THEORETICAL BASIS OF MULTICULTURALISM

Multiculturalism is based on theories of sociocultural identity, which provides the foundation for multicultural services such as conflict resolution. The premise of multiculturalism is that we can each belong to many different cultures at the same time, making it possible for a culturally different provider and consumer to find common ground in resolving conflict among those cultural perspectives they share (Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky, 1990).

World Views and the Rise of Multicultural Theory

Yang (1999) describes the consequence of imposing the assumptions of a West­ernized dominant culture on non-Western cultures. “What has been created via this highly Westernized research activity is a highly Westernized social science that is incompatible with the native cultures, peoples, and phenomena studied in non-Western societies. The detrimental over-dominance of Western social sci­ences in the development of corresponding sciences in non-Western societies is the outcome of a worldwide academic hegemony of Western learning in at least the last hundred years” (p. 182).

As an alternative to the dominant monocultural perspective Liu and Liu (1999) point out that spiritual interconnectedness in many non-Western cultures is becoming more important than the pursuit of individualistic values implicit in the Western perspective. In an attempt to go beyond the Western perspective, the study of “worldviews” became popular. The best-known value typology of worldviews was designed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). Kohls (1996) provides a useful overview of the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck model in five alter­native orientations that contrast Western and non-Western cultures.

The first orientation is toward human nature. Some people have an optimistic and positive view of others and other people have a more negative view. Most people take a middle position, waiting to judge others until they have more data about their positive or negative intentions.

The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Model has a long history of use across disciplines in the social sciences, resulting in measures of cultural difference, frameworks for comparing cultures, development of culturally sensitive treatments, mea­suring effectiveness, identifying cultural preferences, and organizing cultural information. The presumption is that mismatches of cultural values will inhibit the delivery of psychological services and complicate the communication process. Values are useful both for learning about oneself as a starting point for learning about culturally different alternatives.

More recently, Geert Hofstede (1980, 1986,1991) described five dimensions with culturally constructed patterns of similarities and differences.

These constructs were used to describe patterns of similarity and differences in the distribution of responses across countries. The resulting framework pro­vides a frequently cited resource for classifying worldviews on an international level. A synthetic culture laboratory was developed where groups of individu­als take on stereotyped identities according to one or another of these cultural dimensions to demonstrate the importance of cultural differences between groups. Participants are directed to find common ground and resolve conflict across synthetic cultures without sacrificing their cultural integrity (G. J. Hof- stede, Pedersen, and G. Hofstede, 2002). Culture is distinguished from the uni­versally shared characteristics of human nature on the one hand and from the uniquely individualized characteristics of personality on the other. Culture is programmed both in response to the universal characteristics of human nature and the specialized perspectives of personality (Geertz, 1973).

Alternatives to Value-Based Worldviews

Values define the boundaries of cultural systems and are therefore very impor­tant for conflict resolution across cultures. A cultural value does not require external proof or outside verification to be accepted as true.

The problem with differentiating cultural systems solely by their values is that cultures are more complicated and dynamic than traditional value per­spectives seem to suggest. The description of cultures by their values suggests that culture is a trait or “disposition” to do one thing and not do another. Values presume a constancy over time, place, and person that denies the very dynamic and complex nature of culture. People who value “kindness” may sometimes act unkindly. People who value “fairness” may sometimes act unfairly. This variability applies to people who presume to share the same cultural values and priorities. These people act differently from one another even though they main­tain the same cultural disposition according to their values. The more clearly defined and absolute these cultural categories are, the more likely they are to bend the data to fit their own rigid framework of standard topologies, mixing fact with inference.

The perspective of an “individualized” self, rooted in individualism of the Western world, is changing toward a more “familial” self, typical of non-Western cultures, as best described by the anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1975). “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against a social and natural background is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the con­text of the world’s cultures (p.

Theories of “self” have frequently failed to take into account the significance of social identification in the definition of identity. Social identities are self­definitions that are more inclusive than the individuated self-concept (Brewer, 1991). Brewer and Pierce (2005) have studied “multiple social identities” com­paring those subjects who have an overlapping and convergent perspective of their in-group, showing low complexity, with those subjects favoring a distinct, simultaneous, and cross-cutting perspective of multiple cultural in-groups accepting a high-complexity profile.

They found that people with convergent overlapping memberships (low com­plexity) were less tolerant and accepting of out-groups than those with a dis­tinct and cross-cutting (high-complexity) perspective. “Social identity complexity is the product of a process of recognizing and interpreting information about one’s own in-groups. Having a complex social identity is dependent on two con­ditions: first, awareness of more than one in-group categorization, and second, recognition that the multiple ingroup categories do not converge” (p. 429). Ashmore, Jussim, and Wilder (2001) provide an excellent interdisciplinary edited book focused on the connection between social identity theories and intergroup conflict. They point out how social identities can be adaptive in building con­nections but that they can also contribute to the conflict by increasing biases about social groups.

Understanding the sociocultural context guides the definition of self in several ways (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). One way is through independent self­construal, in which the self is perceived as a separate identity with internal char­acteristics that are stable across situations regardless of context. This perspective is typical of the more individualistic cultures. An alternative way more typical of collectivistic societies connects their notions of self to societal roles and rela­tionships. This interdependent self-construal is a relationship-centered per­spective, requiring conformity and seeking harmony over personal goals.

Kagitcibasi (1996) characterizes Western psychology as affirming the sepa­rated self as a healthy prototype basic to the prescriptive nature of applied psy­chology. When this expresses itself as selfishness, self-centeredness, and a lack of social commitment, the monocultural perspective becomes more a part of the social problem for non-Western cultures than part of the solution. The individ­ualistic Western cultural ethos draws a clear boundary between the self and nonself, contrary to the construal of self in many non-Western cultures. How­ever, because the monocultural perspective has a dominant position in Western society, the individualistic perspective is often assumed to be universal. The linking of the social with the individual perspective is essential to the development of a multicultural perspective among those resolving conflict in multicultural settings.

Cultural Identity Development Models

Cultural identity presumes issues of value and authority—involving issues of eth­nicity, language, race, tradition, religion, and other beliefs—that are even more complicated than theories of conflict from a political, sociological, or economic perspective. This developmental model provides a synthesis of the worldview models and other alternative models. The cultural identity development model emphasizes the complexity of culture and the changing character of multicul­turalism, emphasizing within-group differences as much as differences between groups. Conflict between “cultural states” involves what Emminghaus, Kimmel, and Stewart (1997) call “primal violence.” Such destructive conflicts are typi­cally more personal and inhumane than wars for economic or political advan­tage initiated by national states. Each individual is “enculturated” by their identity group into the language, customs, traditions, and beliefs that become their “reality” and “common sense” internalized from their experiences as mem­bers of their sociocultural identity group. “Although the locus of personal culture is the individual, the nature and quality of its cultural meanings are socially con­structed (p. 168).

The more cultural differences there are between people in conflict, the more difficulty they will have communicating or in understanding why they fail to communicate. Rabie (1994), writing on ethnicity and conflict, observed that “Diverse human interests and needs, largely incompatible religious social beliefs and competing individual and group goals cause conflict to arise and prevail” (p. 2). The identity issues, which are often the basis for conflict, can also become the basis of common ground through self-discovery. In resolving con­flict when individual and group identity is at stake and the conflict is rooted in protecting identity needs, the conflict is often more difficult than for “interest­based” conflict resulting from competition over resources. “In identity conflict groups struggle for their basic physical and moral survival” (Rothman, 1997, p. 9). Each ethnic group teaches its members their identity. Understanding ethnic identity development models is relevant to multicultural conflict resolution, especially between minority and majority groups.

Individuals acquire a personal cultural identity through interactions with other human beings and their environments. In this process, what becomes real­ity and common sense for each individual is selected and internalized from their social and physical experiences. Their consciousness is constructed through their contacts with others who have already incorporated certain alternatives from those experiences. Language, customs and traditions, ethnicity, race, reli­gion, and region all contribute to the construction of consciousness through social bonding in a process called enculturation. Enculturation is a synthesis of social and psychological processes that continuously changes and develops to create the psychic content of the individual’s personal culture.

In developing multicultural identity, most stage-based development models suggest that individuals in transition experience three to five phases or stages of cultural identification (Connerley and Pedersen, 2005; Pedersen, 2000a). First, there is an identification with the dominant culture in a preencounter, confor­mity, or traditional stage. Second, there is an awakening to the impact of racism (including sexism, ageism, and so on) in a transitional encounter or dissonant stage, often involving anger toward the dominant culture by minorities. Third, there is an identification with one’s own ethnic group. Fourth, there is an inter­nalization and integration of both cultures. The literature on Nigrescence, or Black racial identity, has led the research literature about ethnic identity devel­opment formation.

Helms (1985, 1990) and Cross (1991) are the best-known developers of a stage model. This model characterizes the stage-based identity development models as putting the responsibility for adaptation on the minority individual rather than society. Standard identity development models do not account for the adaptation process in change and assume that identity will develop in a lin­ear, continuous process. The research on ethnic identity development models has described an alternative framework. Helms’ (1985) five assumptions about minority development models summarize the extensive literature on develop­ment of an identity by minority peoples. These five assumptions pervade the literature on developing a minority identity. “First, minority groups develop modal personality patterns in response to White racism. Second, some styles of identity resolution are healthier than others. Third, cultural identity develop­ment involves shifts in attitudes involving cognitive and affective components. Fourth, styles of identity resolution are distinguishable and can be assessed. Fifth, intracultural and intercultural interactions are influenced by the manner of cultural identification of the participants” (p. 241). Cross (1991) later expanded his earlier design to move toward a broader “divergent” and more inclusive focus toward developing multiple social identities at the highest stages. Successful conflict resolution needs to accommodate clients at their appropri­ate level of ethnic identity development.

Multicultural conflict resolution is based on the assumption that even the worst of enemies share common human needs in their search for identity. The very identity issues that are the basis for the conflict can also become the basis of common ground between enemies, providing that core concerns of survival, recognition, and dignity are addressed.

For example, when Palestinian and Jewish diplomats met in a Norwegian diplomat’s home in discussions that led to the Oslo Accord, the breakthrough was said to result from both antagonists resolving conflict for the sake of their children and their future families. Children became the common ground and this concept was prominent in the literature about the Oslo Accord.

The Complexity of Multiculturalism

Acknowledging the importance of complexity protects us from accepting easy answers to hard questions. This process is most apparent in our use of scien­tific theories. In attempting to understand complexity, we develop simplified models that can be explained and understood but that reflect only selected aspects of reality. Our embedded rationality requires that we construct simpli­fied models of complex reality in order to explain things. If we behave rationally with regard to the model, we assume the behavior is appropriately explained in the real world. The danger is that we confuse simple explanations and labels with a more complex reality. There is a natural tendency to “keep things sim­ple.” We normally have little tolerance for the confusion of aggregate, mixed- up, unsorted, undifferentiated, unpredictable, and random data. We naturally move quickly to sort, order, and predict simplified patterns from the chaos of our daily experiences. Rather than accepting a static worldview of fixed states, Butz (1997) describes the self as dynamic and similar to self-organizing, non­linear steady states in which stability becomes a phase of the system’s devel­opmental process in the mode of “chaos theory” or, more recently, “complexity theory.”

Complexity theory assumes a chaotic, nonlinear dynamic and self­organization of phenomena that are unpredictable locally because of their complexity but, when viewed globally, are essentially stable. This provides an alternative to simplistic, linear, cause/effect theories and acknowledges the danger of simplistic answers to complex questions. Culture provides a metaphor for applying complexity theory to multicultural conflict resolution. The situa­tion in which conflict occurs is inevitably complex and dynamic, involving net­works of relationships and loyalties important to each individual’s self-identity and essential to consider in conflict resolution. Any monocultural perspective of that dynamic sociocultural system will not adapt to the changing sociocul­tural context.

Cohen (1991) and Sunoo (1990) recommend that the negotiators study the opponent’s culture and history, try to establish a warm personal relationship, do not assume that others understand what they mean, are alert to indirect com­munication, sensitive to face/status issues, adapt their strategy to their oppo­nent’s cultural needs, are appropriately flexible or patient, and recognize that outward appearances are important.

Lund, Morris, and LeBaron-Duryea (1994) concluded their review of research on the need to go beyond a “taxonomy trap” of lists and guidelines for each cul­tural group. Culture is complicated and dynamic with considerable diversity within and between each cultural group. “The challenge is to develop a view of culture that delineates differences among individuals and subgroups within a cul­ture and encompasses commonalities within that group without simplification, overgeneralization and stereotyping” (p. 24).

Dominant culture perspectives of conflict resolution often incorporate values and attitudes not shared by members of minority groups but that are based on culture-bound assumptions of the dominant majority culture. These culture-bound assumptions are both implicit and explicit in the staged models of mediation and conflict resolution taught by the dominant culture. By perceiving the world from a narrow or rigid frame of reference, we ignore the complex reality around us in the illusion of simplicity. Theories of cognitive complexity suggest that people who are more cognitively complex are more capable than others of seeing these multiple perspectives in contrast to simplified solutions of cultural bias.

Cultural bias that favors the Westernized “dominant cultural” perspective is not merely an abstraction but presents itself through a series of assumptions fre­quently found in the literature about conflict resolution (Pedersen 2000a). (1) We all share the same single measure of what is normal behavior. (2) Individuals, not groups, are the basic building blocks of society. (3) Only problems defined within a narrow framework of the provider’s expertise or academic discipline boundaries are of concern to the provider. (4) There is a superior quality judg­ment attached to “low-context” abstractions. (5) Independence is desirable and dependence is not desirable. (6) Clients are helped more by formal/professional experts than by their natural support systems. (7) Everyone thinks the same way, moving linearly from cause to effect. (8) Providers need to change clients to fit the system and not change the system to fit the client. (9) History is not relevant to a proper understanding of contemporary events. (10) We already know all of our culturally learned assumptions. In each example, the cultural bias favors sim­plistic solutions to complex and ambiguous problems.

Some persons are able to tolerate ambiguity better than others. These peo­ple are either better at differentiating and perceiving several dimensions in a range of alternatives or integrating and seeing complex connections between different sources. People who are more complex are able to see many differ­ent dimensions, classifications, theories, or alternatives to explain a situa­tion. Because reality tends to be complex, those who are able to identify more alternatives are more likely to see correctly and make more appropri­ate decisions.

Culture’s complexity is illustrated by the hundreds or perhaps even thou­sands of culturally learned sociocultural identities, affiliations, and roles we each assume at one time or another. The dynamic nature of culture is demonstrated as one of those alternative cultural identities replaces another in salience. The service provider must keep track of the client’s salient cultural identity as it changes even within the context of an interview. Complexity involves the iden­tification of multiple perspectives within and between individuals. For example, can the conflict manager perceive a problem from the multiple viewpoints of a culturally different client in the many different and changing culturally learned roles that the client fills from time to time and place to place?

The narrow definition of culture has limited multiculturalism to what might more appropriately be called a “multiethnic” or “multinational” relationship between groups with a shared sociocultural heritage that includes similarities of religion, history, and common ancestry. Ethnicity and nationality are impor­tant to sociocultural identity as one subset of culture, but the construct of culture—broadly defined—goes beyond national and ethnic boundaries. By defining sociocultural identities broadly to include within-group demographic variables (for example, age, sex, place of residence), status variables (for exam­ple, social, educational, economic), and affiliations (formal and informal), as well as ethnographic variables such as nationality, ethnicity, language, and religion—the construct “multicultural” becomes generic to all relationships.

Persons from the same ethnic or nationality group may still experience cul­tural differences. Not all Blacks have the same experience, nor do all Asians, nor all American Indians, nor all Hispanics, nor all women, nor all old people, nor all disabled persons. No particular group is unimodal in its perspective. There­fore, the broad and inclusive definition of culture is particularly important in preparing providers to deal with the complex differences and similarities among and between clients from every cultural group in multicultural conflict resolution.