Document Library

Key Text Culture and Conflict Resolution

Author: K Avruch
Date: 1995
Size: 2 pages (33 KB)

Summary

What is the role of culture in conflict resolution? Culture provides a way for us to talk about the world’s social, political, religious, economic and psychological context – and yet the place of culture in theories of negotiation has remained peripheral. The fourth part of the book, ‘Culture and Conflict Resolution’ examines how culture has been used or ignored in some classic conflict resolution techniques. In particular it discusses third party interventions, and highlights two problem-solving workshop practitioners, Burton and Lederach. Ultimately, in any sort of intercultural conflict resolution, a cultural analysis is an irreducible part of the process.

From game theory (where rational actors make predictable choices within a perfectly understood negotiation), an analytical and experimentalist approach to conflict management has been developed within the academic world. Alongside this a popular, prescriptive body of literature has grown up, in which reference to cultural context is almost entirely absent.

Third party intervention plays a key role in sustaining the fragile negotiatory dialogue between two conflicting parties. There is a fundamental distinction between mediation and arbitration: Mediation involves the non-coercive intervention of a third party, rather than the imposed presence, authority and status of an arbitrator. In discussion of conflict resolution therefore, mediation receives a much greater emphasis as the more satisfying, ‘win-win’ outcome, even when arbitration/adjudication is a more accurate description of events.

Literature on third parties in international conflicts indicates awareness that understanding the intervention’s context is crucial to success. Problem-solving workshops have developed considerably since the 1960s; different approaches to negotiation demonstrate different understandings of culture and its significance:

The prescriptive literature on negotiation neglects the role of culture, because the propounded theory derives from the experience of the theorist (overwhelmingly North American, white, male, and middle class) – the privileged prescribe the model of negotiation for the rest of the world.
From the early supposition that impartiality in third party interventions is vital, there is now the concept of the ‘insider-partial’ who has trust and a social connectedness with participants.
When relying on the premise of an analytical, reasoned approach to negotiation, it is essential to acknowledge that those ideas about which humans bring their reason to bear (such as values and priorities) can differ profoundly from one another.
Burton’s prescriptive model for negotiation approaches cultural understanding as an additional sophistication – Lederach’s elicitive model cannot dismiss culture in this way because it is part of the inherent theory and practice.

When problem-solving workshops succeed, it is because an understanding has been reached that goes beyond a cost/benefit analysis for the participants, where insight is gained into one another’s perspectives, concerns, priorities and constraints. If cultural analysis is an essential part of problem solving, what are the practical implications?

Both cognitive psychology and cross-cultural studies in human reasoning have an influence within negotiation. Study in both areas is under-developed.
After a successful workshop – and a cultural exchange – the participants’ re-entry into their separate environments is always fraught, as they are vulnerable to their original, stronger cultures.
Material interests may appear to be more important than cultural differences, but until the problems of perception and emotion are addressed, the parties will never reach the negotiation table.
True conflict resolution must involve profound structural changes to the socio-political systems that gave rise to conflict. Therefore, some say that only conflict management or deterrence is possible, resolution being an unworkable and utopian ideal.
In adapting a cultural perspective for those embarking on intercultural practice, it is necessary to remember that the usefulness of training is limited, because the world is a complex place.

Access full text: via document delivery

Source: Avruch, K., 1995, 'Part Four: Discourses of Culture in Conflict Resolution', in Culture and Conflict Resolution, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC, pp. 73-108