Critique of the CBSCM

While the original CBSCM worked well as a starting point to capture the interrela­tionship among the various components of explaining intercultural conflict, this chapter aims to update our original conceptualiza­tion of the “big picture” of the intercultural conflict map—from the primary conflict ori­entation factors to the conflict competence features.

First, the classical conflict model empha­sizes only a limited range of primary orien­tation factors such as value dimensions and personal attributes. Given the multilayered complexity of studying intercultural conflict, we would like to deepen the explanation of the layered complexity of the primary orientation factors of the old model via the consideration of multilevel analysis. The added social eco­logical primary factors of culture-based con­flict histories, worldviews and globalization issues, institutional-intergroup membership dynamics, community and family socializa­tion features, and additional individual fac­tors should enrich our understanding of the embedded systems of a polarized, intergroup conflict case.

Second, nations, institutions, group mem­berships, and individuals come together from divergent perspectives and appraise the con­flict situation at multiple levels. Thus, the “situational and relational parameter” com­ponent in our classic model appears to be con­text-thin to a certain extent. In this chapter, we update the old model to include a strong version of the social ecological lens that takes into account the situational appraisal process at multiple levels of contextual complexity. We also offer conflict researchers some analytical tools from the social ecological framework to reflect about upward-downward conflict effect, sideway effect, or interactive effect of such appraisal and conflict arousal process.

Third, in our classic model, the model did not emphasize enough the interdependent twin role of how sociocultural membership (e.g., religious/spiritual identity) and indi­vidual personal attributes interact together to form a holistic conflict identity package in influencing the process and outcome of inter- cultural or intergroup conflict. The proposed new model, CBSECM, remedies this short­coming and emphasizes the importance of the enactment and the importance of perceived identity respect and approval in intergroup- interpersonal conflict situations.

Fourth, regardless of how conflict approaches are categorized, the dynamic and interactive nature of the conflict process can­not be underestimated. The original CBSCM did not emphasize the interlocked, fluid nature of the give-and-take conflict bargaining pro­cess. In one sense, it is difficult to capture a dynamic process of intricate conflict nego­tiation on a two-dimensional piece of paper. However, we believe that by using the social ecological framework and its analytical tools of bottom-up/top-down and interactive effects, we can get conflict researchers one-step closer to the dynamic flow and the embedded nature of understanding a complex conflict case in situ. While the original primary orientation factors and situational features in the classic CBSCM provide a starting point for our inter- cultural conflict approach investigation, the added social ecological framework in the next section can provide further depth and breadth of explanation concerning a multifaceted con­flict case history.

Fifth, while the original model CBSCM has identified four key criteria in evaluating conflict competence, the concept of com­municating ethically in various conflict situ­ations and the struggle between the various ethical choices and standpoints have not been adequately addressed. In our updated model, CBSECM, ethics plays a prominent role in the intercultural conflict competence outcome feature.