Hi everyone, this post is universal to anyone. I did this topic when I was studying and I really liked it about conflict resolution. Different countries can have different styles of communication which we need to know to help resolve conflicts. This is about how taking culture into account can help resolve conflicts. I wonder do you have any thoughts. I edited my essay heavily here to get to the essential bits of this topic and tried to make it read not as such.
Have you had any experience or thoughts on the topic. Like some people have different ways they like to be greeted in communication and many autistics do as well so we should be affinity with this topic.
Your thoughts and I will post the stripped version below.
This blog post is about how taking into account of culture can help to resolve conflicts. Kevin Avruch states that increasingly in the field of conflict resolution that culture matters when it comes to resolving conflicts. To apply western standards of conflict resolution to some disputes that are not in the North can result in failure. Western models of conflict resolution are often left wanting when these models are utilised in more traditional cultures that do not have western values or in cases that arise because of some specific cultural issues. In this blog post I will argue that taking culture into account matters when it comes to resolving some conflicts in society that do not come from the North especially.
In this blog post I will critically examine what it is exactly that culture means and how it works. I will also examine what exactly the western model of conflict resolution is so to make clear just how much this approach can vary when compared to other cultural approaches in this blog post. I will show by putting culture into the frame can call for an alternative model of conflict resolution that differs from the western model. We need to take account which style of mediation may be useful when resolving conflicts especially when those involved may be not traditional and Western.
Culture definition
In conflict resolution culture can be defined as ”Culture, consists of the derivatives of experience, more or less organized, learned or created by individuals of a population, including those images or encodements and their interpretations (meanings) transmitted from past generations, from contemporaries or formed by individuals themselves”(Avruch 1991). Such a definition of culture moves us away from the idea of culture being static and such a definition expands the scope of what we consider culture to be and what it includes. Culture is just not about people that share the same ethnic or racial background and it is a mistake to think in such a way as culture goes further than that to embrace all of our social groupings so yes it can include religious groupings and this is an area that I shall look at more closely in this blog post.
Culture is a psychological and social construction. To some people their faith is central and underpins all that they do but to other people from the same background faith may not be so important. Some people like me can be in multiple cultures but these multiple cultures do not fix their identity and neither do they have to define my culture. This demonstrates that culture is not fixed. To lecturers like William Zartman culture does not matter when it comes to resolving conflicts in conflict resolution (Ramsbotham,Woodhouse,Miall 2005).
A different approach is needed in some countries
Different countries may demand different styles of communication and resolution. Communication matters and if you cannot communicate with people effectively then the chances of success in any kind of negotiation will be very slim. Raymond Cohen has pointed out that negotiators tend to be more conscious of the impact of culture when talks fail then when they succeed (Cohen 1992). This is something that we should try to prevent. Also attempting to ignore local cultures customs and norms fails in taking the complexity of culture seriously and how it is internalised by some people.
High context and low context cultures
There are also high context and low context cultures which at times may need different forms of communication tools to resolve conflict. China is a high context culture and there form of communication style is typically more non verbal and based on shared understanding and gestures such as eye contact, facial expressions and the use of body language which may carry significant weight in reaching effective communicating in this country. Low context cultures prize more direct and specific verbal communication when communicating. England is an example of a low context culture. Indirect communication is used more in traditional cultures which is often less direct in operation. Cultural differences in communication may call for a need of increased cultural awareness, education,
and immersion in the respective cultures to achieve effective communication to work towards
achieving peace.
Emic and Ethic cultures
Some traditional cultures are more emic (insider culture/member orientated to resolve) in nature and Western approaches are more etic (more led by outside observers who tend to prefer the more “formal process” and “specialist role” and intervention through a structured setting (Ausburger 1992) to resolve these conflicts. These approaches may be used to guide them.
Negotiators and mediators can draw on a repertoire of approaches according to the need and subject matter. Direct communication which uses confrontation, face to face negotiation, directness and frankness in stating demands are also seen as prized in western conflict models.
Emic approaches as said are more actor-centred and are more typically used in traditional cultures. Both of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to agree with Raymond Cohen here that “Although, we tend to think of nations conforming to a fixed negotiating style, we should again beware of viewing the question deterministically. The Western model of conflict resolution is often more etic in nature. An ethic approach is based on an analyst centred objective and approach is transcultural (Avruch 1991).
To Mohammed Abu Nimer in his article “Conflict Resolution Approaches: Western and Middle Eastern Lessons and Possibilities, face to face negotiation is important in western style conflict resolution (Nimer). David Ausburger notes that confrontation, directness, frankness in stating demands are also seen as prized in western conflict resolution models (Ausburger 1992). Western models often call for a direct method of action and they are usually more interpersonal and formal in nature. Negotiation plays a central part in conflict resolution. We should take account which style may be useful when resolving conflicts especially when those involved may be not traditional and Western.
To negotiate and mediate a dispute and not give courtesy to these differences when they are involved sometimes may lead to a protracted longer mediation period and also the potential for the mediation to collapse because of a communication breakdown between the two parties due partly to a lack of common respect and courtesy.
We are all different as people as well and myself with autism and my values I do not like people to get very close to me who I do not know and sometimes not without asking just putting their hands on my body. Let us be aware of individuality as well. Getting consent helps and I am ok usually with my hands being touched.
Summing up
In this blog post I have demonstrated how western models of conflict resolution are not universally applicable to every conflict resolution situation. Negotiation styles can vary in different cultures. I have shown how taking culture putting culture into the picture can matter and potentially help to resolve some conflicts. What is needed is to determine what form of resolution will work best. Culture matters and increasingly so in the global world that we live in today.
Have you had any experience or thoughts on the topic. Like some people have different ways they like to be greeted in communication and many autistics do as well so we should be affinity with this topic.
Your thoughts and I will post the stripped version below.
This blog post is about how taking into account of culture can help to resolve conflicts. Kevin Avruch states that increasingly in the field of conflict resolution that culture matters when it comes to resolving conflicts. To apply western standards of conflict resolution to some disputes that are not in the North can result in failure. Western models of conflict resolution are often left wanting when these models are utilised in more traditional cultures that do not have western values or in cases that arise because of some specific cultural issues. In this blog post I will argue that taking culture into account matters when it comes to resolving some conflicts in society that do not come from the North especially.
In this blog post I will critically examine what it is exactly that culture means and how it works. I will also examine what exactly the western model of conflict resolution is so to make clear just how much this approach can vary when compared to other cultural approaches in this blog post. I will show by putting culture into the frame can call for an alternative model of conflict resolution that differs from the western model. We need to take account which style of mediation may be useful when resolving conflicts especially when those involved may be not traditional and Western.
Culture definition
In conflict resolution culture can be defined as ”Culture, consists of the derivatives of experience, more or less organized, learned or created by individuals of a population, including those images or encodements and their interpretations (meanings) transmitted from past generations, from contemporaries or formed by individuals themselves”(Avruch 1991). Such a definition of culture moves us away from the idea of culture being static and such a definition expands the scope of what we consider culture to be and what it includes. Culture is just not about people that share the same ethnic or racial background and it is a mistake to think in such a way as culture goes further than that to embrace all of our social groupings so yes it can include religious groupings and this is an area that I shall look at more closely in this blog post.
Culture is a psychological and social construction. To some people their faith is central and underpins all that they do but to other people from the same background faith may not be so important. Some people like me can be in multiple cultures but these multiple cultures do not fix their identity and neither do they have to define my culture. This demonstrates that culture is not fixed. To lecturers like William Zartman culture does not matter when it comes to resolving conflicts in conflict resolution (Ramsbotham,Woodhouse,Miall 2005).
A different approach is needed in some countries
Different countries may demand different styles of communication and resolution. Communication matters and if you cannot communicate with people effectively then the chances of success in any kind of negotiation will be very slim. Raymond Cohen has pointed out that negotiators tend to be more conscious of the impact of culture when talks fail then when they succeed (Cohen 1992). This is something that we should try to prevent. Also attempting to ignore local cultures customs and norms fails in taking the complexity of culture seriously and how it is internalised by some people.
High context and low context cultures
There are also high context and low context cultures which at times may need different forms of communication tools to resolve conflict. China is a high context culture and there form of communication style is typically more non verbal and based on shared understanding and gestures such as eye contact, facial expressions and the use of body language which may carry significant weight in reaching effective communicating in this country. Low context cultures prize more direct and specific verbal communication when communicating. England is an example of a low context culture. Indirect communication is used more in traditional cultures which is often less direct in operation. Cultural differences in communication may call for a need of increased cultural awareness, education,
and immersion in the respective cultures to achieve effective communication to work towards
achieving peace.
Emic and Ethic cultures
Some traditional cultures are more emic (insider culture/member orientated to resolve) in nature and Western approaches are more etic (more led by outside observers who tend to prefer the more “formal process” and “specialist role” and intervention through a structured setting (Ausburger 1992) to resolve these conflicts. These approaches may be used to guide them.
Negotiators and mediators can draw on a repertoire of approaches according to the need and subject matter. Direct communication which uses confrontation, face to face negotiation, directness and frankness in stating demands are also seen as prized in western conflict models.
Emic approaches as said are more actor-centred and are more typically used in traditional cultures. Both of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to agree with Raymond Cohen here that “Although, we tend to think of nations conforming to a fixed negotiating style, we should again beware of viewing the question deterministically. The Western model of conflict resolution is often more etic in nature. An ethic approach is based on an analyst centred objective and approach is transcultural (Avruch 1991).
To Mohammed Abu Nimer in his article “Conflict Resolution Approaches: Western and Middle Eastern Lessons and Possibilities, face to face negotiation is important in western style conflict resolution (Nimer). David Ausburger notes that confrontation, directness, frankness in stating demands are also seen as prized in western conflict resolution models (Ausburger 1992). Western models often call for a direct method of action and they are usually more interpersonal and formal in nature. Negotiation plays a central part in conflict resolution. We should take account which style may be useful when resolving conflicts especially when those involved may be not traditional and Western.
To negotiate and mediate a dispute and not give courtesy to these differences when they are involved sometimes may lead to a protracted longer mediation period and also the potential for the mediation to collapse because of a communication breakdown between the two parties due partly to a lack of common respect and courtesy.
We are all different as people as well and myself with autism and my values I do not like people to get very close to me who I do not know and sometimes not without asking just putting their hands on my body. Let us be aware of individuality as well. Getting consent helps and I am ok usually with my hands being touched.
Summing up
In this blog post I have demonstrated how western models of conflict resolution are not universally applicable to every conflict resolution situation. Negotiation styles can vary in different cultures. I have shown how taking culture putting culture into the picture can matter and potentially help to resolve some conflicts. What is needed is to determine what form of resolution will work best. Culture matters and increasingly so in the global world that we live in today.
Last edited:
