Intercultural Communication: Globalization and Social Justice

Chapter 9 Negotiating Intercultural Conflict and Social Justice Strategies for Intercultural Relations

"I can't breathe," Eric Garner yelled eleven times as he died from a police chokehold on Staten Island, New York, in 2014. The slogan has become a symbol of protest against institutions such as law enforcement and the judicial system that treat people unjustly and inequitably based on race and class. epa european pressphoto agency b.v./Alamy SEAN DRAKES/Alamy

290

Learning Objectives

1. Describe how people from diverse groups engage in conflict differently and explore the conditions that lead to intercultural conflict. 2. Explain and apply a multi-dimensional framework of analysis for addressing the complexities of intercultural conflict in the global

context. 3. Describe how micro-, meso- and macro-level issues impact interpersonal, intergroup, and international intercultural conflicts. 4. Identify communication skills and strategies to increase effectiveness in addressing intercultural conflicts.

Scenario One: They met through friends in Southern California spending long days together getting to know each other. When Josh visited Patrice in Florida at her parents' house where she lives, he had a hard time feeling the closeness he had experienced in California. While her parents were gracious to him, her Haitian immigrant family seemed formal and structured compared to the close-knit, laid-back environment of his Jewish family in California. Josh's displays of affection in public made Patrice uncomfortable. And then, Josh wanted to talk about everything --whether there was a slight disagreement between them or a moment of closeness, he always wanted to express it.

Scenario Two: One hot day in early September during the crowded lunch period at a high school in Los Angeles, Tina bumped into Marta causing Marta's lunch tray to spill all over her blouse. Marta, embarrassed, looks up at Tina and yells, "What are you doing? I can't believe you did that. You did that on purpose." Tina laughs and shouts, "It was an accident . . . but if you don't stop yelling at me, I'm going to get my friends over here to prove it." A crowd surrounds the two girls, Armenian students backing up Tina and Latina/o students behind Marta each side hurling ethnic insults and yelling that the other is disrespecting their group.

Scenario Three: Around the turn of the previous century Jews began to immigrate to Palestine with the goal of establishing a national homeland. There were many arguments about the appropriateness and availability of this land, but early Zionists sought to establish a Jewish State on what they claimed was their ancient holy land. On the same land, however, lived Arabs with historic and family claims to the land. This resulted in a clash over ownership and issues of self-determination, statehood, and identity. These two adversaries pose increasing obstacles and impediments to peace including settlement expansion, terrorism, assassination, religious fanaticism, and general recalcitrance. (Ellis, 2005, p. 49)

The scenarios point to the likelihood of intercultural conflict as our lives, resources, and everyday experiences become increasingly interconnected with people from diverse cultures. Greater proximity, increased competition, diminishing resources, post/colonial histories, exploitative conditions, and rising religious fundamentalism as well as exacerbated social and economic inequity fuel conflicts among individuals and groups from different cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, and national backgrounds. In the context of globalization, migrants who are driven from their homes as refugees of the global economy and asylum seekers fleeing conflict areas increase the presence of "foreigners" in locations all around the world, escalating intercultural tensions. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, extremist groups, which have grown exponentially in the United States especially since 2005, use immigration debates to incite violence toward immigrants, particularly Latinos/Latinas. The rise in nativism, or anti-immigrant sentiment, has reached a level not seen in the United States in over a century. Provoking hatred and often conflict, anti-immigrant groups assert, without evidence to support their claims, that Latin American immigrants are responsible for a whole host of social ills, including poverty and crime, as well as environmental and cultural degradation (Beirich, n.d.).

Anti-immigrant sentiment, which often combines with and masks deeply embedded prejudices based on race, religion, and class is not unique to the United States. A Gallup poll revealed that Europeans have the most negative attitudes toward immigrants worldwide with over 50% calling for a decrease in immigration (Faiola, 2015). The anti-Islamic movement PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) initially took root in Dresden, Germany in 2014 and spread across Western Europe by 2015, amid soaring anti-immigrant sentiment. Drawing over 25,000 people in weekly rallies after gunmen inspired by ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) killed 17 people in Paris, France, in January 2015, PEGIDA emerged during a surge across Europe in asylum seekers arriving from war-torn countries, such as Syria and Libya. To understand conflicts in countries, such as Syria, Sudan, and the Congo today, sociologist Andreas Wimmer (2013) argues for a broad historical view focusing on the formation and development of the nation-state. First, violence often accompanies the formation of the nation-state as evident with the American Revolution, and more recently with the Balkan states. Second, bloody struggles often result over which ethnic or national groups will hold power as well as the borders of the state. One third of present day countries fought violent wars of independence temporarily unifying diverse groups; yet, colonial-era favoritism and inequities advanced the interests of certain ethnic groups over others resulting in great internal conflicts as seen in Rwanda as well as postcolonial conflicts among ethnic elites, such as in Syria today. "It is not diversity, but political inequity, that breeds conflict" (Wimmer, 2013).

291

Yet, people from different ethnic, racial, cultural and national groups have joined together historically and are uniting today around the globe in unprecedented ways to challenge inequity and injustice by building intercultural alliances. For example, United We Dream is a multiracial coalition of undocumented students working for educational access and citizenship for immigrants in the United States; The Climate Justice Alliance, a coalition of over 35 community-based organizations rooted in indigenous, Latino/a, African American, Asian Pacific Islander, and working-class White communities in the United States, addresses the twin crises of economics and the environment converging today; and Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) is a global movement campaigning for Palestinian rights and Israeli compliance with international laws. Intercultural conflict is defined here as the real or perceived incompatibility of values, norms, expectations, goals, processes, or outcomes between two or more interdependent individuals or groups from different cultures (Hocker & Wilmot, 1998). In the context of globalization, increased interdependence--economically, culturally, socially, and politically--has created unprecedented opportunities for and threats of intercultural conflict. While conflict is often characterized negatively, it's likely that most of us have experienced conflicts that were resolved in ways leading to positive outcomes or creative solutions--even if the paths to these outcomes were challenging. In interpersonal contexts, conflicts, if handled effectively, can clear the air and result in stronger bonds between two people. Workplace conflicts, if managed successfully, can result in better programs, products, or presentations. Movements for independence from colonial rule and social movements for human rights, such as the civil rights movement, women's rights, and gay rights movements and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa have used conflict to move toward more equitable and just ends. Conflicts, while inevitably messy and infused with emotions, can lead to personal growth, creative and alternative solutions, as well as social change. This chapter focuses on conflict, which is a central feature of human interaction and intercultural relations. Our goal is to understand how and why people from diverse groups engage in conflict, the conditions that lead to conflict, and the communication strategies that can increase effectiveness in addressing intercultural conflicts. In doing so, the relationship among intercultural conflict, communication, and social justice is highlighted. Histories of interaction between groups and the increasingly asymmetrical relationships of power today are critical dimensions to take into account. We begin by outlining a multidimensional framework for analyzing intercultural conflicts to grasp the complexities in the context of globalization. Following this, the multidimensional analysis is applied to three case studies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of strategies for addressing and negotiating intercultural conflicts using intercultural praxis.

292

Intercultural Conflict: A Multidimensional Framework of Analysis

Using the intercultural praxis entry point of framing, we explore intercultural conflict from three interrelated frames: (1) the micro-frame that examines cultural orientations to conflict and communication styles; (2) the meso- or intermediate frame that broadens our view to address cultural group prejudices, cultural histories, and cultural identities; and (3) the macro- or geopolitical frame that expands our viewpoint to include the impact of media and discourse as well as political and economic factors on intercultural conflict.

293

Micro-Frame Analysis of Intercultural Conflict

The micro-frame analysis focuses on the individual-based interactional dimension of intercultural conflict. All intercultural conflicts, whether in the interpersonal context where neighbors argue over what is perceived as loud music, the intergroup context where two ethnic groups fight over entitlement to government resources, or the international/global context where two nation-states engage in combat, have micro-frame components. Cultural orientations to conflict, communication, and facework impact the management of intercultural conflict. Differences across cultures in these areas can be sources of conflict themselves.

Cultural Orientations

Across cultures and historic times, tremendous variation exists in orientations to conflict as well as the styles and strategies for dealing with conflicts. For example, Taoism, a philosophical religious tradition rooted in ancient China, views conflict as arising from an imbalance of opposites. Conflicts, from a Taoist perspective, are natural responses to disharmony in the flow of life and can be resolved by rebalancing what is out of proportion. Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, which influence many Asian cultures, all emphasize harmony, selflessness, and an interdependent worldview. Broadly speaking, collectivistic cultures tend to cultivate an interdependent orientation, where the self is understood as relational and conflict is seen as a part of life that is managed in relationship with others. Ting-Toomey & Oetzel (2001) noted that in conflict situations, people from collectivistic cultures tend to present opinions or ideas of the group, refrain from expressing personal emotions, and protect in-group members from accountability. Interdependent worldviews, such as in China, Japan, and Korea tend to take indirect approaches to conflict, where maintaining harmony and accord in relationships is critical.

From an independent orientation, the individual is seen as an autonomous agent pursuing personal goals based on his or her beliefs. Individualistic cultures that promote an independent worldview, such as the dominant U.S. culture tend to emphasize individual initiative and self-directed action, socializing people to assert personal opinions and hold individuals accountable for problems or mistakes. An individualistic, independent orientation often translates into approaches to conflict that use direct communication and generate multiple solutions to a problem. In cultures with an independent worldview, such as the European?American culture, conflict is seen as resulting from competition between personal interests of two or more people and as an incidental intrusion or infringement on individuals' autonomy or rights. Conflict is often viewed as a problem that must be overcome quickly, rationally, unemotionally, and directly. In contrast to interdependent-oriented cultures that stress relationship maintenance, the goal of mediation and conflict resolution in independent-oriented cultures is often to remove obstacles to the pursuit of individual goals (Markus & Lin, 1999).

The two approaches sketched out are generalizations that alert us to ways that cultural assumptions, beliefs, practices, and institutions orient people to make sense of and manage conflict differently. Yet, diversity of approaches and preferred orientations exist within groups as well. Today, rapid and circular migration; the depth and penetration of international media; and increases in intercultural relationships in homes, workplaces, and international settings blur distinct lines that categorize national and ethnic cultural orientations to conflict.

Communication and Conflict Styles

Varying styles of communication shaped by culture can be sources of misunderstanding and conflict in intercultural communication. Edward T. Hall (1976) introduced the concept of low and high context communication. Context, in this case, refers to the information that surrounds a communication event, which is closely tied to the meaning of the event. High context communication is "one where most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message" (Hall, 1976, p. 79). In other words, people rely on shared knowledge, the situation, and nonverbal cues to give meaning to communication. High context communication tends to be indirect. Low context communication is

294

communication where the "mass of the information is vested in the explicit code" (Hall, 1976, p. 70). Low context communication is more direct, specific, and literal with less attention placed on gathering meaning from unstated contextual cues. Collectivistic cultures that have more interdependent worldviews and share close networks of relationships over long periods of time tend to display high context communication; on the other hand, individualistic cultures that are more independent in terms of worldview, and separate and compartmentalize personal and work relationships often require more explicit detailing of information to communicate and therefore tend to display low context communication.

Facework

The notion of "face" has roots in both Eastern and Western traditions and is used across cultures, yet the meanings associated with face differ in different historical and cultural contexts. In research in intercultural communication studies today, face can be defined as favorable social self-worth in relation to the assessment of "other-worth" in interpersonal relationships (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Face, which can be threatened, lost, protected, maintained, and saved, is a critical resource that is negotiated through communication in social interactions. Facework refers to the communication strategies used to negotiate face between the self and other. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2002) argued that people from individualistic or independent cultural orientations tend to be more concerned with protecting or saving their own face, and therefore often use conflict styles that are more confrontational, controlling, and aimed at finding solutions. On the other hand, people from more collectivistic and interdependent orientations are more likely to be concerned with accommodating the other person's face or finding ways for mutual face-saving. Facework in more interdependent-oriented cultures leads to conflict styles that are more avoiding, obliging, or integrating.

Communication scholars Noorie Baig, Stella Ting-Toomey, and Tenzin Dorjee (2014) examined izzat, the notion of "face" in South Asian Indian culture, among first- and second-generation immigrants to the United States. Izzat refers to respect, honor, and prestige and is understood as "a complex set of societal and personal conduct rules that an individual learns in order to protect the family honor and one's personal conduct with the community" (p. 166). In both the older and younger generation of South Asian Indian Americans, respect was the predominant meaning of izzat. Respect is shown through verbal and nonverbal performance rituals, such as showing deference to elders through linguistic formality; staging family face by avoiding bringing shame on the family, and protecting others' views of one's family; and by reacting to the complexity of emotions associated with izzat. The study found differences across generations where the older generation showed more concern for the extended family's izzat and the complex emotionality within the community, while the younger generation were concerned with the izzat of the immediate family and were more disconnected from the other-oriented affective concerns. Both older and younger generations connected "face" with the notion of respect, but with much less emphasis on the deeply rooted and emotionally charged aspect of honor suggesting the acculturation of South Asian Indians to more individualistic orientations of the United States.

Situational Factors

A wide range of situational and relational factors also contribute to decisions individuals make in conflict situations. Brew and Cairns (2004) found that cultural orientation alone did not explain or predict communication choices in conflict situations with East Asian and Australian employees at five Western organizations in Bangkok and Singapore. Situational constraints modified the expected communication strategies based on cultural norms. Australians are generally described as individualistic, low context communicators who are independent-oriented and egalitarian, valuing transparency, honesty, and direct communication. These characteristics may be experienced as blunt by those from more collectivistic cultures. Thais and Singaporeans are generally described as collectivistic, high context communicators who tend to avoid conflict, open displays of criticism, or dissent, which are seen as rude or damaging. Saving "face" is seen as a particularly important concern, which results in skirting challenging issues to avoid embarrassment to self and others (Chi-Ching, 1998).

Brew and Cairns (2004) argued that these broad generalizations may be useful as a guide to understand cultural orientations to communication and conflict, but in interpersonal communication in workplace settings individuals

295

make decisions about how to act and respond that are also highly contingent on situational factors. The situational constraint of time urgency, which is an increasing pressure in the context of globalization, may explain why Thai and Singaporean employees used more direct communication than expected based on their cultural orientation. Additionally, Australians used more indirect communication when interacting with Thai and Singaporean workers who were both superiors and subordinates, suggesting that Australians modified their communication strategies based on the cultural identity of the person with whom they interacted. The situational factor of the status of the other was significant for East Asians as they chose to communicate indirectly with superiors and more directly with subordinates. The micro-frame draws our attention to cultural orientations to conflict, communication, and conflict styles, as well as different facework strategies. Additionally, we note how situational factors may play an important role along with cultural norms in determining individuals' choices and actions in conflict management. From the micro-frame of analysis of intercultural conflict, we now broaden our viewpoint to the meso- or intermediate frame of reference.

296

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download