Analysing cross-cultural conflicts and finding solutions essay
In the current global economic and geopolitical conditions different states and societies can coexist quite peacefully, multinational states can develop as a unified whole, there is a full set opportunities for this, but it is not happening. Inter-ethnic conflicts, terrorism, devastating socio-cultural impacts, information warfare – all these phenomena are maintained not only and not so much by the lying on the surface economic and political motives as by latent socio-cultural, ideological and technological factors. The internal structure of social processes is of course extremely complex, especially considering the fact that there is no single culture or society that is homogeneous in its composition. Most often, they are a mosaic of different ethnic cultures and subcultures, and each of them is characterized by its own norms and rules of communication, values and worldview. Because of this sociocultural diversity, communities inevitably come into conflict with each other.
Further in this paper, we aim at discussing the foundations of cross-cultural conflicts and communication collapses, analysing the causes and sources of this processes through the prism of intercultural communication theories, as well as pay sufficient attention to the issue of solving cross-cultural conflicts and the variety of approaches to conflict resolution.
The essence of cross-cultural conflicts
Most often, a conflict is defined as any kind of confrontation or divergence of interests. Referentially to the concept of culture, cross-cultural conflict is further defined in our work as the most acute way to resolve significant sociocultural and ethnic inconsistencies that arise in the course of intercultural interaction, which consists in counteraction of the subjects of conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions towards the representatives of another cultural group (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013; Weaver, 2013; Avruch et al., 1998). There are two most widely used approaches to understanding the conflict. One of them determines conflict as a clash of parties, opinions, strengths, etc. (Avruch et al., 1998). Another approach understands the conflict as a clash of opposing goals, interests, attitudes and worldviews of opponents or the subjects of interaction (Weaver, 2013; Ross, 2011). In terms of culture, conflict always involves the duel of incompatible or contradictory norms, values, priorities and motives.
Thus, underlying cultural differences are the main cause of cross-cultural conflicts, which are typically classified into (Weaver, 2013; Hurn and Tomalin, 2013):
• conflicts between the ethnic groups and their cultures (the Georgians and Abkhazians, Basques and Spaniards, etc.);
• conflicts between representatives of different religions and ideologies (Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Christians in Africa);
• conflicts between speakers of different generations and subcultures;
• conflicts between tradition and innovation in culture;
• linguocultural conflicts between different communities and their individual representatives, due to language barriers and interpretive errors.
In our study, we mainly rely on Hurn and Tomalin’s (2013) theoretical analysis of cross-cultural communication, which also provided us with a better understanding of cross-cultural conflict resolution in the modern globalized society and practical measures based on actual examples from over 60 countries. In its turn, Weaver’s (2013) work on intercultural relations contributed significantly to our research with identifying the most frequent barriers in intercultural communication and the tools to overcome them with useful references to psychiatry and diplomacy. The analysis of approaches to cross-cultural conflict through the theories of intercultural communication was also enhanced by referring to the reflections by Ross (2011), who posed significant elaboration on the relations between macro and micro level theories of conflict critically connecting existing theory and data across these levels. In particular, multicultural society patterns are rather deeply studied by Song (2009) in his factor and multiple regression analysis on understanding of cultural differences and cultural expectations in interpersonal relationships. Another illustrative showcase to demonstrate drastic cultural differences between individualist and collectivist communities, conformist and competition societies is Leung’s et al. (2011) cross-cultural conflict styles investigation in China and Australia. Conclusions on conflict resolution patterns are also based here on Avruch et al. (1998), who study the components of negotiating differences in global sociocultural context.
The reasons of cross-cultural conflicts and approaches to their analysis
The range of causes of intercultural conflicts is also extremely wide: the heart of the conflict can be not only the insufficient knowledge of the language and the associated with it simple misunderstanding of the communication partner, but also deeper reasons, often not clearly perceived by the participants (Weaver, 2013; Song, 2009). In intercultural communication the causes of communication conflicts can be not only cultural differences, but also issues of power or status, social stratification, generation gap, etc., as well as the excessive emphasis of differences between the confronting parties which may take the form of opposition of one’s own ethnic group to another group (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013; Avruch et al., 1998).
A striking example of cross-cultural conflict is the constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets in Switzerland in a referendum of 29 November 2009, when 57.5% of citizens voted against the construction of new minarets (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013). Opponents of minarets see them as not religious but a political symbol and call to prevent the islamization of the country. In retaliation, the unknown hackers in late November – early December 2009 subjected to cyber-attacks about 300 Swiss sites, filling them with pro-Islamic inscriptions. In some Muslim countries there are calls to withdraw capital and assets from Switzerland, as well as to boycott goods of Swiss companies such as Swatch, Omega, Rolex, Lindt & Sprьngli and Nestlй. It was argued that the withdrawal of the capital of Arab and Muslim countries from the Swiss banks may have a negative impact on the economy of the country (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013).
This example shows that the clash of different social groups as bearers of different cultures – nations, classes, religious associations is a significant process for the society. Often an inter-group competition arises for a limited resource – territory, food, trade routes and areas of influence on the third party (Weaver, 2013). In these cases, a group mobilizing its forces to win uses all cultural mechanisms to create contrasting images of “us” and “them” (Avruch et al., 1998; Weaver, 2013).
The attempts to form a viewpoint about other people and explain their actions often end up and conjecturing the causes of their behavior due to lack of information (Ross, 2011). The fundamental attribution error in cross-cultural conflicts is explained by the tendency to view one’s own culture as the norm and evaluate and make judgments about other cultures based on the accepted cultural values (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013; Ross, 2011; Song, 2009). The “us-them” contrast is achieved by assigning to everything unaccustomed to “us” the status of hostility and ill will, while attributing increased rationality, fairness and practicality to “our” customs and norms. A significant number of gestures, sounds, and acts of behavior as a whole is interpreted differently in different cultures. For example, the German presented his Russian friend eight beautiful roses at his birthday, i.e. an even number of roses, but in Russian culture even number of flowers is usually brought to the dead (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013). Thus, the intercultural conflict by itself is a conflict of world views, interpretations and attitudes inherent in certain groups.
The very contradiction between the groups with incompatible goals in the fight for limited resources (territory, power, prestige) turns out to be only one of the stages of the conflict – the stage which is usually referred to as an objective conflict situation (Avruch et al., 1998). In fact, there are contradictions between the cultural communities almost everywhere in the world – intercultural tension in the broadest sense, arising from the historical circumstances (historical injustice, experience of past conflicts), the ratio of cultural and ethnic groups (attitude of the majority to the minority), and the existing level of social competition (Weaver, 2013; Hurn and Tomalin, 2013). The emergence of conflicts is also the most likely among cultures with quite dependent relationships (e.g. colonies and the mother country) (Weaver, 2013).
However, even in recognizing the situation as a conflict, social competition may not result in a conflict interaction (Song, 2009). But if the objective conflict situation occurs, even random events due to the emotionality and sometimes irrationality inherent to intercultural relations can lead to conflict interaction as the most acute phase of the conflict (Song, 2009; Weaver, 2013). At the stage of the conflict interaction ethnic conflicts tend to self-acceleration or escalation, which means that the parties are moving from “light” to “heavy” tactics: from mass non-violent actions (rallies, demonstrations, actions of civil disobedience) to clashes that sooner or later lead to military conflicts and prolonged ethno-political wars.
Conditions of fomenting cultural conflicts include an understated or overstated level of national identity and existing of a “critical mass” of problems in society putting pressure on all aspects of the national life (Weaver, 2013; Song, 2009; Hurn and Tomalin, 2013). At the same time, emergence of conflict does not mean the termination of the relationship between the communicants; it is much more likely to mean the possibility to depart from existing models of communication, and the further development of relations is possible in both positive and negative direction. There is another stage of the conflict that should be allocated – its resolution or settlement, to the analysis of which we devote a separate section of the work.
Milestones and principles of cross-cultural conflicts resolution
Modern conflict resolution studies state that any conflict can be resolved or greatly reduced if consciously adhere to one of the five styles of behavior (basing on Hurn and Tomalin, 2013; Avruch et al., 1998; Ross, 2011: Song, 2009):
Competition (“The stronger is always right”) – is an active style that does not lead to cooperation. This style is typical of a situation where one of the parties pursues its goals and strives to act in its own interests regardless of the impact it renders on others. Such a method of conflict resolution accompanied by the creation of a “win-loss” situation, and the use of competition and power game to achieve one’s goals results in submission of one party to the other.
Cooperation (“Let’s solve this together”) – is an active cooperation-oriented style. In this situation, both sides seek to achieve their goals. This behavior is characterized by the desire to solve a problem, find out the differences, share the information, and see the conflict as an incentive to constructive solutions that go beyond the scope of this conflict. The way out of the conflict is to find a solution that benefits both parties, which is often called a “win- win” strategy.
Avoiding conflict – is a passive style not aimed at promoting collaboration. One of the parties may recognize that a conflict exists, but chooses a style of behavior that avoids the conflict or drowns it in the hope that the conflict will resolve itself. Thus, conflict resolution is delayed, while half-measures are used to dampen the conflict, or hidden measures are used in order to avoid a more violent confrontation.
Compliance – is a passive cooperation-oriented style. In some cases, one of the parties may attempt to placate the other side putting other side’s interests above one’s own. Such a desire to appease the other involves compliance, obedience and suppleness.
Compromise (“Let’s meet each other halfway”) – in this style of behavior both sides of the conflict make mutual concessions, partly giving up their claims. In this case, nobody wins and nobody loses. Such a way out of the conflict is preceded by negotiations, the search for options and ways of mutually beneficial agreements.
Like any other aspect of intercultural communication, the style of conflict resolution is determined by the characteristics of culture of the conflicting parties (Weaver, 2013). Thus, significant cultural differences can be observed in the methods of conflict resolution of the Australian and Chinese managers. The Chinese prefer passive styles of behavior, such as compromise or compliance, while the Australians are more characterized by active styles of cooperation and competition (Leung et al., 2011). Adherence of the Chinese to these styles of behavior is explained by their striving for harmony and preservation of face (Hurn and Tomalin, 2013). Human relations in Chinese society are based on the realization that man exists only as part of a family or a clan. This requires the individual’s respect for social hierarchy. The need to display deference to elders guides the Chinese to subordination to power and suppression of aggression. The idea of harmony encourages the Chinese always seek the golden mean of the extremes, and teaches them to achieve balance by controlling the emotions (Leung et al., 2011). Finally, the concept of “face” teaches the Chinese an ability to maintain composure, preserve self-esteem, and not to create a situation leading to other people losing their face (Leung et al., 2011; Weaver, 2013).
In general, in settling cross-cultural conflicts a few standard actions should be taken. The first step is obvious: it is necessary to carefully analyze and try to understand the specific causes of this particular conflict, start with the monitoring, that is, the study of the problems which give rise to confusion and cause a failure of successful communication. Having succeeded to analyze with varying degrees of depth and list in order of importance the problems of communication and behavioral plan, it is necessary to start developing tactics of leading the parties out of the cross-cultural conflict. Then comes the most important final stage which proceeds to the development of a strategic action plan that will help to avoid similar conflicts in the future (Avruch et al., 1998; Weaver, 2013).
Conclusion
A cross-cultural conflict can be understood as the most acute way to resolve significant sociocultural and ethnic inconsistencies that arise in the course of intercultural interaction, which consists in counteraction of the subjects of conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions towards the representatives of another cultural group. Cross-cultural conflicts are caused by the underlying cultural differences in norms, values, interests and worldviews, and are accompanied by the intracultural creation of contrasting “us” and “them” images. In cases when the objective conflict situation occurs and becomes recognized by the parties, even random events due to the emotionality and sometimes irrationality inherent to intercultural relations can lead to conflict escalation.
The key to solving the problem of cross-cultural conflicts should be the development of intercultural understanding. A positive attitude to the people-bearer of a foreign language, its culture, characteristic views, settings, system of values, no matter how unusual they may seem at first glance, promotes tolerance of other people’s opinion and acceptance of otherness of the interpersonal communication partner. To develop positive attitudes towards cultural differences it is necessary to overcome cultural insularity generating negative reactions. Adaptation and integration to a foreign culture is based not so much on the knowledge of the language, customs, norms and values of other nations, as on close emotional contact with their representatives.
