Reflection On INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT

Chapter10 [] IntercutturatConfhct 337

1. Define intelcultural conflict .

2. Define facework and identify three plimary facewo& strategies

3. List and define the five primaly and three secondary styles of conflict communication

4. Identify and discuss the conflict styles preferred by individuahstic and collectivistic cultures

5. Idenufy and discuss the conflict styles preferred by high- versus low-context cultures

6. Explain and apply the components of the contingency model of cross-cultural conflict

Imagine yourself m the following situation:

INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT

Mahatma Gandhi

Honest disagreement Js often a good sign of progress.

Aklra Abe is an internauonal exchange student from Japan who lives down the hall from you m your dorm. You have interacted with Aklra only occasionally and do not know him very well. This morning, Akira approached you to compiam that you frequently play your music so loudly that he Is unable to study or sleep. Aklra then asked if you would please stop playing your music so loudly.

What would you do m this situation? How would you resolve this conflict? Would you comply with Akira’s request? Would you argue with Akira?

Conflict, such as the one depicted above, is an inevitable part of living in a society with others. All types of human relationships–from strangers to acquaintances to intimates– experience conflict. Communication plays a paradoxical role in most conflicts because communicauon is required both to instigate conflict and to resolve it. Unfortunately, conflict is the source of much relational stress and dissolution; fortunately, the successful resolution of conflict is one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of relational sausfaction. Hence, an understanding of conflict and how to resolve it is an essential part of becoming a competent communicator, especially in your relationships with persons from other cultures.

DEFINITION OF INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT In the past 30 years, a growing body of theory and iesearch has emerged m the intercultural communication literature regarding the nature of intercultural conflict Much of this research Is based on the work of Stella Tmg-Toomey and John Oetzel) They define intercultural conflict as

the implicit ot exphcit emotional struggle between persons of different cultural commumties over perceived ol actual incompatibility of cultural ideologies and values, situational norms, goals, face-orientations, scarce resources, styles/processes,

)ntercu[tura[

conftlct The fmpLiclt

or explicit emotional

struggle between persons of different cultures over

perceived or actual

incompatibility of cultural Ideologies and values, sltuatmnal.

norms, goals, face onentatmns, scarce

resources, styles/

processes, and/or outcomes In a face-

to-face context

 

 

338 Chapter 10 m IntercuLtural.ConflictIntercultural. Communication

and/or outcomes in a face-to-face (oi mediated) context within a soclohistorical embedded system.2

Well-known lntercultmal communication scholai Young Yun Kun has developed a model of lntmcuhural conflict. Klm argues that lntelcultulal conflmt occuis at thiee interdependent and interrelated levels, mctudmg a mlclo oi individual level, an lnteime&aiy level; and a macro or societal level (see Figure 10.1).4

The miclo, ot zndividual, level of mteicultural conflmt refels to the unique attitudes, dispositions, and beliefs that each individual bnngs to the conflmt. According to Kim’s model, cognitive simpllcity/rlgl&ty refels to the degiee of mflexlbihty in the way individuals think about people fiom dlffelent cultules. Rigid, simphstic thinking includes gloss categmizanon and stereotyping (e.g., all Ameiicans ale rude, all Japanese are qmet). In-group bins lefers to the degree to which the individual is ethnocenuic

Recall from Chapter 1 that ethnocenmsm is defined as viewing one’s own group as being at the centei of evewthmg and using the standards of one’s own gloup to measure or gauge the woith of all other gioups. Insecuiity/fiustranon lefers to the degree to which the mdwidual has a high level of uncertainty about, and feat of, out-group members (e.g., they will steal our jobs) Divergent behavmr lefeis to the behavloial pattems of the individual that clearly dljÿerentlate and distance him oi her from out-group membeis For example, obviously &ffeient speech patterns or accents may ostensibly sepaiate groups from one anothei Duimg conflmt, people will often exaggerate their mannmisms and speech to accentuate then differences compared with out-gioups Because you ate upset about

Kim’s Model of IntercuLturaL ConfLict

Macro Level

° History of subjugation , Ideological or structural mequahties = Minority group strength

Intermediary Level

* Segregation/contact , Intergroup salience , Status discrepancy

Micro Level

° Cognitive simphclty/rlgtdlty • In-group bias

= Insecunty/frustratton • Dwergent behaviors

SOURCE Based on Kim, Y Y [1989] Interethnm Confl.Jct An InterdlscJphnary Overwew In J B Gÿttier {Ed 1, Annual Review of Conflict Knowledge and Conflict Resolution {Vot 1] New York GarLand, KLm, Y Y (19901 Explaining Interethmc Conflict An Interdisciplinary Overwew Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Comrnunlcatlon Assoctahon Chicago, IL

Micro Levelÿ

Akira’s complaint, you may intentionally turn up the volume on youi music. Imagine two employees worldng together, each fiom a different cultme, who have gross stereotypes of each other, are both ethnocentric, fear each other, and have highly divergent behavioral patterns Kim’s model predicts that such a situation is likely to engender conflict.5

The mtermedmry level of intercultural conflict refers to the actual location and context of the conflict. Some envuonments (e.g., neighborhoods, school, work) may be more likely than others to facilitate conflmt. Segregation and contact refer to the extent to whmh the individuals’ cultmal groups interact on a daily basis. Perhaps the most basic condition for intercultural conflict is contact between diverse cultures or ethnicitles on a day-to-day basis. Segregated wotkplaces or schools do not allow for much interaction, and components at the individual level (e.g, cognitive rigidity, m-group bias) tend to escalate to intolerable levels that facilitate intercultural conflmt. Intergroup salience refels to the observable physical and social differences between the confllcung mdwiduals. Such cultural markets include distinct physical and behavioral differences, such as race, language, and speech patterns.