Fluent Essays

Write about an intercultural conflict you witnessed or experienced (a 500-800-word essay):Who were the participants?What was the reason for the conflict?Were there any attempts to solve it? If yes, how was it solved?Were there any intermediaries?What conflict management strategies would you suggest for resolving such type of conflict (based on the theories covered in class)?It is important that you should refer to the theories covered in course materials and/or outside sources. Use in-text citations and attach the reference list to your assignment. Follow APA style.This video may help you:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMwjscSCcf0I provided an article which might use as resources named document 1I also provided a document about the theories you have to use covered in class (just use a part of them to support your idea), hazen__shi._harmony__conflict...in_chinese_societies1.pdf intercultural_conflicts_theories.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Parks, M. R. (1994). Communicative competence and interpersonal control. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 589–618). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phillips, G. M. (1984). A competent view of “competence.” Communication Education, 33, 24–36. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer-Verlag. Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195–213. Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185–199. Xiao, X. (2001). Li: A dynamic cultural mechanism of social interaction and conflict management. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution (pp. 39–50); Westport, CT: Ablex. Xiao, X. (2004). Li yu huaren chuanbo xingwei [Li and Chinese patterns of communication]. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and principles of Chinese communication (pp. 379–405). Taipei: Wunan. Xiao, X. (2006). Yijing: A self-circulating and self-justified Chinese cultural discourse. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15, 1–11. Zhang, S. (1999a). Menzi shuo [Treatise on Mencius]. In Zhang Shi chuanshu [Collected works of Zhang Shi] (Vol. 1; pp. 239–393). Changchun: Changchun Chubanshe. Zhang, S. (l999b). Renshuo [Treatise on humanity]. In Zhang Shi chuanshu [Collected works of Zhang Shi] (Vol. 2; pp. 803–804). Changchun: Changchun Chubanshe. Zhu, X. (1986). Zhuzi yulei [Classified conversations of Chu Xi]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Concepts and Questions 1. Why do Xiao and Chen maintain that “many Western concepts and theories no longer appear adequate to explain the variety of cultural practices in the world”? 2. How would you respond to the following sentence: “Communication is inherently purposive and goaldirected”? 3. What do Xiao and Chen purport when they assert that Western communication competence “includes the notion of collaboration”? 4. How do Xiao and Chen define appropriateness as it is used in the West? 5. Explain what Xiao and Chen mean when they speak of the Confucian perspective of communication competency being “characterized by an organic holism and dynamic vitalism.” 6. What is gan-ying, and why is it an important concept for understanding the Chinese view of communication? 7. What are Xiao and Chen suggesting when they write that for Confucians, “communication competence is manifested as nothing less than the power of ethics”? 8. Do you believe in the validity of the Confucian notion that “everyone has fine potential for communication and persuasive competence”? If “yes,” why? If “no, why not? 9. What does the phrase “external competence” mean? Harmony, Conflict and the Process of Argument in Chinese Societies MICHAEL DAVID HAZEN • RUI SHI In an essay titled “Harmony, Conflict, and the Process of Argument in Chinese Societies,” Michael David Hazen and Rui Shi continue our examination of Chinese values and philosophy. In the Hazen and Shi selection, as the title indicates, the emphasis is on the values of harmony, conflict, and argument. While the authors grant the importance of This original essay appears here in print for the first time. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint must be obtained from the authors and the publisher. Dr. Michael David Hazen is a professor in the Department of Communication at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Rui Shi is a doctoral student in the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Michael David Hazen • Rui Shi Harmony, Conflict and the Process of Argument in Chinese Societies 445 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. harmony in Chinese culture, and even examine that value in detail, they take the stand that this fundamental value is misinterpreted by most people. Because of this false reading of harmony in Chinese interaction patterns, Hazen and Shi maintain that other key social dimensions have either been omitted or misunderstood by those who write about Chinese culture. To make their point, the authors turn to the value of conflict. Hazen and Shi write, “Due to the emphasis on harmony in communication and relationships, conflict is seen as detrimental to harmony and therefore to be avoided.” The authors further note that this aversion to conflict not only takes the form of shunning interaction, but also falsely portrays the Chinese as being nonassertive. Hazen and Shi find these notions of avoidance disconcerting, since they believe conflict and argument are part of the Chinese value system. Part of Hazen and Shi’s basic contention is that there is a large disparity between the expression of cultural values and the actual behaviors of the Chinese people. Their mission is to explain this inconsistency and demonstrate how conflict is manifested in Chinese interaction. To do this, the authors claim that conflict does not violate the norms associated with the value of harmony. They call this tandem relationship between harmony and conflict the “Dualistic Harmony Model.” This model helps explain how harmony and conflict can work together. According to Hazen and Shi, these two seemingly opposite behaviors can work in unison because the value of harmony is multifaceted and allows room for argument when conflicts appear. Once the authors establish that conflict is part of Chinese culture, they attempt to explain the form that conflict often takes. According to Hazen and Shi, the fusing of harmony with conflict is best explained by a body of research conducted by Tjosvold. Tjosvold introduced the concept of “constructive conflict” to describe how the Chinese fuse harmony and conflict into a workable method of dealing with private and professional problems. When “constructive conflict” is employed in Chinese interaction it is characterized by the participants “discussing views with open minds, expressing one’s own views openly, considering others’ views with an open mind, understanding others’ concerns, working together for the benefit of both, using the other person’s ideas, and communicating respect.” Put into practice, the behaviors just depicted, at least in the business setting studied by Tjosvold, led to open and constructive argument. This openness produced higher levels of teamwork and increased productivity. All of these positive results were achieved without violating the harmony among members. 446 CHAPTER 7 | Hazen and Shi conclude their essay by reminding you that all cultures can have values that appear, at least at first glance, to be at variance with other values. Yet in reality, as you will see in the case of China, what appear to be conflicting values can be compatible. In short, the authors seek to remind you that value discrepancies can be misleading, since in many situations these values can be interconnected. As you move from culture to culture it is important to remember that any sweeping statements about values must allow for alternative interpretations, because values are multidimensional and contextual. D uring the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the Chinese character he, harmony, was displayed on the central stage with hundreds of floating boxes. This performance before one of the largest possible audiences in the world can be taken as a manifestation of the importance of harmony in Chinese culture. Correspondingly, it is often assumed that conflict is to be avoided and that argument, especially if it is expressed in the form of disagreement, is limited. As a result of these assumptions, little research exists about the role of argument in Chinese societies. However, argument plays a fundamental role in human communication processes, and the display at the Beijing Olympics could also be taken as an argument to the world that modern China is unified and harmonious. As a result of these facts, combined with the growing importance of China in the world, the purpose of this article is to explore the role of argument in contemporary China and its relationship to harmony and conflict. To accomplish this purpose, two steps are necessary. First, we will explain the traditional harmony model in Chinese society and examine the recent evidence relating to the various elements of the model. And second, based on the understanding gained in the first part of this article, and drawing on several bodies of recent work, we will develop a tentative framework for looking at argument processes in Chinese society. TRADITIONAL HARMONY MODEL IN CHINESE SOCIETY It has been argued that harmony is the central value in Chinese society (Chen & Starosta, 1997) and that harmony is usually seen as reflected in collectivistic Communicating Interculturally: Becoming Competent Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Support for the importance of harmony has been found in elements of Chinese popular culture. For example, Sun and Starosta’s (2002) content analysis of 269 stories in Twentieth Century Classical Chinese Fairy-tales Collection found that readers were taught to adopt collectivist behaviors like getting along with others, sacrificing, and compromising for the in-group. Similarly, Song and Zhang (2008), in a study of the Chinese animation series The Legend of Nezha, found that values like harmony were presented in a more positive way than ones like selfinterest and pleasure. Data on the importance of harmony and collectivism in Chinese thinking are usually linked to Hofstede’s research; however, his original study (1980) has no data for mainland China, only Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the data reported later for the People’s Republic of China (Hofstede, 1991) is only an estimate. Subsequent studies have presented data for China but the results are mixed in several senses. First, it is only in studies that use general, onedimensional measures that harmony and collectivism have been found in Chinese society, and they are not as great as expected (Chen, Brockner, & Chen, 2002). Hofstede considered individualism and collectivism to be opposite ends of the same value, but many scholars now think that individualism and collectivism are really two different values (Koch & Koch Harmony and Collectivism 2007; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Therefore, these studies may not even be measuring In research on cultural values, harmony is usually collectivism, but just low levels of individualism. considered to be an aspect of collectivism. CollectivSecond, there is evidence that collectivism may ism is conceived of as reflecting a person’s commitbe composed of a number of components. Oyserman, ment to or integration with a group and involves Coon, and Kemmelmeier’s (2002) meta-analysis of deferring to the group while maintaining harmony studies on collectivism and individualism revealed with other group members. eight content domains that have been labeled as collecThe importance of harmony in China is often tivism (relatedness to others, belonging to groups, duty rooted in analyses of Chinese philosophical and histo group, harmony in groups, seeking advice from torical traditions. For example, Jia (2008) sees the others, self changes with context, hierChinese perspective on harmony as archy, and preference for working with emerging from a foundation of ConThe importance of groups). Studies of collectivism in fucianism. While Confucianism has harmony in China is China have often been measuring difbeen discarded as the governing phiferent things ranging from putting the losophy of the People’s Republic of often rooted in analyses group’s interests first (Chen, Brockner, China, it is argued that the successor of Chinese & Chen, 2002) to competitiveness philosophies of Mao and Marx have philosophical and (Green, Deschamps, & Paez, 2005) continued to utilize the cultural value historical traditions. to a desire for harmony with others of harmony as a keystone of Chinese (Zhang, Lin, Nonaka, & Beom, 2005) society. approaches to society. Chen (2001) based his harmony theory of Chinese communication on such Chinese concepts as humanity, appropriateness, and relationships. Due to the emphasis on harmony in communication and relationships, conflict is seen as detrimental to harmony and therefore to be avoided (Chen 2002). As Kirkbride, Tang and Westwood (1991) put it, “conformity, collectivism, harmony and shame combine to create a social pressure and expectation which influence Chinese people to be less openly assertive and emotional in conflict situations” (p. 371). Thus, Chinese cultural values are seen as leading to a desire to preserve harmony by avoiding conflict and refraining from engaging in argument, especially when it involves disagreement (He, Zhu, & Peng, 2002). In summary, the harmony model is seen as predicating that: (a) harmony and collectivism play a central role in Chinese society; (b) harmony leads to a desire to avoid or minimize conflict; and (c) argument, especially when it involves open disagreement, is to be avoided or muted. The following analysis will look at recent theory and research related to harmony/collectivism, conflict, and argument in China in so far as it affects our understanding of how argument works in Chinese society. Michael David Hazen • Rui Shi Harmony, Conflict and the Process of Argument in Chinese Societies 447 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. to a concern for respecting hierarchy (Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998). Third, when differences in what is being measured as collectivism are taken into account, some interesting data can be found. For example, Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) compared Hong Kong and the United States and found that Hong Kong was more collectivistic than the United States only when collectivism was defined in terms of (a) group harmony, (b) a focus on hierarchy and status issues, (c) group goals, or (d) the adjustment of one’s self-image to the context. On the other hand, the United States was seen as more collectivistic than Hong Kong, when collectivism was defined in terms of (a) wanting to belong to one’s ingroup, and (b) seeking the advice of others. Fourth, when studies use more precise standardized forms of data for country comparisons, a similar mixed pattern emerges. For example, the GLOBE study (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishi, & Bechtold, 2004) shows China as more on the collectivistic end of the continuum in terms of societal institutional collectivism (a form of hierarchy) but not in terms of societal in-group collectivism (a form of harmony or group identification). What can we conclude about these ratings? The picture of harmony and collectivism in China is complex and not as simple as is thought by many. Conflict in Chinese Society Our concern with conflict in this paper is based on the idea that conflict involves disagreement, and since some scholars view argument in terms of disagreement, the research on conflict in China gives us a potential window on the operation of argument processes in China. There are two questions about conflict in China that are of concern to us: (1) how much conflict exists, and (2) what are the preferred methods for managing conflict. First, since the traditional harmony model presumes that conflict is to be avoided so as not to interfere with harmony, we would expect to find little conflict in Chinese society, and if conflict were to occur, it would be with out-groups since harmony must be maintained in the group. However, conflict seems to be part of human societies and there is some evidence for its presence in Chinese societies. For example, Koch (2005) found evidence of high levels of conflict in Hong Kong, and Koch and Koch (2007) 448 CHAPTER 7 | reported high levels of conflict in mainland China, especially among younger people. Also, Smith, Dugan, Peterson, and Leung (1998) found that Hong Kong showed a higher degree of in-group and out-group conflict than most other countries and that in-group conflict occurred more often than out-group conflict. Similarly, Nibler and Harris (2003) found greater levels of intragroup conflict in Hong Kong than in the United States. Thus, there is evidence that conflict is present in Chinese societies. Second, when conflict does occur in Chinese societies, it might seem logical to try to resolve it by avoidance (Chen, 2002) or through such means as third-party mediators (Jia, 2002; Ma, 1992). However, the results in the research literature seem more complex. For example, Liu and Chen (2002), in a study of a state-owned plant in mainland China, found, contrary to expectations, that the preferred rank order of conflict resolution strategies was: (1) collaboration, (2) control, (3) compromise, (4) accommodation and (5) avoidance. He, Zhu, and Peng’s (2002) comparison of Chinese, French, and American employees in mainland Chinese enterprises revealed that the preferred resolution strategy for all groups was integrating. Finally, Knutson, Smith, Han, and Hwang (2002) found that in two out of three situations studied, Taiwanese and American participants’ most preferred strategy was integration, and their least preferred strategy was avoidance. Why are these findings of importance to our study? If a strategy such as integrating is preferred to a strategy such as avoiding for dealing with conflict, then the amount and kind of argument that can occur in Chinese society is more complex than previously thought. The Relationship Between Collectivism and Conflict Resolution Strategies There are a few studies that look at the relationship between collectivism and conflict resolution strategies. Smith, Dugan, Peterson, and Leung’s (1998) previously mentioned study found that the frequency of intragroup conflict in countries, including Hong Kong, was unrelated to any cultural values including collectivism. Similarly, He, Zhu, and Peng found that “cultural values are not a strong predictor of conflict resolution styles in cross-cultural settings” (2002, Communicating Interculturally: Becoming Competent Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. p. 144). These studies ... Purchase answer to see full attachment