INTRODUCTION: MULTICULTURALISM AS A FOURTH FORCE
Contemporary global changes demonstrating the importance of a multicultural perspective are increasingly apparent in the literature about conflict resolution. First, conflicts between dominant majority and less powerful minorities defined by ethnographic, demographic, status, and formal affiliations are growing more popular and are more widely accepted outside and inside the United States.
Second, the Internet and other technologies have increased opportunities for communication with culturally different people, resulting in a more multicultural perspective across special interest groups. Third, there is a worldwide multicultural movement where ethnocultural minority groups have raised levels of economic, social, and political sensitivity to the importance of minorities’ perspectives. Fourth, there is a reexamination of cultural bias in the research literature so that instead of accepting dominant culture values and beliefs, there is more emphasis on discovering each cultural group’s unique explanation of their behavior and meaning (Carter, 1991).Until recently, the influence of cultural similarities and differences has been typically overlooked in the published literature about conflict resolution. Instead, there is frequently a dominant-culture, White, middle-class, urban, male, EuroAmerican perspective to the resolution of conflict across cultures. With the increased influence of non-Western cultures and countries, a variety of different styles of conflict resolution have become more visible. It is necessary for leaders and organizations to understand how conflict is understood and resolved differently in Western and in non-Western cultures. This is important not only because individuals from those countries are increasingly employed in organizations in the United States and other Western cultures, but also because Western cultures can learn a great deal from non-Western cultures about multicultural conflict resolution (Fry and Bjorkqvist, 1997).
Pedersen (1998) examines in detail some of the issues involved in declaring multiculturalism as a “fourth force” in psychology complementing the psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic theories. We know that each behavior is learned and displayed in a multicultural context, making that cultural context central to strengthening traditional psychological theories in ways that might lead us to call this new perspective a fourth “dimension” rather than a fourth “force.”
S. Sue (1998) identified sources of resistance to the term and arguments against “multiculturalism as a fourth force.” First, some view multiculturalism as competing with already established theories of psychological explanation in ways that threaten conventional thinking. Second, the terms “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are closely associated with affirmative action, quotas, civil rights, discrimination, reverse discrimination, racism, sexism, political correctness, and other highly emotional topics. Third, to the extent that multiculturalism is connected with postmodernism, the arguments against postmodernism as a valid theory are also applied to multiculturalism. Fourth, those favoring a universalist perspective contend that the same practice of psychological services applies equally to all populations without regard to cultural differences. Fifth, others contend that there are no accepted standards for describing multiculturalism as a theory and that it is too loosely defined to be taken seriously. Sixth, there are no measurable competencies for multicultural applications of psychological services or adequate standards of “best practice.” Seventh, multiculturalism is too complicated and it would be unrealistic to expect service providers to attend to such a range of factors simultaneously. Eighth, more research is needed on multicultural competencies, standards methods, and approaches. Ninth, multicultural standards cannot be incorporated into the services profession until all groups have been included. Tenth, multiculturalism represents reverse racism, quotas, and is anti-White.
In discussing these sources of resistance, S. Sue (1998) pointed out the tendency of the dominant culture to resist sharing power, to misrepresent or misunderstand the notion of multiculturalism, and to minimalize the dangers of that misunderstanding. This chapter will attempt to highlight understanding the advantages of a multicultural perspective in conflict resolution.