Nonverbal communication and culture. Identity, stereotypes and prejudices, страница 42

Economic Contexts. Many conflicts are fueled by economic problems. Often these economic problems find their expression in cultural differences. Many people find it easier to explain economic troubles by pointing to cultural differences or by blaming illegal immigrants.

We might also ask, Who benefits from this finger pointing? Blaming immigrants, people of color, and Jews for economic problems diverts our attention from the decision makers who are responsible for the problem.

As the economic contexts change, we see more cultural conflict taking place. The former East Germany, for example, now has many more racially motivated attacks as the region attempts to rebuild its economy. Prejudice and stereotyping that leads to conflict is often due to perceived economic threat and competition. Economics fuels scapegoating and intercultural conflict. This is an important context for understanding intercultural conflict.

Historical and Political Contexts. We know that derogatory words can be a source of conflict. They can be very powerful. The force that many derogatory words carry comes from their historical usage and the history of oppression to which they refer. Much of our identity comes from history. It is only through understanding the past that we can understand what it means to be a member of a particular cultural group. For example, understanding the history of Ireland helps give meaning to Irish American identity.

Sometimes identities are constructed in opposition to or in conflict with other identities. When people identify as members of particular cultural groups, they are marking their difference from others. These differences, when infused with historical antagonism, can lead to future conflicts. Consider, for example, the recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia; they did not emerge from interpersonal conflicts among the current inhabitants. In large part, they are reenacting centuries-old conflicts between cultural groups. The contemporary participants are caught in a historical web that has pitted cultural identities against one another.

These dynamics are at work all around the world. Historical antagonisms become part of cultural identities and cultural practices that place people in positions of conflict. Whether in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, or Chechnya, we can see these historical antagonisms lead to various forms of conflict.

When people witness conflict, they often assume that it is caused by personal issues between individuals. By reducing conflict to the level of interpersonal interaction, we lose sight of the larger social and political forces that contextualize these conflicts. People are in conflict for reasons that extend far beyond personal communication styles.

MANAGING INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT

Productive Versus Destructive Conflict

One way to think about conflict across cultures is to try to get a handle on what is more or less successful conflict management or resolution. Given all of these variations in how people deal with conflict, what happens when there is conflict in intercultural relationships?

Scholar David Augsburger (1992) suggests that productive conflict is different from destructive conflict in four ways.

First, in productive conflict individuals narrow the conflict in definition, focus, and issues. In destructive conflict, individuals or group escalate the issues or negative attitudes. For example, if a partner says, "You never do the dishes," or "you always put me down in front of my friends," the conflict is likely to escalate. Instead, the partner could focus on a specific instance of being put down.

Second, in productive conflict individuals limit conflict to the original issue; in destructive conflict, individuals escalate the conflict from the original issues and anything in the relationship is open for re-examination. For example, guests on talk shows about extramarital affairs might start the conversation about a specific affair, and then expand the conflict to include numerous prior arguments.