Until recently, the issue of culture was underestimated – if not altogether ignored – by scholars and practitioners in Conflict Resolution. Now, most would agree that culture does matter. While conflict is universal, the ways in which it is expressed and handled are not. Each specific cultural framework has its own conception of conflict and techniques and processes for managing and resolving it. This section aims to examine the ambiguous and complicated concept of culture; explore how culture affects our own conceptions of conflict (as a party to conflict and as a potential third party); consider some of the influences culture has on conflict resolution; and address alternative, culturally-sensitive perspectives in conflict resolution.
When we think of culture, we often think of concrete, observable phenomena like art, language, food or dress. However, the concept of culture is much more complicated. For example, values and beliefs are also an integral part of culture. Cultural values shape the way people perceive the world, including the way conflict is perceived and addressed. Culture can, therefore, be defined as a set of attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours learned or created by individuals themselves or passed onto them by members of a group through social experience. Culture is not a stable or homogenous pattern, nor is it merely a set of customs—it is a complex situational and responsive process. Individuals do not embody just a single culture, but rather multiple cultures. Although we often use the notion of culture to refer to national or ethnic groups (e.g. British, American, Japanese, Catalan), it can also refer to people who belong to other kinds of groups or institutions (e.g. age, gender, class, profession, interest groups, military/civilian organisations). If we identify ourselves as part of a specific group and look to that group as a source of understanding, that group is one of our cultures.
We all belong to a variety of cultural groups, and our thinking and acting is guided by the unconscious ideas, assumptions and rules inherent in those groups. However, we often do not think about how our cultural learning has influenced our thoughts and behaviours, particularly our experiences with conflict. If we are to learn how to deal with conflict effectively (our own and others), it is necessary for us to understand what our cultural assumptions about conflict and conflict resolution are. Our beliefs and values can affect how disputants interact with each other and with us as third parties, which can have a major influence on the process outcomes.
In understanding culture and how it influences conflict dynamics, generalisations can be useful as they allow us to apply knowledge gained from one situation to similar situations. However, it is important to keep in mind that, (1) there will always be individual differences within groups, and (2) simply because an individual exhibits a group's characteristics does not imply that they are a member of that group (the reverse of this statement is also true).
Culture in Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice
The field of Conflict Resolution has developed within a framework of Western (i.e. Euro-American) intellectual traditions – the expectations, values and rationality that are embedded in Western culture. Traditional conflict resolution theory has attempted to construct universal models and techniques that claim to be applicable across all social and cultural domains of conflict. For example, John Burton has contributed considerably to the development of a generic theory of conflict and conflict resolution (i.e., his human needs theory) which has been criticised for its failure to take culture into consideration. The Western perspective on conflict resolution has generally failed to consider non-Western perspectives at all levels of intervention–mediation at the local or community level, diplomatic negotiations at the national level, humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping at the international level. Intervention is often prescribed with little or no concern for the cultural contexts in question or the existing local traditions, institutions and resources.
However, since the early 1980's, academics and practitioners have expressed concern about the validity and applicability of Western theories and models for resolving conflict. This arose variously out of: international and intercultural negotiation research, which sought to examine national (e.g., American, Chinese, Japanese, Russian) negotiating and bargaining styles and cultural factors affecting cross-cultural negotiation processes; a cross-disciplinary approach combining the study of intercultural communication and conflict resolution; and the recognition of cultural issues in mediation.
The 'Culture Question'
The relationship between culture and conflict has been studied in anthropology for some time. The anthropological literature is abundant in ethnographic case studies of dispute settlement and conflict management (including a centuries-old tradition of mediation in China, Korea and Japan) in traditional, small-scale societies. These case studies provide a mosaic of unique methods for managing and resolving conflict around the world. However, it was Kevin Avruch and Peter Black, anthropologists and conflict resolution scholars at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Virginia ( http://www.gmu.edu/departments/ICAR/ ), who helped bring the culture question to the fore.
Avruch and Black proposed that culture, as a concept, is a powerful analytical tool. With this in mind, they have critiqued culture-blind theoretical approaches to conflict resolution and have advocated the inclusion of culture in the theoretical or practical base of conflict management and resolution. They have referred to their departure as the culture question. Through the use of anthropological case studies of conflict conceptions and behaviour in different cultures, they have sought to produce culture-specific 'mappings' of conflict and methods of resolving conflict. Their goal has been to understand the locally constructed common-sense understandings of conflict, which may form 'native theories' of conflict and conflict resolution. How do the parties conceptualise conflict? How do they know it when they see it? What meaning does the event have for them? What importance is given to situations of conflict? What expectations do they have for conflict behaviours (for themselves and for others)? How do they approach its management or resolution?
Essentially, Avruch and Black argue that to understand conflict behaviour, it is necessary to pay attention to the indigenous understandings of being and action which people use in the production and interpretation of conflict behaviour. They refer to this cultural knowledge as ethnoconflict theory or, simply, the local common sense about conflict. These folk theories prescribe the cultural rules for conflict regulation within a given society, as well as inform outsiders of the most appropriate strategies for intervention. Ethnoconflict theory includes social, political, and economic structures, religion, language, and folk psychology. These determinants are not sources of conflict (although, outside of the framework they may lead to conflict). They are variables within a cultural system that, over time, influence the cognitive functioning and behavioural patterns of the individuals within the particular society. Hence, they shape indigenous theories of conflict and conflict resolution.
The corresponding culturally determined conflict resolution techniques and practices are referred to as ethnopraxes. All human groups have developed their own ways of responding to conflict in culturally appropriate fashions. There is, consequently, a remarkable medley of culturally constituted techniques and processes, both formal and informal, for managing and resolving conflict around the world. The strategies found in non-Western societies may feature familiar concepts such as mediation, negotiation, and third party intervention. However, there is great variation in the form and content of these concepts and processes (e.g. the role and responsibilities of the third party, the format and outcome of the resolution process). There are also many practices that are unique to the cultures in which they are found.
Prescriptive and Elicitive Approaches
John Paul Lederach, a conflict resolution scholar-practitioner at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia ( http://www.emu.edu/ctp/ctp.htm ), has moved beyond the mere recognition of cultural factors impinging upon conflict resolution to the creation of a specific methodological framework. From his experiences conducting workshops on mediation and conflict management skills in Central America, he observed that North American conflict resolution training and practices (specifically, the professional mediation model) could not be effectively exported to other cultural settings. He concluded that conflict resolution trainer must situate the conflict in the disputant's frame of reference, understanding how the participant interprets the boundaries and context of the conflict. This 'contextualisation' is the exercise of ethnoconflictology–the study of how people make sense of conflict situations and the appropriate (cultural) common-sense methods of resolving them. From this, Lederach developed a spectrum of conflict resolution training approaches: the prescriptive approach on one end and the elicitive approach on the other.
The prescriptive approach is based on transferring conflict resolution techniques from one setting to another, primarily the transfer of Western methods to non-Western settings. Within this approach, the trainer is assumed to be an expert who brings with him/ her a ready-made model of conflict resolution including standard techniques and strategies. The goal for the trainees is to learn this model. The problems with the prescriptive approach are: firstly, it assumes a certain level of universality and, secondly, it assumes that the trainer or intervenor's ways are best.
In contrast, the elicitive approach is based on building or creating appropriate models from the cultural resources available in a given setting. The trainer acts as a catalyst and facilitator, drawing out the cultural understandings about conflict and conflict resolution. The goal of the training is to elevate the participants' own knowledge to an explicit level and to use this common-sense knowledge as a basis for constructing intervention models for the conflicts they will encounter in their own cultural context. The fundamental feature of the elicitive approach is that it cannot operate apart from culture. Essentially, the approach aims to get at what Avruch and Black call ethnoconflict theory and practice. There are problems with the elicitive model, however; these are: (1) it takes time and involves considerable commitment; (2) the proposed outcomes are not easily measured; (3) the creation process can often be painful for the participants; and (4) multicultural settings represent an enormous challenge.
Lederach does not altogether discard the prescriptive model. In fact, he suggests that the best conflict resolution training and intervention programmes benefit from combining aspects of both models. On the one hand, the prescriptive approach may provide participants/conflictants with new techniques or strategies for dealing with conflict. On the other hand, the elicitive approach addresses the cultural uniqueness of the context and validates/employs the indigenous techniques and strategies.
Cultural Analysis in Intercultural Conflict Resolution
Avruch and Black advise that any process of intercultural conflict resolution will benefit from a preliminary cultural analysis. Minimally, such an investigation would make explicit the underlying assumptions and understandings of conflict and conflict resolution held by all parties to the conflict, as well as the mediators or third parties. By doing so, each party gains some insight into the cultural meanings of the other, along with a clearer understanding of its own.
When conducting a cultural analysis, the following items should be considered:
- Parties: Who are the parties to the conflict? Who else may have input into or be affected bydecisions over the issues? Who do the parties see as individuals or groups whose interests should be represented? What do the parties' cultures tell them about the nature of conflict and the appropriate behaviour when in conflict?
- Intervenor: What biases, values or preferences do you have that may affect your participation in the process? Is there a third party with whom the parties would feel a high level of trust for cultural or linguistic reasons?
- Issues: What are the issues and concerns? Are there hidden issues that elate to the history between the parties? What is the cultural common-sense of the parties regarding what to do when such issues emerge? What values and beliefs may affect the conflict situation?
- Process: What kind of process fits with the cultural common-sense of the parties? What do the parties want from the process (e.g., a chance to tell the other how they experienced the conflict, a chance to prove they were right, a decision, an apology, an agreement, a healing ritual)? What setting would feel most comfortable for all of the parties involved (e.g., formal/informal, public/private, indoors/outdoors)? What time framework would be appropriate (e.g. long open-ended discussions, structure/scheduled meetings)?
This section aimed to explore the issue of culture in conflict resolution theory and practice. A clear understanding of the cultural issues in any conflict situation will enhance the appropriateness and effectiveness of the intervention process.
The field of Conflict Resolution has traditionally not taken much notice of gender issues in either theory or practice. 'Gender' is a term used to describe the different socially-constructed roles usually (but not always) assigned to people based on their biological 'sex' characteristics. Gender issues include questions related to both men and women, but is often seen to imply a focus on women because of a concern in the field with inequality and empowerment of socially disadvantaged people—often women.
Increasingly, gender is moving onto the agenda from several directions. The empirical research has focused on firstly, whether men and women express and manage conflict differently and, secondly, differences in the styles of mediation used by men and women and their relation to the effectiveness of conflict management. Broadly, studies have concluded that there are gender differences in conflict-managing behaviour and that these differences are influenced by a number of variables (e.g., context, power, status, gender of other mediators/parties). However, whilst the studies confirm the differences between men and women as communicators, negotiators and third parties, they also demonstrate the pervasive stereotyping that accompanies such dichotomies.
Feminist critiques of conflict resolution have begun to move beyond the limited application of this empirical research, expressing a concern with the male-constructed, generic theories of conflict and conflict resolution which have excluded or downplayed such issues as power imbalances, oppression, social roles and the militarisation of international conflict intervention. Their argument is that conflict resolution theories have pretended to be neutral in regard to gender, failing to consider the specific effects of conflict on the roles of women and men.
An important level of inquiry considers the role of women in conflict resolution. Traditionally, peace has been sought through two different approaches, often working against each other: firstly, through diplomacy backed by military power and, secondly, through citizen peacemaking efforts. The first, a top-down approach (in contrast to the bottom-up or peacebuilding from below approach discussed in an earlier section), is dominated by men, while women have often been central to the second. Women are largely excluded from high-level negotiations and diplomacy aimed at ending conflicts and their concerns are often ignored, despite women's participation in intervention efforts and local peace movements. This is not to suggest that all women are inherently peaceful and all men are inherently warlike—this would not only fly in the face of experience but would perpetuate stereotypes which mask the complex relationships between gender roles and conflict behaviour. We merely wish to suggest that conflict resolution processes might benefit by the incorporation of traditionally ignored voices for peace within conflict-torn societies, including those of women.
International peacekeeping, for example, has continued to be predominantly male (reflecting the traditionally male composition of national armed forces), despite the diverse activities of contemporary peacekeeping operations (e.g., humanitarian relief, election monitoring, human rights verification) that are similar to those practised by peace action groups. Thus,
while the 'new' peacekeeping creates a potential for an expanded participation by women, that potential has not been developed…When women are absent, talent is lost. When they are present, they not only bring new talent to difficult tasks, they may also bring new items to the agenda, may mobilise new constituencies thus expanding the legitimacy of a mission, and may reduce tension and facilitate conflict resolution. (Stiehm, 1995, p. 564, 565)
The neglect of local women's participation in peace processes is one example of the failure to recognise and build upon the strengths and resources of local communities. Although women's groups frequently attempt to initiate and nurture lasting peace processes, the political process imposed at the international level often ignores, or even discourages, their contributions. Gender inequality in the leadership of the conflicting parties, along with the exclusion of women from that leadership and thus from peace processes, can result in the perpetuation of the conflict by the male leaders at the expense of innocent lives and property. There are numerous examples from recent conflicts that clearly illustrate this dynamic. Despite the many local organisations representing women in the former Yugoslavia, there were no women involved in the Dayton peace negotiations in November 1995. The UN has not consulted women in the Western Sahara regarding the UN mission to the area (MINURSO), nor have women been included in peace talks between POLISARIO and the Moroccan Government, although they have been active in building peace at the community level. They have had the primary responsibility for building the refugee camps, seeing to health, education, water and sanitation issues, and promoting peace within the camps.
Similarly, in Somalia women were excluded from UN peace conferences, which merely gave legitimacy and increased power to the Somali warlords who were not accountable to the local communities. Traditionally, Somali women have played an important role as peacemakers through inter-clan marriage (whereby they are employed as go-betweens or intermediaries between opposing clans) and through traditional women's networks that support each other and each other's families, particularly during times of conflict. Locally-based clan reconciliation conferences (unsupported by the international community) have recognised the resources of Somali women's groups and employed women as 'bridge-builders'. Conflict resolution processes could benefit by consulting more with local women about the root causes of the conflict, how their communities are affected by the conflict, how the obstacles to peace negotiations can be removed, and how traditional practices can offer alternative ways of ending the conflict.
In most cases research on gender and conflict resolution has generated more questions than answers. For example, how might conflict resolution theory and practice become more gender-sensitive? Would a re-conceptualisation of conflict resolution through 'gender lenses' be more capable of addressing issues of power in complex conflicts? How do gender differences affect the legitimacy and acceptability of the third party in conflict situations? Are there cultural and societal expectations regarding the gender identity of the third party (i.e., are men more accepted as third parties in some cultures than women)? How does the local population perceive female peacekeepers? Do they have more access to local women's activities than male peacekeepers? How might conflict intervention processes utilise the powerful peacemaking resources of local women in conflict areas? Attention to gender issues seems to be central to understanding of conflict dynamics and choosing appropriate resolution strategies.
