Intercultural mediation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In intercultural mediation is a special case of mediation . In a conflict, a third party usually mediates between two conflicting parties, with at least one party having a different cultural identity . Conflict resolution is influenced by taking cultural or ethnic standpoints into account.

application areas

In principle, any type of conflict can also take place in an intercultural context and thus also be dealt with in the form of intercultural mediation. There are two prominent examples, particularly at the level of international understanding, in which intercultural conflicts were successfully mediated:

  • The Camp David Agreement , brokered by US President Jimmy Carter in 1978, made peace between Israel and Egypt possible.
  • Encounters between the PLO and Israel, which were initiated in 1993 by impulses from the Norwegian government

With the Camp David Agreement , approaches from conflict mediation were used on an international level for the first time.

However, it becomes clear that at this level it is not only a question of the type of mediation that is used within societies. In addition to the methods of non-directive mediation and facilitation (i.e. a form of facilitating conflict resolution), which have the greatest overlap with mediation as such, there are also directive methods (e.g. power mediation) with those of the third Party power is used.

There are also forms of consultation that are often referred to as "Interactive conflict resolution" (i.e. interactive conflict resolution). In practice, elements of all techniques are usually used for mediation.

Due to the influence of globalization and migration, there has been an increasing need for "interculturally competent conflict mediation to register" in the context of classic conflict mediation in recent years:

  • in schools
  • in youth and social work
  • in city quarters
  • in the community
  • in municipal administrations
  • but also in companies with employees from different cultural backgrounds.

A significant advantage is often mentioned that mediation favors democratic structures and “the realization of ideals such as social justice and the right to individual development”.

Differences to conventional conflict mediation

Conventional conflict mediation is basically about resolving a conflict in such a way that all parties achieve the greatest possible success. This solution should be negotiated by the conflicting parties themselves with the help of a mediator - i.e. a mediator. This process of finding and negotiating a solution requires smooth communication between the conflicting parties and the third party. This can be influenced by cultural differences. Most of the knowledge about this comes from intercultural communication .

According to Hall, for example, culture can be understood “as a subjective phenomenon, as a structuring of feeling, thinking and acting”.

On the one hand, it can be the trigger or topic of the conflict; on the other hand, communication in the solution process can be impaired by cultural differences or the use of culture as a strategy.

Cultural differences that can influence mediation are:

  • Different (native) languages ​​of the parties involved
  • Differences in non-verbal behavior
  • Dealing with emotions
  • Differences in conflict culture; generally the way to deal with conflicts
  • Differences in cultural values ​​and norms
  • Power asymmetries due to culture
  • Culture as a strategy

Culture as a subject of conflict

If culture, for example in the form of opposing values ​​and norms, is the cause or topic of the conflict, it seems difficult to work out "just solutions".

The aim must be to create respect and understanding for each other's values, for example by highlighting “overarching similarities”. For example, if one parent forbids their child to take part in swimming lessons for religious reasons, but this is mandatory from the teacher's point of view, the child's overriding best interests can serve as a basis for communication. Building on this, an understanding of the different reasons is possible.

Cultural differences as a cause of conflict

Cultural differences can lead to " communication disorders and misunderstandings " that lead to conflict. Differences in language and non-verbal behavior are particularly important here. In other cultures , gestures such as shaking the head or a thumbs up can have contradicting or inappropriate meanings and thus lead to miscommunication. However, one has to consider that misunderstandings and mere differences are usually not enough to cause a conflict that is difficult to resolve. it is rather “experiences of disregard and degradation” due to asymmetrical relationships that lead to persistent conflicts and a need for revenge.

So it is important not to attribute conflicts to culture and to emphasize differences. Instead, other causes of conflict and the use of culture as a strategy (see below) should be considered. Existing differences can of course exacerbate an existing conflict.

Cultural differences in conflict management

Culture does not necessarily have to be the cause of a conflict, but can also influence how it is dealt with. This becomes most obvious when the parties do not speak a common language and translation is necessary. This can also be necessary in relation to non-verbal behavior or dealing with emotions. Only in this way is the necessary mutual understanding possible.

Influence of cultures of conflict

Furthermore, one finds that there are different ways of seeing conflicts and dealing with them, depending on the culture.

  • When is it a conflict?
  • Is the result or the process the focus?
  • Should “hierarchical” or “consensual” decisions be made?
  • Are conflicts carried out publicly or privately?
  • Are formal or informal processes taking place?
  • Are you looking for a direct or indirect negotiation or confrontation?

These ways of dealing with conflicts are usually clarified before the mediation process, but can and should be discussed again and again in the course of the mediation process. “The model of cultural dimensions” is another way of dividing cultural groups. According to König, four dimensions have proven themselves in practice:

  • "The Priority of Individual versus Group"; who has to take part in the mediation, what does personal responsibility mean?
  • "The priority of task completion versus relationship building"; Is the common goal of conflict resolution enough or does a relationship have to be established before the solution?
  • "The priority of equality versus hierarchy"; when does equality play a role, when is it more efficient to use hierarchical structures?
  • "The Priority of Traditions versus Change"; when is stability important, when is progress?

In collectivist cultures, for example, relationships and the “disorders of the corresponding social system” and thus relationships are in the foreground, while in individualistic cultures the “tensions between individuals” are primarily seen. This results in corresponding priorities for conflict management. Either relationships or the problem should be dealt with as a priority. This is where the differences in conflict cultures begin again.

The danger of culturalization

Merely looking at the differences runs the risk of ascribing them to the culture and over emphasizing them. This means that other causes are not recognized and it becomes more difficult to work out commonalities. It is therefore particularly important to filter out only those cultural differences that are actually relevant to the conflict. For example, linguistic differences that must be overcome in any case or differences that determine the subject of the conflict, such as on a religious level.

Power asymmetries due to culture

Cultural differences often lead to power asymmetries that can play an important role in conflict mediation. For example, the system in which the mediation takes place is usually in the superior position. An overemphasis on one's own culture can at the same time lead to a devaluation of the other. As Herodotus already stated, “people are permeated with the opinion that the forms of life they have developed are always the best”. This apparent “normality” is often accompanied by an offense of the party, which has a lower status .

In order to counteract these asymmetries, the process should be able to be designed by both parties and power asymmetries should be named and taken seriously.

Culture as a strategy

Often culture is not what is “conflictual”, but only “an instrumentalization for the argumentative defense of actually individual interests”. According to Fechler, the background to this can be traced back to the unequal distribution of power.

  • If the more powerful invokes their culture, it is often in the background that privileges should be defended.
  • If the more powerful appeals to the culture of the counterpart, this often conceals the intention to psychologize and devalue it.
  • If the lower status refers to their culture, this can indicate that special rights are being claimed and a possible withdrawal is justified
  • If the lower status refers to the culture of the more influential counterpart, a devaluation or scandal should often be achieved, for example through the accusation of racism.

The problem with this is that it is difficult to check the real "relevance" that culture has in this case.

Competencies for mediators

Due to the special features of intercultural mediation, mediators have to meet special requirements. Since the perception of a conflict influences the actions of the mediator, it is particularly important that the mediator is open and has “flexible empathy ”.

Furthermore, they should have a certain " cultural intelligence ", that is, "knowledge of their own and other cultures", as well as a "basic awareness ... of cultural influences and differences". However, this knowledge should not be made absolute, since culture is also often instrumentalized.

So mediators should look beyond the “what” of culture and consider “how” culture is talked about and how it is used. It is important to make the appreciation for the other clear and to use their self-description and their meaning instead of apparent knowledge. This avoids culturalization.

In addition, mediators should take power asymmetries seriously, the "effects of which on an interpersonal level" can presumably only be reduced.

This includes, in particular, that experiences of “structural and individual discrimination” are recognized and that the superior party is shown that their idea of ​​normality can be offensive for the other party.

Finally, the mediation should be "context sensitive". This includes the awareness that the framework conditions are determined by the "host [-] system". It is therefore important to negotiate the "machining design" together. In this way, rules and ideas of justice can be introduced and the impartiality of mediators can be questioned and, if necessary, a mediator can be called in as a representative of the losing party. It can also be helpful if the mediator is aware of his role and, if necessary, counteracts imbalances in the form of “empowerment” and takes sides.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Werner Müller: Intercultural Mediation: for dealing with conflicts (not only) in encounters. , 2000, p. 2. Website of the international youth work DIJA. Retrieved September 10, 2013.
  2. ↑ Norbert Ropers: Peaceful interference. Structures, processes and strategies for the constructive handling of ethnopolitical conflicts. (Berghof Report No. 1). Berghof Institute for Constructive Conflict Research, Berlin 1995, p. 51f.
  3. ↑ Norbert Ropers: Peaceful interference. Structures, processes and strategies for the constructive handling of ethnopolitical conflicts. (Berghof Report No. 1). Berghof Institute for Constructive Conflict Research, Berlin 1995, p. 80.
  4. ↑ a b Bernd Fechler: conflict prevention and mediation in pluralist societies ethnically and religiously. In: Migration and Social Work. Diversity and intercultural competence vol. 31, no. 4/4, 2009, p. 297.
  5. ↑ Alois Moosmüller (Ed.): Intercultural communication from an ethnological point of view . In: Contours of a Scientific Discipline. Munich Contributions to Intercultural Communication Vol. 20, 2007.
  6. ^ A b Ljubljana Wüstehube: Mediation in an intercultural context: Increased attention to a sense of justice and contextual justice. In: Forum Mediation, magazine of the Swiss Association for Mediation. No. 2, 2002, 5th year
  7. ↑ Bernd Fechler: Conflict prevention and mediation in ethnically and religiously plural societies. In: Migration and Social Work. Volume 31, issue 4/4, 2009: Diversity and intercultural competence, p. 298.
  8. ↑ Bernd Fechler: Intercultural Mediation Competence . Outlines of a difference, dominance and context sensitive mediation . In: Georg Auernheimer (ed.): Intercultural competence and educational professionalism. 2008, p. 7.
  9. ↑ a b Ursula König, Consolata Peyron: Interkulturelle Mediation . In: Agogik. 3/10, pp. 44f.
  10. ↑ Ursula Koenig, Consolata Peyron: Intercultural Mediation . In: Agogik. 3/10, p. 46.
  11. ^ A b Norbert Ropers: Peaceful interference. Structures, processes and strategies for the constructive handling of ethnopolitical conflicts. (Berghof Report No. 1). Berghof Institute for Constructive Conflict Research, Berlin 1995, p. 74.
  12. ↑ Herodotus cit. after Werner Peterman quoted. according to Alois Moosmüller (Ed.): Intercultural communication from an ethnological point of view . In: Contours of a Scientific Discipline. Munich Contributions to Intercultural Communication Vol. 20, 2007.
  13. ↑ Bernd Fechler: Intercultural Mediation Competence . Outlines of a difference, dominance and context sensitive mediation . In: Georg Auernheimer (ed.): Intercultural competence and educational professionalism. 2008, p. 11.
  14. ↑ Dominic Busch: Forms of intercultural mediation and their communication through training . In: Interculture Journal. Vol. 2, No. 5, 2003.
  15. ↑ Bernd Fechler: Intercultural Mediation Competence . Outlines of a difference, dominance and context sensitive mediation . In: Georg Auernheimer (ed.): Intercultural competence and educational professionalism. 2008, p. 7f.
  16. ↑ Frank Liebe: Intercultural mediation - a difficult mediation. An Empirical Analytical Approach to the Meaning of Cultural Differences. In: Berghof Report. No. 2, 1996, p. 48.
  17. ↑ Ursula König, Consolata Peyron: Intercultural Mediation . In: Agogik. 3/10, p. 49.
  18. ↑ Bernd Fechler: Intercultural Mediation Competence . Outlines of a difference, dominance and context sensitive mediation . In: Georg Auernheimer (ed.): Intercultural competence and educational professionalism. 2008, p. 10.
  19. ↑ Bernd Fechler: Intercultural Mediation Competence . Outlines of a difference, dominance and context sensitive mediation . In: Georg Auernheimer (ed.): Intercultural competence and educational professionalism. 2008, p. 11.
  20. ↑ Norbert Ropers: Peaceful interference. Structures, processes and strategies for the constructive handling of ethnopolitical conflicts. (Berghof Report No. 1). Berghof Institute for Constructive Conflict Research, Berlin 1995, p. 29.