In addition to more direct instances of cross-cultural mediation that relies far too much on one society’s perception of what is right and what the “best” solution to a conflict would be, there are other minor pitfalls that can occur when a mediator is not familiar enough with one of the disputing cultures. When this happens, it could be simply because the mediator feels he or she knows enough about a country or cultural group already and does not need to seek outside guidance for the particularities of the culture. One of the ways mediators can be misled into think this is because of the nature of globalization. It can be far too easy to feel that we know all about a culture because of our media exposure to certain elements of it. To highlight this complex issue, Salamandra (2002) discusses this in the context o mediators who work in the Middle East. The author suggests that Westerners were too reliant on stagnant or completely flawed assumptions, many of which are hinged on ideas from colonial times, to be able to conduct fruitful negotiations. “Romantic notions of Gulf Arab cultural particularism feature prominently in mediators’ products and activities. In the case of Arab London’s mediation industries, globalization results not in cultural homogenization, but rather in the reproduction and commodification of reified notions of cultural difference” (Salamandra, 2002, 285). What Salamandra is suggesting is that the mediators from the West were too closed to the cultural particularities to achieve a worthwhile result—they kept expecting their Arab counterparts to react in a manner that was not in line with cultural beliefs of Arabs simply because of a perception about Arabs as a cultural group that had no real cultural basis. This problem is part of a larger issue for mediators, especially where colonialism and other aspects of tense history are present between two or more parties—even if one of those parties is the actual mediator. “During colonialism European capital and technological investment was concentrated in white settler colonies at the expense of development in tropical Africa. In the postcolonial context, the world economy is dominated by a triad of regional centers in the ‘global North’ (North America, Asia, and Western Europe)” (Crampton, 2006, p. 239). What this means is that the global north—which is the United States especially, risks perpetuating a new type of colonialism through its expressions of conflict resolution. By viewing the resolution tactics of other cultures as inferior, the vicious cycle with ethnocentrism at the root is perpetuated. Not allowing free discourse that allows non-Western ideas of conflict resolution in is how this new sort of idea-based colonialism occurs.
For all of its benefits, globalization in the cultural sense can create an unexpected and rather serious set of consequences for mediators working across cultures. “Skills of cultural mediation are increasingly crucial in a context of growing interconnectedness” (Salamandra, 2002, p. 287) and more importantly, the skill of understanding just how complex the interconnectedness is can be part of the challenge. “Although Americans have commodified mediation as a practice model standardized through professional training, the translation of that model into everyday social practice is culturally mediated and can only be successful in adapted to local context” (Crampton, 2006, p. 230). As Crampton (2006) suggests, it is far too simple to rely on the media to bring together our understanding of other cultures but in many senses, for mediators in the international context, it is simply lazy to rely on media alone—it is necessary to take an insider’s view to a new culture in order to help best achieve solutions that take into account sensitive issues of culture and dispute resolution. This is even more the case when dealing with nations that have dual cultural influences due to a history of colonialism, as highlighted in the case presented by Salamandra (2002). Crampton (2006) takes issue with an important question that has arisen in modern cross-cultural mediation debates about the nature of Western mediation practices. The author reiterates that during a symposium on the topic in 2005, “a provocative question was raised whether the globalization of mediation is a form of imperialism [and] in particular, the question was whether a peculiarly American form of conflict resolution was being exported and allowed to dominate the world stage” (230).
The Path to Informed, Successful Cross-Cultural Mediation
Mediation as a favorable way to settle disputes of all varieties has been the focus of study for several decades and while many studies have provided profiles of what constitutes an effective mediator, few have considered the unique cultural aspects that lend to their status as good mediators or how their cultural bias might have an effect of how their valued (Tennenbaum, 2004). It is important for those involved in cross-cultural mediation activities to recognize that the “perfect outcome” might not always be aligned with what the mediator’s culture defines as the most desirable. “In negotiation between parties from different social cultures, problems may arise from misunderstandings generated by dissimilar negotiating or bargaining styles, or in the meanings attached to signals” (Leng and Regan, 2003, p. 434) and these can lead to solutions that are not realistic or that fail during the mediation process. Accordingly, with this and the other elements that have been discussed to this point, there should be renewed effort for the criteria of what makes a good mediator to be updated. These updates should not include elements that have been assessed in the past such as outcomes or performance, but should look to more abstract issues such as how well a mediator can adapt to a new culture, how well he or she can learn (even if just using a short Hofstede analysis when time is short) about the particular values of the culture of one of the disputing parties, and finally, how well the cultural needs of all parties can be balanced so that a clear, allied, and culturally respectful solution can emerge. Without such a cultural approach, one cannot reasonably expect that a lasting solution will be achieved since any such solution would not be viable in the context of the culture that the effects of the mediation would play out in.
Mediation itself can be a difficult task simply because in many instances, it is being sought after many other more direct attempts at conflict resolution have passed or been rendered unacceptable by one or more parties (Leng and Regan, 2003). Some, such as Fornas (2000) suggest that mediation itself is not always a viable option in certain cross-cultural disputes and that taking the unrealistic step of making “grandiose” gestures at appearing culturally gregarious do not work as they are not going to be seen as authentic attempts to tying together the needs of a resolution and the distinct needs of the disputing cultures. In fact, Fornas (2000) provides one of the rare dissenting voices to the notion of becoming culturally literate to conduct particular acts of mediation and that if one has to dramatically change an attempt at mediation, other options should be exhausted first.
Conclusion
Ethnocentrism is one of the exact problems that many thought globalization would combat but in some ways it has further added to the complexity. While there is a great deal more information that can be accessed with relative ease by many cultural groups, this access to information is a far cry from being a tool to change minds. Cultures have deep-rooted beliefs that can take generations to change if they do at all. Instead of attempting to impose cultural ideas about what constitutes an effective and appropriate resolution based on ideas of what is morally or culturally superior, mediators must encourage culturally-appropriate solutions. While the Western tradition tells mediators that the only solution is a peaceful one, it is worth considering how there are cultural groups who value conflict and how this value is well-placed for their broader culture. Instead of using a culturally imperialistic way of approaching the situation and suggesting that the culture’s way of handling the conflict is wrong, it might be a better solution for the cross-cultural mediator to find a resolution that integrates the “best of both worlds” in terms of blending the best ideas from the Western tradition of dispute negotiation and conflict resolution with the standard cultural and societal practices of one or all of the disputing parties. When taking this approach, a cross-cultural mediator can truly achieve the long-sought goal of globalization in its best characteristic—bringing the world together as one to share the best of all cultures in a balanced and respectful manner.
Related Articles
Theories in Science and Their Impact on Psychology
Premarital Counseling : Approaches, Reasons and Risk
Interactive Conflict Resolution as Underexplored, Viable Mediation Method: Literature Review
References
Becker, T., & Slaton, D. (1987). Cross-Cultural Mediation Training.Mediation Quarterly, no. 17, 55-67.
Brigg, M. (2003). Mediation, Power, and Cultural Difference. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(3), 287-306.
Crampton, A. (2006). Addressing questions of culture and power in the globalization of ADR: lessons from African influence on American mediation. Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy, 27(2), 229-241
Davidheiser, M. (2008). Race, Worldviews, and Conflict Mediation: Black and White Styles of Conflict Revisited. Peace & Change, 33(1), 60-89.
Fornas, J. (2000). The crucial in between: the centrality of mediation in cultural studies. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 3(1), 45-65.
Lam, A. & Zane, N. (2003) Ethnic difference in coping with interpersonal stressors: a test of self-construcals as cultural mediators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 35(446).
Leng, R. J., & Regan, M. (2003). Social and Political Cultural Effects on the Outcomes of Mediation in Militarized Interstate Disputes.International Studies Quarterly, 47(3), 431-452.
Roth, W. (2007). On Mediation: Toward a Cultural-Historical Understanding. Theory & Psychology, 17(5), 655-680.
Salamandra, C. (2002). Globalization and Cultural Mediation: The Construction of Arabia in London. Global Networks, 2(4), 285-299.
Tenenbaum, C. (2004, March 9). Resolving Conflicts Through Mediation : the Cultural Bias. Conference Papers — International Studies Association, Retrieved February 12, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
