Applying the CBSCM: Connecting Model to Practice
This case provides an excellent example of the multiple layers of intercultural conflict and is well suited to illustrate the updated CBSCM. The section presents a brief analysis of each of the main components in the CBSCM.
Primary Orientation Factors. At the core of this case is a misunderstanding about religious practices. By violating Islamic practices, Gibbons offended a segment of the Sudanese population. As a person in authority and teaching children, such an offense was unacceptable to many in Sudan. Furthermore, these practices are placed into law. Religiosity and religious fundamentalism is on display and can partially be understood as a reaction to the anxiety of globalization (Salzman, 2008). Sudan is a developing nation and has poor economic development and thus religious fundamentalism might serve as a buffer to the concerns of growing globalization. These sentiments were allegedly fueled by President al-Bashir’s ideology and thus encouraging stronger nationalism and a weaker global identity (Friedman, 2006).
Furthermore, an additional macrolevel factor in this case is likely the cultural value of power distance. Sudan is regarded as a high/large power distance culture and Great Britain is identified as a low/moderate power distance culture. Following her horizontal power distance cultural values, Gibbons allowed young children to have the freedom to make decisions in the class. In contrast, it is likely that Sudanese did not think it appropriate for a teacher to give up that role authority, particularly when the ramifications of that decision were significant. Essentially, “she should have known better.”
At the microlevel, it appears that Gibbons has high other-face concern and interdependence given that she apologized and focused on not wanting to offend anyone. In addition, high self-face concern was attributed to President al-Bashir in trying to give the United Kingdom a bloody nose.
However, very little information was provided about other parties in the conflict so it is difficult to speculate about either their meso- or microlevel factors. Situational Appraisals. The situational appraisals appear to involve multiple levels, and we discuss these from the macro- to the microlevel. At the macrolevel, a history of unresolved conflict is prominent. Sudan is a former colony of Great Britain and the anticolonial sentiment was noted by reporters and analysts. Sudan has high rates of poverty and unemployment with a gross domestic product per capita of $2,086 in 2007 (Nour, 2011). There might be some resentment from Sudanese as a member of the former colonial ruler coming in and taking a job away. The protestors appear to feel some disenfranchisement, although the reason for these feelings is not clear.At the exolevel, there is an element of ingroup and out-group distinction. Gibbons is clearly from another country, and the protestors noted that she cannot do what she did without appropriate punishment. President al-Bashir’s alleged push of ideology also pushes in-group/out-group distinction with an “us against the world” philosophy and blaming the West for the problems in Sudan. Media reporting within Sudan (“Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case”) versus Great Britain (BBC news: “A storm in a teacup case”) also fueled and escalated the ongoing conflict case and each media side represented the high ethnocentric- nationalistic sentiment in blaming the other side for cultural insensitivity or harshness.
At the meso- and microlevels, this conflict was defined in terms of competition and became a very intense culture-based conflict. Initially, the conflict goals were about violation of Islamic principles and quickly became a larger issues about the relationship between Sudan and Great Britain as former colony/ colonial master. Furthermore, face issues were quite apparent in the negotiation of conflict. Once the world was paying attention, it appeared that neither side wanted to lose face in the international face image arena.
Conflict Processes. Because of the larger framing of the conflict as competitive at the multiple situational levels, it is no surprise that there was a great deal of competitive conflict strategies and facework moves. The office assistant chose a competitive move by turning the matter over to authorities rather than addressing the matter with Gibbons. The quotes by various leaders in Great Britain were condemning of the arrest and sentencing. Protestors took a very competitive stance toward Gibbons. Even the two representatives from the House of Lords face a “difficult” initial negotiating as Sudanese officials were likely defending their identity and relational goals. Eventually, they were able to negotiate a pardon—a pardon that allowed the president to save face as he could say that he granted it and still upheld the deportation of Gibbons.
Conflict Competence. Little analysis is found about the aftermath of the Gibbons incident. Thus, it is difficult to identify the long-term effects of this conflict on the parties. In terms of competence, we do have some indication of how the conflict was viewed. Most Britons believed that the Sudanese judicial system and government handled the conflict ineffectively and inappropriately. They were happy with the final result that saw Gibbons pardoned and returned without harm so this aspect of the conflict was managed with competence— generally attributed to the skill of the two members of the House of Lords and political pressure from the West. Meanwhile, protestors in Sudan believed that the Sudanese judicial system was ineffective and inappropriate because they felt the punishment should have been harsher. Gibbons herself felt that she lacked intercultural conflict knowledge during the incident and likely was the one party in the conflict most likely to change transformationally as a result of the incident. In fact, using the ethical frames, we also can offer some insight about the conflict. First, the parties in this conflict generally used an ethical absolutism lens to analyze the other party’s behavior, although they may demand the other conflict party to use an ethical relativism lens to understand their cultural frame of reference.
Gibbons was judged harshly for using her own teaching standards; President al-Bashir and the judiciary were judged harshly for using their own legal standards to identify criminal behavior. Second, once Gibbons was arrested and convicted, protestors judged her as being morally excluded—her offense was judged so severe that she lost all consideration of respect and value from the local standard viewpoint. Additionally, Westerners looked at the protestors as morally exclusive as well wondering what type of people they are dealing with who encourage death or severe beating for a “minor misunderstanding.” Finally, the lack of social justice is likely the most important frame for this conflict. The inequalities between Sudan and Great Britain on the macro- and exolevel are stark. The differences in economic and political power likely shaped the conflict moves of the parties involved and provide a general context from understanding how this situation increased in intensity and polarized attributions.