Cross Cultural Perspective

Introduction

The primary academic approach concerning the corresponding study would be the evaluation of cross-cultural perspectives concerning resolution of conflicts within a multicultural societal environment. To this effect, specific emphasis would be concentrated on the differential aspects of the consistent changes which could be observed in the concurrent social dimensions from the perspectives of the cultural deliberations. Particular effort would be invested in the process of outlining the influence and effect of the holistic processes of social occurrences which could involve organisations, societies, cultures and regional or global groups, on the association of the individual with such broader elements which constitute the fundamentals of the cultural existential perspectives. This could be highlighted as the point of inflection from which conflicts get generated and then evolve into different facets.

The prevalent definition concerning Culture is directly congruent to the overall relationship concerning the structural processes and those of the human perceptions concerning the immediate existential perspectives. This could be further elaborated, from the sociological standpoint, as the modes through which the individual and the society, as a structural collective component of human existence, could relate to each other. In this respect, the research of Alon and Bar-Tal (2016, p.121) has highlighted the fact that Culture could be defined through a stratigraphic approach. Under such a research notion and from the academic orientation of undertaking analysis of cross-cultural dimensions based conflict, the prevalent definition of Culture could be comprehended as the collection of patterns of both interactions and cognitive behavioural constructs, which have to be shared amongst the subjects who practice such psychological elements. It is significant to note that this perception is incumbent completely on the progress of the process of Socialisation of individuals. The research of Atran (2016, p.200) has suggested that the identification of the different members of any cultural group through the evaluation of shared patterns of behaviours and cognitive constructs is the process which could be associated with the defining features of the cultural traits which differentiate one group of individuals from another group of individuals within any specific social context.

Definition of Conflict

According to Avruch (2015, p.136), the particularities associated with the overall social process of Conflict, involving different domains of human interactions, could be analysed through the identification of such elements which signify and categorise the different strands of core components of this process. These could be identified as norms of social orders, customary and conventional beliefs, racial and religious traits and ethnic lineages of different groups of individuals. The phenomenon of conflict emerges while any contention between such differentiated aspects of the different groups of social individuals could take place. The characteristic features of daily existential conditions in the modes of methods of living determine the extent to which two disparate groups of individuals or two diverging societies could come into conflict with each other.

In this context, the research of Bornschier (2017, p.144) has observed that the advent of the 21st Century has ensured the phenomenal expansion of the interactions between the global populaces and this also ensures that greater number of individuals from different cultural backgrounds could come into contact with each other at both personal as well as professional levels. The element of conflict could thus be contextualised as a direct outcome of such interactions where the underscoring implications of personal perceptions and demands of considerations regarding cultural diversities and differentiations could take the centre stage in terms of the primacy of interactive conditionalities. The complete absence or dearth of any common psychological or cultural platform on which the interpersonal as well as intrapersonal relationships could be founded, could be also interpreted as a definitive indication of existence of cross-cultural conflicts.

Perception based determination of the nature of Cross-cultural Conflict

As per the opinion of De Bono (2018, p.162), the determination of both the explicit and innate features of Cross-cultural Conflict could be performed through the consideration of the different constituents of human perceptions. These could be also identified as three definite forms of social constructs which influence the human interactive capability with the general surrounding environment including that of the cultural contextual perspectives. The research study of Emerson, Nabatchi and O’Leary (2017, p.263), outlines these three as social resources, personal goals and the presence or absence, in varying measures, of power. Such observations could also establish the fact that such perceptions generally differ and vary in both the individuals and groups. The underlying rationale in this regard could be understood to be that of perceptions of existence, which, could be possessed by both social constituents, at both the individual and group level and, which, could be gained through learning, sharing or through social inheritance.

Furthermore, as has been propounded by Folger, Poole and Stutman (2015, p. 129), the occurrence of conflict across the boundaries of different cultures, is the eventuality which is particularly susceptible to various situational influences. One of such influences has been discerned by Gerard and Kriesberg (2018, p.24) as the dual element of misunderstanding and miscommunication. These two problems are specifically responsible for exacerbation of the intensity of the conflict or for the perpetuation of the continuity of such conditions which could further incite conflicts. The root causes which could have generated the conflict could become irrelevant in the context of resolving such conflicts since the basis on which the continuity of cross-cultural conflicts could progress, generally shifts away from the root cause and into perceptual domains which are directly influenced by the dual problems of misunderstanding and miscommunication, These two problems, however, could become complementary to each other and could periodically influence each other, given the longevity of the conditions under which misunderstanding and miscommunication could take place. Thus, as per the research opinions of Goldstein (2015, p.133), the responsibility and influence of culture could be considered to be much more than what could be expected at the first place regarding conflicts which occur across cultural boundaries and which could be, at the initial level, be perceived to have been the outcomes of the contention generated by clash of either material resource based or by monetary causalities.

One specific element in this regard could be perceived to be that of negotiable interests. According to Jeong (2017, p.182), this could be understood to be the core essential concerning the influence of construction of social reality through human existential conditions and cultural traits. As has been stated by Leung and Morris (2015, p.1041), this is directly congruent to the processes of social stratification and structural complications which pervade the human societies. The common social populace, which could have differential allegiance to certain social agencies such as those related to cultural domains, could contribute to the formulation of social construction of reality. However, this is primarily a phenomenon which generally takes place at the macro-level. Lewin (2017, p.326) has outlined the peculiarity that such socially constructed perceptions of reality get consistently reflected within the overall cultural denominations which become symbols of any particular group of people with distinctive cultural lineages. This could be further elaborated as the actions and thoughts which govern the behavioural aspects exhibited by different cultures at cross-cultural contexts. The socially constructed reality thus acquires a completely independent existence from the populace the perceptions of whom had created such realistic perspectives at the first place as well as from the individuals who could have subscribed to such notions at a later phase of evolution of such phenomenon. The resultant development, as has been suggested by Mac Ginty and Williams (2016, p.157), is the consistent and complete control which the socially constructed reality gains over the lives of the people who could accept or subscribe to the notions associated with such a phenomenon. The most obvious remedy to such predicaments, from both the perspectives of culture and society, is to relinquish the psychological affinity to such notions and, instead, formulate new socially constructed realities which could be better suitable to preconceived notions of cultural and social existence for the groups of individuals who could be interested in the same. Here is posited the fundamental rationale concerning the engendering of conflict within the cross-cultural domain since the process of the formulation of structural realities at the individual level, realities, coercion and constraints is primarily a cyclical one.

According to Pinkoviezky, Couzin and Gov (2018, p.323), it is necessary to understand the implications of functions and dysfunctions which are closely involved with those of the issues of cross-cultural conflicts. It could be further elaborated from the perspective of first determining the extent to which the conceived structures of any credible conflict resolution mechanism could be functional or dysfunctional. This could be considered to be a possibility from the research perspective of Ramírez and Quintanal (2018, p.173) as the weighting of the differentiation between two diverging propositions of functions. This process could be elaborated through consideration of a phase based study approach. According to Ren and Liu (2018, p.26), the first of such phases could be discerned as the manifest functioning which encompasses the activities which individuals or groups comprised of individuals of either identical or dissimilar cultural backgrounds could undertake. These activities are mostly undertaken from either conscious or purposeful perspectives. Ritzer and Ryan (2010, p.116) has outlined the manifest functioning of tariffs as an example of such functioning where any nation could impose certain financial measures to protect the respective national economy from foreign financial domination in the current hyper competitive market scenario of the globalised economic context. Such protectionism becomes the instrument of protecting the national producers or manufacturers from lower price based competitions coming from abroad.

In this context, the observations stated by Ritzer (2017, p.146) validate the perceptions that such manifest functioning could contribute in the development of the second of such phases in the mode of latent functioning where unintended consequences could arise in the format of conflict across cultural boundaries. This could be directly related to the growth of demand and commensurate growth of prices of foreign goods within any specific economy and the restrictions imposed upon the import of such foreign goods and products into the respective country could lead to direct diplomatic or economic clashes in between the host culture and the exporting culture. In this respect, as has been considered by Rubinstein (2015, p.137), both the phases of approaches, involving the manifest as well as the latent functioning of culture, could be acknowledged to be two different strands yet integrally associated with the overarching framework of the functionalist structural perspective. In this context, Singer (2018, p.140) has suggested the factor of unintended consequences which could emerge out of such functioning. In most cases, these are negative in nature and could lead to conflict between competing cultures. One example could be outlined in the form of possibilities of trade wars in between two dominant economic powers of concurrent times which could be caused through the manifest functioning of imposition of high tariffs on the exports of any country by the importing country. This format of conflict could be considered to be mostly unanticipated and to a certain extent, even undesired. Specific examples could be that of the trade and economic relations related contention which has been going on in between the United States of America and that of the People’s Republic of China. The perspectives of resolution of conflict amongst such disparate cultures, involving cross-cultural efforts, could be thus construed to be incumbent of addressing these fundamental social and functional dynamics at the individual as well as at the group levels.

Conflict Resolution processes: Negotiation and Mediation

According to Snyder (2017, p.93), providing effective resolution to existing conflicts from cross-cultural perspectives could be incumbent upon the development of the critical skill of ensuring policy based harmony amongst differing and contending sides. In this respect, it is of vital significance to call into recollection and learn from the effectiveness as well as the benefits of conflict resolution methods involving negotiation and mediation processes. These two processes are of particular significance from the cross-cultural perspectives since these two processes could complement each other in one form or the other. This could be better explained in the manner that conflicting parties could take to the negotiation table for the avoidance of escalation of precarious situations which could have emerged out of conflicting stances of the involved sides and this is vital since the application of the instrument of negotiation is critical in terms of precluding any casualties which could take place if conflicts could be overblown and could become manifested into conventional armed conflicts, either on the global or on the regional levels. However, there could be situations where the instrument of negotiation could not assist in the development of any credible solution to the existing conflict. This could be a situation where the contention could be too demanding and any negotiated settlement could become a foregone conclusion. In such cases, the instrument of Mediation could be utilised as an efficacious tool for the purpose of enhancement of the possibilities of management of the existing conflict in a manner which could be beneficial to all of the involved contentious sides.

According to Ting-Toomey and Dorjee (2018, p.89), the most academically appropriate perceptions concerning the assessment of the procedural instrument of negotiation could be identified as undertaking the effort to confer with other negotiators so that the arrival at any form of settlement of any contentious issue could become a possibility. However, according to Wallensteen (2018, p.127), this is rather a simplistic measure through which the instrument of negotiation could be evaluated. It is, from a deliberative perspective, of prime necessity to understand the various intricacies which are involved in the actual interactions between the different participants in the negotiation of any conflict or dispute at a cross-cultural level. Thus, a better perspective could be obtained through defining the procedural instrument of negotiation as a method under which the disputing parties assume the responsibility of combining the conflicting and contentious points of views into an agreeable decision. Warren (2018, p.11) highlights the benefit of negotiation as the first step of dispute resolution as the most effective process of development of trust building efforts to foster mutual confidence and to contribute to the procedure of exchanging the proposals and suggestions through which, ostensibly, the arrival to any agreement could become a definite possibility.

On the other hand, the process of mediation could be considered, from the research perspective of Weingart et al (2015, p.249) to be that of a method to ventilate the existing hostility and to herald in efforts to actively solve any problem which could be the root cause of any conflict between differing cultural, political, religious or social groups. In this respect, the fundamental difference between the processes of Negotiation and Mediation could be acknowledged from the realisation that where, the process of Negotiation only has to involve the directly contenting sides which, are more often, not more than two in number, Mediation, on the other hand, always involves a mediator, which, could be a third party or a collection of neutral sides who play the part of the mediators in between the disputed sides. In most of the cases involving conflict resolution at the cross-cultural level, the third party mediator based intervention could be understood to be a political act and is primarily aimed at management of the process of conflict resolution through providing the conflicting sides with the necessary assistance in the format of advice so that the prevalent differences could be settled. This is vital to resolve cross-cultural conflicts since the acceptance, by the conflicting sides, of the mediation of another side who could not be involved directly in the dispute, could preclude any situation where any impasse arising out of ineffective negotiation between the disputing sides could lead to any side resorting to violence or commencement of hostilities. Thus, this instrument of mediation could be put into perspective as the acceptance of the intervention by the intervener, on a diplomatic or political level, by the hostile adversaries to the extent where the contending sides could come to an understanding to cooperate with the suggestions of the intervener. Utilisation of force, either in the direct or indirect manner, is a non-existent proposition in this regard.

According to Pinkoviezky, Couzin and Gov (2018, p.323), the essence of these two instruments of conflict resolution could be understood to be that of a process, either political or social in nature, to recommend specific methods, suggestions, ideas, resolutions and processes so that any compromise could become possible amongst the disputing parties. This could be further perceived in terms of being an assistance through which the adversaries could arrive at any agreement or compromise which could be mutually acceptable to both. This nature of fostering mutual benefit and acceptance is of critical importance to focus on since this is also the essence of any conflict resolution mechanism where it is never comprehended that any particular adversary or contending side could gain victory over the other. However, as has been stated by Ramírez and Quintanal (2018, p.104), the mediated solutions have lesser endurance than those of the negotiated ones. This could be further elaborated in the form of the non-binding nature of mediated resolutions of conflicting issues where there could be imperative requirement on part of any of the disputants to either accept or adhere to the ideas propounded or put forward by the mediators. These mediators could be envisaged as either full-fledged states, individuals or even Non-Governmental Organisations or NGOs. Such involvements are indicative of the bringing forth or involvement of additional sets of cultural considerations within the pre-existing structural functioning.

Cross-cultural process of conflict resolution

From the research perceptions of Ren and Liu (2018, p.18), it could be determined that the resolution of conflicts, at the cross-cultural levels, involves, eight different methods, when the conflict could involve individuals or any small group of individuals and not large organisations or institutions such as full-fledged nation states. The first of these methods could be ascertained as the competitive domination method. This could be assessed as concentration on the goals or objectives of self-interest by the competitively dominant disputing party which could have an advantageous position in comparison to the other disputing party. Overt assertiveness in terms of serving self-interest, even if that requires aggressively dominating the opposing yet disadvantageous party into submission, is the hallmark of such a conflict resolution method. Ting-Toomey and Dorjee (2018, p.152) has observed that certain mainstream cultures, which are considerably larger than others in terms of their financial and numerical resources, at Australia, USA and Germany are prone to practice such dispute resolution methods.

The second method could be understood to be that of negligence displayed on part of either or all of the disputing sides. This could be further elaborated in the manner of utilisation passive aggression as direct responses to the existing issues so that the conflict could be sidestepped completely. This is also meant to drive home the message of the intended response to the adversary in the most indirect manner.

The third method could be comprehended as the process of instinctive or emotional processes to determine the best possible manner in which the behavioural aspects could be directly or indirectly communicated to the adversary within the overall dimension of the conflict. However, this process is generally ineffective as a cross-cultural perspective through which long standing conflicts could be resolved.

According to Wallensteen (2018, p.112), the fourth method could be acknowledged as appointing an arbiter to settle the dispute. This is similar to the broad aspects of the previously discussed mediation method where a mediator intervenes in the entire process to assist the disputing sides to come to any mutually acceptable resolution or agreement regarding the problem under consideration.

The fifth method could be conceived as the process of arriving at mutually acceptable compromises where the moderation involves serving of both self-interest and the interests of the adversary. Formulation of deals or agreements which could yield concessions for all of the involved parties in the dispute resolution process at the cross-cultural levels with concentration of focus on building of cooperation and understanding between the involved sides, is the central concern in such a method application.

The sixth method could be perceived as avoidance of conflict through giving up self-interest by both contentious parties. From the predominantly Western cultural perspectives, this involves sacrifice of the interests of all of those who could be involved in such disputes and from the Oriental cultural perspectives, this involves accommodating of the interests of all who are involved to the best of the abilities of all.

The seventh method is fathomed as the obliging of the interests and objectives of the other party by any specific side in the conflict resolution process. This high concern for the interests of others could thus be interpreted as accommodating the process of resolving disputes through wilful sacrifice of self-interest. Various cultures at Asia and Mexican cultures practice such dispute resolution method.

The final of such methods could be outlined as the collaboration based integrative method which is also the most time consuming style of resolving conflicts. This is similar to the previously discussed negotiation based approach of resolving of the conflicts from the cross-cultural perspectives. The rationale could be delineated in the manner of considerably long investment of effort and having repeated dialogues amongst all of the involved sides in the most patient manner so that the developed outcomes could be unanimously acceptable to all. Two of the sub-processes in this regard could be understood as mindful negotiation and wilful disclosure of information to the other parties so that reframing of the decisions with beneficial amendments could become possible.

Conclusion

The preceding study has been reflective of the overall aspects of an academic approach towards the subject of conflict resolution from the cross-cultural perspectives at the concurrent socio-cultural setting. The delineation of such fundamental nature and stratified evolutionary processes involving conflict generation within the current cultural contexts, has been vital from the academic perspective for the subsequent study research to progress towards formulation of betterment of understanding concerning the latent aspects of cultural implications involving the elements of conflict, individual and group based roles and the perceived notions of resolution of such conflicts across multiplicity of cultural perspectives.

Reference List

Alon, I. and Bar-Tal, D., 2016. Role of Trust in Conflict Resolution. Springer.
Atran, S., 2016. The devoted actor: Unconditional commitment and intractable conflict across cultures. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), pp.S192-S203.
Avruch, K., 2015. Context and pretext in conflict resolution: Culture, identity, power, and practice. Routledge.
Bornschier, V., 2017. Conflicts and new departures in world society. Routledge.
De Bono, E., 2018. Conflicts: A better way to resolve them. Random House.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. and O’Leary, R., 2017. Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution. Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities, p.263.
Folger, J., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R.K., 2015. Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations. Routledge.
Gerard, C. and Kriesberg, L., 2018. Introduction: conflict resolution and collaboration. In Conflict and Collaboration (pp. 17-29). Routledge.
Goldstein, S., 2015. Cross-cultural explorations: Activities in culture and psychology. Routledge.
Jeong, H.W., 2017. Peace and conflict studies: An introduction. Routledge.
Leung, K. and Morris, M.W., 2015. Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9), pp.1028-1050.
Lewin, D., 2017. Unionism and employment conflict resolution: Rethinking collective voice and its consequences. In What Do Unions Do? (pp. 313-345). Routledge.
Mac Ginty, R. and Williams, A., 2016. Conflict and development. Routledge.
Pinkoviezky, I., Couzin, I.D. and Gov, N.S., 2018. Collective conflict resolution in groups on the move. Physical Review E, 97(3), p.032304.
Ramírez, J.M. and Quintanal, G.A. eds., 2018. Cross-Cultural Dialogue as a Conflict Management Strategy. Springer.
Ren, Y. and Liu, Y., 2018. Research on the Moderating Effect of Emotional Response on Cultural Conflict from the Perspective of Cross-cultural Differences. IJAME, pp.15-28.
Ritzer, G. and Ryan, J.M. eds., 2010. The concise encyclopedia of sociology. John Wiley & Sons.
Ritzer, G., 2017. Introduction to sociology. SAGE publications.
Rubinstein, R.A., 2015. Peacekeeping under fire: Culture and intervention. Routledge.
Singer, L., 2018. Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system. Routledge.
Snyder, A.C., 2017. Setting the agenda for global peace: Conflict and consensus building. Routledge.
Ting-Toomey, S. and Dorjee, T., 2018. Communicating across cultures. Guilford Publications.
Wallensteen, P., 2018. Understanding conflict resolution. SAGE Publications Limited.
Warren, K.B., 2018. Introduction: Revealing Conflicts Across Cultures & Disciplines. In The Violence Within (pp. 1-23). Routledge.
Weingart, L.R., Behfar, K.J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G. and Jehn, K.A., 2015. The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), pp.235-262.