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.

“Philosophy considers force to be the point of support in social life, and life as the realization of self-interest (as its goal) and conflict (as its principle).”1 When Said Nursi wrote this sentence in The Words, he was looking at the Cyclops-like aspect of the European philosophy of his time, which totally excluded spirituality from the interpretation of the relationship between humans and the universe. There was only one eye on that face which concentrated solely on the materialist side of the creation. Said Nursi called this face “philosophy”; he was opposed to nineteenth century materialist philosophy, but rather favored one that was open to metaphysics and the spiritual as well as to the rational, an approach that he would later call “the marriage of the mind and the heart.”

This materialist philosophy, which considers “power” to be the point of support in social life, actually shaped the social and political movements of the twentieth century. Those individuals who were empowered with personal and financial resources built production facilities and had the less powerful individuals in society work for them in exchange for little remuneration. Capital thus quickly accumulated in the hands of an increasingly prosperous minority, whereas the majority of the members of the “developing” society were barely able to make a living. Mercy seldom descended from the narrow top of the pyramid to the base-and envy and resentment rose in dark clouds from the wide base to the top. Power became the main determining effect in social life, as individuals or groups tried to realize their self-interests to the degree that their “power” allowed them to.

When there was a conflict between interests, might was used as the arbitrator. Revolutions simply shifted the building blocks of the pyramid, but the shape of the pyramid always remained the same. “Natural selection,” a misconception thought to be observed in nature, became the very basis of civilizations. The political arena always had its actors whose pockets were full and waves of ordinary people were merely directed, explicitly or implicitly, in what they should do with their lives. Nations with less economic power became oppressed, their lands and resources were looted, and their futures were thrown into a deep, dark well of uncertainty. The world saw the bloodiest wars of all times as humanity descended to the lowest of the lowest, “asfal al-safilin.”

There has not been any single event in the course of social history which has not been motivated by a system of thought. The intellectuals of the last century tended to strip human beings of their inner dimensions and consider them as a piece of walking/talking machinery. This machine was supposed to produce goods constantly in order to satisfy the increasing needs of mankind. Simultaneously, the circle of the needs extended itself to the farthest point of the imagination, until there was no way that circle could be encompassed. Most of these needs took the shape of carnal desires, and the machine became dedicated to gratifying these desires. Relations between individuals and their families, in neighborhoods and within countries, started to deteriorate. Divorce, domestic violence, deceit, murder, and other crimes-enough to make anyone with a heart grow mute-began to seem and sound normal to the general public. Thus, the machine began to annihilate itself and its surroundings. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi brought the matter to public attention at that time with the following words: “Force calls up aggression, seeking self-interest causes battles over material resources, and conflict brings strife.”2

Since life was considered to be the realization of self-interest, the self became the center of all interests. Individualism was raised as the banner of victory, while the bonds that connected selves together began to disappear. “Country, religion, family, ideas of civilization, all the sentimental and historical forces that stood between cosmic infinity and the individual, providing some notion of place within the whole, have been rationalized and have lost their compelling force.”3

Contrary to accepting power as the fabric of social life, such as it has been in the past two centuries, the Holy Qur’an accepts “rights” to be the constant point of support in social life. The first Caliph of Islam after the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the honorable Abu Bakr, stated this Qur’anic approach in his first speech to the public: “The weakest among you is the strongest in my eyes until his rights have been delivered to him, and God willing I will accomplish that; and the strongest among you is the weakest in my sight until he delivers the rights to their real owner, and God willing I will pursue that.”4

One of the five pillars in Islam is the prescribed alms, zakat. According to the Qur’an, every Muslim with adequate financial resources is obligated to give one-fortieth of his wealth to people in need. This portion of the wealth of the rich is considered a right that is given to the poor from God. This is a very interesting point, because the Qur’an draws a circle around the rights of the powerless within the circle of the powerful. In so doing, the Qur’an effectively silences brute force and allows “rights” to speak instead. Thus, the Qur’an teaches and commands believers to practice “giving precedence to the common interests of the community over one’s own interests.” The fact is that all unrest in human social life proceeds from two sources or attitudes: “Once my stomach is full, what do I care if others die of hunger?” and “You work, I will eat.”5 These statements symbolize a world where labor and capital confront each other and zakat, as a moral imperative, is abandoned; yet mankind has been advised to use charity as a form of purifying alms that is essential to the establishment of social welfare and order.

Human rights, huquq al-ibad, are a very important issue in the Qur’an. A devout believer who has pursued a virtuous life in this life may be pardoned for all their sins. However, the violation of the rights of others is excluded from this pardon, for such a violation must be resolved between the person who violated the rights and the one whose rights has been violated. The “others” here can be Muslims or non-Muslims and they can be of any race, ethnicity, belief, or worldview, in fact, anybody whom God has created. An anecdote from the time of the third Caliph, Umar is noteworthy here. It occurred in the city of Hims (Syria) in 635. The Muslim army was in retreat and leaving the city at the approach of a huge Roman army. The commander of the Muslim army ordered his men to reimburse the people of the city for the taxes that had been collected. The tax collectors told the Christian population of the city that the Muslim army would not be able to protect the city against the Roman army, and that since the taxes had been collected in payment for the protection of the city, the army no longer had any right to keep the taxes.6

The Qur’an does not leave the individual by themselves in the universe. “Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled (without purpose)?” (Qiyama 75:36). Human beings have the willpower and determination to choose between evil and good. Humans are responsible for their choices as well as their actions, and they will be held accountable for every deed they commit. This very fact should urge everyone who hears this message to adjust their standing within the community. The Qur’an commands each soul to uphold righteousness and forbid evil. This command is not limited only to the person’s interactions with the rest of the society. Rather, each person is also responsible for their own physical and psychological being. Nobody can commit suicide, harm their own body, or fall into despair or cut themselves off from society.

From a Muslim’s point of view the holy books that preceded the Qur’an also hold “rights” to be paramount within the community for the establishment of justice and harmony; the Qur’an states, “And we have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (the Qur’an) in truth confirming the Scripture that came before it” (Maida 5:52). If we want to live in a safer and a happier world, where every human being’s rights are secured, the followers of the Holy Scriptures should refer to the enlightening realm of the revelation, advocating “right” rather than “might” as the criteria for any decision that affects the destiny of humanity. Rights have to be promoted at every level of society, and this cannot be done without taking the metaphysical dimensions of the individual into consideration. Looking at how people all around the globe are returning to the warm home of religion and how members of different faiths are striving to understand each other, one can hear the joyful celebration of the marriage between the mind and the heart and can see rights sitting on their throne supported on the shoulders of might.

Notes

1. Nursi, Said, The Words, The Light, Inc., NJ: 2005 p. 146-7.

2. ibid. p. 146-7.

3. Bloom, Allan, The Closing of the American Mind, Simon & Schuster Inc., 1988, p.85

4. Hz. Muhammed (s.a.s.) ve Hayati (Prophet Muhammad and His Life), Diyanet Yayinlari, Ankara: 1996, p. 435, Turkish Religious Council Publications, p. 435

5. Nursi, Said, The Letters, 22nd Letter, Truestar, London: 1995, p. 74.

6. Belazuri, Futuhu’l-Buldan, Beirut, 1987, p. 187.

I am not sure we will ever know the truth about the causes of this terrible tragedy. There are a lot of things we still do not know and may never know. I do not know what happened as far as who is responsible for Sept 11th. Since there is no evidence, all I can do is analyze the event

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. So I do not think the Bush administration engineered this whole thing. However, I can say this: the Bush administration has effectively utilized the tragedy of September 11th to advance an agenda which it already had and brought with it to power when it was selected in 2000.

In this sense, there is a close analogy to the Cold War. For one thing, it has silenced any opposition to the postwar political movement that sought to dismantle the state’s power to regulate the economy. For example, in 1947 there was considerable public political debate about the full employment bill that would guarantee full domestic employment in America. But in the 1950s, after the Greek civil war and the announcement of the Truman Doctrine that formalized the Cold War against communism, these discussions disappeared from the political horizon.

If there had been no September 11th, could you have imagined, with a nation tumbling headfirst into a severe economic recession as America appears to be doing, that there would not be a considerable mobilization of Democrats, workers, women, African-Americans, and otherpopular constituencies to pressure this Republican administration to make some accommodation, to begin to try to use the power of the government to help the nation out of the recession? These issues, which galvanized the population, disappeared from the radar screen in the aftermath of September 11th. No one is debating them right now.

It is also true that September 11th and the war on terrorism does give America something external that helps the government suppress internal dissent. But it is also a source of political capital that America can use to muscle its allies into doing things they might not otherwise do. I do not think America would have received the kind of cooperation that ti did in Afghanistan had it not been for September 11th.

In conclusion, the Bush administration has utilized this event for its benefit. Wars are excellent tools to draw people’s attention to something else especially one with no end in sight that has targeted America.

Fundamentalism

After September 11, discussions on Islamic fundamentalism began yet again. I think it is easier to understand fundamentalism in political, rather than religious, terms. What creates conflict is fundamentally contradictory interests. I think there are individuals in nations that have different political, economic, and cultural interests.

I do not think there is such a thing as Islamic fundamentalism any more than there is a Christian fundamentalism or a Jewish fundamentalism. That is what is going on here. I do not buy this argument that there is an Islamic fundamentalism whose interests are fundamentally contrary to those of the West, which I also think is an imagined community. What is the West? Are Japan and South Korea, Israel and Haiti, Finland and Spain part of it?

What is giftedness?

We should begin by realizing that giftedness is a particular degree or concentration of innate qualities such as arc given to every child by his or her Creator, a fact emphasized in several verses of the Qur’an, for example:

It is He who brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers when you knew nothing; and He gave you hearing and sight and intelligence and affections: that you may give thanks (al-Nahl, 16.78).

It is He who has created for you hearing, sight, feeling and understanding: little thanks you give (al Mu’minun, 23.78).

The counterpart to recognizing the special giftedness of a particular child is to recognize our special debt of gratitude for that giftedness, together with an understanding of the challenges and responsibilities which that debt brings with it.

Indicators of giftedness

It is important for parents to be fully aware of the ways in which giftedness can be manifested. There are a number of typical characteristics listed by authorities on the subject. No individual child is likely to be outstanding in all the ways indicated on the list.

1. Shows superior reasoning powers and marked ability to handle ideas, has outstanding problem-solving ability.
2. Shows persistent intellectual curiosity, asks searching questions, shows exceptional interests in the nature of man and the universe.
3. Has a wide range, of interests often of an intellectual kind; develops one or more interests to a considerable depth.
4. Is noticeably superior in quality and quantity of vocabulary, in speech and/or in writing.
5. Reads eagerly and absorbs books well beyond his or her years.
6. Learns quickly and easily and retains what is learned, recalls important details, concepts and principles; comprehends readily.
7. Shows creative ability or imaginative expression in such things as music, art, drama, shows sensitivity and fitness in rhythm, movement, and body control.
8. Shows insight into arithmetical problems that require careful reasoning and grasps mathematical concepts easily
9. Sustains concentration for lengthy periods and shows outstanding responsibility and independence in doing classroom work.
10. Sets realistically high standards for him or herself, is self- critical in evaluating and correcting his or her own efforts.
11. Shows initiative and originality in intellectual work; shows flexibility in thinking and considers problems from a number of viewpoints.
12. Observes keenly and is responsive to new ideas
13. Shows social poise and an ability to communicate with adults in a mature way.
14. Takes pleasure in intellectual challenges; shows an alert and subtle sense of humour.

It should be kept in mind that it is neither admirable nor contemptible to be gifted. It is what one does with one’s abilities that is important. Throughout the parenting years, it is wise to accept that the healthiest long-term goal is not necessarily a child who gains fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize, but one who becomes a contented adult able to use his or her gifts productively.

Throughout childhood and early adolescence, we must provide the environment in which gifted children can flourish. We can do this by trying to:

be responsive to the unusual questions the children ask;

be respectful of the children’s unusual ideas or solutions by listening to them without bias, as the children will see many relationships that their parents and teachers miss;

encourage the children to test their ideas by using them and communicating them to others;

ensure that the children can learn, think and discover without the threat of immediate evaluation or prejudgement.

Education of gifted children

Effective nurturing of giftedness in children and adolescents requires a co-operative partnership between home and school, one that is characterized by mutual respect and an ongoing sharing of ideas and observations about the children involved.

Because gifted children may begin school already knowing much of the material covered in early grades and because they learn quickly, some type of acceleration is necessary. For some children and in some situations, grade skipping is the best choice. Placing a child with older children with similar interests may be socially and intellectually beneficial and result in a more appropriate curriculum.

The following strategies, suggested in a Gifted Leadership Conference in Washington. illustrate how bridges in thinking can be built between giftedness and education.

1. Gifted students should spend the majority of their school days with others of similar abilities and interests.
2. Cluster grouping of students within an otherwise mixed class can he considered where schools are unable to support a full time programme for gifted individuals.
3. In the absence of a full time programme for gifted individuals, students might be offered specific group instruction across grade levels, according to their individual knowledge acquisition in school subjects.
4. Gifted students, individually or in groups, should be given experiences involving a variety of appropriate acceleration-based options.
5. All students should be given experiences which involve various terms of enrichment that extend the regular school curriculum, leading to the more complete development in their minds of concepts, principles, and generalizations.
6. Mixed-ability co-operative learning groups should be used sparingly, perhaps only for the development of social skills.
7. All staff should be trained to identify and provide appropriate curricula for gifted students.
8. We should eliminate the ceiling on learning (in other words, if a student is ready to learn algebra in 5th grade, the system should not just permit but support it.).
9. Computers can be used to keep up with the students’ pace. They are patient and will hold on to an idea for a long time. Computers can do more complex tasks when the students are ready to use them in more complex ways, and they can provide information when the student is ready for it.

Career planning for the gifted

Although parents and teachers may be concerned about academic planning for gifted children, they often assume that career planning will take care of itself. The student is simply expected to make a career choice around the last year of college and then follow through on the steps necessary to attain that goal.

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that youthful brilliance in one or more areas does not always translate into adult satisfaction and accomplishment in working life. Studies have shown that the path from education to career is not always smooth, and it may be complicated by the fact that the social-emotional problems and needs of gifted students differ from those of more typical students.

Young gifted people between the ages of II and 15 frequently report a range of problems as a result of their abundant gifts: perfectionism, competitiveness, unrealistic appraisal of their gifts, rejection from peers, confusion due to mixed messages about their talents, and parental and social pressures to achieve, as well as problems with unchallenging school programmes or increased expectations. Some encounter difficulties in finding and choosing friends and, eventually, a career. The developmental issues that all adolescents encounter exist also for gifted students, yet they are further complicated by the special needs and characteristics of being gifted. Once counselors and parents are aware of these obstacles, they seem better able to understand and support gifted adolescents. Caring adults can assists these young people to ‘own’ and develop their talents by understanding, responding to adjustments and challenges and coping with strategies.

Conclusion

Bringing up a gifted child may be ecstasy, agony and everything in between. Adults must perform almost impossible feats of balance – supporting a child’s gifts without pushing, valuing without over-investing, championing without taking over. It is costly, physically and emotionally draining, and intellectually demanding. In the first flush of pride, few parents realize that their task is in many ways similar to the task faced by parents of a child with severe handicaps. Our world does not accommodate differences easily, and it matters little whether the difference is perceived to be a deficit or an overabundance.

The most important help you can give your gifted child or children can be expressed in a single sentence: give them a safe home, a refuge where they feel loved, and genuine acceptance, particular of their differences. As adults who enjoyed such a safe home background, they should be able to put together lives of productivity and fulfilment.

USEFUL READING

• BERGER, S. (1989) College Planning for Gifted Students, The Council for Exceptional Children Reston, VA.
• COX, J., DANIEL, N. & BOSTON, B. (1985) Educating Able Learners, University of Texas Press, Austin TX.
• FREDERICKSON, R.H. & ROTHNAY, J.W.M. (1992) Recognizing and Assisting Multipotential Youth, Columbus, OH: Merril.
• KERR, B. (1985. September) ‘Raisins, the Career Aspirations of the Gifted’, The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 32, pp. 37-43.
• KAUFMAN, F. (1988) ‘Mentors Provide Personal Coaching’,Gifted Child Monthly, 9(l), pp.I-3.