Balinko

Cultural Communication In Conflict II: Empathy

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis B) — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:43:00 +0000

This is the 2nd part to the Article Cultural Communication in Conflict. view part 1

The Importance of Empathy in Conflict

Empathy and its roles in intergroup contact can take on many forms and patterns. Because of this, a working understanding of the structures and functions of empathy must be included in any discussion involving the subject. The concept of empathy has had a rich history. Many theories have been proposed through various social science perspectives. Psychology has offered many perspectives however; more recently, the types of empathy have been generally reduced to two. (Davis, 1994; Duan & Hill, 1996; Stephan & Finlay, 1999) These types, though they can take on a number of overt expressions and labels such as race or culture, at their basis can be described as cognitive and emotional empathy. Cognitive empathy involves a process in which one takes on to some extent, the perspective of the other. (Stephan & Finlay, 1999) This is a process that is much more analytic and for the most part, devoid of emotional relation. The second form of empathy, deals with the more emotional reaction to the other. This reaction can either be parallel (feeling similar emotions to the other) or reactive (emotions spawned from a particular situation as viewed from your own perspective). There are however questions of how much an individual can truly understand what the other is thinking or feeling. This highlights an alternative perspective of empathy crystallized in Benjamin Broome’s model of relational empathy.

Broome’s relational empathy model puts the realm of empathy further from the individual and more into the relationships between individuals. Empathy in this construction is heavily context dependant an creates meaning through successive approximations to the view of the other.(Broome, 1991) This creation of meaning within the relation can form what Broome calls a “third culture” that reduces in-group/out-group differences and creates a new in-group identity. (1993). This form of empathy requires particular conditions in the situation that provide an optimal degree of contact. These can range from the manner of participant expression to other situational factors such as power asymmetry. This idea follows closely with Milton Bennett’s formulation of empathy as “Participation in another’s experience.”(Bennett, 1979, p. 418) At its heart, relational empathy requires a dialogic relationship that can help fill in the gaps in other conceptions of empathy.

Though the differences between the two perspectives given here are important to understand, there is an argument that when combined they can create a comprehensive understanding of empathy especially cultural empathy. The cognitive process that informs individuals is important to understand why they act particular ways within a relational situation. This understanding can also help to understand the attitudes of the individual that can play an important role in creating a framework that will create a lasting attitude change. Conversely, in order to get to the point of attitude change one must understand the dynamics of the relational contact that can lead to a process of mutual understanding through a change in relational meaning. Essentially, intergroup contact is based on a dynamic construction in which the situational, social, and environmental factors interplay with the individual schemas and heuristics within each participant. Each feeds off the other therefore a conception of empathy that reflects this duality is ideal.

There is a wide array of research that indicates that the activation of empathy can be beneficial to social interactions. The benefits range from the increase in helping (Batson, 1991; Batson et al., 1997; Davis, 1994; Oswald, 1996) to reductions of aggression. (Feshbach, 1989) Likewise, there is also data that shows that empathy can be increased through training programs (Stephan & Finlay, 1999). There is however research that shows that many of these programs tend to have only short term positive effects (Deutsch, 1991). Some of these problems could be attributed to the absence of all the factors needed for optimal contact mentioned earlier. Research in this area is murky at best and much more will need to be done to get a better understanding of this problem.

Part I: Culture And Conflict Resolution
Part III: Next Week......

Reference List

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.

Bennett, M. J. (1979). Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 407-422). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact (pp. 11-27). New York: Academic Press.

Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing intergroup Conflict in Industry. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Brewer, M. B. (1986). The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup contact. In S. Worchel & W. A. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelsen-Hall.

Broome, B. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy for teaching intercultural communication. Communication Education, 40, 235-249.

Broome, B. (1993). Managing differences in conflict resolution: The role of relational empathy. In D. Sandole & H. Van Der Merwe (Eds.), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Cambell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentrism and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. . Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.

Deutsch, M. (1991). Subjective features of conflict resolution: Psychological, Social, and Cultural Influences. In R. Vayrynen (Ed.), New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation. London: Sage.

Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261-274.

Feshbach, N. D. (1989). Empathy training and prosocial behavior. In J. Groebel & R. A. Hinde (Eds.), Aggression and war: Their biological and social bases (pp. 101-111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, R. J. Interactive conflict resolution: A social-psychological approach to resolving violent ethnopolitical conflict. In M. Fitzduff & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The Psychology of Resolving Global Conflicts (Vol. 3). London: Praeger Security International

Fisher, R. J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Fowler, S. M., & Blohm, J. M. (2004). An analysis of methods for intercultural training. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training. London: Sage.

LeBarron, M. (2003). Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A New Approach for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and effective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 613-623.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.

Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. (2003). Peacemaking Circles: From Crime to Community. St.Paul, Minnesota: Living Justice Press.

Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving Identity Based Conflicts in Nations, Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sherif, M. (1966). In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The Role of Empathy in Improving Intergroup Relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729-743.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 23-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ting-Toomy, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training. London: Sage Publications.

Editorial: Expanded U.S. Foreign Engagement Vs. Reduced Commitments

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis B) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:33:00 +0000

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By: Dennis B

The question of what American policy should be in regards to intervention comes with a myriad of other questions and concerns. Questions such as legitimacy, the type, and the cost to benefit possibilities are only a few. However, at its heart the question of intervention is a question of engagement or withdrawal from the international arena. Should the

U.S.

move further into the world as the major force in international issues or should it be more concerned with domestic issues and only interject at precise calculated moments? Due to the United States present situation in regards to the war on terror and its already established position as a world leader, there may not be much of a choice left.

The post-cold war period has seen an increase in overall instability as many of the developing nations experience both the joys and pains of more directly entering the world community. The U.S. role as world leader dictates that the

U.S.

must address these issues in some form. However, it can be argued that in many of the situations in which the United States became directly invested in an intervention(e.g., Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq), especially militarily, that the majority of the time the U.S. interests were not clearly served and the U.S. often left the situation the same or worse than before intervention. There are also situations that showed that direct U.S. involvement (such as the Gulf War) has led to unforeseen liabilities that have ultimately hurt

U.S.

security, interests, and credibility. The global community as it is today is extremely interconnected which makes it almost impossible to fully understand all the possible repercussions for any given intervention. Add this to the fact that militarily the

United States

has not completely adapted to the form of asymmetrical warfare that is the norm today, and it leaves intervention as a very risky proposition.

Another important issue is that of the world economy and the effects globalization has on its well-being. As the world becomes more interconnected, so do each nation’s economies within it. In this regard, wars and military interventions in one area can effect a whole host of other nations simply by the means of economic exchange. The argument could be made then that the

United States

must stay aggressively involved in international affairs simply because of indirect threats to its economy. The fragility of gas prices in regards to international crisis is a perfect example. However, economic concerns can also make the choices for intervention more profound in terms of unexpected repercussions. An argument could be made that if, as some theories posit, countries tend to be more likely to intervene internationally in times of economic downturn, then an interconnected global market could create a self-perpetuating cycle of economic hardship and increased intervention. As one conflict causes a downturn in another country’s economy then that could perpetuate a pro-interventionist policy within that country that then intervenes somewhere else.

Another important factor in the intervention question is that of prior military engagement or commitments. The

United States

often determines an intervention by the level of military commitment they have already made. If this policy continues, given the expansion of military bases around the world, then it would seem inevitable that the

U.S.

will intervene more. There is the argument however, that the proliferation of U.S. military bases, and the problems within the communities they create, has given the

U.S.

an international image as the new empire. The last thing that we need to do in light of these perceptions is to add messy interventions in those areas as further proof.

The history and legacy of

U.S.

intervention has not had a shining record. Additionally, the ghosts of interventions past are increasingly coming back to haunt us today. We can continue our role as the aggressive world leader bringing freedom and morality to the masses, however with our past failures and the overall inefficiency and bad judgment the

U.S.

has portrayed in many of our decisions on intervention, we risk becoming a leader with no followers. An expanded engagement policy would do more to alienate the

U.S.

from the international community than help to build a new world order. Furthermore, as Iraq has shown, often a military solution to create security for the

U.S.

can often have the reverse effects. This is not to say the

U.S.

should not get involved in any international crises, but instead it should only do so in cases where it is the safest in regards to international opinion, possible harm done, or humanitarian need. This could be best served through a policy of reduced commitments in so that the impetus or need to get involved in more risky interventions in terms of success or ill repute is much less likely. Furthermore, the reduced engagement would also allow for a much larger and effective response in cases of intervention because the resources for intervention would not be overstretched. A reduced commitment can also help to add legitimacy to the

U.S.

as a democracy builder by reducing some of the more imperialistic actions, perceived or real. Finally, a policy of reduced engagement can help wean the international community of the idea of the

U.S.

as the world’s police force and create a much more multilateral structure.

Cultural Communication In Conflict I: Culture And Conflict Resolution

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis B) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:36:00 +0000

The role of culture in many ways can determine the direction of many conflict situations. Errors in attribution, perception, and communication within a cultural context can create major blocks to attempts at negotiation, mediation, or other problem solving activities.(Deutsch, 1991) That it is why in conflict situations, attention to cultural interaction and communication is paramount. This 3 part article will focus on three important aspects of intercultural communication in conflict.
Culture and Conflict Resolution

The base idea of culture in many conflicts is that often culture has very little to do with the actual conflict. Instead, it is made salient as a defensive mechanism or as a rallying point by which a community can become mobilized. Therefore, if intercultural communication can be made and these effects ameliorated, then the overall tensions and barriers to resolution of the conflict can be reduced. The major form of culture that will be examined here is that of cultures role in the creation of identity. When looking at identity in the form of culture, there are a number of issues one must take into consideration when resolving conflicts. The basic assumptions here are that culture creates a unique set of characteristics, meanings, and values that can be used to categorize and inform identity. This can often have the effect of distinguishing one individual or group from others. It is this categorization based on distinguishing characteristics that can enhance the perception of differences between groups. (Tajfel, 1970) This perception of differences can lead to out-group derogation and a reification of in-group superiority often formulated as ethnocentrism. This is further explained by Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (1981). Within this framework, ethnocentrism is almost inevitable in creation of identity. Recently these propositions have been questioned by scholars such as J. Berry who argue that instead more concrete secure group identity can lead to a more tolerant and open view towards out-group (Berry, 1984). Though the research does provide validation for both theories there is a question of relationship explained by theories such as Realistic Group Conflict Theory(Cambell, 1965) that view the creation of ethnocentrism as a response to a threat to the individual. Therefore, it is possible for a tolerant out-group interaction due to a secure in-group identity to become ethnocentric in response to real threats to that security. The Integrated Threat Theory(Stephan & Stephan, 2000) expands this idea not only to realistic threats but to symbolic threats, anxiety, and negative stereotyping. Ethnocentrism then in regards to cultural differences can play a vital role in the creation and continuation of conflict between different cultural groups. Furthermore, strong ethnocentric beliefs can reduce the likely hood of productive interactions between groups that can lead to successful resolution.(Deutsch, 1991) Therefore, when creating a process of intercultural dialogue or conflict resolution, ethnocentrism must be addressed. Research has found that one of the major effects of ethnocentrism on conflict resolution is in-group bias. Often these biases revolve around moral traits such as trustworthiness, peace loving, and honesty. (Deutsch, 1991) When these traits are limited to only the in-group, out--groups are then often perceived as the opposite.

There is evidence however, that ethnocentrism can be reduced through the institution of intergroup cooperation.(Blake, Shepard, & Mouton, 1964; Brewer, 1986; Sherif, 1966) The most effective types of cooperation often involve situations in which superordinate goals are made salient and the context and duration of the contact is optimized.(Pettigrew, 1998) This idea of optimal situations for contact such as the contact theories of Allport(1954) and Pettigrew(1998) can not only play an important role in reduction of ethnocentrism but also the overall effectiveness at any conflict resolution attempt.

Another important factor in cultural conflict is the issue of communication. Often communication between conflicting groups can be described as “unreliable and impoverished.”(Deutsch, 1991, p. 40) Miscommunication or lack of communication can hamper true dialogue and can help reify the perceptions of untrustworthiness and between group differences that ethnocentrism creates. Communication also plays the role of the gateway to the possibilities of cultural understanding, empathy and perception that are paramount to positive intercultural contact.

The role of culture can in many ways determine the direction of many conflict situations. Errors in attribution, perception, and communication within a cultural context can create major blocks to attempts at negotiation, mediation, or other problem solving activities.(Deutsch, 1991) That it is why in conflict situations in which culture may be a salient construct of identity attention to cultural interaction and communication is paramount.

Part II: The Role of Empathy (available next week)
Read Entire Article HERE