Toronto University Intercultural Conflicts Questions 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=VMwjscSCcf0
I provided an article which might use as resources named document 1
I also provided a document about the theories you have to use covered in class (just use a part of them to support your idea), 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