal conflict is enacted. It is deeply rooted in cultural differences in the contexts of social, economic, and historical conflict.

Social conflictarises from unequal or unjust social relationships between groups. In addition, a conflict may be motivated by a desire to bring about social change. In social movements,individuals work together to bring about social change. They often use confrontation as a strategy to highlight the injustices of the present system. So, for example, when African American students in Greensboro, North Carolina, sat down at White-only lunch counters in the 1960s, they were pointing out the injustices of segregation. Although the students were nonviolent, their actions drew a violent reaction that, for many people, legitimized the claims of the injustice.

Historical and political contexts also are sources of conflict. Many international conflictshave arisen over border disputes. For example, Argentina and the United Kingdom both claimed the Malvinas (or Falkland) Islands in the South Atlantic, which led to a short war in 1982. Disputes between France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine lasted much longer – from about 1871 to 1945. Similar disputes have arisen between Japan and Russia over islands north of Japan. The historical reasons for such conflicts help us understand the claims of both sides. Considering intercultural conflict in context can help us understand why the conflict occurs and to identify opportunities for resolving those conflicts.

Xenophobia –the fear of foreigners or strangers – is sometimes tied to social class differences. Note the assumptions made about immigrants in this conflict. Is it possible to have a more satisfying resolution to this conflict? How might that be achieved?

My conflict is between my in-laws and myself. This conflict has existed for years and has caused many problems and heartaches in our lives.

It is now hard to pinpoint when the problems began. My husband and I went to visit my now father-in-law when we were first dating, and he gave me the third degree. I was on my very best behavior, but when we said our goodbyes, he insisted that I go back to California (I was just visiting here, and still lived in California) and surely I would be able to find a new job there. I did not take this very seriously at the time, but through later conflicts became aware that my husband's family is prejudiced against Germans (as well as Mexicans, African Americans, and immigrants of all sorts).

Since then, many difficult situations have occurred, including a rather violent outbreak with my husband's grandmother and aunt, in which I was referred to as "the German whore," who was "just with him to get her green card," and was "after his money." None of these cliches apply in my case. I have never been a whore, I had a green card prior to meeting my husband, and I was unaware at this point of my in-laws' wealth.

This conflict I believe is about prejudice against foreigners, and specifically, immigrants. There seems to be a perception within my husband's family that I am only taking, not giving anything. There is also an assumption that I come from a poor family because my family is not college-educated, which a generation ago only a very, very small percentage of the German population was. There is a misunderstanding of the educational system in Germany, the apprenticeship system, through which people are trained and able to make very good and profitable careers. My father, for example, had a more respectable social standing and earned far more than my husband's father, who was college-educated. Another issue was that I had not yet received a college degree.

Unfortunately, the way I have dealt with this conflict after many years of being emotionally abused is to ignore his family. They never even call our house anymore now, and will only visit if expressly invited by my husband, which to me has meant some stress reduction, while I also feel very sorry that these misunderstandings exist; they exist because of cultural differences. I do not believe that his family is aware of their prejudicial behavior. The entire problem is said to exist because I am disrespectful and from a supposedly lower class.

— Heidi (Source: Martin & Nakayama, 2000:306)

Social Contexts. The choice of how we manage conflict may depend on the particular context or situation. For example, we may choose to use an avoiding style if we are arguing with a close friend about serious relational issues in a quiet place. In contrast, we may feel freer to use a more confrontational style in a social movement rally.

For example, Jacqueline, from Singapore, is often very annoyed with U.S. Americans who comment on how well she speaks English, because English is her first (= native) language even though she is ethnically Chinese. She used to say nothing in response; now sometimes she retorts, "So is yours." Jacqueline may believe that she is engaging part of a longer antiracism struggle against the stereotype that Asians cannot speak English. Viewed in this context, the social movement of antiracism gives meaning to the conflict that arises for Jacqueline.

Many conflicts arise and must be understood against the backdrop of existing social movements. Social movements are large-scale efforts designed to change something in contemporary society. For example, the women's suffrage movement was not an individual effort, but a mass effort to give women the right to vote in the United States. Many similar contemporary social movements give meaning to conflicts. They include movements against racism, sexism, and homophobia; movements to protect animal rights, the environment, free speech, civil rights; and so on. College campuses are likely locations for much activism.

There is, of course, no comprehensive list of existing social movements. They arise and dissipate, depending on the opposition, the attention, and the strategies they use. As part of social change, social movements need confrontation to highlight whatever injustice is being done.

Confrontation, then, can be seen as an opportunity for social change. In arguing for a nonviolent approach to change, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., emphasized in his paper “Pilgrimage in nonviolence” published in 1958 that this strategy used nonviolent confrontation:

Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. . . . [It] does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understand­ing. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through non-cooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent.

This type of confrontation exposes the injustices of a society and opens the way for social change, to avert the continuation of this injustice. Although nonviolence is not the only form of confrontation employed by social movements, its use has a long history – from Mahatma Gandhi's struggle for India's independence from Britain to the civil rights struggle in the United States to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Images of the violent confrontations that arose from nonviolent marches tended to legitimize the social movements and delegitimize the existing social system.

Some social movements have also used violent forms of confrontation. Groups such as the Irish Republican Army and independence movements in Corsica, Algeria, Kosovo, and Chechnya have all been accused of using violence, which tends to label them as terrorists rather than social movement protesters. To understand communication practices such as these, it is important to study the social context in which the movement operated. Social movements highlight many issues relevant to intercultural interaction.

Economic Contexts. Many conflicts are fueled by economic problems. Often these economic problems find their expression in cultural differences. Many people find it easier to explain economic troubles by pointing to cultural differences or by blaming illegal immigrants.

We might also ask, Who benefits from this finger pointing? Blaming immigrants, people of color, and Jews for economic problems diverts our attention from the decision makers who are responsible for the problem.

As the economic contexts change, we see more cultural conflict taking place. The former East Germany, for example, now has many more racially motivated attacks as the region attempts to rebuild its economy. Prejudice and stereotyping that leads to conflict is often due to perceived economic threat and competition. Economics fuels scapegoating and intercultural conflict. This is an important context for understanding intercultural conflict.

Historical and Political Contexts. We know that derogatory words can be a source of conflict. They can be very powerful. The force that many derogatory words carry comes from their historical usage and the history of oppression to which they refer. Much of our identity comes from history. It is only through understanding the past that we can understand what it means to be a member of a particular cultural group. For example, understanding the history of Ireland helps give meaning to Irish American identity.

Sometimes identities are constructed in opposition to or in conflict with other identities. When people identify as members of particular cultural groups, they are marking their difference from others. These differences, when infused with historical antagonism, can lead to future conflicts. Consider, for example, the recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia; they did not emerge from interpersonal conflicts among the current inhabitants. In large part, they are reenacting centuries-old conflicts between cultural groups. The contemporary participants are caught in a historical web that has pitted cultural identities against one another.

These dynamics are at work all around the world. Historical antagonisms become part of cultural identities and cultural practices that place people in positions of conflict. Whether in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, or Chechnya, we can see these historical antagonisms lead to various forms of conflict.

When people witness conflict, they often assume that it is caused by personal issues between individuals. By reducing conflict to the level of interpersonal interaction, we lose sight of the larger social and political forces that contextualize these conflicts. People are in conflict for reasons that extend far beyond personal communication styles.

MANAGING INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT