The purpose of this article is to shed light on such questions from an academic perspective by focusing especially on religious identity. It is especially crucial to understand identity as it is a widely used concept in social scientific academic disciplines in explaining the causes of many prominent social and cultural phenomena that take place in the world.

Identity is derived from group membership. In this respect, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) equate identity to one’s belonging to a group. Further, Hofstede et al. (2010) state that identity is visible, it is commonly rooted in language (such as Latin American identity deriving from Spanish) or religious affiliation (such as Muslim identity deriving from Islam), and can be differentiated by shared symbols, heroes, and rituals that are part of observable practices but not necessarily the values of a nation. Identity is not a core part of national cultures; it is explicit, and it can change.

An individual can have multiple identities. For example, one can identify herself as a woman, Jewish, and American. Multiple identities are dependent on culture, especially on the individualist – collectivist cultural dimension. Individualistic environments allow multiple identities and permit identity shifts. On the other hand, in collectivistic cultures, one’s group identity is mainly based on one group, which may be ethnic, religious, community-based, or national (Hofstede et al. 2010).

People who share similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds may have different group identities and fight with each other, such as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (Hofstede et al. 2010). In this respect, Pruitt and Kim (2004) posit that groups with strong group identity are the ones whose members are highly identified with the group and they are more likely to be involved in conflict. Accordingly, members of such groups feel the suffering of the fellow group members deeply. Group identity is especially strong among people who have historical ethnic or religious ties and perceive that they are being illegitimately deprived of their basic needs (Pruitt and Kim 2004). For example, Muslims in different areas of the world, including places as distant as the United States and Indonesia, can protest at the same time when they perceive injustice against Egyptian Muslims.

From another perspective, in explaining the changes taking place in the world after the Cold War, Huntington (2007) states that social, cultural, and economic modernization processes have disrupted people’s identity sources in the second half of the twentieth century as people moved from countryside to the city. Religion has provided the meaning and purpose as the new source of identity that people seek, hence a new revival of religion and de-secularization began. For example, Orthodoxy in Slavic republics and Islam in Turkic republics of the former Soviet Union resurged, filling the gap of the communist ideology as people identified themselves more and more with their authentic religions that were suppressed by Communism (which was the main source of identity in the Soviet Union).

Similarly, in Turkey, in the 1990s, the ultra-secularist state-driven Kemalist identity was challenged with the revival of the Muslim identity. In this respect, Huntington (2007) argues that psychological, emotional and social needs of people caught in the traumas of modernization are best satisfied by a global religious revival. In the case of Muslim communities, Islam provided the answer to these needs, causing the Islamic Resurgence. According to Huntington (2007), the recent Islamic Resurgence is “the latest phase in the adjustment of Islamic civilization to the West, an effort to find the ‘solution’ not in Western ideologies but in Islam. It embodies acceptance of modernity, rejection of Western culture, and recommitment to Islam as the guide to life in the modern world.” Similarly, Hunt and Aslandogan (2007, 96) posit that by the early twentieth century, Muslims perceived themselves as “part of intellectual, political, and social movements that sought either a restoration and renewal of the Islamic civilization of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a return to the purity of the period of Muhammad and his immediate successors, or even a thoroughgoing ‘modernization’ of Islam.”

The resurgence was not limited to the Islamic world. In South Korea, a traditionally Buddhist nation, where only one to three percent of the population was Christian in 1950, Christianity spread. Presbyterians and Catholics were at least 30 percent of South Korea’s population in the 1980s (Huntington 2007). In the case of Latin America, “The number of Protestants in Latin America increased from roughly 7 million in 1960 to about 50 million in 1990” (Huntington 2007, 1779) which according to Huntington (2007, 1783) is “a major net increase in religious commitment and participation” rather than a replacement of one religion with another. According to Huntington, such changes in South Korea and Latin America reflect the ability of Protestantism in meeting the psychological, emotional, and social needs of people caught in the traumas of modernization more than Catholicism and Buddhism. Hence, worldwide identities became more aligned with religion due to psychological and spiritual needs satisfaction in the midst of the complexities of modernization and change, which can create confusion.

From the theories of conflict perspective, identity can be used to explain many of the conflicts in the world. According to Deutsch, Coleman and Marcus (2006), basic needs such as security, identity, recognition of identity, freedom, distributive justice, and participation are seen as the essential elements for human development. Social identity theory asserts that the group that one belongs to is part of his identity, and one tends to view the group favorably to reinforce his self-respect. Thus, one perceives an attack on his in-group as an assault on his self-worth (Pruitt and Kim 2004). Since identity groups serve as the primary vehicle through which these needs are expressed and satisfied, intergroup conflict takes place when one group’s basic needs are frustrated or denied (Deutsch et al. 2006). Accordingly, intergroup conflict increases cohesiveness within the competing groups, primarily through the effects of threat. A perception of threat plays a key role by heightening in-group solidarity in addition to increasing hostility toward the threatening out-group, especially if there is a history of antagonism between the groups (Deutsch et al. 2006).

Furthermore, identity groups exist in organizations and communities. Wherever groups gather around a common social identity, if needs for recognition of that identity or for dignity, safety, or control are obstructed, conflict is highly likely. In this respect, professional groups, scientific disciplines, political parties, government departments, lobby groups, businesses, sports teams, street gangs – all carry a sense of group identity that shapes their dealings with other groups (Deutsch et al. 2006).

Based on social identity theory, since an individual’s self-esteem is linked to group membership, a positive self-concept requires favorable evaluations of one’s group and discriminatory comparisons with other groups (Deutsch et al. 2006). For example, ethnic groups exhibit ethnocentrism and national groups exhibit nationalism-pride and loyalty to their own nation, while defaming other nations.

According to Huntington (2007), in fault line wars, casual and multiple identities often transform and become more focused and hardened. With increased violence, communal conflicts become identity wars and the initial issues at stake tend to get redefined more exclusively as “us” against “them” as group cohesion and commitment are enhanced. With political leaders’ narratives emphasizing and capitalizing on ethnic and religious loyalties, civilization consciousness strengthens with respect to other identities. An example is the war in Bosnia where the common Slavic or Yugoslav ethnic identity diminished, and Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox identities came to the front among the three fighting groups as nationalist political leaders built their agendas on ethnocentrism and religious differences.

Nevertheless, religious identity can take a constructive form and play an important role in peace building (Deutsch et al. 2006). Accordingly, when faithfulness is a source of extending compassion, justice, tolerance, and respect to other people regardless of their faith, it can prevent violence and help build peace. In places where religious diversity is celebrated, religious identity can become the mediating factor for understanding and cooperation. Faith based diplomacy is an example where religious identity is the opening point for building trust and starting dialogue (Deutsch et al. 2006). Parties involved in interfaith – intercultural dialogue can attain a better understanding of their own religious or cultural identity and how it acts to form their perspective of the world and others. Therefore, interfaith dialogue is not only about learning about others’ faith traditions, but it is also exploration of one’s own identity. It also helps develop respect and understanding of various traditions as parties break down barriers of misunderstanding and build trusting relationships (Deutsch et al. 2006).

Another area where religious identities can foster bonds with others is humanitarian relief work. One can capitalize on her religious beliefs in protecting or enhancing human life regardless of ethnic or religious identity of the needy. The Kimse Yok Mu foundation in Turkey is based on such concepts that transcend identity based boundaries. Furthermore, Hunt and Aslandogan (2007) point out that education can become the vehicle through which a higher sense of identity can be developed to end divisions and frictions over artificial differences. Hence, the role of education for promoting a universal view of humanity and for the development of understanding and tolerance to secure respect for the rights of others is tremendous. One such educational endeavor is brought to life through the implementation of the annual Turkish Olympiads in Turkey, where identity based differences are minimized and universal values are emphasized around speaking a common language among students from more than 140 countries.

In conclusion, understanding the concept of identity can be especially important for international development, disaster relief, interfaith – intercultural dialogue, and education work in differentiating why and how various groups of people around the world identify themselves with various factors such as religion, ethnicity, language, and race. In the international development domain, it is vital to work with identity-based sensitivities in mind, as identity underlies many conflicts around the world. In the interfaith – intercultural dialogue domain, on the other hand, different identities provide the basis for much needed cooperation for a brighter future for all.

References

• Deutsch Morton, Peter T. Coleman, and Eric C. Marcus. 2006. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Kindle Edition.
• Hofstede, Geert, Gert J. Hofstede and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures And Organizations: Software of The Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Hunt, Robert, and Yuksel Aslandogan. 2007. Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World. Kindle Edition.
• Huntington, Samuel P. 2007. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
• Pruitt, Dean G. and Sung Hee Kim. 2004. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Imagine two children fighting over an orange. Not knowing what the other one is interested in, one of them aspires to eat the orange, and the other desires to make a cake with the orange peel (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981). There are several different scenarios that they may end up with when they finally stop quarrelling over who found the orange first, and decide to end the dispute. In the first scenario, they simply split the orange into two equal halves. The first child peels the orange and eats the fruit and throws away the peel, while the second one throws away the fruit and uses the peel to make the cake. Both parties compromise; however, effectively half of the orange gets wasted, and both parties actually lose something. In the second scenario, one of the children forcefully takes the whole orange with threats and physical force, while the other capitulates. The dispute ends with one party winning, and the other losing. The forceful one may seem to be victorious at first sight, but loses his friend’s trust, damaging a valuable relationship in the long term. In the third scenario, the children decide to calm down and listen to each other, and understand why each one wants the orange, and resolve the dispute in a way that fulfills both their needs. One of them gets the whole orange peel, which is enough to make the cake, and the other gets the whole fruit to eat. Nothing is wasted, and everyone gets the best they could. Both parties win.

Looking at the orange sharing example, are there lessons here that we can learn and apply to the broader world? For starters, I think it’s clear that dialogue naturally leads to collaboration, and collaboration helps to attain the optimal resolution, whereas other approaches to dispute resolution are likely to produce sub-optimal results for both parties. Parties who collaborate gain power with others. Just as in the case of the last orange sharing scenario, parties work together to attain maximum gains for all. In contrast, when one party declares victory by exerting power over the other, similar to the episode where the child grasps the orange by force, this leaves behind a legacy of injustice and mistrust, for one party has deprived the other of his share. In the long term, future dealings will be very difficult. When the parties in a dispute use tactics of coercion, threat, or deception in a way that exacerbates their power differences, not only is the trust between the parties damaged, but they also become suspicious and hostile of one another (Deutsch, et al., 2006). Even if the disputing parties can reach a settlement in the end, often the underlying interests of neither party can be truly addressed, or one party is at a serious disadvantage. Overall, since the root causes remain unaddressed, the dispute can manifest itself again sooner or later, in some other shape or form. Moreover, the competitive nature of the process brings material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relationships, and exacerbating negative psychological effects (Deutsch, 2006), as there are losers in this process. The true winners are the ones who choose the way of dialogue and collaboration.

The story of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and his creative idea for settling a dispute that occurred during the rebuilding of the Ka‘ba in Mecca (before his prophethood) brilliantly exemplifies a collaborative agreement: when the sacred Black Stone was to be put in place, the leaders of several tribes quarreled about who should have the honor to place it. They could not resolve the dispute by themselves and decided to pick the first person who entered Ka‘ba as an arbitrator. Acting as the neutral third party to the dispute, the Prophet’s idea was to place the stone on a cloak and the heads of each tribe would take a side of the cloak and together carry it in; hence each could have the honor of putting the stone in place (Satha-Anand, 1998; Saritoprak, 2010; Abu-Nimer, 2000; Coleman & Deutsch, 2006). This innovative resolution, where all the parties got what they wanted, produced no losers. Everybody won as the resolution was compatible with their underlying interests. The historical episode not only highlights the importance of creativity, and the important role of a wise and neutral third party in dispute resolution, but also demonstrates that even difficult disputes can be overcome through collaborative problem solving. When parties in a dispute can identify and frame the issue at hand as a mutual problem to be solved, they can work together to achieve a common goal. They separate emotions from the problem. They are attentive to each others’ needs, listen to each other to understand each others’ underlying interests, and they creatively brainstorm on alternative solutions to address those interests (Bolton, 1986; Deutsch, Coleman & Marcus, 2006).

As the Prophet’s peace building skills were well-known, the leaders of the city of Medina invited him and his followers to their city to build peace among rival tribes after his prophet hood (Saritoprak, 2010; Abu-Nimer, 2000). The tribes of Medina had been fighting for centuries. As a visionary, he was able to implement a collaborative treaty (the Charter of Medina is the first constitution created by the Prophet) that ensured the rights of all inhabitants of Medina, which consisted of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and pagans. The Charter of Medina can also be highlighted as an example of interfaith dialogue in action. The Prophet often reminded his followers about the significance of solidarity and unity between Muslims and non-Muslims (Abu-Nimer, 2000). A peaceful society was successfully established in Medina and existed as a single inclusive community. The same peaceful model was later extended to Mecca.

The civilization that flourished in Medina was built on two main principles. These are namely “the mutual cooperation” and “the loving interrelatedness of the creation” that puts forward “collaborative action” and “solidarity” (Saritoprak, 2010). The mutual cooperation of creatures on earth can be observed in all the physical events around us. For example, the elements cooperate with each other to form the matter. The red and white corpuscles in the blood work together in protecting and feeding the body. The cells in the body function in cooperation. Rain helps plants to grow, plants help animals to grow, and they both help human beings to grow. The loving interrelatedness of the creation emphasizes that all members of creation are brothers and sisters, and rejects all forms of bias, such as racism and nationalism, and prioritizes communal solidarity that includes both Muslims and non-Muslims.

As the Charter of Medina illustrates, for a collaborative resolution, the parties in a dispute must team up and empower each other in order to find the most creative solution that best satisfies all parties. They work on implementing a plan that identifies the roles of each party and commits to positive outcomes for all. Due to the cooperative nature of the process, the parties have more resources, more diversity in ideas, and more social support for the problem solving work involved (Coleman & Deutsch, 2006). Furthermore, cooperation brings greater group productivity, more favorable interpersonal relations, better psychological health, and higher self-esteem (Deutsch, 2006). There are no losers in this process, and everybody wins.

You may question the applicability of collaborative dispute resolution and win-win results. They may sound too idealistic, and because we live in an increasingly materialistic, self-centered, and egoistic culture, not realistic for our current world. People tend to be under the control of their carnal selves, ignore the needs of the others, or even take it to the point of dehumanizing the other, especially during stressful situations. Emotions such as anger and humiliation may take over common sense, and may make it very difficult to be constructive. Therefore, contention may seem inevitable.

However, as human beings, we have the gift of conscience that can help us defeat our carnal selves and attain win-win results, regardless of the extent of the conflict. The voice of our conscience would encourage us to listen with empathy, and to respect the basic human needs of the other party, regardless of who we are dealing with. It would encourage us to be patient, tolerant, and loving. Our conscience, in a sense, can act as the “inner” neutral third party that can remind us of the basic tenets of humanity (Ury, 1999, cited in Moix, 2006). All major faiths share the virtues of compassion, love, tolerance, respect for human dignity, and value the sacredness of human life; all these things also relate to the development of our conscience. These common values have contributed to the international human rights standards, ethical norms, and humanitarian laws, as well as the philosophy and practice of peacemaking (Moix, 2006). Emphasizing such spiritual teachings for the good of mankind in general, regardless of religion or ethnicity, is crucial when aspirations consume people, and drive them to commit atrocities. In this respect, interfaith dialogue can help strengthen the possibility of constructive resolutions. If disputes grow and turn into conflicts involving atrocities, faith leaders can act as the “outer” neutral third parties to mediate and remind people to draw on their faiths rather than their emotions. Especially, if the leaders engage in a strong interfaith dialogue network that they can mobilize; many disputes involving people of multiple faiths can be eliminated before they can grow, whether these disputes are at the interpersonal or intergroup level. Examples of successful peace building through interfaith dialogue exist around the conflict regions of the world. Consider the collective action and advocacy in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Israel – Palestine (Abu-Nimer, 2008), as well as in Turkey, through the efforts of Journalists and Writers Foundation.

Essentially, if the parties in a dispute can use the power of collaborative problem solving to produce beneficial alternatives for all, they can attain the creative atmosphere to expand the range of alternatives for positive change and growth (Coleman & Deutsch, 2006).With authenticity, respect, and love, the parties can easily attain constructive resolution, and there is chance to reach the optimal solution where positive outcomes – such as strengthening relationships, and improving psychological health and productivity – are prevalent, as opposed to feelings of distress, resentment, and alienation resulting from other alternatives (Bolton, 1986).

In sum, if the parties in a dispute can approach the resolution process with positive intentions, they are more likely to achieve collaborative problem solving which will produce beneficial alternatives for all. In parallel with the philosophy of Yunus Emre (the 13th century Sufi master) who once said, “We love the Created because of the Creator,” the key is to start with love and tolerance by prioritizing human well-being. If we can use the power of our “inner” neutral third parties, difficult problems and disputes are likely to resolve naturally.

Alptekin Kavi is an electrical engineer and designs computer chips at a high-technology company. He lives in Superior, Colorado.

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. (2000-2001). A framework for nonviolence and peacebuilding in Islam. Journal of Law and Religion, 15(1/2), 217-265.
• Abu-Nimer, M. (2008). The role of religious peacebuilding in traumatized societies. In Hart, B. (Ed.), Peacebuilding in traumatized societies (pp. 239-257). The United States of America: University Press of America.
• Bolton, R. (1986). People skills (pp. 232-257), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. (Original work published 1979).
• Coleman, P. T. (2006). Power and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 120-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint
• Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (2006). Some guidelines for developing a creative approach to conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 402-413). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 23-42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (Ed.). (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1981).
• Moix, B. (2006). Matters of faith: Religion, conflict, and conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 582-601). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Nursi, S. The Rays from Risale-i Nur collection, (pp. 19). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/13667249/The-Rays-From-Risalei-Nur-Collection
• Saritoprak, Z. (2010). Fethullah Gulen’s theology of peacebuilding. In Esposito, J. L., & Yilmaz, I. (Eds.), Islam and peacebuilding (pp. 169-187). New York: Blue Dome Press.
• Satha-Anand, C. “Three Prophets’ Nonviolent Actions: Case Stories from the Lives of the Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad.” In Chaiwat Satha-Anand and Michael True (eds.), The Frontiers of Nonviolence. Honolulu: International Peace Research Association, 1998.
• Ury, W. Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Cultural differences have a potential to trigger conflicts at all levels, and the response each society gives to these conflicts depend on what they hold most dear as a foundational norm: independent existence of individuals or social interdependence. This calls for awareness in differences and discussion to benefit from cultural diversity.

Michael was having a problem with his neighbor next door. He decided to seek advice from his coworkers on the issue. Paul suggested that he express the problem openly right away, and, if that wouldn’t help, to take the neighbor to the court. Akihiro, on the other hand, warned him not to get too serious, and recommended him to write a letter which talks about their good memories in the past and how pleasant their neighborhood was. The backup plan in this case would be to invite a mutually respected neighbor of theirs to mediate the situation.

Of course, Michael has many other options to address the given problem. Yet, it is interesting to note the differences between the suggestions of the two coworkers. One party is focused on the issue per se and pursues a direct approach; whereas the other is concerned about the relationship and follows indirect/accommodating means to handle the situation. This article is intended to provide a better understanding of these two main approaches in conflicting situations. Since the responses to unease are generally situational, we may not judge whether any of the resolution efforts are good or bad, but rather, look closely on their rationale respectively.

Cultures differ on various aspects of life. Naturally, the approach of their members to conflict will also vary depending on the value they place on issues of interest and dominant cultural characteristics. A close examination of these features in a given society will give an idea on how its members would respond to conflicting situations in general. Given the growing interconnectedness of societies today, such knowledge of cultural tendencies might help in the development of strategies for conflict resolution and prevention.

Societies that promote independent existence of individuals are referred to as individualistic, and those which assume a great deal of social interdependence are grouped as collectivistic cultures.¹ Prior to discussing responses to conflict in these two types of cultures, it may be better to highlight some examples of their interpretations which will provide hints about their foundational norms.

He who hesitates is lost. (American expression)

Strike while the iron is hot. (American expression)

More haste, less speed. (Chinese expression)

A deliberate inaction is better than a blind action. (Chinese expression)

Different cultures may have different viewpoints about the same issue. This affects the responses of their members and the methods they favor in various situations. Existing theories in social sciences, which generally reflect social values of individualism and autonomy, may be inadequate in societies that do not share the same values and foundational norms, and vice versa. Such a cross-cultural analysis requires an understanding of the prevalent cultural values and norms in a given society.¹ These shared values, through which cultures develop and continue, are communicated in a variety of ways. One technique that commonly appears is the use of proverbs or sayings, and such quotes throughout the commentary will provide a general idea about some differing characteristics of these two cultural approaches.

Rather than criticizing or promoting any specific cultural aspect, this piece aims to discuss another dimension of multicultural approach to serve to break the stereotyped images (if any) about different cultures, and to help accept everybody as they are in a world of cultural diversity. Once we have a broad picture, we will further look into how interpersonal conflict is handled, and conclude with some overarching suggestions to foster mutual understanding in cases of unease.

Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. (American expression)

If you congregate, you live. If you scatter, you die. (Korean proverb)

One who leaves the herd, gets snatched by the wolf. (Turkish proverb)

One palm makes no applause. (Chinese proverb)

Two widely held worldviews have become evident in the cross-cultural literature as variables on which most cultures vary: individualism which objectifies the self, and collectivism which submerges the self to emphasize the group. A middle course in the de bate between those who claim the primacy of society and those who emphasize the primal significance of the individual would state that there is no society without an individual; and also that no individual can survive without society.² These concepts do not necessarily form opposite poles and may coexist due to the enormous intercultural mix, yet one approach may still have dominance to the other in a given culture.³

“The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America.” (Marilyn vos Savant)

“It is hard to be an individual in Japan.” (Haruki Murakami)

In individualistic societies, a person is an autonomous entity defined by a somewhat distinctive set of attributes, qualities, or processes; and these internal attributes determine the behavior. Yet, in collectivistic societies, a person is an interdependent entity who is part of the encompassing social relationships. This is not to say that a person in such a society lacks unique attributes, but rather that these are not primary forces that guide the behavior. In such societies, behavior is a consequence of being responsive to others and origins of behaviors are relationships and social harmony.³

He who converses not knows nothing. (English proverb)

He, who knows, does not speak. He, who speaks, does not know. (Lao Tzu)

In Western cultures, a highly verbal individual is perceived more positively, whereas in Eastern cultures perceptions for highly verbal individuals may not be that positive. Traditionally, communication apprehension has been attributed to a weak sense of identity and is viewed as a deficiency; but on the contrary, this reticence may be due to politeness or a tendency to preserve harmony in collectivistic cultures, depending on the social context.

Stand up for your own rights. (American expression)

Unless you blow your own horn, who will? (American expression)

Once you preach, the point is gone. (Zen phrase)

Mature rice plants bow down lower. (Korean expression)

According to individualistic point of view, communicators can get things done by being assertive. On the other hand, from the collectivistic standpoint, people are expected to preserve group identity and may be discouraged from asserting themselves as individuals. Therefore, it will not be a true assumption to attribute this lack of assertiveness to some negative traits such as low self-esteem, shyness, disinterest, or ignorance.³

Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution

“The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions.” (Nhat Hanh)

Keeping all the above examples in mind, now let’s briefly compare and contrast responses to conflict in individualistic and collectivistic societies:

Since individuals’ self-articulated interests are of utmost importance, individualistic perspective frames conflict as the divergence of interests or issues, which limits the focus of solution efforts solely to reconciling the differences in interests between parties. Yet in collectivistic cultures, social harmony is a critical aspiration and community involvement is likely even in interpersonal matters. Then, a deeper and wider analysis that will address the concerns of both types of approaches should better view conflict as a situation and place the situation to the heart of any resolution endeavor.¹

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” (Joseph Conrad)

The one who raises his/her voice has already lost. (Japanese proverb)

Members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct/dominating/prompt communication styles, since they deem open discussion as the best way to deal with their interpersonal problems. On the other hand, individuals in interdependent societies are less likely to “express negative emotions (such as anger) to confront each other, and to use verbal aggressiveness and open discussion in conflict situations. They may avoid reactions to their relational problems that can potentially cause further conflict”. Among them, the stress is not so much upon the individual and his/her interests, but on the maintenance of the collectivity and the continuation of harmonious relationships; conflict is viewed as damaging to social fabric and relational harmony, so it should be avoided as much as possible. This naturally leads to the adoption of high compromising and avoiding behaviors and a relatively low preference for competing and assertive postures which emphasize the value they place on maintaining social harmony rather than personal interests in conflict interactions.³

“Peace is not absence of conflict; it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” (Ronald Reagan)

There is a natural tendency to avoid conflicts as much as possible. While it is a major strategy to preserve harmonious relationships in Eastern cultures, Western societies may view accommodation efforts as giving up critical values and personal rights. Furthermore, according to the Western approach, people will prefer to avoid conflict only if their stake in an issue is not high enough to get involved, whereas collectivist cultures actually utilize it as a social remedy.³

In collectivistic societies, “understanding is seen not as the result of putting meaning into words, but rather as the greater understanding of shared perspective, expectations, and intimacy”, and avoidance is utilized as a strategy to handle the conflict. Besides expressing the discomfort indirectly/nonverbally in a polite and educating way, non-confrontational communication modes in problematic situations include, but are not limited to: “(a) the use of management to prevent a conflict before it happens, (b) expression of conflict emotions like anger or frustration by non-communication, such as ignorance or silence, (c) pretense of being harmonious in peoples’ presence, even though parties are actually avoiding each other, (d) management of conflict using a third party, (e) tendency of directing accusations against oneself.”³

Cultural differences in third party intervention

“The Believers are but brothers; so make peace and reconciliation between your brothers… ”⁴

How, when, and why a third party interferes has been the central focus of conflict resolution studies. Models on interpersonal conflict that assume a great deal of individual autonomy and privacy in interpersonal matters hardly speak about engaging one’s social network into a conflict, however interpersonal conflict intervention in a collectivistic setting will not take place only between contending individuals and the intervener, but is likely to engage other entities (e.g. extended family members) almost in any given conflict. This involvement of others, with the purpose of securing, improving or sustaining a resolution, can be added strength for conflict intervention and resolution.¹

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” (Paulo Freire)

Western literature on interpersonal conflict intervention generally undermines the adjustment of the involvement style depending on the stage of the disagreement. However in collectivistic societies, “third parties are expected to function in a reconciliatory mode, unless clear injustice or deviance takes place. In this case, third parties should get actively involved in restoring justice and eliminating deviance before returning to the reconciliatory role.” Consultation may be utilized “when relationship issues (perception and attitudes) are not suitable for mediation, and to help parties clarify their underlying needs (security, or identity for example) and interests tied to such needs. Mediation, on the other hand, aims at negotiating certain substantive issues, based on a clear understanding of relationship issues and parties’ own needs and interests.”¹

Adhering to the common good while not favoring any of the parties has good intentions, yet the mediator may face difficulties in modern diverse societies, where notions of common good may be too diverse and vague; focus being on the individual. Material resources are often the codes used, thus legal procedures are vital parts of the resolution in these societies, and mediators are expected to be professionals who are knowledgeable of legal procedures. Thus, actions in a resolution process are task-oriented. Conversely in collectivistic societies, where the main focus is on social harmony and social norms/values form the basis of a solution, mediators are generally seniors (in terms of age or hierarchy) who are knowledgeable of cultural norms. Some codes mainly used by interveners in these cultures include honor, dignity, unity, future of the next generations, religious values, and tradition of forgiveness.^1,5

Speaking of religion and its role in conflict, one’s voluntary sacrifice from his/her rights in some conflicting situations, repelling evil with what is better,⁶ and forgiveness has been encouraged for thousands of years by major world religions.⁷ “Adherents of these religions have claimed that forgiveness yields numerous emotional and spiritual benefits, and can dramatically transform one’s life.”⁸ Hence, it may be useful to explore their resources, which are rich with conflict intervention principles, values and models, in a way that would prepare them for contemporary practice. For instance, it is stated that reconciling a dispute between two parties is a charity,9 and that “kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury.”¹⁰

The most beneficial approach for the involved parties in a conflict situation would be an attempt to address fully the concerns of both parties and to find mutually satisfactory solutions to the cause of the conflict. This collaborative approach is of utmost importance and most viable, particularly when the issues are critical and maintaining an ongoing relationship is important. For an effective assistance, third parties involved in mediation processes should carefully study the needs and values of contending parties and have cultural awareness in order to provide mutually satisfactory resolution options regardless of the society they operate.

Considering that disagreements could be resolved much easily when parties are aware of corresponding needs/values and interests/concerns, getting to know one another would be an important basis for any resolution endeavor. Therefore, the more we exchange ideas without prejudice, the more we’ll understand each other. Although some disagreements yield positive outcomes and new ideas, intense conflicts generally drain energy and resources. Hence, it is heartening to observe that peace studies such as conflict resolution are blossoming, despite some scholars expecting a “clash of civilizations” and some claiming that we are at the “end of history.” Contrary to the arguments that define life as a series of struggles for limited resources, this relatively new field of social sciences will help humanity make the best out of its potential and reach a better state of living. Comprehensive resolutions which are globally applicable to disagreements in-between individuals, organizations, or nations overall, call for good deeds, positive motives, and pure intentions without self-interest. Tolerance, forgiveness, altruism, compassion, submission to ethical/moral codes, fairness, openness of hearts and minds, and welcoming people as they encompass some of the universal means to cure conflicts at various levels.

References

1. Abdalla, Amr. 2000. “Principles of Islamic Interpersonal Conflict Intervention: A Search within Islam and Western Literature.” Journal of Law & Religion 15, no. 1. 151-184.

2. Nasr, Seyyed H. 2002. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

3. Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

4. Qur’an, 49:10.

5. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions.” Peace and Change 21, no. 1. 22-40.

6. Qur’an, 41:34.

7. For some of the Qur’anic verses on interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation not mentioned in the text, the reader may refer to 2:280; 3:134, 4:128, 135, 149; 24:22; 25:63; and 42:37, 40, 43.

8. McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen. 2000. Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Bukhari, Sulh, 11; Muslim, Zakat, 52.

10. Qur’an, 2:263.

Approximately three decades ago, the Camp David Accord was signed between Egypt and Israel. Israel’s position was to retain the Egyptian land it had claimed in order to protect itself. Egypt’s position was that Israel must completely withdraw from Egyptian land. The positions both parties brought to the table were much too rigid to find any common ground. Israel’s interest was that its borders be protected from hostile neighbors. Egypt’s interest was that Egyptian land belonged to Egypt. The negotiated settlement was a 10-mile demilitarized zone on Israel’s border with Egypt- protecting Israel but owned by Egypt, with Egyptian flags flying.2

Obviously, conflict is not limited to international disputes only, and may well take place at various sublevels. Organizations may have different positions or interests on any given issue that would yield to different perspectives. Even at a grassroots level, like between friends or within a family, viewpoints possessed by individuals may not be similar in nature at all times. Each and every entity, ranging from nations to individuals, may have a unique perception of events, therefore their explanations and opinions may differ significantly.

People who are frequently involved in conflicts are generally labeled as “troublemakers” or “bad apples,” however a discomfort may simply arise due to personal differences, deficiency of information, misunderstanding, or incompatibility of priorities, rather than personal defects. Another reason for tension might be resource scarcity: As a tradition suggests, Mawlana Jalaladdin Rumi, the famous scholar and renowned poet of the 13th century, and one of his disciples were passing by two dogs that were cheerfully playing with one another. His student comments: “Look what good friends they are.” Rumi replies: “Throw a bone in-between and observe.”

Deviations may surface from time to time, since differences of beliefs/interests are inevitable and legitimate. Our values are shaped by means of various parameters such as family background, level of education, span of experience, etc. Also, personal characteristics and culture affect tolerance for disagreement and personal needs. As a response to the conflict, altruistic-nurturing individuals tend to press for harmony by accommodating the demands of the other party; assertive-directive personalities tend to challenge the opposition by using the forcing approach; and analyzing-autonomizing personalities attempt to resolve the problem rationally (see Figure 1).

Therefore, it is natural that individuals’ interpretations of events and expectations about relationships would vary considerably. However, incompatibility of these personal values and needs may be quite difficult to resolve and may lead to some unease, particularly when the reactions are highly emotional.3 “Like a fly’s wing covering the eye conceals a mountain, so too, due to the veil of hatred, man conceals virtues as great as a mountain due to one evil like a fly’s wing.”4 Disagreements can be viewed as embarrassing, distressing, chaotic, and as a deviance from the group identity, and people generally prefer to avoid them. On the contrary, they may be viewed as valuable when they provide an opportunity for growth.5 “In case of positive difference, each party strives to promote and diffuse its own belief; it does not seek to tear down and destroy that of the other, but rather improve and reform it,” Nursi writes, while commenting on the hadith: “Difference among my people is an instance of Divine Mercy,”6 and rejects that difference must be approached in a negative and hostile fashion. He further adds, “if the confrontation of views and opinions takes place in the name of justice and for the sake of truth, it helps the truth become apparent in its full measure, manifesting all of its aspects.”7 Even though many of us intellectually understand this value of conflict, we feel uncomfortable when confronted by it due to a lack of understanding of its nature, thus how to handle it effectively.3 Many religious and philosophical teachings suggest avoiding it whenever possible, since an intense conflict saps one’s energy, demoralizes oneself, and harms social harmony due to its stressful nature: “…do not dispute with one another, or else you lose courage and your strength depart…”8

Finding ways out
While handling a conflict, law is concerned with the situation and the rules. Dispute resolution, on the other hand, attempts to maximize the benefit to both parties by applying not only situation and rules, but also morality, justice, and accountability.9 “The main processes of conflict resolution are reconciliation, facilitation, mediation, negotiation, arbitration, and problem solving [mutual action plan formulation, implementation, and follow-up].”10 So, how do we respond when we come across a distressing situation? Choosing an appropriate strategy, based on a thoughtful assessment of the circumstances, is crucial for effective conflict management. Our responses to interpersonal confrontations generally fall into five major groups: forcing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating, which reflect a range of cooperativeness and assertiveness. The cooperative aspect reflects the importance of the relationship and a cooperative response prioritizes the needs of the interacting person, whereas the assertive dimension reflects the importance of the issue and an assertive response focuses on the needs of the focal person (see Figure 2).3 Postures in each style, rationales behind them, and their likely outcomes are summarized in Figure 1 respectively. Now we’ll elaborate on each style briefly:

1. “I’m the boss, so we’ll do it my way”:
Generally preferred when issues come prior to the feelings, the forcing response is an attempt to satisfy one’s own needs at the expense of the other individual’s, by using formal authority or simply by ignoring the claims of the other party. This approach is depicted as assertive-uncooperative in Figure 2, demonstrating that the issue is far more important than the relationship.

Such use of authority entails a lack of tolerance or self-confidence and may breed resentment when used repeatedly. However, when there is a superior-subordinate setting and when there is a sense of urgency, this approach may be suitable.3 Imagine the following situation, in which Bob is in a meeting with his assistant, Tom:

Tom: I think we should spend some more time on investigating some alternatives. I am just not comfortable with approving your proposal without verifying the details about it. Bob: Tom, I don’t think there is enough time to discuss all the details with you. We are just moving on with my decision.

2. “Okay, however you wish”:
Implemented to maintain harmony, the accommodating approach satisfies the other party’s concerns while neglecting one’s own. As seen in Figure 2, this is an unassertive-cooperative stance contrary to forcing approach. The figure also suggests that this can be appropriate when the importance of maintaining a good relationship outweighs all other considerations, or when the issues are not vital to your interests and the problem must be resolved quickly3:

John and Benjamin are two twins that share the same bicycle. Hence, minor tensions arise on riding the bike first, once they come home from school in the afternoon. John loves his brother very much and generally gives in quickly because he is afraid of hurting his brother’s feelings. “Well, at the end of the day, it is not worth it,” he thinks, “riding first or last isn’t that important.”

3. “Let’s think about it sometime later”:
The avoiding response (unassertive-uncooperative) neglects the interests of both parties by sidestepping the conflict or postponing a solution. This is often the result of ill-preparedness to cope with the stress associated with confrontations. Or, it might reflect recognition that a relationship is not strong enough to absorb an intense conflict. The repeated use of this approach causes considerable frustration, because issues never seem to get resolved [and] really tough problems are avoided: 3

The workers in a factory were seeking better payment and discussing a three-week strike as an option, unless the company offered a minimum net increase of 5% in their salaries for the following year. Unaware of the rumors however, the management later announced that it was planning to provide an enhancement in terms of benefits rather than solely monetary means. Without further due, the labor union issued a statement that accused the company of being unfair in its policies, and called for a cease of work. The company responded by declaring that the economic conditions were pressing hard and they would be unable to consider any increment in wages without hurting their no-layoff policy. After the news that the company’s shares had lost a significant value, at the fourth day of their action, the workers decided to accept the company’s offer on freezing the crisis and starting negotiation talks after 8 months, because they wouldn’t risk losing the factory, thus their jobs, in such hard times of recession.

Although the model outlined in Figure 2 tends to conceptualize the avoidance style as the least desirable option that yields a lose-lose outcome and as reflective of low concern for both self and other, it may be utilized for win-win outcomes in some cultures in order to preserve reputation and the respect of other people, and keep harmony as well.11

4. “Let’s find the middle ground”:
As in the Camp David case above, a compromise is an attempt to obtain partial satisfaction for both parties who make sacrifices to obtain a common gain. While this approach has considerable practical appeal, its arbitrary use may create a climate of pragmatism that encourages game playing, such as asking for twice as much as truly needed. In cases of moderately important issues that lack a simple solution, or when both parties have strong interest in different aspects of the problem, this approach may be used if there is adequate time for negotiations.3

5. “This is my point, what is yours?”
The collaborating approach seeks to address the concerns of both parties entirely by finding mutually satisfactory solutions to the conflict. Figure 2 hints that the relationship and the issue are both important per se, and an assertive-cooperative style is pursued in this case. Although not appropriate for all situations, it is the most beneficial approach for the involved parties and will maintain an ongoing supportive relationship between peers. The following situation would be an example:

Johnny and Ken share an apartment. For the past week, Ken’s friend stays over every night. This affects Johnny’s sleeping, and he doesn’t do well on a test one morning. Johnny first asks Ken if they can talk about the issue without challenging him on it, and summarizes the problem clearly, without being offensive or attacking. (Generally, the one who initiates the conversation has responsibility to guide the situation to a good solution.)