Productive Versus Destructive Conflict

One way to think about conflict across cultures is to try to get a handle on what is more or less successful conflict management or resolution. Given all of these variations in how people deal with conflict, what happens when there is conflict in intercultural relationships?

Scholar David Augsburger (1992) suggests that productive conflict is different from destructive conflict in four ways.

First, in productive conflict individuals narrow the conflict in definition, focus, and issues. In destructive conflict, individuals or group escalate the issues or negative attitudes. For example, if a partner says, "You never do the dishes," or "you always put me down in front of my friends," the conflict is likely to escalate. Instead, the partner could focus on a specific instance of being put down.

Second, in productive conflict individuals limit conflict to the original issue; in destructive conflict, individuals escalate the conflict from the original issues and anything in the relationship is open for re-examination. For example, guests on talk shows about extramarital affairs might start the conversation about a specific affair, and then expand the conflict to include numerous prior arguments.

Third, in productive conflict individuals or groups direct the conflict toward cooperative problem solving. For example, a partner may ask, "How can we work this out?" By contrast, in destructive conflict strategies are escalated into power, threat, coercion, and deception. An individual might threaten his or her partner, "Either you do what I want, or else." Finally, in productive conflict individuals or groups trust leadership that stresses mutually satisfactory outcomes; in destructive conflict, individuals or groups polarize behind single-minded and militant leadership.

Competition Versus Cooperation

As you can see, the general theme in destructive conflict is competitive escalation. Conflict often spirals into long-term negativity. The conflicting parties have set up a self-perpetuating, mutually confirming expectation. "Each is treating the other badly because it feels that the other deserves to be treated badly because the other treats it badly and so on" (Deutsch, 1987: 41).

How can individuals and groups promote cooperative processes in conflict situations? The general atmosphere of a relationship will promote specific processes and acts (Deutsch, 1973). A competitive atmosphere will promote coercion [= forced action], deception, suspicion, rigidity, and poor communication.

In contrast, a cooperative atmosphere will promote perceived similarity, trust, flexibility, and open communication. The key is that the atmosphere must be introduced in the beginning stages of relationships or group interaction. It is much more difficult to turn a competitive relationship into a cooperative one once the conflict has started to escalate.

Essential to setting a cooperative atmosphere is exploration. Whereas competition often relies on argumentation, cooperation relies on exploration. Exploration may be done in various ways in different cultures but basically consists of several steps. The parties put the issue of conflict on hold, and all parties explore other options or delegate the problem to a third party. Blaming is suspended, so it's possible to generate new ideas or positions.

"If all conflicting parties are committed to the process, there is a sense of joint ownership of the recommended solution… Moving toward enemies as if they were friends exerts a paradoxical force on them and can bring transcendence" (Hocker & Wilmot; 1998: 191). Finally, exploration does not have to be logically consistent or rational. As David Augsburger points out, "Exploration can be provocative, speculative, and emotional" (1992: 61). It should encourage us to think of innovative and interesting solutions to the conflict at hand.

Dealing With Conflict

There are no easy answers for dealing with intercultural conflict. At times, we can apply the principles of dialectics. At times, we may need to step back and show self-restraint [= reserve, restraint]. Occasionally it may be more appropriate to assert ourselves and not be afraid of strong emotion. Seven suggestions can be offered here:

1. Stay centered and do not polarize

2. Maintain contact

3. Recognize the existence of different styles

4. Identify your preferred style

5. Be creative and expand your conflict style repertoire

6. Recognize the importance of conflict context

7. Be willing to forgive

Stay Centered and Do Not Polarize. David Augsburger (1992: 66) elaborates on this suggested approach to dealing with conflict. He explains:

Immediately challenge the intrusion of either-or thinking, traditional stereotypes, and reductionistic explanations of the other's motives as simple while seeing your own as complex. Sustain the conflicting images of reality, one from the antagonist and one of your own, in parallel co-existence within your mind. Be open to a third, centered perspective that may bring a new synthesis into view.

The parties involved must practice self-restraint. It's okay to get angry, but it's important to move past the anger – to refrain from acting out feelings.

Maintain Contact. This does not mean that the parties have to stay in the conflict situation. Sometimes we need to walk away for a while. However, the parties should not cut off the relationship. They should attempt dialogue rather than isolate themselves from each other or engage in fighting. Dialogue differs from normal conversation. As conflict specialists Joyce Hocker and William Wilmot (1998: 226) point out,

In dialogue, both people speak and listen to help each other clarify what is being said. . .. [Quality dialogue is slow, careful, full of feeling, respectful, and attentive. . . . This movement towards an apparently opposing viewpoint must be learned; few develop this approach to others without a deep sense of the importance of each human being, and a belief in collaboratively searching for new solutions that honor each person.

Dialogue offers an important opportunity for coming to a richer understanding of your own intercultural conflicts and experiences.

Recognize the Existence of Different Styles. Conflict is often exacerbated be­cause of the unwillingness of partners to recognize style differences. Barbara L. Speicher (1994) analyzes a conflict that occurred between two student leaders: the committee chair, Peter, an African American male; and Kathy, a European American female, who was president of the organization. The two had a history of interpersonal antagonism. They disagreed on how the meeting should be run and specifically on how data should be collected in a particular project they were working on. They interviewed the meeting participants afterwards and learned that most thought the conflict was related mainly to the interpersonal history of the two and somewhat to the issue at hand, but not to either race or gender.

Speicher (1994: 204) then describes how her analysis of videotapes of the conflict showed that both Kathy and Peter adhered to cultural norms for communication between Blacks and Whites in the United States:

Peter was assertive, took the floor when he had an important point to make and became loud and emphatic as the conflict accelerated. . . . The Eurocentric discomfort with and disapproval of his adamancy [stubbornness, inflexibility] led to either silence (avoidance) or attempts to calm him down and diminish rather than resolve the conflict.

Speicher goes on to say that part of the problem was due to the differences in perceptions of rationalism, "the sacred cow of Western thought," and emotionalism. In Western thought, these two perceptions often are seen as mutually exclusive. But this is not so in Afrocentric thinking. For Peter, he was being rational, giving solid evidence for each of his claims, and he was also emotional.

For his Eurocentric colleagues, high affect seemed to communicate that he was taking something personally, that vehemence precluded rationality or resolution. Speicher suggests that perhaps we need to rethink the way we define conflict competence. From an Afrocentric point of view, one can be emotional and rational and still be deemed competent.

Speicher also points out the danger of attributing individual behavior to group differences: "While such work can help us understand one another, it can also encourage viewing an interlocutor as a representative of a group (stereotyping) rather than as an individual" (p. 206). However, she goes on to say that in this particular case

failure to recognize cultural differences led to a negative evaluation of an individual. The problems that emerged in this exchange were attributed almost exclusively to Peter's behavior. The evaluation was compounded by the certainty on the part of the European Americans, as expressed in the interviews, that their interpretation was the correct one, a notion reinforced by the Eurocentric literature on conflict.

This particular combination of complementary styles often results in damaged relationships and frozen agendas—the avoiding “rational”/confronting “dance.” Other combinations may be difficult but less overtly damaging. Two people with assertive emotional styles may understand each other and know how to work through the conflict. Likewise, it can also work if two people both avoid open conflict, particularly in long-term committed relationships. However, jointly avoiding conflict does not necessarily mean that it goes away. But it may give people time to think about how to deal with the conflict and talk about it.

Identify Your Preferred Style. Although we may change our way of dealing with conflict, based on the situation and the type of conflict, most of us tend to use the same style in most situations. For example, your preferred style is avoiding. If you are pushed into conflict or feel strongly that you need to resolve a particular issue, you can speak up for yourself. However, you may prefer more indirect means of dealing with current and potential conflicts. Then you will choose to work things out on a more personal, indirect level.

It is also important to recognize which conflict styles "push your conflict button." Some styles are more or less compatible; it's important to know which styles are congruent with your own. If you prefer a more confronting style and you have a disagreement with someone with an avoiding style, it may drive you crazy.

Be Creative and Expand Your Conflict Style Repertoire. If a particular way of dealing with conflict is not working, be willing to try a different style. This is easier said than done. As conflict specialists Joyce Hocker and William Wilmot (1998) explain, people often seem to get "frozen" into a conflict style. For example, some people consistently deny any problems in a relationship; conversely, some people consistently escalate small conflicts into large ones.

There are many reasons for getting stuck in a conflict management style, according to Hocker and Wilmot. The style may have developed during a period of time when the person felt good about him- or herself — when the particular conflict management style worked well. Consider, for example, the high school athlete who develops an aggressive style on and off the playing field — a style that people seem to respect. A limited repertoire may be related to gender differences. Some women get stuck in an avoiding style, whereas some men get stuck in a confronting style. A limited repertoire also may come from cultural background — a culture that encourages confronting conflict or a culture that rewards avoiding conflict. A combination of these reasons is the likely cause of getting stuck in the use of one conflict management style. For example, even though you may prefer an avoiding style, you may occasionally find the effectiveness of being more assertive and direct in intercultural conflicts in which the dominant communication style was more confrontational.

In most aspects of intercultural communication, adaptability and flexibility serve us well. Conflict communication is no exception. This means that there is no so-called objective way to deal with conflict. Occasionally, you may find that a style contrasting yours feels just as right to someone else. Recognizing this condition may promote conflict resolution. It is helpful to be prepared, as in other aspects of relationships, to listen sometimes and not say anything. One strategy that mediators use is to allow one person to talk for an extended period of time while the other person listens.

Recognize the Importance of Conflict Context.As we noted earlier in this lecture, it is important to understand the larger social, economic, political, and historical contexts that give meaning to many types of conflict.

Conflict arises for many reasons, and it is misleading to think that all conflict can be understood within the interpersonal context alone. People often act in ways that cause conflict. However, it is important to let the context explain the behavior as much as possible. Otherwise, a person's be­haviors may not make sense to you. Once you understand the contexts that frame the conflict, whether social, economic, historical, or political, you will be in a better position to understand and conceive of the possibilities for resolution.

Be Willing to Forgive. A final suggestion for facilitating conflict, particularly in long-term relationships is to consider forgiveness. This means letting go of - not forgetting - feelings of revenge (Lulofs, 1994). This may be particularly useful in intercultural conflict.

Teaching forgiveness between estranged individuals is as old as recorded history. It is present in every culture and is part of the human condition (Arendt, 1954). Forgiveness can be a healthy reaction. Psychologists point out that blaming others and feeling bitter resentment lead to a victim mentality. Lack of forgiveness may actually lead to stress, burnout, and physical problems (Lulofs, 1994).

There are several models of forgiveness. Most include an acknowledgment of hurt, anger, and healing. In a forgiveness loop, forgiveness is seen as socially constructed and based in communication. If someone is in a stressed relationship, he or she can create actions and behaviors that make forgiveness seem real; then he or she can communicate this to the other person, enabling the relationship to proceed and move forward.

Forgiveness may take a long time. It is important to distinguish between what is forgiveness and what is not, because false forgiveness can be self-righteous and obtrusive; it almost nurtures past transgression. As Roxane Lulofs describes, forgiveness is not

simply forgetting that something happened. It does not deny anger. It does not put us in a position of superiority. It is not a declaration of the end of all conflict, of ever risking again with the other person (or anybody else). It is not one way. . . . We do not forgive in order to be martyrs to the relationship. We forgive because it is better for us and better for the other person. We forgive because we want to act freely again, not react out of past pain. . . . [It] is the final stage of conflict and is the one thing that is most likely to prevent repetitive, destructive cycles of conflict. (Lulofs, 1994: 283-284, 289)

Mediation

Sometimes, two individuals or groups cannot work through conflict on their own. They may request an intermediary, or one may be assigned to intervene. In some societies, these third parties may be rather informal. In Western societies, though, they tend to be built into the legal and judicial system. For example, lawyers or counselors may act as mediators to settle community or family disputes.

Contemporary Western mediationmodels often ignore cultural variations in conflict processes. Fortunately, more scholars and mediators are looking at other cultural models that may work better in intercultural conflicts. Augsburger suggests that the culturally sensitive mediator is one that engages in conflict transformation (not conflict resolution or conflict management).

The conflict transformer assists disputants to think in new ways about the conflict — for example, to transform attitudes by changing and redirecting negative perceptions. This requires commitment from both parties to regard each other with goodwill and mutual respect. This is often much easier said than done. Behavior can be transformed by limiting all action to collaborative behavior; this can break the negative cycle but requires a commitment to seek a noncoercive process of negotiation [without force] even when there has been intense provocation. For example, in the Northern Ireland agreement, mediation resulted in commitment by most people to change the vision of Northern Ireland, in spite of horrible provocation on the part of some extremists.

Traditional societies often use mediation models based on indirect means. The models vary but share many characteristics. Mediation is advantageous because it relies on the disputing parties' active involvement and buy-in to the resolution. Also, it represents the work of all involved, so it's likely to be more creative and integrative. Finally, mediation is often cheaper than legal resolution (Hocker & Wilmot, 1998: 244).

SUMMARY

- The interpretive and critical approaches focus on intergroup relationships and emphasize the contexts of conflict. Conflicts arise against the backdrop of existing social movements — for example, in reaction to racism, sexism, and homophobia.

- Some social movements use nonviolent means of dealing with these conflicts; others confront conflict with violence.

- Conflict may be productive or destructive. Productive conflict is more likely to be managed or resolved. One theme of destructive conflict is a competitive atmosphere.

- A cooperative atmosphere is more conducive to conflict management or resolution. Suggestions for dealing with intercultural conflicts include staying centered, maintaining contact, recognizing the existence of different styles, identifying a preferred style, being creative and expanding one's conflict style repertoire, recognizing the importance of conflict context, and being willing to forgive.

- Transforming methods of mediation are commonly used in many cultures. A conflict transformer helps the disputing parties change their attitudes and behaviors.

1. What is the conflict from social and cultural perspectives rooted in?

2. How are conflict strategies used in social movements?

3. What other contexts can be sources of conflict?

4. How can conflicts arise from economic contexts?

5. Give examples when historical antagonisms become part of cultural identities and practices

that lead to conflict.

6. Consider productive and destructive conflicts.

7. How can conflict be dealt with?

8. How does an attitude of forgiveness facilitate conflict resolution?

9. What are some general suggestions for dealing with intercultural conflict?

10. Why is mediation a more productive way of resolving conflict as compared to legal practices?

11. Work in groups of four: Select two countries or cultural groups that are currently in conflict (or that historically have been in conflict). In your group form two pairs. One pair will research the conflict from the perspective of one of the two cultural groups or countries, whereas the other pair – from the perspective of other groups or country. Outline the main problems and arguments. Explore the role of cultural values, as well as political, economic and historical contexts that may contribute to the conflict.

REFERENCES

Augsburger, D.Conflict Mediation Across Cultures. – Louisville, KY: Westmister / John Knox Press, 1992.

Deutsch, M. A Theoretical Perspective on Conflict and Conflict Resolution. In: D. Sandole & I. Sandole-Staroste (Eds.). Conflict Management and Problem Solving. – New York: New York University Press, 1987.

Hocker, J. L. & Wilmot, W. W. Interpersonal Conflict, 5^th ed. - New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Lulofs, R. S. Conflict: From Theory to Action. – Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers, 1994.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, Th. K. Intercultural Communication in Contexts, 2^nd ed. – Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2000.

Speicher, B. L. Interethnic Conflict: Attribution and Cultural Ignorance. – Howard Journal of Communication. No. 5, 1994, pp. 195 – 213.

LECTURE TWELVE