- Email: [email protected]
Conflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Introduction
Conflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures Highlights from the fourth biennial conference of the International Academy for Intercultural Research The fourth biennial conference of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, held on the campus of Kent State University, May 4–7, 2005, focused on the theme of conflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures. This particular conference was an important event, not only for the Academy, but for Kent State University as well. Understanding the world and its people while facilitating intercultural and international dialogue and interaction has assumed greater importance for students and faculty in recent years. This, coupled with the fact that the conference opening marked the 35th anniversary of the shootings that occurred on the Kent State campus on May 4, 1970, encouraged us to consider issues of conflict and mediation, not only on the domestic front, but across the wide range of cultural lines. I was a freshman at Kent State University and in the crowd of students who were fired upon on that day 35 years ago. I can recall those events like it was yesterday, having witnessed something that should not have happened to a group of students exercising their right to voice their opinion on a college campus. On a personal level, I attribute my commitment to improving interpersonal interactions and facilitating dialogue among people to witnessing how easy it is for people to resort to violence and aggression to solve their differences. Whatever side of the political spectrum people were on back then, the violence that occurred on the Kent State campus, as often occurs elsewhere, should not have happened. The theme of the conference—conflict, mediation, and negotiation across cultures, is more timely and relevant now than ever as we continue to witness countless examples of cultures in conflict with one another—conflicts that emerge when basic assumptions about human nature, identity, and morality collide without the opportunity for negotiation to occur. As Anthony Marsella remarked in his keynote address on the second day of the conference, ‘‘the shootings that occurred at Kent State on May 4, 1970 brought home the inevitable consequences of the unbridled nurturing of fear and anger engendered by the national and international tensions associated with the Vietnam War, the civil rights movements, and a score of other counter culture concerns.’’ Marsella went on to suggest that the Kent State tragedy was not a chance convergence of forces and people. Rather, it was the opposite—an over-determined encounter between two radically different subcultures that had been years in the making, an 0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS 636
Introduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638
encounter fueled by vast differences in world views among people living within the same nation but moved by different constructions of reality. The times were the same from the point of view of chronology, but they were different in the meanings and interpretations people assigned to the events of the day. The cultural differences between those seeking peace and American withdrawal from Vietnam and those attempting to continue the struggle at any cost were as different as night and day. Their templates for reality had no convergence, no overlap, no similarity. How much of this is evident today in a variety of contexts? Such questions provided the foundation for this conference. Throughout the 4 days of the conference, attendees participated in a number of engaging and interactive sessions that honored both the theoretical or research emphasis of the Academy with the solid practical applications of theory and research in which many Academy Fellows are engaged. Conference activities were suspended for 3 hours on May 4 so people could attend the memorial activities that take place each year on the Commons—the site of the shootings. An evening musical program focused on the merging of two distinctly different musical traditions— the classical world of Kent State University’s own Egyptian-born and worldrenowned Halim El-Dabh with the music of two of Hawaii’s premier slack key guitarists—Cyril Pahinui and Patrick Landeza. At the conference dinner, the Academy honored and heard from one of its own, Dr. John Berry, who was recognized for a lifetime of achievement to the field of intercultural relations. His presentation is included in this issue. The papers presented here represent four of the keynote addresses that were presented over the 4 days, with the addition of one paper. Herbert C. Kelman’s paper, entitled ‘‘Building trust among enemies: The central challenge of international conflict resolution,’’ focuses on over two decades of his work attempting to build trust among Israelis and Palestinians. He presents a brief description of interactive problem solving—his approach to conflict resolution—and then discusses five concepts that have evolved in the course of his work that point to ways in which he has attempted to deal with the dilemma of building trust among enemies so as to enable them to begin and advance a productive peace process. This was a most appropriate opening to the conference, and serves as the initial article in the special issue. Anthony Marsella’s paper, ‘‘Culture and conflict: Understanding, negotiating and reconciling conflicting constructions of reality,’’ challenges readers to consider the relationship between culture and conflict that emerges when parties with differing constructions of reality come into contention regarding the distribution of power, control, and influence. Marsella asks us to consider how differences in the construction of reality that are codified and embedded in ‘‘unassailable’’ belief systems, such as those associated with fundamentalist political, economic, and religious systems, can elicit and sustain serious forms of violence, including ethnic and religious cleansing, genocide, and torture. He goes on to argue that we must recognize the power of culture in constructing our realities, and the reluctance we have as human beings to tolerate challenges to these realities because they introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty and doubt. Following a discussion of various examples of cultures in conflict associated with political and religious fundamentalism, and a concern that the United States appears to be an emerging culture that encourages and promotes violence, the paper advances a series of recommendations for understanding, negotiating, and mediating
ARTICLE IN PRESS Introduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638
637
conflict via the use of cultural understanding, learning, and the development of cultures of peace. John Berry, recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy, addressed the conference theme through the topic of ‘‘Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures.’’ In his paper, Berry suggests that the resolution and mediation of conflict can be understood to operate at both the group and individual levels. At the group level, it engages the fundamental issue of how collectivities, be they empires, nation states, communities, or institutions, work out how to relate to each other, ideally through a process of negotiation in order to avoid conflict. At the individual level, the focus is on how persons who are members of different groups work out how to live together, again through negotiation so that conflict is avoided. Berry asks us to consider how people from different cultural backgrounds can encounter each other, seek avenues of mutual understanding, negotiate and compromise on their initial positions, and achieve some degree of harmonious engagement. Mitch Hammer’s article, ‘‘The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches,’’ reports on the development of the Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Inventory, a 36-item measure of intercultural conflict resolution style. The theoretical model proposed in this study, and the four derived intercultural conflict styles (Discussion, Engagement, Accommodation, Dynamic), offers an important conceptualization of culturally based patterns of difference around conflict interaction. The Inventory, composed of the twin scales that assess Direct/ Indirect approaches and Emotional Expressive/Restraint approaches to resolving conflict, provides an empirical measure of intercultural conflict style that can be used in future research studies and training venues. Mark Davidheiser’s study is a culture-specific look at conflict and mediation in The Gambia, West Africa. In his paper, ‘‘Culture and mediation: A contemporary processual analysis from Southwestern Gambia,’’ Davidheiser draws on archival sources and data gleaned from fieldwork in The Gambia to provide a processual analysis of the intersection of culture in mediation. The results of his study uncovered tremendous variance in societal preferences for structuring mediation as well as considerable diversity found at lower levels of analysis, thereby problematizing the notion of widespread crosscultural process similarities. Davidheiser suggests that theorizing about peacemaking behaviors must delve much further than the meta-level of comparison and that constructs such as individualism versus collectivism and high- and low-context societies must be used cautiously. Finally, Stephen Worchel, of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, offers some critique of the papers included in this volume. He begins his paper, ‘‘Culture’s role in conflict and conflict management: Some suggestions, many questions,’’ by sharing his own experience of living in Hawaii and of the conflicts he encountered with his neighbors (a Hawaiian, a Japanese, a Portugese, and a Chinese). He uses this as an example of the various roles culture (and ethnicity) can play; one, in identifying and distinguishing the groups that are likely to be parties to a conflict; and two, the manner by which culture shapes the way individuals perceive, and thus respond, to a conflict situation. Worchel thoughtfully uses this as a backdrop to discuss each of the papers, categorizes them accordingly, and relates some of his own experience and research studying and supporting and variety of efforts at conflict prevention and resolution.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 638
Introduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638
On behalf of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, I hope you find value in this special issue and invite you to participate in the next conference of the Academy to be held in Jyvaskyla, Finland, May 9–13, 2007. Kenneth Cushner Department of International Affairs, Kent State University, 128 Bowman Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA E-mail address: [email protected]
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Introduction
Conflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures Highlights from the fourth biennial conference of the International Academy for Intercultural Research The fourth biennial conference of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, held on the campus of Kent State University, May 4–7, 2005, focused on the theme of conflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures. This particular conference was an important event, not only for the Academy, but for Kent State University as well. Understanding the world and its people while facilitating intercultural and international dialogue and interaction has assumed greater importance for students and faculty in recent years. This, coupled with the fact that the conference opening marked the 35th anniversary of the shootings that occurred on the Kent State campus on May 4, 1970, encouraged us to consider issues of conflict and mediation, not only on the domestic front, but across the wide range of cultural lines. I was a freshman at Kent State University and in the crowd of students who were fired upon on that day 35 years ago. I can recall those events like it was yesterday, having witnessed something that should not have happened to a group of students exercising their right to voice their opinion on a college campus. On a personal level, I attribute my commitment to improving interpersonal interactions and facilitating dialogue among people to witnessing how easy it is for people to resort to violence and aggression to solve their differences. Whatever side of the political spectrum people were on back then, the violence that occurred on the Kent State campus, as often occurs elsewhere, should not have happened. The theme of the conference—conflict, mediation, and negotiation across cultures, is more timely and relevant now than ever as we continue to witness countless examples of cultures in conflict with one another—conflicts that emerge when basic assumptions about human nature, identity, and morality collide without the opportunity for negotiation to occur. As Anthony Marsella remarked in his keynote address on the second day of the conference, ‘‘the shootings that occurred at Kent State on May 4, 1970 brought home the inevitable consequences of the unbridled nurturing of fear and anger engendered by the national and international tensions associated with the Vietnam War, the civil rights movements, and a score of other counter culture concerns.’’ Marsella went on to suggest that the Kent State tragedy was not a chance convergence of forces and people. Rather, it was the opposite—an over-determined encounter between two radically different subcultures that had been years in the making, an 0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS 636
Introduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638
encounter fueled by vast differences in world views among people living within the same nation but moved by different constructions of reality. The times were the same from the point of view of chronology, but they were different in the meanings and interpretations people assigned to the events of the day. The cultural differences between those seeking peace and American withdrawal from Vietnam and those attempting to continue the struggle at any cost were as different as night and day. Their templates for reality had no convergence, no overlap, no similarity. How much of this is evident today in a variety of contexts? Such questions provided the foundation for this conference. Throughout the 4 days of the conference, attendees participated in a number of engaging and interactive sessions that honored both the theoretical or research emphasis of the Academy with the solid practical applications of theory and research in which many Academy Fellows are engaged. Conference activities were suspended for 3 hours on May 4 so people could attend the memorial activities that take place each year on the Commons—the site of the shootings. An evening musical program focused on the merging of two distinctly different musical traditions— the classical world of Kent State University’s own Egyptian-born and worldrenowned Halim El-Dabh with the music of two of Hawaii’s premier slack key guitarists—Cyril Pahinui and Patrick Landeza. At the conference dinner, the Academy honored and heard from one of its own, Dr. John Berry, who was recognized for a lifetime of achievement to the field of intercultural relations. His presentation is included in this issue. The papers presented here represent four of the keynote addresses that were presented over the 4 days, with the addition of one paper. Herbert C. Kelman’s paper, entitled ‘‘Building trust among enemies: The central challenge of international conflict resolution,’’ focuses on over two decades of his work attempting to build trust among Israelis and Palestinians. He presents a brief description of interactive problem solving—his approach to conflict resolution—and then discusses five concepts that have evolved in the course of his work that point to ways in which he has attempted to deal with the dilemma of building trust among enemies so as to enable them to begin and advance a productive peace process. This was a most appropriate opening to the conference, and serves as the initial article in the special issue. Anthony Marsella’s paper, ‘‘Culture and conflict: Understanding, negotiating and reconciling conflicting constructions of reality,’’ challenges readers to consider the relationship between culture and conflict that emerges when parties with differing constructions of reality come into contention regarding the distribution of power, control, and influence. Marsella asks us to consider how differences in the construction of reality that are codified and embedded in ‘‘unassailable’’ belief systems, such as those associated with fundamentalist political, economic, and religious systems, can elicit and sustain serious forms of violence, including ethnic and religious cleansing, genocide, and torture. He goes on to argue that we must recognize the power of culture in constructing our realities, and the reluctance we have as human beings to tolerate challenges to these realities because they introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty and doubt. Following a discussion of various examples of cultures in conflict associated with political and religious fundamentalism, and a concern that the United States appears to be an emerging culture that encourages and promotes violence, the paper advances a series of recommendations for understanding, negotiating, and mediating
ARTICLE IN PRESS Introduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638
637
conflict via the use of cultural understanding, learning, and the development of cultures of peace. John Berry, recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy, addressed the conference theme through the topic of ‘‘Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures.’’ In his paper, Berry suggests that the resolution and mediation of conflict can be understood to operate at both the group and individual levels. At the group level, it engages the fundamental issue of how collectivities, be they empires, nation states, communities, or institutions, work out how to relate to each other, ideally through a process of negotiation in order to avoid conflict. At the individual level, the focus is on how persons who are members of different groups work out how to live together, again through negotiation so that conflict is avoided. Berry asks us to consider how people from different cultural backgrounds can encounter each other, seek avenues of mutual understanding, negotiate and compromise on their initial positions, and achieve some degree of harmonious engagement. Mitch Hammer’s article, ‘‘The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches,’’ reports on the development of the Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Inventory, a 36-item measure of intercultural conflict resolution style. The theoretical model proposed in this study, and the four derived intercultural conflict styles (Discussion, Engagement, Accommodation, Dynamic), offers an important conceptualization of culturally based patterns of difference around conflict interaction. The Inventory, composed of the twin scales that assess Direct/ Indirect approaches and Emotional Expressive/Restraint approaches to resolving conflict, provides an empirical measure of intercultural conflict style that can be used in future research studies and training venues. Mark Davidheiser’s study is a culture-specific look at conflict and mediation in The Gambia, West Africa. In his paper, ‘‘Culture and mediation: A contemporary processual analysis from Southwestern Gambia,’’ Davidheiser draws on archival sources and data gleaned from fieldwork in The Gambia to provide a processual analysis of the intersection of culture in mediation. The results of his study uncovered tremendous variance in societal preferences for structuring mediation as well as considerable diversity found at lower levels of analysis, thereby problematizing the notion of widespread crosscultural process similarities. Davidheiser suggests that theorizing about peacemaking behaviors must delve much further than the meta-level of comparison and that constructs such as individualism versus collectivism and high- and low-context societies must be used cautiously. Finally, Stephen Worchel, of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, offers some critique of the papers included in this volume. He begins his paper, ‘‘Culture’s role in conflict and conflict management: Some suggestions, many questions,’’ by sharing his own experience of living in Hawaii and of the conflicts he encountered with his neighbors (a Hawaiian, a Japanese, a Portugese, and a Chinese). He uses this as an example of the various roles culture (and ethnicity) can play; one, in identifying and distinguishing the groups that are likely to be parties to a conflict; and two, the manner by which culture shapes the way individuals perceive, and thus respond, to a conflict situation. Worchel thoughtfully uses this as a backdrop to discuss each of the papers, categorizes them accordingly, and relates some of his own experience and research studying and supporting and variety of efforts at conflict prevention and resolution.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 638
Introduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638
On behalf of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, I hope you find value in this special issue and invite you to participate in the next conference of the Academy to be held in Jyvaskyla, Finland, May 9–13, 2007. Kenneth Cushner Department of International Affairs, Kent State University, 128 Bowman Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA E-mail address: [email protected]