Middle Way Approach­Based Dialogue (MWA-D) and Communication Approach

MWA-D contends that intergroup conflict can be resolved through productive dialogue if conflict parties show mutual concerns for the core conflict issues and let go of polarized hard-line positions or win-lose ethnocentric stance.

First of all, MWA-D firmly believes that intergroup conflicts can be resolved through substantive dialogue between the concerned parties. Dialogue promotes a culture of peace and recognizes human’s capacity for under­standing and conflict resolution (UNESCO, 2000, 2011). According to Boulding (2001), dialogue entails empathetic listening and cre­ative ways of dealing with differences. It is a dynamic, transactional process that allows interactants to explore and become aware of different and shared interpretations of issues, but it does not preclude disagreement (see Broome, this volume). Saunders (1999) contends that dialogue is a process of genu­ine interaction that relationally changes the conflict parties in that they seriously take into account each other’s concerns even when disagreement persists. Neither side has to give up his or her identity. The Dalai Lama calls for genuine interpersonal interaction and intergroup dialogues including Sino-Tibetan dialogues. He has genuinely reached out to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) leadership as well as with the Chinese people, especially Chinese intellectuals and students, to resolve Sino-Tibetan issues.

Second, recognizing positive interdepen­dent relationship in a conflict situation can lead to intergroup harmony. In conflict situa­tions, concerned parties are usually bound in negative interdependence. From an intergroup perspective, dominant party maintains status quo by adopting win-lose approach that per­petuates the negative interdependence between the parties and intergroup hostility. According to MWA-D, conflict parties can cultivate posi­tive interdependent relationships that lead to intergroup harmony. In dialogue, “the minds open to take in new ideas and perspectives, modify earlier assumptions, and rethink judg­ments” (Saunders, 2009, p. 378). Power is not an attribute of an individual or a group but a relational concept (Deutsch, 1973). Conflict parties can negotiate power based on power currencies (i.e., resource control, interpersonal linkages, communication skills, expertise, and others; see Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) to resolve issues. The relational perspective on power teaches us that it is possible to develop inter­group relationship in which power is not used against each other but is used for their mutual benefit. For example, in India, a multicultural and multilingual nation, both central and state governments share their power with people in that Indians, and even Tibetan diasporic members, enjoy freedom to practice their identities, faith, languages, and culture. This shared power promotes positive intergroup interdependence, and the rule of law facilitates intergroup conflict resolution (e.g., Hindu- Muslim conflict).

Third, advocating high mutual concerns is central to intergroup harmony. The impor­tance of other- and mutual-face concerns to conflict management across cultures has been well established (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Dialogue allows conflict parties to express their mutual concerns respectfully even if disagreement persists (Saunders, 2009). It is central to building cultures of peace in intergroup setting (Broome, this volume).

Fourth, creative thinking that transcends polarized hard-line positions is essential to resolving intergroup issues. Polemics and hard-line positions strongly reflect incompat­ible mind-set and values between the parties (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997). For example, traditionalists and liberals hold incompat­ible mind-sets and values regarding marriage. Recently, these incompatible values were rep­resented in the statements issued by President Obama and Republican Presidential Candidate Romney. While the former supported gay marriage, the latter advocated that marriage should be just between a man and a woman. To resolve intergroup issues with regard to marriage, both traditionalists and liberals need to think creatively outside the box to address the needs of both conflict parties for inclusive social world. Fundamentally, all humans share the same desires for happiness, respect, accep­tance, and freedom to express their ideas and feelings. Given these, dialogic communication is vital to negotiate the symbolic meanings of different needs and positions in conflict situ­ation. MWA-D advocates collaborative and creative thinking and social creative strategy addressing intergroup conflict issues (see later section).

Last, MWA can resolve intergroup issues. Perhaps, this is the most important element of the MWA-D approach. In the case of mar­riage, traditionalists and liberals, if willing, can explore ways to find some middle way solution, through dialogic communication, to address their conflict issue.

Table 26.2 Middle Way Approach-Based Solution (MWA-S)

NOTE: CTA = Central Tibetan Administration; PRC = People's Republic of China.