What is it that makes intercultural communication, especially about sensitive issues, difficult?
I can think of many reasons – and I’d be interested in also hearing your thoughts. As one of many of the difficulty, I think the following pattern frequently occurs:
_________________________________
When people get defensive about sensitive issues they often make generalizations and give labels intended to attack the credibility/image of another person or group (e.g. derogatory slurs – which are too abundant to name them all – or terms such as worthless, “evil”, bigot, and so on). In an emotionally vulnerable state – instead of isolating conversation to specific aspects of an issue or policy that they disagree with (while generally having respect for the people involved), too often people make sweeping generalizations that do little good (even for their own cause) and usually only end up doing more to alienate groups and polarize differences. In this kind of an environment people tend to minimize their own faults (and if they admit them at all, justify them through some sort of blame) while at the same time over-emphasizing the negative in the other side.
________________________________
These kinds of interactions are painfully evident internationally in disagreements between China and Japan, arguments between various racial groups in South Africa, and the controversies between Sunnis and Shiites, Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East, the so-called “war on terror”, and the list goes on and on.
In the U.S., this kind of pattern has contributed to an increasing divide between liberals and conservatives (as seen in unfair over-generalizations by either side of controversial political figures such as Hillary Clinton or George Bush).
Historically and recently inter-religious discussions also prove difficult.
So it is not surprising what happens when you combine religion and politics. It easily becomes evident why religion and politics are two issues that usually are omitted from polite discussions.
I’d like to look at recent online discussions about politics and religion, and briefly compare them to some larger international issues. I want to also consider the interesting dynamic that occurs with Internet communications; one aspect of which is how people can anonymously post comments regarding sensitive issues. Additionally I’d like to question to role of existing media and entertainment sources in existing interpersonal and intercultural relations.
I’m very interested in other people’s thoughts on the pattern that I speak about.
- Do you see the same pattern?
- What, in your opinion, contributes to it?
- What do you think are the best approaches to mediate such conflicts?
- How can disagreements about issues be productive instead of destructive?
- What has been the role and impact of the Internet?
- What has been the role of media and entertainment sources in either propagating or dismantling stereotypes, etc.?
To be continued…
I suppose that intercultural dialogue indeed often fails because of malicious generalizations — but also because of people comparing incomparable things. Perhaps originating from Hall/Bauman-ish us/them dichotomy, we have this tendency to compare, e.g., our ideals with others’ practice; our norms with others’ dogmas; etc.
When we see killing in Rwanda, we tend to note, “but our religion/culture/etc forbids killing”. When we hear that Talibani destroys ages-old statues, we condemn them saying, “people must respect their history.”
There we contrast our ideals with others’ practice; others’ dogmas with our norms. But you can’t do that, in all fairness’ name. If you must compare us and them, compare dogmas with dogmas, actions with actions, norms with norms, and ideals with ideals.
Very interesting comment Matti. I had to read your comment twice before I think I understand what you meant, and I like what you are saying. I’m trying to think of a practical example of doing what you suggest, but to be honest it is difficult to easily come up with one.
Perhaps it is because we see only the actions of others (tangible things) and it is difficult to visualize or understand the intangibles (ideals, etc). In a cultural context, even our own ideals are often hard to recognize and articulate, much less to really understand those of others.
And I can’t help but wonder about there being at least some deeper universal ideals that perhaps all humans share – with simply different applications of them? (e.g. in every world religion there is the equivalent of the golden rule – not to do to someone else what you would not want done to yourself)
Then that brings up the discrepancy between even a persons or societies own ideals vs. their own actions.
Wow – I guess you have given me a lot to think about. Thanks.
Do you feel that there IS an answer to all of these conflicts? Or is it possible that there isn’t anything we can do about some of them?
When I went to Israel a few months ago–I saw hundreds of kids carrying guns, I saw how much anger there is about the Temple Mount, I had guys with guns search through our bus at the Bethlehem Wall as we arrived and left, I saw things each side of the government had done to make the other mad, etc., and it hit me that there might NOT be a prospect or hope for peace in that land. Almost all the people I talked with could be considered ‘normal people’ who want to be friends and share the land with each other, but there are too many who don’t and, like you said, make generalizations and refuse to see their own faults. They refuse to soften their hearts and cause so many problems. (Have you ever read “Blood Brothers”? It’s incredible. Put it on your list right now, if not!) Anyway, as I was up on the Temple Mount I had an overwhelming feeling that there was no hope for peace in that land until the Savior comes and reigns. There is just too much bitterness and misunderstanding that too many refuse to try to overcome.
Am I pessimistic? Do I not know enough?
Since you are recommending books – I’ll add one that I think you would like. It is called “The Anatomy of Peace” – by the Arbinger group (related to the very topic you mention). They show how the wars in the world are larger reflections of the wars in our own homes and hearts. Reading it helped convince me some more that peace is possible, but has to begin in ourselves.
I also think of my friend from Rwanda, who I met in Tanzania. His father and brother were killed in the senseless ethnic slaughter. I asked him if he was bitter and angry. He sincerely said, “No, what good would that do? That does not help to heal anyone or our country. We just need to be more optimistic and move forward.”
Is that hopelessly naive or powerfully wise?
Easier said than done obviously, but I think he is an example of someone who is doing it. It seemed to me like a Gandhi approach.