Onyx Taylor

Comm. 522
June 17, 2009
Research Paper

Cultural diversity is something that native born Americans will have to learn to adjust to

especially in any professional field. Cultural differences is a must to understand how to learn the

values and norms of other cultures prior to doing any type of business which can prevent

humiliation and create a better understanding and awareness. Cross cultural conflict is usually a

result of lack of knowledge and prejudice.

Cultural awareness is very important in mediation, because the mediator needs to be able

to identify cultural cues from disputants to better assist the issue at hand. Such cues and norms

include non-verbal gestures, facial expressions, volume of speaking voice, or lack of speaking in

its entirety. Conflict is a negative topic in low-context cultures overall, so examining the

difference methods of obtaining a solution when dealing with low context cultures versus high

context cultures and dealing with the combination of both is another important concept in

mediation (Donohue & Bresnahan, 1994). Globalization is also causing societies to grow in

diversity , as a result the potential for intercultural conflict increases (Mayer, 2008).

Donohue et al. identify the reasons behind inter-group conflict as when group members

stereotype others based on group membership, limited to no exposure to other groups, believe in

radical social change and the inequality of resources (1994). The authors define culture as “the

system of socially created and learned standards for perceiving and acting, shared by members of

an identity group” (pg. 146). Gellman and Vuinovich define culture as composed experiences
that are organized, learned, or created by the people of a population (2008). In this essay we will

combine the definitions and define culture as learned and created shared standards based on

values of a population of people.

There are also many shared definitions of conflict, Huang (2003) is his article defines

conflict as the “situation that arises when parties hold or perceive incompatible interests, goals,

resources, prestige, power, etc.” (pg. 4). Mayer (2008), adds that conflict is created by social

factors. When referring to intercultural conflict, which is the bases of this research, it is best

defined as “the experience of emotional frustration and/or mismatched expectations between

individuals from differing cultural backgrounds who perceive an incompatibility between their

values, norms, face orientation, goals, scarce resources, and/or outcomes during an intercultural

exchange” (Neuliep & Stepen, 2007, p. 2).

In dealing with conflict resolution and mediation across cultural backgrounds, there are

many things to consider, the main thing being the ideology behind the context of the culture. In

this research we will examine the Western ideology (Western Europe and the United States) vs.

Eastern ideology, specifically China and Palestine. We will examine the differences, the various

models and try to find accommodating solutions.

Western Style and Techniques

Using the Hofstede’s Model of Cultural Differences, Western ideology is defined as a low

power-distance culture, meaning they “value independence, loose supervision, consultative

management, friendly disagreement, positive value of wealth and reward, and legitimate and

expert power” (Donohue & Bresnahan, 1994, p. 147). Western cultures also adapt the concepts
of low uncertainty-avoidance, which means they tend to take risk, welcome change, see conflict

as positive, have personal motivation to achieve, and have high tolerance for ambiguity. The

Western conflict styles tend to be more along the lines of individualistic, meaning they are more

direct, dominating and goal-oriented. The Western cultures are also seen as more masculine than

the Eastern cultures. This means their communication style is more assertive, and self-reliant

(Donohue & Bresnahan, 1994).

It has been found, although on arise, that mediation in Western cultures is not as widely

accepted like it is in Eastern cultures (Lee, 2008). Western cultures style of mediation and

litigation involve a fair value system employing fairness, justice, equality, equity and autonomy

(Jia, 2009). A reason cited by Lee is that mediation is not a common practice in America is

because Americans are embarrassed by this type of confrontation, it is inconvenient for them and

can show a lack of courage (2008). However, according to Donohue et al., Western cultures

would view the confrontation as a healthy catharsis (1994). There style of conflict is more direct

and they tend appreciate the forwardness, rather than a conflict being be-grudged.

Another major differences in the cultures, is Western mediation tends to pride itself on

neutrality while in cultures associated in the East, it is the norm to know the third party

participant (Gellman & Vuinovich, 2008). In Western cultures, mediators tend to stay detached,

to remain impartial, and to be able to come up with impartial results. Not being the most popular

method in the U.S., mediation is quickly becoming an acceptable alternative to going to court. It

has been proven through mediation that relationships may improve (Donohue, et al 1994).

Eastern Styles and Techniques

Eastern cultures tend to be the mirror image of the Western cultures. Eastern based

cultures in America tend to discourage open expression of conflicts; conflict-avoidance is the

norm. They ignore conflict to spare their feelings as well as the feelings of others. Also conflict

is seen as shameful, because they cannot maintain a harmonious relationship and conflicts are

seen as a lack of respect (Donohue et al, 1994).

Eastern cultures are high in power-distance and “value conformity, close supervision,

autocratic paternalistic managers, conflict avoidance, negative association with wealth and

reward, and legitimate and expert power” (pg. 147). The Eastern cultures are high

uncertainty-avoidance, this means they are rule based cultures, change is threatening, risk-taking

in seldom done for fear of failing, and competition and conflict is undesired. Eastern cultures

practice a collectivism ideology; they look out for others before themselves. This also means

they are more passive than people of Western cultures, less direct, and face sensitive (they do not

like to be embarrassed). The Eastern cultures also adapt a more feminine perspective. They tend

to be more nurturing, motherly, and helpful (Donohue & Bresnahan, 1994).

Now that we have examined the basic concepts behind the ideology behind the different

contexts of Eastern and Western Culture, we will take a look and to cultures within the East:

Palestine and China.

Sulha: Traditional Mediation Method of Palestine

Sulha is the event or ritual of reconciliation, has roots dating back to 2,000 years ago. It

was used as conflict resolution between desert tribes in the Middle East, who both agreed to

third-party intervention to resolve their dispute. In pre-Islamic times, this method was the tribal

law. Today, Sulha is a successful way in conflict resolution and works in a wide range of

conflicts, by Arabs of the Occupied Territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Although still
used today, it is no longer the law, but it can work in conjunction with the law (Gellman &

Vuinovich, 2008).

Three key concepts of Sulha are (1) restoration of honor and dignity, (2) reconciliation

that engages the wider community, and (3) public demarcation of the end of violence. Dignity

being the most important aspect of the practice, because it’s the most important of basic human

rights in addition to dignity, the model as seeks to restore cooperation, negotiation, honor and

compromise (Gellman & Vuinovich, 2008). This model is used and successful at achieving a

long term solutions.

The process works in three steps: the jaha, the hodna, and the sulha (the closing). The

jaha works to gain tolerance and respect between the two disputing parties. They are the

mediators, typically Muslim, Christian or Druze, chosen because of their moral authority,

honesty, decency, experience, status, leadership, and tend to be older. The jaha can range from

one member to twenty, depending on the conflict the number of jaha, would increase. They are

also familiar members of the community, rather than neutral outsiders (Gellman et al, 2008).

During the hodna stage, the jaha sets a certain amount of time the victim’s family must

not retaliate; this is a time for reconstruction of the relationship without the threat of violence.

The jaha under goes a fact finding mission by visiting the affected parties in the community,

during this step, any information that is found is completely confidential. The sulha is the

closing ceremony; where honor is restored and forgiveness is granted. The ceremony includes

shaking hands and sharing a meal. The affected parties are invited and it is held outdoors, to

signify a public display of peace and forgiveness, and is a very silent occasion. After which a

public handshake is performed and the victim’s family has the offender’s family over for coffee.
This is similar to the victim offender style of mediation in the United States. From this model,

we learn the communities can work pass differences and changes (Gellman et al, 2008).

People Republic of China: Xunyang County

In this model of mediation, we take a look into tiaojie, the Chinese model of meditation.

This model remains true to the Eastern ideology; the word tiaojie translates into “harmonious

resolution”. The method does employ the use of intermediaries who usually are social elites and

government officials. This model adopts the Confucianism and Daoism ideology and a

humanistic/moralistic value system that seeks to respect, humility, benevolence and harmony.

Principles of this model for the mediator include: respect for the wants of the disputants, abiding

by the laws, ensuring fairness, and do not stop disputant to seek litigation. This model

harmonizes the community by minimizing the amount of litigations, suicides, mass protest and

armed group conflicts (Jia, 2009).

This method of conflict resolution is also used in the work place in China. This cultural

group openly adopts a collectivism ideology, they prefer a community that is tightly knit, where

all members look out for each other and are loyal to one another. Collectivism typically remains

at the interpersonal level (Huang, 2003).

Models of Mediation

Now that these differences are apparent and known, what types of mediation models can

we use? Mayer (2008) came up with a Culture-Synergetic Transcultural Mediation model which
is based on transformative mediation. This model reconstructs conflict realities through third

party interventions, and redefines the Western mediation process, include the individual and

cultural realties of the participants and their relationships. It supports the change of attitudes and

behaviors, interpretations and judgments through the social learning process. It uses intercultural

competencies such as emotional intelligence, culture-specific knowledge, tolerance and empathy,

these factors can be achieved through the mediators questions (Mayer, 2008).

This model differs from other models because it seeks out to transform personal,

relationship-based, structural and cultural identifies. It does though increase synergies,

reducesstress and creating synergetic solutions. The mediator roles are very important in this

model. Their job is to empower both parties by being impartial, recognizing all the interest,

values and needs. The mediator must also adjust to culturally accepted communication styles

and rhetoric's by encouraging parties to exchange in ideas about their personal reality constructs

(Mayer).

Once the constructs are identified, the mediator will explain the cultural realities of both

parties mutually. This will create a level playing field regardless of cultural differences.

Mediators in this model also adapt the person-centered therapy which seeks to transform

negative experiences by acceptance, respect, value, empathy and congruence. Also a major

difference in this model is asking questions based on not only social aspects of the disputant, but

cultural and universal aspects as well; to tell a story of background and create an atmosphere of

tolerance (Mayer).

Another model of mediation that can be productive in intercultural meditation is mediator

control. In this model mediators can become arbitrators if an agreement can not be reached by
the two parties. Parties tend to try and solve the issue in the mediation part more effectively

knowing that if the issue is not resolved, the mediation session may turn into arbitration.

This model is typically used in community mediation centers that are not court

connected. The risk are low in this model; however mediators may turn to arbitration to fast, and

disputants would not have the chance to develop alternative solutions. However disputants are

more satisfied with the outcomes of this model (Donohue).

This model is preferred by cultures of high power-distances when it turns into arbitration

so they can avoid the conflict stage of mediation. Because they value authority they are more

comfortable with a centralized member of authority making the decision. High uncertainty

avoidance cultures also find this model useful because during the mediation part of the session,

disputants are focusing on resolving the issue and restoring harmony back to the relationship.

Collectivist cultures enjoy this model because the mediation adapts a noncompetitive approach to

problem solving, mediators advocate for disputants so they are not confronting one another.

However, masculine cultures would also find comfort in the fact the mediation is about problem

solving not problem-sharing, and the disputants will leave with a resolution (Donohue).

Interventionist model is also a considered model in intercultural conflict. It is mainly used

in divorce mediation, because the model is concerned with the parties who are not represented in

the conflict, like children. This is a model favored by high power-distance cultures. Disputant

control is also a model that Donohue recommends. Mediators facilitate an agreement between

disputants that they control. This leaves little power the mediator. This style is preferred by

masculine cultures and individualistic cultures. This is true because the model talks about

personal goals before group goals. The final model Donohue discusses is relational

development. This model more so addresses relational problems such as trust control and
affiliation. Often time this model is used as a preliminary step before the actual mediation

session. Disputants are able to come and converse openly in a unstructured process about key

issues in their relationship. This model is not commonly used in community centers or courts,

but more common in church or other similar settings. Relational development is structured for a

more low power distance culture, because the mediator plays a less facilitative role. Mainly

group relations is considered above all else which makes the model collective in nature. This

model is nurturing and helpful, and identifies with the feminine concepts in cultures.

Uncertainty is also present, because parities have the opportunity to lead the mediation and a

resolution, and most likely will not be reached in that first session.

In this

research, differences of Western and Eastern ideologies were uncovered to better understand

different cultures in mediation. Two Eastern cultures methods of mediation (sulha and tiaojie),

from Palestine and China were analyzed. Through this analysis, we find Hofstede’s Model of

Cultural Differences to still be useful and correct (Donohue). Also, this research looked at

different models in dealing with intercultural mediation. With better understanding of

other cultures, the less likely intercultural conflict will be an issue.

References

Donohue, W.A. & Bresnahan, M.I. (1994). Communication issues in mediating cultural

conflict. In J.P. Folger & T. S Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation:

 Communication research and perspectives (pp.135-158). Thousand Oaks,
CA:
Sage

Gellman, M., & Vuinovich, M. (2008). From Sulha to Salaam: Connecting local

knowledge with international negotiations for lasting peace in Palestine/Israel.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 127-148. From Communication & Mass

Media Complete database.

Huang, Y. (2003). Towards factors contributing to integrative conflict resolution: A cross-

cultural perspective. Conference Papers -- International Communication

Association. Chicago/Turban

Jia, W. (2009). The Status of mediation in contemporary Chinese rural society: A Case

study of Xunyang County, Shaanxi Province, P. R. China. China Media

Research, 5(2), 97-103. From Communication & Mass Media Complete

database.

Lee, S. (2008). Mediation techniques of an informal intermediary in intercultural-

interpersonal conflict. Human Communication, 11(4), 461-482. From

Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Mayer, C. (2008, June). Claude-Hélène Mayer, Identity and health in transcultural

mediation: The Model of Culture-Synergetic Transcultural Mediation and its

impacts. Journal of Intercultural Communication. From Communication & Mass

Media Complete database.

Neuliep, J., & Speten, K. (2007). The Influence of ethnocentrism on facework and

conflict styles during intercultural conflict. Conference Papers -- National

Communication Association. From Communication & Mass Media Complete

database.

Wong, T., & Chen, H. (2007). The Influence of cultural diversity on workgroup

interaction: Mediating factors and conceptualization issues. Conference Papers

-- National Communication Association. From Communication & Mass Media

Complete database. Chicago/Turban