Manual for Students

–the social system should not be adjusted to meet the needs of members; rather, members should adapt to established values;

–confrontations are destructive and ineffective;

–disputants should be disciplined [2, p. 76].

An American psychologist David Kraybill examines these assumptions. He considers that mostAmish, for example, think of conflict not as an opportunity to promote personal growth but as almost certain to destroy the fabric of interpersonal and community harmony. When conflict does arise, the strong spiritual value of pacifism dictates a nonresistant response, such as avoidance or silence. The second assumption says that members of society should adapt to existing values.Among theAmish, the nonresistant stance of yieldedness, forbids the use of force in human relations. Thus, the Amish avoid legal and personal confrontation whenever possible [11, p. 231]. This avoidance of conflict extends to a refusal to participate in military activities. For instance, during World War II the federal government granted alternatives to military service for young Amish men. As a result, most Amish conscientious objectors received agricultural deferments, allowing them to work on their farms or on other agricultural projects.Amish children are instructed to turn the other cheek in any conflict situation, even if it means getting beaten up by the neighborhood bully. This emphasis extends to personal and business relationships; that is, the Amish would prefer to lose face or money than to escalate conflict. Similarly, cultural groups influenced by Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, and Shinto traditions share a common tendency toward avoidance of confrontation and verbal aggression and absence of direct expression of feelings.

Cultural groups that see conflict as a destructive force often avoid low-level conflict. However, another appropriate response is to seek intervention from a third party or intermediary. On an informal level, a friend or colleague may be asked to intervene. Intermediaries are also used by those who think that interpersonal conflict provides opportunities, mainly in formal settings. For example, people hire lawyers to mediate disputes or negotiate commercial transactions, or they engage counselors or therapists to resolve or manage relational conflicts. Whereas confronting conflict is ultimately desirable, intervention is a less desirable option.

351

7.2.3 Cultural Differences in Conflict Views

Anthropologists have long been interested in how various cultures differ in the amount of conflict tolerated and the strategies for dealing with conflict. They have concluded that some cultures more prone to conflicts whereas others have a low incidence of conflict.Anthropologist Marc Howard Ross spent many years investigating this question, studying views and norms regarding conflicts in small preindustrial cultures and in modern industrialized nations.According to him, in some cultures conflict tends to be minimized and dealt with constructively; in other cultures, conflicts abound.

As Marc Ross believes, the reasons for this variation seem to lie in both structural and individual and interpersonal characteristics. Take two examples, Northern Ireland and Norway. Northern Ireland has been the scene of conflict for many years between two divided religious groups, Catholic and Protestant, with incompatible interests. These groups live in segregated communities, and members hold powerful stereotypes. In addition to a powerful class and socioeconomic hierarchy, there is a history of discrimination against Catholics in housing and jobs. Reasons for this conflict may also originate from a more personal level, such as male gender identity conflict, the absence of affection and warmth, a lack of social trust, and emotional distance between fathers and children – none of the predispositions useful in dealing with political differences in a democratic society.

In contrast, Norway traditionally has a low incidence of internal conflict, though Norwegians have fought with outsiders in the past. Certainly, social homogeneity is a structural plus (although there are some strong regional differences). There are also extensive moralnets – people who provide support to individuals in times of need, such as extended family, friends, and neighbors. Involvement in voluntary associations (characterized by attachments that are more instrumental than emotional) and overlapping social networks make it difficult for communities to divide into permanent factions. A strong collective sense of responsibility is expressed in a variety of ways, including an emphasis on equality and status leveling, attentiveness to community norms, and conformity and participation, with or without personal commitment.

353

On a more personal level, Norwegians are socialized to avoid conflict. There are high levels of maternal nurturance and supervision, as well as high levels of paternal involvement, and little is demanded of young children. Norwegians learn early in life that overt aggression or even indirect confrontation of others is unacceptable. Emotional self-control over negative feelings is important.And there are few aggressive models in the popular culture – newspapers do not sensationalize crime, television features little violence and no boxing, and films are controlled.

Low-conflict societies share several characteristics. These include interpersonal practices that build security and trust: a strong linkage between individual and community interests, and high identification with the community so that individuals and groups in conflict trust that its interests are their own; a preference for joint problem solving, which leaves ultimate control over decisions in the hands of the disputants; available third parties, sometimes in the form of the entire community, to facilitate conflict management; an emphasis on the restoration of social harmony that is often at least as strong as the concern with the substantive issues in a dispute; the possibility of exit as a viable option; and strategies of conflict avoidance.

7.3 The Interpersonal Approach to Conflict

Perhaps if everyone agreed on the best way to view conflict, there would be less of it. But the reality is that different orientations to conflict may result in more conflict. In this section, which takes an interpersonal approach, we identify five different types of conflict and some strategies for responding to conflict.

7.3.1 Types of Conflict

There are many different types of conflict, and we may manage these types in different ways. Communication scholar Mark Cole conducted interviews with Japanese students about their views on conflict and found most of the same general categories as those identified in the United States. These categories include the following: affective conflict; conflict of interest; value conflict; cognitive conflict; goal conflict [5, p. 68 – 69].

354

Affective conflict occurs when individuals become aware that their feelings and emotions are incompatible. For example, suppose someone finds that his or her romantic love for a close friend is not reciprocated. The disagreement over their different levels of affection causes conflict.

A conflict of interest describes a situation in which people have incompatible preferences for a course of action or plan to pursue. The example of this type of conflict is when parents disagree on the appropriate curfew time for their children.

Value conflict, a more serious type, occurs when people differ in ideologies on specific issues. For example, suppose Mario and Melinda have been dating for several months and are starting to argue frequently about their religious views, particularly as related to abortion. Melinda is pro-choice and has volunteered to do counseling in an abortion clinic. Mario, a devout Catholic, is opposed to abortion under any circumstances and is very unhappy about Melinda’s volunteer work. This situation illustrates value conflict [14, p. 382]

Cognitive conflict describes a situation in which two or more people become aware that their thought processes or perceptions are incongruent. For example, suppose Mary and Victor argue frequently about whether Mary’s friend Eugene is paying too much attention to her; Derek suspects that Jamal wants to have a sexual encounter with Marissa. Their different perceptions of the situation constitute cognitive conflict.

Goal conflict occurs when people disagree about a preferred outcome or end state. For example, suppose Victor and Mary, who have been in a relationship for ten years, have just bought a house. Victor wants to furnish the house slowly, making sure that money goes into the savings account for retirement, whereas Mary wants to furnish the house immediately, using money from their savings,Victor and Mary’s individual goals are in conflict with each other.

Conflicts arise for many reasons. Religion is a common cause of conflict in intercultural relationships. Note how this student dealt with religious differences in her marriage: I just recently got married. I am Caucasian and my husband is Hispanic. He comes from a large, traditional family. My family background does not include many specific traditions. His family is very religious, and I grew up virtually without religion. When I became pregnant, his family told me that

355

the baby would be baptized Catholic and raised Catholic. They also told me that they did not view our marriage as being legitimate (because we were not “married in God’s eyes”, that is, the Catholic Church). This was hard for me to deal with at first. I felt that I was being pressured to become someone I wasn’t. But I agreed to go to church and learn Catholicism [ibid.].

7.3.2 Strategies and Tactics for Dealing with Conflict

The ways in which people respond to conflict may be influenced by their cultural backgrounds. Most people deal with conflict the way they learned to while growing up and watching those around them deal with contentious situations. Conflict strategies usually reflect how people manage themselves in relational settings. For example, they may prefer to preserve their own self-esteem rather than help the other person save face [17]. Although individuals have a general predisposition to deal with conflict in particular ways, they may choose different tactics in different situations. People are not necessarily locked into a particular strategy. There are at least five specific styles of managing conflicts: dominating, integrating, compromising, obliging, avoiding [14; 15].

Dominating style reflects high concern for the self and low concern for the other person. It has been identified with having a win-lose orientation and with forcing behavior to win one’s position. The behaviors associated with this style include loud and forceful verbalization, which may be counterproductive to conflict resolution. However, this view may indicate a Eurocentric bias, because members of some cultural groups (including AfricanAmericans) see these behaviors as appropriate in many contexts.

Integrating style reflects high concern for both the self and the other person and involves an open and direct exchange of information in an attempt to reach a solution acceptable to both parties. This style is seen as effective in most conflicts because it attempts to be fair and equitable. It assumes collaboration, empathy, objectivity, creativity, and recognition of feelings. However, it requires a lot of time and energy.

Compromising style reflects a moderate degree of concern for both the self and the other person. This style involves sharing and exchanging information in such a way that both individuals give up

356

something to find a mutually acceptable solution. Sometimes this style is less effective than the integrating approach because people feel forced to give up something they value and so have less commitment to the solution.

Obliging style describes a situation in which one person in the conflict plays down the differences and incompatibilities and emphasizes commonalities that satisfy the concerns of the other person. Obliging may be most appropriate when one individual is more concerned with the relationship itself than with specific issues. This is often true of hierarchical relationships in which one person has more status or power than the other. However, as Folger, Poole and Stutmanstate, a pattern of obliging can result in psuedosolutions, especially if one person or the other resents the constant accommodation, so the strategy can eventually backfire [9, p. 19].

Finally, avoiding style reflects, supposedly, a low concern for both the self and the other person. For instance, in the American cultural context, a person who uses this style is often viewed negatively, as attempting to withdraw, sidestep, deny, or bypass the conflict. However, in some cultural contexts, this is an appropriate strategy that, if used by both parties, may result in more harmonious relationships. For example, avoidance can allow individuals to think of some other response, especially if they have trouble “thinking on their feet” [15, p. 320]. Avoidance may also be appropriate if the issue is trivial, if the relationship itself is unimportant to one person, or if others can better manage the conflict.

There are many reasons that we tend to favor a particular conflict style in our interactions.Aprimary influence is family background; some families prefer a certain conflict style, and children come to accept this style as normal. For instance, the family may have settled conflict in a dominating way, with the person having the strongest argument (or muscle) getting his or her way.

Sometimes people try to reject the conflict styles they saw their parents using. Consider the following examples. One student, Bill, remembers hearing his parents argue long and loud, and his father often used a dominating style of conflict management. He vowed that he would never deal with conflict this way in his own family, and he has tried very hard to keep his vow.

357

It is important to recognize that people deal with conflict in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons. A word of caution is in order about conflict management styles. Conflict specialistsWilliamWilmot and Joyce Hocker warn that we should not think of preferred styles as static and set in stone. Rather, they suggest that purely individual styles really do not exist, because we are each influenced by others in interaction. Therefore, our conflict management styles are not static across settings and relationships. For example, people may use dominating styles at work and avoid conflict at home: or they may use avoiding styles at work and compromise at home. And they may use different styles with different partners. For instance, with coworkers, individuals may tend to collaborate and work through conflict issues; with the boss, they may tend to employ more avoiding strategies. In addition, our styles often change over the course of a conflict and over the life span. For example, individuals who tend to avoid conflict may learn the benefits of engaging and working through conflicts.

7.3.3 Gender, Ethnicity, and Conflict

The relationship between gender and conflict management styles is not clear. Some studies show some gender differences, and others do not. For example, in some studies investigating gender differences among American young people, women report that they are more collaborative in their styles than do men, who report themselves as being more competitive. However, in studies of older adults investigating conflict management styles in the workplace, these gender differences disappear.

The relationship between ethnicity, gender, and conflict management is even more complex. The question is whether males and females of different ethnic backgrounds prefer different ways of dealing with conflict. A researcher Mary Jane Collier investigated this issue in a study in which she asked African American, White American, and Mexican American students to describe conflicts they had with close friends and the ways they dealt with the conflicts. She also asked them what they should (and should not) have said and whether they thought that males and females handle conflict differently.

358

Collier found that male and female ethnic friends differed in their ideas about the best ways to deal with conflict. African American males and females offered generally similar descriptions of a problem-solving approach (integration style) as appropriate behavior in conflict management (one friend said, “I told him to stay in school and that I would help him study”). Another explained, “We decided together how to solve the problem” [6, p. 147]. The males tended to emphasize that appropriate arguments should be given, information should be offered, and opinions should be credible, whereas the females generally emphasized appropriate assertiveness without criticism. Some of these findings seem to contradict earlier studies comparing African American and White communication styles. These contradictions might be due to differences among the groups studied (e.g., comparing working-class AfricanAmericans and middle-class Whites). Furthermore, because these studies are based on very small samples, we should interpret their findings tentatively.

White males and females generally seemed to focus on the importance of accepting responsibility for their behavior. Males in particular mentioned the importance of being direct (they used expressions like “getting things in the open” and “say right up front”) [ibid., p. 145]. Females talked about the importance of concern for the other person and the relationship, and for situational flexibility (one woman explained, “She showed respect for my position and I showed respect for hers” [ibid., p. 146]. Females described several kinds of appropriate reinforcement of the relationship. In general, males and females in all groups described females as more compassionate and concerned with feelings, and males as more concerned with winning the conflict and being right.

It is important to remember that, whereas ethnicity and gender may be related to ways of dealing with conflict, it is inappropriate (and inaccurate) to assume that any person will behave in a particular way because of his or her ethnicity or gender. We often do not know which cultural attitudes are important to others until we do something that violates those expectations. As this example shows, jokes are not always simply jokes, but indicators of more deeply held cultural attitudes.

My intercultural conflict was between my family, being Roman Catholic, and that of my ex-boyfriend of two years, who was Jewish.

359

My family is one of those Catholic families that only really consider practicing at Christmas and Easter. I never thought that religion was a big deal until I started dating someone who was not even Christian, I had remembered overhearing my parents talk about interreligious relationships. They used to joke around with me (or so I thought) about bringing home Jewish boys from college. So at first when I started to date Shaun, I didn’t tell my parents he was Jewish until about three months into the relationship. My mother, being the outspoken one in the family, had a fit, saying that if I married a Jewish man that I would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church and basically go to hell! My dad, who isn’t much of a talker, didn’t say much, except that he never asked about Shaun, when in previous relationships he usually gave me the third degree – Dana.

7.3.4 Value Differences and Conflict Styles

Another way to understand cultural variations in intercultural conflict resolution is to look at how cultural values influence conflict management. Cultural values in individualistic societies differ from those in collectivistic societies. Individualistic societies place greater importance on the individual than on groups like the family or the work group. Individualism is often cited as the most important of European American values, as reflected in the autonomy and independence encouraged in children. For example, children in the United States are often encouraged to leave home after age 18, and older parents generally prefer to live on their own rather than with their children. In contrast, collectivistic societies often place greater importance on extended families and loyalty to groups.

Although these values have been related to national differences, they also may be true for other groups. For example, EuropeanAmericans may value individualism more than do Latinos/as, and women may value collectivism more than do men.

These contrasting values may influence communication patterns. Several studies have established that people from individualistic societies tend to be more concerned with saving their own self-esteem during conflict, to be more direct in their communication, and to use more

360