Before developing the argument about the importance of cross-cultural understanding in international mediation, it is important to recognize that a misconception may have been generated through the context of the discussion. It may seem, judging from what has been written to this point, that Western modes of intervention and conflict resolution are themselves wholly distinct and not in line with the rest of the world. This is a fallacy that is being recognized as mediation is not, by any means, a distinctly Western notion. There are problems with proposing the notion that Western culture alone is responsible for advocating a pacifist approach through mediation. Even though it may have been more proactive in developing these pacifist techniques and the tradition of mediation is distinctly Western in the context of modernity, the United States and Western Europe are not isolated in this approach. As Becker and Slaton (1987) note, “In other parts of the globe, less adversarial means of resolving interpersonal conflicts predominate…[mediation] is dominant in large nations (China), highly industrialized ones {Japan), highly traditional ones (Samoa), and socialist ones (Poland)” (p. 55). This note was made by the authors in 1987, well before the renewed interest in cultural understanding and acceptance was as prevalent as it is today.  Still, with this in mind, it is Western culture when the most has been written about this subject and where the option in conflict resolution is most dominant (Becker and Slaton, 1987) and not where it is exclusive or original to the exclusion of other modes of dispute negotiations.


The Dangers of Ethnocentrism and the Western Tradition of Conflict Resolution

One issue that is worthy of attention and has been commented on by some scholars, including Brigg (2003) is the notion that cross-cultural mediation involving Westerners naturally gravitates towards solutions that are distinctly Western in nature. This seems to be one of those issues that has a degree of inevitability since, after all, if the mediator is comes from the tradition of Western ethics and morality, he or she will naturally gravitate towards unconsciously ethnocentric ideas of what the best resolutions goals are. However, simply because this is a natural course of behavior in mediation scenarios does not necessarily mean that it is the proper or best course of action and there may be equally (if not improved) options in resolving the dispute if the mediator is able to look beyond his or her cultural boundaries. As Brigg (2003) states, “In Western mediation practice, conflict and violence are typically seen as destructive and unhelpful ways of being, and this attitude precludes the constitutive and productive role that conflict plays in many non-Western traditions” (p. 288). The one-sided approach to cross-cultural or international mediation, for the sake of clarity in this discussion, best addressed when considering the Western tendency toward ethnocentrism—a term that can be very broadly defined as a feeling of cultural superiority (or less dramatically of cultural isolation) when approaching a cross-cultural situation requiring mediation or action. “Mediators see their role largely as managing or resolving rather than precipitating conflict; within the organizational relations context, conflict is viewed as positive only when it generates improved workplace relations or processes” (Brigg 289).

To better put this into context, there are a number of examples that can be considered specifically, but more generally, one can consider the problems of Western ethnocentrism in resolving violent interstate or international disputes. Brigg (2003) notes that “many practitioners and advocates of mediation see themselves as effecting a transformation in their clients’ orientation to conflict” (p. 288) and in the case of Western mediators, they see that the only positive course is one that evokes as little open conflict as possible. By functioning under such a blindly one-sided paradigm, it is impossible to expect a solution that is agreeable to both parties due to these differences in the way fundamental components of the conflict (violence, for example) are viewed within the confines of a particular culture. In our culture, we see the non-violent solution as being the only real desirable outcome and do not pay heed to the cultural particularities that make this an unworkable solution in some cultures. Unlike Westerners, there are cultures that value violent conflict—cultures that see this as the honorable or correct way to settle disputes and the only one that produces lasting effects. In many cultures, “violence and conflict are not seen as destructive of society, but as one of a number of means of forming and maintaining groups” (Brigg 290).


Globalization and Cross-Cultural Mediation

It is impossible to have an informed conversation about mediation in any context in the modern world without addressing the unique implications of globalization. “Globalization can be defined as a process through which the world is increasingly connected through economic, social, and political networks and systems” (Crampton, 2006, p. 238) and this connected nature of so many aspects of society is both at the root of many conflicts as much as it provides some solutions to disputes. While the means of globalization, particularly as they relate to communication and the internet, are growing in terms of the sheer number of cultural groups who have access to and use such means, homogenization of ideas is not occurring. In other words, while many different groups have access to a great deal of information about disputes, cultures, and the history of the localized conflicts, this does not mean that the parties are going to use this information and the opinions they encounter as a replacement for their cultural ideas of what is acceptable. What this means is that while globalization is an incredibly strong, steady, and growing force worldwide, mediators cannot rely on it as a softener to the deeply-held cultural beliefs of the groups they encounter. Not all groups accept the Western model of non-violent or passive dispute resolution and even though such groups may have access to and understand the Western model, mediators must allow the cultural practices of the groups guide the discussion and not count on the parties to automatically accept the Western form since it is the most “global” choice for conflict resolution.