Gender, Culture, and Technology and Handling Conflict
GENDER AND HANDLING CONFLICT
Traditional gender socialization creates challenges for men and women as they seek to constructively resolve conflicts. Women are encouraged to avoid and suppress conflict and to sacrifice their own goals to accommodate others (Wood, 1998). Consequently, many women have little experience in constructively pursuing their goals during a dispute. Men, in contrast, learn to adopt competitive or even violent approaches to interpersonal clashes, as such approaches suggest strength and manliness (Wood, 1998). At the same time, they’re taught not to harm women. Thus, during a contentious exchange with a woman, men face a dilemma: Compete or avoid? Many men handle the dilemma by downplaying conflicts or simply leaving the scene instead of seeking constructive resolution.
Given that gender can sometimes interfere with constructive conflict management, reconsider how you approach conflict with men and women. When experiencing conflicts with women, encourage the open expression of goals to allow for a collaborative solution. Above all, avoid assuming that no conflict exists just because the other person hasn’t voiced any concerns. When managing conflicts with men, be aware of the male emphasis on competitive approaches. Stress collaboration, and as you communicate, steadfastly avoid forms of communication that may escalate the conflict, such as personal criticism, insults, or threats.
267
CULTURE AND HANDLING CONFLICT
The strongest cultural factor that influences your conflict approach is whether you belong to an individualistic or a collectivistic culture (Ting-Toomey, 1997). People raised in collectivistic cultures often view direct messages regarding conflict as personal attacks (Nishiyama, 1971) and consequently are more likely to manage conflict through avoidance or accommodation. People from individualistic cultures feel comfortable agreeing to disagree and don’t necessarily see such clashes as personal affronts (Ting-Toomey, 1985). They are more likely to compete, react, or collaborate.
Given these differences, how might you manage conflict effectively across cultures? If you’re an individualist embroiled in a dispute with someone from a collectivistic culture, consider the following practices (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003):
Recognize that collectivists may prefer to have a third person mediate the conflict (Kozan & Ergin, 1998). Mediators allow those in conflict to manage their disagreement without direct confrontation, thereby helping to maintain harmony in the relationship, which is especially important to collectivists.
268
Use more indirect verbal messages. For example, sprinkle your comments with “maybe” and “possibly,” and avoid blunt responses such as “no.”
Let go of the situation if the other person does not recognize that the conflict exists or does not want to deal with it.
If you’re a collectivist in contention with someone from an individualistic culture, the following guidelines may help:
Recognize that individualists often separate conflicts from people. Just because you’re in conflict doesn’t mean that the situation is personal.
Use an assertive style, and be direct. For example, use “I” messages and candidly state your opinions and feelings.
Manage conflicts when they arise, even if you’d much rather avoid them.
focus on CULTURE: Accommodation and Radical Pacifism
Accommodation and Radical Pacifism
You’re walking down the street, and a man approaches you and demands your wallet. You immediately give it and then ask him whether he also wants your coat. Or you badly want an open position at work. When you find out that a coworker also wants it, you inform your supervisor that you no longer want the job and encourage her to give it to your colleague instead.
As the biblical verse “When a man takes your coat, offer him your shirt as well” (Luke 6:29) suggests, one way to deal with conflict is an extreme form of accommodation known as radical pacifism. Although it is often associated with antiwar movements (Bennett, 2003), radical pacifism embodies a broader philosophy about the nature of interpersonal connections between human beings and how conflict is best resolved. Those practicing radical pacifism believe in a moral obligation to behave in selfless and self-sacrificial ways that quickly end conflicts and assist others. During interpersonal conflict, this means discovering what someone else wants and needs, then aiding that person in attaining those goals, even if it means sacrificing your own.
The practice of radical pacifism cuts across countries, ethnicities, and social classes; it is primarily rooted in the religion of cultures. For example, in the Buddhist text Kakacupama Sutta (“The Simile of the Saw”), the Buddha entreats his followers, “Even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching. . . . [Instead] you should abide with a mind of loving kindness” (Bodhi & Nanamoli translation, 1995). Amish church elders embracing radical pacifism share a similar view: “Even if the result of our pacifism is death at the hands of an attacker during a violent conflict, so be it; death is not threatening to us as Christians. Hopefully the attacker will have at least had a glimpse of the love of Christ in our nonviolent response” (Pennsylvania Dutch Country Welcome Center, n.d.).
discussion questions
What are your beliefs regarding radical pacifism?
Do you have an ethical obligation to accommodate others when their interests clash with yours? At what point, if any, does this obligation end?
TECHNOLOGY AND HANDLING CONFLICT
Evenings at my house are filled with the musical chiming of text-message alerts, as my sons chat with friends and girlfriends. But I can always tell when a fight is brewing. The messaging suddenly accelerates, then there’s an actual phone call, followed by a quick scurry up the stairs for privacy. Asking if everything’s OK, I always get the same response, “Yes—we’re just fighting!”
269
Given how much of our daily communication occurs via technology, it’s no surprise that conflicts occur through text- or instant-messaging, e-mail, and Web posts. Nearly two-thirds of college students (61.2 percent) report using mediated channels to engage in conflicts, the most popular form being text-messaging (Frisby & Westerman, 2010). When asked why they choose mediated channels rather than face-to-face contact, respondents report “geographical distance” as the most common reason. Without the means for immediately seeing someone, texting becomes a tempting alternative for handling conflict.
Unfortunately, such media are not well suited for resolving conflicts. The inability to see nonverbal reactions to messages makes people less aware of the consequences of their communication choices (Joinson, 2001). As a result, people are more likely to prioritize their own goals, minimize a partner’s goals, and use hostile personal attacks in pursuit of their goals online than face-to-face (Shedletsky & Aitken, 2004).
Thus the first and most important step in managing conflict constructively is to take the encounter offline. Doing so can dramatically reduce the likelihood of attributional errors and substantially boost empathy. When college students were asked which channel should be used for handling conflict, they noted that “face-to-face is so much better” because it allows you “to know how the other person feels with their facial expressions” (Frisby & Westerman, 2010, p. 975). If meeting face-to-face isn’t an option at the time, you can try to stall the encounter by saying, “I think this is best handled in person. When can we get together and talk?” If you can’t (or don’t want to) meet, then switch to a phone call. That way, you’ll at least have vocal cues to gauge a partner’s reaction and enhance your empathy.
skillspractice
Online Conflict
Effectively working through conflict online
Wait before responding to a message or post that provokes you.
Reread and reassess the message.
Consider all the factors that may have caused the other person to communicate this way.
Discuss the situation offline with someone you trust.
Craft a competent response that begins and ends with supportive statements, uses “I” language, expresses empathy, and emphasizes mutuality rather than just your own perspective and goals.
If, however, you’re in a situation in which you must deal with the conflict online, try these suggestions (Munro, 2002):
Wait and reread. All conflict—whether it’s online or off—begins with a triggering event: something said or done that elicits anger, challenges goals, or blocks desired actions. When you receive a message that provokes you, don’t respond right away. Instead, wait for a while, engage in other activities, and then reread it. This helps you avoid communicating when your anger is at its peak. It also provides the opportunity for reassessment: often, in rereading a message later, you’ll find that your initial interpretation was mistaken.
Assume the best and watch out for the worst. When you receive messages that provoke you, presume that the sender meant well but didn’t express him- or herself competently. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Keep in mind all you know about the challenges of online communication: anonymity and online disinhibition, empathy deficits, and people’s tendency to express themselves inappropriately. At the same time, realize that some people enjoy conflict. Your firing back a nasty message may be exactly what they want.
270
Seek outside counsel. Before responding to online conflict messages, discuss the situation offline (ideally, face-to-face) with someone who knows you well and whose opinion you trust and respect. Having an additional viewpoint will enhance your ability to perspective-take and will help you make wise communication decisions.
Weigh your options carefully. Choose cautiously between engaging or avoiding the conflict. Consider the consequences associated with each option, and which is most likely to net you the long-term personal and relationship outcomes you desire. Ask yourself: Will responding at this time help resolve the conflict or escalate things further?
Communicate competently. When crafting your response, draw on all you know about competent interpersonal communication. That is, use “I” language, incorporate appropriate emoticons, express empathy and use perspective-taking, encourage the other person to share relevant thoughts and feelings, and make clear your willingness to negotiate mutually agreeable solutions. Perhaps most important, start and end your message with positive statements that support rather than attack the other person’s viewpoints.