欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > Management

Culture and Conflict Resolution

发布时间:2018-02-26
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

An Examination of Avruch’s Claim That There are Two Types of Error in Conflict Resolution – Underestimating and Overestimating Culture

Glossary

Abstract …………………………………………………………..………………. 2

Chapter 1 – Introduction ………………………………………………...……… 3

Chapter 2 – Avruch’s Views …………………………...……..………………… 4

Chapter 3 – Conclusion …………………………………………………….…… 9

Bibliography …………………………………………………..………………… 11

Abstract

World history is filled with the accomplishments, trials, events and tribulations of civilization in its quest to evolve. And as noteworthy as have been and are the discoveries of science, medicine, inventions and the development of our varied cultures they are overshadowed by the waste, destruction and loss of life caused by mankind’s inability to avoid conflict. From the earliest tribal clashes in Africa to the Peloponnesian Wars, Roman conquests, the Crusades, Napoleonic expansionism and two World Wars, the underlying reasons have basically emanated from the same foundation, the inability to arrive at solutions that did not entail the use of violence.

‘Conflict resolution’, or ‘Conflictology’ (Wikipedia, 2005)[1] represents the process to resolve a conflict or dispute by understanding the viewpoints and needs of proponents that provides the basis to understand and arrive at a solution whereby both parties are satisfied with the outcome. The primary purpose of ‘conflict resolution’ is to prevent the outbreak of disputes and or conflicts before they escalate into violence. History has shown us time and time again that conflicts and disputes arise as a result of a breakdown in communication, along with differences in the use of language and or cultural underpinnings whereby the parties to such develop ever increasing riffs that if left unresolved escalate or lead to further problems. At the core of the foregoing, in an overwhelming majority of instances, are the differences in cultural nuances that exacerbate the situation(s). Avruch’s (1998)[2] work “Culture and Conflict Resolution” is a four-part essay that delineates an approach to aid in the resolution of conflicts through the utilization and understanding of cultural aspects as a means to assist the process.

Chapter 1 – Introduction

The cornerstones of civilization rest upon the customs, traditions and societal understandings that help to formulate the individual cultures that represent the cluster of humans that comprise nations. The foundation for these diverse groupings arose out of common needs, understandings, language, religious beliefs and societal values, which bound individuals in, bind together resulting in the formation of nation states. The long and complex process that led to the preceding helped to define national boundaries that designated the land areas wherein common traditions, beliefs, customs and cultures could flourish. The primal and medieval quests for land, power, conquest and subjugation has evolved into our modern global society whereby the interests, needs, wants and desires of leaders and inhabitants within these national boundaries are translated into policies. These policies translate into the actions taken by their leaders in whom the populace has entrusted their faith, in democratic societies, to see to and look after their interests.

Through centuries, the preceding has defined or set the stage for the cooperation, commerce, disagreements, opinions and viewpoints in general, that represents national interests (Bruman, 1999)[3]. Schwartz et al (1992)[4] delves further into this by stating that “…culture consists of the derivatives of experience..” which he indicates are “… more or less organized, learned or created…” by the populace. Schwartz et al (1992)[5] continued that the preceding represent “… images and encodements…” which along with “… their interpretations…” that are a result of past generations as well as contemporaries. These views form a part of the understanding that Avruch’s (1998)[6] draws upon in stating the importance of culture as a component in conflict resolution.

Avruch’s (1998)[7] goal emphasizes the importance of culture, utilized from a sophisticated understanding, helps to provide insight as to the reasons behinds as well as leading to the causes of potential conflict and disputes and sums the views of (Bruman, 1999)[8] and Schwartz et al (1992)[9] in stating that dealing with conflict resolution requires more than simplistic understanding of culture to understand that it entails a complex series of differences in individuals who are dispersed among differing nationalities. He goes on to add that via this understanding the recognition that each participant has his individual culture as well as the components of multiple cultures, as a result of globalization, “… national, … ethnic, organizational…” and other “… behavioral…” as well as “… motivational…” inputs are considerations which further complicate the process (Avruch’s 1998)[10]

Chapter 2 – Avruch’s Views

The work of Kevin Avruch’s (1998)[11] identifies that there are six ideas of culture that are inadequate in their specific application in conflict resolution, these are:

  1. that ‘culture’ is homogeneous,
  2. that “culture’ is a ‘thing’,
  3. that ‘culture’ is distributed uniformly among the members of any group,
  4. that individuals possess only one singular culture,
  5. that ‘culture’ is a custom, and
  6. that ‘culture’ is timeless

Avruch’s (1998)[12] essay on ‘conflict resolution consists of four parts, in this he states that:

  1. Part 1

There are deficiencies in how cultural theories have been utilized in the past in multiple disciplines and thus he develops his understanding of culture as an evolutionary process composed of social action as well as human thought.

  1. Part 2

Avruch (1998)[13] uses the example of the Arab - Israeli negotiations to illustrate the way in which culture plays a role in international theories of relations and the practice of diplomacy.

  1. Part 3

In this segment Avruch’s (1998)[14] looks at two methods or strategies for the understanding of culture, and that these are “… the actor-oriented emic…” along with “… the analyst-oriented etic…’ approaches.

Emic (2005)[15] is defined as “… of or relating to features or items analyzed with respect to their role as structural units in a system as in behavioral science or linguistics…” And etic (2005)[16] is “… of or relating to features or items analyzed without considering their role as a structural unit in a system, as in behavioral science or linguistics…”

  1. Part 4

Avruch (1998)[17] utilizes this Part to present his views of conflict, culture along with conflict resolution to assess how culture plays a role in the theories and practices of this discipline as well as evaluate how conflict resolution will play a role in the future.

The two types of error that Avruch’s (1998)[18] broaches in conflict resolution are:

  1. General Resolution

This refers to the utilization of any strategy that brings to it a socially visible as well as public episode of a dispute or conflict to an end, and a

  1. Genuine Resolution

This seeks to determine the base causes of a conflict.

Schwartz et al (1992)[19] definition of culture states that it:

“ …consists of the derivatives of experience..” which are “… more or less organized, learned or created…” by the populace and that the preceding represent “… images and encodements…” which along with “… their interpretations…” that are a result of past generations as well as contemporaries.”

The preceding presents the concept of culture that “… is to some extent always situational…responsive…flexible … to the exigencies of the world’s that individuals confront…” Schwartz et al (1992)[20]. The application of this definition within the context of conflict resolution is discussed by Avruch’s (1998)[21] in his examination of “scarcity and power and the subjective dependency of perceptions. The preceding is the basis for the two errors in conflict resolution. Avruch (1998)[22] states that “… after all, how can culture…” which is a factor that “… affects the communication processes that are at the heart of…” negotiation is limited when one of the parties delivers an ultimatum that effectively inhibits the process. Thus, overestimating or underestimating the influence and effect of culture in conflict resolution is over shadowed when either an ultimatum or other unreasonable demand enters the process. This renders the ‘general resolution’ and ‘genuine resolution’ process as unworkable as these seek to respectively bring the dispute to an end, or uncover the causes.

The core of the conflict resolution process, whether it consists of the ‘general’ or genuine’ type, is uncovering the basis for the difference(s) and therefore providing a basis to work towards a resolution. In an illustration of the foregoing, Avruch (1998)[23] poses the question “Does the delivery of a command ever constitute a conversation?” The answer is of course obvious, as is its implications in terms of the resolution of a dispute or conflict. In order for the cultural aspect(s) to become a factor in a conflict resolution, both parties must enter the process with the idea of arriving or attempting to arrive at a solution. With this absent, the process becomes ‘conflict management’ which is an ongoing process which might never reach resolution.

The process of conflict resolution entails the utilization of a neutral party, group or individual who is respected by both side of the dispute therefore seeing the mediation aspect as being fair from the standpoint of considering and understanding their individual issues. Some of the more utilized methods in the resolution process entail ‘conciliation, mediation, litigation or arbitration’ as they all involve the intervention of a third party. The processes all confirm the desire and or intent of the parties to approach the conflict resolution process seeking a means to reach a conclusion. As a result, the role of culture in the process takes on importance and meaning as a component aiding same. However, the process has, in Avruch’s (1998)[24] observation, been one that has been heavily influenced by the cultural views of the North American white middle class male. The preceding represents the presence, by and large of the United States and its interests in varied world affairs. However, Avruch (1998)[25] pleads for a “cultural sensitive… negotiation process to be used in the practice to aid in the understanding of potential possibilities that would further the process and lead to an end whereby the parties to a dispute or conflict can be brought to a solution. Bruman (1999)[26] and Kroeber et al (1952)[27] agree with Avruch’s (1998)[28] assessment that the spirit of the process, conflict resolution, works when the parties entering the practice have the intent to reach a conclusion.

The Association for Conflict Resolution (2005)[29] states that conflict resolution, which is also known as ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ is the result of thinking that there are better ways to resolve disputes than either violence or court. In today’s terminology ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ and ‘conflict resolution’ are utilized interchangeably. However, without the parties entering the process with the intent to reach a conclusion, the variable culture in the process is basically rendered as moot, as is the practice itself. When the process is entered with the right approach, it can consist of any of the following forms to aid in reaching a conclusion:

  1. Negotiation
  2. Mediation
  3. Arbitration
  4. Early Neutral Evaluation
  5. Community Conferencing
  6. Collaborative Law
  7. Negotiated Rulemaking
  8. Peer Mediation

Chapter 3 – Conclusion

Avruch’s (1998)[30] observations with respect to conflict resolution provide a prospective that indicates when culture can be utilized as a component in the process of conflict resolution, but not as the basis for it. Cultural identification and understanding provides a basis for aiding the practice by bringing the historical as well as contemporary aspects of customs, traditions, religion, beliefs and values to the process along with the roots causes, ‘genuine resolution’, and socially viable, ‘general resolution’ types. However, over or under estimating the contribution of culture in terms of the practice endangers the perspective, and thus the process.

Avruch (1998)[31] presents a complete examination of the meanings of the terms conflict resolution and culture within this context and their practical applications within the process. He also presents behavioral and communication modes that can be useful within the practice representing emic and etic that international negotiators have utilized successfully. He illustrates that the utilization or lack of cultural discourse on the part of international negotiators, theorists and specialists have yielded mixed results, and that ignoring the potential for contribution of culture is equally as distressing as over reliance upon it as a component in the process. Avruch’s (1998)[32] essay “Culture and Conflict Resolution” offers a useful additive, culture, as a component consideration to advance the practice and potentially increase the degree of success in resolving differences in the discussion stage before escalation to violence or conflict

Bibliography

Association for Conflict Resolution. 2005. Conflict Resolution. http://www.acrnet.org/about/CR-FAQ.htm

Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

Bruman, Christoph. 1999. Writing for Culture, Why a Successful Concept Should Not be Discarded. Current Anthropology 40, Supplement S1-S27

Krober, A.L., Kluckholm, Clyde. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. P 47. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Schwartz, Theodore, White, Geoffrey, Lutz, Catherine. 1992. Anthropology and Psychology: An Unrequited Relationship. P – 17. New Directions in Psychological Anthropology

Wikipedia.com. 2005. Conflict Resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution

Yahoo Dictionary. 2005. Emic. http://education. Yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/emic

Yahoo Dictionary. 2005. Etic. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search?p=etic

1


[1] Wikipedia.com. 2005. Conflict Resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution

[2] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[3] Bruman, Christoph. 1999. Writing for Culture, Why a Successful Concept Should Not be Discarded. Current Anthropology 40, Supplement S1-S27

[4] Schwartz, Theodore, White, Geoffrey, Lutz, Catherine. 1992. Anthropology and Psychology: An Unrequited Relationship. P – 17. New Directions in Psychological Anthropology

[5] Ibid

[6] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[7] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P – 77. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[8] Bruman, Christoph. 1999. Writing for Culture, Why a Successful Concept Should Not be Discarded. Current Anthropology 40, Supplement S1-S27

[9] Schwartz, Theodore, White, Geoffrey, Lutz, Catherine. 1992. Anthropology and Psychology: An Unrequited Relationship. P – 17. New Directions in Psychological Anthropology

[10] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P 59 – 60. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[11] Ibid. P. 12 – 16

[12] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[13] Ibid. P 59 – 60

[14] Ibid

[15] Yahoo Dictionary. 2005. Emic. http://education. Yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/emic

[16] Yahoo Dictionary. 2005. Etic. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search?p=etic

[17] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P 59 – 60. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[18] Ibid

[19] Schwartz, Theodore, White, Geoffrey, Lutz, Catherine. 1992. Anthropology and Psychology: An Unrequited Relationship. P – 17. New Directions in Psychological Anthropology

[20] Ibid

[21] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P 59 – 60). United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[22] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P 59 – 60. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[23] Ibid

[24] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P 59 – 60. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[25] Ibid. P. 104

[26] Bruman, Christoph. 1999. Writing for Culture, Why a Successful Concept Should Not be Discarded. Current Anthropology 40, Supplement S1-S27

[27] Krober, A.L., Kluckholm, Clyde. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. P 47. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[28] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P. 104. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[29] Association for Conflict Resolution. 2005. Conflict Resolution. http://www.acrnet.org/about/CR-FAQ.htm

[30] Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. 10/1998. P. 104. United States Institute of Peace. ISBN: 1878379828

[31] Ibid

[32] Ibid

上一篇:What is Performance Management and Development? 下一篇:Culture and Conflict Resolution