The Role of Culture in Conflict

The Role of Culture in Conflict

Humans are unique products of individual temperaments, varying life experiences, family upbringings, and individual mental patterns; moreover, they are also products of the cultures in which they live or have lived (Angelica, 2004). Culture establishes many of our communication patterns as well as our basic values.
32
Often, these values are so familiar as to be invisible to the holders. When not understood, these cultural patterns can be a source of conflict especially between people who come from different cultural backgrounds, therefore, an understanding of cultural differences can be a key to conflict resolution. To understand the influence of culture on the creation and resolution of conflict, one first needs to define the meaning of culture. Trompenaars (1993) suggested that culture is the result of finding solutions to problems with the environment, time, and relationships with others. Ting-Toomey (1999, p.10) defined culture as: “a learned meaning system that consist of patterns of traditions, beliefs, values, norms and symbols that are passed on from one generation to the next and are shared to varying degrees by interacting members of the community.”

According to this latter definition, members of a shared culture develop a particular frame of reference that is based on shared values, through which certain principles are filtered and applied to relationships between self and others. These cultural values influence and regulate relational matters, daily life activities, and methods of resolving conflict when it arises. Sociologists refer to the process of learning one’s culture as the “socialization process” (Clausen, 1968). Members of each culture learn from a young age to follow these cultural principles that are usually reinforced by parents, teachers, and other authority figures. When a person encounters people from other cultures, he or she comes to discover that other

33 cultures have different rules and regulations, which might produce interpersonal tension and conflict. Culture has some aspects that are observable and the rest can only be suspected, imagined, or intuited based on the cultural iceberg analogy (Figure 4).

Figure 4 - The Cultural Iceberg Model

Like an iceberg, the part of culture that is visible makes up only a small part of a much bigger whole. According to Weaver (1998), the invisible part of the culture includes beliefs, values, traditions, and thought patterns, while the visible

34 one includes observable practices and customs such as clothes, food, music, and language (Weaver, 1998). In early stages of cultural interactions, people tend to perceive other cultures to be similar to their own since they only experience and o observe the visible part of the other culture. Wrenn (1985) referred to this phenomenon as “cultural encapsulation. As time passes by, cross-cultural interactions become increasingly emotionally charged as parties begin to perceive and interpret various incidents differently. Differences in interpretation and perception bring discomfort, confusion, and misunderstanding. These differences can ultimately create conflict between the parties. According to Wrenn (1985), culture plays a major role in shaping cross-cultural interactions for a variety of reasons. First, one’s reality is shaped by ones’ values and beliefs many of which are culturally-bound. Second, people universally believe that their values and cultural norms are superior to people from other cultural backgrounds. They do not feel the need to test or question their cultural assumptions. This has been referred to in the literature as “ethnocentrism” (Hammond& Axelrod, 2006). Hammond defined ethnocentrism as, “the attitudes include seeing one’s own group (the in-group) as virtuous and superior, one’s own standards of value as universal, and out-groups as contemptible and inferior”(2006. p.1). Wrenn (1985) warned that people in cross-cultural interactions who rush to

35 find easy solutions and remedies might judge others based on their own culturally-based values. This might lead to a conflict (Wrenn, 1985).

Culture and Conflict Resolution

Geert Hofstede (2001), a noted Dutch anthropologist, classified the cultures of contemporary societies on a collectivist-individualist continuum. In collectivistic cultures, activities and decisions are geared to preserve and enhance the cultural group. In individualistic cultures, activities and decisions are geared to preserving and enhancing the individual. These cultural variations influence how people deal with conflict when it arises. Studies in intercultural conflict and communication emphasize four key elements that influence the way people from different cultures perceive, experience and resolve conflict (Ting-Toomey, 1999). The four key elements are: (a) the culture’s shared belief of emphasizing harmony versus self-interest; (b) the culture’s main communication style; (c) the power distance concept (i.e. the extent to which the less powerful expect and accept that power is distributed unequally(Hofstede, 1994, p. 28)); and finally (d) the "saving face" concept (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

Harmony vs. Self-Interests

In collectivistic cultures, the emphasis on maintaining and restoring harmony to the group is valued greatly. Children in these cultures are raised to think
36
in terms of “we” instead of “I,” and encouraged to value traits such as loyalty, hierarchy, respect to the elders of the group, and hospitality (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, conflicts or disputes are brought to elders, religious leaders, or other authority figures who tend to seek resolutions that restore harmony to the group rather than determine which party is right. In individualistic cultures, the individual interests prevail over the group’s collective interests. Members of these cultures look to uninvolved authority figures to resolve conflicts and seek justice to determine who is right and who is wrong. In these cultures, people are inclined to use legal or authoritarian avenues without ever attempting to resolve disputes themselves or with informal assistance. Children in these cultures are raised to embrace and cherish values such as assertiveness, efficiency, and independence (Hofstede, 2001). The differing values in individualistic and collectivistic cultures lead to divergent views on relationships (Triandis, 1995). In individualistic societies, individuals move in and out of relationships easily. “When the costs exceed the benefits, the relationship is often dropped” (Singelis, et.al., 1995. p. 244). Conversely, collectivists tend to stay in the relationship even if the costs of maintaining it exceed the benefits (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, & Yoon, 1994). The subsequent outcome for the above value differences is that conflict is managed differently in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. In collectivistic cultures, harmony and consensus are the ultimate goal; whereas, in individualistic societies,
37
promoting ones’ self-interest is a key. Thus, individuals from collectivistic societies will work more strenuously or be more amenable to manage or negotiate conflict, lest the relationship suffer irreparable damage.

The Culture’s Main Communication Style

A culture’s primary or preferred communication style, both verbal and nonverbal, influence how that culture perceives and resolves conflict. To better describe cultural communication styles, Edward Hall (1976), a major force within the intercultural communication field, developed the concepts of high context versus low context cultures. These two concepts clarify the major communication differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. In cultures using high context communication, an actual message contains little information since knowledge is embedded within the context and learned through the socialization process. Therefore, members of these cultures depend less on the spoken word and more on the context of the message to the extent that having to convey detailed and known types of information is typically viewed as patronizing or wasteful. To explain the concept, Angelica (2004) compared a typical process of job interviewing in Japan versus the United States. In Japan, where there is a known hierarchy of the quality of the education offered at different universities, job seekers will be asked about their families and friends and not about their skills and education through the interview process. This is because the latter information is already supposedly
38
conveyed through the job seeker’s school’s reputation. On the contrary, job seekers in the United States are expected to deliver detailed information and data about their knowledge and expertise and are expected to be eloquent and to include all of that in the verbal message throughout the interview. Not providing this information is viewed as careless or suspect as though someone is withholding necessary information. Communication requires that both the receiver and sender pay attention to the overt and covert messages passing between them. (Watzlawick et al., 1967, p. 51). Based on the work of Ruesch and Bateson (1951), Watzlawick et al (1967) identified two important elements of communication: the “report” and “command” functions of communicative interactions. The “report” element provides the content and informative nature of the message, while the “command” function provides a context about how the message should be understood. In other words, the “command” function reflects how the parties feel toward one another and their relationship (Watzlawick et al., 1967). People of all cultures respond to the “report” and “command” functions of communication. However, there are cultural variations that have been found how to impact the frequency of using “command” versus “report” elements in communication. Some cultures are more emotionally expressive, and members are encouraged to engage emotionally by demonstrating their feelings visibly by way of laughing, body posture, and/ or facial expression (Kochman, 1981). In contrast,
39
other cultures view restraint and emotional composure as a sign of maturity and self-discipline. Understanding the use of “report” and “command” functions in communication as core dimensions for interpreting motives, intentions and actions, is essential in any analysis of cross-cultural interactions and conflicts (Johnson& Munch, 2009). According to a 1968 classic study by Mehrabian (2009), the use of words only makes up seven percent of the total impact of a message on a receiver. Thirty-eight percent of the message’s impact is based on how the words were said, including the tone and loudness of voice; and fifty five percent is based on nonverbal body language such as facial expressions, hand gestures, and body posture. Since non-verbal gestures and body language play such major roles in communication, they might cause members of a given culture to misinterpret the motives and messages of another. A gesture or body expression that one culture views as positive, another might view as negative. Take for example consistent eye contact, which is considered to indicate interest and forthrightness in mainstream European American culture. This same consistent eye contact is considered to be rude and invasive in the Middle Eastern culture, especially in cross gender conversation (Merry, 1989).
40
Culture and Power Distance

The third element of culture that influences conflict is the power distance factor: the extent to which the less powerful expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede& Bond, 1984. p. 419). In societies with lower power distance such as in western countries, employees expect to be consulted; teachers expect their students to show initiative and ask questions in class; and employers expect employees to offer new ideas, as inequality between people should be minimized. Since everybody is treated and viewed equally, people are expected to take responsibility when conflict occurs and discuss differences in opinion frankly with opposing parties. People who fail to address conflicts directly are viewed either as lacking the courage to confront, or the commitment to solve a problem. Conversely, in high power distance societies such as the Middle East, Asia or Africa, employees expect to take orders. In the classroom and the therapy office, teachers or supervisors take all initiatives and make decisions, as inequality between people is expected and desired. Only certain individuals in the community are assigned formal power, and they are expected to intervene and mediate between different people without allowing any party to lose face through the process. In these societies, conflicts are typically ignored unless they cause significant disturbance to the community as a whole (Hofstede, 2001).

41
The "Saving Face" Concept

The cultural concept of "saving face" long ago made its entry into Western social sciences from Chinese cultural studies (Goffman, 1955). The concept has been associated with Western terms like "pride," "prestige," "reputation," or simply "a positive public image" (Hsu, 1996). As stated above, Hofstede (2001) pointed out that members of collectivistic cultures hold a group identity where behaviors are governed based on a sense of social norms and obligations. Therefore, their reputation among their peers and other members of their community is highly valued – much more so than by those who grew up in individualistic cultures. All attempts are made by members of collectivistic cultures to avoid being embarrassed in public and “losing face”(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Gelfand, Triandis, H. C., & Chan,1996). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) explained that "losing face" among members of community-oriented cultures typically brings into question the member’s personal and familial reputation and adequacy in front of the whole society. Brown (1977) explained the importance of both personal and national face in the conflict resolution process: “Among the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in conflictual situations are the intangible issues related to loss of face. In some instances, protecting against loss of face becomes so central an issue that it swamps the importance of the tangible issues at stake and generates intense conflicts that can impede progress toward agreement and increase substantially the cost of conflict resolution” (Brown 1979, p.275).

42 As more clients list conflict resolution as one of their main treatment goals, counselors can expect to spend more time helping their clients through assessing, diagnosing and teaching skills to handle conflict effectively (Heitler, 2003). Since these conflicts come in different types, forms and intensities, counselors need conflict resolution expertise to be able to lead their clients effectively and efficiently to manage and resolve conflicts on their own.

Conflict in the Counseling Process

Clients and particularly couples who seek counseling frequently, ask explicitly for help resolving their conflicts (Heitler, 2003). For successful treatment to happen, clients want their therapist to guide them to a safe and satisfying resolution of the topics that have generated tensions in the relationship. Therefore, expertise in conflict resolution is a foundational clinical skill that enables counselors to help clients resolve intra-psychic, interpersonal, or systematic conflicts (Arrow, 1995). Intra-psychic conflicts can be defined as internal clashes between opposing desires within one’s self (Paulhus, 1998). Clients who experience this kind of conflict typically resort to dysfunctional coping mechanisms to escape and avoid emotions and memories that interfere with their abilities to function on a healthy level and make important decisions in their lives (Hayes et al, 1996). On the other hand, interpersonal conflicts occur when two persons in a relationship have
43
difficulty living or working together because they have incompatible goals (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2000). Therapy goals then are typically geared toward helping clients develop the necessary skills to live in a cooperative partnership. These skills are developed through improving communication and conflict resolution skills that can enable these individuals to address subsequent differences more effectively on their own. Interpersonal conflicts can also arise in a professional relationship such as when two partners are in conflict about how to conduct a business. A consultant would focus on helping the business partners to learn how to make shared decisions cooperatively, resolve their differences, and manage emotionally-intense incidents on their own. Finally, systematic conflicts occur when an intentional or unintentional change in rules or power structure occurs in an existing system, whether it is a family, an organization, or a society at large (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007). Systematic therapists believe that each person affects all other people who are involved in the conflict; therefore, they avoid labeling one person as the cause of the entire conflict. Instead they analyze all factors which may contribute to conflict: all events as well as the existing system’s rules and regulations. Based on the analysis, systemic therapists help all parties to establish new rules that are flexible enough to accommodate the new changes in the power structure in the existing system.[pic]